OPEN LETTER TO Governor Howard Dean, M.D., Chairman of the DNC:

As a member of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, and a part of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION Class and Culture of the United States, I am in receipt of your "DNC 2008 Take Back the White House Drive" letter dated March 14, 2008.

As a member of the DNC and a part of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION Class and Culture of the United States, I have grievances that concern both the Democratic Party and all levels of government, law and enforcement authority of the United States that must be addressed by the DNC; the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States as a CLASS and CULTURE must be loyally represented by the Democratic Party, if those who are a part of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a CLASS and CULTURE are to be expected by the DNC to be "loyal DNC members", as indicated in your March 14, 2008 letter; my first loyalty is to my own class and culture, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States; my second loyalty is to the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party.

As a part of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION Class and Culture of the United States, I am aggrieved that the Democratic Party, the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, as New Class representatives of the Professional Middle Class, both houses of the Congress of the United States, and all levels of both government and government enforcement authority in the United States ---- DO NOT REPRESENT the best interests of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States as a CLASS and CULTURE ---- and, that all of the above related political institutions together with all levels of both law and government enforcement authority in the United States are engaged in expedient harvesting of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States, as commodities for both political benefit and for the value of their communal resources.

Will the Democratic Party represent the grievances I have above indicated in the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States as a CLASS and CULTURE? And; if so, what actions will the Democratic National Committee, DNC, and the Democratic Party both take and maintain to politically resolve these grievances?

I want to be loyal to the DNC --- but, I also want loyalty from the DNC and the Democratic Party to the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States.

Thomas G. Miller

Latest NBC poll says 49 positive for Obama, only 38 for Clinton.

d beats Clinton by two.

Obama beats McCain by two.

Obama most likely to unite the country of all three.

YES WE CAN!

Are you folks aware that anyone who tries to post anything even slightly critical of Hillary Clinton, her prposed policies, or campaign anywhere on her web site gets their posts removed and their username and password blocked from access? And she wants to be President? With that kind of censorship and disenfranchising of voters' voices??? No way would I vote for her.

Yes we can!

Si se puede!

Good evening, all.

Human ancestor fossil found in Europe By DANIEL WOOLLS, Associated Press Writer

MADRID, Spain - A small piece of jawbone unearthed in a cave in Spain is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests that people lived on the continent much earlier than previously believed, scientists say...

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_sc/spain_ancient_jawbone

Funny that this should surface right after McCain visited Europe last week. At first I thought it was a headline about the Old Fossil himself. Tehe.

That is McCain beats Clinton by two.

Israel

America, as a whole, may be willing to forgive Barack Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, even if many Americans do not forgive Wright himself. But there is one statistically small group of Americans who will not be able to forgive. America's Jews.

I do not know if presidential hopeful Barack Obama will regain his reputation in the Jewish community after the scandal caused by his religious mentor. No doubt, this is a case of "guilt by association" but as Obama knows full well, politics is all about contacts, all about affiliations, all about associations.

Another from Israel

The speech was indeed about race but that was a diversion -- a clever one, worthy of a genius -- since what caused the outrage against Reverend Wright was not his racist cant but his anti-Americanism. Black racism is not new and doesn't shock -- we have become used to apologizing for slavery that existed before we were born and before most of our ancestors were in America. (By the way, it is interesting that this year we should have but didn't celebrate the law that prohibited the importation of slaves to the US on January 1, 1808, almost exactly 200 years ago!)

The outrage over Jeremiah Wright was his anti-Americanism. It wasn't unprecedented -- similar accusations were and are voiced in Islamic madrassahs around the world, by the demented presidents of Venezuela and Iran, by the neo-fascists, skinheads and anarchists, by the nuts of the right and the left.

Guyana

The race for the White House Waiting to exhale Wayne Brown is a well-known Trinidadian writer and columnist who now resides in Jamaica. This is the second in his Sunday Stabroek series on the US presidential election. By Wayne Brown

Posted by FloridaDemToo on March 26, 2008 at 06:40 PM

I respectfully disagree. While I do not represent the DNC nor it's IT Department, I have been rather critical of the junior senator from NY and this has not happened to me. Then again, I've kept it professional, at least most of the time.

FloridaDemToo I agree with BobVADemHawk-Obama08.

Sometimes when I click the post button nothing happens right away so I click again then I get that message. I double posted several times by accident today. The question is, why is this thing SOOOOOOOO slow!

Richardson Endorsement of Obama Makes Perfect Sense ne thing that Richardson was consistent about throughout his campaign, and continually figures in how he conducts his political life, is that he wants to be seen as a politician who unites people.

With Obama's rallies, it has been clear that a cross-section of voters attend: young, old, white, black, Latino, Asian, etc. Unfortunately, Clinton's rallies lack that same diversity in significant numbers all at one rally.

For a man who practices bringing peace to hard-hit areas of the world, and scolds his own party for dividing its electorate, especially over recent events, it's not a big surprise that Richardson would put aside his allegiance to his old friends the Clinton's and endorse Obama if there is a chance to unite, not just the party but the whole nation.

Posted by Veneita on March 26, 2008 at 06:51 PM

I was referring to hillaryclinton.com, not THIS web site. I have tried off and on for months to add comemnts to the blogs there but they either never appear or my log in fails nd I have to register a new one (and no, I didn't say anything rude, disrespectful, or profane).
As an example, go to her site, navigate from the home page to the "3 Myths" article, count the number of comments and then look at the number under the article for the comment count....they don't match (and none of the comments I tried to add ever showed up).

I posted all these foreign media stories, all I could find from google news. All are from foreign papers written by foreign authors to show that the world is watching us. Keep that in mind.

Posted by FloridaDemToo on March 26, 2008 at 07:00 PM

I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying.

What you said earlier makes perfect sense now. Her blog has classified you as a troll much like Mr. Link does with our trolls. Login using a different e-mail address and try your luck.

So, if Clinton's last hope was to convince the Super Delegates that she is more electable, what happens now that the latest polls show's she isn't?

Do they have the backbone to finally come out and say good bye to Sen. Clinton?

She really is looking sad and tired recently. She needs a break.

Posted by FloridaDemToo on March 26, 2008 at 07:00 PM

I have been there to read but not to post. I'd make my comments here in the broader discussion. :)

Go away, Bill and Hiliary!

Bill Clinton today says, “Let’s fight!” That’s so disingenuous because his wife’s the candidate behind in this race, the rules never apply to both the candidates on the Democratic side anyway, and many of the voters are so sick and tired of negative politics anyway.

