I feel sad that our best chance for a woman POTUS is slipping away. I can not vote for Obama as I believe that is a vote for McCain and the right-wing hate / attack / war machine. Hillary looks so beat up and tired these days I am just wondering how much longer she can weather the attacks.

Has their been a conspiracy against Hillary?

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ega...06622/?src=hsn

Quote: omfg..it's as maddening as reading The Hunting of the President.

Guerilla Women...read this and weep. The thugs stole OUR PRIMARY with the complicity of the DNC!

They wanted to force FL and MI to hold undemocratic caucuses instead of (rethug) state-sponsored primaries!!!!

link and excerpts...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-...u_b_94158.html

Dems Take the Hit for the GOP

The Republican role is not some irrelevant anecdote. The DNC is charged, under its rules, to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a "good faith" effort to abide by the party's electoral calendar, and to impose the full weight of its available penalties, namely a 100 percent takedown of a state's delegation, only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved. So the fact that it was Republicans who fomented the move-up of primaries in both these states to dates out-of-line with the DNC calendar is at the heart of the matter.

...Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.

Though Dawson and others on Rules now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that's not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day "prior to or after the dates" spelled out by the DNC.

That's why Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would "grudgingly support the waiver," warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that "the days of 'privilege' may end soon."

Not only did "first-primary-or-die" New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire's. But New Hampshire's Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19. That unilateral decision -- which the Carolina Democrats declined to join in -- forced New Hampshire's hand. The waiver was, in other words, a reasonable response to a Republican provocation. What's unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another.

A DNC official claimed that the Michigan party had sponsored so-called "firehouse caucuses" in the past and could have set their own date and done them again, ignoring the state-run January 15 primary. The Florida party, the DNC source added, was "offered $880,000" by the DNC to host their own caucus on a date in compliance with the DNC schedule and chose to participate, instead, in the state-financed primary, a "bad faith" decision.

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy. Zee | 04.10.08 - 2:27 pm | #

Though well intended, Paulie, your post has a false equivalence. It's clear where the divisiveness is coming from. When Hillary Clinton runs Republican style attack Ads, when she trashes the Democratic activist base (as revealed yesterday), when she runs a campaign about "God, guns, and guts," when she supports the neocon agenda for attacking Iran, when she continues on in a hopeless Tonya Harding strategy for trying to win the nomination, then it's pretty clear. When she sends the message to voters that Obama isn't American enough, he's not "one of us" it's clear who is divisive and hurting the party.

The unity message rings pretty hollow with those kinds of "scorched earth" tactics being used. It's clear who the nominee will be, it's simply a matter of how divisive and destructive Clinton wants to make the remainder of her declining candidacy to be. Her justification for these tactics? She's just doing what the Republicans will do in the fall. Great, just great. I thought we were on the same side, with the same values, and goals for America. Now I don't think so. I think her campaign is for 2012 and she is headed for a Lieberman solution.

I think the two comments above mine are a good illustration of who's promoting divisiveness. "Guerilla women"???? Give me a break!

A Tribute to Hillary Clinton by MAYA ANGELOU, GIVEN IN nc,at a rally..".You may write me down in history,with your bitter twisted lies, you may tread me in the very dirt, but still like dust I rise. This is not the first time you have seen Hillary at seemingly her wits end. But she is always risen, always risen. Don't forget she has much to the dismay of her adversaries and to the delight of her freinds---Risen."

Paulie, I think that your comments are spot on. Those bemoaning the current state of affairs between Obama and Clinton supporters need to understand that politics is historically very dirty fighting. It isn't for the faint of heart.

Having your say in the primary is important. I can't play because both parties in Oregon have decided to lock out the NAV (independent) voter. Have at it then dems! Then, when it is all over find a way to reconcile and unite or you will lose the best chance you have ever had of regaining the White House.

Bill R: Quoting the Huffington site as a news source, is as credible as getting your news off the bathroom wall.

Kurt: I am also an independant, putting country before party, and I went in and switched affiliation to democrat for the primary vote and had it switched back auto, afterwards, as are many others.

Sandra, The evidence of is not just the secondhand reporting of Huffington Post, but an audio recording that is available at a number of sites. She trashes Moveon and other activists here but has praised them on other occasions publicly. As did Bill Clinton. Moveon.org was started in the late 1990s to defend Bill Clinton from Republican impeachment attempts. Ironic that she now needs to trash them.

