Sorry, everyone.

Thanks Michael!

Nothing to apologize for, Michael, you do a great job!

My condolences to the family of Rev. Orange!

2/18/2008
Clinton Statement on Death of Civil Rights Activist Reverend James Orange

Hillary Clinton issued the following statement on the death of Rev. James Orange, a key figure in the civil rights movement:

"Reverend James Orange was a tireless leader in the civil rights movement who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for social justice and equal rights.

In 1965, Reverend Orange's imprisonment was the catalyst to the Selma to Montgomery, Alabama March for voting rights. Reverend Orange not only believed in Dr. King's philosophy for non-violence but also practiced it.

He will always be remembered as one of the drum majors of change."

Good morning lady,

I have been looking for an opportunity when the site seemed fairly trolless, to have a real conversation about Hillary with someone who has done their research and sincerely supports her.

I, as a 60 year old woman, who has spent a lifetime fighting for civil/womens rights, I can’t tell you how much I want to vote for a woman for President. That said

I will have a lot of trouble supporting a candidate that did not do due diligence and or have the ability to make good decisions on War for the United State. Or for that matter a candidate that has voted to try and PROVOKE another country into a war, as she did Iran.

Something like 130+ senators did know and if you listened to their speeches in the house, they were very convincing. Many countries did know, and France even came out saying that the evidence that Powel used at the U.N. was forged. IT WAS.

In her defense she said “she trusted GEORGE BUSH to do the right thing”

After ALL THE YEARS of being IN THE FIRE, due diligence or not, she said:
“I TRUSTED THE WAR MONGERS“, and that was certainly NOT the defense that could have swayed me to trust her.

In my view: She has shown a propensity to lean toward supporting the Oil cartel and the MILITARY COMPLEX, (not the “boots on the ground” military).

Do you trust Hilary Clinton and her ability to hire capable people to protect this country from people who would do us harm?

Do you think she is capable of doing the research to find out if someone in this country is bad or hiring STAFF and/or a cabinet that are capable of doing this?

Hillary Unveils Food Safety Plan
by Lindsay Levin
in News, Issues
2/18/2008 1:06 PM

Following the largest beef recall in our nation's history, Hillary highlighted a series of food safety proposals she would pursue as President. This recall is not an isolated case - it is yet another troubling reminder that our food supply is at risk. Each year, tens of millions of Americans contract food-borne illnesses every year; hundreds of thousands are hospitalized; and thousands die. And the risks are only growing. Last year alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversaw 21 recalls related to E. coli in meat, compared with just eight in 2006. One of those recalls involved more than 20 million pounds of ground beef that caused nearly 100 illnesses in the United States and Canada. In addition, yesterday's recall by Hallmark/Westland is the second-largest supplier to the U.S. School Lunch program and a substantial supplier to other federal food and nutrition initiatives.

Hillary believes that American families should not have to worry about the safety of food on their dinner tables or in their children's school lunches. That is why she has proposed common-sense - and long-overdue - food safety reforms, building on her work in the Senate.
Read the full plan here.

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM

Kerry and a shit load of OBIwan supports also fell for the CRAP W was dishing out! And at the least they bought into Wolfie's lies about it being EASY.
Whether it was by choice or being stupid - I can't hold ONLY one Senator accountable for what half of them did.

A pacifist will NEVER agree to war so you can't say those that didn't want Afganistan were any more SMART about it and did less research (I'm sure) as they are predestined by "attitude or whatever" to oppose ANY war or conflict.

That is a pacifist. That is HALF the democratic party. I am a WArrioR! Not by choice but by nature. I fight it daily. I served and bled but NOT in war (thank GOD). I admire Hillary as a woman and as a fighter. I NEVER liked her until I started watching her. I always respected her for standing by her husband for what ever reason as I LEFT MINE FOR CHEATING.

Again he was NO bill clinton - I only wish he had half the charm. anyway, my point is I am (as my friend CYN says) voting for Hillary not BECAUSE she is a Woman but because I AM!

Now I do have to go but we'll chat more later.
Peace to you. :-)

"Food safety plan?"
Just giving the USDA the money and manpower they really need, and not continually cutting back on inspections would have eliminated a lot of the problems with our food supply in the last few years. That and firing the Bush appointees.

We had plans in place for food safety, for workplace safety, for environemntal safety. One of the continual Bush agendas was putting industry shills in charge of these programs, and continually cutting back on funding and manpower. The same is true of the Veterans' administration.
Before we go kiting off with new programs, we need to restore the old programs, and then assess where we need to go from there.
And end that damn "war"!!!

Great article below. I've talked about this here before. It's a real problem we're all facing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html?nav=hcmodule

The Dumbing of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces By Susan Jacoby Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.

If we are going to continue to argue about seating the Florida delegates, we need to process this information.

Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida

He didn't get a very good return on his campaigning in Florida:

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

That, from the Center for Responsive Politics. I realize that it's still going to be a fight to make the Democratic Party convention a 50-state event, rather than the 48-state event that some want it to be, but this puts to rest the notion that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/18/101423/027

DW is assembling a group for Opposition Reserch.

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/announcement.php?f=158&a=43

It looks like the opposition is going to be McCain.

Posted by puggles on February 18, 2008 at 01:26 PM

---

I saw her interviewed, probably on PBS, and it was great. I felt like it was mostly stuff I already knew and had been "spouting" about for years, but she is able to orate it so well, that maybe more people will pick up on it.

"Food safety plan?"
Just giving the USDA the money and manpower they really need, and not continually cutting back on inspections would have eliminated a lot of the problems with our food supply in the last few years. That and firing the Bush appointees.

Posted by Butte on February 18, 2008 at 01:20 PM
--------------------------------

Good point. You don't get something for nothing and the cutting taxes mantra has resulted in a country in debt to the Chinese with corporations having more power over our lives than our own government [of the people] has.

I still think we need to impeach Cheney and Bush: and try Rummy, Wolfie and Rove for treason. But that's just me, I'm a Moderate!

