Who's Primary IS THIS?

[NanceGreggs]

“The GOP want us to choose Hillary as the nominee, because they think she’s easily beatable. Destroy their plans by supporting Obama.”

“The Republicans want us to choose Obama as the nominee, because they think he’s easily beatable. Avoid their trap; support Hillary!”

“The Republicans have all kinds of dirt on Hillary, so Obama is the safer bet. And don't forget the sexists.”

“The Republicans have all kinds of dirt on Obama, so Hillary is the safer bet. And don't forget the racists.”

“I can see Rove’s fingerprints all over this whole thing. Don’t be fooled!” “I know that Cheney is behind this. Don’t fall for his dirty tricks!”

“But what about the guy at work who told me that someone told him that his sister-in-law knows for a fact that Obama’s supporters won’t show up to vote for him in the GE?”

“But what about the email I got from my RW cousin who is like totally into this shit, and said that Hillary’s supporters will fold come November?”

Throughout my time on this site, I have seen an endless number of posts decrying the fact that the Democrats consistently allow the Republican Party to dictate the agenda, to set the rules of engagement, and to call the tune while we do nothing more than dance as is their wish – and, in the end, pay the piper for the privilege.

How often have we ridiculed our own Party for not acting, but rather reacting to every move the GOP makes, thereby being kept off-balance trying to anticipate what their next move will be instead of plotting our own course?

And now this site is full of posts about how dumb we are to even be considering nominating a woman, the wife of an ex-president who is hated by the Republicans, and a black man with a Muslim-sounding middle name.

Why can’t we kowtow to our masters and nominate who they want? Why can’t we understand that our place is to do their bidding? Why don’t we just call up the powers-that-be in the GOP and insist that they dictate who they want to run against, nominate same, and be done with it?

I consider myself to be a reasonable person (although I do have two ex-husbands who would argue that point to the death!), but I am truly sickened by the incessant mewling of some here who insist on viewing our primary process as a game that can only be played by the Republican party's rules, with an outcome totally dependent on the GOP's satisfaction.

Never having been accused of mincing words, let me put this as courteously as I can: Fuck the corrupt, money-grubbing, Constitution-shredding, homophobic, xenophobic, hypocritical, morally bankrupt GOP, and the horse’s ass of a president they rode in on.

I will support my party’s choice of nominee, whether it is my personal preference or not, and what the other side thinks of it is of no consequence to me – nor should it be to any of you.

So the next time you feel that overwhelming urge to warn your fellow Democrats that their choice of candidate might not be to the liking of the GOP, just remember most of us don’t give a rat’s ass about what they want.

We’re in this for ourselves – or at least, we should be – and we’re in it to win. And if you’re allowing the opposition to dictate your choice, you might consider the fact that maybe the candidates you have to choose from aren’t as big a problem as your lack of a spine.

[Irishonly]

1. It Needed To Be Said

and there is no one that can say it better. Thanks

[JeffR]

2. But... but... Karl said...

:scared:

[Major Hogwash]

3. Anyone else who had lost 11 primaries in a row wouldn't be considered a candidate anymore.

The only one that thinks she is are the talking heads on teevee!

[dorktv]

12. Somehow you miss the fact that a primary in the Democratic

party awards delegates, and until one of the candidates gets the right number, a candidate can "lose" all of them.

[Major Hogwash]

26. Somehow you lost the fact that she lost 11 in a row - what is MOMENTUM?

Does that word resonate?

[badgerpup]

4. Priveleged to have been (maybe) recc #5!

Thanks, Nance! :yourock:


:kick:

[rug]

5. Apparently, it's been the Democrats' . . . and the Republicans' and the independents'.

[thevoiceofreason]

6. I'm working for Obama

But I'll be damned if I won't kick the butt of any democrat I learn did not vote in the Texas primary. No matter what the reason. Get the hell out and vote and work and do what you can. The country demands it of you -- and you owe the country this much. At least.

