For the past eight years I have been hearing the left wing of this party...

[Deep13]

...bitch and moan about how they were being taken for granted. There was outrage about the Democrats being in bed with corporations and indignant threats no stay home or vote for Nader if the party did not start paying attention to the self-described progressive extreme. This happened in the 2000 election cycle and again in 2004. They weren't happy with Gore or Kerry. And many made good on their promise, enough to blow the 2000 election. I'll bet Gore looks pretty good to them right about now.

So now it's 2008 and I am being told that I must support Obama no matter what. Mostly young voters are enraged and irrationally accuse HC of treachery and every other vice one can imagine. It is not just disagreement, but a demanding sense of entitlement that I am afraid that many 20-somethings feel. How dare I try to take this away from them. Especially galling is the overtly misogynistic manner in which Clinton's character is being assassinated.

I've been supporting Democratic candidates in one way or another since the 1980's. I know what can be done and what cannot. I know the difference between substantial change and polish. For this knowledge I am accused by people with a lot less experience than me of being blindly loyal (despite having favored just about every other candidate until they dropped out) or insane. That especially hurts because the charge of insanity has been used by those in power to discredit their critics without any need for violence. When I point out Obama's very real short-comings, I am met with counter-accusations rather than legitimate discussion on the point. You do realize that "yes we can" is lifted from a children's book, don't you? Well, I am not a child and don't need any candidate's pat on the back. When I say how I feel and that I really can't support Obama, I am of course accused of betrayal.

It all boils down to this. The Democratic Party cannot take me for granted or others who value stability and rationality over of the need to be inspired, whatever that means. I owe this party nothing. I owe all of you nothing. As far as I am concerned the activists in this party have betrayed me and those who see things in a light similar that what I see. We have been supporting this party, not the other way around. After being insulted and vilified by the dreamers on boards like this, I feel the Obama campaign has burnt its bridges. Good luck in November, but you clearly don't want my help and I am not willing to give it anyway. My vote is my own. If Obama succeeds in fooling enough of you to get the nomination, I may hold my nose and vote for him, but I make no promises on that account.

All else being equal, I vote on the resume. The presidency is no place for amateurs and personality cults are dangerous. That means I remain to be convinced and I am not alone. Besides, there isn't much of a party left to support. Since 1972 we have made a career out of getting our asses kicked. And even if we win, we don't win much.

So, I voted today. I'm done. I decided to get out of the political game months ago. It just isn't worth the effort. I only hung around as long as I did to help keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot. Too late for that now. It's my ball and I don't have to play with bullies. So good luck with all that. This is how I feel about it and I won't be stifled. I am not suggesting any course of action. You won't listen and it's too late anyway anyway.

[elixir]

1. Way to go, great stuff. K&R

[papau]

73. agree that it is the way many many feel - but just don't stop being a Dem & voting Dem

[Deep13]

83. I doubt I'll vote for an R. None of this makes them any better. nt

[Usrename]

226. Well, at least you know what can be done and what cannot.

That's something you can feel good about.

[stlsaxman]

302. if you have ANY "doubt I'll vote for an R"- do us all a favor and stay home.

i mean- if there's even an inkling of a chance you'd even consider voting for an R...

stay home.

personally i can't "support" either Democrat candidate but there's absolutely no way in fucking hell i'd ever "doubt" that i wouldn't vote for the nominee of the party.

[surfermaw]

146. Way to go , beating down democrats isn't the way to win?

[mmonk]

2. We haven't won yet.

The more to the right side always wins (at least the last few decades).

[Independent-Voter]

3. Nice rant. Feel better?

[Deep13]

19. I feel the same. This is not an emotional outburst.

I simply have nothing to gain by any further involvement.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

341. She's probably having some sort of feminine vapour, right?

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Awesome Post. K&R For Ya!

[LeftCoast]

5. Dupe

Mouse stutter

[LeftCoast]

6. Please don't confuse the obnoxious internet supporters of the Obama team with Obama himself

I find much of their behavior utterly despicable but I also don't blame the Obama campaign for their trollishness.

[leftynyc]

41. Total agreement with you

In the last two months I've advised posters like this to just get off this board for a while and not let the fact that Sen. Obama has some total assholes for supporters deflect from the fact that the next pres will likely have 2 (maybe 3) supreme court picks. I'm still working on my mother who refuses to vote for Sen. Obama but I'm hopeful.

The Senator has no control over his supporters and that must be remembered. Just laugh at their childishness - it works for me.

[MoonRiver]

94. Unfortunately, he does greatly resemble his supporters.

What's more he's feeding into their fantasies and delusions. He is definitely a gifted illusionist, but maybe, just maybe the curtain is being pulled back, revealing his sleight of hand con job. I just hope it isn't already too late to have a real effect.

[DemBones DemBones]

198. He does indeed, though all they care about

is that he has "good vibes" and "looks cool." (Actual quotes from Obamaniacs.) Fuck that kind of shallow appeal. Does he have to win and show his true colors for his devotees to realize that there's nothing to him?

"My bad, we elected a cool guy who lied to us and now we're fucked."

[Yes We Did]

201. Wow, don't be upset that the younger generation is angry because

the older generation is what screwed this country up.

At sometime the children become the parents.... Looks like that time has arrived.

[DemBones DemBones]

206. Keep telling yourself that. The fact is that

a bunch of young people are going to guarantee a McCain presidency. Are you going to own it when it happens?

I'm guessing you will try to blame it on the older generation when it will be your fault.

[guyanakoolaid]

263. How can you Clintonistas keep repeating this line with a straight face???

Every head to head poll I've seen shows McCain beating Clinton, but losing (usually by double digits) to Obama. Clinton is far more polarizing to independent voters, even her supporters must at the least begrudgingly accept that fact. Yet I keep hearing the reverse, stated with conviction as if it were true. Do you not understand the kind of credibility you lose when you think you can wear down educated people with enough of the same lie?

[truedelphi]

272. Tis the truth. But they cannot handle the truth.

Part of the reason that the Clintonistas cannot handle the truth is that the very real facts of this election cycle remain some strange numbers: a clear 39% of All AMERICAN voters feel that they fall into the independent column.

Hillary's support will only come from 33% of all Dems.

Same for Obama.
So whoever would go against McCain had better hope that they have some endearing quality that will get them the vote of that 39%.

The media only talks about this in dribs and drabs. They do not want to give the American people encouragement toward what we truly deserve - a political process as rich as the process that exists in the UK and the European nations - a process that entails having four, five and even six parties on the ballot.

[wolfgangmo]

301. Clintonistas?

Why do you use that name? Is it derived from the Sandanistas, the freedom fighters? The ones who Ronnie Raygun tried to overthrow by selling weapons to the Iranians so he could illegally finance the rape of another country.


Perhaps you should reconsider the name. Clintonista = freedom fighters. Obamamaniacs = ?

[a la izquierda]

315. Welcome to DU

but that's about the silliest analogy ever. It's a clever name and little more. And besides, there's no comparison. Hillary Clinton is NOT a freedom fighter.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

343. No becasue we see that Obama is a balloon filled w/air who will deflate once "handled."

There's not a lot of substance there and once the media comes out of their stupors and starts to do their job - it ain't pretty. He cannot stand up to that - only a pro like Hillary and Bill can.

I think it will only get worse for him also. He's been getting the kid glove treatment for way too long - it wasn't going to last.

[guyanakoolaid]

349. I'm really curious how the media is giving obama "kid glove" treatment...

There just happens to be a lot of ugly stuff, including her repeated personal attacks, that the media can report about Clinton. Obama's drug use was trumpeted but ultimately nobody cared. The media were more than willing to pounce on the African picture released by the Clinton campaign, they keep trying to dig for info about Rezko as if they were going to find a literal smoking gun buried on Obama's front lawn. The truth is that he doesn't have many faults as a candidate, at least not compared to Clinton. It's not the media's fault that Hillary keeps changing campaign tone: attack, be nice, attack, be underhanded, be nice; or that she is the candidate who voted for us to be in Iraq and voted for the resolution attempting to bring us to war with Iran. Now she ironically is trying to play some sort of "who's finger is on the red button" scenario, but we with memories longer than a few months will never forget that she's had two opportunities to make tough foreign policy decisions, and she has failed miserably both times.

[Arkana]

271. You old folks already own the Bush presidency.

Nice try.

[Carni]

325. No, the flaky Nader voters *OWN* the bush presidency

I believe they were also supposedly very young, educated, progressive and
had generally been around the world and knew what they were doing (per THEM)

That worked out SOOOOOO well!

Maybe some of us don't care to get burned because a similar group of naive fools are trying to get the GOP candidate elected this time around.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

344. How do we own the Bush Presidency?

[kikiek]

290. Actually Clinton is coming up in the polls against McCain as Obama sinks.

That old line that Hillary can't beat McCain is campaign propaganda. Looking to the general election, John McCain has a slight lead over both Democrats. McCain now leads Obama 47% to 44% and Clinton 47% to 46% http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

[Patchuli]

217. There goes the ageism again

I resent that. I did not "screw this country up." I have voted Dem for 31 years. I believe it is the rich industrialist/corporations that you should look to for the "screwing up" of America. Do you really think dividing ourselves up into age categories will help Dem candidates and progressive causes or that all that has happened can be blamed on one set of people? You are naive, if you do.

For the record, I supported Edwards until he suspended his campaign. I now support Obama and the young set does not have exclusive rights to hope.

Edited to say: Welcome to DU

[Carni]

324. THIS is the kind of arrogant STUPID commentary

That is pissing people like the original poster off.

Maybe someone can explain the concept of cutting off your nose to spite your face to this individual, because I just don't have the patience.

[Zookeeper]

332. Which is what we said to our parents and your children will....

say to you.

Knowing this is why older people are, generally, wiser than younger people. I would guess that you think assorted tribal cultures from around the world are really cool. Guess what they all have in common? They recognize and value the elders in their community.

[ExPatLeftist]

292. Yes, you hit the nail on the head...

All "they" - that is, apparently, ALL Obama supporters - care about is vibes and cool looks.

Are YOU really this shallow (to use your word), to actually believe that the words of a few individuals or supporters applies to an entire group of people - roughly half the party? Wow, you can quote two people, and apply those quotes to others that never said them. Logic much?

I have made a difficult and well-thought out choice based on what I view as important, as have you. That doesn't make either of us superior, it just means that we have different views and priorities. Such is life.

"Anybody that does not believe like me is a hive-minded automaton who deserves no respect!"

You might want to check your own shallowness level and open those blinders, you sound like a spoiled preschooler.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

342. "My bad, we elected a cool guy who lied to us and now we're fucked."

:rofl:

[emilyg]

252. I agree.

[Skittles]

212. OOH you know it, LeftCoast

ABSOLUTELY

[jeffrey_X]

225. Or Obama supporters like myself...

35+
$175,000+ household income
Been following him since 2002/03


sometimes stereotypes are wrong.

[Zookeeper]

335. $175,000+ fits one of the stereotypes of an Obama supporter. n/t

[trynotto_giveuphope]

277. It Cuts Both Ways

That's what happens when you've got two good candidates.

[OhioBlue]

7. about the young voters

can you really blame them? Obama is inspiring and exciting. They have someone they can believe in.

Since the day they were born, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.

It's time for a change.

[elixir]

9. My mantra "And what do you to complain about from the Clinton years?!!" Nothing!!!

[OhioBlue]

31. Divisive Politics

Nafta, Monica, Paula, Hillary failed at Health Care Reform,

[rodeodance]

39. BO campaign has been nothing but divisive-including racializing this primary

[OhioBlue]

43. I think made a type o - that has been the Clinton campaign.

[libbygurl]

46. Yep, who's been dividing the Dems while uniting with Repubs here?

[OhioBlue]

50. Clinton. n/t

[libbygurl]

54. LOL! Clinton is very strong among true Democrats.

BO is pulling in Indies and Repubs in the primaries (who knows how they'll vote in the GE).

[OhioBlue]

55. Obama is building the party. buy a clue.

[libbygurl]

61. Building the party by dismissing as irrelevant old-time Democrats who have been...

...working hard for years to get the true Democratic agenda to become reality?

Why should I BUY a clue, anyway?

[OhioBlue]

64. He's never dismissed any Democrat as irrelevant

Hi IS inspiring many young people to become involved. We have an opportunity to inspire a new generation of Democrats. To build our numbers. This is how we will realize progress on a Democratic agenda. He is inspiring Independents and yes even some wayward Republicans to join us. He is building our numbers.

[libbygurl]

86. 'Inspiring' is one thing, getting them to be truly thoughtul about the...

...process is another. Much of what O's inspiration consists of amounts to merely letting people feel good about themselves. What the hell was that line about 'a light shining down upon you...you'll have an epiphany...and you'll vote for Barack' rubbish all about? Many O supporters just say, 'He makes me feel good' - is that any way to educate voters about electing people to office?

Remember what happened last time 'the likeable guy' and the 'guy people wanted to have a beer with' was voted into office (dishonestly, too, in my opinion)? How well did that work out now?

We need to face the real-life problems head on. Hillary continues to talk about specifics on the stump, in town hall meets, in the debates. Presenting proposed solutions to problems (bearing in mind proposals are all candidates can offer at the moment) is what underlies my strong support for Hillary.

[OhioBlue]

100. I could see your point if she had a shred of honesty.

She will do and is doing anything to win. This is not elevating the political discussion. This is not making people think. It is dumbing things down to name calling. I've gotten the Obama chain e-mail attacks from 4 Clinton supporters - 2 local Party Chairs and the President of One Dem Ladies Group 2 of them are County Coordinators for Clinton. You combine that with the photo and Hillarys' answer to the question over Obama's religion. Now tell me - that her campaign is getting people to be truly thoughtful.

Her mail pieces were attacks on Obama yet she goes into false outrage over the same mailers that his campaign sends out. She has done nothing but go on the attack for the last week.

I was on the fence about Hillary. I could have been a supporter until her campaign tactics went into the gutter. I'm done with her. She represents everything I find repulsive about the current State of Politics.

[Lannigan]

131. Please define "will do anything to win"...

...and tell me that anyone in her position would not be doing the exact same thing?

[Zookeeper]

334. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Obama's integrity...

his advisers and supporters aren't above dirty politics:

The New Republic

Race Man

How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Sean Wilentz, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008

"After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is...."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

-----

Somehow Obama just continues to get a pass.

[John Q. Citizen]

66. I'm in my 50s, voted Dem my whole life and I'm voting Obama on June 3rd.

Why not the best?

[Voltaire]

115. A fat lot of good the old-time Dems have done

Playing things THEIR way is what got us into this mess in the first place. Enough already.

[Deep13]

174. I hope he isn't relying on that.

Most of these cross-over votes, especially those of white men and married woman, can easily cross again to support McCain and his alleged integrity in the fall.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

346. More than half of them have admitted that they just want to keep Hillary off the ticket.

n/t

[uberblonde]

223. Obama's not building "the party."

He's building himself a power base. Not the same thing.

[hendo]

266. True Democrats?

Thats a joke, right? Hillary is bitter and she doesnt have a shot at winning in the GE. Hillary is strong because her husband is Bill. Having a husband who was president is not a qualifier for becomming president!