To Paulie and others here- It's also ironic that the same attack points that were used against Bill Clinton (I remember them well as I worked in his campaign in '92) attacking his patriotism, his inexperience, his un-Americanism and "elitism", are all Republican talking points that the Clintons are using against Obama. And the Republicans use them against other Dem. candidates. They simply reinforce the Republican line that Dems aren't real Americans. So to use the line that anything goes in a primary, is plain BS.

Right now there is a situation close to civil war in the Dem. party, and I lay this at the feet of the Clintons and the party leaders who have gone along with it. As a life long Dem. I am seriously questioning whether this is the party I thought it was, and whether it really has progressive values. When the neocon agenda of pre-emptive and permanent war are supported, when the progressive activist, and most loyal elements of the party are deemed appropriate targets, when the AA church and its pastors are demonized, when other candidates and party leaders are attacked as being un-American and un-patriotic, then the party itself is headed over a cliff. If all of that is fair game, and acceptable to party leaders, if the Clinton values and campaign tactics are representative of this party, I want no part of it.

That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!

Hillary is making Obama stronger, not weaker. And if she is successful, she will "kill" Obama (politically), which is her obvious intent, and right, to do.

And who knows, if she can did up more 'dirt' on Obama (ie another close associate worse than Wright; more self inflicting elite comments; closer inspection of Obama by the fawning press), then maybe the Democrats (via the SupaDelegates) will shun Obama and go with Hillary.

But if she can't dig up enough dirt on Obama, then maybe he doesn't have any more dirt out there. And thus, Hillary would have made Obama stronger, not weaker. I mean, really, ya think that the Republicans won't find the dirt on Obama, and then blast him with it in the fall?

Harry

full disclosure: As a NAV, I have no vote, but probably would vote for 'Bama over Hillary.

Probably obvious, but I meant to say: "And who knows, if she can dig up more 'dirt' on Obama..."

The divisive tactics of the Clinton campaign have been noted much in the Pa. press with all but one of the major Pa. newspapaers endorsing Obama.

From Today: Here's an endorsement for a second time from the Pittsburg Gazette, aligning Clinton with the Republicans on her negative, divisive tactics of distraction. They make the case very well here for a critique of Clinton's tactics as throwing the election to the Republicans and helping them distract from real issues.

(Paulie, here in Oregon the party leadership needs to address your appeal directly to the Clinton camp and to those officials like Kulongoski and Hooley who endorse this divisiveness. They are as much the problem for their tacit support for this tearing apart of the Dem. party and hurting the fall campaign. Please address your concerns to them as they can put a stop to it.):

<hr/>

'Gotcha' politics: Meanwhile, the war goes on and the economy tanks
Saturday, April 19, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
It has come to this: Republicans and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been reduced to "gotcha" politics, attacking Sen. Barack Obama for a few ill-chosen words at a San Francisco fund-raiser.

This cynical attempt to distract attention from real issues -- the growing number of jobless, mortgage foreclosures, record gasoline prices and the war in Iraq -- should be rejected by Pennsylvania voters and the rest of the nation.

Even the broadcasters on Wednesday night's TV debate got down in the gutter by delaying questions on worthy issues until they could batter both Democratic candidates for 45 minutes with topics that either barely mattered or had been thoroughly aired.

Admittedly, Mr. Obama mangled his message last week, allowing Mrs. Clinton to bludgeon him with his own words, Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and both -- incredibly -- to suggest that this former community organizer who had helped the poor of Chicago is somehow an "elitist."

That description more nearly attaches to his Democratic opponent, a Wellesley and Yale law school graduate who, with her former president husband made more than $100 million since 2001, as well as to the presumptive Republican nominee (the son of an admiral, graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and husband of a wealthy beer-distributorship heiress).

Sen. John McCain's pandering to small-town America is to be expected. The GOP has been successful at convincing the American heartland it shares their values while lying to them about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, reducing taxes on the top 1 percent of Americans and passing anti-consumer laws favorable to the interests of corporate America.

Republicans would love to campaign this fall on hot-button issues such as guns and religion rather than the GOP White House's losing battle with the economy or its failure to extract the country from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pennsylvanians should not be fooled. In a long campaign, all candidates say things they wish they could take back. In addition to Mr. Obama's San Francisco remarks and Mrs. Clinton's imperfect Bosnia memory, we should not forget that Mr. McCain has admitted not knowing very much about the economy and has confused Shiites and Sunnis while discussing the Middle East.

As in other states, Pennsylvania's Democratic primary boils down to whether voters believe Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton is better equipped to lead America out of Iraq and back from the precipice of recession, not who made the fewest gaffes.

This week, after interviewing both senators, the Post-Gazette editorial board declared that candidate to be Barack Obama, and we see nothing in this teapot tempest to alter that judgment.

"It is obvious we need to unify against a very strong John McCain"

I can't disagree, of course, that we need to unify, but I would emphatically disagree with the characterization of John McBomb as "very strong." The Republicans are a tired old party with tired old ideas, and their standard-bearer is a tired old man, as well as a warmonger and a politician who is totally enmeshed in the corrupt culture of Washington. Moreover, the United States is still bogged down in a senseless war (started by the Republicans) and is sinking into a deep recession (brought on by misguided Republican policies). And to top it all off the Republican incumbent is the most unpopular president in history. With all this, how can anyone say McBomb is "very strong"?

Barring an unforeseen disaster, the Democratic candidate should carry 40 states.

"[Clinton's] justification for these tactics? She's just doing what the Republicans will do in the fall. Great, just great. I thought we were on the same side ..."

Hillary is on Hillary's side, first, last and always.

I appreciate your post Paulie. I had no doubt that Bill the Republican troll would immediately take issue with you, but please don't pay any attention to him. He posts multiple anti-democratic rants in response to every topic at BO.

John

Whats wrong with the argument that the democratic party is destroying itself over the 2 candidates????that fact that millions of new voters have signed up and people are actually participating in donateing and campaigning..Its a good thing-you just want hillary to quit and take 1/2 of the democratic party with her????

Haha.. I'm the Republican troll.. pretty good one.

For the sake of Sandra who says I get news from bathroom walls.

Here's HRC and her slam on Dem. activists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXuVJ2vrjO4

Gracefully retreat to the Senate and help advance the change agenda. Hillary can be an important player if only she would join the team.

I agree with a commentor on another post, who suggested it would have served better the interests of Moveon.org, had they waited until after there was a nominee before pledging there support-this way they become partisian and fair game and lose some of their power to negotiate policy.

Wow, six minutes Bill? The folks at the next Republican meeting will be impressed with your dogged persistence.

John

I would like to know how moveon.org could support a candidate that has twice said on msm, the last time in the recent debate-that democrats don't have a lock on good ideas-that republicans have good ideas too??answer that one move on.

Kristin: Are you seriously willing to be TOLERATED as a woman? and HOPE for the underdog, the fact that you see yourself as an underdog willing to be tolerated doesn't say femminist to me. It says we are in deep trouble with that acceptance of such a low threshold

I would still like to know how moveon could support a candidate who says republicans have good ideas? Hillary did not put those words in his mouth..its been a continuing theme of Obamas

The Republicans are a tired old party with tired old ideas, and their standard-bearer is a tired old man, as well as a warmonger and a politician who is totally enmeshed in the corrupt culture of Washington. ... And to top it all off the Republican incumbent is the most unpopular president in history. With all this, how can anyone say McBomb is "very strong"?

<h2>Barring an unforeseen disaster, the Democratic candidate should carry 40 states.</h2>

Yep. And Al Gore should have won over 400 electoral college votes, especially since he won the popular vote by 3 million. And was much smarter than Bush.

Yep yep. And John Kerry should have won a landslide against that idiot McChimp, who was almost 2yrs into his failed war in Iraq, with the economy in the tank. Kerry should have done to Bush2 what Clinton did to Bush1 after Bush1's war mongering Desert Storm. (Clinton lost the popular vote, getting less than 45%)

So, dartadiot, what is your explanation about this recent history?

'Bama "should carry 40 states", unless what "unforseen disaster" happens?. The last time a President carried 40 states was Reagan vs Dukakis. LOL

Maybe with more debates like this week's, then 'Bama will clean up in the fall. 40 states should be no problem, if you count the former Soviet block.

The only Clear way to a Democratic sweep or even a win in the fall is for the 2 candidates to unite on the ticket, period..winning is EVERYTHING. Hillary can beat back the republican attacks and Obama can rally crowds around the country. anything else is suicide.