[verges]

42. I will not vote in the Texas primary.

I've never even been to Texas! I will vote in Ohio's though. Please don't hurt me! ;)

[jdadd]

7. K&R.....

You say it better than anyone else, Nance
:kick: & R

[Redstone]

8. Nance: "Whose," not "Who's."

Redstone

[NanceGreggs]

10. Well, Mr. Nitpicker ...

... thanks for pointing this out AFTER the edit option has expired!

Only kiddin' ... and that'll learn me not to PWPO (Post While Pissed-Off)!

:hi:

[Redstone]

11. Of course, I can take the moral high ground here, because I've certainly never posted while being

honked off, in a state of high dudgeon, cranky in general or lashing out at something specifically, or ANY such.

(And if you believe that, come on over here and check out this bridge I have for sale...)

Redstone

[rasputin1952]

16. Man am i glad I'm not standing next to you...

I'd get scorched by the lightning...


:rofl:

[Redstone]

18. It's cloudy out right now, so you'd be well-advised to keep your distance...

Redstone

[Egnever]

9. Mine duh

[Hutzpa]

13. Nance thanks for posting, always the wise one n/t

[Window]

14. Thank you again Nance for your always insightful posts.

Peace:thumbsup:

[anigbrowl]

15. The GOP can't even run their own campaign...

For every post on here saying that they have a conspiracy to choose our candidate by crossover voting etc., etc., there are 10 GOPers crying their eyes out over the fact that the party has nominated McCain. The ones that vote in the Dem primaries are probably doing so out of some frustrated desire to afect the outcome of *something* this election cycle.

If you want a laugh, take a look at the comments to this blog post - http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/27/boehner-to-gop-lawmakers-get-off-your-dead-asses/

...50 hardcore conservatives snarling about how they are NEVER going to send money to the GOP again until they get someone they like (ideal ticket in their eyes: Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter?!), vs. 1 party loyalist trying to rally the troops. OK, Michelle Malkin attracts a curiously noxious grade of conservative, but the GOP 'base' is seriously AWOL this time around.

[Oldtimeralso]

17. Great Post Nance

I really do believe that come November that all Democrats will unite. The Economy will be so far down the tubes that we Dem's will know that MUST happen and I also think that the non-Dem's will see that a vote for Mc Lame is a vote to carry on these spending and tax cuts that have put us into these dire straits.

[The Wizard]

19. Allowing criminals

to determine how you vote is surrender. McCain won't beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. By the time October rolls around he'll be exhausted and saying really crazy shit that only the hard core fascists will support. The Republican Party is reaping what they've sowed, division and hatred. Let's encourage them to drive into bridge abutments.

[mrbluto]

20. The opposition has had it's say: The MSM gave Edwards a thumbs down.

Yep. Too late. That horse has left the barn.

The MSM gave us their hand-picked choice of candidates and nixed the viable candidate most dangerous to their interests: Edwards.

Now we all get to choose the flavor of what the corporations are serving us.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Several months ago ...

... I was told that Hillary was the obvious choice of the MSM. Now Obama is the MSM darling.

It couldn't possibly be the case that millions of Americans are making their own choice. No, that couldn't happen. We ALL do what the MSM tells us to do. Everybody knows THAT - right?

[mrbluto]

27. Nice dodge.

You have deftly avoided the main point of my post:

Hillary/Obama - it doesn't matter.

The MSM got rid of the only candidate that both had a chance of getting elected (all due respect to Kucinich) and disturb the current cozy corporate situation. (it remains to be seen how much respect O & C will merit)

That candidate was Edwards.

Unless there's a miracle (i.e. some sort of brokered convention) that train has left the station.

I don't get the sense that either Hillary or Obama has much heart for bringing corporations to task for their part in how the Bush administration has screwed things up.