Cyn

Don't you think Floridian Democrats should take responsibilty for THEIR part in this that has again put this country at risk?

Unlike a week ago, there is much information out there now about what happened and why

Here are a couple of quick sites

Here is just a couple of sites,

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903
Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks

goodfoe: If impeaching Bush is one of the signs f a moderate, then there's a lot of us out there!
Maybe Congress ought to get a clue, and get that bill of impeachment off the table, while we still have a country left!

good to see some actual facts for a change cyn.

I am a brand spanking new Dem. I have never voted for one before in my 38 years. So I just re-registered as a Democrat, aside from the embarrasment of my former party, to be able to vote in the primaries for Obama. This is my firts visit to this website too. So far - all things HILLARY.
Now, we can all probably agree that Ms. Clinton would be a fine candidate for any ohter election. BUT: Barack is just to special.
Although I would probably vote for Hilary if she gets the nomination, I am wondering if any other party members have previously discussed the ramifications of an outcome that goes against the will of the people - based on Superdelegates. If we look accurately at the delegate count without the pledged supers, Obama is clearly ahead. Has anybody thought thru that it could be the demise of the Democratic party altogether if this occurs? And what is with the 21 yr old Superdelegate I saw on TV last week. How can this voting virgin pack the vote power of over 9000+ regular voters? I have repeatedly heard on TV that the superdelegates will not go against the people, but how do we really know this? Some have pledged before even knowing the will of the people. And that is NOT what the 21 yr. old said on national TV.
Lastly, I am feeling that the old fashioned Dems are really hoping for Hillary. That in and of itself, is why some folks are going against her. Is this an automatic bias of the party as a whole. I guess what I am asking is....Is there a place for me and the millions, literally MILLIONS, who have joined this party for Obama. Or should we consider you one hit wonders?
I kind of like Hillary - as "that type" of politician. But our excitement is due to Obama.
THOUGHTS?

In an earlier post someone mentioned that they thought there had been a lot of trolling going on because so many posters are saying that if HC doesn't win they will vote for McCain. I am newer to this blog and I have observed that if someone posts something that others (primarily BO supporters IMO) don't want to hear they must be trolls. I am from Michigan and with the way things are going here and in Florida, I believe this is really the way people are feeling. I don't think these people should be refered to as trolls. Please keep this in mind...I have felt the same way and I don't really know what I am going to do come Nov. However, I have a right to my opinion and I will vote the way that I think is best for me!

Hi freshdem,

I also am a new implant, although from independant)

New to this site a week+ ago

Yes there is LOTS

You can visit many of the last days of back blogs.

Impeach Chimpy and Shooter!

Hi, Gregg! 54 degrees in upstate. It has me itching to plant flowers. Spring cannot arrive soon enough.

I'm not trying to start a fight just point out to those that think HILLARY should give it up. This is a RACE all the way. It will be Clinton/Obama or Obama/somebody ELSE (he'd never be generous enough to include the other HALF of the country that is NOT wanting him. NO that won't happen!) Which means he'll probably LOSE. But that's JUST MY opinion! whoopee doo.

Puhleaseeeeeeeeee! That was my point. I can't hardly stay here anymore. It's just not the OPEN minded place it used to be. I feel like a stranger in my own party that's walking around mostly with blinders on.

Peace OUT - so much for democracy and every voter counting. pffffffffft.

Posted by Ladydawn on February 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM

1. I've never implied Hillary Clinton should give up either. I don't think Clinton OR Obama should give up, precisely because it IS a close race.

2. I didn't follow the "link" because the post to which *I* was responding didn't HAVE a link:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/evening_open_th_16.php?comments=1#c395932

3. I don't trust those numbers as much as I trust the numbers from RCP

3. Yes, you ARE trying to start a fight:

(he'd never be generous enough to include the other HALF of the country that is NOT wanting him. NO that won't happen!)

4. No offense to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but I really don't want to see them as running mates. I don't know if America can handle TWO major firsts in one administration, ya know?

Besides, we need the other in the Senate doing the leg work and whipping the rest of the Democrats into line..err, that sounds sorta Republican, doesn't it? :)

Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida

He didn't get a very good return on his campaigning in Florida:
===================================================

Cyn, why do we need to process that? Why all the emphasis on Florida and Michigan? I don't get it. Can't HRC win any other way?

IMO anyone who is willing to vote for another warmonger is not someone I can blog (debate) with.

I come here to learn about what is going on in the government, and everyone is pretty good about posting links (documentation) with the information they share, so I know it is true.

If Obama wins the nomination because the Florida Delegates are not seated, we will lose Florida in the general election. I was very torn as to what to do before the information came out that Obama had campaigned in Florida. Now that I know he did I think the delegates should be seated. I further think the decision to seat them should be now, before it is clear they will be relevant. I would seat them however in proportion to their state vote, not winner take all. i.e 50% Clinton 33% Obama and 14% Edwards.

Who was the idiot the other day saying the troops and the vets are being treated just fine by this Crazy Neo Con administration? Sign the petition for them , please:

Join Veterans to Demand Hearings on Substandard Helmet Procurement

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Pentagon had agreed to a contract for more Kevlar helmets for our troops from the very company that was being sued for cheating troops out of helmets that met military standards. Especially at a time when so many troops are in harm’s way, no such company should ever receive a new contract. Demand that Congress investigate how this could have happened, by signing our petition below. We’ll deliver your signatures to Capitol Hill.

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1138/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=335

I don't think we should be saying that supporters of one candidate are usually like this and voters for another usually have these characteristics. If that was the case I would be an Obama supporter(young and educated), but I am not. After Kerry lost to Bush in '04, I started reading books and political materials about Hillary Clinton. I think she is awesome and there is nothing anybody can do or say to change my mind. She is actually quite interesting...

Posted by Cyn_NY on February 18, 2008 at 01:31 PM

---------
I asked Cyn to respond earlier so now

anyone

Don't you think Floridian Democrats should take responsibilty for THEIR part in this that has again put this country at risk?