Barack Obama is ahead, so why should he want to fight? That’d be stupid! Candidates who are behind always want to continue the fight. Besides, it’s Bill Clinton who’s calling for the fight, not Hiliary. Bill Clinton is not the candidate. He’s a former candidate and a former President who, as titular head of the Democratic Party, is pushing his weight around and being a damn bully, acting very un-presidential, and recklessly ruining the Democratic Party in the process. Also, whenever the Obama campaign staff or the media take on Hiliary, the Clinton camp always whines and wants them all fired immediately. So who are they kidding? Millions of Americans want the dirty politics to stop, and the Clintons, and their supporters, just don’t get the message.

It’s always been about the Clintons and how the rules apply to everyone else, but them. As long as they keep up this gutter politics and act like spoiled brats, they not only bring on more and more of their own negatives, but they also ruin our chances in the fall and may very well destroy the Democratic Party in the process.

Posted by FloridaDemToo on March 26, 2008 at 07:00 PM

I have been there to read but not to post. I'd make my comments here in the broader discussion. :)

Obama gets the Blue Majority endorsement

Go away, Bill and Hiliary!

Bill Clinton today says, “Let’s fight!” That’s so disingenuous because his wife’s the candidate behind in this race, the rules never apply to both the candidates on the Democratic side anyway, and many of the voters are so sick and tired of negative politics anyway.

Barack Obama is ahead, so why should he want to fight? That’d be stupid! Candidates who are behind always want to continue the fight. Besides, it’s Bill Clinton who’s calling for the fight, not Hiliary. Bill Clinton is not the candidate. He’s a former candidate and a former President who, as titular head of the Democratic Party, is pushing his weight around and being a damn bully, acting very un-presidential, and recklessly ruining the Democratic Party in the process. Also, whenever the Obama campaign staff or the media take on Hiliary, the Clinton camp always whines and wants them all fired immediately. So who are they kidding? Millions of Americans want the dirty politics to stop, and the Clintons, and their supporters, just don’t get the message.

It’s always been about the Clintons and how the rules apply to everyone else, but them. As long as they keep up this gutter politics and act like spoiled brats, they not only bring on more and more of their own negatives, but they also ruin our chances in the fall and may very well destroy the Democratic Party in the process.

Clinton down, Obama not so much

Rev. Wright controversy seems to have done little damage to Obama among likely Democratic voters, but Clinton's negative ratings have reached a new high, NBC/WSJ poll finds.

From NBC's Chuck Todd

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think.

Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37% positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7%. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

On that issue specifically, 32% of folks said he "sufficiently addressed the issue," while 26% of those folks believe he needs to address the Wright controversy further; 31% of voters surveyed did not see the speech or had no opinion. Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47% said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37% said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45% were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38% were not; Among blacks, 67% said the speech was sufficient while 25% want him to address it further.

Overall, 55% of voters told us that they were "disturbed" by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos that circulated so widely on cable TV and the Internet.

As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans...

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

The poll numbers also show Hillary not carrying the majority of women voters for the first time. Seems like the controversy hurt her more than Obama. McCain got away scot free.

So apparently saying that the Obamas should leave their church of 20 years because of the former pastor's remarks didn't go over so well with women but delighted the GOP dittoheads of Operation Chaos?

Linbaugh might be torpedoing the very candidate he wants to help? Typical Republican incompetence.

Hillary's Rev. Wright His name is Richard Mellon Scaife. By Timothy Noah Updated Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 6:47 PM ET

"Hate speech [is] unacceptable in any setting," Hillary Clinton today told the Tribune-Review. We turn now to this excerpt from a 1981 Columbia Journalism Review profile of Scaife by Karen Rothmyer, in which the reporter describes a conversation with the distinguished publisher and philanthropist:

"Mr. Scaife, could you explain why you give so much money to the New Right?"

"You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here."

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking."

"Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today."

Do you need a picture?

Good night fellow Democrats. Keep the Faith and keep the faith. The populist revolution has begun.

WTF does he think has been going on these last 5 years? What does this old senile man think "insurgency"means??? Thanks to George Bush, Chimp-in-chief, he CAUSED this destruction of this country, same as our's.

McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4528489&page=1

Judge to ex-pastor: 'You lied'
By ROCCO LaDUCA
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:25 PM
Last update Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:27 PM
http://www.uticaod.com/ homepage/x1637676857

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

�As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied,� Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Hillary - you are showing poor judgement in your election strategy. It shows your lack of experience.

I don't know if HRC goes to that church. It's in Clinton County.

Even without Dan Rather someone's gonna hate CBS News for this one.

Dear Friends,
Instead of fighting John Mccain and Karl Rove,right now we have to settle things among ourselves, nominate our candidate for president.
Have you thought for a moment about a GOP plot to pump up Barak Obama as the best candidate? How he came up from nowhere and was elected in US Congress, and the media since then started predicting that he was a rising star in Democratic party? How it happened that he is getting so much support from the businesses funding his campaign? Why those businesses and the party establishment didn't support Senator John Edwards for presidency, who, by the way, was our best candidate? My suspicion is that GOP is pumping up Barak Obama because they think he will be a week candidate. And, even though John Mccain has an idiot platform of continuing the war in Iraq, he may win the presidency against a black candidate. I can understand this. Not only Indipendents, but also white Democrats are not willing to vote for a Black president. Blacks represent some 12% of the population. So, my point is that Hillary Clinton may be more electable than Barak Obama. Please think about this and suggest to DNC to be more proactive.

Posted by SandyH on March 26, 2008 at 05:16 PM

If you're asking me if I can/will vote for Hillary I can't say. I was just reminded of her life threatenig trip to Bosnia again by the media... Send in the clowns. How desperate am I? Beginning to wonder...

We agree on too much to bicker. This much I know. BBL.

Posted by GOTV on March 26, 2008 at 08:00 PM

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

http://samsedershow.com/node/2732#comment-171193

Fellow Democrats:

In response to many of us admonishing Bill and Hillary Clinton to refrain from engaging in personal attacks while conducting Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign, Bill Clinton said there was "saddle up" and get ready for more bitter Democratic infighting. Bill Clinton responded by saying we were going to have an argument.

In response to Bill Clinton, I say I'd welcome an "honest argument;" however, I do not welcome race-baiting, gender-baiting, fear based tactics or lies. On the one hand, Bill Clinton wants Barack Obama held accountable for everything everyone who has ever spoken to Obama has said. On the other hand, he doesn't want Hillary Clinton or his daughter to be asked about Monica Lewinsky. If the Clintons want an honest debate, an honest debate they'll get; however, their tactics thus far have prevented the Democrats from having this honest debate.

A full and fair discussion of the issues is fair, mud-slinging, personal attacks, fear-mongering, race-baiting and lying about Bosnia is not fair.

In further response to Bill Clinton's request, I'm going to start an honest examination of Hillary Clinton's current and prior positions relative to issues in this campaign. I also think it is necessary to examine some of Hillary Clinton's prior statements.

Posted by Gus on March 26, 2008 at 08:33 PM

This would make sense if the presidency was decided on the popular vote nationwide. However it's decided by state. In some states Af Ams make up to 30 percent of the electorate. If Obama gets that, he only needs 18 percent of the white vote in a state like SC to win. HRC is burning her bridges to the Af Am community. That's the insanity of it for me. Does WJC think that if they get the nomination by foul means that he can come to the black community and look for them to pull is ass out of the fire like they did with Monica? Don't count on it. Obama can win California, the Pacific Northwest and other traditionally Dem states. Given the scorced earth policy of HRC what can she win? How will it play in New Hampshire that she played them on the Michigan vote? How will it play in OH that she hosted folks to urge support of NAFTA?

Fellow Democrats:

It is time for Bill and Hillary Clinton to “Saddle Up” and address Hillary’s inconsistent and ill-informed positions relative to the Iraq War. In order to fact check my statements, please refer to the following website:

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/mar/timeline_onIraq/timeline_onIraq.html?ps=bb2

On October 11, 2002, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq. As an aside, she did so without reading all the available intelligence. She failed to read all the available intelligence in spite of being admonished by a colleague that she should read all the available intelligence before voting to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq.

On February 5, 2005, after returning from a trip to Iraq with Senator John McCain, both Senators McCain and Clinton appeared on “Meet the Press.” While on “Meet the Press” on February 5, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton said the United States shouldn’t set a deadline to leave Iraq because it would only encourage the insurgents. Nearly 2.5 years after voting to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq, Hillary Clinton apparently still did NOT realize that the two warring factions in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shiites, had already been fighting for millennia. 2.5 years after voting for the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton was apparently operating under the assumption that the War in Iraq was a standard insurgency, notwithstanding the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Finally, in June of 2006, Hillary Clinton said she “would like” to bring the troops home and that the United States should “empower Iraqis.” While this represented an evolution in her position, she still was not calling for a timetable or asking for anything definitive.

On January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President.

On February 2, 2007, AFTER ANNOUNCING SHE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, Hillary Clinton didn’t call for a timetable, rather she said the United States should cap the number of ADDITIONAL TROOPS sent to Iraq via the surge. To her credit, she at least said that if the War in Iraq were not over by 2009, she would end it as President, though she offered no specifics as to when and how she would end it.

On September 11, 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton basically noted there was little progress in Iraq and there was little hard evidence as to what needed to be accomplished. She still did not call for a timeline for a troop withdrawal or set forth a specific method for ending the war.

On February 2, 2008, after the primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had already grown difficult, Hillary Clinton finally said she’d start bringing the troops home within the first 60 days of taking office. She said it was the Iraqi’s responsibility to solve Iraq’s problems. Her statements on February 2, 2008 and since February 2, 2008 are in marked contrast to the statements she made before the Democratic Primary had grown difficult.

Given Hillary Clinton’s prior positions on Iraq along side her recent problems with “mis-speaking” relative to Bosnia and her experiences as first lady, it seems reasonable to question whether Hillary Clinton really intends to end the War in Iraq. After all, she traveled to Iraq with John McCain and went on “Meet the Press” with John McCain in support of John McCain’s opposition to a timeline.

During this same timeframe, Barack Obama consistently said the Iraq War was the wrong battle for the United States to be fighting and insisted the United States should instead be attacking Al Qaeda along with its leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Well Bill and Hillary, SADDLE UP! Explain Hillary Clinton’s prior inconsistent positions relative to Iraq.

Popular Vote:
Obama
13,355,239 49.5%

Clinton
12,637,963 46.9%

Delegate Count (as per RealClearPolitics.com):
Obama: 1629 Total (1414 pledged, 215 superdeleg)
Clinton: 1497 Total (1247 pledged, 250 superdeleg)

Money (as per OpenSecrets.org):

Obama: cash on hand - $38,833,08
debts: $625,058

Clinton: cash on hand - $33,174,862
debts: $8,733,609

These are facts. Can we leave the nastiness at the door. Anyone else notice what an idiot McCain is proving himself to be? Shouldn't we be talking about that instead? Why can't we all just get along...

WestPA, you're speaking of Gospel Singers? So they make legislation now? Also, Barack's chuch has a Gay Ministry and ordaines Gay Clergy. You can find anything anywhere to support either candidate, especially on the internet. I made up my mind for Barack in January. It's unfortunate the party is being split. I feel Hillary is splitting it. I'm a life long Dem and I don't know that I'll vote for her if she gets the nod. Everytime I turn around she is on Fox or with the conservative press. I wouldn't be surprised to see a crazy McCain/Clinton ticket at this point.

Posted by Pima on March 26, 2008 at 09:14 PM

You know, I just want Hillary Clinton to explain the above inconsistencies with regard to Iraq.

Or, more importantly, she could outline a positive agenda in support of her candidacy instead of attempting to destroy the front-runner, Barack Obama.

For example, she's lied a lot about her past trips to Bosnia and attempted to attack Obama. She's also used fear, race and gender in an attempt to divide the Party, but she hasn't talked a lot about what she would specifically do to save Social Security. Obama proposed eliminating the cap on payroll taxes for top income earners, would she support such a measure? Obama proposed reducing taxation on retirement income under 50,000 per year, would she support such a measure?

Similarly, I'd like to know more about her current stance on Iraq and I'd like her to reconcile her current position on Iraq with her prior statements. I'd like her to explain why she waited until she was locked in a difficult primary before clearly opposing the War in Iraq. I'd like to know about her plans for Iraq. She's been so busy trying to destroy Obama lately, I no longer know where she stands on anything.

Does she support Ben Bernanke's recent decisions as chairman of the federal reserve? If not, why not? What type of chairperson would she appoint? What qualities does she think the chairperson ought to have? Does she agree with his decision to reduce the Federal Funds Rate by 75 basis points? If not, why not?

She says she's the candidate of substance. Instead, I see her as the candidate of personal attacks and lies, but I'd like very much for her to prove me wrong.

What about NAFTA? She told the Ohio voters she's always opposed it, but documents from during the Clinton Administration show she actually attended several meetings to encourage law makers to support NAFTA. What gives?

Posted by Pima on March 26, 2008 at 09:29 PM

You're probably right about this. Welcome to the Democratic Party Website. Unlike you Republicans, we can never unite. Our "Party Elders" remember 1968, but learned no lessons from that time. You all could have run any candidate you wanted, and we still would have imploded. But Pima, do me a favor, will you please talk your Party out of adding trillions more to the national debt, starting world war III, fueling stagflation and destroying the dollar?

