Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NARAL made the wrong choice.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:40 AM
Original message
NARAL made the wrong choice.
Nancy K. is thinking she can cash in on the new Dem Party if BHO is elected. She has the right to do so.


http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-scoop-on-naral/


The scoop on NARAL
Posted on May 14, 2008 by riverdaughter


The NARAL endorsement of Obama made me think of Firedoglake but I’ll get to that in a second. Here’s the endorsement money quote from Nancy Keenan:

………
And this part is laughable:

Sen. Obama is the leader who can unify Americans on both sides of our issue. He has reached new generations and energized young voters, independent voters, and Republican voters. He’s the candidate of the future, and today we are proud to put the power of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s one million strong members, activists and supporters behind Sen. Barack Obama……..


………In 2006, she backed “Rape Gurney” Joe Lieberman in CT even while the local NARAL group backed Lamont and despite the fact that Joe Lieberman didn’t think it was necessary for all hospitals in CT to carry emergency contraception for rape victims if they objected to it because it was only a short ride to another hospital.

Jane Hamsher was livid. It’s one of the reasons she tried so hard to take Lieberman out. Then there was Keenan’s passivity in the Alito nomination. Time after time, Keenan has let women down and backed conservative candidates with less than stellar records on choice. So, you’ll forgive me if the endorsement leaves me non-plussed.

To get a full flavor of what Nancy Keenan’s NARAL is all about (hint: it’s money), check out these fine posts from Jane in the past:

…….

Jane Hamsher was livid. It’s one of the reasons she tried so hard to take Lieberman out. Then there was Keenan’s passivity in the Alito nomination. Time after time, Keenan has let women down and backed conservative candidates with less than stellar records on choice. So, you’ll forgive me if the endorsement leaves me non-plussed.

To get a full flavor of what Nancy Keenan’s NARAL is all about (hint: it’s money), check out these fine posts from Jane in the past:

Nice Going, NARAL
NARAL Lying for Lieberman
Please Try to Pretend You Care…….More……

……

Check out some background on Nancy Keenan:

http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/06/whats-wrong-with-nancy-keenan/


……….Now I respect people who believe that their personal religious views should not become the basis for law, and who nonetheless respect the individual's right to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. But after yesterday's weird decision by Keenan (contra Planned Parenthood) not to challenge Brownback's fetal anesthesia bill, it's worth thinking about the wisdom of hiring someone to head an organization who believes that the right she is tasked with defending is a mortal sin. ……….

…….

A few responses:


Statement from Ellen R. Malcolm on NARAL Endorsement in the Democratic Presidential Primary

The following is a statement from EMILY’s List president Ellen R. Malcolm on NARAL’s endorsement in the Democratic presidential competition:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton -- who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade -- to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”


http://www.emilyslist.org/news/releases/2008_naral_endorsement_malcolm_statement/

………….
Jeralyn at TalkLeft weighs in:

"The pro-choice organization NARAL has endorsed Barack Obama.

Of course, they also endorsed Joe Lieberman and had a hand in giving us Justice Sam Alito."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/14/142718/882
………….

Press Release from the National Women’s Political Caucus:

"The National Women’s Political Caucus is disappointed to learn of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Senator Obama today. The Caucus knows Hillary Clinton to be a clear leader and a consistent champion of the issues that NARAL and NWPC have in common. We believe that this announcement at this time will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.

As a lawyer, advocate, First Lady, and Senator, Hillary Clinton has stepped up and stood out on matters important to women. When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has been a consistent and reliable advocate for a woman's right to choose. In fact, she has received numerous awards from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood."

more.....

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/14/183856/960
………..




From Hillary’s website:
Hillary has been a powerful advocate for women in the Senate. Her commitment to supporting the rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade and to reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies was hailed by the New York Times as "frank talk...(and) a promising path." Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. NARAL was choosing between two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain
of course they made the right choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. true, that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. that ASSumption was their first mistake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. how so?
Doesn't Clinton have to win about 70% of the remaining vote to win this thing? Is that possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. you folks been dancing on her grave for months now. stay tuned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. what are you saying?
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:27 AM by Syrinx
If she somehow wrestles the nomination away from Obama with a dirty, backroom deal, there's going to be hell to pay. Black voters, and whites with any sense of decency, will revolt from the Democratic party for a hundred years. And we will be left with a Republican majority that will put the boot to the throat of Democracy and freedom. Is that what you want? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. oh stop with your fear tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
52. says the person that says Obama will make abortion illegal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #52
77. Where did I say that??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #26
116. those are called fact tactics...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
78. There will not be a President Hillary
It's time to get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. "Stay tuned"? So you're playing the "catastrophy" card now? You guys are creeping me out.
please stop with all these creepy veiled threats. It's very unbecoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. It is you who are playing a card. not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
53. "Stay tuned" were your words not mine ... words I was only attempting to decipher.
and you've still not offered any more clarity as to as to WTF it's supposed to mean.