Unlike a week ago, there is much information out there now about what happened and why

Here are a couple of quick sites

Here is just a couple of sites,

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903
Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:38 PM

Posted by Butte on February 18, 2008 at 01:43 PM

Hi Butte, I suspect that you know me too well, that "Moderate" thing was a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. But, yes, in spite of what Nancy Pelosi says, I feel Congress is derelict in their duties in not up holding the Constitution and impeaching these two mega maniacs before they attack Iran and draw us into another conflict, possibly a nuclear war. There are those who say we don't have the votes: nonsense, by starting impeachment proceedings we would be focusing the national spotlight on all the crimes of this administration before the election. Having or not having the voted is not the only issue!

Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:38 PM

Your Highness:

I prefer a more casual format. I like to do my own research and form my own opinion. I sometimes post articles that I find worthy of thought.

I'm not in the habit of reading things someone else picks out and then asks me to comment on.

I never did respond well to despots.

Do you trust Hilary Clinton and her ability to hire capable people to protect this country from people who would do us harm?

Do you think she is capable of doing the research to find out if someone in this country is bad or hiring STAFF and/or a cabinet that are capable of doing this?

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM

LOL! You said you wanted answers from someone who supports her, but I don't "support" her, and I'll actually answer those two questions with a "Yes, I do trust her in this matter".

Look, she screwed up with the whole Iraq thing, she got played with the fear card. All of the ones who voted for it did it because of that, not because they "didn't know" They knew. But they were afraid of looking soft in front of the American people who were SCREAMING for blood.

And she will never admit this. But neither will anyone else.

But I don't believe she will go running willy-nilly into any pre-emptive aggressions. Especially not with feelings the way they are now.

As for her cabinet/staff? Come on, darlin'...this is Hillary CLINTON we're talking about...she probably decided BILL's cabinet. And although there were SOME missteps in his Presidency, it was a HELL of a lot better than what we have NOW.

A must watch video from one of the Dept of Education hearings in Florida over teaching evolution.

Comparing oranges and pet dogs and cats to put down evolution.

In a way this is sad.

Posted by Ladydawn on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM

Good plan...shows quick thinking on her part, also, to respond so quickly with a proposal. :)

Florida is NOT going to count and neither SHOULD they. Michigan is a no brainer seeing as there was only one candidate on the ballot. Finally to Florida voters, you WENT for Bush in '00 and '04 so I don't know why you think you carry so much weight, JMHO.

Good afternoon fellow dems.I think as Democrat we have a great opportunity to win the white house if we can stick together. I was posting on the blog over the weekend and I read a lot of Dems attacking Dems over several different issues. If we continue to divide ourselves over these things the pugs are going to steal this election!!even if we pick up some seats in the house and senate we will not have the 2/3s majority to overcome a pres. veto and will have the same stalemate we have now.We must win the White house and stop the failed policies and attacks on our constitutional rights!We have to stop this petty bickering and come together!! It's bad enough we have those hateful trolls on here attacking us,we don't need to attack each other. Ok I'm done ranting now lol.

Posted by puggles on February 18, 2008 at 01:26 PM

Ya ever notice the people of this country seem to jump from one "anti" to the next without really understanding what it is they are "anti"-ing?

Bombing kills 38 Afghan civilians,
wounds Canadians
The Taliban is reportedly claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing that targeted a convoy of Canadian soldiers but killed 38 Afghan civilians.
Full Story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080218/afghan_bombing_080218/20080218?hub=TopStories

Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 02:10 PM

You went "yard" on that one , otta de park!..I've got some things to do, I'll see you at the "Big Dance" on March 4th when we pick the next president of these United States!

Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 02:10 PM

---------------
thanks

If you trust her in the matter of being able to research important issues, I would think you would trust her to research Obama.

T that if you can trust her capabilities in this, she would have dug up anything dirty about OBAMA, and would have shared that with us. Not only so she could win, which she is determined, of course to do, but also to protect us from another president that would hurt us.

I DO NOT TRUST HER BECAUSE she voted with the war mongers, I believe she is tied to the corporations that run the present government, that are determined to do us harm to keep their coffers overflowing, and I believe that she KNEW Bush was going to pre-emptive war. I DON’T BELIEVE SHE IS THAT STUPID TO NOT KNOW. She has too many contacts to not know what is going on.

EVEN SAYING THAT, I will vote for her if she is the candidate the DEMS. Elect.

My hope is that the women in this country will revolt if she shows signs of
“geeeeee we didn’t know they didn’t have WMD.”

But then, CONDALEEZZA certainly did this and got away with it from we the powerful women in this country that want to hold ours to a higher standard

Thank you for listening, and the only thing that I know for sure is that I will vote a complete D ticket in November

Hillary Clinton- Making Our Dreams
Come True- Wisconsin
Let's go Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, & Penn State!
Check out the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HxtN0u23Tdc

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/02/most_romney_delegates_plan_to.html

SCAROLINADEM,

I agree with you. Florida and Michigan should be seated....like yesterday!

I have said it a couple of times and I will say it again. The democratic candidate needs Michigan (and Florida for that matter) to win in November. The GOP already fixed the delegate problem in Michigan... The link shows how important this really is. In the 2000 primary, McCain beat Bush in Michigan largely due to independent voters. Michigan, has been a blue state. If we turn red I will be totally embarrassed! Do we really want to be messing around with this issue for much longer?? Lets get it fixed immediately!!!!!

For those who want to know what really happened in Florida, here are a couple of sites that explain it. If you know of better ones, please post so that we all know and we don't have to waste time here saying it is the fault of one of our candidates, whom we need to unite behind
thanks

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903

I am two days old on this site too, I blog on CNN

Well we should wait and see what happens in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania before bashing Hillary as power hungry, every politician is power hungry Obama is no exception.

