For the Obama campaign...

You weren't here during the 2006 primaries, or you wouldn't be that surprised.

That being said, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.  Go get her, Barack!

What a coincidence!

telling us this over and over again is helpful in any way?  The fact is, people are very interested in the presidential primaries right now, and most of us here -- not everyone, but most -- support Barack Obama.  Maybe you'd like be happier if you came back after 2/12? Or, you could read all the non-presidential stories. Or, you could post diaries supporting your candidate. Just a thought...

Hillary scored the endorsement of the United Farmworkers...

Congratulations.

So quit whining.

I liked Bill Clinton. Now I don't. What a stupid way of hurting his legacy and his good will among the party and Americans in general. Had he stuck to praising his wife, that would have been fine. But his idiotic personal attacks against the first minority to ever have a real shot at winning the White House are alienating a great many people.

This is not a candidate whom I am willing to get behind in the general election.  If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I suspect that there will be an awful lot of people like me sitting 2008 out (Mark Warner's Senate campaign aside).  

Obama Democrats:  are they really Democrats?

decision.  I'm just hoping your angry at the moment.  It's bigger than Obama.  It's bigger than Hillary and it's bigger than Edwards.  Please reconsider and vote Democrat in November.  We need your vote.

It's very important to vote Democratic for President this November.  Personally, I will strongly support WHOEVER the nominee of the party is, rather than watch everything I care about be trashed by another 4 years of Republican (mis)rule.  Also, let's not forget THE SUPREME COURT.  'Nuff said.

It's what I've been arguing too.

... begins to eat at one's progressive ideology.

Despite her evident command of DC wonkism, Senator Clinton, to me, represents much of what is wrong with our arteriosclerotic two party system.  That and the suspension of belief required to accept her at face value would likely impede my voting for her if she gets the nomination.  

A case could be made that a President Hillary Clinton -- the second act of the "two for the price of one" comment from 15 years ago -- would be strike two at turning around the ship of state, to mix a whole bunch of metaphors.

Better her than any Republican seems to be your bottom line.

As to mine, well, perhaps this country has farther down to go before it starts to right itself.  

There's a lot of fools and foolishness afoot and maybe when there are more people feeling more pain, the electorate might start listening to those willing to speak truth to power.

Too many have fought and died for our freedom and our right to vote.  So please reconsider and work within the system to help fix the system.  

And remember, it's not about the candidates.  They come and go.  It's about your involvement and mine to help keep and strengthen democracy for all of us.  Think too about the millions of people around the world who would give anything for the freedom we have and a right to vote on their destiny, which you are disturbingly considering to throw away.

Thank you for reading this.  

They can turn around and stop behaving in the unethical manner that causes many, many people, including many lifelong true Democrats, to refuse to vote for them.  I won't be holding my breath on that one, though.  Hillary Clinton has staked out her position as the candidate of sleaze, and is marketing it as "I'm a fighter."  Right, but for what?  And by what means?

As a Democratic-leaning Independent, I can tell you that this is the kind of Democratic thinking that got Ronald Reagan and both Bushes elected.  Remember, Independents are the largest percentage of the electorate.  If you insist on "political purity" your party will languish in the wilderness while the other party runs the country.

We can't win an election without independents.  If we treat them like crap, ala the Clintons, we can't win in the fall, no matter how much momentum is on our side.  Especially if the GOP nominates and Independent-Friendly Candidate like McCain.

for over thirty years?  Just curious.  

Lost them the Virignia Senate.

Bush 41, successor to Reagan, lost when he kept Dan Quayle on the ticket and reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge.

Dumping Quayle and raising taxes was the right thing to do in preparation for the 92 election.  The purist wouldn't hear of it and Bush went down in flames despite his huge success in handling the Gulf War.

Ipso facto.  

I, like others here, probably all agree that we need Independents' votes and we will work hard to get your vote.  Democrats have a whole host of positions on a lot of issues but Democrats (you seem to already understand) care about the individual.  And I think that care for the individual has been refelected in decades worth of progressive, positive legislation.  Some legislation/programs have not worked as well as others, but the intent is always to do good.

Let me first say that I have supported Bill Clinton for years.  However no one is perfect and I feel that he has stepped over the line this time.  As I see it there are 2 dangers.  He has the potential to alienate voters that Hillary will need to win in the fall, if she gets the nomination.  Second, the republican spin machine will make the whole election about Bill Clinton instead of Hillary.  We don't need an energized republican party in the fall.

Is people intentionally lying or deceiving themselves or perhaps finding some other way to avoid the truth.

Hilly-Billy is afraid of Barack Obama.  They cannot deal with him straight up.  So, what do you do if you are hell bent on winning at any cost?  You lie.