If I was a corporate guy with an eye toward the long term I'd be relieved that it's going to be either Obama or Hillary. In fact I'd prefer Obama. Why? Because there's a chance he thinks for the sake of form he has to at least try to be nice at first - Hillary knows that being nice isn't going to work and there's no chance of a honeymoon.

As to this:

It couldn't possibly be the case that millions of Americans are making their own choice. No, that couldn't happen. We ALL do what the MSM tells us to do. Everybody knows THAT - right?

let's flip that around, shall we?

It couldn't possibly be the case that the MSM spends any time or effort or money influencing what choice americans make. No, they spend millions of dollars and so much airtime even though that couldn't matter. None of us do what the MSM tells us to do. Everybody knows THAT - right?

Look - the MSM has the story it wants to tell. We're not quite sure what it is - whether it's "plucky black guy gets to be president", or "determined lady back in the Whitehouse - this time as president!", or any other of a dozen potboilers.

There's one story we're sure it's not going to be:

"Corporate media owners bemoan the harsh putative measures applied to ensure it's a long time before they screw with democracy again."

Do you think there's a chance of that being the story?

How about this one:

"Majority of former 'Loyal Bushies' find themselves facing prison terms for their violations of law - others shunned for their abuse of power, disregard for constitution."

Or even simply:

"Democratic President to NeoCons: No More Free Coup Attempts"

I'd like to say otherwise, but I think those are headlines we can only dream of.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Not a dodge ...

... just the way I see things.

"The MSM got rid of the only candidate that both had a chance of getting elected (all due respect to Kucinich) and disturb the current cozy corporate situation."

"The ONLY candidate" ... in other words, anyone who supports Obama or Hillary is delusional, and obviously influenced by the MSM. It isn't even a remote possibility that they chose those candidates because they believe in their capabilities.

It is also not even a remote possibility that Edwards' numbers were down because the voters just weren't that into him - no, there MUST be something else at play here.

"I don't get the sense that either Hillary or Obama has much heart for bringing corporations to task for their part in how the Bush administration has screwed things up."

I DO get the sense that Obama will do just that, and millions of Hillary supporters get the sense that she will do just that. But because you don't see it, we should all defer to your better judgment.

For months I was subjected to the "inevitability of Hillary" by the MSM -- and yet, there were those hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters showing up at his rallies, lining up to hear him speak. I guess all of those people didn't read the memo - or, if they did, chose to ignore it.

But no, we are not allowed to think in those terms. If Edwards is out, it's because the MSM dictated it. There is NO OTHER conclusion to be reached - in the same way that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, it's because of sexism, pure and simple - and if Obama doesn't get the nod, it's because of racism; no other explanation is plausible.

As for: "The MSM has the story it wants to tell. We're not quite sure what it is - whether it's "plucky black guy gets to be president", or "determined lady back in the Whitehouse - this time as president!", or any other of a dozen potboilers.", I have to ask the obvious: If the MSM is not quite sure what the story is, how are we being influenced by their non-story?

[mrbluto]

53. Madam - yours is textbook demagoguery.

You have difficulty countering what I say, or you don't feel like taking the time, so you put words in my mouth.

As in:

anyone who supports Obama or Hillary is delusional

Your words - not mine. But hey - if you want to put that shoe on Obama and Hillary supports then you go ahead.

Let's see what else I "said"...

...obviously influenced by the MSM. It isn't even a remote possibility that they chose those candidates because they believe in their capabilities.

Heh. never said that. But it's easier to argue against, isn't it?

But no, we are not allowed to think in those terms.

Really? I never said that, but if it makes your job easier Nance - you go right ahead and put those words in my mouth. It does betray a odd sense of what a debate/or discussion is - but what the hey.

Look - I don't care right now what people think - so long as they think. I'm super apprehensive of bandwagons and getting on them and I see one big bandwagon reving up for the only party I think has any sincerity about looking out for everybody's interests.

If Edwards is out, it's because the MSM dictated it.

Well - you got me there. Sorta.