Florida was, is and always will be important and therefore should count, I believe that it is for the state to move up the primary and not for DNC to dish out punishment or practice draconian rules, now that is a power hungry committee. At least they could have compromised rather than shooting from the hip.

now to Obama and others who want to change Washington but didn't stand up against their own party elders how the heck are they going to change Washington? I have real credibility issue with the candidates when it comes to Florida and Michigan. If superdelegates didn't speak up when the rules were set so shall hold their peace on this subject until after the elections

Justaguy,

Florida does carry a lot of weight. If they didn't go red in the last two elections we wouldn't be dealing with what we are dealing with now. Please see the light on this. Everytime the FL/Mi issue comes up you seem to write both states off. I really don't think you know how much weight both of these states have. If you want them to go red and think the election is going to go blue, you might want to rethink that. Without Fl/Mi the Dems will be walking on thin ice. Do some research on it. The truth is the Democratic candidate needs both states to win in Nov.....sorry, but that is the reality! If nobody has told you that yet, you have heard it now! JMHO

The delegates being sitted in MI and FL would be absolutely unfair and it'd be more detrimental than if they weren't. They agreed to the rules, both candidates, before the primary season, so tough luck.

And since when was FL a Democratic state, screw them. Screw Michigan too, they should have played by the rules.

The only reason this is brought up now is because Clinton is behind.

Millenial,

This has been going on for weeks.... when Hillary was ahead it was a topic of discussion. Look back and see! It has nothing to do with who is winning/losing. It has to do with the voters being heard!

All I am saying is I am afraid that there is going to be a big problem for the Dems in Nov. if this is not taken care of before the convention.

I don't think these people should be refered to as trolls.

Posted by jenar on February 18, 2008 at 01:52 PM

You don't think people who come on to the Democratic National Committee blog and say they are going to vote for a REPUBLICAN candidate should be referred to as trolls? You're a Democrat who will vote for a Republican because one Democrat won over another in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY NOMINATING PROCESS DESIGNED TO CHOOSE A DEMOCRATICE CANDIDATE FROM THE POOL OF DEMOCRATS WHO WANT THE JOB. Hmm, what else would we want to call that besides "trollish"....how about "childish", then? Will you also hold your breath until you turn blue?

And we call them trolls no matter which candidate they "support", it's not just directed at one candidate's supporters.

No this is not brought up because Hillary is behind, but the pressure brought to bear on the so called superdelegates by Obama and co

you can't have it both ways if you don't want Florida and Michigan to be seated then let the super delegates vote the way they want as per and allowed in the rules

I think if the ones who created this problem have to take responsibility for it, then maybe there will be change. Florida, of course, effects the whole country

Quote from Democratsunderground

"
A Democrat introduced the bill.

More about Karen's photo op press conference which ignored facts and such realistic stuff as what really happened.

When Karen Thurman surrounded herself with Broward County Democrats last Sunday to tout the Jan. 29 primary: state Sen. Jeremy Ring. No one invited the Broward state Senator who sponsored the original bill moving Florida’s primary from March to January and undercut the Democrats’ argument that the early primary was all the Republicans’ fault.

...It would be inconvenient to acknowledge Ring’s role in a process where the Florida Democratic Party has morphed into the Defiant Victim — victimized by the Republican-dominated legislature, victimized by its own national party and victimized by the prez candidates, yet standing up on its hind legs and saying “Go to hell” to its victimizers. The reminder that Ring ran on the notion of moving up the primary date, was elected on it and followed through on his campaign promise is an inconvenient truth that the FlaDems simply must ignore.

The Florida Democrats voted for the bill 115 to 1, then they immediately sent the word out that the DNC and Howard Dean had "disenfranchised" them.
The DNC ruling should stand, the delegates must not count toward choosing a nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins with those delegates, she will not be considered the legitimate nominee by many people

This has been going on for weeks.... when Hillary was ahead it was a topic of discussion. Look back and see! It has nothing to do with who is winning/losing. It has to do with the voters being heard!

All I am saying is I am afraid that there is going to be a big problem for the Dems in Nov. if this is not taken care of before the convention.

Posted by jenar on February 18, 2008 at 02:44 PM

There is nothing to take care of, the problem is trying to change the rules. The states knew what was going to happen, that is their own fault. Maybe they'll learn next time.

And seating them obviously benefits Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in one of the states. As Bill Clinton would say, "Give me a break".

No this is not brought up because Hillary is behind, but the pressure brought to bear on the so called superdelegates by Obama and co

you can't have it both ways if you don't want Florida and Michigan to be seated then let the super delegates vote the way they want as per and allowed in the rules

Posted by SS16 on February 18, 2008 at 02:46 PM

They can technically vote however they want, so your point is moot. And they can put as much pressure as they want, maybe the DNC will learn how stupid and undemocratic the superdelegate system is. Even the guy who created it, now admits it is a failure.

well, so much for Dems in Florida taking responsibility for their actions
I guess that was my bad idea

it is settled

Obama did it

superdelegates voting with their state or independently point is not moot, both are intrinsically linked with Fl/MI delegates.

End of the day who ever has the most number of pledged+super delegates wins end of story.

The Florida Democrats voted for the bill 115 to 1, then they immediately sent the word out that the DNC and Howard Dean had "disenfranchised" them.
The DNC ruling should stand, the delegates must not count toward choosing a nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins with those delegates, she will not be considered the legitimate nominee by many people

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:47 PM
================================================

Truly nonsense. So why did they expect they could just do this with no consequences? I think the voters in these states should be mad at their state party and not the DNC.

Tomorrow is my turn to vote(WI). I have a friend who sent me this and even though I am a 'Yellow Dog Democrat' it gave me pause. Are there any more informed people out there who can rebut this effectively?

REMINDER OF POLITICS PAST

Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are
Facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only
be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are
getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' --
you may be interested in the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right !

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country,and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social
Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure
of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to
take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Good grief, where do these buffoons with their trash come from????