I find it creepy that so many Hillary supporters are hoping against hope that something
"catastrophic" happens to Obama, because that's the only possibility left for her to
win the nomination.


If I read something into what "stay tuned" means .. something that you didn't mean,
then I'm still open to hearing what you really did mean by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. Youve been trotting out that stay tuned and wait until next week for months, theres no there there
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:30 AM by Boz
There is no hidden dirt, there is no scandal for her to slide ahead on, there is no grandiose Hillary as white knight moment.

Hell there isn't even a white versus black thing going for her, it was Appalachia not white blue collars.

The only thing left is to imply physical harm and the stay tuned borders on a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. how is that grave dancing going?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #31
79. So you acknowledge it's over?
That's the first step to recovery. Stop hanging out at the Hillary sites. They're hurting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
117. pretty good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
92. You're just a vile pathetic person
Why won't you support our nominee, or better yet, failing that, just STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #92
124. Pot meet kettle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. she could win 100 percent of it
and still not catch him in delegates. She has to win something that she can't win and then hope that she gets about 75 percent of the remaining SDs to go her way. Just isn't going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
59. She won 72% of the combined Clinton-Obama votes in WV
It was interesting that, after doing what all the pundits said Hillary had to do to keep alive, the pundi-tards refused to acknowledge she'd met their target.

John King on CNN again showed his hypocritical ass-holiness after Clinton annihilated Obama in West Virginia. After stating all night that Clinton needed 70% of the remaining votes/delegates, he fell mute when she got 72%.

I guess the next time King does his "math," he'll be saying she needs to get 80%, or 90%. Amazing how the Obama-loving press keeps raising the bar for Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #59
96. Ok
Let me know how Oregon, SD, and Montana go

She turns those states around to 89% victories she can have the nomination :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #59
114. Clinton did not get 72%
Your clever "combined" so that you don't have to account for Edwards votes is just plain silly. Any pundit that tried to claim she needed anything less then 100% and the greatest voter turnout in American political history was just trying to be nice to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #114
135. She got 72% of the combined Obama-Clinton votes
She got more than double the number of votes Obama got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #135
137. So? She still got 12 net delegates
Which was wiped out already - so it was a wash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasThoughtCriminal Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #59
127. They aren't raising the bar. The finish line is getting closer.
And Hillary keeps trying to move it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
131. She won 72% of the votes between her and Obama in WV
Yes, it is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
44. rd, even you know that HRC can't win by now.
What would NARAL possibly have to gain by backing the loser.

And HRC lost any right to claim to be more pro-choice than though when she backed parental notification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #44
76. see this.



Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject UPDATE] State NARAL affiliates react:: "None of us here" knew
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5979961#5981093
5981093, UPDATE] State NARAL affiliates react:: "None of us here" knew
Posted by indimuse on Thu May-15-08 08:02 AM

UPDATE] State NARAL affiliates react
Posted on May 14, 2008 by ronkseattle
Received within the hour, a “Very Important Message from Karen Cooper ” (Exec. Dir., NARAL Pro-Choice Washington) re this morning’s NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama:

… None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal. To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race … We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse at this time.

… To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America. We are separate entities.

… our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate’s next steps.

Closed with a link to NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s press release on the subject.