[Zookeeper]

336. Until recently, that was one of the only ways a woman could...

get close to being qualified for President. It's been only a short time (historically, speaking) that women have been "allowed" to participate in the political system.

25 years from now, I would be more inclined to demand that a female candidate do it alone. Hillary has been preparing to be President her whole life, the question has always been when the country would be ready for a female President. Bill got there first because he has a penis.

[ExPatLeftist]

300. Yes, you and only you get to decide...

...What a TRUE Democrat is.

[Auntie Bush]

121. If Obama hadn't run...this party would have been united along racial lines

But now we're probably divided forever. Thanks Obama! Democrats need to win this election desperately and Hillary was a sure winner. But noooo, Obama had to run because he wanted to start a movement and be the second coming of MLK. Why the hell couldn't he have waited another 8 years and got some real experience and have Hillary in Washington for the next 8 years? We could have been assured of 16 years of real liberals in office and have gotten tons of Dem issues passed. Now we're all divided and pissing each other off. We could possibly even lose this election. God help us if we do. Who is the real divider? I'd say it was Obama...not Hillary. Who was the patriotic one who thought party unity first? Certainly not Obama! He was all for himself and his movement. He also wants to piss away our issues by compromising with Rethugs. :puke:

[hogwyld]

153. Wait his turn????

Yeah, it was Hillary's coronation, all other's with different viewpoints be damned. She had EVERYTHING going for her, so it's not Barack's fault that she ran the absolute worst campaign in modern history.

[Auntie Bush]

178. Not Barack's fault? Isn't he the one who is running against her?

He divided her base and peeled off the black vote who admired or even loved her till Obama ran. I can't say I blame them or fault them. I'm just saying HE divided the party...not Clinton!

[DemBones DemBones]

203. Not only that, he pissed off so many Dems

by his lies, his slipperiness, and his smug attitude that he owned the party nomination, that it was his due, that a lot of us will not vote for him but will vote third party. I'm done with voting for the lesser of two evils, especially when the lesser is the Great Obama.

The GOP wants us to nominate Obama because McCain will be able to beat him but the Obamaniacs are so lost in Fantasyland that they can't see how they're being used by Obama and the GOP.

[Joshua N]

208. He is not the one who acting like the nomination is due him.

And all the conspiracy theorists on both sides who think the GOP wants to face one candidate over the other, understand that each will have strengths and weakness against McCain and I have heard some pundits argue over one in favor of the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, so unless you have taken a GOP poll asking their opinion of who is beatable, please stop spreading such rumors. I have heard it on both sides.

[wolfgangmo]

303. Obama supporters kind of remind me of...

... another group of interested and motivated young people 4 years ago.



Does anyone remember the Deaniacs? I remember being told that Dean would 100% for sure be the next president. I also remember telling them that Kerry would get the nomination and that he would lose the election. I wish I hadn't been right, but then again I have actually READ some political history.


Get copies of The Prince, The Five Rings and the Art of War. They helped me to understand the GOP. We need to stop blaming each other for what KKKRove and his minions of evil are still doing.


Solidarity is more than a slogan. If we are Americans, then shouldn't we stick together against "all enemies, foriegn AND DOMESTIC." Let's sharpen our knives and pick our targets with a little more focus.

[Zookeeper]

337. Yes. They totally remind me of Deaniacs...times 10. n/t

[Joshua N]

205. He divided the party because he ran and people liked him? He should have waited his turn? Be

careful, what you have said is racist and paternalistic. What you are saying sounds like the people who would blame King for "stirring up trouble" when he brought an unjust issue to the forefront. You should tread lightly because you are in a bad spot blaming him for "splitting the party" because people are voting for him. This is a democracy and the point is that people have their choice. There is nothing wrong with being sad or upset if your candidate does not win the nomination, but finger pointing at Barack Obama for running for president is dangerous ground.

[oasis]

282. True. So true. (eom)

[ExPatLeftist]

308. WTF

Why does Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, have any more right to run than anyone else?

There are two people running (now). How can it be that ONE of them is causing a disruption by not stepping aside and letting the other win? The same could be said of Hillary.

It's a Constitutional Republic, not a Monarchy. Therefore, there are no heirs apparent or pretenders to the throne. Just saying, because it seems like you are not aware of what democracy is...

[Auntie Bush]

348. I am also just saying.....

It is NOT Hillary's fault that the party is divided. Someone here and many others are saying it's Hillary's fault. I was defending her from that false criticism...because I know it's a democracy and she has a right to run without criticism as much as Obama. But if people are going to blame her for the division...then, I say it's more Obama's fault than hers.

If you still don't understand... go back and read the whole thread...not an individual post that was discussing what was being said on the whole thread.

[ExPatLeftist]

350. I have read the whole thread, smartass.

And my conclusion is that your comment is extremely racist - chastising Obama for daring to enter the race and therefore dividing the party along "racial lines". Of course, this would have only happened had he been black.

It is not that I don't "understand" anything (your arrogance and condescension aside), it is that your comment is racist on the face of it and I decided to point that out.

The party is divided because it is a close primary and there are differing opinions. Not because one of the candidates is black. And no one candidate is to blame for that division any more than the other - Clinton was not the heir apparent, she has to run just like everyone else.

[DemBones DemBones]

199. This should be an OP. It needs to be said.

I think Obama is a GOP stalking horse, have for months.

[ExPatLeftist]

329. It is blatant racism.

If that's what you're signing on for.

[ExPatLeftist]

307. Damn that uppity negro for running...

...and dividing the party along racial lines!

He should go to the back of the bus and wait his turn. How is the order decided? Why, by you of course!!

[sallyseven]

321. How dare you bring race into this?

I don't like Obama because I find him to be lacking in experience, judgment and the ability to stop saying Hillary voted for the war. I have heard that so many times it makes my head spin every time he says it. He didn't vote to stop the money though did he? His words are coming back to haunt him in many ways.

[ExPatLeftist]

328. You don't like him

And you have your reasons. BFD. I am sure many others have what they view as equally valid reasons to not want Hillary in the race.

But I was replying to a post in which someone was pissed that Obama had entered the race and split the party on racial lines. I did not, therefore, bring race into this at all, I was responding to it. Obviously, race wouldn't have been an issue (and split the party along those lines, apparently) if someone that was not black had entered the race and thwarted Hillary's birthright. Again, apparently.

So the basic message that I replied to is exactly what I said - get to the back of the bus. Why? Because you are black and would disrupt the course of events... That is, on its face, racist.

[rodeodance]

101. I made NO typo. !!

[Missouri Blue]

347. Don't anybody let the egos of these two candidates influence your thinking.

Really, that's what's happening, judgments are being clouded by the candidates estimation of themselves. That's all that's happening. Clinton and Obama are not that far apart on the issues. They are so close, in fact, that they will sign the same health care and education bills a democratic Congress brings them. If either of them are vulnerable, John McCain is extremely vulnerable himself. Check out his flip-flops, his insanity about the war. I doubt that even the hawks want to stay there for 100 years. The fact that we about to suffer a recession (not happy, I would agree). His war record isn't bullet-proof and he might be the Democrats' revenge for Swiftboating.

So, don't be so concerned about who's electable, nor who's just right on what issue. They are close enough. Insist instead that they work together. We have two very solid leaders here. It's something the Republicans lack. Just think, if the candidates and the rank and file plays this right, we could have the White House for the next 16 years-- years that are bound to finally put this country on the right track, and keep it there for the next half-century at least.

[libbygurl]

45. You're showing your deep familiarity with the right-wing playbook there.

Hillary foresaw the health care mess we're currently in as far back as the early 90s - and look who's jumping on that bandwagon today. The rest of it means -- what, exactly? HRC was deeply uncomfortable with NAFTA in private (see my sig line link). Monica and Paula were personal affairs of no import to the running of the country and totally right wing attack job bec. they had nothing else to pin on Bill.

Should I go on?

[OhioBlue]

47. The poster asked what I didn't like about the Clinton years

can you say that you liked those things?

[libbygurl]

56. Why were they brought up at all then? Because the right wing stirred things up...

...about non-essential issues. I've already addressed Hillary's thoughts on NAFTA previously.

[OhioBlue]

68. So you DID like those things?

the poster asked a question. I answered.

and Hillary's NAFTA line is Bull Shit. If she was against it she should have acted. I'm not going to concede NAFTA because she THOUGHT it might be bad. I thought she was supposed to be about taking action. Well, sitting around and thinking something might not be good isn't action.

[libbygurl]

77. Where does it say that I liked those things?

Well, you either believe her about NAFTA or you don't. She had disagreed with Bill on quite a few things during his tenure. And she wasn't exactly 'sitting around', as you so condescendingly put it. Look at the vid in my sig line, if you're truly interested.

But I know you're not interested in informing yourself about Hillary's accomplishments, so nevermind.

Done here.

[Deep13]

173. Bill was president, not Hillary. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Jessie Jackson ran on single payer in 1988. I canvassed for three years 5 days a week

week with Citizen Action/Fair Share Groups in 7 states on Universal Health Care.

Hill plagairrized the term, and tried to push through an insurance company idea, "Managed Care" an HMO based idea that was stupid unless you were and insurance company.

Hill's a glorified insurance saleswoman and likes that better than solving the problems.

[Voltaire]

116. Forseeing the Health Care mess is not the same as fixing it

She had her shot at it and was a dismal failure. Next?

[BornBlue]

171. So it's okay to lie?

If Hillary was so secretly against NAFTA why did she publicly support it sometimes? That is pandering to the people, tell 'em what they want to hear, as long as secretly I stay true to my values. We need a candidate that will tell us the truth. Will Obama do this, we don't know, but we do know that Hillary has not in the past. She is a VERY smart driven woman, which I admire, but I cannot respect her. She has LESS legislative experience than Obama, and more experience in Washington working with the kind of people, I think we all agree, have lost sight of what really matters. WE THE PEOPLE matter, not special interests and corporate greed. I am 23 years old, a firm Obama supporter, but I am not blind. My hope for Obama is not that he will save the country; one person, man or woman cannot, but that maybe the voters will wake up and elect people that will work for us. We the voters made this mess, now it is time to clean it up. It starts with this election.

[Lyric]

60. WTF?

Monica and Paula weren't "politics", they were personal indiscretions that didn't have a damned thing to do with Bill Clinton's competence as a President, and I'm sick to death of hearing those right-wing talking points repeated here. Stop rehashing Newt Gingrich's Greatest Hits, mkay?

As for NAFTA: do you think that a President never, ever, ever has to pay ANY attention to what the folks in the other party want? Isn't that what we've all be so fucking angry with Bush about--that he listens to his "base" and doesn't give a damn about any of the rest of us? It was a mistake, but it can be fixed--the point is that good Presidents do not pander endlessly to their own base and completely ignore the other half of the nation. THAT would be "divisive politics"--as Dubya has demonstrated over the past 8 years. We haven't been so divided since the freaking Civil War, thanks to a President ignoring half the country and kissing the ass of his own party. I'd rather see that kind of shitty, selfish governance fall to the wayside, thanks much.

And Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform was a failure because the Republican machine killed it. She didn't do anything wrong, save for trying to help a lot of people get healthcare; but she got eaten alive by the Republicans and their wealthy medical, insurance and pharm industry lobbyists and hitmen. I can't believe you even brought that crap up.

Seriously...WTF?

[OhioBlue]

71. Again... What didn't I like about the Clinton years?

that was the question. Those were the things I didn't like.

For crying out loud!!! Can you say you DID like those things?

[Lyric]

177. I think I misread your answer

I thought that when you said "Divisive Politics" and then posted the other stuff, that you were giving example of what you considered to be "divisive politics". Apparently that was not the case. Although you could have been more clear, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

To answer your question: I didn't care one way or another about the Monica/Paula thing. Like my parents, I thought it was a personal matter to be worked out between Bill and his family, and I thought that the way he was being crucified by the nutcases on the right was just disgusting. Actually, that incident was the genesis of my interest in politics--I had never noticed until that moment how awful the Republican politicians really were.

The other things you originally mentioned were things I also didn't like, but weren't Bill or Hillary's fault (save for NAFTA, at least partially), so I'm not sure what the connection is to the "Clinton years", other than the fact that those things happened then. The blame for the divisive politics of that time and the collapse of Hillary's healthcare reform can be laid squarely at the door of Gingrich and the asshole Republicans who swept into power in 1994 and tried to realize every conservative wet-dream piece of legislation that they'd been jerking off to for years. That behavior continued into the Bush years, as we all know.

As for NAFTA--yes, it was partly Clinton's fault. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps he thought that he was doing the right thing for the entire country--not just his own party. Presidents are not psychic, nor are they puppets of their respective parties. They're supposed to represent everyone, after all. That's one of the things that is the most loathsome about Bush--he never tried to be the whole country's President. He's the right-wing President and the left-wing Tyrant, and he likes it that way.

[emilyg]

254. Thank you.

[libbygurl]

80. Completely agree with your points here.

But some people just refuse to try to understand the points you try to make, which you have painstakingly done here.

Thanks!

[OhioBlue]

85. you're both blind to the question.

What didn't you like about the Clinton years?

You can't say you liked those things and you can't say that it was a Utopian Presidency.

[libbygurl]

89. Who on earth was saying it was 'Utopian presidency'?

Neither of us. But you did.

I think I'm done dealing with your non-sequitur arguments.

Bye now.

[OhioBlue]

96. You still dance around the question.

What didn't YOU like about the Clinton Presidency?

[cascadiance]

90. AND the Telecomm bill which Bill should have vetoed instead of pushed!

At the time the big red light on it was the Communications Decency Act, which only handful of senators opposed, including:

Patrick Leahy
Paul Simon
Paul Wellstone
Russ Feingold
JOHN MCCAIN!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00008

But looking back on it, even more sinister were so much of the parts that allowed the dastardly media consolidations that have happened since then that have created the likes of Clear Channel in the radio industry, as well as narrowed down the number of companies that control most of our television content to around 5 now. With all of the media consolidation be a BIG part of our problem these days in fighting so many issues, Hillary Clinton owes us an explanation on how she will evolve her husband's position on this, especially since her likely opponent, John McCain, was on the RIGHT side being against this bill, when he pushed it and signed it into law!

[bpeale]

103. at least 3 of those are the fault of republicans. so why shoot democrats for it?

[OhioBlue]

105. The Question wasn't whose fault

the question is what didn't you like about the Clinton years.

[bpeale]

109. nothing!

although i did not vote for Bill Clinton either time, and considering all the right wing smearing all the time, he did a damned fine job as President. i still wouldn't vote for him if he were allowed to run again. just personally did not like him. the economy was prosperous. millions of new jobs were created. everything was good.

all we needed was 8 years of Bush to destroy all of it.

[emilyg]

255. I like just about everything about

the Clinton years.

[wolfgangmo]

299. To Ohio Blue

Are you kidding? You must be listening to too much Rush LimpBalls.

Monica - mistake but hardly an impeachable offense

Paula - unproven in any form. Have you heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Hillary failed at Health Care Reform - dude, read the history books. The tried and got submarined by the big corps and their stooges.

Nafta - all right, you got me there.

Divisive politics? - you have got to be shitting me. Talk about blaming the victim.



Please consider what you write before you publish. Jerking knees are not impressive.