GregL,

I was just saying that I feel these so called "trolls" pain and I don't think anybody should be telling them they don't have a right to feel that way....A lot people are not seeing the big picture. If we don't agree and can't say what we think nicely then don't say it at all! If you saw my later post, I showed that in the 2000 Michigan primary, McCain beat Bush due to the independent voters. Independent voters can go either way and if one happens to be on the DNC website we should not be attacking them for the way that they feel! I have a hunch that these are the people saying that if ***** doesn't win I will vote for McCain. It is not to be childish, but rather to point out a reality. The reality is not everybody votes a straight democratic ticket! Myself included! However, I would like to think that the DNC still cares about me and my vote!

I DO NOT TRUST HER BECAUSE she voted with the war mongers

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:25 PM

Was it you that said you used to be an Edwards supporter?

I believe she is tied to the corporations that run the present government

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:25 PM

I don't believe the corporations actually RUN the government, I just believe they have undue influence owing to the amount of money they can funnel to politicians. That being said, Senator Obama has ties to corporate America himself and his positions and solutions are not that different from Senator Clinton's.

Dawn is REALLY gonna wonder who I am and what I've done with the real GregL

Good afternoon fellow Democrats.

uhhmmmm, a little fact checking on Social Security spam:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

rjsnj 3:11 PM

exactly my point thanks

Oh, here is those wonderfully treated Troops and Vets again. Funny, this one comes from their own site !

Study: Lack of MRAPs Cost Lives

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,162278,00.html?wh=wh

Posted by Hickabee on February 18, 2008 at 03:07 PM

___________

thanks for the links

Went to the first one---won't bother with the rest
promoting repub fear/hate

I went to the first one and found that the
Andy Martin (whom the link is quoting) was a columnist who was trying to get Obamas book banned
HE IS ALSO RUNNING FOR REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATOR 2008!!!!!!!!

VII. 2008 ILLINOIS U. S. SENATE ELECTION

Andy is a candidate for U. S. Senator in 2008. He wants to maintain the Republican Party as a conservative party

Guess that is why you didn't make them easy links to follow.

Repub. policy
Tell a half-truth, then show proof that no one will bother with THEY WILL BELIEVE IT

guess I won't waste any more time trying to track down false proof of what you say

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Vote by mail, nationwide. Every registered voter gets their ballot a month before it's due back at their county Board of Elections. Drop it off at that office or mail it back in.

Wa-La! No lines, no dealing with pollworkers, no chance of voting in the wrong precinct.

No need for a holiday. (now really, if people were given a day off, would they really bother with going to vote, or would they slack around or maybe shop?)

And what kind of holiday would it be for the election workers?

Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 03:17 PM

----------
thank you

yes, i agree w/everything you said

I may not always sound like it, but am always looking for which way is best and getting good info.

Yes, I am an Edwards supporter.

He was not my first choice, because of the same concerns I have stated about Hillary, but was convinced that some of his attributes would have to outweight that issue.
I was supporting Kucinich and even sent Ron Paul some $ to help keep him in the debates, because I wanted to hear what he had to say.

All of the DEM candidates are so much better than any repub. but they all have this corporate connection issue and we have to juggle and pick and choose what is important to us.

The military complex and using our young soldiers for blood money is probably one of my highest.

thanks for responding

The American people need to be asking Barack Obama a whole different list of questions when they attend his political rallies on his quest to become the leader of the free world. They need to ask the man who he really is because, up to this point on the campaign trail, he has lied to them. The American people need to find an honest candidate. Barack Obama is not that man.

Posted by Hickabee on February 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM

It seems to me that the Republicans are having a hard time trying to get any traction with Obama. The resort to using his middle name of Hussein doesn't seem to generate the type of bile that they are aiming for. On the other hand, the mere mention of Hillary's name in a group of right wingers will get you some real loud opinions and talk of "Billary."

I'm still a little torn because of that. After seven and a half years of having a President that I truly disliked, I'd like to see the neo-con crowd suffer through eight years of Clintons. However, there is a real downside to it since it would keep Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest on the radio for another eight years. I think if Obama is elected those fools are going out of business.

Posted by Esmeralda on February 18, 2008 at 03:41 PM

---
Hi Esmeralda

I do and have since 2000, but now so much information saying the "if" they get counted, it is sometimes too late to actually revisite.

I have never had to stand in line----I have always lived in a little community where everyone knows everyone and have never had to wait a minute.

Just have seen unbelievable lines and sometimes (because I feel so spoiled) have questioned myself if I would bother and admire and appreciate those who do.

thanks for response

Pam- I was going to post the snopes thing and - as usual- you beat me to it. Honest to g-d the DNC should be paying you.

Essie nice to see you here for a change...

Both Obama and Clinton are quite electable. Either candidate would be far superior to the current admin.

As rj has said repeatedly
McCain = Bush
who in their right mind wants that?

Obamaniacs must be realists and accept their fate. Otherwise, let them see their psychiatrists!

Posted by Yama on February 18, 2008 at 03:52 PM

---------

I will vote for whomever is our nominee
I will vote straight D in November

I also believe that Hillarys base is mostly long time Democrats that loved the Clintons in the 90's. I was one of them. Not a Dem but liked the Clinton Whitehouse for the most part and my life while they were there.
I believe that Hillarys people will VOTE Democrate no matter who is our candidate

I also believe that Obama has pulled in a VAST majority who have never had a party
I DON'T SAY THEY WOULD VOTE REP because I don't think most of them would, or they wouldn't be THE OBAMANIACS (your word)---that they are. I think they would revert to NOT VOTING.

THE REPUBS WOULD COME OUT EN MASS TO VOTE AGAINST HILLARY

the REPUBS WOULD WIN

and I would have to hurt someone
;-)just kidding (maybe)

4. Hillary’s vote was not for War but for the authorization of the use of force, Obama should get his facts straight the congress of the United States of America never I repeat never voted on or past a “Declaration of War” resolution.

Hillary's words

I TRUSTED GEORGE BUSH

Cate, lol. that would be nice.