Kudos, Karen! Any other blindsided affiliate sightings out there?

http://www.prochoicewashington.org/news/press/200805141.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecdab Donating Member (834 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
45. Exactly. The fact that we have a Democratic nominee has dawned
on most folks at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #45
60. You've been saying that for over 4 months
And you've been wrong for all 4 months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #60
99. No we've been right for 2 months
I do not remember at one point since March her being ahead in any metric other than Super Delegates and now that has been surpassed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #60
118. Well we met your big test last night
That "seal the deal knock out blow" you have been harping about? Well last night Hillary met the business end of a nice big haymaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MJJP21 Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
61. Secondly
Not only did they make the right choice but the abortion issue should not be a deal breaker for anyone.The US performed just about the same amount of abortions in 07 as in 77 even though we have about a 100 million more people. The trend line has been going down steadily all these years. Roe V Wade only protects abortion right up to the 2nd trimester. The vast majortiy of abortions are performed in the 1st trimester and of those we don't have the stats on whether they were for rape , incest , health or whatever. Overall the total amount of abortions affect what .03% of the population? The total amount of abortions whould have gone down far more if we placed more emphasis on education and birth control instead of abstinance which has shown a dismal record of success. There is absolutely no reason for any woman/girl to become pregant who doesn't want to. The sooner this message gets out the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. You are entiltled to your opinion...
and I am entitled to mine, NARAL made the right choice, they are sending a signal to their many members who support HRC that it is time to unite behind the presumptive nominee becuase there will be no worse hell wrought on women's repro. rights than McCain getting elected and appointing SC judges....(IMHO)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. yes. it is my opinion. But NARAL is getting an earful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. nancy k. is not well liked within her own organization. could be her downfall. I hope it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. "Shipp said the PAC's nine-member board made the unanimous decision to endorse Obama"
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:26 AM by datopbanana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. It means your whole point of an unliked indivdual goes out the window.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Who is unliked?--half the voters have voted for Hillary. get a grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. don't bother with him boz... when he knows he's wrong he plays dumb
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:35 AM by datopbanana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. Thanks, I found that poster boring anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. enjoy your bubble of ignorance. you seem to really flourish there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. such boring posts. Good night to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. yep. don't face reality and risk popping your bubble. take a nap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
81. And some xanax
Edited on Thu May-15-08 10:40 AM by Bleachers7
he needs to relax
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Follow your own context, you said Nancy K was unliked,The whole board voted, that removes the Nancy
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:40 AM by Boz
argument.

As to Hillary being unliked, thats subjective but polls definitely paint an unfavorable picture on her negatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Read some of the history I provided or do your own reseach. I
stand by what I say. Also from my own personal interactions with her and her organization. I dropped my membership over a year ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Do some of your own, Hillary has changed her stance, she is not 100% pro-choice any longer
Thats how they made their choice she has slipped to the middle on several key elements, by her own definitions, she still pro choice but she has now moved to a gateway position closer to the other side, that could actually damage rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datopbanana Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Won't do any good. rodeo is currently in see/hear/speak no mode...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. I shut him down pretty regularly, Just have to stick to facts, hes in it for shock
and likes to bait people to attack him personally out of frustration and then reports it to the mods.

They do an awesome job of being fair, but it like the kid on the playground that hits you and then runs to the teacher when you hit back.

He gets away with it 50% of the time

Thats why I dont let him get to me.

I just deal with the facts and he shuts up and goes away.

This post as well as several of yours will go away, but I thought I would let you know anyways
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #37
84. So you don't like her.
But if the board voted unanimously, they are either sef hating or you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. Voters arent the only Americans, And democrats aren't the only Americans a president represents.
And this is the Primary. Which means when her negatives are measured and the pulse of her likability is taken it is a whole lot more people against her than the quote unquote half the voters you talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #29
138. rodeodance, it's time to put up or shut up.
Either you support Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, or you don't. It's that simple.

If you choose not to, then you don't belong here in DU - it will be over this Tuesday, and you will have one week from that point to change your mind and go with the nominee or don't.

Personally, ever since you opened your big mouth in DU in early Jan after being so silent for a long time, I'm wondering if you are one of those or not.

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
56. Don't you have better things to do than harass NARAL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Barack Obama has a 100% Pro-Choice record
And he is the Democratic nominee for president. Why wouldn't they endorse him?

The Democratic Party is moving into general election mode to begin fighting John McCain. It's time for Clinton supporters to get with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. I am not going to debate with posters who are subject to delusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Stop being so RUDE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. i think it is rude when posters say Obama is the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
47. You know HRC can't win. Why even pretend otherwise?
And you know that it would have to be an ugly and right-wing moment if HRC did steal the nom.

Why are you so totally unwilling to accept reality?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youphemism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Not Even the Ambassador to Alpha Centauri?