If Senator Clinton is so experienced and all of that, why is it so necessary for her campaign to lie and distort Barack  Obama's record?

It seems that the tone of this campaign is not going to improve.  That is unfortunate.  The candidates are responsible for themselves as well as their surrogates.   I still hope things improve.

And by the Clintons' tactics we shall know them.  

I can't believe a progressive site is favorably citing Tapper. Who's next - Rush Limbaugh?

Clinton cronies working character assassination.  Who'd thunk it, right?

The guy is merely pointing out that much of what Clinton is saying about Obama is a lie.  He's not making anything up here.  He uses only real quotes.

Bill Clinton is a liar.

I must have completely missed this one, maybe because I watch so little TV, but what's wrong with Jake Tapper exactly?  

Tapper started up The Note, which was definitely an organ of the corrupt D.C.-based political media. For a long time, the Note had a great deal of influence (you hear less about it now, probably because better Web sites have sprung up), while maintaining a fairly GOP (although not overtly ideological) perspective.

Take a look at this page from Media Matters about Tapper:

http://mediamatters.org/issues...

Also, Tapper was a regular Wanker of the Day way back when. As Atrios wrote about him about a year and a half ago, "Jake Tapper was a whiny ass little titty baby when he worked for Salon, and he's a whiny ass little titty baby now."

I was just trying to be funny, but my larger point, Lowell, was that Tapper might seem like a disinterested commentator working for a network (not necessarily competent, mind you), but he's not, and citing him in support of the proposition that Bill and Hillary Clinton are lying about Obama is not really persuasive to me.

Furthermore, if you look at Tapper's article. it isn't really persuasive. Like so much involving the Clintons, objectivity is tough. If you look at them from an existing negative perspective, like Tapper, then it is easy to see all that they do as evil. I just don't view them that way. They are worse than some politicians, better than others. Tougher than most.

I'd like to hear Teacherken's comments on this, since he wrote the diary citing Tapper...

I've been waiting for 8 long years to get rid of the Republicans and Bush ... and I will agree that Senator Clinton is tough, tougher than many, and won't get shaken when challenged. She thinks on her feet and seems to understand what's thrown at her.   We've seen wimpering Democrats (Daschle who got whipped with his wimper) that have tucked tail way too often.  The goal is to get in the White House now that we have a majority so legislation can get passed with a majority and not get vetoed.  

The "I'd rather cut off my nose to spite my face" than vote for a Clinton is foolish, shortsighted, and playing right into the hands of the Republicans.  How soon we forget... or have we just not been paying attention?  

more convincing.  

his column is posted on an ABC website - while it may be his personal expression, it means it has some degree of approval from ABC

oh, and btw, Dan Abrams went after Hillary tonight, on similar grounds

Of the race for superdelegates.

That's where the grassroots comes in.

If Hillary has to lie her way through the primary she's going to face a backlash from the grassroots.  If the grassroots can influence the superdelegates . . .

Well, we shall see.

They are the political elite who live and die by trading favors.  They never refuse a friend and never forget a slight, the voters be damned.  Their convention votes can be secret, just like their committee votes in the legislature.

They will cut deals in smoke-filled rooms that we will never know about.  That's why it is so important in the primaries for a single front-runner to emerge.  Otherwise, the party nomination gets decided in a very undemocratic fashion.

Sorry if this is depressing.  It is one of the major reason I oppose political parties--they are by their very nature undemocratic.  Case in point:  the Connolly Machine in Fairfax County.

Olbermann just said Obama's campaign has formed a South Carolina Truth Squad.  I'm sure there will be lots of people volunteering to help.  How sad is it that you have to have a Truth Squad to combat the lies of a former first lady and a Democratic ex-President?  But then, the Clintons are a special kind of people.  How many Presidents have ever, in the history of our country, been disbarred?

According to the paper this morning, Tom Daschle's on the Truth Squad.  Is he being unproductive?  Is he an elitist, sexist, rightwingnut, extreme leftwinger who should be beamed up?  Or is he one of the many, many mainline Democrats who realize that the Clintons have a problem with the truth, and who are no longer willing to stand by like an abused spouse and make excuse after excuse for them?

Go ahead, az, Dianne, etc., shoot the messenger.

I have no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is people who loudly declare that they will not vote for whoever the eventual Democratic winner is before the primaries have decided anything.  That's because they invite the same reaction back from their opponents, who, after all, might lose.

You are blowing up the bridge back for your own candidate when you insult and alienate Hillary's supporters by declaring you will never support her.  What if they do the same to your candidate because of your vitriol?

Fight for your candidate by all means.  If you notice, I have not objected to one favorable thing said about Obama nor one negative thing about Hillary's performance in this campaign cycle.