However, there is a real downside to it since it would keep Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest on the radio for another eight years. I think if Obama is elected those fools are going out of business.
Posted by Manymoonsago on February 18, 2008 at 03:42 PM

I was listening to Bob Brinker, Money Talk the other day while traveling. Someone called in and asked him "WHY do you think that Talk Radio show hosts are degrading McCain?" and Brinker said, "Because they want to see a Democrat in the White House, why else'. And Brinker is a right wing leaning guy.

Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.

Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.

Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.

highserenity-
Try to remember it is only the truly indoctrinated repubs that hate the Clinton to the degree you bring up. the 26%ers would vote against whatever candidate we put forward. They are the same folks who insist on using Obama's middle name in attepts to scare people. They'll vote just as rabidly against him.

Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM

Let's really be honest here, Bill.

BOTH campaigns are slinging stories and distortions about each other's campaigns. Bill Clinton has been no Sweetheart out there as the gun man for Obama.

Go to Fact Check.org and see all of their articles on Both candidates and what they have said.

Let's not get carried away with one candidate being the villain, and the other innocent.

PAM
Where do you live? I always listen to Bob Brinker when I can and yes, sometimes his politics make me have to open the window and scream. LOL

2. Obama likes to claim he was right about the war, lets be honest even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then, that does not make him a good provider.

Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM

Whoo! I was right about the illegal pre-emptive invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovreign nation who had no chance of attacking, much less harming, our country too! Should I run for President?

Yama=dropped on your head as a baby. No really that's what it means in Myglianese.
Look it up.

ou must remember Barack Obama’s main slam on Hillary Clinton is she voted for the war well lets begin with that statement.
1. Obama was not there to have to make the vote, he had the luxury of viewing things from the cheap seats.
2. Obama likes to claim he was right about the war, lets be honest even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then, that does not make him a good provider.
3. Another Obama famous slam is its alright to be ready on day one but it is more important to right on day one Woo Hooo. I keep waiting for Hillary to point out that “it must be nice to be so perfect and to be right all the time” however we have had seven plus years of that type of arrogant attitude and look at were we are now.
4. Hillary’s vote was not for War but for the authorization of the use of force, Obama should get his facts straight the congress of the United States of America never I repeat never voted on or past a “Declaration of War” resolution.

Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM

1. He was a state senator and made his claims known before the war, so he isn't lying about this. Nice pathetic rationalization.

2. He's shown better judgment than Clinton on most of the important issues.

3. No it's not arrogance and being right that's screwed us, it's arrogance and being wrong, like Bush and Clinton were on Iraq.

4. Correct, but Clinton still voted on this unconstitutional war in favor of it. Oh well, the Constitution is a goddamn piece of paper, right Hillary?

Get real, chump.

Ok, TexasBill...now you've stepped over the line. What next? Obama is Hitler reborn?

Done listening to you now.

Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 04:07 PM

--------------------

Bush already had a history of "KARL ROVE SPEAK" LIES (when I say lies, i include 1/2 truths, lies by ommisssion, clean air really means repeal all the environmental protections put in place)
WHEN HE STARTED CAMPAIGNING FOR PRES.

Anyone who actually did homework on what he had done in Texas KNEW IT and made our skin crawl.

Obama does not have that history

You voted for Bush in 2000 because of these promises that he knew we hungered for.

Well now, 7 years later, we still hunger for them and much much more.

Maybe we will get them with Obama

superdelegates voting with their state or independently point is not moot, both are intrinsically linked with Fl/MI delegates.

End of the day who ever has the most number of pledged+super delegates wins end of story.

Posted by SS16 on February 18, 2008 at 03:02 PM

Um, I said they vote independently, so your point is moot. There is no issue surrounding this because the rules are set. You are making an issue out of nothing because ultimately the super delegates can vote however they want. Also Dean said the FL/MI delegates won't be seated. Get over it.

Full disclosure - I'm a Michigan straight-ticket democrat and I support Clinton. I took time away from work to vote absentee in our primary, knowing full well it wouldn't be counted (laughed and cried about it, I assure you).

That aside, here are some interesting statistics (found on The Green Papers site):
- 2.3 million democratic primary voters between MI and FL
- that's 11% of the total popular vote to date
- That's more than 2.5x the primary turnout for 2004 (2.3M vs. 0.9M)
- 3.6x 2004 turnout in MI (592k in '08 vs 164k)
- 2.3x 2004 turnout in FL (1.7M in '08 vs 754k)
- Despite not counting, top democrat (Clinton) received far more votes than did the top republican in both states:
- 327k (55% of dem) in MI vs. Romney's 257k (30% of repub)
- 865k (50% of dem) in FL vs. McCain's 700k (36% of repub)
- 1.4M people who didn't turn out in 2004 stepped up this year (2.3M - 0.9M).

Maybe it's fair. I can accept that. Maybe fairness matters above all else. I can accept that, too.

However, these numbers make for one ENORMOUS elephant in the room.

Hi, highserenity,

Interesting posts this "lazy" Monday (I thought today was President's Day; is the blog saying all of our presidents were lazy?)

You commented that Hillary supporters would almost all vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is for the party. I don't see it that way. To be fair, she has brought a lot of new people into the process. Barack Obama isn't the only one attracting new and disenfranchised voters. The Democratic Party doesn't "own" any of the voters for either candidate. That is part of what I love about this country; we are free to vote as we choose.

Many within the Democratic Party are threatened by so many new faces and so many new voices. That is why party rules become so important. They can control outcomes with super-delegates, credentials committees, and other establishment tricks that keep the power in the few. The problem with this mentality is that the party never really grows.

One example is a Hillary Clinton advisor, Harold Ickes. He wanted the power of being DNC chair and lost out to Howard Dean. Instead of being a gracious loser, Ickes decided to set up his own database outside the party to mirror the party in a way that he could control mailings, phone calls, etc. and rather than attempting to build the party he attempted to build his own power base. The Clintons are sore losers. Many of their supporters are clearly emotionally involved with the outcome of this primary (as are the Obama supporters) and it wouldn't surprise me if numerous Hillary supporters would sabotage an Obama victory just to spite the one that beat their candidate.