I would think you'd break with that policy for me. If you want to get in good with the extraterrestrials, you'll curb your policy of not talking to delusional people.

They owe me. I shipped their representative 500 Ho-Hos using a brownian motion teleportation device. (Apparently those little guys love 'em.)

If you change your mind, just get ahold of me through a local parking meter. I can communicate through them using my Pokemon walkie-talkie. (It only required a few minor modifications.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. The only delusion here is some people thinking Clinton can win without alienating part of the party.
BIG TIP: Obama is the nominee. Clinton is staying in because she wants to but Obama is the nominee.

BIG TIP: Regardless of what you think about his chances in November.. If Obama loses because we remain divided... McCain will do WHATEVER he can to get rid of Roe vs Wade. And if you think that line is getting old then perhaps you just don't care?

This is not 2000 for 8 years we have seen near Nazi style government and if we can't get Unified in this critical time the republicans will see it as a green light for more Nazi style stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. "BIG TIP: Obama is [NOT] the nominee."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #34
46. You know HRC isn't going to win. For the love of God, why can't you admit that and accept it?
What is the point of continuing to fight for the doomed more conservative candidate?

Obama is just as pro-choice as she is, and is actually more pro-choice considering he never backed parental notification(I.E., the "Let's Give Dad The Chance To Beat The Crud Out of Little Janie Act".)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
49. Wow talk about delusion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
120. BIG BIGGER BIGGEST TIP: Oh yes he [INDEED] is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. psst...better check that mirror
Guess things are mighty quiet where you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. its shining back on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #22
67. No, rodeo, it isn't. I'm not delusional.
I lost my candidate in this race (Edwards), and now it's clear that Obama is going to be our nominee. The healing around here can't begin until we all understand this and work together to defeat McCain. It's really that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
55. Well... you certainly never question yourself.
So I'm sure you're right. Fact is RD, there aren't many posters as self-deluded as yourself around here, and you really make a point of letting everyone know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
126. Hahahahahaha
Ha. The irony of that post is off the charts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. Between Obama and McCain?
Because that's what it is, I love Hillary but unless Obama wakes up in bed with a dead midget Hillary is finished. She's been finished for two months, really, because she had to be perfect and she wasn't. There is no possible way she'll catch him unless he murders somebody or something and is forced to drop out. I love Hillary, but she's all done. So yeah, this choice is easy, it's Obama over McCain without a doubt. You make a good case for Hillary, I probably would agree with you except, she's not really a legit part of the picture anymore. Not anymore than Ron Paul is anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
68. Note to self; make sure Kucinich is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #68
130. Rimshot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
18. Question: Would Nancy Keenan & NARAL be so "evil" in your mind if they had endorsed Hillary?
Edited on Thu May-15-08 03:26 AM by Impeachment_Monkey
I think not.

Hence, with all due respect, don't you see how disingenuous your OP appears?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
32. I never said they were evil. I said they were wrong. And there is nothing
disingenuous about my stating my opinion. So stop with your lecturing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
50. ridiculous
they backed the dem nominee. it's that simple. time for you to join the reality based community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
51. Actually, I quit donating to national after the Lieberman endorsement
However dumb that was, they are right about needing to start going after McSame ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
54. Ellen Malcolm's comments are divorced from reality ...
... if he/she thinks there's only 3 weeks left in the Democratic primary process.
    "I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton ... to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process."
The race is *effectively* over and *that* is why NARAL has endorsed Obama, because they want to get behind this Fall's Democratic nominee, rather than continuing a pointless fight that is strengthening the campaign of the anti-choice candidate. The Democratic primary process *could* go on until the end of August, not just 3 more weeks, and that is why NARAL is endorsing now, to hopefully help put an end to it as soon as possible.

Besides, it's not like Clinton didn't have superdelegates committing to her campaign before a single vote was ever cast. "Letting the voters have their say" only became important when Hillary Clinton needed to buy more time for her struggling, desperate campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
57. Clinton campaign: A bus stuck wheel deep in bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
58. It's about the GE. That's why they waited this late.
It's about the judges McCain said he would pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
62. NARAL gets thrown under the bus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. That, or NARAL wants to compete with MoveOn in attempting to throw Hillary under the bus.
But Hillary, it appears, knows all to well how to push that ugly old bus aside. What's once more to our Wonder Woman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #63
69. wow
I have no further comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
64. UPDATE] State NARAL affiliates react:: "None of us here" knew
Edited on Thu May-15-08 08:03 AM by indimuse
UPDATE] State NARAL affiliates react
Posted on May 14, 2008 by ronkseattle
Received within the hour, a “Very Important Message from Karen Cooper ” (Exec. Dir., NARAL Pro-Choice Washington) re this morning’s NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama:

… None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal. To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race … We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse at this time.

