Obama really seems to think that he can argue his way to the White House.  If he calls the McCain camp cynical enough, the voters will be reassured and like him, as if the voters know what the word means.

He's the God-awful, terrible choice I always assumed he would be.  

Vain.  Smug.  So politics as usual.  FISA? Flip-flop.  New drilling?  Flip-flop.  I understand the need for compromise, but his flip-flops have the stink of desperation all over them.  Its kind of sad.

All I can say, really, is that Hillary Clinton would not have stood around, staring at herself in the mirror and let the McCain camp plot, plan, and execute as they wished.  

Is it too late for her, seriously?

I wonder if Kos likes apples?.............

I'm going to make this really short because my point is very simple.  However, I'd like to preface that point with saying that I fully support Obama as the nominee, I think he will win, I've given him money, even though I can't imagine a bigger supporter of Hillary Clinton that I was.

Throughout the primary I participated in discussions on this and other websites; if you remember me, you will remember some of those hated debates.  It was obvious to me that, although not absolute and total, most Obama supporters were new to politics.  They took Obama's every word as gospel; any hint of criticism was attacked in a hilarious panic.  Obama was the second coming...if you weren't 250% on board, according to those with this cultish mentality, well then, f*ck you!  Hillary Clinton was absolutely trashed for taking such "centrist" positions and "shape-shifting".  "She'll do anything to get elected," so many argued.  They were indignant to her "triangulating" and her "narcissistic" drive for the presidency.  

I, for one, have to say, in light of the last week or so: HA! HA! HA!  It is absolutely a riot, reading, listening, hearing how indignant many of his supporters are because he has "flip flopped," "forgotten who put him where he is."  Absolute rubbish!  He's doing exactly what he should do, to be elected.  HE'S A POLITICIAN!  Just like Hillary Clinton.  Just like John McCain.  Just like every single person taking up space on Capital Hill and in capitals throughout the country.  

FISA.  Brilliant.  Brave.  He and his consultants knew he could take the hit, which would come from his base upon his blatant reversal.  Just as they knew he could get away with reversing himself on campaign finance reform.  Blatant flip-flop.  He's doing what he needs to to be elected and that's exactly what he should be doing.

I just felt the need to bring this up, as I'm sure others have already (I haven't been reading much).  But the way a damn fine public servant like Hillary Clinton was treated is an absolute disgrace and should go down in history as such.  She was attacked, basically, by a wild cyber lynch mob that was doing nothing more than running around and screaming in the darkness.  

I work on campaigns, so perhaps I shouldn't take it for granted that everyone should understand what's going on and appreciate the game for what it is.  But, I'm more than happy witnessing the reality setting in with this group of novices.  Consider yourselves educated on the real world of politics.  Welcome!

There, of course, is a silver lining that shouldn't go unmentioned.  I sincerely mean "Welcome!"  I'm more than delighted to see people newly involved and engaged, it tickles me to death.  But, I hope that more than a few of you will take this opportunity to at least revisit and think about your collective hysteria and the way you trashed a good woman who has devoted her life to public service;  a woman who is responsible for searing the idea of universal healthcare into the modern political mind.  Yeah, she'll flip-flop on something if she needs to.  Yeah, she'll use carefully chosen words.  Yeah, she'll fight tooth and nail to get the opportunity to lead.  I never had any illusions about what a politican looks like; therefore, I'm not surprised to see Obama move to the center, as he makes such fundamental changes of mind.

Think about it!

Update [2008-7-4 18:50:43 by MKyleM]: For what its worth, an attempt to clarify. The point of my post concerned Obama's supporters online - here and on other left-leaning websites. If you didn't see it or weren't around to witness their childish outbrusts, then I really don't care to go into great detail educating you. I will say this, though. The behavior of many here and other places remarkably resembled that of religious fundamentalists faced with opposing opinions or any critical thinking that would require them to even entertain a reality that may not 100% resemble their preconceived notions. I grew up in the south, in a town with 15 churches to every stop light. So, I have a ton of experience dealing with them. When gay bashing or the like was going on, I loved to point out that Jesus saved the life of a prostitute and told the mob that only those without sin should throw stones. I can't tell you all the terrible things I've been called in response to that. I've been charged with devil worship, being brainwashed by Bill Clinton, a faggot, a sinner. I said that to one guy and he just looked at me and said, "Have fun with your eternity in hell." When a Clinton supporter even simply posited an opinion or advocated in anyway for Hillary (not even including an attack on Obama or mentioning him at all), her supporters were roundly ridiculed, dismissed, called Republicans, Trolls, corporatists, murders, all kinds of terrible names. It really was the same sort of knee-jerk, visceral reaction to an opinion of a person that only asks to be heard. Yet, that asks that you consider something outside the Obama-Oh-Wise-One bubble. I've always considered such reactions from religious nuts to be a sad sign that their faith, which they proudly tell any and everybody about, is really very weak and fragile. I have religious faith, but it is strong; I'm, therefore, not intimidated by the faith and ideas of others. This is how I felt about Clinton, my support for her. I knew she wasn't perfect; I was well aware of her history and the mere fact that she is human. I believed in core principals; I believed she would appoint the right judges and fight tooth and nail for universal healthcare - I never had a doubt that she genuinely wants and cares about that. Perhaps it was the lack of a political education that made Obama supporters react so angrily to opposing views; they really had no way to respond. So, anger is always first resort and they denounced us as against everything decent and good. And the thing is, with a handful of exceptions, Clinton supporters really didn't argue that Obama was a bad person and that his supporters were bad people. Again, I'm talking about people here, at DailyKos, and at TPM. Those are the people I'm talking about. Every Obama volunteer or supporter I met in the real world was nothing short of respectful of my support for my candidate. It was online that things were disgraceful. There are many people that should feel down-right embarrassed about their behavior. The disregard for reality in their demonizing Mrs. Clinton, in spite of all that she has done for this country, is one disgrace. Perhaps a bigger disgrace is the way this vocal minority treated others here.

(Totally speaking for myself here).  

Man, I am so ready for this primary to be over.  No doubt, I want an end and want it to be soon!!!

I couldn't pass on the latest posts, though, about Bill Clinton.  

Obamabots seem to be going off the deep end here, in talking as if Bill Clinton were a stupid old man.  I disagree.  He knows exactly what he's doing.  I think (and take it for what it is worth - as I take everyone elses' ramblings), that Mr. Bill is trying to force his wife onto the ticket.  I find this to be perfectly acceptable, considering the extremely flawed caucuses and that Clinton has dominated the second half of the primary season (thus rendering, at best, an inconclusive verdict and clearly showing a certain element of buyers remorse amongst Dem. primary voters).  

I don't know if any of you have ever actually worked on a campaign before.  I'd like to know if you have.  So many avid Obama supporters seem to, unfortunately, have a political tin ear; so much so, that I'd be surprised to find out that many of you have actually worked on a political campaign.  Please let me (or ALL of us know) if you have.

To "slime" Bill for saying the "movie" thing is totally, completely intellectually dishonest of you.  When someone says, "I've seen this movie before", they don't literally mean they've seen a specific movie before.  It is a figure of speech.  

Obama et al, according to any reasonable understanding of Bill's statement, clearly saw their lives flash before their eyes.  For the last time (and, in my opinion, many many many months too late), they had a 'Trinity Church' incident one-too-many and finally decided it was time for Obama to publicly split from the church.  They witnessed the horror of what this "new" pastor was saying in that highly publicized sermon  - while at the same time they were (I'm sure) stunned by Obama's pathetic approval ratings among white women, which were very publicly shown to be a measly 43%.  

Sorry if I break from your cult orthodoxy and dare speak my mind:  Obama has a real problem and stands a gargantuan better chance of losing the general election than Hillary Clinton.  Some of us, very much, depend on not having another rightwing lunatic on the Supreme Court and don't share your affinity, fantasy of annointing your cult leader as the Democratic nominee.  

Hillary Clinton is dead in the water; yet, you people act as if you have the daylights scared out of you.  You seem scared to death she might pull something off.  And that's even though her most avid supporters are giving up hope as I write this.  

Ya'll in the Obama Cult would do your cause a much greater service by following your cult leader and heaping praise on Hillary.  He has a mighty force of paid political consultants and his message is very much market tested.  The only way he can win is if Hillary Clinton gives him the go-ahead - and throws her support behind him.

I know that ya'll on the left-leaning blogs and those among the talking/bobbling heads in the mainstream media have convinced yourselves that Hillary Clinton is out there on that branch alone.  You are so terribly, patheticlly wrong.  There are almost 20 million people out there with her.  95% of whom are lifelong, avid Democrats.  If she wants to take it to the convention and make it the dog fight (I think) it should be, then we are there with her..  Barack Hussein Obama is, according to the NYTimes, "Wheezing" across the finish line.  Clearly, Clinton has won the second half of this primary and there is a clear case of buyers remorse among Democrats.

If she doesn't decide to pull a knife and if Obama has the 'audacity' to snubb her and not offer her VP, then good luck Democrats.  Your rules have allowed a complete and total lemon to obtain the nomination.  When he loses, I'm sure a great many of you will cry "Swift Boat!"  But, the fault will lie with you and not Republicans.  It will lie with you and your self-righteousness, with all of you who were so willing to walk the plank to fulfill your political fantacies.  

For the life of me I cannot understand why rank-and-file Democrats are such p*ssies!?!?!?!?  Can anyone enlighten me?

I'm sorry if this has been addressed, specifically in relation to truck drivers.  

One of my best friends is about to marry a man who for years drove those big rigs for a living, full-time.  He owned his own truck; essentially, he worked for himself.  A few months ago, he decided to sell his truck and go back to school, because the price of gas made his line of work impossible.  

I asked him, on average, how many miles a week he averaged.  His best guess was about 2,100.  

I just went to a website where you could calculate your savings if the federal tax were suspended for the summer.  Figuring in diesel (which has a tax rate of 0.292), my friend would have saved $1,439.15 over the summer.

So, Senator Obama, even though you voted for such relief 3 times for the state of Illinois, why are you so disconnected from the pain and suffering of ordinary people?  Why are the people of Illinois so much more worthy of relief than people of Massachusetts or North Carolina or anywhere else in this struggling country?

Enough of the increasingly lack-luster speeches.  

Shame. On. You!!!  

Calculate your savings at Jabberwonk.com
www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13l kzo

Why is Obama so bent on destroying the Democratic Party with his narcissistic push for the nomination?  

His brand of being a new kind of politician, though weakened recently, has today been completely destroyed by the breath and tongue of his "moral compass" and "mentor".  

There really is no other way of looking at this: the good reverand took control of the bus and, going in circles, is running over his former pupil...over and over and over again.

I predict Obama wins nothing else, except in NC, and that 'victory' will be by a much smaller margin than expected.  Not only that, the exit polls will show that the 'victory' came down in a stark racial divide, rendering any possible psychological advantage or boost null and void.  

So, why, Obama?  Why are you and your supporters hell bent on destroying our chances in Nov?  You have no chance.  Give up now.  

From Washington Post today:

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsket ch/?hpid=artslot

Good evening, everybody!

I have been thinking, as always, about how this primary will end and I thought I'd throw something out there (in good faith) to start a discussion.  I've been thinking a great deal about an interesting thing Jerome said within the last few days, when he suggested that as many as two million people may vote in the last contest, Puerto Rico.

I want to say, again, this post is in absolute good faith and honestly meant to provoke a meaningful discussion.  I know that many Obama supporters will be inclined to immediately dismiss any chance of Clinton winning the popular vote or in the number of pledged delegates.  That belief is very well founded in fact, scientific measurements, and in a basic gut feeling (when considering the narrative playing out in the media), I admit; although, I basically disagree with just how absolute and final the outcome is.   If you are one of those Obama supporters who is without any shred of doubt that your man will be our man or a Clinton supporter who has given up hope, I simply ask that you suspend your disbelief, hear me out, and (please) respond.  

In light of recent polling showing Hillary Clinton running far ahead of Obama in PA, KY, and WV, the likelihood of Puerto Rico playing a fascinating, if not decisive, role in this year's Democratic primary is becoming...well, more likely.   If Hillary performs as well as the polls suggest in those contests, she could easily cut Obama's lead in the popular vote (at least) in half.  I would go so far as to say she could eliminate his lead in the popular vote in the upcoming contests, but Indiana could be a wash (or Obama win) and Obama is looking at a blow out in Oregon and North Carolina (however, many find it hard to believe he will come away with a double-digit lead from North Cakalacky).  
However, big wins in PA, WV, and KY (and many expect Montana), would ensure Clinton seriously cuts into Obama's popular vote (and, of course, delegate) count.  I say, (at least) it will be cut in half.

So, then it comes down to Puerto Rico.  If Jerome is right and two million Puerto Ricans actually come out and vote, the race could be completely thrown into uncertainty (as never before).  Hillary Clinton has proven that she is a true rock star among Hispanics in general.  If that trend holds in our colony/state, she's on the road to around a sixty-percent victory.  That margin would mean Hillary walks away with 400,000 more votes that Obama, from that contest alone.  With a 58% victory in PA (with a modestly-projected turnout of 60%), she could walk away with about the same number, 400,000 more votes than Obama.  Those two states together (again, following the chain of events I am throwing out there), could very well eliminate Obama's lead in the popular vote (the tally of which varies depending on the source, but is usually between 700 and 800,000).   It is entirely possible, as well, that she walks away with a lead in the pledged delegates.  I find that hard to even write in hypotheticals; however, it is indeed a possibility.  

Of course, as many of you will have noticed already, this entirely excludes MI and FL.  

Again, I just want to remind you all that I'm not asking you to dispute this scenario of events.  Clinton could lose every remaining state or she could destroy Obama in every remaining state.  It doesn't matter what the turnout is in PA or by how much someone wins Indiana or Oregon.  

My question to anyone reading his diary is:  will a resounding win in Puerto Rico for Hillary Clinton, a victory that results in her surpassing Obama's popular vote and (perhaps) delegate count, be seen as legitimate?

If that happens, of course, if she wins both in delegates and popular vote, she will be our nominee.  However, what if she comes within a hair of his delegate count, yet has surpassed his lead in the popular vote?   Again, this is without FL and MI.   What a fascinating dilemma that scenario would present for our party.  

Will we hear hard-core Obama supporters making arguments that Puerto Rico shouldn't determine the outcome of our primary process, largely because they can't vote in the general election?  I certainly could see Clinton supporters making that argument, if it were the other way around.  It is not a far cry from, "we won in states we have to win."  You know, the Big State strategy.  Will Obama supporters continue to make the basic argument that this is a race for delegates, not in popular vote (a self-serving argument that both campaigns have made at different times)?

I'll answer my own question, speaking for myself only.   I personally think it would absolutely be legitimate and, actually, quite wonderful that a "state" that cannot vote in the general election achieves such a strong voice.  Also, I personally have said all along that the primary should be determined by the popular vote and should dictate what the super-delegates ultimately do.  

But that's my opinion.  What I'm really interested in is what others think.  I am just absolutely fascinated with the prospect of a colony (of the world's lone empire) deciding who our next president will be.  I say `next president' because McCain, as far as I can tell, died eight years ago.  Our nominee will be president, I finally am convinced.  But, again, that's just my humble opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barr ett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.ht ml

This is a link to an article everyone interested in the Democratic primary must read.  

Howard Dean's handling of MI and FL is an absolute disgrace to the party and democratic principals.  Having been an enthusiastic supporter of his in 2004, I am very sad today as I see him embarrassing himself and our party.  Apparently, the rules should only apply when they benefit his candidate, Obama.  

Without those two states seated and seated in a way that actually reflects the will of the voters there, it is an absolute must in making sure our nominee is, in fact, a legitimate nominee.  Hillary Clinton couldn't be more correct when she makes such a suggestion.  Not only should we uphold small-d democratic principals, it would be political suicide to shaft two vitally important states months before the election.  

Furthermore, how will we know whether or not the will of the people is being overturned by any action of super-delegates?  That is a serious question that Obama supporters absolutely refuse to address.  If Obama and the DNC reduce the voters in those two states, as the author describes, to "ghosts", there will be no such tally.  

Its heartbreaking.  The author of the article quotes a FL Republican, mocking Democratic pleas in 2000 to 'count every vote,' going on to note 'how things have changed.'  What a sorry situation, that's all I can say.

If Obama depended on FL and MI, his supporters would be on the verge of full scale riot.  They would be repeating, until they were blue faced, "let the people vote", "is this communist Russia?", "the establishment is overturning the will of the people", "why don't they want to vote?", "she's scared she will lose."  I find the hypocrisy disturbing.

Many will say Clinton is playing politics and that she's only making a big deal because she needs them to win.  No one really knows the answer to that, but I do know that she is smart enough to realize we cannot shaft those two crucial states and expect anything short of disaster in November.  

I do know that justice is on her side here and it doesn't matter what she'd do on the flip side.  I certainly would be calling on her to do the same.  Just let the people vote.  Let their voices count.  We need a legitimate candidate.  You simply cannot dismiss 2.3 million people voting as a "stunt."  People got baby-sitters, skipped lunch, left work, made arrangements, rearranged their day so that they could VOTE.  Disenfranchising them will not only piss off Democrats in those two states, but the GOP will use this against our "candidate" during the general election.  "Obama is the nominee because he worked to silence voters", "stole the election."  That will work with independents.  You know, typical Americans who have silly ideas in their heads about "voting" and "democracy."