I don't think it was so super clear edged as "dictated", but this is a fluid, probabilistic sort of thing. Death by a thousand teeny cuts rather than a simple chopping block scenario.

Do you seriously think Disney and General Electric own networks just because they're profitable investments? Do you think Fox News doesn't have an ax to grind? Why grind that ax if it's of negligible effect?

Let's see what other strawman statements you wanted to swing at rather than what I said, shall we?

There is NO OTHER conclusion to be reached - in the same way that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, it's because of sexism, pure and simple - and if Obama doesn't get the nod, it's because of racism; no other explanation is plausible.

Jeeze - you definitely got a bee in yer bonnet about the dynamics of that.

Maybe you should have a post where you tear a new one for somebody that actually implied any of that.

I might even join you.

It bugs me too Nance that either party has deflected legitimate questions with this racism/sexism canard. Not to say there aren't plenty of people who are sexist/racist.

Another time for that discussion - on with the show:

I have to ask the obvious: If the MSM is not quite sure what the story is, how are we being influenced by their non-story?

Now this is a doozey!

The "obvious question"? Well here's where I have to wonder about either your reading comprehension skills or your eyesight - or your motives.

Why? Because I said:

The MSM has the story it wants to tell. We're not quite sure what it is...

Emphasis is mine. I didn't say the MSM didn't know what story they wanted, I said we didn't know precisely where they're going with this.

Guess the question you think is *obvious* is based on a misreading. Alas.

I'm sure you're good and pissed-off by now, though you'll never admit it, but maybe you'll still talk to me long enough to answer one of the questions i did pose.

There's one story we're sure it's not going to be:

"Corporate media owners bemoan the harsh punitive measures applied to ensure it's a long time before they screw with democracy again."

Do you think there's a chance of that being the story?

So...what do you think?

I'm genuinely interested.

[mrbluto]

59. Why am I not surprised?

That you've wandered off to less demanding pastures.

Probably because it's less effort to pose empty questions than actually address real quandaries.

Wait - I know.

You're not going to dignify my "rabble-rousing" with a response.

Yeah - that's the ticket!

[Redstone]

48. I think you win the prize for the posts that are not only the most repetitive, but also

the most wearisome.

You've got some real competition, though, so stay sharp if you want to keep your lead over some of the other obsessives here.

Redstone

[mrbluto]

52. Oh. How deary of me. Sorry to interfere with your entertainment.

And your drive by opinionating.

You check in to tell me I bore you, but don't bother to counter what I say or offer anything remotely enlightening.

I'm sorry Redstone, let me try a different tack:

Gee Redstone - whatever you believe so do I!

I'm not sure there was any content to what you said, but it sure sounds right.

Boy Redstone, when you're right - you're right.

<sigh> I wish I could be more like Redstone.


...

There we go - a great basis for dialog! Don't bother trying to persuade me or make a case for what you believe. Nope. You just shout out with a thumbs up or down when you get the urge - OK? Because having reasons or a discussion simply isn't the purpose of this forum - m'kay?

[rasputin1952]

50. Actually, you are wrong in your assumption that Edwards

was the "only" candidate to succeed at what you stated.

Aftter looking at the initial candidates the D's had...the best opportunity for change, and was electable, was Bill Richardson. His resume is stellar, he's been a very effective Governor and his intelligence is beyond quesion. He started right out of the gate talking about issues, real issues, (and that helped to kill off his presidential bid), and he would make a fine president.

You are an Edwards fan...I'm OK with that, but you are patently wrong in assuming he was the "only" candidate that could bring about the changes you have stated. And, to add alittle more...there is little in his background that shows he would/could break the "cozy corporate situation".

[mrbluto]

51. No Disrespect to Mr. Richardson, but...

...it seemed clear that, barring some miracle, it was highly unlikely he was going to get enough traction in the media to get the nomination.

