Well said...

Amen!

You hit the nail on the head. The more the sycophants for either Barack or Hillary continue to spout their nonsense about supporting McCain if their pet candidate doesn't get the nomination, the closer we all get to losing. McCain will:

1) Appoint justices who will end Roe V Wade (he said as he would) and punish doctors who provide abortions (a return to the dark, bad old days of back alley abortions)

2) Keep the war in Iraq going for a minimum of another 5 years.

3) Institute Cap and Trade, which by itself will do little to nothing to curb Global Climate change.

4) Will do nothing for the healthcare crisis.

5) Will do nothing for the economy

6) Has said that the American people need to accept that there will be more wars

7) Will keep the tax cuts that Bushco passed for the richest 1% of Americans

Do we need more of this? I am an Obama supporter but would gladly cast my vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. The alternative is unacceptable. People cannot sacrifice the lives of our soldiers, Iraqi civilians, the civilians anywhere McCain decides to drop bombs on, or the environment just because their candidate didn't win the nomination.

No, unfurtunately TA, Leo and Anthony are wrong. The politics of dividiveness weren't McCain - they were Clinton. Remember she said that Mccain would make a better president than Obama.

Stop trying to turn this into the other side's problem. Stop waving the Roe V Wade red banner, this is all about divisiveness WITHIN the democratic party. Wise up or lose the election when it counts - November

Kurt, you seem to have missed the point. Nobody is blaming John McCain for any division within the party.

Frankly, the time is past for pointing fingers. Senator Obama will clearly win the nomination. Why would you point fingers at Senator Clinton for any negativity in the past? How does that advance party unity?

Unity in the Democratic party does not just mean that Senator Clinton and her supporters unite behind Barack Obama. It also means that Senator Obama and his supporters embrace and celebrate the historic campaign that Senator Clinton ran, and work hand in hand with her to defeat John McCain in November.

That is, after all, when it counts. Senator Clinton is not the enemy. Senator McCain is.

There have been forces causing division within the Democratic party, but let's quit giving them all the blame. Democrats chose to side with one of the two remaining candidates. Those who were impressed by Obama's oratory and bought into a vision of a better future and those who are pro-war and don't care that Hillary helped to shred the Constitution when she voted for that war. Those who prefer examples of honesty and those who are willing to be lied to. Those who have risen above racial bigotry and those who remain locked into racism. Those who are impressed with intelligence and those who feel more comfortable with candidates who pander to them. Those who look beyond race and gender and those who decide on the basis of race and gender.

And in spite of all the Democrats who recognize the ocean of difference between Obama and Clinton and choose one over the other, it's still irrelevant. Having either one lose to McCain is unacceptable.

Anthony: Some points -

1. Many liberal pro-choice scholars agree that RvW is built on a house of cards, needs to be overturned, and placed into the People's hands. The landmark decision short-circuited the legisltative process and would change little if overturned.

2. If you think Obama is going to keep this campaign promise you are going to be more disappointed than you have every been in your life. The only way Obama will leave Iraq immediately is if Bush miraculously finishes what he started - which won't happen. Obama will not want to have genocide and AQ in Iraq revitalized. He will not go against the Joint Chiefs of Staff - he'll listen to them unlike Bush.

3. C&T won't be implemented. Watch this week.

4. If Obama compromises on a HSA in a bipartisan way - he may have a chance.

5. The economy is on a 15 year robust period. I think we all need a bit of reality. I don't think the Feds should bail out the investor's that are now going into foreclosure. Make bad choices, pay the price. Help people get educated & eat. Don't make bad choice risk-free or it'll be 100 times worse next time. Beside, I like the idea of a slow down. Too many people I hire think they are entitled to a good job with high pay so they can cruise the internet.

6. Obama knows this too. Look at history. Everyone thinks the last War will be the last forever. Sad to say it isn't true. Even Obama would admit this.

7. The richest 1% pay 39% of the Federal Tax burden. Prior to Bush (under Clinton) the richest 1% payed 37% of the Federal Tax burden (irs.gov). Also, you can't soak the rich. Read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Rich pay about 20% revenue as based on the GDP no matter if their tax bracket is 90% as it was in the 50's or 30% as it was in the early 90's. The Rich have the money and resources to move their money off-shore.

Obama won't be able to soak the rich either. It makes for great political speeches to say you'll raise thier taxes to pay for programs. But history shows that doesn't work.