I've got a question that I can't seem to find the answer to in any of the regular media, so I'm turning to this forum for enlightenment. When the party decided not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, did we reduce the number of delegates necessary for a candidate to win? If so, by how much? If not, why not? I hope we didn't take two populous states off the table while keeping the required number of delegates to win the same - it seems like that would just increase the probability that neither candidate will have enough to clinch, and therefore increase the chance of internal friction within the party.

Hello dems.
A lot of activity on here today. Good to see quite a few new voices.

However, these numbers make for one ENORMOUS elephant in the room.

Posted by MichiganCarrie on February 18, 2008 at 04:15 PM

I agree, that this issue won't solve itself. I appreciate that you knew your vote wouldn't count and you voted anyway. My state, Washington, is holding a primary tomorrow. Every voter that is on the mail in ballots (which is most of the state) received ballots a few weeks ago without any mention that the Democrats choose all of their delegates through the caucus process and the Republicans choose about half of their delegates through the caucuses. Our caucuses were held February 9, and both my wife and I were selected as delegates to the Legislative District caucuses for Obama.

Washington voters can't complain when they realize their votes don't count, any more than "straw poll" voters at the Iowa State Fair can complain about their vote not counting. We go into situations with knowledge of the importance or outcome and live with the weight of those results.

MichiganCarrie, would you be willing to vote again if your state could set up another opportunity for your voice to be heard and counted?

andersonislanderforobama -
I think what highserenity is referring to (kick me, high, if I'm wrong), is that polls have shown that Obama supporters are much more likely to vote against the party if he isn't the nominee than Clinton supporters are. This, I believe, is his point in arguing electability: He can get all of her voters, but she can't get his.

This isn't surprising to me, given that Obama's own wife stated that she'd "really have to think about" voting for Clinton herself.

Maybe Ickes is a sore loser. However, for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.

Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!

The military complex and using our young soldiers for blood money is probably one of my highest.

Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 03:41 PM

A major reason why I won't vote Republican is because I think they will lead us down the same path we went in Vietnam with Iraq. I don't buy into either the left wing or the right wing mythology about Vietnam. Whether our involvement there was right or wrong, it wasn't a decision made exclusively by one party.

In military terms the war was over in January 1973 and it ended with favorable terms for the South Vietnamese. The problem with it was that we were supporting an unpopular minority government and that it was taking a great amount of military and financial aid to do that. When OPEC got together in 1973, the U.S. could no longer afford to provide the level of financial and military aid that was necessary to prop up the South Vietnamese government.

That's what I'm afraid will happen in Iraq. The politicians that are friendly with the U.S. will stay in power only so long as we can keep their government propped up with military and financial aid.

Politicians may be able to keep some people in this country from believing that the Iraq invasion and the benchmarks for foreign investment are not about oil but I don't think they are going to be able to sell that particular line of B.S. to the average Iraqi of any sect and I think that once our military and financial aid dries up, the present government will be taking their multi-national oil kickbacks to villas in Europe as the people remaining in Iraq resume killing each other until somebody wins, nationalizes the oil industry anyway, and their country ends up with another monster like Saddam Hussein.

The only candidate that talked openly about the particular "benchmark" of foreign investment though was Kucinich. So I'm a little concerned that both parties may be leading us in the same direction in Iraq.

Posted by ToucanSam on February 18, 2008 at 04:20 PM

GOOD QUESTION I can't find it
Hope someone with more web skills can

Michigancarrie you must NEVER come on here because all I see is Hillary supporters saying they will switch to independent and vote for McCain. I, and all the other Obama supporters have said is that we will vote straight Democratic in November regardless of the outcome.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns each accused the other of plagiarizing portions of their campaign speeches Monday, with the Clinton campaign accusing Obama of borrowing from a close supporter — and the Illinois senator’s campaign accusing his rival of lifting from Obama himself.

Hi Dawn and everyone, I have had a busy weekend, hope everyone is fine. Dawn you've got mail!

Posted by justaguy on February 18, 2008 at 04:37 PM

I've seen both...and I'm through trying to talk them off the ledge.

Politicians may be able to keep some people in this country from believing that the Iraq invasion and the benchmarks for foreign investment are not about oil but I don't think they are going to be able to sell that particular line of B.S. to the average Iraqi of any sect and I think that once our military and financial aid dries up, the present government will be taking their multi-national oil kickbacks to villas in Europe as the people remaining in Iraq resume killing each other until somebody wins, nationalizes the oil industry anyway, and their country ends up with another monster like Saddam Hussein.

The only candidate that talked openly about the particular "benchmark" of foreign investment though was Kucinich. So I'm a little concerned that both parties may be leading us in the same direction in Iraq.

Posted by Manymoonsago on February 18, 2008 at 04:32 PM

-----------

Yes I agree and have been saying all along that the biggest problem Bush is having in Iraq is that he didn't count on not being able to control the IRAQI PEOPLE. I totally think he believed that he would "install" the right people in power and the oil, or at least 2/3 of it would be handed to EXXON, CHEVRON, AND YES BRITISH PETROLEUM. It is why BLAIR also bamboosallled his people.
The 7 military bases were planned by the
PNAC members in the 1990's while we were sleeping.
Look up PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
I think it is on pg 54 of their doctrine that they stated they needed another PEARL HARBOR to be able to persuade (trick), the american people into attacking Iraq and occupying it.

I also supported Kucinich

MichiganCarrie,

for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.

Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!

Obama has not only supported Democratic candidates with his words, he campaigns very actively for Democrats to win in numerous states, and he donates to their campaigns through his HopeFund. He was on the ground for many of the new representatives and senators elected for the first time in 2006. Barack is very much a party supporter, while pointing out areas of weakness and possible ways to improve the party.

oops sorry
should be
7 permanent military bases
and
the Pearl Harbor they needed of course turned out to be 9/11

Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/18/101423/027

Posted by Cyn_NY on February 18, 2008 at 01:31 PM

Everyone seems to be accepting this without much question. Some are calling it "fact". It smells kind of fishy to me.