[John Q. Citizen]

52. I complain about Hill shutting out the grassroots (among others) on health care and holding secret

meetings, about the repo inspired welfare "reform," about not holding the previous administration accountable to the law, about the telecommunications bill which gave over control of the public airwaves and the print media to a few very big corporations, about doing nothing positive or progressive at all about the so called "war" on drugs, about letting the Repos take control of congress in '94 with the exact same turn out of Republicans as turned out in 1990 (they didn't do anything to inspire Dems to vote,) about passing bush I NAFTA without nessesary environmental or labor concerns addressed, and with wasting their second term by shooting themselves in the foot and getting busted for messing around.

Besides that, they weren't too bad.

[GoneOffShore]

133. DMCA, NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DLC

Cozying up to corporations, triangulation, moving the Democrat to the right.

Just a few things like that.

Oh yes, and the desire to indulge in dynastic politics - 8 yrs bush, 8 yrs Clinton, 8 yrs Bush - you finish it.

[Zookeeper]

338. So, she shouldn't run because we've had 16 years of Bushes...

and 8 years of her husband? Why should she be penalized for that?

The dynasty I see is Bush. We'll run out of Clintons long before we run out of Bush spawn.

[Kare]

36. Agreed .. nt

[surfermaw]

152. And might I add, Bill Clinton was a save after Bush and Reagan and then Bush again

Bill clinton cleaned up the republican mess, why should he be penalized for what 8 years of the dumbiest president in history did to the nation, just because Obama is running they don't have to stick it to Clinton Bill that is. A man that has been voted many time by americans to be one of the 5 greatest presidents of all time. I wonder how the Obama's are going to take it when Obama messes up and he get hell for his deeds

[laundry_queen]

257. Bill Clinton didn't clean up the republican mess.

If he REALLY had cleaned up the republican mess, we wouldn't have just had 8 years of the worst president in history. Instead, they'd have all been behind bars.

[curvy rider]

222. Good point

Although I believe that you don't change something just for the sake of change. Change from Bush is good change, because he is the worst president we've had in a long time. But changing what we all agree was a good presidency, the Bill Clinton's presidency, that is, is not a good way to vote, IMO.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

345. If they want "exciting" - go bungee-jumping. I wouldn't hire an "exciting" person to run my company.

I rather have an experienced person who knows their stuff and who knows how to handle an emergency - not just shine when things are going well.

[flor de jasmim]

8. What an overgeneralization!

Hillary doesn't have a lock on any particular demographic, and neither does Obama.
It's not about age, it's not about race, gender, intelligence, being well-read, being idiotic(!), whatever. RATIONAL PEOPLE can come to entirely different conclusions.

You have the right to vote and the right not to vote. You have the right to rant... but why rant if you feel we won't listen?

[Fovea]

10. Au Revoir

N/T

[Deep13]

18. There isn't going to be a next time. nt

[elixir]

11. K&R

[snooper2]

12. Mkay...

Go ahead and vote for your favorite Corporate Whore....

[leftynyc]

42. I will be

I'll vote for Obama over McCain anyday.

[paulk]

102. a perfect example of the nastiness the Obama people

have bought to this campaign....

[wolfgangmo]

304. Snooper, I'm confused by your post.

Do you mean that Obama is a corporate whore?

[Zookeeper]

340. Stop watching South Park and search for some proof that...

Obama is less of a corporate whore than Clinton.

[leftofcool]

13. Excellent Post

I vote the way I choose and for the resume, not for the personality or the glitter.

[Neshanic]

14. Don't go, we are going to need you in our travails with a President McCain.

The look of horrified surprise that will populate this Obama board will soon give way to the work we need to do. We at least will have both houses in firm Democratic control. Just a republican president.

[Deep13]

32. Sorry, not trying to be spiteful.

I gave it my all in 2004 because it was the most important election in our lifetime. That's what the Dem. party told us. This is, therefore, less important than 2004. If I did nothing in '04 the only difference would be that I would have a new kitchen by now.

[yourguide]

15. JFK and Carter were "amateurs" as well.

[Deep13]

21. Carter sucked. I know. I was around in the 1970s.

JFK was marginal at best. He is lionized because he was shot.

[yourguide]

26. Carter was amazing! WTF are you talking about

and JFK exercised some amazing judgment.

so to make your point in supporting Clinton you need to trash Carter and JFK too?

you are pathetic.

[Deep13]

62. Inflation was high and unemplyment was in double digits.

He couldn't get anything through Congress. And he was being held hostage in the White House by the Iranian crisis. It doesn't matter how good his ideas were if he could not implement them. Again, it is about management, not personality.

I am not "trashing" JFK. He was marginal. I recall that being the judgment of the history department when I was in college. He avoided open war over Cuba, of course, but he was the one that pushed us to the brink in the first place.

I have a good job, nice house, delightful wife and pretty much everything I want in life. I guess I'm wondering how I am pathetic. The truth is I personally did well under Bush.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

91. Inflation was high long before Carter.

And Carter's policies -- eliminating the last of Nixon's price fixing idiocy -- led to the end of high inflation his last year in office. Too late to impact the election. Late enough that Republics still claim to this day that Carter's policies were inflationary.

Democrats know better. You know, you keep posting things about Democrats that sound suspiciously like the beliefs Republics have about the Democratic Party. Are you going to accuse of us wanting to ban firearms and bibles next?


And unemployment, while high by today's standards, was higher both before and after Carter. So that is an amazingly stupid accusation to make against Carter.

[Toallwhoshallsee]

168. Price controls and Pork barrell spending.

Actually it was President "Ford" not President "Nixon" who was the nincompoop who believed in "price controls" then implemented them......President Carter did some wonderful things, such as setting up all the federal wildlife lands in this country. Unfortunately he utilized a "permissive" management style, that while worked in state government, has been proven to be highly ineffectual in dealing with the day to day activities concerning the Federal government. 18%prime interest rates that caused a six year building shut down were hard times to endure and absolutely have no comparison to what we have today. Fact not Fiction. If you want to know the truth their was enough blame to go around with both parties and the Congress for that troubled time and what do you know OPEC had a hand in all of it also...

[defendandprotect]

229. Carter was a very weak president; not to be compared with JFK . ..

who stood up to the Joint Chiefs and the MIC . . .
without realizing how murderous his opponents truly were.

Carter was under full time attack by the GOP and didn't know how to respond. . .
he was sinking in GOP quick sand, ending in the fiasco of the hostages in Iran --
another episode played very seriously by the GOP --- completely orchestrated, with
Ted Koppel brought to trash Carter every night on the hostage issue.

Oddly enough, our SUPERPOWERDOM f-----up at least three different attempts to rescue
the hostages -- in two cases failing to have equipment which keeps sand out of helicopter
engines . . . and the mission happened to be in the dessert!!

Is that believable . . . ??? I don't think so ---

Making a complete end run around Carter, Reagan, Bush, Gates, and a number of others went rather openly, in fact, for the OCTOBER SURPRISE . . . which should be treason.

That wasn't the first time they had done something like that --- Nixon had negotiated
behind LBJ's back to keep Vietnam from being ended at a peace table during LBJ's bombing
lull.

Additionally, re Carter's Administration his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, tells us -- see his book The Grand Chessboard
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
that WE went into Afghanistan six months before the Ressians came in . . .
"in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan, in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type
experience."
What kind of insanity interprets America's Vietnam-experience in this way---???
THIS was Carter's administration and I don't recall anyone ever asking him about this episode. As far as we knew about it, Carter took us out of the Olympics in recognition of the injustice of Russia's "attack" on Afghanistan!!!

Again --- this was a very WEAK presidency and it's one of the things that make me fear
Obama. This is the GOP "Johnny-on-the-spot" with Carter, as they were with Clinton.
And they are determined to keep up this insane pursuit of "getting" a Democratic president. This is a murderous bunch of people --- but we can't defeat fascism by adopting corporate-fascism.

[Dan]

262. Mr. Carter was a president to be proud of...

unfortunately, he was dealing with the fallout of the Vietnam war - and the impact of the Democratic party supporting civil rights.

[Beacool]

114. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful man who should have never been president.

He was extremely ineffective and it's true that he couldn't get anything passed through Congress. I have deep admiration for all the good he and Rosalynn have done for this country and for humanity at large, but as president he was pretty bad.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. I didn't think Carter sucked, and I was around too.

His policies were sound. Bad economy, hostage crisis, fuel crunch, hostage crisis, press insisting he was a 'waffler', hostage crisis. Then along comes Reagan to make us feel good about America again. See ya' later Carter. We wouldn't be in this pickle today if Reagan hadn't undone everything Carter did as soon as he seized the White House.

[Deep13]

69. Carter's bad management made it worse.

This was the feeling of House Speaker Tip O'Neil. He said Carter had too many balls in the air at once to the point where nothing got done. One thing Reagan did continue was Carter's military build-up.

[ieoeja]

82. Carter didn't "build-up" the military. He "reformed" it.

And that reformation involved just the opposite of a build-up. The military cleaned house under Carter to rid itself of Vietnam era malcontents.

Then when the Iran hostages were taken he asked for military options and was told by the Pentagon that the military doesn't do that and that sort of thing is the FBI's specialty.

But the FBI is not setup to project themselves outside our borders. So the military ended up winging it and unsurprisingly failed.

This led to Carter initiating the formation of Delta Force so in the future we would have the needed experts ready to go.

[LiberalAndProud]

93. Here's the thing about Tip O'Neil

I like Carter better than Tip. Carter was accused of micro-managing, and maybe that was true. I do know that he got some really bad press before his tenure ended and he wasn't so popular with the populace. Even before that terrible election when Reagan was given the reins, I knew that Carter would not be re-elected but I so wanted to know what he would accomplish in a second term.

Carter governed well, without keeping an eye on his re-election prospects. His policies were dead-on and very Gore-like, in my opinion.

[Enthusiast]

320. If it walks like a duck..........................

You think like a Republican. You, for all intents and purposes are a Republican. Hillary cannot possibly be elected after alienating Obama supporters as she has. I, for one, will not vote for her.

[ieoeja]

59. So you're a "New Democrat".

Sometimes known as the "Old Republicans" before the Reagan Revolution transistioned the Republic Party into a batshit crazy rightwing extremist party.

Cause no Old Democrat would ever trash Carter and JFK that way.

[Deep13]

65. Label yourself. I am a citizen and think for myself.

Are you running for president of hyperbole? A mild criticism of JFK does not constitute "trash."

[NewJeffCT]

218. Ted Kennedy might not be too fond of Carter

He challenged Carter from the left because Carter was perceived by many Dems at the time as being too conservative & too religious. I mean, Reagan won Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York & New Jersey over Carter because many liberal Democrats (the DUers of the time) didn't like Carter.

[mdmc]

151. Carter was the best president of my lifetime

:shrug:

[Deep13]

162. You're right and what a pathetic statement that is.

I didn't say I preferred Ford or Reagan. Johnson was the best in mine, or he would be if it wasn't for Vietnam.

[mdmc]

166. darn that war

[IdClaire]

238. he did kinda suck but I love him

It took me many years to come to that conclusion because I am a loyal Democrat and a GEORGIAN! I love me some Jimmy Carter but he just was not the best president. Some of the Obama supporters on this board are young and I don't think they see things with the wisdom that I must say comes with age (although I"m only 42!) Inspiration is one thing but really experience DOES count!

[Adelante]

16. What I can't take is any more lectures from Clinton supporters

Who, in their sanctimonious dreams, are older or more politically experienced, more realistic and thoughtful, somehow want more for their country than I do and are better Democrats than I am judged to be, because I don't support the same candidate they do.

Good luck to you :hi:

[rodeodance]

22. its probably 5000-1 with Obamabots doing the Lecturing!!

[Deep13]

23. Not a lecture. It is how i feel.

I can have feelings without intending them to be a message to you. And I am not a "Hillary supporter." I am a citizen.

[John Q. Citizen]

78. It's fine to express your feelings. They seem to be the same feelings of the people you

are mad at, though.

When you feel taken for granted, it's a problem for you, and when other feel taken for granted it's a problem for them.

I guess it's whose ox is being gored.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Well said. And I voted for Carter twice. I liked him. I still do.

[rodeodance]

17. "It's my ball and I don't have to play with bullies." nicely put. Thank you.

So, I voted today. I'm done. I decided to get out of the political game months ago. It just isn't worth the effort. I only hung around as long as I did to help keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot. Too late for that now. It's my ball and I don't have to play with bullies. So good luck with all that. This is how I feel about it and I won't be stifled. I am not suggesting any course of action. You won't listen and it's too late anyway anyway.

[rodeodance]

20. It has amazed me--The Dems had a candidate that could win in 08-yet they

chose to demonize her!

[Deep13]

24. We wouldn't be fighting if Edwards was leading.

And he would have been a slam dunk in the fall.

[rodeodance]

37. I think you may be right about that. Yet--i also think that the socialims label

might do him in. too many Thought he was the reverse robin hood. and people don't like their money taken away--even for a just cause. just saying

[defendandprotect]

231. Did you mean "welfare" for the rich . . . cause that's what we have in America. . . !!

Edwards was strongly anti-corporate . . .
and the THREAT, openly, by the Chamber of Commerce to raise tens of millions to defeat
him was frightening!!!
Where was the official Democratic Party response to that --- ???

When you talk about "socialism" I think you should understand that we have welfare for the rich in America --- and free enterprise for the poor.

[ronnykmarshall]

123. I agree 100%

as much as I love Hillary, I think Edwards would have had a much better chance than BOTH Hillary or Obama.

[OnionPatch]

33. It has amazed me--- The Dems had a candidate that could win in 08-yet they

chose to demonize HIM!

:eyes:

[marions ghost]

25. You are "insulted and vilified by dreamers on this board"

I'm sure you don't mean dreamers to be a complimentary term.

"Nothing happens unless first we dream." --Carl Sandburg

[IndianaJones]

27. if even 10% of Dems feel like you, it will be a McCain landslide.

Obama supporters have contributed greatly to my immense dislike of the man.

[Deep13]

163. Yeah, I guess that is part of my point.

I'll probably calm down by November and think, well I don't want anymore Scalias (three are enough) so I had better vote D. On the other hand, an awful lot of "leans Democrat" voters do not have what I have invested in the party and may very well think that McC better represents them than O, especially when they start throwing around that "values" crap.

[Ken Burch]

237. We both know those people would vote againts HRC for being a woman.

Nobody can be a moderate and a hawk AND a feminist.

[OnionPatch]

28. And I've been active in the party for years.

But I guess it's ok if my fellow Dems call me delusional and tell me my support of my candidate is something akin to cult worship, right?

Well, I can leave the whole political thing, too. But I'm not going to because I care about my country and realize that it would be my ego walking away. You go ahead and do what you like, but you can't tell me Clinton supporters are the only ones putting up with BS in this primary.

[Deep13]

167. Whatever.

[NashVegas]

29. I Call It the "Click Me" Generation

People think everyone else exists to cater to their needs and wants. It's something I saw building, as the administrator of my company's website, since 1996.

"Hey, can you make it so ..." became "why can't you make it so ..." to "you're really lame if you don't make it so ..."

There are positives and negatives. As a creative type, it's entirely frustrating to be threatened with business loss if you don't deliver exactly what the free-loading consumer wants. OTOH, in the political arena, if they aren't just free-loaders but are DIYers in the Obama crowd, there can be much to be gained.

[Recursion]

30. What are Clinton's accomplishments?

What has she done that makes her resume significantly different from Obama's? I find them both to be relatively inexperienced Senators with a couple of decades of unelected public service before that.

[Deep13]

140. Yeah, I'm done repeating myself on that.

[Teaser]

34. So what?

Your decisions are your own. Why do you need to tell anyone else about them?

[mmonk]

40. And by the way, we don't describe ourselves as extreme.

You do.

[Deep13]

159. Extremists never do. nt

[jlake]

44. K&R. I agree completely and will be following your course of action.

[Levgreee]

48. Hillary is partly to be blame for not presenting her credentials. Her 35 years mantra came off as

shallow. I sincerely doubt that her credentials are at all high, otherwise with the huge advantage going in she would've more likely won, and she wouldn't have had to have her campaign focus more on attacking Obama than presenting herself.

[Deep13]

175. She has run a crappy campaign for sure.

I do think she has real credentials if one takes into account her work in the Bill Clinton Administration. Of course others who ran had better credentials and had more progressive plans for the future and that is without even considering those who could have run but chose not to participate in a public circus.

[libbygurl]

49. Divisiveness from the 'Uniter.' That is all. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. A thoughtful post

[Alamom]

53. Excellent OP. I feel the same Thank you. k&r.

[tandot]

57. K & R.

I don't even know what to say other than I have to agree with you. I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination just because it is better than not voting or voting for McCain.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pampango]

63. Back when party loyalty meant more (a few weeks ago), weren't many mad at Michelle

for expressing uncertainty as to whether she would support the Democratic nominee if it was not her husband?

I suppose it's a sign that the longer this intraparty contest goes on the nastier it seems to get, the more frayed nerves seem to get around here, and the more party solidarity declines relative to our allegiance to one candidate or another.

[Deep13]

70. So you didn't understand anything I wrote then.

Candidates and parties need to be loyal to voters, not the other way around.

[pampango]

88. I agree with that. I am only irritated when others, not you, are inconsistent in applying

that standard.

[redqueen]

67. If Obama wins, you MAY vote for him?

If not, the next generation of kids worldwide thanks you for your myopic, idiotic childishness.

[Deep13]

76. I guess you have not been reading this forum lately.

I am being driven away and I am not the only one.

And I owe my vote to my ancestors who made this country and not to anyone's children or your candidate. Again the sense of entitlement.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

98. Check out the subthread following post 21.

Deep13 responses are pure Freeperish. He apparently decided to come out of the closet today.

For that matter he must have already denied being a Democrat a half dozen times in this thread. "Don't label me, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a citizen," (which would, of course, be a label, Doofus).

And the one you just responded to is a discussion I remember having with this poster a long, long time ago. It was a short discussion since, well, what can you say to someone who believes honoring the dead is more important than taking care of the living and the future. In fact, your response was really the only one. There is something seriously sick about this poster's philosophy.

[Deep13]

149. Again, the claim of insanity. I'll mark this Exhibit B.

If we do not honor those purposes of those who came before us and who made this country, then there will be no future.

Besides, I was not talking policy. I was talking about historical perspective.

[Deep13]

147. This is no game. I'm done.

And I didn't say "fuck the kids."

[Deep13]

176. Excuse me, I have get back to work prosecuting child molesters.

It is not a big case as far as the transcript goes, but I a make slow progress and need to stop reading often because the subject matter is so fucking horrible. :-(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. I'm sorry- are we supposed to take you seriously?

Because you're coming across as some elaborate, sarcastic parody.

[Deep13]

150. That is not my concern.

[Straight Shooter]

75. "It's my ball and I don't have to play with bullies."

I hear you. My "ball" is my vote and it's being extorted by the threat of the GOP in the White House, just like it was extorted in 2004 when I really, really, really wish we hadn't put up such a lame-ass candidate as Kerry who had everything going for him and then wouldn't fight when it was all stolen from him.

We're told not to confuse Obama with his supporters, that he's inspiring and uplifting and he's a "change." Well, a rotten tree bears thin-skinned rotten fruit, that's all I can say. If this is what "inspiration" looks like, we're in for a mighty rough ride.

[Lerkfish]

81. hate to break it to you, but Obama is NOT the left side of democrat

He's just more left than Hillary, who is the furthest right.

and as I recall, the so-called "centrists" were the ones marginalizing the "looney left". but that's neither here nor there.

Obama is not the left candidate, he is the one the left democrats prefer over Hillary.


not really that hard to figure out, actually, its not rocket surgery.

:)

[paulk]

106. actually, it must be hard to figure out

because a look at their actual voting records shows that Hillary was not the "furthest right". Richardson, Biden, and even Edwards, based on his time in office, were to the right of HRC. But, that's what the "looney" left does - they make up their minds about something and reality takes a leap.

I haven't seen anything to differentiate Hillary from Obama; their voting records are practically the same - except things like Obama voting "yes" on Dick Cheney's energy bill, while Clinton voted against it. Was that the vote that put Obama on the left side of the ledger for you? Or was it his not completely ruling out vouchers for public schools - something Hillary has opposed her entire carreer? Maybe it was Obama's "no mandate" health plan? Mandate's are such a socialist idea, you know - and you certainly can't have that in a "left" leaning candidate, now can you?

[Lerkfish]

179. between Hillary and Obama, which is the comparison I was referring to

so, apparently, it must be hard for YOU to figure out what I was saying. Between the two, Obama is further left.

[paulk]

197. and I just pointed out three areas in which he isn't

which you ignored - par for the course!

[Lerkfish]

211. I'm not playing in your miniature golf windmill

But I kid, I'm a kidder.

[Deep13]

141. I guess reading comprehension is not what it once was.

I was drawing an analogy equating the dissatisfaction by very liberal voters with Centrist candidates like Gore in 2000 with the dissatisfaction by run of the mill Dems. like me with this new phenomena this year. I never said that either HC or O is progressive. In fact, there is very little daylight between them.

[high density]

87. Here we go, another "I'm older and I know better, you dumbass kids" thread

As far as I know these posts aren't very useful except for starting flamewars. If you seriously think having Obama as a nominee is "shooting ourselves in the foot" then it sounds like you probably don't know Obama. He may not have the longest resume in the world, but the plans he has laid out sound good to me and I think his leadership style will be helpful for the country/world.

[Deep13]

142. How can I know him without much of a resume?

Frankly, what a candidate says is irrelevent. I'm surprised so many here haven't figured that out. It is not that I resent young people. What I resent is the absolute lack of respect for the views of others and the sense of entitlement that many seem to assume their opinions due. I think you know that.

And I have a right to express myself whether you like the message or not.

[AndyTiedye]

92. You Live in Ohio, Which Will Probably Decide the Election

Please do not abandon us in November. If we don't win Ohio, we lose.

[Deep13]

157. I busted my ass four years ago.

My wife and I donated about $7000 to Dem. candidates. We posted signs, went canvassing, held fundraisers, did parades and did poll work on election day. We had hundreds of volunteers and we were using cell phones for the first time to supplement the limited wired phones. And this is a mostly rural county, so the effort was huge. The net result was that we did 4% better than in 2000 and that was in a local recessession after Iraq turned into a quagmire. We still lost county wide 60/40.

2006 was almost as big of an effort. We spent some $14,000 on Congressional and state candidates. We did well in state with many state-wide victories, but the legislature and Supreme Court are still under R. control. We won Congress and my friend, Sherrod Brown was one of the six Senate pick-ups. and guess what, they have accomplished exactly nothing. They couldn't even end a war that only continues because they keep paying for it.

And this has been going on since 1972. Sorry, but I have troubles of my own to attend to. I stopped doing most of the foot-work in 2006 and now I am shutting of the cash spigot. This is a bad investment.

Anyway we already lost when we pissed-off Florida.

[ProgressIn2008]

95. Well, I guess I'm the "progressive extreme" and I think you have good points

I don't consider Obama progressive and I think an awful lot of us are gonna get thrown under the bus, all along the spectrum.

I am not looking to be inspired, either -- if I want to be inspired, I'll read a book, spend time with friends or go out into the woods and live deliberately, that kind of thing. I'm especially not looking for something to be the vessels for my hopes and dreams, because I think that's a counter-productive (at best) tie to establish with a politician. It also undermines accountability. I am honestly not sure how all this will play out.

[HeraldSquare212]

97. You know what's funny, though? The liberal wing was basing their statements on principle,

whereas you are basing yours on your estimation of the best resume for a President. There's a big, big difference between the two.

[Deep13]

145. Yes, I think I'm right.

The president is basically a store manager for the country, not its heart and soul. And any rate what "principles" are you talking about?

[ContinentalOp]

99. Si se puede is from a children's book?

You just lost all credibility there.

[bpeale]

108. whoever said it was from a children's book is partially right

there is a children's book called: Si, se puede, Yes, We Can! Janitor strike in L.A. by Diana Cohn

but Si se puede is a union thing from Cesar Chavez who used it for the unionization of the grape pickets in california. we use it for our union, as well ... AFSCME.

[Deep13]

127. I think I can, I think I can...

The Little Train that Could. He said "I think" rather than "yes" but either way it is the same idea.

[Shakespeare]

129. It came from Chavez. Period. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

192. That damn Cesar Chavez.

Always ripping off his slogans from children's books. That's not labor organizing that you can trust. That's labor organizing that you can xerox.

[demo dutch]

107. We WILL be shooting ourselves in the foot. Dems usually get that one right!

I completely agree with you. HIGH TIME to be done with this forum! It has been hijacked!

[bpeale]

111. hell, not only don't they know the history of the democratic party,

they don't know american history either.

those who refuse to remember the past, will most assuredly have to repeat it.

(gee, i mangled that as badly as george bush does the "fool me once" stuff. LOL)

[Beacool]

110. Hear, hear!!!!!!

I agree with everything you have said and this part in particular resonates with me:

It all boils down to this. The Democratic Party cannot take me for granted or others who value stability and rationality over of the need to be inspired, whatever that means. I owe this party nothing. I owe all of you nothing. As far as I am concerned the activists in this party have betrayed me and those who see things in a light similar that what I see. We have been supporting this party, not the other way around. After being insulted and vilified by the dreamers on boards like this, I feel the Obama campaign has burnt its bridges. Good luck in November, but you clearly don't want my help and I am not willing to give it anyway. My vote is my own. If Obama succeeds in fooling enough of you to get the nomination, I may hold my nose and vote for him, but I make no promises on that account.

All else being equal, I vote on the resume. The presidency is no place for amateurs and personality cults are dangerous. That means I remain to be convinced and I am not alone. Besides, there isn't much of a party left to support. Since 1972 we have made a career out of getting our asses kicked. And even if we win, we don't win much.

Deep, take care and good luck!!! Many of us will be joining you soon enough. I'll hang on until Hillary calls it quits and then have a tough decision to make: whether to stay home in November or not.


:(

[Shakespeare]

112. Your branch of the party has been pandered to for DECADES.

And now that it looks as if a new generation of voters is actually motivated enough to effect change, you're all huffy? Poor you.

Disclaimer no. 1: You and I are probably about the same age; the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in was 1984, at the age of 20.

Disclaimer no. 2: I'm neither an Obama nor a Hillary supporter (I was an Edwards supporter, but will vote for the eventual nominee), but I'm sick to death of seeing Obama supporters either attacked for the great sin of being youthful and enthusiastic, or the nasty, idiotic assumption that anybody supporting Obama must be stupid and uninformed.

I think we have two oustanding candidates to choose from (not my first choice, but still damn good). This divisive bullshit does none of us any good.

[OneBlueSky]

113. I hear ya . . . and I mostly agree . . . but I feel the same about both candidates . . .

this so-called primary season has been nothing but a pissing contest between two corporate centrists, neither of whom represents me or progressive positions on the issues that I care about . . . they can talk all they want about "Hope" and "Change," but I've been around long enough to know that those are nothing more than campaign buzzwords . . .

the chances of either Obama or Clinton fostering real change -- on the war, on healthcare, on job outsourcing, on energy, on election reform, on banking and credit, on just about anything -- are slim and none . . . both are far too reliant on corporate money for their political lives, and they are not about to bite the hands that feed them . . . since they are both part of the problem, they will certainly not be the ones to advance real solutions . . .

I too will likely vote for whichever one is nominated, but only because their court appointments will likely be marginally better than those of a Republican . . . but I too will be holding my nose the whole time, and wondering how we Democrats allowed our choices to be reduced to this corporate tandem -- neither of whom is remotely qualified to lead this nation during what will undoubtedly be very troubled times . . .

[GeorgeGist]

117. Your shallowness ...

doesn't inspire me.

[Deep13]

137. Does that matter?

[Orsino]

118. There are a ton of good ways for citizens to contribute...

...and you are forgiven your frustration with the electoral process. I can only hope that you are channeling your energy into other civic participation that you see as less futile.

[Deep13]

161. I'm not doing anything wrong and, therefore, don't need forgiveness.

And you don't need to worry about my energy because I don't have any left.

[Orsino]

195. I do need to worry about despair...

...as should those in power.

But my point was indeed that you don't need forgiveness for frustration.

[NMMNG]

119. K&R

You have very eloquently stated what I (and no doubt many others) have been feeling for some time now. You will get piled on, of course, but know that I stand behind you. :hug:

[Forkboy]

120. The Democratic Party has totally lost my loyalty, regardless of who we elect.

It's not really about the candidates, neither of whom I really like, but the party as a whole, from the top right on down to the ones on this board. For all of my adult life I thought we had something on the Right, a better set of beliefs, a desire to do the right thing, but for the last seven years I've watched as we stand for less and less. Hearings on fucking baseball as the world goes to shit, Democrats that seem to literally have zero ideals, or at best disposable ones when it suits them, "supporters" that act like two year olds (and we call Greens selfish and immature....take a look at the forum we're in and get back to me on that one).

This will probably be the first time since I've been old enough to vote that I don't vote for a Presidential candidate (I'll never vote Repub...if I hate the rightward shift of the Dems I'm not going to take my own vote and go even further right). DU has shown me one thing...people really are all the same, even the ones who claim to be better and stand for the right things. We aren't, and we don't, we just give them better lip service than the Repubs, who barely even try to kid anyone.

The Democratic party has become a shell, and empty vessel of promises that will never be kept. The last eight years have been an eye opener for me. I've really seen how useless we've made ourselves, and how few really care, despite their words to the opposite. In the end most seem to be in it for themselves, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe it's just human nature. But it's still sad to see the Party I used to love reduced to a punchline in a bad joke. And we can whine about the Right doing it to us, but it's our own fault more than then theirs, by a large margin. If you act like a doormat people will sure as shit start seeing you that way. And that's what we've let ourselves become, and neither candidate will change that, either through hope or experience. Nor do I see our "leadership" doing anything of real courage.

But, we WILL get to the bottom of that gosh darn Clemens thing!

:puke:

[ProgressIn2008]

124. This, sir, is a fine post indeed. The last 8 years have done a job on me too

and I can't seem to return to "business as usual." Something has changed in the way I look at the world, how I define "problem" and moreover, how I define "solution." Maybe it was the mega-clusterfuck that is the War on Terror (tm). Maybe it was the economic spiral downwards in my own life, living without health insurance and stable housing, watching people around me go through the same or far worse. Maybe it was the climate change disasters, maybe Katrina, maybe the marginalization of anyone talking impeachment. Whatever the combination of events, I can't pretend that It's All Over Thank God. Because it's not.

It really isn't about candidates so much (and I don't like either, as well). It's about something larger than that.

This morning, a browser on a computer in my workplace opened to MSNBC. The breaking news along the top? Some story about a quarterback. The end.

[Forkboy]

125. "It's about something larger than that."

It is for me too at this point. I don't see politics being the answer like I used to. I may play a part, but the real solutions are up to us, and I don't see many who really want to think that way. Hillary is our saviour! Obama is our saviour! Neither one is even anything special. I know better people in my personal life, and right here on DU.

I keep thinking that as a species we're hurtling off a cliff. And I see one party driving us over at 100mph and another driving us over at 75mph. The answers lie in our own neighborhoods, not in either party or even in politics. But if you look around here you'll see a lot of people still scared of real change, still scared of the "other". It's manifested itself in this race big time through sexism and racism, sometimes subtle, often blatant.

And I can relate to the quarterback thing. There was a big fire in Lynn, a city right outside of Boston, that left 100 people homeless. The lead story that night on the news was about Tom Brady.

[demo dutch]

143. Thank Dean and the rest, they're completely useless!

[Forkboy]

182. Dean is actually one of the few I like. More Deans and I might still care.

Reid, Pelosi....meh

Hillary....meh

Obama....meh

I'm guessing you want those Florida and Michigan votes counted? :shrug:

[ronnykmarshall]

122. What he said.

:thumbsup: :bounce:

[Downtown Hound]

126. So what do you want?

All I heard in your post was alot of talk about how no one was listening to you. Guess what? Welcome to the fucking club. Obama is not my ideal candidate either. I have chosen him over Hillary because I believe he has the better chance of winning and because I'm still pissed at Hillary for her Iraq stance. Beyond that I believe they're very similar to each other politically. I'm one of those activists you feel so betrayed by, and yet, I'm still not getting what I want from either candidate.

I want a candidate that's going to take on the corporations and all of their wealth hoarding. I want a candidate that's going to prosecute those responsible for the atrocity that is the Iraq War. I want a candidate that's going to wage an all out campaign against poverty here in our own backyard.

I'm not getting that in either candidate. But do you hear me whining? No. I recognize that defeating the Republicans is more important than me getting everything I want. You talk about the selfishness of young voters, but you fail to see the selfishness in your own post. You're basically just saying, I don't like any of you, so I'm taking my ball and going home. This election isn't about any one of us alone, not me, not you, and not DU. It's about our country and our planet.

We're in a battle for our future here, friend. Now's the time to do what needs to be done and put our personal feelings aside. I'll vote for whomever the nominee is in November, even Hillary. I encourage you to do the same, but if you choose not to, that's your right. Just do me a big favor, when this country ends up bankrupt because of the next war the Republicans get us in, or the coast floods because of years of Republican neglect on the environment, or crime rises once again to astronomical proportions because of years of neglected infrastructure, just don't blame everyone else but yourself. Because all you had to do was put aside your personal feelings for one day and go out and choose a candidate that at least talks about a different path. Maybe he'll deliver on that promise, maybe he won't, but at least you can say you tried. Or you can be selfish and listen to your own ego rather than doing a service for your country. The choice is yours. I've made mine. The country is more important than my personal feelings, which is why I will vote for Hillary if need be. Sadly, I fear if I am forced to choose her, it won't matter, because I believe she will lose, whereas Obama will win.

[Deep13]

128. I wanted to express my feelings and I have done that.

Thanks for your attention.

[Downtown Hound]

130. And you have now expressed them

I encourage you to rise above them and do what is right.

[Lannigan]

132. K but can't yet R...

but Amen Deep!!! Thanks!

[Political Heretic]

134. I have substantive disagreements with your arguments.

...bitch and moan about how they were being taken for granted. There was outrage about the Democrats being in bed with corporations and indignant threats no stay home or vote for Nader if the party did not start paying attention to the self-described progressive extreme. This happened in the 2000 election cycle and again in 2004. They weren't happy with Gore or Kerry. And many made good on their promise, enough to blow the 2000 election. I'll bet Gore looks pretty good to them right about now.

I take issue with your sweeping generalization about "the left of the party." The people you refer to who stayed home or voted for Nader constitute a statistically small minority of people - and certainly represent a tiny subjection of Democratic Party members who value the virtues of liberalism and lament the convergence of corporations and politics and its influence in Washington politics across both sides of the isle.

Those of us who are committed to leftist ideals all differ greatly in how we believe those ideals should be acheived. Some are very rigid and believe in all-or-nothing approaches. Many of them have already left the party for not being "pure" enough. Some believe that change can be achieved from within, but believe it will be a slow, evolutionary process full of imperfect, flawed players. Of that group, some have chosen to support Obama this year and some have chosen to support Clinton. I'm not going to quibble over how many have chosen either path.

So now it's 2008 and I am being told that I must support Obama no matter what. Mostly young voters are enraged and irrationally accuse HC of treachery and every other vice one can imagine. It is not just disagreement, but a demanding sense of entitlement that I am afraid that many 20-somethings feel. How dare I try to take this away from them. Especially galling is the overtly misogynistic manner in which Clinton's character is being assassinated.

Who exactly is telling you you must vote Obama no matter what? If you are referring to the general election, then yes, I'm sorry if it bothers you, but my convictions force me to argue that you have a responsibility to vote for the democratic nominee whether it is Clinton or Obama. Both of them are the right choice for the lives of American soliders that hang in the balance. McCain will order more of them to die. Both of them are the right choice for the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain will do nothing about the health care crisis. Clinton and Obama may not do enough, but they will do better. Both of them are the right choice to protect what little shred of justice we have left in this country. McCain will complete the total take over the United States Supreme Court. Both Clinton and Obama will ensure that does not happen.

If you haven't cast your vote yet in this primary process, and as long as two candidates remain in the race, then you should be all means vote for the one that you believe would make the best choice for President. It sounds like you believe that would be Clinton. You should vote for her, and no one should try to take that right away from you.

As far as your youth characterizations go, that's nothing more than an anecdotal stereotype. Like it or not, Obama is now winning support across the majority of demographics, including women - not just youth. What I find offensive is that while you bemoan illegtimate attacks on Clinton (as well you should) you engage in prejudicial talk about young adults. It's ageist every bit as much as prejudicial talk about older voters would be.

You're right, there have been ugly misogynist comments here by a small minority of people - many of whome have already been tombstoned as disrupters. And those are to be condemned, and when I see them - I do. However there have also been overty racist attacks here by a small minority of people. And there have been other examples of viscious, extremist attacks on both Clinton and Obama by a small minority of people. It is all to be condemned. But neither who nor I really have a leg to stand on in claiming that our candidates have been especially "victimized" while the other candidate has not been. It simply isn't true.

I've been supporting Democratic candidates in one way or another since the 1980's. I know what can be done and what cannot. I know the difference between substantial change and polish. For this knowledge I am accused by people with a lot less experience than me of being blindly loyal (despite having favored just about every other candidate until they dropped out) or insane.

I've been supporting democratic candidates for just as long, and run a statewide campaign and be a community organizer - I know the difference between substantial change and polish too. And yet, we still disagree. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that reasonable people can and do disagree without either one of them being stupid or ignorant. I know just as much as you do, and I have as much experience as you do, and I've come to a different conclusion about what the next best steps are for the country than you have. That's just how it works.

Next you write this:

That especially hurts because the charge of insanity has been used by those in power to discredit their critics without any need for violence.

And later this:

The presidency is no place for amateurs and personality cults are dangerous.

See any irony here? The charge of insanity hurts you, yet within a breath you make the same kind of accusations about Obama and his supporters... cults, ameteur...earlier you imply that his support is because of young people to blind or stupid to know what's good for them....

It all boils down to this. The Democratic Party cannot take me for granted or others who value stability and rationality over of the need to be inspired, whatever that means.

"stability" is code for the status quo. The status quo has failed this country spectacularly for decades. You also just called Obama supporters irrational. I value rationality too. There are rational people supporting both candidates.

I don't know what else to say. You're post basically says "I'm tired of being insulted" and does so by insulting other people. What do you do with that? :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

135. I have substantive disagreements with your arguments.

...bitch and moan about how they were being taken for granted. There was outrage about the Democrats being in bed with corporations and indignant threats no stay home or vote for Nader if the party did not start paying attention to the self-described progressive extreme. This happened in the 2000 election cycle and again in 2004. They weren't happy with Gore or Kerry. And many made good on their promise, enough to blow the 2000 election. I'll bet Gore looks pretty good to them right about now.

I take issue with your sweeping generalization about "the left of the party." The people you refer to who stayed home or voted for Nader constitute a statistically small minority of people - and certainly represent a tiny subjection of Democratic Party members who value the virtues of liberalism and lament the convergence of corporations and politics and its influence in Washington politics across both sides of the isle.

Those of us who are committed to leftist ideals all differ greatly in how we believe those ideals should be acheived. Some are very rigid and believe in all-or-nothing approaches. Many of them have already left the party for not being "pure" enough. Some believe that change can be achieved from within, but believe it will be a slow, evolutionary process full of imperfect, flawed players. Of that group, some have chosen to support Obama this year and some have chosen to support Clinton. I'm not going to quibble over how many have chosen either path.

So now it's 2008 and I am being told that I must support Obama no matter what. Mostly young voters are enraged and irrationally accuse HC of treachery and every other vice one can imagine. It is not just disagreement, but a demanding sense of entitlement that I am afraid that many 20-somethings feel. How dare I try to take this away from them. Especially galling is the overtly misogynistic manner in which Clinton's character is being assassinated.

Who exactly is telling you you must vote Obama no matter what? If you are referring to the general election, then yes, I'm sorry if it bothers you, but my convictions force me to argue that you have a responsibility to vote for the democratic nominee whether it is Clinton or Obama. Both of them are the right choice for the lives of American soliders that hang in the balance. McCain will order more of them to die. Both of them are the right choice for the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain will do nothing about the health care crisis. Clinton and Obama may not do enough, but they will do better. Both of them are the right choice to protect what little shred of justice we have left in this country. McCain will complete the total take over the United States Supreme Court. Both Clinton and Obama will ensure that does not happen.

If you haven't cast your vote yet in this primary process, and as long as two candidates remain in the race, then you should be all means vote for the one that you believe would make the best choice for President. It sounds like you believe that would be Clinton. You should vote for her, and no one should try to take that right away from you.

As far as your youth characterizations go, that's nothing more than an anecdotal stereotype. Like it or not, Obama is now winning support across the majority of demographics, including women - not just youth. What I find offensive is that while you bemoan illegtimate attacks on Clinton (as well you should) you engage in prejudicial talk about young adults. It's ageist every bit as much as prejudicial talk about older voters would be.

You're right, there have been ugly misogynist comments here by a small minority of people - many of whome have already been tombstoned as disrupters. And those are to be condemned, and when I see them - I do. However there have also been overty racist attacks here by a small minority of people. And there have been other examples of viscious, extremist attacks on both Clinton and Obama by a small minority of people. It is all to be condemned. But neither who nor I really have a leg to stand on in claiming that our candidates have been especially "victimized" while the other candidate has not been. It simply isn't true.

I've been supporting Democratic candidates in one way or another since the 1980's. I know what can be done and what cannot. I know the difference between substantial change and polish. For this knowledge I am accused by people with a lot less experience than me of being blindly loyal (despite having favored just about every other candidate until they dropped out) or insane.

I've been supporting democratic candidates for just as long, and run a statewide campaign and be a community organizer - I know the difference between substantial change and polish too. And yet, we still disagree. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that reasonable people can and do disagree without either one of them being stupid or ignorant. I know just as much as you do, and I have as much experience as you do, and I've come to a different conclusion about what the next best steps are for the country than you have. That's just how it works.

Next you write this:

That especially hurts because the charge of insanity has been used by those in power to discredit their critics without any need for violence.

And later this:

The presidency is no place for amateurs and personality cults are dangerous.

See any irony here? The charge of insanity hurts you, yet within a breath you make the same kind of accusations about Obama and his supporters... cults, ameteur...earlier you imply that his support is because of young people to blind or stupid to know what's good for them....

It all boils down to this. The Democratic Party cannot take me for granted or others who value stability and rationality over of the need to be inspired, whatever that means.

"stability" is code for the status quo. The status quo has failed this country spectacularly for decades. You also just called Obama supporters irrational. I value rationality too. There are rational people supporting both candidates.

I don't know what else to say. You're post basically says "I'm tired of being insulted" and does so by insulting other people. What do you do with that? :shrug:

[druidity33]

306. yes, yes, YES! Thank you!

And though i'm sure it was a mistake, your post deserves a double look! I was debating whether to take the time to craft a response to the OP... figured i'd keep reading before i replied. Glad i did! You summed my thoughts better than i could have.

which is weird...

nonetheless,



:yourock:

[closeupready]

136. Fine, but if McCain appoints some vile person to head

some agency or even a vacancy on the S.Ct., I hope you can sleep knowing that you didn't do everything possible for an Obama GE run.

[surfin]

138. I would rather have an amateur

Remember Bill Clinton and how young he was. He had no experience like Obama with other countries or world issues.

The problem to me and correct me if you can, the experience professionals like Hillary and John have really messed things up and we need to get them out of DC. I hope the Obama movement will move into the states and get out the experience pros that have messed up things and get some young blood in to change things. We really want it in Hawaii and it was amazing to see what Obama did here against the old boys (pros,experienced, Hillary supporters)who lied about him and tried to block him. I think they are very concerned at how he got so many out to vote.

[Deep13]

170. Looks like you're going to get one.

Bill Clinton was a mixed bag and his administration suffered from his early indecisiveness. Of course no one had ever been ambushed like he was after taking office either.

[surfin]

180. Thanks to Hillary

Bill lost the dem congress because of her and some of the people she recommended for positions really hurt him.

I would rather have a new guy with fresh ideas then the old do not work way of experience.

My concern for Obama is that he will get in there like the repubs that took over congress and become like the old experience leaders. I hope Obama will lead by going into states and root out the old and bring in the new to the party. Love him to do it in Hawaii as he really brought out the voters against the experience old guys.

I also find it funny that the top advisers to Hillary cannot tell anything she has done to answer the 3 am called but to say wait a minute, I will get Bill.

[Deep13]

181. I really don't know about that.

The health care thing and Lani Guennier (sp?) didn't help. The gays-in-the-military thing made him look like a social radical. The biggest thing though was the tax hike which was necessary and helped bring about the prosperity of the 1990's. Also the Congressional check scandal made a lot of senior D.s look like idiots at best and thieves at worst. I lived on Cleveland's west side then and our Congresswoman, Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH), lost her seat probably because of the check scandal. Four years later, Kucinich was elected to that district, defeating the R. who defeated Oakar. Of course that scandal had nothing to do with the Clintons. Also, in '94 the R's figured out that Congressional elections should be national campaigns and not strictly local.

Yeah, I don't know who was calling her at 3:00 a.m. either. I suppose it may be some secret diplomatic thing, but then why bring it up?

[Melinda]

139. Cool, you voted for a Bush enabler... well done progressive democrat!!

:thumbsdown:

[Deep13]

144. I'll mark your post as Exhibit A. nt

[Melinda]

169. Because I don't support Clinton? I didn't vote BO either. What a nonsense response.

But, whatever floats your boat. Don't try to engage me as to why I responded as I did... just assume.

All that effort in your opening paragraph and then .... this.

Well done, voter.

[nonconformist]

158. And Obama isn't a Bush enabler?

Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4825736

[Melinda]

165. Did the OP vote for Obama?

[mdmc]

148. We are all republicans now

as Garrison Keillor used to say.

At least Nader hasn't given up...

[fascisthunter]

154. I Haven't Seen the "Right WIng" of This Party Do Anything But Capitulate

enable and protect the Bush Administration from accountability. Interesting excuses this "Right Wing" of the party comes up with too. They are what's in the way of pulling out of Iraq, as well as putting an end to NAFTA, CAFTA, tax breaks for the rich, eves-dropping, and what ever little part of the New World Order these neo-con psychopaths have been feeding them all. But what I do know, is that the "Right-Wing" of the Democratic Party has helped Bush get every god damned thing he wanted. Interesting consistency.

So before you decide to get on another virtual soap box and decide to fling shit at the "Left WIng" of the Democratic Party, know WE resemble those that championed civil rights, fed the poor, and wanted nothing more than what is fair for the majority economically rather than let you have a class caste system where only the wealthy can dictate what's right for America.

[kenfrequed]

326. I agree!

We also opposed the Bush administration early and often, while most of the conservative Democrats were lining up behind the imbecile occupant of the white house in his phoney war on terror.

[Arugula Latte]

155. Are you kidding? The sense of entitlement is all coming from Hillary.

She's been acting like she thinks she should just be handed the nomination.

[Deep13]

160. I've seen no evidence of that.

She was taken by surprise to be sure and she certainly underestimated O. Still, I am refering to the outrage that O's fans put out over ordinary political criticism.

[nonconformist]

156. I'm only 34, but I grew up in politics and you speak for me. Great post! nt

[nomorewhopper]

164. thanks for voting hillary, but get ready for an obama nomination

and don't confuse an internet message board with "real life".

making decisions based on internet message boards is really something to be avoided at all costs. if you are new to the internet, or don't know how it works, basically every single message board from the "My Little Pony Fansite" to the "Democratic Underground" is filled with vitriol.

[Radical Activist]

172. "Yes we can" is not lifted from a children's book.

It's lifted from Cesar Chavez. That statements makes you look a lot more ignorant about politics than you think you are. Can you really be surprised when you get hostile reactions from Obama supporters when you make condescending, insulting and ignorant statements like that?

Naive is still allowing yourself to fall for lies from the Clintons 16 years after they first started lying to us. Bill Clinton told us in '92 that he wouldn't sign NAFTA without making changes first. That was a lie, and now we're supposed to believe Hillary was secretly opposed to it all along but we have no evidence of it. And you think Obama supporters are the irrational ones following a cult of personality? Look in the mirror.

[Deep13]

184. Sounds an awful lot like The Little Train that Could.

And the hostile reactions started with the O. supporters.

Don't fucking tell me to look in the mirror, fool. I suppose you think reading about Chavez and putting a Che avatar up makes you some kind of goddamn revolutionary. What the fuck were you doing when Bill clinton was trying to undo the damage of 12 years of Reaganism? And frankly, considering how the USA has shit on Latin America for the last century or so in the name of cheap oil, bananas and sugar, allowing Mexico to share the wealth in some small measure is a very small price to pay. In fifty years when they have a large middle-class, NAFTA will seem like a great idea. Why is it okay to allow millions of migrant works, legal and illegal, to be here to work for peanuts, but it is not okay to bring the work to them in their own country? Most of those jobs were leaving with or without NAFTA.

[Radical Activist]

185. Wow

You actually care about what happens to workers in Latin American and you're voting for Clinton? I guess you don't know much about Clinton's policies there. Maybe you don't know much about why working people in LA countries oppose neoliberal trade policies or how NAFTA hurts them as well. If you think NAFTA was ever designed to create a middle class in LA or that it ever will then you're the one being fooled.
15 years later and people in LA are worse off than they were before. You think you're smarter than Obama supporters but you're just more arrogant.

[Recursion]

187. ROTFLMAO. Destroying Mexican agriculture = "Share the wealth"?

We have nearly destroyed Mexican agriculture with our corporate-tilted trade policies. "Share the wealth" my ass.

[AlphaCentauri]

191. immigration has increase due to the "share the wealth" methodology n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

190. there are no evidents that a middle class is growing in Mexico

50 year ago they been toll the same thing, 'do things this way and wait for the results' latin americans are waiting for the results while their natural resources start to decline.

[Selatius]

204. Your ignorance of NAFTA's effects on Mexican farmers and the poor is painful.

If anything, the gap in wealth down there has grown even worse since the passage of NAFTA, and wages down there have stagnated. I'm not picking a fight with you, but the evidence indicates contrary to your assertion that it's not helping Mexico.

[ExPatLeftist]

333. You are very presumptive

And insulting. Do you know anything about the person you are posting about?

On the other hand, I can tell you that you do not know much about what is going on in Latin America, at least on the ground. I cannot believe that anyone that has experienced some of the situations and been involved with actual revolutionaries fighting for a just cause would ever talk about this issue the way you do. NAFTA is destroying the lives of uncounted families, and you are very flippant about it. Yes, the US has shat on Latin America for a long time, in many more ways than you name. And if there is a "price to pay" for that (if such a price could exist for what the US has put that region through), then that price is certainly not to rape them yet again. Which is what NAFTA does.

Now go into your attack mode, if logic will not suffice (or is not available), and make some assumptions about me. Dare ya.

[hfojvt]

183. as long as you are blaming the left wing for Bush in 2000

why don't you blame the right wing of the party for Reagan in 1980?

Since all else is not equal, I think that the resume doesn't mean that much. Also Obama's trumps Hillary's in many respects anyway. One of them has "opposed the Iraq war" and the other has "supported the Iraq war", and so on.

Also, that we have gotten our a$$es kicked since 1972 is kinda ridiculous.
1972- loss
1976 - win
1980 - loss
1984 - loss
1988 - loss
1992 - win
1996 - win
2000 - win (stolen electorally, but still a popular vote win)

so 4 wins and 5 losses does not make for the world's worst team by any stretch unless you just wanna complain about everything. To say that we did not win much even when we won seems true to me, but I take that as a reflection on the quality of our candidate in 1992, which is one of the main reasons why I don't support his spouse.

[Bucky]

186. This is your argument for voting for Douglas over Lincoln, right?

No, wait, it's your argument for voting for Johnson over Kennedy. kthxbai

[LulaMay]

188. 'Our' party can't take me for granted either, and they're foolish to do so.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

189. Didn't you call the Dalai Lama a "tyrant" at one point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6829675&mesg_id=6829675

[Downtown Hound]

194. Ha! That was him?

I remember that thread. One of the most ridiculous threads ever in the history of DU, and that's saying something. So Deep13, let me get this straight, the Dalai Lama is a tyrant but Hillary is just a poor misunderstood woman who's the victim of a relentless barrage of sexist assaults and Obama supporters are a cult of personality? Me thinks your ability to think clearly is somewhat....hampered.

[Hissyspit]

200. This is a pretty ridiculous thread, too. n/t

[CANDO]

193. If Billary gets the nomination....

say hello to four more years of McBush. They will savage her. Obama is our only chance. And you can take that to the bank.

[Yes We Did]

202. I think they would rather have four years of McCain, then 8 of Obama.

That way Hillary can try it again in '12.

That is the plan right? Hillary or bust? Who cares about the party as long as Hillary wins, or at least gets another crack at it.

[Alcibiades]

273. I think you have something there

It's the piss on the floor and leave wing of the party.

[femrap]

196. K and R

I voted today as well....took my 79 year-old neighbor with me...And we voted on PAPER!!!!

I agree with your post...the cultists think he walks on water. I don't see how he can beat McCain.

Hey, don't leave....us adults can stay and talk!!! We don't have to pay attention to those that are hypnotized. My Ignore List is long and growing longer.

I'm heading over to HRC's Party in Columbus!! I'll drink one for you, OK?:toast: :party: :toast: :party: :beer: :yourock: :patriot:

[emilyg]

260. Have one for me!!!

[femrap]

269. OK!

:beer:

[barack the house]

207. It's only your future, and how America is in tatters, sulking about...

about the candidate got America into a great big hole it is in. We'd of beat them for 20 years otherwise. I, myself, despite all the the unfortunate trajectory of her campaign will support HRC if the nominee . As it is better to dance with a partner you may not want than not to dance at all.

[meow mix]

209. the "establishment" candidate (like hillary) always win. not this time.... so sit down.

this time our populist is kicking the old guards ass.

[Roland99]

210. Cult? You mean like Democratic Leadership Cult?

The Corporation Cult.

[stevenleser]

213. Cult again, OK

:eyes: :puke:

[Andromeda]

214. You sound pretty reasonable to me.

Nobody likes bullies and the best way to stand up to them is to do what you think is best and if somebody doesn't like it---too bad for them.

The Democratic party is in deep trouble because of in-fighting, mismanagement and rivalries between leaders. We have the most complicated primaries and I don't, for the life of me, understand why the party has made it so difficult for voters by having caucuses in some states and straight voting in others. Caucuses aren't even democratic because there are some voters who can't participate because of transportation and other issues. And who thought of spliting the delegates in each state? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Then there's the redistricting that has added to the confusion.

Voting in the Democratic primaries has been made so cumbersome it just has to discourage a lot of voters.

Stick to your guns and do what you think is right.

[katty]

215. a voice of sanity, thanks-I've had enough of the bush-cult

presidency.

[Iceburg]

216. A thouthtful, heart felt and reasoned OP - K&R/nt

[bobbolink]

219. It's the "bitching and moaning" of the left that has gotten YOU many advantages that weren't

there before.

So, go to the right, if you think that is so very much better.

:crazy:

[uberblonde]

220. Amen.

I'm so disgusted, I don't even want to vote.

[Generator]

221. Yeah it's the "left wing" aka the moonbats, weirdos hippies and FREAKS

that have ruined, absolutely ruined the Democratic party and America.


It couldn't be anything to do with the Democratic pray trying to be the old Republican party, triangulation and Mark Penn's genius.

No it's the fucking freaks that want things like no wars and people to have rights.

Thanks for your support. The "third wave" party loves youi!! It's freaks like me they want dead but instead I'll just never vote for them again. Sorry if that bugs you. No votes without representation. Oh and Hillary is partly responsible for Gore losing in the first place. It's always been about HER and about the Clinton's. The Bush admin didn't come from nothing. Read some history.

[Barrymores Ghost]

224. Mmmmmmm......Buh-Bye!

[BlueJac]

227. Just concede and quit tearing the party apart.......

Time to go golfing. Oh yeah, wake the fuckup when you are golf.

[ulysses]

228. "I know what can be done and what cannot."

Well goddamn, it's a good thing you're here. It'll save me a lot of time having to think for myself.

[sendero]

230. Nice try..

... now if HRC were actually more progressive than neocon-lite, you'd have a point.

[BlueEyedSon]

232. Quit your whining. The left of the party was Kucinich.... *maybe* Edwards

Clinton and Obama have virtually identical voting records. Wise up and shut up.
You owe us nothing, we owe you nothing and lets keep it that way.

By the way, Gore did win.

[defendandprotect]

247. Exactly . . . !!!

And, unfortunately, I think it's imperative to get across to those on this board that GORE
DID WIN . . .

What they believe about 2000 is very damaging to them ---
and the anger and rage their misguided conclusions cause -- and here with this post you can
see he's spilling it all over on "progressives" !!!! --- is also harming their ability to
see clearly!!!


Keep at it!!!

[a la izquierda]

316. Right on...

the only people who consider Obama a leftist are republicans.

[Martin Eden]

233. You're a very reasonable person, but somewhat thin-skinned.

You've let yourself be offended by Obama supporters on this board, and it has soured you on the candidate, on his campaign, and on politics in general.

Say what you will about the Obama supporters whose intolerance and vitriol towards Hillary and her supporters is embarrassingly on display here. I won't disagree with you on that score.

I'll go a step further and say that they obviously do not understand the central message of Obama's campaign, which is to put aside the bitter divisiveness and work together on the substantial ground that is common to all Americans.

Democrats share an enormous acreage of common ground with each other, but you'd never think it when reading many of the posts in this forum.

But please, stop and think for a minute. Any idiot can post on the internet, and often does. Letting people with poor judgement affect your judgement is understandable on an emotional level, but not very rational. Obama (any candidate, for that matter) must be judged on his/her own merits.

You have explained that you rationally evaluated the two remaining Democratic candidates and concluded that Hillary Clinton is the better choice. Although I disagree with that conclusion, I respect it.

I won't try to change your mind in this post, but I will encourage you to rethink your attitude toward politics that has been so negatively affected in this forum. Nothing has changed, really. The issues are just as important. The people in this country -- still especiallly the children -- deserve a better future. It is just as essential as ever that a Democrat wins the White House, and the chances of that happening are diminished when good people are turned off by fools who are hurting their own cause.

Grow some skin, and get back into the thick of things.

[defendandprotect]

234. The very premise of your article is incorrect . . .

Evidently you're still smarting and misguidedly angry with the progressives in the Democratic Party
because you're blaming them for voting for Nader? Same ole crap which is untrue.

Somewhere we are going to have to get heads straightened out here about GORE HAVING WON THE ELECTION IN 2000 ---
and the fact that Nader had nothing to do with the corporate-media calling it for Bush,
nor the fascist rallies for Bush which stopped the vote counting in Miami-Dade County ORDERED by
the Florida State Supreme Court--!!!
Nor did Nader have anything to do with the US Supreme Court's decision to give the presidency to Bush.
And here's AL FROM telling you this ---

According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race and talked about issues people cared about - adding more to Gore’s total than he took away.
“The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”

ADDITIONALLY . . .

More registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.
******************************************************************

OK . . . so let that information run thru your brain and try to work out what the Democrats have done since 2000 to protect you from vote steals such as these?


I'll respond to the rest of your complaints in another post ---


PS: Nor, of course, did Nader have anything to do with Kerry's loss, which you might
like to explain to us.

But, again, until we get this crap about Nader and progressives understood, there isn't going
to be much here at any level higher than rage and anger which is going to be understood.
Lots of people don't want to see the reality of the 2000 coup -- or the 2004 coup --
but they happened --- and you're not going to be able to make better decisions until you face
and understand those facts. The time is now to do so.

[Wetzelbill]

235. HRC has a cultish following too

I watched it both ways. It's a weird phenomenon. HRC supporters like to call Obama supporters cultish, but I see similar behavior. It may not be as widespread but there is enough of it. Now some might just be anti-Obama, which is a cult within itself, but it does exist among her supporters. I'd say the Obama following is worse, they often don't do each other or their candidate any favors, but both sides are flat out sickening and embarrassing at times. The insistence that Hillary has a vast resume is the most cultish behavior her people cling to, because she really doesn't.

She's been much more expedient and amateurish than he has while campaigning, and he's been much more active and professional in the senate than her too. Hillary has basically had 8 years in the senate, 6 of which she was in the minority and never did much, and about two more where she's essentially ran for president. Her time as First Lady, that's all overblown, his time as a community organizer and state legislator is very beneficial, especially in developing actual governing and legislative skills. Her experience is beneficial, but more in the way of being a nationally and worldwide known figure. I don't think I'd be voting for Laura Bush because she was First Lady for 8 years, and although Hillary is more ambitious than her, if you think that her experience as FL counts all that much more than Laura Bush's you would be wrong. Her biggest initiative during that time was her health care proposal, and that was a disaster. She was secretive and created a weak plan that nobody even liked. If that is somebody's idea of experience and professionalism and an example of somebody who knows their way around Washington, well, good luck with that. And she's not really any different, just look at her Iraq war vote or her vote against Iran's Revolutionary guard. HRC supporters sometimes like to pretend they are all rational and fighting against some dreamy fluffy insurgent with crazed supporters, but they are just as blind as Obama's wildest supporters. The biggest difference is they like to pretend they are better than them.

But they're not.

[Ken Burch]

236. Fine. Obviously, you hate the party, you are basically a Republican

And you despise youth, hope, and enthusiasm.

Why on Earth do you think a boring candidate who inspires no passion could ever win? Or could be distinguishable from Republican if elected?

You were clearly never really a Democrat if you have this much hatred for the only people who do the hard day-to-day work of keeping it alive(work "moderates" NEVER do).

In 1972, Scoop Jackson would've got creamed by Nixon too. And he woulda lost to Ford in '76 AND to Reagan, AND YOU KNOW IT. And even if he had won, he'd have governed as a Republican. Nobody who still backed the war in '72 still disagreed with Republicans on anything.

[IdClaire]

239. right on Deep13

I'm glad you went out and voted and look at the results! Its too soon to call for OH but its looking good for Hillary!

[MaraJade]

240. How wonderful to hear yet another voice of reason. . .

Thank you for posting this. It so typifies how so many of us feel. Hope and idealism are nice, but
with the current state of things in this nation, we need rationality and maturity more.

:Bounce:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

244. REASON?

Give me a break.

Is that what you think of someone who
--characterizes the left's demands as 'bitches and moans'
--characterizes the young as 'enraged and irrational'
--who values 'stability and rationality over the need to be inspired'
--who says the White House is 'no place for amateurs and personality cults'

There is no reason there.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

241. Pathetic

--the left 'bitches and moans'
--the young 'enraged and irrational'
--value 'stability and rationality over the need to be inspired'
--'no place for amateurs and personality cults'


There's only ONE word for your thinking: PATHETIC. I mean really........... please read your words again. Is that really what you think of Obama?

You know two months ago, when I actually supported Clinton, I wouldn't have given your post much thought one way or the other, but when I read it, I really want to get out of my home and work a precinct for Obama.... not just vote for him.

NO RANTING IN YOUR POST............. :sarcasm: :rant: :sarcasm: :rant: :sarcasm: :rant:

[BearSquirrel2]

242. I agree ...

I agree the Clinton personality cult must go!!!!

[Hissyspit]

243. For the past eight years, I've been listening to the left wing of this party...

and they've pretty much been right about most everything.

Wow, are you taking away all the wrong lessons.

[defendandprotect]

248. I agree ---

I can only presume that he supports the corporate-sponsored DLC --- ???

[defendandprotect]

245. We've had stolen elections with no appropriate response by the Democratic Party ---

I think we have to understand that much of this desire to get things tied up with a bow hurts the Democrats and hurts our opportunity to find viable candidates.

The rush to crown a candidate is a mistake --- !!

The fact that we've lost the wisdom and contributions of Kucinich and Edwards --- which many here couldn't wait to have happen! --- is really sad; and the saddest part is that so few here understand this. How often do we hear complaints that the "free press" concentrates on the RACE
and not on the issues. Well, here at DU, it's been about the RACE ---

As for the young's enthusiasm for Obama --- I can well understand that --
just as I can very easily understand the excitement of many for a female candidate ---
AND for the sensitivity of BOTH candidates given the new ground they walk as former
"minorities" running for our highest office.

Certainly you don't think you are alone here in having your political comments dismissed?
As I continue to recite, neither Clinton nor Obama support single payer health care ---
Clinton is part of DLC-corporate sponsored leadership.
Obama is describing Social Security as in "crisis" which is the right wing propaganda of the last twenty years!
Obama finds nothing impeachable in Bush/Cheney conduct --- !!!
Too often here the response is dead silence ---
Well, that is also a reply which we well understand.

It all boils down to this. The Democratic Party cannot take me for granted

Well, that looks as though you are making the same decision that you've complained progressives made --- the decision that they "can't be taken for granted."

Let me make clear that I think we have two candidates who are much less than we deserve ...
and many of us --- like you -- are here trying to find some way to support these candidates.

I also agree with you that "there isn't much of a party left to support."
However, you interpret this as the Democrats having lost fairly; I interpret it as one steal
after another. After all, we have had the computers in play since the mid-1960's.
See: Votescam, The Stealing of America *
I also agree with you that the party is in a downward spirial as far as talent and vision --
but that seems quite easily traceable to corporate influence.
And I wouldn't sell visionaries and dreamers short!

DU is, in general, a highly controlled board ---
We've had the primary stuff separated out so that those who thought it was too aggressive
don't have to read it. Is there an attempt to "bully" here?
Yeah --- I've seen some of it. They're jerks. Why not just accept that?

In ending this, I want to make clear that, IMO, our problems are with --

STOLEN ELECTIONS WITH NO APPROPRIATE RESPONSE BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
and the Democratic Party being infiltrated by corporate influence.
From the highest perspective --- the problem is corporate-fascism.

Needless to say, we can do nothing to honestly respond to Global Warming which is the greatest
threat to humanity and our planet, nor to our collapsing economic situation, nor to ending the
war in Iraq until we end this corporate influence over both parties.


http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
Jim and Ken Collier were two journalists who wanted a story on elections and they decided that
one of them should run for office. They became suspicious of computer voting during that race
and began investigating. They wrote a book in 1972 which was suppressed.
However, you can read the book or scan it at the website which their family keeps going.

[russian33]

246. beautiful!

k&R

[Sarah Ibarruri]

249. The bottom line is that we must vote Dem.

The horrors that have befallen this country began with Reagan, and continued on through. Yes, there was a respite during Clinton's 2 terms, but he was a man in love with something that ultimately was our undoing: trade agreements. Our middle class gets more impoverished by the day because of trade agreements resulting in jobs disappearing more and more from our country, and I don't know if there is even a solution. Could Clinton have done something to try and stop trade agreements? Of course he could've but he liked and likes trade agreements. So does his wife. She was not a mousy wife like Laura Bush. She was active and involved and an adviser to him. But I digress.

Now our country is a frikkin' mess, and we're arguing here because someone who is very very smart, and is very very motivating, has caught the heart and interests of the young. If this were some hoodlum, or some Repuke, I'd be pissed, but it's not. It's a brilliant Democrat who also happens to have the gift of being able to mobilize a nation. Not many possess that.

I'm not telling you to support Obama. The purpose of the primaries is for Democrats to vote for the candidate they PREFER and whoever gets more votes/delegates, runs for president. You like Hillary. I like Obama. There's nothing wrong with that. Why would you think there is? It scares the hell out of me that you think there's something wrong with people running against each other in a primary. WTF? Sure people might be a little bit more agitated because they have a near-illiterate pig in the White House who keeps evil geniuses around to advise him on how to do ever more evil. We're all a bit on edge because we want to get rid of these monsters. But why on earth should Democratic candidates NOT run against each other in the primaries? That is the purpose! And yes, the candidates do attack one another. This isn't some kind of kindergarten class!

Yes, on the misogynistic comments from the media, or even the sexist way she's held to higher standards. You perhaps didn't realize how sexist this country is. Even before any of this began, I was already telling people that H. Clinton should NOT run for office, that this country was far far from ready for a female president. But she's ambitious. I'm ambitious. Why shouldn't a woman be ambitious? However, this country is sexist, regardless of how ambitious women are, and women will continue to be held to higher standards and be thrashed around for the least little thing.

I shudder to think what Hillary Clinton might have or might have had to endure from the Repukes. Repukes are a million times more sexist than the general population.

[emilyg]

250. Bravo!.

[Zhade]

251. You need a diaper change.

Fucking whiners.

[riqster]

253. I am a Kucinich backer

...who voted for HRC this morning. BHO is a good man, but his lack of experience keeps showing up-dissing gays, plaigarizing, etc.

I don't much care for either one, but I think Hillary can open up a much bigger can of whoop-ass on McCain. She's a nasty shark lawyer, and we need somebody mean to win in November.

[ekwhite]

256. So that's it?

I have been a Democrat since 1972. I am sorry you feel you have been insulted. You certainly have the right to vote for Senator Clinton and to support her here and elsewhere. I can't share your positive feelings about her, but I respect your opinion nonetheless. Consider this, though - if John McCain wins, we will have four more years just like the eight years we are leaving behind. I don't honestly know if this country can take four more years.

The sad thing about this is I have just finished posting a similar comment to a thread started by an Obama supporter who feels the same about the Clinton supporters as you do about the Obama supporters. This thing is tearing this board apart, at least. From what I read on other boards, it may be doing the same thing to the party. If this continues, we may usher in another 4 years of Republican rule.

[NewHampshireDem]

258. So, basically what you are saying ...

Is that if HRC wins, the adults are back in charge.

Now where have I heard that before ... :?

I was going to say 'If we lose in November, we'll have DINO's like you to blame." But, you know what, hold your nose, stay home, or move to Canada--it won't matter. We'll win no matter what. But, thanks for helping me fill my ignore list.

[Voltaire99]

259. Scratch another Bush-lite Clintonista! Glad to lose you, my friend.

"This is how I feel about it and I won't be stifled."

No, you must not be stifled, not for a moment.

Not when the lamentation of all you Bush-lite "pragmatists" is music to my ears!

Your politics of surrender has kept the party in the gloom of Clintonism for two decades. Now we're moving on. With -- or as in your case -- without you.

"I owe this party nothing. I owe all of you nothing."

Indeed, after your amusing little histrionics here, we'll consider it a debt paid.

[Barrymores Ghost]

353. Beautiful! In as few words as necessary...

...you said all that needed to be said to this pathetic, disingenuous, quivering mass of neoCon-lite offal.

Bravo.

[guyanakoolaid]

261. Yet MORE baseless crap from Clinton supporters...

How many threads must there be decrying the words of a few supporters of the Democratic opponent? This crap about what you've "seen", what some kid supporting Obama told you, and you Clinton supporters are basing so much anger on it. I have seen twenty times as many posts decrying misogyny as I have any actual misogyny. I see Clinton supporters "aghast" at the attacks on Clinton from Obama supporters, somehow deluding themselves enough to believe Hillary (herself, not "supporters") isn't the one who has gone negative repeatedly, in the face of nothing but class from Obama. Of course Obama supporters are going to be outraged for him, it is their right. Frankly, we progressives don't care what you centrists are tired of hearing. We're tired of seeing you voting our country into neocon-created wars, refusing to go after blatant criminals within our own government, and allowing the continuation of the old lobbyist and money-driven politics that have gotten us where we are today. You centrists have gone along lock, step, and barrel. Nothing Hillary Clinton does can ever take away her voting for war with Iraq and the resolution leading to war with Iran, these are not the actions of someone with world vision or leadership skills. I'm sorry I strayed into the issues, I know how much you Clinton supporters like to make this personal.

[boppers]

264. 16 years of marginalization is enough.

I don't want the next 16 looking anything like the last 16, I'm tired of Wal-Mart politics, and Wal-Mart politicians.

[izzybeans]

265. You vote for a brand

on name recognition nothing else.

Resume my ass.

[Jamastiene]

267. Kick.Ass.Post.

:yourock:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[MilesColtrane]

268. Just like the Hippocratic oath, voters should vow first to do no harm.

Sitting out the general election because you don't like the Democratic candidate, or voting for a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, does harm.

While either option may make you feel good it doesn't do a damn thing towards improving the state of the country.

[MCMetal]

270. Before you criticize others

Take a long , hard look at whom it is you foolishly support.

You want to try and bash Obama supporters as being somewhat "over-the-top" ; well what the hell is with Hillary stupidly claiming that McInsane is even better "equipped" to become "Commander In Chief" on Day 1 ?

That's "party unity" to you ?

If anything , I say it simply reveals Hillary's true nature ; that it's all about her 1st and 2nd , and the hell with everyone and everything else if things don't start going her way.

She's the female version of the retarded simian currently fouling and occupying the Oval Office.

Stay home on Election Day if it's that difficult a decision or process for you to have to deal with ; you are simply not needed......

[kelligesq]

274. Deep 13 - Ditto. Well said.

[question everything]

275. I don't have a problem with people supporting Obama

or any other candidates.

The problem on DU is that it is not enough for the Obama supporters to stand by him and to praise him and to delight in his winning. No, they have to squash the Clinton supporters. There are vey few threads here about the issues. It is about Clinton's hair, and makeup. and whether or not she use Botox and about how she is "not" a Democrat. She has been an active liberal when Obama was till dreaming about Superman, or something. She was an active loyal Democrat while the Republican party switched from the honorable party of Goldwater and Buckley to the one of rabid Newt and Trent Lott and DeLay.

And she is not a Democrat?

She has been getting the votes of the Democrats even in states that she lost. Obama is where he is today thanks to Republicans and Independent and she is "not" the Democrat?

[Connonym]

276. God knows there's no cult of Clinton personality

Out of all the pool of potential presidents in the entire country do we really have to keep choosing from the same 2 families? Might as well go back to a fucking monarchy while we're at it.

[LulaMay]

278. WOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!!!! GO HILLARY

[Missouri Blue]

279. Please calm down and don't take anything personally.

In a year where we have more massive participation than ever before, there's bound to be friction. Yes, voters for Nader handed Bush a victory. But there are far more people activated now than those who voted for Nader. People who thought politics was too dirty for them are now energized. Yes, there's going to be idealism and naiveté. There's going to be some arrogance as those who saw politics as dirty really think they've found something new.

Personally, I think the best we could do at this point is keep ourselves patient and send a message to the leadership of the party. Because we have the people who could win the election, but it's up to the leadership to work out the differences. That's the message everybody should send.

[crimsonblue]

280. Obama has burnt bridges? Any proof besides "anecdotes"?

Because anecdotes are absolutely freaking worthless. If that's all ya got, then ya really got nothing. How is Obama an amateur? He has been in public office LONGER than Hillary, not to mention the fact that Hillary did NOTHING of real substance as first lady (besides screwing up bigtime on Healthcare). So I guess you are right, vote experience. The experience Obama has far surpasses Hillary's. I couldn't give a damn who you vote for, because I will never vote for a Clinton (not after Bill tried burning all his bridges vis a vis Monica, not after the "Jesse Jackson" comment, not after Hillary's support of the War of Terror in Iraq). I'd rather throw my vote away to Nader.

[anonymous171]

281. lol Obama...burnt bridges...