… To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America. We are separate entities.

… our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate’s next steps.

Closed with a link to NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s press release on the subject.

Kudos, Karen! Any other blindsided affiliate sightings out there?

http://www.prochoicewashington.org/news/press/200805141.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #64
71. thanks, whow. what a slap in the face to the national org. MY OP was
attempting to say that Nancy K. is not well liked. Her time is limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. k and r
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
65. K&R
!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
powergirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
66. NARAL must do what is best for the Pro Choice movement - not
Edited on Thu May-15-08 08:26 AM by powergirl
what is best for Sen. Clinton. NOW endorsed Clinton last year. NARAL need not wait. Most importantly, McCain is scamming the country and wants voters to believe he is moderate and pro choice. This is dangerous because he is not and already stated his vision for the Supreme Court - More Alito, more Scalia.

NARAL waited too long, in my opinion. Clinton has been asking everyone to wait since Feb 2, then she moved up the date to after Ohio, then after Penn, then after June 3 - She told Wolf Blitzer the nomination could be determined at the convention - so June 3 could come and go and NARAL will be behind in getting their message out.

The Clinton campaign is about Clinton - not our choices, not our party, not our county. It is time to battle the real enemy - the GOP and we need to get started NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
70. They should've waited.
Edited on Thu May-15-08 08:55 AM by rucky
I agree this was a bit of a slap in the face. The timing of it helped nobody - especially NARAL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeaLyons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
72. Yes, they made the wrong choice...
!!!!!
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
73. In the Illinois legislature, Obama voted 'present' instead of 'no' on 5 horrendous anti-choice bills
This issue needs to be justified by NARAL - - otherwise NARAL needs to explain this garbage decision to women throughout the United States, and they need to do this post-haste.

And while NARAL is at it, perhaps they could explain Obama's evil rant: 'I don’t want them punished with a baby'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. NARAL of Illinois already *did* justify the "present" votes.

According to Planned Parenthood Obama was originally going to vote "no" until he spoke with them. They asked him to vote "present" instead. Because in the Illinois state legislature...

"Yes" means I want this bill to pass.

"No" means I want this bill not to pass.

"Present" means not only do I want this bill defeated, but it is such a horrible bill I won't even acknowledge it by voting "no".


Source: http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/2008/02/setting-record-straight-illinois-nows.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #80
87. So, did the political games Obama and Planned Parenthood played work?
I have read of this paltry excuse before out of Chicago, and truly believe it was beyond lame. You don't play political games with issues of this importance.

So tell us: does NARAL continue to play political games today with these same important issues?????

All the more reason to condemn this backing poop and the NARAL hole from which it came.

Yep, this is change alright. A change to The Chicago Way of corrupt political games. Nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. What part of "present" is voting "against" the bill do you not get.

"No" means "no".

"Present" means "fuck no". Unlike most states...

... and it's the STATE not the CITY ...

Present does not mean "not voting". It means "fuck no". It counts as a "no".

If the voting for a bill is:

123 - yes
0 - no
256 - present

The bill is defeated. Because present counts as no.

Okay?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #87
136. I think any supporter of a Senator who voted for the IWR and still refuses to admit it was a mistake
has a helluva lot of nerve grousing about anyone else playing "political games with important issues".


You want to talk about other political games on important issues? Like this very one?

Just a month or so ago, Hillary's "gotcha" phony outrage machine was cranked up to 11 because Obama had the nerve- the nerve!- to use the word "punishment" when talking about women being forced to continue to remain pregnant against their will.

All of a sudden, obstensibly pro-choice Hillary backers were (at least, pretending to be) red-faced with rage, that "HOW DARE HE CALL AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY 'PUNISHMENT'! HOW DARE HE!!!"

Give me a FUCKING break.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #73
85. You seem bitter, Maribelle. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #85
88. You seem to have an extremely limited vocabulary.
Haven't you Obama followers worn out his word 'bitter' yet?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #88
123. Ha ha.
So sad.