Those from either side who play the "my candidate or McCain" song seem to be unable to differentiate policy from politics. To assert that the policies of either Democrat somehow validate a vote for McCain is plainly either ignorant or childish. If you are happy with the last 7 years you should vote for McCain, that is why you should do it. Otherwise either Democrat is real change from BushCo. Here we have two Hillary supporters stamping their feet and threatening, do they purport that their interests in Hillary are better served by McCain than Obama?

Now I'll be clear that I'd not only have to hold my nose to vote for Hillary in a General, I'd have to fight a gag reflex - no I don't like her. I think her manner of running a campaign stinks, I think she's ethically challenged, and I think she'd have to try to govern a seriously divided country. She is not John McCain. John McCain scares the spit out of me on every level of being a President.

No candidate is a damned saint, they are politicians working in and elected in a flawed system - on top of being human beings. Some of you are making them into something they cannot be. Does Sally seriously propose that John McCain is better for women than Obama? On the basis of what piece of lunacy? The same holds true for Obama supporters. Yes, I'm real displeased with how this campaign has been conducted, on a lot of levels, but I'm not about to shoot myself and my fellows in the foot because I don't get everything I want. Voting against John McCain rather than voting for who I want would be a disappointment, I've had lots of those, but I refuse to ba a part of creating a disaster.

If there is something about your candidate that encourages you to vote McCain in the General you are paying absolutely no attention whatever to that candidate. You are listening to those who do not have your candidate's policies at heart and give a rat's patoot about Democratic Party values and drag your candidate into the mud. This kind of behavior doesn't make you principled, it makes you a spoiled child with the ethics of a spoiled child.

I don't hear the sound of stamping feet or threatening voices, I hear the sound of DEMOCRACY-many voices-its what makes democracy work, when we don't have dissenting voices-we have 8 years of george bush-So Rock On...

Sal is essentially correct. Unless Obama is hit with a bombshell revelation [such as strong evidence of some felonious behavior] he will be the Demo nominee. I doubt that Clinton could win enough delegates even if Obama decides now to go on vacation until the convention.

There is no problem in her continuing to campaign in order to discuss her stance on important issues, but that is not what she is doing. Her campaign consists mostly of attacks on Obama over the same trivial issues that the corporate media and Republicans love to exploit.

Sandra longley misunderstands MoveOn, which reflects the views of progressive Democrats, and is not simply an internet Democratic Party club. It is quite appropriate for them to endorse a [closer to] progressive primary candidate. Complaining of Obama's statement about Republicans having some good ideas is, in my opinion, quite petty, but then pettiness is all that Clinton supporters seem to have left.

Clinton has done well with bluecollar Democrats, the ones who might be expected to show the most resistance to a woman president. I think it is clear that Democrats would nominate the right woman candidate. Clinton is not the right one, not in this cycle, anyway.

Yeah, the tactics on both sides are such that if tactics made the candidate I would not be voting. Those that think Obama plays a clean game conveniently forget about his 'Faith and Family Tour' down south with a full cast of Evangelical out of the Bush administration preaching openly against gay people at Obama events. The same man who sang for Bush at GOP Convention 2004 stood on Obama's stage and attacked the GLBT community. Obama has refused to apologize or to promise he will not present futher insutlts to my family in his administration. Actual hate speech unapologetically delivered, not against the opposition or Republicans but against a loyal Democratic voter base, by a Republican activist. That is divisive, Rovian wedge politics, and that is how Obama started the game last fall. Those who see this as nasty on only one side are either willfully blind or accepting of homophobic Fundy ministers having part in our politics as Democrats. One or the other. The events happened, they were vicious pandering and they have gone unapologized for. Own that and perhaps you will have a leg to stand on. For now, Obama backers pointing fingers are just a bunch of Fundy lovers who don't mind anti-gay rhetoric in my book. The honest Obama backers are the ones who see the game for what it is and accept his part in the mud fest, which is every bit as big as hers, only his included slinging mud at innocent GLBT voters as well as the opposing candidate. Denial of that makes Obama backers look like fanclub teens. Tiger Beat for Pres!

Chuck Butcher,

I think most Blue Oregon posters would be more tempted to vote for Cynthia McKinney[G] than for John McCain[R]. That's just a guess.

david,

Would you link to news reports on homophobia in the Obama campaign? We should all check them out, I think.

last i heard, Obama wanted to repeal"don't ask don't tell", but his posistions are constantly being updated to correspond to Hillarys

Joe: are you living in a dream world? you need every supporter of Hillary Clintons to vote for Obama, right now 3/4 of americas votes are sitting out there, you are going to need more than 1/3 to win-I promise you republicans are not going to vote for Obama in sufficient numbers to help him, so why don't you just blow both feet off by continuing attacks against hillarys supporters

About 35,000 people got your message Paulie and rallied last night for Barack Obama in Philly.