Posted by Pima on March 26, 2008 at 09:29 PM

And why can't we unite, two words: The Clintons.
They gave you Newt. They gave you both houses of the legislature in 1994. They gave you the Presidency in 2000. Now it seems as though they will give you the Presidency in 2008. I'm sure Republicans love the Clintons. If not, you all sure should love them.

McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War
Posted by PamB

He's right you know. While it's mostly one side killing the other, our troops' presence is definitely limiting it's extent. If the US pulls out it will explode with the loss of 100's of thousands of lives.

Posted by MarkLof on March 26, 2008 at 08:05 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the deal. (he said COULD)

NO ONE DENIES that a lot more Iraqis are going to die in the future.

We can stay, for a few years, or lots of years, and it will be a slllooowwww bleed.
or
We can leave, and one of two things will happen.
1. Like VieTnam, none of what our leaders predicted would happen if we left did.
2. They will have a civil war like we did, a bloodbath if you want to call it, and it will stop.

If number 2 happens, the multi-millions who have been displaced to other countries will know they can come home sooner than later.

Actually, in either case, no one KNOWS what will happen.

We do KNOW that if number 1 happens, our troops are going to be tied up and diverted from truly being able to do what they signed up for----protecting America.

From today's first read, msnbc...this is so sad, a low blow. I am sorry Chelsea and all families who have to pay for the heartbreak of hypocracy and finger pointing. I read this article, and after 37 pages of opinions I was also very bothered by the fact that no one had set the record straight. Most of America still thinks that President Bill Clinton was empeached. This is not true. The President was found NOT GUILTY of an empeachable offense. Look it up. I am so sick of ignorance and disrespect but even more alarmed that it is not being countered in our major media.
Chelsea should have asked this boy when he last got laid...we all really would love to know....how does it feel. Women know, most of us get cheated on in our long term relationships unfortunately - we are complex beings, sexual beings and not so naturally monogomous beings. Move on Dems...move on.
I will still vote Dem. for our candidate, because the right wing zombifried troll brains stir this crap up over and over like a broken old modus operandi hoping and banking on the fact that most Americans do not know their history and have social amnesia plus hopes of divide and conquer with the wedge issues. That the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon their children and wives, that we just stop throwing stones at glass ceilings. Here's the link to:
Chelsea Asked About Monica...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/807581.aspx?p=38

Another fact, I am hearing more dirty political language, the word 'entitled' thrown around - this means earned and not anything other than owning, as in owning property...which means paying taxes, keeping up and maintaining the property, which is not very easy these days for us homeowners, I do not think there are any Marie Antionettes hanging around here, and this image has nothing to do with hard working senators so get over it.

Get a heart and have a nice day. Heal the oceans plastic trash dump dead zones by recycling your plastic bags or using cloth ones, go solar, or save the forests and stop wars. Let there be LOVE, WISDOM, COMPASSION, FORGIVENESS and PEACE for all, and let it begin with ME, YOU, AND OUR HARD WORKING DEVOTED PUBLIC SERVANTS. These are the important issues that affect our lives. The alternative to this is not a healthy option.

Posted by Pima on March 26, 2008 at 09:39 PM

Honestly, I agree with you 100% on this. I remember those campaigns in the 1990
s, but I was a very young Democrat at that time. I never understood why you all disliked the Clintons. Now, I get it. You know, I may disagree with John McCain, but unlike the Clintons, at least he appears to be willing to have an honest debate.

You're right that the Clintons are perfectly willing to destroy the Party and their opponent, regardless of whether it brings them victory. This can be contrasted with the Republicans who trailed John McCain after Super Tuesday. Some continued their campaigns, but they were respectful toward John McCain and sought to unite the Republican Party. They only hung around to make sure his campaign didn't implode. Their conduct was very different from the Clintons.

Unfortunately, you're right that this is all too common in the Democratic Party. It seems we will never learn our lesson. It seems you are right and that we may have to lose yet again, curtesy of Hillary Clinton.

You know, I honestly wouldn't mind losing so much if I thought McCain would balance the budget and start researching alternative fuels. Tell him this. Those are my two biggest beefs right now. It seems that if we could develop a domestic energy resource and balance the budget, that would go a long way toward fixing many of our other issues. Of course, I'm a Democrat for a variety of reasons with which you would disagree. That said, I'm sure you care a lot about this Country and want to make it a stronger and more perfect union. We just disagree as to how we ought to go about doing this.

But we can at least agree on this point: The Democratic "Party Elders" are, for the most part, behaving like 'asshats' at this moment. If they wanted to win, they'd be putting a lot of public pressure on Hillary Clinton at this point.

Republicans would never tolerate this nonsense. There's plenty of disagreement in the GOP, but you all don't inject racism and sexism into every single debate, unlike Hillary Clinton. You all might use fear tactics against us, but Republicans would never employ these tactics against fellow Republicans. To do so is to essentially concede the Presidential election. I have to agree with you on this point. In terms of knowing how to run presidential campaigns and manage party politics, Republicans are FAR better at it than Democrats.

In fact, I might even go a step further. If we were better at running campaigns, may be the GOP wouldn't have been able to run up trillions in debt, conduct the Iraq War in the manner in which it has been conducted or implement policies that are perpetuating inflation and our energy dependence on the Middle East.

If you're on this site, chances are that although you and I disagree about a lot of issues, I'm willing to bet we have some things in common. I bet we at least care about the same issues, even if we don't have the same positions. I bet we both care deeply about the United States and its success. We don't want another foreign nation to be in superior economic or military position because we don't want a foreign nation to control us or put pressure on us to act differently than we otherwise would.

In spite of our differences, I bet we could have a more diplomatic airing of our differences and have a more diplomatic discussion than that in which the Clintons have engaged in recent weeks.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/clinton_donors_warn_pelosi_on.html
Clintons get rich backers to lean on Nancy.

Wow! High count of new names posting stuff I'm surprised to read here. Do we have shills on the blog? Seems like they are more intent on slamming Obama than in promoting Clinton.

That's the way to win, you know. That's how it's done without knee-capping your opponent. When tactics get dirty within party ranks, no one wins.

I learn most from reading positives about any Democratic candidate, but when I hear or read about candidates engaging in dishonest, unfair, go-for-broke tactics, I get so disgusted, it makes me wish to avoid politics altogether. You can't feel good about a winner who cheats to win.

Fellow Democrats:

This is a repost.

It is time for Bill and Hillary Clinton to “Saddle Up” and address Hillary’s inconsistent and ill-informed positions relative to the Iraq War. In order to fact check my statements, please refer to the following website:

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/mar/timeline_onIraq/timeline_onIraq.html?ps=bb2

On October 11, 2002, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq. As an aside, she did so without reading all the available intelligence. She failed to read all the available intelligence in spite of being admonished by a colleague that she should read all the available intelligence before voting to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq.