If a 90% tax bracket won't work, nothing will.

Nice rehotoric to gin up the masses though....

Leo is a friend of mine and he's made a great point. OK, I might find "paint job" a little understated but the damn cliff is real.

Chaos is a funny guy, he knows the tax formulations don't mean what he says they do, but there's always the hope he'll get rich one day...

I figure McCain will try to keep his promises and that's scary enough, I'll take the Dem's failures over his.

Jenni - I never said RvW was not a big deal to women. Just that the shaky ground the opinion is based upon. People on both sides of the issue argue legislation created by the People, would not only keep abortion legal but it would also be based on solid legal ground.

Shaky legal ground:

http://www.nysun.com/national/roe-v-wade-an-issue-ahead-of-alito-hearing/23046/

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/wittes

The last answer on the atlantic article is quite impressive, imo.

"Hillary and Barack aren't tearing the party apart. We are"

It's important to isolate comments that sound so profound to understand why they are so empty. Uh T.A. and whoever start this childish thread: This would only be true if you are so immature as to believe there isn't no difference between the values these candidates have expressed in their lives and careers and posturing on issues one sees in political campaign.

The candidates are worlds apart on values, close on positions on the issues, and ultimately just politicians. So there is nothing wrong with what is happening, only discomfort by the kind of people here who really aren't wise or mature. There are legitimate divisions that in fact are being played out here and we are potentially seeing a necessary and natural re-alignment of the Democratic Party. If you can't live with it you probably aren't mature enough to be voting.

And Kari, here's a source for you:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Irate_Clinton_supporter_God_Damn_Democrats_0601.html "And they think we won't turn and vote for McCain," Christian added. She closed: "Well, I've got news for all of you: McCain will be the next President of the United States!"

Actually Chaos, the article you cite contains the facts of it's own falsehood about the whole 20% canard:

The article this is what scientists call "an independence theorem", as if that's equivalent to a "law of nature". What it doesn't explain is that theorems simply express logical relationships that exist between premises and conclusions. Change the premises and the theorem may not be valid any longer.

In this case, a quote further down in the article provides the hidden premises:

What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation."

Putting it a different way, capital migrates away from regimes in which it is treated harshly, and toward regimes in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely.

What the author of this article doesn't honestly report (and Hauser doesn't address if we are to take this as a fair reporting of his work), is 1) How the politicians provide new opportunities to shelter wealth from taxation every time they change the tax rate, and 2) why GDP is not a very informative measure of the health of any nation since it doesn't address distribution of wealth within a nation.

You can generate the same return on GDP and by tinkering with the tax code have a very different picture inside the country. Simply recovering a higher percentage of GDP doesn't meaning much if you are just returning the benefits of that higher return to the people who are paying it (which is often the case.)

So the "theorem" is both superficial (actually not a theorem) and irrelevant.

I agree with you that the Obama we see as a politician on issues has little to do with the Obama we would see in office, but that's true of every politician and he has indicators of values that are better for the country than Clinton's spoiled white baby boomer politics of entitlement. In addition, she has shown over the course of her public career and this race some disturbing things about her values. McCain would just be worse anyway you look at it.

Yes, many Clinton supporters have said they will be supporting Senator McCain if Senator Obama wins the nomination. I have yet to see a quote where Senator Clinton says Senator McCain would be a better President. So far on this thread, I've seen two where people want to believe she said that, but over here in reality she did not.

Please, people. Wake up. If you do not stop tearing apart Senator Clinton and her supporters we are going to lose the election. Every negative thing you say about Senator Clinton puts John McCain one step closer to the White House. Barack Obama will not be the next President of the United States without the full and enthusiastic support of Senator Clinton and her supporters. So next time you hear a Clinton supporter talk about supporting McCain, instead of spewing bile and hatred at them, why don't you try talking to them about Barack Obama's message of hope and unity?

Do you want Barack Obama to be the next President? Start acting like it, and start embodying his message instead of exemplifying the politics of divisiveness.

(FYI: I am a male in my early 20s with an advanced education. I became engaged in the political process because no candidate for any office has ever excited me as much as Senator Clinton. I will proudly, vocally, and enthusiastically support Barack Obama against John McSame).