I checked on the link. It linked to another site which provided only this:

Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida—more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

I do not believe Obama went to FL. What was the money spent on? I have heard that he did a national air buy which had commercials on in many states including FL. Is that the $1.3M expenditure?

What makes no sense, is why would someone spend $1.3M on delegates that won't count. Say what you like about Obama, but he is not dumb. I think there is something fishy in these "facts". And the "facts" being provided aren't "facts". What was the money spent on? How much and to who?
Let's have some real facts before we make up our minds.

I would vote again in a heartbeat. My problems with a redo are two-fold:
1) A primary would be costly and (from all I've heard/read) unfeasable. I don't believe a caucus here would be fair - not because my gal doesn't do well in caucuses, but because we have a 24-hour workforce here. I was floored when I moved to Philadelphia a few years ago and couldn't even shop for groceries in the middle of the night! In MI, when I checked into a campground at 11pm only to find I'd forgotten my tent, what did I do? Ran to the store and bought a new one! What I realized quickly after moving to PA was that MI's auto industry and shiftwork have led to a 24-hour workforce. Between that and the fact that we have ZERO public transportation, I believe a 2-3 hour caucus window is too restrictive to be fair to the lion's share of voters. I'd love to be corrected, but I've also read that, while we had >2,000 polling sites for our primary, we'd only have ~200 caucus sites.
2) We don't have the resources to spare around here. Our state is really struggling economically, so the state committee would have to shoulder the burden. Our democratic legislators are extremely vulnerable - at last count reported on local public radio, 12 were under recall petition for a tax increase made to cover a staggering budget shortfall & protect vital services (ahhh, the legacy of a horrible republican governor). I'd first focus resources on protecting those seats and our embattled governor (also under recall petition). The situation is pretty dire here, all around.

Given that, as much as it pains me, I would rather just consider my vote a sacrificial lamb on the alter of misgivings we now all have about the party's nominating process. I'd rather set out next year to reform the process than further burden my state. That's a hard one to swallow.

What I think could go a long way is a smidgen of empathy and compassion, instead of the hard-line "state in which there are zero" delegates and rules-for-the-sake-of-rules mentality. It would have felt a whole lot different to we the people of MI had the message been, "This is a dilemma. We realize your state has by far the highest rate of unemployment, and that you are in desperate need of strong democratic leadership. We recognize that drove you to move your primary, and that, despite the consequences, your voters turned out at the polls. However, the move for early primaries was spiralling out of control. These consequences may not have been our only or even our best option, but in fairness to the 44 states who waited, we feel it is only right to stand by them."

As a former teacher, I learned quickly that consequences dealt with empathy and compassion are always the most effective - they're the ticket to peace and respect within a community.

Maybe, kind of a non-answer, but does that sound reasonable?

PAM
Where do you live?

highserenity, I live in CT.

I believe I saw that you live in the SF bay area? so does my daughter, who is moving back home after 10 years. I am headed back out there in a few weeks, for the final flight home with her and her pets she got from her Animal Rescue efforts.

MichiganCarrie,

for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.
Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!

------------------------

Obama has not only supported Democratic candidates with his words, he campaigns very actively for Democrats to win in numerous states, and he donates to their campaigns through his HopeFund. He was on the ground for many of the new representatives and senators elected for the first time in 2006. Barack is very much a party supporter, while pointing out areas of weakness and possible ways to improve the party.

Posted by andersonislanderforobama on February 18, 2008 at 04:48 PM

---------

thanks you for exposing MichiganCarrie
I forgot about the Hope Fund
which actually is Senator Barack Obama's PAC promoting Democratic candidates and leaders

Michigan
I thought your whole post explaining Michigan was truely informative
this part where you said
"Given that, as much as it pains me, I would rather just consider my vote a sacrificial lamb on the alter of misgivings we now all have about the party's nominating process. I'd rather set out next year to reform the process than further burden my state. That's a hard one to swallow."

is actually one of the most responsible I have heard for days and days

and p.s. I started a week ago trying to do the compassionate, as I really do feel bad for the innocent ones, but I just got unbelievable NON-SOLUTION oriented responses---mostly from Floridans who just wanted to scream, call foul, and tell everyone how abused they are. I gave up and needed reminded (by you just now) that it actually is the best way most times. thanks

who was the idiot on here the other day, saying that McCain NEVER uses his POW or heroic events as a campaign tool??

"Bush led us on a righteous crusade, but most Americans now see through the smoke and mirrors. Now John McCain campaigns for more of the same.

Ironically, the fundamentalist Muslims who headed the 9/11 attack probably enjoy seeing how the fundamentalist Christians in America exploited our fears. In the aftermath of the catastrophe, we allowed G. W. Bush to erode our rights in exchange for his claims to security. Meanwhile, in the name of national security, he grabbed power far beyond the limits of our own Constitution. Has our society begun to resemble that of our theocratic enemy?

The archdeacon of the theocon movement that began with Nixon and strengthened with Reagan, William Kristol is close friends with Bush and an avid admirer of John McCain. Dubya now passes the theocon torch to McCain who has begun to use Christian faith as a political springboard to demagoguery. He skillfully meshes his heroic POW experience with a religious re-awakening. He has learned from Dubya that using religion in a political campaign works miracles. When talking up his POW calamity, he melds the heroic event to his religious devotion. In speeches, he often blends religion with military heroism, the perfect persona in the popular Americana, a powerful sales pitch for votes.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12915#comment

justaguy -
That is pretty wild. You're right. This is my first day blogging here, but I've spent a lot of time on other sites (most of which favor Obama). Your experience here seems to fly in the face of the other blogs I've frequented and the statistics being cited by the media and the Oba