And they say we Obama folks are in a cult.

Get help for your anger issues, really. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
75. In not choosing Hillary,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
82. And the right choice was who? If they were going to choice among non-viable candidates, which should
NARAL have chosen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #82
89. NARAL appears to be playing politics with this. They did not have to endorse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. How does one make an endorsement that is *not* political? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #91
97. And?

You might be getting warm here.

Why the endorsement to begin with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #89
95. A political action group is "playing politics" by making a political endorsement? I'm SHOCKED!!!
Would you prefer that they waited until after the general election before making their candidate preference known?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. After the general election? Are you trying to say that was their only other choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #100
122. Obama wasn't NARAL's only choice. They could have endorsed McCain or a nonviable Democrat like Dodd,
Clinton, or Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
83. yeah, the did... big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
86. now throwing NARAL under the bus because they know what's going on...
Ferchrissakes, do we need more divisiveness from the Clinton campaign? It's over, Team Clinton. We have McCain's ass to kick now.

Join in or get the HELL out of the way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #86
93. erm.... NARAL themselves actually made this divisiveness. Choosing sides usually does.
Don't demand Hillary's supporters to do anything - - let alone buy into this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #93
101. Emily's Group
chose sides. This divisive politics must stop.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #101
105. Perhaps you're missing the point regarding woman's groups, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #105
106. So I'm pro-choice
Edited on Thu May-15-08 11:20 AM by Jake3463
I can't support woman's group. I guess I better tell my mother the pro-choice ideals she raised in me from the age of 12 have to go. I also donate against Breast Cancer...want me to knock off being such a nasty sexist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #106
110. Just as I figured, you're missing the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. What
Just beacuse your a woman you own their endorsements?

Part of feminism is being able to make free decisions that aren't dicatated to you by your sex. They made a choice. I think its wonderful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. Personal attacks are against the DU rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. that isn't a personal attack
it's a statement that the OP must be very sad over this development.

It's also a statement that the poster doesn't care that the OP is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #104
107. Ha ha ha. Are you trying to put words into the mouth of the poster that said SUCK????
And why on freakin earth are you attempting to defend a freakin personal attack?


Go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #107
119. Maribelle -you sound strangely like Rodeodance when Rodeo
is all up in someone's grill...


I'm just sayin'......


And make no mistake about it. If I was attacking someone directly, there'd be a lot more name calling and swearing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #107
121. are you really that much of a thin-skinned baby?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #107
125. Sucks to be you means:
"X is true. You don't want X to be true. Therefore, it must suck for you that X is true."

Implied in the statement is the sense that the poster does not actually feel bad for you.

I am sorry that you are unfamiliar with contemporary American slang. It can present a difficult and jarring interpretative problem. If I can be of further interpretative assistance (if, for example, you need someone to parse the phrase "WHERE MY DOGS AT?" or need to understand the expression "PWNED!" or if you aren't quite getting what it means to be "HELLA DUMB") please feel free to contact me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #104
115. Thanks. That's exactly right.
Rodeo can defend herself quite well, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sundoggy Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
98. Shorter: Waah, waah, waah, no one loves me! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
103. They were choosing between Obama and McCain. Clinton's finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
108. Its all just slipping away isn't it?
Just like sand through your fingers and there is no way to stop it.

Its over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
109. So it's about trashing Lieberman and putting Hillary on a throne?




Clinton and Lieberman have worked together on a lot of legislation, including attacking Iran preemptively. Maybe the OP forgot about that...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #109
139. Maybe you forgot it was Hillary that rendered that Amendment toothless
Here, refresh your memory, rather than propagating more willful and deceptive LIES!

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

I see the years of Lieberman's mentoring Obama is irrelevant to you.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
111. obviously any organization or person who doesn't endorse Hillary you will consider a mistake
so I don't really take this seriously either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
113. Obama's followers are having a difficult time sticking to the subject of this thread.
Why am I not surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
128. NARAL also endorsed Lieberman over Lamont and Chaffee over Whitehouse...They are not our friends
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
129. which they corrected by endorsing Barack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
132. Why in the world NARAL would choose to endorse a candidate who,.....
in the State legislature, chose to vote "present" seven times in matters of choice is beyond comprehension!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #132
133. This has been explained before:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #132
134. Because them endorsing John McCain would be far worse perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC