You know Obill, Cyplops, other Obama supporters.
At some level, probably even a conscious level, at least some of the distaste I feel towards an Obama candidicy can be blamed on each of you. I've said before that it's his supporters that bother me, but I really don't know any of his supporters besides those on this website.
I am fully aware that this is not a good reason to not support a candidate, but hey, I'm only human.
And quite frankly, if the posting on this board is any indication, his chances of uniting ANYBODY, much less the democratic party or the republican party will be impossible. And I don't think you can lay the blame on him for that....but the blame has to fall somewhere, and for me anyway, it will probably end up falling on you guys.
I'm trying to mend this divide, explain my thoughts (even the not so well thought out ones), see the other side, debate the issues, etc, but I think I've reached the point where I've just had enough.
I'll reluctently join the bear in solitude.....and hell, probably vote McCain in the general or stay home.
Or maybe not. There are a lot of various forces with disruptive agendas converging on both of this year's conventions and it is very likely that history will, again, repeat itself very violently at
both conventions. I advise
all in both parties take it very seriously as we consider our politics, the candidates and the future of this country.
This blog entry addresses some of it:
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=779
Quote:Many of you may not remember and most were not around for the August 1968 Democratic National Convention. I bet Howard Dean remembers. If you have time, maybe you should read up on the
convention to learn what happened both inside the International Amphitheatre and outside on the streets of Chicago.
Inside, the NY and CA delegations sang "We Shall Overcome" in protest after an anti-Vietnam war plank was defeated. The party selected VP Hubert Humphrey, who had not competed in the primaries, over Eugene Mcarthy as its Presidential candidate to replace Lyndon Johnson. Eventually, the party introduced reforms to the candidate selection process, the foundation of today's primaries and caucus process (seriously!). Oh, and did I mention that Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon.
Outside, despite then Mayor Daley's promise that "law and order will be maintained", a variety of anti-war and anti-establishment groups and individuals rioted in the streets for a week (leading to the
Chicago Seven conspiracy trial under Judge Julius Hoffman, itself an interesting story). The images of chaos in Chicago and the violent police response were broadcast live as protestors astutely chanted "The whole world is watching." It was not the Democrats' finest hour.
Word is that "assorted anarchists, leftists, and other criminals" intend to create
Chicago Redux for the Republicans when their convention takes place at the Xcel Energy Center in Minneapolis-St. Paul this September. After all, this is the party that helped drag us to war and wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. But aside from the true believers unhappy with John McCain's conservative creds, the GOP is fairly united, especially about continuing in Iraq indefinitely.
Expectations at this early stage are not as harmonious for the Democrats convening at the Pepsi Center in Denver in August. While there is consensus on pulling out of Iraq, selecting the party's nominee is looming as the proverbial "train wreck".
It looks increasingly like the Democratic party machinery's superdelegates will have to "fix" the problems resulting from a crazy-quilt delegate selection process (and de-selection in MI and FL). Half of the convention is almost certain to be unhappy with the outcome. And if Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorzie the invasion of Iraq, ends up the nominee, anti-war demonstrators will have an excuse to turn out. Whatever the result, the combination of disatisfaction with the process and its results in Denver could provide, for those who missed Chicago '68 and would like to recreate its excitement, a more fertile arena for trouble-making than Minneapolis.
Having only eight weeks between the nomination of a candidate and the Presidential election rightly concerns Howard Dean. But his worst nightmare could end up being 2000 delegates who figuratively take to the streets while rioters outside literally steal the coverage that is supposed to boost the Democrats' up- and down-ticket chances in November.
maporsche wrote:You know Obill, Cyplops, other Obama supporters.
At some level, probably even a conscious level, at least some of the distaste I feel towards an Obama candidicy can be blamed on each of you. I've said before that it's his supporters that bother me, but I really don't know any of his supporters besides those on this website.
I am fully aware that this is not a good reason to not support a candidate, but hey, I'm only human.
And quite frankly, if the posting on this board is any indication, his chances of uniting ANYBODY, much less the democratic party or the republican party will be impossible. And I don't think you can lay the blame on him for that....but the blame has to fall somewhere, and for me anyway, it will probably end up falling on you guys.
I'm trying to mend this divide, explain my thoughts (even the not so well thought out ones), see the other side, debate the issues, etc, but I think I've reached the point where I've just had enough.
I'll reluctently join the bear in solitude.....and hell, probably vote McCain in the general or stay home.
This is BS.
The result of the general election will have a lot to do with the way the supporters of the losing candidate act. The winner doesn't have the ability to unite the party (if the loser doesn't allow it).
I have said repeatedly that I will support whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination.
Even Romney and the Republicans is able to understand this... and if we as Democrats can't do the same, then I feel sorry for us as a party and a country.
But I have every reason to believe that we will put a Democrat in the White House.
First, we have a primary to settle... and the Democratic voters will (hopefully) decide. I hope this doesn't come down to a battle of whining.
So has Obama conceded yet?
Look, we all get heated emotions during primary season. Brothers fight harder then anyone else.
Lola made an interesting comment earlier: that, did Obama supporters expect to win this without a fight?
Well, did Clinton supporters expect that? Yeah, I think they did. I think the 'inevitability' meme really was believed by many.
It isn't the arguments about policy that bother me - for example, when we disagree about health insurance, that's fine. It's when people attack Obama with baseless insults. When they call his followers 'cultists.' Do you know how insulting that is? It's very insulting.
I appreciate you explaining your position, so please try to understand ours: there is as much vitriol hurled towards Obama and his supporters as there is the other direction. I don't like being told that I'm naive, or that hope is futile. It's a sure-fire way to get me to react negatively every time.
Cycloptichorn
kickycan wrote:So has Obama conceded yet?
Nope....
The political markets (IEM and intrade) now have him as the front-runner.
If he is not ahead in unpledged delegates now (there is some bickering about this) he will be in a couple of weeks.
This is going to come down to the "superdelegates"... if they don't follow the results of the primary voting there is going to be some trouble. I think they will be under pressure to change their minds if the primary voting doesn't support their decision.
I think Obama has a slight edge right now.
maporsche, "(unless they are on the ticket together, in whatever order)". That would be historic breaking two barriers at once. A very strong ticket. Where it could get nasty is in letting the superdelegates pick the winner. Let the delegates from the election decide the winner. Let those who voted in the election decide. No back room deals. Obama/Clinton would be most exciting to me. A winner decided by superdelegates least exciting.
kickycan wrote:So has Obama conceded yet?
Not officially. But decisions have been made. Think back rooms. Smoke-filled.
ebrown_p wrote:kickycan wrote:So has Obama conceded yet?
Nope....
The political markets (IEM and intrade) now have him as the front-runner.
If he is not ahead in unpledged delegates now (there is some bickering about this) he will be in a couple of weeks.
This is going to come down to the "superdelegates"... if they don't follow the results of the primary voting there is going to be some trouble. I think they will be under pressure to change their minds if the primary voting doesn't support their decision.
I think Obama has a slight edge right now.
According to his camp, he's up 910-886 after the votes from CA were all counted.
Cycloptichorn
blueflame1 wrote:maporsche, "(unless they are on the ticket together, in whatever order)". That would be historic breaking two barriers at once. A very strong ticket. Where it could get nasty is in letting the superdelegates pick the winner. Let the delegates from the election decide the winner. Let those who voted in the election decide. No back room deals. Obama/Clinton would be most exciting to me. A winner decided by superdelegates least exciting.
As an independent I would
probably vote for Obama over McCain. Hillary on the same ticket would tip me in the other direction.
maporsche wrote:You know Obill, Cyplops, other Obama supporters.
At some level, probably even a conscious level, at least some of the distaste I feel towards an Obama candidicy can be blamed on each of you. I've said before that it's his supporters that bother me, but I really don't know any of his supporters besides those on this website.
I am fully aware that this is not a good reason to not support a candidate, but hey, I'm only human.
And quite frankly, if the posting on this board is any indication, his chances of uniting ANYBODY, much less the democratic party or the republican party will be impossible. And I don't think you can lay the blame on him for that....but the blame has to fall somewhere, and for me anyway, it will probably end up falling on you guys.
I'm trying to mend this divide, explain my thoughts (even the not so well thought out ones), see the other side, debate the issues, etc, but I think I've reached the point where I've just had enough.
I'll reluctently join the bear in solitude.....and hell, probably vote McCain in the general or stay home.
You are allowing the way two posters express themselves on an anonymous internet message board to effect your vote for the next president of the United States.
I'm not especially fond of the way some people have expressed their advocacy for their candidate here either, and have said so privately to them in PMs. I don't think it is a positive representation of our candidate and his philosophy and plays into the other side's game and allows them to point to it like you just did. The excuse that it is politics and politics is a dirty game doesn't cut it for me.
And, quite frankly, you and several others have not been immune from writing rude remarks in posts either. I try to stay out of it for the most part. I wish I could tell you how many times I've written and deleted responses after saying to myself "is this the way my candidate would have responded?" I, too, end up just sitting on my hands in an effort to not respond just as rudely to rude posts. I'm not always successful so I end up being silent a lot too.
Butrflynet wrote:maporsche wrote:You know Obill, Cyplops, other Obama supporters.
At some level, probably even a conscious level, at least some of the distaste I feel towards an Obama candidicy can be blamed on each of you. I've said before that it's his supporters that bother me, but I really don't know any of his supporters besides those on this website.
I am fully aware that this is not a good reason to not support a candidate, but hey, I'm only human.
And quite frankly, if the posting on this board is any indication, his chances of uniting ANYBODY, much less the democratic party or the republican party will be impossible. And I don't think you can lay the blame on him for that....but the blame has to fall somewhere, and for me anyway, it will probably end up falling on you guys.
I'm trying to mend this divide, explain my thoughts (even the not so well thought out ones), see the other side, debate the issues, etc, but I think I've reached the point where I've just had enough.