Great speech too:

It was over two hundred years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do. After years of a government that didn’t listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne.

The union they created has endured for two centuries not because we’re perfect, but because we’ve always been perfectible – because each generation of Americans has been willing to stand up and sacrifice and do what’s necessary to inch us closer to the ideals at the core of our founding promise – equality, and liberty, and opportunity for all who seek it. That’s how we survived a civil war and two world wars; a Great Depression and great struggles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights, and now Philadelphia it's our turn.

...

The challenges we face are not just the fault of one man or one party. How many years – how many decades – have we been talking about solving our health care crisis? How many Presidents have promised to end our dependence on foreign oil? How many jobs have gone overseas in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s? And we still don’t have a strategy for American workers to succeed in a global economy. We’re still talking about it in 2008. And everyone here knows why.

Because in every election, politicians come to your cities and your towns, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they make big promises, and they lay out all these plans and policies. But then they go back to Washington when the campaign’s over, and nothing changes. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars to get their way. Folks would rather score political points than solve real problems. Instead of fighting for health care or jobs, Washington ends up fighting over the latest distraction of the week. It happens year after year after year.

But not this year. Not this time. This year we can’t afford the same old politics. This year we can declare our independence from this kind of politics. That’s change we need right now. And that’s the choice you’ll face on Tuesday.

...

In four days, you get the chance to help bring about the change that we need right now. Here in the city and the state that gave birth to our democracy, we can declare our independence from the politics that has shut us out, and let us down, and told us to settle.

We can declare our independence from the politics that’s put the oil companies, and the drug companies, and the insurance companies in charge of the decisions that impact our lives and our children’s lives.

We can declare independence from the say-anything, do-anything politics that’s all about how to win and not why we should; that politics that exploits our differences instead of speaking to our common concerns and our common destinies as Americans.

We can do all these things, but only if we declare our independence from the cynicism and the doubt that tells us that change can’t happen.

People that can't vote for Obama/Hillary are exactly the same people that let stupid wedge issues like abortion/gay rights make them vote for a Republican even though it is a vote that completely screws them 85% of the time. It's different issues but the same type of person. If you won't vote for Obama/Clinton and you're going to abstain you're an idiot. That's all there is to it.

Its a good thing-you just want hillary to quit and take 1/2 of the democratic party with her????

This question nicely illustrates several problems in logic.

"you just want hillary to quit": who is meant by you? Not this particulat Obama supporter. Not anyone I talk politics with at work or in my neighborhood. No, it's a few shrill people in the blogosphere who are making noises about wanting Clinton to quit (see TJ's comments above in this thread as an obvious example--he posts his obnoxious descriptions of Clinton as a "divisive, pathetic creature" just about daily here). It's also a few shrill people in the blogosphere who are leading attacks on Obama.

"take 1/2 of the democratic party with her": the writer is assuming that her particularly heated views are necessarily shared by all Clinton supporters. Again, generalizing to millions of people from one's own opinion may be a slight problem. (I would write precisely the same thing about Obama supporters fulminating about how they'll never support Obama.)

sorry, last word there should obviously have been "Clinton". :-)

If we allow ourselves to become side tracked from our goal of taking back the White House we are in for more of the same old, same old, while our country teeters on the brink economically. It will be a disgrace if we do not end the war in Iraq.

Thanks, Paulie. I couldn't agree more. Howard Dean has asked the Super Delegates to declare their support by June. There's no reason for them to cower on the sidelines waiting for a clear victor. Their inability to take a stand is a strong argument to get rid of that entire unelected delegate system. If they can't help the party come together, what good are they?

Obama is a street thug and demonstrates it here! How many of you think Obama can win this election now? Is this what you want for President of the United States? An immature thug that has no respect for anyone or anything!

This is from a former street guy.

I'm from the streets. In my younger days of course! That was street. That was intentional. Most would miss it. People of color, myself included, probably caught it. Notice the hoots! Among other things, its called filipping off on the down low. If someone "not hip" catches it, it's called a busted move. (Got caught)

_

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM

Paulie, thanks for the post.