I've objected to some of the Obama supporters here.  And I've made clear that I recognize that neither Obama nor his campaign have any control over that.

They closed shop a while back.

If you want unity, there is only one choice: Barack Obama.

I was just being dramatic for the sake of drama itself.

is a non-starter?

:)

So much bad blood.  I just don't see it as possible.

In fact, I wonder if they haven't gone too far already for the loser to support the eventual nominee.  Obama probably would:  he's still young and could become a Democrat-in-waiting, although that doesn't normally work in the Democratic Party.  Witness Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, et al.

HRC, on the other hand, would probably take her ball and go home mad.

when I read comments on this site and elsewhere, it is for the most part Obama supporters who seem to be saying they could never vote for Clinton and, if she gets the nomination, would just sit the election out. Didn't I even see a thread here recently about some folks saying they would vote for McCain if Clinton bested Obama?

with anyone who says they won't vote for the Democratic nominee.  There's WAY too much at stake -- Supreme Court, environment, foreign policy, health care, civil liberties, etc. -- to permit four more disastrous years of Republican (mis)rule.

reasonable legislation regarding the environment, civil liberties, foreign policy, etc., and to not nominate right wingers to the SS, you need a strong Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

president to nominate judges to the Court that we will be happy with.

But I've changed my mind.  I'm either voting for the Democrat or leaving it blank.  And if Hillary gets the nomination, she better do some major fence-mending, because at this point I'm leaving it blank if she's my Dem option.

.... shape up or you'll not vote for her.  

Look, those here that are threatening or declaring to not vote Democratic are a real disappointment in a forum like this.  Lowell and others have worked tirelessly, I'm sure, to give us this wonderful forum to share information about Democrats, liberals, progressive, and populists, with the goal of getting them elected.  But you and others callously declare that although you're a Democrat you chose to not be one when you're needed the most.  That looks a bit selfish, don't you think.  If you don't vote, what real credibility do you have to discuss things here on RK?

If the Democrats give me someone to vote for, I will gladly do so.  I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton, period.  Her lies and shameless tactics in the debate, and the statements since the debate, just reaffirmed that decision.  Others can make their own decision, but she won't ever get my vote.  I consider myself a far better Democrat than people who believe we must reflexively endorse these Karl Rove tactics from a Democratic candidate.  If Democrats can't adhere to a higher standard than the Republicans, they will not have earned my vote.

and I'm too new in this community to publicly judge your position.

My point was merely to point out that, at least on this site and some other places I have read comments, it seems more likely the Obama supporters will be taking their balls and going home, not the Clinton ones.

Perhaps this reflects the relative ethical perceptions of the candidates among voters, but I suspect on a macro level (I can't really say if it applies to anyone here individually) it also reflects the fact that Obama seems to bringing a lot of people into the process who believe in him and his message, as opposed to being staunch Democrats, while Clinton's appeal focuses on more traditional elements in the party.

Elections are about choices, and in my 30 years of voting, I can't think of a single instance where, on the issues, the Republican candidate was a better choice than the Democratic one. Yeah, I even voted for Marion Barry after the bitch set him up.

"Elections are about choices, and in my 30 years of voting, I can't think of a single instance where, on the issues, the Republican candidate was a better choice than the Democratic one. Yeah, I even voted for Marion Barry after the bitch set him up."

You aren't a citizen.  You are a robot.  Pick the Democrat and pull the lever.  Do you realize that you are no more intellectually honest than the Rush Limbaugh Ditto-heads and the knuckle-dragging flat-earthers?

From George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796, on the evil of political parties:

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

but I had to get my batteries recharged.

I guess you can view my comments that way. I don't, and I was trying to make a different point, obviously, namely, that you have to choose. I simply think I made the better choice. Since, well, 1968 or so, our political parties have become more and more self-selecting, with progressives tending toward the Democrats and conservatives toward the GOP. That realignment is more or less complete.

To say, "I'm not going to vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination" is, I suppose, a choice. Obamaites suggest it is a choice against the kind of campaigning and tactics that they think Hillary Clinton, and one supposes President Clinton, represent. I think all your hearts are in the right place, so you'll get no insults hurled back at you from me.

But regardless of the motivations behind your actions, there are consequences to them as well. So you decision not to vote for Hillary, should dhe be the nominee, is also effectively a vote FOR continued war in Iraq, FOR the overruling of Roe v. Wade, FOR continued judicial limitation of civil rights, FOR a tax system that favors the rich at the expense of the middle class, FOR the continuation of a health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate access to health care.

Intellectual honesty is a sword that cuts both ways.

Okay, I'm off to drink my morning oil.

Yet how many of his supporters here, like Spotter, are ready to rip the Democratic Party apart if he loses the primaries?