On February 5, 2005, after returning from a trip to Iraq with Senator John McCain, both Senators McCain and Clinton appeared on “Meet the Press.” While on “Meet the Press” on February 5, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton said the United States shouldn’t set a deadline to leave Iraq because it would only encourage the insurgents. Nearly 2.5 years after voting to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq, Hillary Clinton apparently still did NOT realize that the two warring factions in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shiites, had already been fighting for millennia. 2.5 years after voting for the Iraq War, Hillary Clinton was apparently operating under the assumption that the War in Iraq was a standard insurgency, notwithstanding the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Finally, in June of 2006, Hillary Clinton said she “would like” to bring the troops home and that the United States should “empower Iraqis.” While this represented an evolution in her position, she still was not calling for a timetable or asking for anything definitive.

On January 20, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President.

On February 2, 2007, AFTER ANNOUNCING SHE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, Hillary Clinton didn’t call for a timetable, rather she said the United States should cap the number of ADDITIONAL TROOPS sent to Iraq via the surge. To her credit, she at least said that if the War in Iraq were not over by 2009, she would end it as President, though she offered no specifics as to when and how she would end it.

On September 11, 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton basically noted there was little progress in Iraq and there was little hard evidence as to what needed to be accomplished. She still did not call for a timeline for a troop withdrawal or set forth a specific method for ending the war.

On February 2, 2008, after the primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had already grown difficult, Hillary Clinton finally said she’d start bringing the troops home within the first 60 days of taking office. She said it was the Iraqi’s responsibility to solve Iraq’s problems. Her statements on February 2, 2008 and since February 2, 2008 are in marked contrast to the statements she made before the Democratic Primary had grown difficult.

Given Hillary Clinton’s prior positions on Iraq along side her recent problems with “mis-speaking” relative to Bosnia and her experiences as first lady, it seems reasonable to question whether Hillary Clinton really intends to end the War in Iraq. After all, she traveled to Iraq with John McCain and went on “Meet the Press” with John McCain in support of John McCain’s opposition to a timeline.

During this same timeframe, Barack Obama consistently said the Iraq War was the wrong battle for the United States to be fighting and insisted the United States should instead be attacking Al Qaeda along with its leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Well Bill and Hillary, SADDLE UP! Explain Hillary Clinton’s prior inconsistent positions relative to Iraq.

Posted by Kev on March 26, 2008 at 09:00 PM

Remember the old saying,
Factionism is the disease of the left.

"Pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, and I get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again."
The Who

I forgot to link: here it is again:
First Read article on Chelsea...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/807581.aspx?p=1

Posted by tylinCA on March 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Harpo and Company are in the house.

Posted by tylinCA on March 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM

I apologize, but I do think it is important to examine Senator Clinton's prior statements relative to Iraq. I believe she has held several positions over the years, depending on which position was politically expedient at a given moment. I have plenty of positive things to say about Obama. I've said them before on this blog. But I believe we shouldn't sit back and quietly take it when the Clintons' engage in the tactics in which they engage.

Bill Clinton said, "Saddle up" and get ready for more infighting. I figured, one way we could have the "argument" Bill wants to have would be to examine Hillary Clinton's evolving stances relative to the war in Iraq. Since it is primarily her campaign that has shown such a penchant for gutter politics, I figured I'd focus on her.

Plus, I really don't think I was being unfair. I cited to NPR's website, on which there is a link illustrating Hillary Clinton's ever changing statements relative to Iraq.

Unlike statements by surrogates or former ministers, the Iraq War is a major issue in this campaign. Regardless of whether a given individual is supportive of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq or opposed to its policies, I believe Hillary Clinton's current and prior statements on the subject are fair game.

Posted by PeanutButterJellyGirl on March 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM

From your link:
Johnson...said the objective was to "to make sure this thing isn't over till it's over" ..."

I can only speak for myself, but it's over for me the minute one candidate so damages the other by dishonest means that it makes that candidate unelectable. I don't know why Clinton is continuing her campaign. It's obvious she cannot win enough delegates. Her only hope is to win the popular vote and that chance is negligable. She could earn so much respect by a graceful withdrawal now rather than continuing her grasping hard-scrabble roll in the gutter of politics. I want an end to the rule of Clinton's and Bush's. Time for a change.

Posted by SandyH on March 26, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Ah, that explains it. Up to their old name-changing tricks.

Fellow Democrats:

It's somewhat amusing that a few of the Clintons' rich donors are attempting to shake-down Nancy Pelosi. I think she should respond by endorsing Barack Obama. After all, he raised over 55 million in one month from small donors. Who needs the old political machine if the old machine won't support and help propel the new grass roots movement? Political Machine politicians may fear this new grass roots strategy, but they shouldn't. If they would combine forces with the grassroots movement, imagine the policies we could implement! This should be viewed as a liberating opportunity.

Sure, some folks will have less influence over the Democratic Party, but these same folks will be much more likely to have policies similar to their own actually implemented. In addition, political machine politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, will no longer owe their political careers to a few wealthy donors, if they mimic Barack Obama's method of campaign financing. Regardless of whether these few exceedingly wealthy Clinton donors want to get on board with this revolution in campaign financing and politics, it's going to happen. The cat is out of the bag. They may as well quit trying to pretend they can stop this simply by stealing the nomination this time around.

Elizabeth Banks cast as Laura Bush By Borys Kit

March 25, 2008

Elizabeth Banks is going from the world of adult films to the White House.

The actress, who recently wrapped shooting Kevin Smith's "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," is in final negotiations to portray Laura Bush in "W," Oliver Stone's biopic on the life and presidency of George W. Bush.

At first I thought Stone was making a horror movie, but it appears he's decided to do Bush's life as a comedy?

I suppose a porno actress would be perfectly cast in a movie where the title character is obscene. Who is going to play Cheney? Larry Craig?

Fred Thompson was going to play himself, but he wasn’t up to the challenge. McCain will play the role of that guy that ran with Ross Perrot.

Posted by Kev on March 26, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Kev, my comments were not addressed to you. You are asking perfectly legitimate questions. There's nothing underhanded about citing a candidate's public record and asking for clarification.

Happy Birthday to you, goodfoe!

{{Smooch}} :D

Good Night Democrats. I hope our "Party Elders" join Governor Richardson and put an end to this nonsense. We are only hurting ourselves the longer this primary continues. Given the delegate count, the popular vote and the limited number of remaining primaries, it's time for the Democratic Party to unite behind the front runner, Barack Obama. I'm not asking Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race. I am asking that she cease with the gutter politics. I'm asking her not to exercise the "Tonya Harding Option." Having a debate about honest issues is different than injecting race, gender, lies and fear into the campaign.