Regarding the negativity of the democratic presidential campaign, I see the supporters and the media being by far more negative than the campaigns or the candidates themselves.

I think it would be good if those adding comments here could take a few deep breaths before selecting the "Post" button. It sounds like most everyone on BlueOregon is interested in electing a democrat for president. Let's admit that neither candidate is perfect, but only one can become the nominee. As a result, many of us will need to rally behind a candidate we didn't select, so I think it’s important to make an effort to be respectful of both candidates (and their supporters) right now - today!

Healthy criticism is good, but going over the line and saying mean things about either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton doesn't help anything! It reflects badly on you and the candidate you support. I am supporter of Hillary Clinton and I'm trying to prepare to rally behind Obama should he become the nominee, but seeing cruel comments against my candidate doesn't help me want to do this.

There's a lot of work ahead for us if we want to ensure a democratic win in November – and we'll need each other to make it happen.

Sandra Longley said: "...winning is EVERYTHING"

How many here agree? Shame on you if you do.

Tom C: I've been unable to get the following published as a response to your Moveon comment on another thread, so I'll try a truncated version here:

Once upon a time, I was a Moveon activist. You've added "...yielded to pressure [from Pelosi and Reid?] on funding the Iraq occupation" to my list of why we should not support them.

Add Bob Fertik's Moveon's Explanation on Lee Amendment Raises Crucial Questions About Its "Progressive" Leadership.

Naomi Klein (Anti-War Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics) makes the important point that Moveon support of Obama is a disastrous strategic blunder, since it is only by withholding support that we can hold either Democrat's feet to the fire.

But perhaps the most important reason not to support Moveon is that it is taken as the "far left" by the enemies of democracy, therebye marginalizing the CENTER, which includes most Americans, and which is to the left of Moveon.

Moveon makes me want to ralph.

joel if you want to quote me, please don't add your words to the quote ie its a good thing, and i was responding to a particular individual in that post when i said "you", But you know exactly what i am saying don't you?

Harry if you don't think winning is everything in this election then you must be a republican, because if we don't win we will have very little left of america to call our own

Why do you Obama supporters continue to cheer at the systematic rape and torture of Hillary?

Has she somehow deservered this?

Obama and his pastor would love to see a rich white woman, beat down - but this is NOT what Dr. Martin Luther King would have wanted. I am sick of the death politics of the left and the anti-female pro-rape crowd challenging the patriotism of people like Blanche Lincoln.

Sick of it.

torridjoe said: "Thank you, Mr. DLC. This is old politics hogwash. It's the willing abandonment of progressivism for 'the center' which has marginalized the party. (I assume you meant to the RIGHT of MoveOn.) Its enemies are wrong; taking their cue is just as wrong."

You assumed wrong. I meant what I said. Moveon is to the RIGHT of the U.S. political CENTER. Follow the links that I provided if you want to understand what I'm talking about. And here are some more links: Moveon's Explanation on Lee Amendment Raises Crucial Questions About Its "Progressive" Leadership, Betrayed!, Are We Politicians or Citizens?.

CENTRIST does not mean agreement with hegemonists, corporatists and warmongers. It means, at the very least, agreement with the majority or a plurality. This is the reason I post to BO; the U.S. political spectrum has shifted so far to the right that conservatives seem to many to be liberals.

The following are CENTRIST positions:

(1.) Impeach Cheney and Bush.

(2.) Begin to bring all U.S. personnel home from Iraq NOW and finish the withdrawal within one year.

(3.) Adopt single payer national health insurance.

(4.) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget and invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.

(5.) No to nuclear power, solar energy first.

(6.) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.

(7.) Withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA.

Failure to agree with these CENTRIST positions is evidence not of a centrist orientation, but rather of a profound contempt for democracy.

Sandra Longley said: "...winning is EVERYTHING"

How many here agree? Shame on you if you do.

Shame on us? Personally I would prefer to keep the supreme court not another instrument of the far right any more than it already is. If you don't realize how important it is to put a democrat, and frankly any democrat, in the White House ahead of John McCain then shame on you.

Paulie, In stepping back a moment from this difficult exchange, I would like to commend you for reminding us to keep our eyes on the prize. Despite this language here most Dems and some Indies and Rs will unite to form a majority in the general election when the time comes, because there is so much at stake affecting our country.

torridjoe: The center has not become the left because the spectrum has shifted to the right; it only appears to be the left. This is why it's important to reject right-of-center Democrat candidates, who will always be labeled as "far left" by Republicans, therebye shifting the spectrum even further to the right.