That's not dissing Richardson, that's an assessment of how screwed up the system is. He'd do a fine job from what I can tell and what I've read, plus having governed a state with illegal immigration difficulties, plus having some foreign relations experience it wouldn't even have been merely a case of "oh well, we could do worse".

So I didn't say Edwards was the "only candidate" that would take the corps to task, just that he was the one with the highest electability. The media we have refuses to walk and chew gum on most stories - it's clear they couldn't handle having more than three candidates. In hindsight it's clear they could only handle two similar candidates.

You say it's OK I'm an Edwards fan - but I'm not. I looked at the field, balanced electability vs. progressiveness and that calculation came up Edwards. I also noted that he was a successful trial lawyer who would understand punitive measures are necessary to dissuade wrong-doers from just trying the same crap over again - something "reach across the aisle" democrats don't seem to get. I thought he was the best I could reasonably expect.

So he's out of it, that was always a possibility, but this has been the worst case scenerio.

How?

If Obama beat him, or if Hillary beat him, fine - we would at least have had an open discussion of the Class war that's grinding 80% of us into serfdom. The way it has happened we never had that discussion.

Purposefully so is my point.

[rasputin1952]

55. I concur that the media did not give much, (if any) attention

to Richardson, which in my opinion, is a travesty. I think all of the candidates should have gotten essentially the same coverage, especially in the beginning. They went eh "first viable woman, first viable black" route...and that, AFAIC is reprehensible. These are people, not commodities, running for president...but the media never seems to get that psrt.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Yep, and how about...

"A vote for (the candidate I'm not supporting) is a vote for McCain!" Why should I supply evidence when it's CLEAR TO EVERYONE?

"A random Republican loves YOUR candidate, so that means he or she must be in bed with Republicans."

A stupid bloviator who we all usually dismiss with scorn says he kinda likes Candidate X. That must mean the candidate is a Republican in disguise.

Drudge, the Moonie Times, Bill Kristol, etc. publish something pretending to be a news story against YOUR candidate. What they say must be true! Suddenly, all of them are committed to honest journalism.

[NanceGreggs]

24. "Suddenly, all of them are committed to honest journalism."

Perfect!

(BTW, I LOVE the pic in your sig line! Kudos to the photographer for capturing the essence of this fantastic couple!)

[NastyRiffraff]

25. The photographer was Annie Leibowitz :)

I love that pic too.

[NanceGreggs]

34. I should have known ...

... someone else is using a photo of Edwards in their sig line, and when I inquired where it originated, I was told it was a Leibowitz photo.

Truly inspiring photographer catches truly inspiring people on film - that's art!

[bigbrother05]

23. Grat post, but afraid it will fall on deaf ears at this time

[GeorgeGist]

28. It is the politician's Primary ...

to limit our chances to win.

[bklyncowgirl]

29. Thank you, as always a voice of reason--aren't you in the wrong forum

This is the designated place for ad hominem attacks, false outrage at the other guy's candidate and of course dire predictions should the candidate you do not support become the choice of the Democratic party.

Surely a well written, well thought out post like this belongs elsewhere.

I'm joking of course, good work and well said.

[happygoluckytoyou]

30. PLEDGE NOW--- SUPPORT WITH ALL YOUR ENERGY...WHOEVER WINS THE PRIMARY

i have spoken with my adult children.... and we agree that dispite our different opinions during the primary we will ALL be voting for the winner on November 4 (the Republican General Election will be held on November 5).

each election i hold a GREAT FEAST... and the only way in is with a PROOF OF VOTING...

i don't care the WHO of it.... only that they went and voted...

REPUBLICANS UNITE AT ELECTION TIME, THEN THEY DIVIDE THE SPOILS

DEMOCRATS DIVIDE AT ELECTION TIME, AND UNITE TO CRY ABOUT IT

this is a learned behavior---- UNLEARN IT !!!!