Good Night and Good Luck

Posted by tylinCA on March 26, 2008 at 10:59 PM

I was just making sure. I've been trying to do a better job censoring myself lately. I was so tempted to make a bad pun off Bill Clinton's "Saddle Up" comment, but I thought better of it. Hey, I'm trying to be fair to them so that they will change their tune and be fair to Obama, you know?

Obama's not perfect, but he's a wonderful American and he's a wonderful candidate. He should be treated with respect. To the extent Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton take issue with his policies, that's okay with me. Personal attacks are not. I know this has always been your policy as well with both camps and I respect that. You have a good night.

Political Machine politicians may fear this new grass roots strategy, but they shouldn't. If they would combine forces with the grassroots movement, imagine the policies we could implement! This should be viewed as a liberating opportunity.

Posted by Kev on March 26, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I was just thinking that if every political supporter sent in just $5 to their candidate, we could outbid any possible lobbyist. The power of the people massed together could neutralize the effect of undue influence.

Good late evening Dems!

I just got super lost in DC. I think we should probably send some of our money for road signs, since our capitol city is in severe need of some clear direction!

Good night, Kev. Good night, Sandy. Good night, stalwart Dems. Tomorrow!

This should be viewed as a liberating opportunity.

Posted by Kev on March 26, 2008 at 10:52 PM

This is what the political machines are afraid of. They want to do whatever they want with our policies, they don't actually want us to care.

Kev,

You're just making yourself crazy trying to figure out what's going on with the campaigns.

Let The Clintons self-destruct on their own. It's just a matter of time. We have to quit trying to rationalize why anyone would do this to themselves and the party.

I'd rather concentrate on who the Republicans "saddled" themselves with by allowing McCain to become their albatross. He's perfect in every respect for a nation sick of old men and their wars...and he even comes with Lieberman as a bonus prize.

The economy, or what's left of it after two recessions, two Enron-type financial scandals, a major devaluation of our dollar, outsourcing, and the sub-prime mess, will be so confusing for McCain to debate, he'll probably just concede the point.

His ties to K Street and Cindy's ties to the mob, should seal the deal with most voters who are still angry about Cunningham, Abramoff, Walter Reed.

His answer to everything is 100 more years of war profiteering and oil swindles/profits in Iraq topped off with bomb, bomb Iran.

What a platform. I look forward to seeing him get continually confused while tripping over Bush and Cheney at every twist and turn.

Good night, everyone. Try to have a sense of humor about what will ultimately work out well for us.

Posted by tylinCA on March 26, 2008 at 11:11 PM

tylin...the populist revolution of funding candidates thru small individual donations is certainly a hopefull alternative to the old method, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to change the way policy is determined and laws are written. looking forward to his or her future after washington will tempt any politician to look favorably upon a lobbyist's faustian promises. eliminating term limits would go a long way toward removing the temptation to "feather one's bed". and concerning donations, i'm totally in favor of all donations, small or large, being anonomous and channeled thru a 'clearing house' so the recepient would have no idea of who contributed how much to his/her campaign.

Posted by _Thomas_G

Oh no, not again!

No way would I vote for her.

Posted by FloridaDemToo on March 26, 2008 at 06:40 PM

I would. But only because McCan will do it in REAL life, not just on a Web site.

And um...it is her campaign web site, after all. Never seen a retailer who has negative reviews on their Web site. Why would I think a candidate for offfice would allow it?

More evidence that conservatives will vote Obama:

The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.

The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. Worse, under the guise of keeping Americans “safe,” he has arrogated to the executive branch unprecedented powers, thereby subverting the Constitution. Whatever else may be said about this record of achievement, it does not accord with conservative principles.

[...]For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.

The conservative case for Barack Obama

Wow, this is a great article, and I wanted to quote all of it. Read it and send it to any on-the-fence conservatives you know. This truly lays out the logical reasons why America cannot afford John McCain (in many ways).

I can understand this. Not only Indipendents, but also white Democrats are not willing to vote for a Black president. Blacks represent some 12% of the population. So, my point is that Hillary Clinton may be more electable than Barak Obama. Please think about this and suggest to DNC to be more proactive.

Posted by Gus on March 26, 2008 at 08:33 PM

This is why it is great to be an American. When we allow prejudices to be expose, it shows who we are. Regardless of your skin color, you are an American first. If I am not mistaken, Senator Obama is running for President of the United States of America. He is not running as the black candidate. He's running as the candidate, who happens to be black. You and I can not sweep history of our people, of this country; underneath the carpet, nor hide it in the closet. If you don't know what I am talking about then review your history books, when it comes to America's history on slavery and injustice. That 12% of the population are Americans first, blacks second. That 12% ethnic group serves as local politicians, teachers, bus drivers, doctors, managers, soldiers, sailors, marines and airman. That 12% is part of the greatest country in the world. No one in this country is perfect, as much as we would like to believe. There are imperfect people regardless of color or gender. Remember the 12% are Americans first, black second.

Oh, Marie? Bill Clinton was impeached. You really need to learn what you are talking baout before typing. Unless your whole intent is to make yourself look stupid in front of a WHOLE bunch of people who actually know the terms.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

However, that said, the rest of your post made sense, Marie :)

Posted by Kev
In fact, I might even go a step further. If we were better at running campaigns, may be the GOP wouldn't have been able to run up trillions in debt, conduct the Iraq War in the manner in which it has been conducted or implement policies that are perpetuating inflation and our energy dependence on the Middle East.

If you're on this site, chances are that although you and I disagree about a lot of issues, I'm willing to bet we have some things in common. I bet we at least care about the same issues, even if we don't have the same positions. I bet we both care deeply about the United States and its success. We don't want another foreign nation to be in superior economic or military position because we don't want a foreign nation to control us or put pressure on us to act differently than we otherwise would.

In spite of our differences, I bet we could have a more diplomatic airing of our differences and have a more diplomatic discussion than that in which the Clintons have engaged in recent weeks.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Kev, I think you are seeing the bigger picture and we all should be. I will say that all sides have been in this painful debate. You know, at the very beginning of this I had the weird and uncomfortable feeling that neither Hilary nor Obama felt very happy about having to go at it, and I have heard often that they are very close on the main issues. This has not been easy for us. We need to look outside of our fish bowl now. If we are the fish, that is not water, that is air. If we are a country, that out there is not our language, culture, not loyal, not the workers that keep our land maintained, no family stories from the past, no school reunions, no friends here, not from here at all.
However, we are still homo sapiens on Planet Earth and like other living beings FEEL the same joy, sadness, pleasure, pain.
It's good to keep our priorities in order, we do have many of the same concerns out here, WE are the PEOPLE, let's keep informing ourselves on the important issues so we are not Sheeple, eh??? Yeah, right on brothers and sistahs!
No more of the SAME broken promises like no child left behind, no more lies and jive. No more runaway shops, embezzelled company profits, Enrons, Coingates, Polarization of the classes, sign on the dotted lines predators or used car salesman types and oil combustable types in the Whitehouse. They are antiquated beyond belief.
Check out the Air Cars for example, we had this technology in early 1900's here, interesting what happened: Go to site, go to Air Cars, go to History and you will be amazed...