It's becoming more and more clear to me that we are going to lose this election. The wounds are apparently too deep to heal and there are enough people on both sides, both in Obama's and Clinton's camps, that are willing to demonize those in the other camp that a good majority of Dems will either not vote in November or will vote for McCain. It's sad that we can't get enough people to understand the big picture, but given the level of vitriol and animosity that I've seen out there, I just don't see it happening.

I will work for whoever the Dem candidate is and will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. However, I'm really starting to feel it's a lost cause. We had a perfect setup to take back the White House---and we've blown it.

Anyone want to start talking about possible candidates for 2012?

Stop and take a deep breath.

How many Democrats OUTSIDE of the blogosphere--meaning potentially your neighbors, your friends, you co-workers, and so on--are telling you that "it's my way or the highway" in regards to the Obama/Clinton race?

There is a lot of posturing and hyperventilating in the blogosphere and by the folks who show up at, say, the Democratic Party Rules and Bylaws Committee meetings. So what happens? Someone in a state of great agitation makes a bunch of intemperate remarks, gets videotaped, and this video is then posted to You Tube and from there all over the blogosphere. Talk about your 15 minutes of fame!

Quit generalizing from anecdotes.

Who is the most divisive personality in the Democratic party? (hint, Liberman is an Independant). Reality being what it is and all.

while i would agree with joel that this issue (the "my way or the highway" attitude) is largely confined to the blogosphere, even within the blogosphere i don't know what to say to clinton supporters in outreach.

i'm afraid that anything i would say would be taken as being condescending or patronizing, which i don't want to do.

but i'm genuinely at a loss.

YRI,

Do politicians provide new tax shelters each time they pass a new tax law? Are you talking about so-called "loopholes" (i.e. unintended consequences) or actual tax shelters?

Yes GDP is not an accurate measure for the health of a nation (distribution) but that wasn't the point of the article. With the unprecendented expansion of the GDP since the 50's the rich have fairly consistently been at 20% (that darn 80/20 rule). Distribution within the GDP is apples and oranges.

Are you saying that Obama can soak the rich?

The rich has resources to move money away from taxes. Look with Buffet is doing by saying he is for the Estate Tax while moving vast sums of money into a Trust - so it won't be considered part of his Estate. Same with Gates. Saying one thing and doing another.

If it's Obama vs. "the rich", my money is on "the rich".

(p.s.) YRI -

In 1990 the richest 5% of income earners paid for 40% of all the Federal tax burden. In 2005 they paid for 60% of Fed tax burden.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Another dimension with the GDP article - remember we tax income, not wealth. When a weathly person agrees taxes should go up, to me that means they person doesn't make their money from income.

I have to agree with Joel. While this is an awesome article by Leo I don't believe that the party is as in dire trouble as a lot of people think it is. The people that are going to decide the election in November are the "everyday John's and Janes" of this country. The people that don't care about Pastor's or gaffe's or the candidates spouse or tax returns, or book deals. They do care about ideas and solutions for how to make this country and their lives better. And that is where we will win the election. Everyone knows that McCain equals the same. The "divison" in the party is between bloggers, campaign surrogates, and plitical hacks that have nothing better to do than protest a RBC meeting with the hopes of getting to be on CNN for 20 seconds. Those people will not decide this election, they just give the talking heads on TV some filler to talk about between speeches and election days.

within the blogosphere i don't know what to say to clinton supporters in outreach.

i'm afraid that anything i would say would be taken as being condescending or patronizing, which i don't want to do.

but i'm genuinely at a loss.

I'm at a loss as well. I don't think Hillary Clinton is evil. I was even leaning towards supporting her once upon a time, before deciding upon Obama. (I originally favored another candidate entirely.) But my problem with this "outreach" to Clinton supporters is not about being condescending or patronizing. I've just not found much, if any, receptivity, no matter what tone I adopt. Someone who insists on labeling an Obama supporter as an "Obamabot", for example, has already seemingly shut the door on discourse. And an Obama supporter who demonizes Clinton is doing the same damn thing.

If we didn't all have the option of using pseudonyms, would any of this even go on? How many of you are purposely rude to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers with whom you have political disagreements?

In the end, I don't think there IS any meaningful method of outreach in the blogosphere. So we wind up with the worst of all online worlds: echo chambers and polarization.

Reconciliation is a two-way street. It is typical for each of the two parties entering a reconciliation process to feel that the OTHER party is the one who has to take the first step and bear the burden. OK, that's understandable. But reconciliation can never go forward until that attitude is dropped.