I'll reluctently join the bear in solitude.....and hell, probably vote McCain in the general or stay home.
You are allowing the way two posters express themselves on an anonymous internet message board to effect your vote for the next president of the United States.
Don't be fooled. This is not true at all.
Lola and Maporsche are fervent Hillary fans... not that there is anything wrong by that. They were going to support Hillary no matter what. The alleged bad behavior by two or more Obama supporters haven't affected anything.
I don't have any problem with them being fervent supporters of Hillary. Just understand their whining about Obama supporters has absolutely nothing to do with their choice to support Hillary.
They are being a bit manipulative in an attempt to skew other people toward their chosen candidate. That's all.
I find many/most of the posts here really interesting; Assuming as i do that the majority/average/common voters are moderate republicans; middle of the road independents and moderate democrats. For sure not left wing-nuts like myself or right wing-nuts like okie there is a general realization that I am not going to get anywhere with my Kucinich support (as much humour as anything else) and yet I read both here on in the general press how the right wing-nuts basically demand that McCain prove his right wing extremism to match their own or they will punish him by not voting. If effect saying "unless McCain moves to our extreme positions (rendering him unelectable to the moderate "average" voter)"
This commonality of the right wing conservative since Nixon has done more to destroy any credibility to the republician conservative (Reagan un
Have I mentioned that OBamaited the moderates (Reagan democrats).
On the other hand we have the Hillary/Obama situation where the difference between them is incredibly minor and more a matter of style than one of substance. I can really see that Obama supporters will support (just as Hillary supporters) whoever gets the nomination but I certainly can't see that occuring within the republicans, who, at this moment seem inclined to cut off their noses to spite their faces. How can such a far right faction so dominate a "large tent" or do they?
I guess time will tell.
Have I mentioned that OBama has fathered a black child?
Quote:
Have I mentioned that OBama has fathered a black child?
Lol, we might hear smears that he fathered a white one!!!
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Have I mentioned that OBama has fathered a black child?
Lol, we might hear smears that he fathered a white one!!!
Cycloptichorn
Yeah, damnit why didn't I say that!
Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html
Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.
Cycloptichorn
Oh, wonderful.
I didn't respond to - was it BBB or Butryflynet's - the post/thread on the morass that the New Mexico election was, as it was thuddingly depressing. Now this...
On the thread, I've been reading along and found myself insulted many times, though I've taken all that with a grain of salt and some spitting of my own to myself. Ok, I called Dys once, or was it twice : )
My primary.. concern is that emotional and somewhat repetitive ballyhooing from each side has been quite awash in generalizations, thus inflaming listeners of the other side who don't fit the bill.
I do appreciate the links people post, from any point of view, and try to read them.
(I'm an elder white liberal feminist woman who is not most represented by Hillary but will vote for her if it is between her and McCain; although that can seem a bit of a close call, it isn't really. I am also not perfectly represented by Obama, and do not wallow in Obama adoration, but he is my choice among the three.)
Obama not electable? Hardly.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html
Quote:Analysis: Obama has advantage in head-to-head with McCain
* Story Highlights
* Polls suggest Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain would be tied
* Sen. Barack Obama would have a clear lead over McCain, polls suggest
* Men would be more likely to vote for Obama than Clinton in a general election
From Bill Schneider
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain became the likely Republican nominee after Mitt Romney decided to suspend his campaign Thursday. Now, the Democrats are debating who would do better against the Arizona Republican.
Two polls this month have asked registered voters nationwide how they would vote if the choice were between McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton.
A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..
A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.
Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing "I've got appeal that goes beyond our party."
In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That's outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.
And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent -- a lead also outside of the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points.
In both polls, Obama looks stronger than Clinton. Why?
Obama's explanation: "I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates. That's just a fact, and there are some who will not vote for her."
That was three weeks ago. Now, only two Democratic candidates remain.
Clinton does have higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3.
Why does Obama do better against McCain than Clinton? Obama does do a little better than Clinton with independents and Republicans.
But the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.
Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.
Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).
But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).
Obama argues that he can reach across party lines. And he does do a little better than Clinton with Independents and Republicans, at least in these polls.
But the big difference is that Clinton doesn't draw very well with men. Obama does.
Cycloptichorn
Dan Abrams
Voters Not Superdelegates
Posted February 8, 2008 | 06:52 PM (EST)
As Republicans get their political house in order with Romney bowing out and Mccain making nice with the conservative wing of the party, Democrats appear to be heading towards chaos. Most troubling is that party insiders, members of Congress, union leaders, party officials and an assortment of activists known as superdelegates, now hold the key to the nomination for Obama or Clinton. Each of the superdelegates' votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters. With the candidates almost tied in delegates to date and with battles brewing over currently disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan, the Democrats must move now--before the fight moves from a principled one to a purely political one. Once it becomes clear exactly how the superdelegates will impact the vote, an objective assessment will be impossible. In an effort to avoid another Bush v. Gore crisis of confidence, we have called for all the superdelegates to simply support the vote of their state or district and effectively disqualify themselves now.
Watch the segment here
link