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/

For the latest from the New York Car Show and the Progressive Insurance reward on the Air Cars, including videos, go to:

http://guynegre.net/

These are the issues we need to be getting to, the solutions, and the peaceful solutions. Yes, Vietnam did go on, it is still here on Planet Earth. Let's rise above not fall behind. Together.
That is a big difference with the Dems. If the Clintons retire, fine. If Hilary is my President fine. If Obama becomes my President fine. If McCain is my President, that will be not okay, that will be more of the same big mistake. That is the big picture for the PEOPLE, because the big shots win again with no checks or balances, and the PEOPLE foot the bills that get higher, things get more run down and they suffer more, infact, the PEOPLE get poorer and left behind while a small percentage of people live the life of Riley until something from outside of here crashes in wanting their money back, so please, if you want a future vote wisely, vote DEM.
Bill introduced one good word and concept that we all believed in once, INCLUSION. It worked, lets get back to work.
The alternative is NOT a healthy option.Go Dems Go, each one of you NOT getting fooled again is a precious thing for ALL.
Now zombifried conformistrolls can just argue with that one ad infinitum, because someday any individual may find one's self in an isolated position like that stubborn old Custer did once, surrounded and Left Behind in an unexpected way...and the rest of us wouldn't wish that on anyone now, would we.

Ya gotta keep your love, yeah, keep your love alive... Heart

Posted by margotb822 on March 26, 2008 at 11:42 PM

The problem is, margot....I don't WANT people that believe that mankind is "sinful" and "evil" to be in any way shape or form responsible for electing the President. I just want them to go away and never come back. These are people who believe you need to beat discipline into children, that fear is the only thing that keeps people honest. They don't believe in a loving Creator, they believe in a punisher. I cannot tolerate their hatred of anything that is different from them.

Let me counter this Greg...Clinton was found NOT Guilty of an impeachable crime against the People of the United States, ie, he was not a spy or a traitor.
Remember the definition of an impeachable crime? Does someone want to clear this up up there??? Or did I get it wrong from what I saw and heard on the news back then? If so, I stand corrected.

Posted by MarieDNC on March 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Oh no, you got that part right. I was just commmenting (rather harshly, sorry...my mood from the Obama and Clinton slammers is a NOT good one) that impeachment is one thing, trial is another. He WAS impeached, and at his trial was found not guilty...kind of silly of the Republicans to think they oculd actually get a conviction on that. Takes two-thirds, and unless one party blows it BIG time, neither party will EVER have that majority.

But this stills strays from the rest of your post, which, like I said, made very valid points about what we SHOULD be doing. In keeping with THAT, let me inrtoduce a link I think is worth a read:

Comparing Climate Proposals: A Case Study in Cognitive Policy

Created by joe_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Monday, March 24, 2008 02:25 PM

The Rockridge Institute has a new initiative on the cognitive dimension of climate. This is the start of a new series on policy issues surrounding global warming.

The climate crisis is among the greatest challenges we face. Getting the right policy is critical, requiring expertise in many areas – including public policy, science, economics, planning and development, and more. One area of expertise that has gone unnoticed so far is the application of cognitive science to the political process. Our hope is that our analysis will begin to fill that void.

There are two aspects of policy: cognitive policy and material policy. Material policy consists of the nuts and bolts, what is done in the world to fulfill policy goals. Cognitive policy is about the values and ideas that both motivate the policy goals and that have to be uppermost in the minds of the public and the media in order for the policy to seem so much a matter of common sense that it will be readily accepted. (Read this intro to cognitive policy to get a better feel for what we mean by all of this.)

Posted by GregL on March 27, 2008 at 12:08 AM

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to. What's the part about sinful and evil?

I think the article was referring to people who are conservative, and not part of the neo-conservative movement that has swept the RW. But, whether you like it or not and whether you want it or not, there will always be people with whom you disagree. This article points out the fact that Obama can be a candidate who can unite across party lines based on his views and also based on the fact that the Republicans have left their constituents.

The conservative case for Barack Obama

by Andrew J. Bacevich

My own definition (of conservatism) emphasizes the following:...

a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.

Posted by GregL on March 27, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Ok, yea, I figured that out when I went back and looked through the article.

I guess my own view is like I said before. These people exist, but the sooner we can get them to see that the Republican party doesn't actually care about them and that they should not continue to vote "conservative" based on one issue. And, the way I interpreted the article, it was supporting voting for Obama because McCain is part of the bad group of conservatives that will not fix anything. It was not a Limbaugh-like move to get people to vote for him one day and against him another.

I suppose I would rather have them vote for our candidate than against him.

It's not a matter of disgreement, margot. It's a matter of root values. Theirs are rooted in hate and fear. They don't believe in equality for all people, they don't think they should have to help those less fortunate than themselves, even though they have no problem grabbing that tit and holding on for dear life when THEY need it.

Disagreeing on a particular way to do something is one thing. Disagreeing about whether blacks are human is another. They're the type of people who don't want to change "traditional" social arrangements. Because they are disgusting fucking bigots. They are the same ones who didn't want to allow whites to marry blacks. They are outdated, irrelevant, and useless, and we don't fucking need them. What we need are people talking and moving the progressive values of empathy, fairness, equality, etc. to the forefront of the debate. You want family values? How about men and women adopting children and giving them loving homes? That's a good family value, isn't it? Now how about the government making that easier for everyone who wants to do it? How about the government helping educate those children?

You really think conservatives with their "every man for himself, and to the kitchen with the women" attitudes are going to EVER do anything but obstruct? The jackass that wrote this article pisses me off even more because it's exactly BECAUSE of conservative values that we're in the mess we are right now, and all this stupid shit can do is blame the "neo-cons". Who the fuck gave birth to the shits, jackass? "Neo-cons" are the natural end result of selfish fucking conservative values.

I really don't care if conservatives sit at home masturbating to pictures of their hero Reagan on election day.

Angry much? You bet your ass I'm angry.