I'm not a Democratic Party functionary. Practically speaking, what I can do in engage the living, breathing humans that I encounter in my daily life, not fret over the pseudonymous personality fulminating on a blog somewhere.

Okay, Joel, here's actual numbers from my life of "who is really willing to switch if their person doesn't get the nomination" question. I started keeping a list, marking off a month ago as I talked to various friends/family---some I talk to specifically about politics, others I brought the subject up in the midst of a conversation. With all, my question was exactly almost what you asked--"Given that McCain is by far worse than Clinton or Obama, would you seriously consider voting for him if you chosen D candidate doesn't get the nomination?" Now, maybe they are reacting to the current media and maybe not. But here is the reality that I am seeing:

My parents who are both lifelong Dems (my father was IBEW his whole life) are voting McCain and are considering switching parties because of how they see the D Party (NOT)working these days.

Of my "non-political" friends(ie--they don't blog or read blogs, they don't watch policital new shows, they don't get involved beyond voting---no campaign work, etc)of the 23 I've "polled" in the past month, 11 said no way in hell would the vote for the other candidate. Some won't vote at all, some will go for McCain, but they won't vote D.

Of my "political" friends (and admittedly, these are the folks most likely to tone down their rhetoric and vote D regardless since they (hopefully) get the big picture---of the 11 I've spoken with and asked that question, 4 said they'd not vote before they'd vote for someone other than there chosen candidate. They won't go R, but they say they won't vote. Now push comes to shove, I'm guessing they'll vote D, but even taking them out of the mix, I've got 13 of 25 people (52%) I know stating they will vote R or not at all. These folks are serious. And no way can we win if we lose that many Ds either through non-voting or voting R.

Again, my sampling is personal and may well not reflect reality, but it is MY reality and I'm having to try and talk these people off the ledge all the time. From my view we ARE in trouble and if we don't do something (and no, I don't know what that would be--that's why I'm so frustrated) we ARE going to lose in November.

I'm truly hopeful that people will settle down soon once tomorrow's races are over. But I also believe we're headed to a floor fight in August and that will be destructive. I truly and honestly hope I am proven wrong. I would never be so happy to be wrong in my life.

If Ms. Harmon's anecdotal survey is generally correct, then obviously the Democratic Party is in deep sh**. I accept her reality; it's just not mine. Not that my reality doesn't have it's own share of unpleasantness, such as my (female) Democratic neighbor who is not a Clinton fan but who nonetheless recently described Michelle Obama as a "bitch" and thinks her spouse is going to get creamed by McCain.

Again, my sampling is personal and may well not reflect reality, but it is MY reality and I'm having to try and talk these people off the ledge all the time. From my view we ARE in trouble and if we don't do something (and no, I don't know what that would be--that's why I'm so frustrated) we ARE going to lose in November.

Once the nomination is settled, our candidate decided and we're moving forward I expect the nominee to experience a 10 point bump in the polls.

Look...everyone is in love with their candidate right now. I couldn't believe how excited I was for Dean and I was so disappointed when he lost. If my candidate lost right now I'd probably feel as bad as when John Kerry lost (allegedly) to W in 2004. People really aren't stupid. We're divided now and when we have a nominee we will unite and the Democratic ticket's message will be far stronger and far better than anything Old Man McCain is going to say. Think of the debates...the tired corpse of John McCain on the stage with either the young vigorous orator or the smart as a whip fiery Senator from NY. McCain can't say "my friends" enough to compete with either of them.

At least the few disappointed Clinton supporters who go over to McCain won't have any effect in Oregon as its electoral votes go to Obama (same as California and Washington State).

Obama is just getting started on his GE campaign to convince voters to cast their ballots for him. Don't discount his strategy and and intelligence. Remember that Clinton was considered a shoe-in before Obama entered the race. There is plenty of time between now and November. He will get at least two "bounces" in popularity. One when he becomes the presumtive nominee and another right after the Convention.

Even now some pollsters have him winning the presidency with 273 EVs or more.

If some Clinton supporters become turncoats, they weren't really progressives to begin with.

McCain will try to stack the Suprem Court against Roe v. Wade and other civil liberties. There is even some talk among neocons to have judges "interpret" the 14th Amendment so as to exclude native born children from citizenship. (And these supporters have the gall to complain about "activists judges).

<hr/>