Your girl won 3 fucking elections and yet you are ranting? What's up with that?

[happygoluckytoyou]

283. go go GOP...

I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME...

as an EDWARDS democrat, i will NOT be voting this November

my guy didn't win the primary, and I am going home to sulk

I URGE ALL EDWARDS DEMOCRATS NOT TO VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION...
... we didn't win the primary... time to pack it in and quit

i know... it means that those lockstep republicans will win... WHATEVER!!


---- WHAT A PILE OF %(*&)-... "IF MY CANDIDATE DOESN'T WIN I WILL HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE"

NO WONDER THE REPUBLICANS ENJOY WATCHING YOU ALL CRY IN YOUR SOUP...

[sss1977]

284. I just don't understand you Hillary supporters

Seriously, I don't. I just don't get it. I don't have Obama fever. My fever was for Kucinich, and then I'd hoped Edwards would survive. But now we're left with Hillary and Obama, and it should be obvious to anyone that Obama is the more progressive of the two. This whole Hillary/Obama thing spells certain doom for the Dems in the general. It's already too late. Hillary is already claiming a vote for Obama means certain doom to your children at 3am. She's another divider akin to Bush, but not. She will fight to the death to get her way no matter the cost, and in this case, the cost will be preventing the Dems from winning in November. If anyone else were running do you think the party would be as polarized as it is now? It's all completely ridiculous. Politics are a complete joke. It's all just two puppets being controlled by the same puppetmaster, none of it matters anymore. This site used to energize me, now it just shows how pointless everything is. The only vote for Hillary I can understand is from a woman, but even then, why would you vote for her based on her record? I just don't get it. And for those of you voting for her no matter her record, but just because it's longer than Obama's, are you kidding me? And for those of you voting because of her being a Clinton, have you forgotten how many ways that administration fucked up too? I'm throwing up my hands here. You people are hopeless. This country deserves its coming collapse. Why am I even posting this?

[robbedvoter]

297. Why should it be so obvious BO is more progressive? The Nation, Krugman, NY Post

even - agree on the opposite. BO's readiness to privatize SS, public education, Raygun praise, his right turn after the initial good position on IWR, his timid health insurance program - none of it spells "more progressive". What is an axiom to you it's preposterous to me.

[bowens43]

285. The bottom line is that Clinton

is nothing more then a left leaning version of Bush and she will not be president. Although we democrats seem to have a knack for cutting own throats when comes to nominating a candidate for president. Oh well. As we can see from your post, Hillary has managed to con even long time democrats. A power hungry., self serving , fear mongering,, swiftboater has made you believe that she is a viable candidate.

Compared to Bush, McCain won't be that bad.

[Postman]

286. HRC voted FOR the Iraq disaster. 12 Billion a month for a lie.

take your marbles and go home.

Obama's nomination gives a chance for more progressives to takeover Congress by riding in on his coattails...

Hillary is just more of the same. A corporate Democrat. An Eisenhower Republican.


And you're wrong about the 2000 election. Gore lost becuase he didn't challenge the vote count in the entire state of Florida, along with the fascists on the Supreme Court appointing the scumbag to the WH.

[robbedvoter]

298. So did Kerry. Edwards sponsored the IWR. You act like she started the war

for goodness sake. How is she less anti-war than Edwards now? (she clearly stated she'd take back her IWR vote )

[Lena inRI]

287. Yikes! This isn't the Democratic Party I used to know. . .

when you make a self-righteous post like this. . . left wing? Your knowledge of leftist politics is pathetic if you think Barack Obama is a leftist. . .

you're just another hack for Hillary trying to appear as the objective Democrat.

:rofl:

I needed something to make me switch to Independent.

Thanks for being that something, Deep13.

Good riddance to you and the decaying Democratic Party!

[susankh4]

310. Buh-Bye

We'll be strolling down Pennsylvania Ave together come January. Clinton/ Obama. Or Obama/Clinton. No matter.

You can sit it out with Mr. Nader.:nopity:

[Lena inRI]

319. Nah. . .Independent for OBAMA. . .

. . .while Hillary hacks take down

the Republican-lite Democratic Party.

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[susankh4]

327. Right-o!

That makes complete sense.

NOT.

[mysteryman2]

288. Stop crying it will be allright

cheer up it's ok we are here for support. Don't you think we feel bad when the media beats up on hillary and lies on polls to manipulate votes. they said all the major races were neck to neck. the only one close to their statement Texas.

Makes you wonder if they try and brain wash.

[Ganja Ninja]

289. OK whatever.

:wtf: The things that make it to the greatest threads page nowadays. :eyes:

[mattclearing]

291. Disgusting.

You don't have to do anything. No one expects you to. Any Democrat who can't see that Hillary and Obama are both preferable to John McCain is blind.

And Hillary is every bit as much the amateur and personality cult as Obama is. Obama has two more years of legislative experience, and the trend of her losing support the longer the race goes on suggests that her name recognition is her strongest trait.

Her resume as a party activist is strong, but as an elected official, it's not great.

We don't elect presidents based on qualifications anymore, if we did, Bush wouldn't be in office and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Johnnyheadstone]

293. Enough

I am so sick and tired of hearing that I "have to vote for whoever the democratic nominee is or it's like a vote for the rethuglicans" maybe the democratic party should have taken the golden opportunity that they had with this election to give us some better candidates...rather then try to have a "historic" election because the final 2 in the race are both minorities (in a sense) as long as we keep blindly supporting anyone wtih a D behind thier name, regardless of the views they represent we will keep getting stuck with (at best) moderate republicans (such as Clinton and Obama if you look at thier policies) and we will never see a true to the left democrat (Kucinich, to a lesser extent Edwards)and yes that means maybe teaching the democratic party a lesson by staying home and watching them lose what should have been a slam dunk win...or we could all break off, get together and organize a viable 3rd party that actually represents left wing positions...and the more I hear Hillary speak, the more she she sounds like Bush circa 04...case in point I heard her speaking last night (as I was heading out)and she said something to the effect of (not an exact quote, don't flame me) "The most important job of the President is to protect the citizens of the country from attack" um...NO it is to protect and defend the constituton...which is something neither of these 2 has done...

Now that I have that rant out (whew) I'll just remind you of something my dear old grandfather said to me when I was young that always stayed with me....

"If you vote for the lessor of 2 evils, you are still voting for evil"

Give me better candidates with better ideas to earn my vote otherwise I am staying home, and no that is not "whining" or "crying" it's called having a backbone to stand up for what I believe, and what I believe is that neither of these candidates represent true democratic values.

If you don't like that, then kick me off this board and put yourself in a nice little bubble where you only hear what you want to...

Hmmmm......now who does that sound like?

[liberal N proud]

294. We have to hold our nose and vote for who ever the nominee is OR...

we get: 100 years in Iraq and more wars McCain.

[robbedvoter]

295. Proof you're not alone - last night results!

[LWolf]

296. If you feel that way,

then I hope you can at least relate to those voters on the left who won't vote for either of them in the general. You'd think, if those lost votes make such a big impact in the outcome, that the party would consider earning those votes back, rather than trying to bully people into getting in line, or blaming them when they don't.

I am an issues and resume voter, myself. Issues and record on those issues.

[Cherchez la Femme]

305. Wholeheartedly agree!

For the last 8 years (or more) I've heard 'how NICE it would be to have a beer with' the Oaf of Office, and always thought that was one of the absolutely dumbest reasons I've ever heard -- one should vote for a politician based on their character but, and more importantly, issues that impact The People.

And what happens?
Along comes Mr. Obama, with his rainbows and 'change' (how original!) and what draws so many: this gossamer Hope!
Strange thing is, that word 'Hope', alone and mostly undefined, seems to be pretty much his platform, at least in terms of its concreteness!
On may as well vote for him cuz ya wanna have a friggin' beer with him, whoop-de-fucking-doo
...it's the exact same thing.

I mean, what about issues effecting the American People?

I may not agree with all of Hillary Clinton's stances on our problems, but at least she has them and they are concrete and fairly well-defined!
As for her 'hawk' reputation (so far, admittedly, deserved), I can promise you that in this country, with this population,
even with the majority wanting an end to the Iraq war, NO woman is EVER going to be elected to the presidency unless she is perceived as being tough to the point of bellicosity. No question whatsoever!

I have enough trust in Hillary to, after (if!) she wins, to soften her stance and
--Ms. Triangulation Herself!
do what the vast majority of the people want, which is to shut this travesty of a war down toute suite!

I may be wrong, it's certainly possible; but back to my primary point:
At least Hillary Clinton knows where she stands on the issues instead of vague, warm, ultra-fuzzy words that seem to be, at this moment, pretty much empty.


(HEY! I learned/remembered how to italicize & 'embolden' heh heh. But how many freaking posts do I need to be able to recommend a bloody post?
Yoiks, how important and intrinsic is it to DU to be able to recommend; I mean, I think I can start a thread at this point but still unable to Recommend? Weird.)

[TBF]

309. Texas idealist weighing in

I too stuck around at the caucus last night only to make sure Obama's delegates to my senate district were covered, then I left. When one of the local democrats said "don't worry, we'll all be together again by November" I just shook my head. I'm not sure that I could actually vote for John McCain, but I am positive that I will not vote for Clinton. My only hope is that Obama will leave some of his idealism at home and actually remind the voters what John McCain already knows about Hillary and will have no reservations reminding them about - travelgate, health care disaster, S&L debacle, "suicide" of Vince Foster, impeachment of her philandering husband, pardon of Mark Rich... the list goes on and on. Her "experience" is on the coattails of her husband, and together they have quite a load of baggage. Do you really think a candidate so tainted can beat a war hero like John McCain? I may be an idealist and end up voting for Nader, but even I can clearly predict the result of the upcoming election with Hillary as the nominee. I hope you and Hillary are proud of yourselves when we are stuck in Iraq for another one hundred years.

[Gman]

318. "Suicide" of Vince Foster?

do us all a favor and go back to the GOP.

[TBF]

330. Will vote for Nader

Hmmm... I'm sure you mean well but going to the GOP is not going to happen since I line up closer with Nader than McCain on the issues, and I've voted democrat since 1992. Being a democrat does not mean you have to blindly accept Clinton and her follies. But I am new to this forum so it's enlightening to see how you treat new-comers. Not big on inclusion, huh? Must be working off the Clinton playbook.

[Enthusiast]

331. Welcome TBF!

Many of us feel like you do. You are not alone.

Hillary can't get on TV and say that John McCain would be a better choice for president and then expect Obama supporters to give her their vote. Ain't gonna happen!

[Gman]

354. Once you mention stuff like anything about Vince Foster

you lose credibility. Not just me, but everyone else here.

[blackdot]

311. Great. So are you saying we should vote for McCain then?

I ain't voting for Clinton. I had enough of Clinton the 1st 8 years.
Now I'm told I shouldn't vote for Obama.
I was not going to vote for Huckabee, but now he has dropped out anyways.
That leaves McCain.

[drobert_bfm]

312. You lost me at...

"Left Wing": there's no such thing as the "Left
Wing" of the Democratic Party.

There's the Right Wing (the DLC), then there are the
Centrists. Even Kucinich can hardly be called a leftist by any
honest measure of the word (has he EVER called for the
Nationalization of Utilities?). 


So by even using the term "Left Wing", you showed
your hand as a RightWing(TM) democrat. You got so fooled by
Reagan's crowd that you actually think of yourself as a
Centrist (Hillary would have been in the Middle of the
Republican party had she run in Eisenhower's days...). You've
accepted blindly the Rightward pull of the Right, the biggest
con job in American political history.

[Vilis Veritas]

313. So you are done.

Go out and hit some tennis balls, play a game of frisbee with the dog.

Fart in a windstorm or an elevator and relish in the absurdity of the circus around you.

May you find the peace you desire.

[realFedUp]

314. Amen.

I had turn it all off until the news today...Stephanie, Keith, Air America,
MSNBC, CNN, Real Time, progressive blogs....

maybe they can all STFU about Hillary having to
get out of the race even though the delegate counts
are so close and neither candidate will win the
nomination without super delegates.

Hillary's campaign is trying to get the truth out about
Obama before he's been crowned by people who don't have
a clue what he stands for. We've fortunately seen a bit
of that promising everything to everyone and hearing
a different story behind the scenes.

I am sick to my stomach about Democrats packaging
Obama like Bush was packaged...I'd hope that we are
more honest than Republicans are.

and to Joel Stein...maybe you can STFU now also.

[Gman]

317. Great post - K&R...

At some point we, the adults, need to take over this runaway train from the kids that are dazzled with the Obama cult.

There were three or four real jerks last night at our precinct convention here in Texas. I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count as to who these assholes were supporting... You got it... Obama. How typical. There are some really good folks, and dear friends of mine who I highly respect that are supporting Obama. They are actually supporting Obama for policy reasons (what a concept!) Unfortunately, their support for Obama is being overshadowed and tainted by the Obama jerks.

[libbygurl]

322. @

:kick:

[pleah]

323. I agree in many ways, but,

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUKE.
It really doesn't matter which one wins, they are basically the same on most issues.
Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, it would be a win/win ticket.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

339. "We have been supporting this party, not the other way around." Very true.

We are the ones who have always showed up to vote Democratic and don't have temper tantrums every time OUR favorite candidate doesn't win. I'm actually very far to the left but I usually choose based on which Dem I believe has the best chance to win in Nov.

I was pretty sure that Obama would eventually start "cracking" and that there would be major things that would start coming out that would be a turnoff. Partly because he (or perhaps his supporters) has been portraying him as someone "pure" and above it all. In reality, he is not at ALL. Once people find that out - they turn on the person who has allowed themselves to be worshipped and built up to be almost godlike.

[ExPatLeftist]

352. Overdramatization

So many people on BOTH sides of the issues are making these huge statements, which will be forgotten in a matter of months.

This place is just full of dramaqueens... "Allowed himself to be worshiped"... "Almost godlike..." Give us all a break.

There are two candidates left. People have weighed the situation and each has chosen based on who better suits them. Nothing more than that. There are no robots or cultists, no gods or devils, just people. INDIVIDUALS, each responsible for his or her OWN actions and not the actions of all those that vote like them. I only point that out because you seem blissfully aware of that with statements like this: "We are the ones who have always showed up to vote Democratic and don't have temper tantrums every time OUR favorite candidate doesn't win." Some individuals on both sides pull that crap. And that does not mean that all supporters of their candidates are responsible for their actions. Most people learn to not paint everyone of a particular "group" with the same brush by the time they are in grade school. Seems to have skipped some people.

People need to seriously get their feet back on the ground and stop making out like this is Jonestown or the Holocaust. Bush is still in the WH, and he is still as dirty as ever - far more than either of the Dem candidates. If anyone needs to make "sky is falling" proclamations, I would suggest that they are directed at the man most deserving of them - the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Radical Agitator]

351. The old trick of politics of distraction and Pascal

I was thinking of this same thing today. Our modern age is in fact; no longer modern, we are looking to the old ways of thinking about the world and civilization....entertained and mind dead.


“We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop seeing it,”

Pascal

Weariness -- Nothing is so insufferable to man as to be completely at rest, without passions, without business, without diversion, without study. He then feels his nothingness, his forlornness, his insufficiency, his dependence, his weakness, his emptiness.

Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662