... go to UTUBE and find the BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN song from MCCAIN.... send the link EVERYWHERE

--- we ALL age... some of us have the good graces not to try to run for president when our mind is obviously past its prime...

[Mad_Dem_X]

31. YES! AMEN and HALLELUJAH!

All this in-fighting and name calling and dirt being thrown makes me sick to my fuckin' stomach. I feel like I'm back in junior high school. This is the time we as Dems need to band together, not tear each other apart!

Thank you, Nancy. :patriot:

[Barrymores Ghost]

32. Are you LISTENING, MagsDem???????

Jeebus, I hope so. It'd be the first fuckin' time.

[NanceGreggs]

33. Oh, man, ain't THAT the truth!

:hi:

[Greyskye]

38. LA-LA-LA-LA

[NBachers]

35. Good Words

Nance, somehow I find you echoing things I've been thinking about that very day. I was just thinkin' of how glad I'll be when the primary process is over, and we can get back to the business of exposing Republican atrocities instead of engaging in sandlot insults.

Hillary's great- she'd make an excellent president, although I know I'd have my issues with her. Obama's great- and I'll have my issues with him, if he gets elected. The rest of the slate was great when they were running. They all brought honor to ourselves, and the Democratic party. Let's be proud of this, and stop the idiocy. The Republicans are the enemy here.

And let's not forget the bumper-crop of down-ticket Democrats who need our help. If we want to stop complaining about the paralyzed Senate and the spineless House, then let's give our next Democratic president both houses to work with. Turn the Repukes into an impotent, spluttering nest of cannibalistic weasels. They are handing us this opportunity. Quit fighting like spoiled siblings and make this work!

[NanceGreggs]

36. GREAT POST, my friend!

"Turn the Repukes into an impotent, spluttering nest of cannibalistic weasels. They are handing us this opportunity."

THAT'S THE TICKET!!!

[Breeze54]

37. Good post...screw the GOP! This is our campaign for our rep!

But Nancy? This comment was made in sarcasm in response to another dumb comment.

"“But what about the guy at work who told me that someone told him that his sister-in-law
knows for a fact that Obama’s supporters won’t show up to vote for him in the GE?”"

I thought it was pretty funny when I read it. :P

[stillcool]

39. The GOP is the new Al-Qaeda

be afraid...be very very afraid...the elephants are coming:scared:

[grannylib]

41. Thank you for talking sense, as usual, Nancy -

allowing the GOP to frame even this would be criminal.

Support whom you support; respect the viewpoint of those who disagree; isn't that what the hell we're supposed to be all about? I don't get what's so monumentally difficult about it.

[NanceGreggs]

44. Well said, grannylib ...

... I don't understand what is so monumentally difficult about that either!

[KLee]

43. Nance Wtg!!!

Democrats, Independents, Republicans(disenchanted with their party right now) Let's unite and take our country back!! It's been high-jacked for far too long!

[GoldieAZ49]

45. I heard on the news yesterday...

That the candidate the republicans fear most is: John McCain


:rofl:


I thought that was worth repeating

[NanceGreggs]

46. Okay, that's IT, GoldieAZ49!!!

You owe me a new keyboard!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

47. Do people really post much of that here?

Series?

[NanceGreggs]

49. Unfortunately, yes.

I've seen too many of them - proof positive that I spend way too much time/i] on this site.

[Cheeseburger Walrus]

54. Excellent point...

as allowing the GOP to dictate the parameters of debate will always leave us at a disadvantage through apologetics and reactionary technique.

[ClintonTyree]

56. I think we should be more concerned...

with who the media wants us to have as our candidate than the petty jibes from the GOP. They seem to be tearing one of our nominees to shreds while elevating another to sainthood. I don't think I'm the only person who's noticed this, am I? :shrug:

[krabigirl]

57. Great post. I totally agree with you.

[MasonJar]

58. Once again, Nance, thank you! My sentiments exactly. i stopped going

to GDP several weeks ago because it was too debilitating.