Just to play Devil's advocate, is it not possible that Hillary is not stealing this election but that the Democratic base in some rural, low population states just favor her?

The primary season has just begun.  We haven't even begun to hit the large urban states with diverse population centers, which are where Obama will run strongest.  Yet already, a bunch of whiney sore losers are screaming Hillary is stealing the elections. And those same supporters are really demonstrating how much it's possible to unite the country by not even being able to get along with fellow Democrats.

How does that convince me that you can unite the rest of the country?

If you win every damn independent and turn off half the Democratic Party with your rhetoric, guess what?  Nominee Obama won't win the general election either.

How plain stupid do you have to be to throw a temper tantrum and not see that this early in the game?

And this is not about Obama, whom I am pretty sure is a lot smarter than that. He knows you don't unite a country by insulting half the Democratic Party.

"Just to play Devil's advocate, is it not possible that Hillary is not stealing this election but that the Democratic base in some rural, low population states just favor her?"

Actually, where Hillary has one is in big cities.  Obama won the rural areas in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  Hillary won New Hampshire and Nevada based on big cities.

excuse the grammer.

seem, to me, to be doing it to get attention. I work as a volunteer in a 1st grade classroom and I see this behavior all the time from children who are just learning to socialize and learning that they will not get all their wishes granted, that they have to wait for their turn, and that screaming only makes others uncomfortable.  

The arrogance of someone who thinks that the RK community is waiting with baited breath for them to tell us that THEY will not be voting is something for a kindegarten teacher to handle.  Tell it to somebody else...no ones listening anymore.

You'd best stick to trying to psych out first graders, Dianne, if you think the growing unhappiness with the Clintons - who are setting alight the bridges to unity because, to them, the end justifies the means -- is merely about socialization and the sublimation of self to the greater whole for the greater good.

Your trying to reduce this highly complex chain of events into toggle switch up or down, Democratic unity vs. the evil Republicans suggests, to me, that it's you who doesn't grasp the basic tenets of progressivism:  courage, free thinking, the exercise of free will, challenging the status quo, non-conformity, fearless truth seeking.  I don't see Senator Clinton exhibiting any of those traits, not one.  She may have possessed some of them long ago, but it appears that she has become a 100% political animal.  In her egotistical self-delusion, it is all about l'etat, c'est moi.

The way to truth is not through lying.

As to you trying to force others of us into the quiet corner with 'no one's listening', well, you're dead wrong on that.  From my family to colleagues at work to folks at the other end of my IM and email nets, the talk today was that the Clintons have turned down a low road that many of us are unwilling to follow.

You are right; life is about choices and free will (to the extent we have free will, but that is a philosophical question unanswerable in the course of these posts).  But every Republican including McCain is so fundamentally different to what I believe.  And I am guessing what you believe too.  I am not a Democrat for some ephemeral reason.  My values for the most part are shared by this party and I will not abandon them unless they abandon me on policy.  

I haven't made up my mind.  And the Edwards supporters on here are so passionate, I am even considering him once again.  But I will support wholeheartedly whoever becomes the nominee.  I will open my wallet and contribute the maximum to support them.  THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR LIFETIMES!  We cannot cede it to the Republicans PERIOD!  And if you don't recognize how morally and intellectually bankrupt the Republicans truly are, you and I must have been living in different countries these past 8 years.  That doesn't even touch on the ones who have populated Virginia's elected offices and Texas's elected offices.

Are all Democrats perfect?  No!  No one is perfect.  And that's okay.  Life is also about forgiveness and learning to work with other people despite perceived or actual wrongs.  Maybe I come from this from working for large corporations.  People do nasty things.  You can't hold that against them.  You still have a job to do and you have to work with them to get it done.  

is that just last month, when Clinton was looking for newspaper endorsements in New Hampshire, she told one chain that Reagan AND G.H.W. Bush were among her "favorite presidents".  In fact, it says so right on her own web site.

Life gets so interesting at times.

See here.

It looks like to ABC that the slumlord thing isn't the big iggue.  It's that it was widely known in Chicago that Rezko was dirty some years ago, and that despite this Obama had a favor done for him in a housing deal, ande continued to accept campaign money.  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stor...

And AP ran with this story:  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/... ""The senator exhibited some bad judgment in continuing the relationship once it became clear that Tony Rezko had such serious clouds overhead," says Cindi Canary, director of the nonpartisan Illinois Campaign for Political Reform."

Read about the house deal.  Obama could not afford to do the deal unless Rezko helped him by buying an adjacent property.  (The seller insisted any buyer buy both properties and Obama could not afford both.)

If ABC is right, and has the dates right, Obama did this even when it was public news that Rezko was shifty.