Anyway, I need to get to bed...I know some peopel may get turned off by my use of certain words, but hey, it's like an emphasis word for me. And if ya want me to stop..fuggedaboutit, lol! :)

Posted by GregL on March 27, 2008 at 12:58 AM

Ok, I can tell you're definitely angry, so I won't try to argue with you. But, to paint every conservative as Karl Rove is a bit extreme.

I am of mixed race and my bf is a white guy from the midwest. He has some conservatives in his family, and they are not the people you are describing. I believe they would be open to voting for someone like Obama, mainly because the Republicans have truly abandoned their roots and they also feel a need to believe in America. They're not some bizarre group of satan spawn trying to march the US back to 1850.

Reagan may be their hero, but his disciples (pun intended) haven't done jack for America and everyone knows it. Ok, well all but about 19%, and I'm not even sure those people actually exist.

Posted by GregL on March 27, 2008 at 01:04 AM

Hey, words are just words, right? hahaha, ok have a good night. I'm off to bed, too.

Thanks Greg, Wow, this is really cool stuff! How exciting, how sensible! Common Sense!!! I recommend this read:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/climate

Also, thanks for the clarification on that, an impeachment is an indictment, but the verdict at Clinton's trial was NOT GUILTY. I think that many people got confused over this and they equated impeachment with Guilty, not understanding the procedures and the amazing machinery of our checks and balances at work - if they cared enough to be a cspan-oholic and follow it.
If there was an impeachment today, do you think the same checks and balances would be there to guarantee a proper trial and verdict? Hmmm...I hope so, my gosh!
My point to all the Clinton, (Bill Clinton) bashers is that he was found NOT GUILTY and yes, I do agree, it was folly for the Republicans to think they could ever get any kind of a GUILTY verdict out of that but ... it sure fooled many Americans and was one heck of a good smear campaign...
Beware, McCain will bring more of the same and create more class polarization. This is not an option that is healthy for disgruntled primary losers in the future!
Again, thanks for letting us all get this issue clarified properly, "some times all of our thoughts (wording) are misgiven" Led Zeppelin

What's it all about Alfie? Burt Bacharach and Dionne Warwick (What a great team!) I believe in LOVE Alfie! Smiles to all my fellow DEMS, M.

Sweet dreams guys.

Good morning, everyone.

Here's one way to end this Democratic Dispute!

Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.

Man-made global warming!

The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers; the heavens languish together with the earth. The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt;

for Johnboy:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”

I'm late! Gotta head on down the highway.

Enjoy the day, everyone.

Those poor, poor, Clintonites. They are losing. The polls, the states, the delegate count. So they lash out.

But it's time to face reality. Clinton has to win now 68% of all remaining delegates to win the nomination. That doesn't look like it's going to happen.

If it doesn't, the ONLY other way for her to gain the nomination is to convince the super delegates to overturn the will of the people and give it to her. That's very, very unlikely.

So where does that leave the Clintonites? Lashing out, stomping their feet, whining and throwing tantrums.

No wonder Clinton's negatives have gone way up. Spoiled children are not attractive to voters.

zz

Frosty,
A person's personal sex life has nothing to do with what is defined as an impeachable crime. That was my point.
The difference between the last two presidents is like night and day. The act of fellacio is harmless to other human beings. It was with consent between adults. It did not result in a war or kill anyone, it was not a lie to the American People about what concerned their safety or them, it was not a policy, diplomacy, or a decision that determined the fates of millions of American People. It did not leave them impoverished or wipe out their retirement or foreclose their home. It did not charge them for electricity and create brown outs in their city. It did not arbitrarily fix the price of gasoline. It did not force anyone to pay twice the water rate or get their house red tagged and take away their means of bathing or washing their clothes so they and their children could go to school and work while being extortionate, it did not leave people homeless and shivering in the bushes or dying of hypothermia; it did not make it impossible to get medicine or get to a doctor when dying of a heart attack or cancer,etc. How much does it take to make this point????
It was in the private domain.
This is the point - this is why the Senate did what they did. And look at all the fun so many men have been having since then with their prostitutes and sacrificing so many American boys and men for a continued antiquated energy monopoly on oil polluting the planet and hiding or buying off all the patents for alternative energy (cars, etc) over the years due to greed? I gave you an example with the link to the history of the air compression engines above and how they were shut up after WW2. We also provide a link that explains the cognitive logic about the future, human attitudes, perception and changes of behavior based on scientific facts.
What the difference of definition in intimate acts as stated by Clinton on the stand did, (total intercourse could create a pregnancy or transference of a venereal disease, then bring it home to wifey like so many of us women have had done to us in a marriage)could not be defined philosophically as Perjury-
What it did was to hurt severely on the personal level and socially, set a bad example morally in regards to western cultural definitions of monogamous marriage - (other cultures have harems). Infidelity hurts us on a personal level as we struggle for our own inner demons and dragons. To jab at one who has been hurt or is struggling with such a situation, or post traumatic stress and fears from a past incident of abuse, is cruel stinking voodoo. It's Jimmy Jones Cool Aid.
So Hell yeah, I am also angry as a kicking ass for years now and knew we would come to this, and dig this, we knew years ago we did not want to take it anymore...but then, "what are words for when no one listens anymore?" (Missing Persons)
However you want to define it is just what it is.

This one's for Chelsea, for me and all of us women out there of every race creed and color who have been dah'd at, put down, disrespected, told they were stupid, cheated on, used, abused, and worse yet, beaten down or murdered by a possessive jealous MAN...and goodness knows how many have overstayed their welcome and sponged off of us... And this is for all of those who have been treated as an object, oppressed, stolen from, lied to and sacrificed one way or another...male or female, or any living being.

We've come a long way - we've seen a lot, we've worked alot, we are sick of it, we take back the day and night, we did all the hard work anyway, we know we will always have to do it in or out of a marriage, protecting our children, and it's about time the rest of you get it. We were already abandoned. We cannot be fooled anymore. We will not be used anymore as a token this or that. We will not be measured anymore as the chattel of someone else. We did the work and earned the grades and stripes and if we are not sure of something, we are not so intimidated and afraid of looking stupid, that we are too ashamed to ask a question due to social peer pressure, we get it out on the table and get it clarified, we focus on the fix, on the solution not our bourgeois false social conciousness egotistical bullshit. Dig this, I didn't even know this song existed....just found it and what timing...I will let them say the rest. Watch this and enjoy...

Woman is the Nigger of the World by John Lennon and Yoko Ono

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=6P91_H690z4

Is everybody happy now??? Good night.

And a grumpy Thurs. morning to all:

New book out:"The Chicken Hawks Three Trillion Dollar War"...book counts all the hidden and future costs of the war. I got grumped out when I learned that we could have rebuilt EVERY school in the US with what we have spent on the war or we