My position, which Tom C. understood quite easily, even if he disagreed, is that Moveon is right-of-center if what we mean by center is what the majority or a plurality believes and wants. Moveon is not a progressive organization because it has consistently supported right-of-center Democrats, against the wishes of its own membership, sometimes deviously, as Chris Lowe (moveon) pointed out on another thread.

Sandra and Garrett: To care only about winning an election, regardless of the values and policies of the candidates, is indefensible. I hope that's not what you mean, and that you'll reconsider the position you're taking. There are racist, sexist and imperialist Democrats, in case you haven't noticed. And Sandra, the fact that I don't think winning is EVERYTHING does not make me a Republican. It makes me ethical.

Whoever put the duct tape on Sandra's keyboard: Thank You.

TJ writes: "Pollster.com notes pretty clearly that McCain's current trend is downward against both Dems over the last month or so."

<hr/>

Yeah, and so is Obama... cratering downward like a rock: http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

That is the first time Clinton has been above Obama in many many weeks. I feel sorry for Obama, trying to remove Clinton from the picture when she is beating Obama in the national polls.

Torridjoe asked, "And if we are worried about Republicans naming "right of center" candidates as far leftists, then the candidates you want to back would be flat out Communists by their reckoning. Why is that better, exactly?"

The point is that you Democrats need to nominate a centrist/progressive, i.e., someone who represents the majority of your own constituency, rather than a "moderate" (a right-winger by international standards), because the Reich will always call your choice a "flat out Communist" anyway, while people like me will reject your "moderate" as Republican Lite. Which is what is happening, as you know if you're paying attention.

The reason for the propaganda re Obama's relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and his "America-hating" wife Michelle is to portray him as a "far-left" radical who needs to be marginalized. Therefore, you may as well have chosen Kucinich or someone like him, who represents the highest ideals of your party.

Even if your "moderate" actually wins, and actually fights for her win, you end up with Republican Lite, so you lose, too (assuming you're not in favor of Republican Lite). And the next election cycle begins with the debate having been moved further to the right.

Isn't it a little dramatic to say that Hillary is being "raped and tortured"?

Hillary supporters are getting confused about the FUTURE, when her Bush-like essence will cause her to continue our country's CURRENT practice of rape and torture in the name of WAR (She votes to enable them, as you know).

If you don't have the courage to put your name on your post,"anon." I can get you the name of a good SPINAL surgeon.....

Kristen: I support Hillary, first and formost because she is by far the best candidate, with the best ideas, and the WILL and FIGHT to accomplish what she says she will do, and she has proven to me over the years-she is that person, Obama has not proven anything to me other than he doesn't understand the majority of americans, what they think, feel, and how they live- now he may learn that, and it better be quick if he does become the general election candidate, or we, like in 2004, will lose. Being a woman candidate is way down on my list of important qualities, Joe Biden had my support initially, and that goes back to the days of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, when Joe Biden stood out as a man among men as the only man to vorciforiously defend Anita Hill against the attacks on her character made by his fellow senators

I'm not that worried that all this crap about Obama is being shoveled out now--Rev. Wright, "bitter" and "cling," yadda yadda yadda. By the time McCain starts throwing it at him, the American public, which needs something new to chew on every couple of days, will be saying, "That's so six months ago" and not pay attention.

Okay, now you can call me an elitist.

It seems every week something new falls out of Senator Obama's closet so I'm going to guess the Republicans would have new material to throw at him if he is the candidate.

Hillary has jumped the shark - screeching at the superdelegates that Obama can't win because he is black. Her toady Ed Rendell saying that whites aren't ready for a black president. Bill Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. Hillary's campaign calling Obama a druggie - but simultaneously an elitist. She's just flinging shit right and left.

She's just gross.

Sandra--huh? I did quote you. I just used cut and paste. I didn't change you words.

Kershner sez: the Reich will always call your choice a "flat out Communist" anyway, while people like me will reject your "moderate" as Republican Lite. Which is what is happening, as you know if you're paying attention.

Not sure what I'm not paying attention to. Presumably Mr Kershner is referring to some corner of the blogosphere (Portland IndyMedia?). In the world I inhabit, my relatives, my co-workers, my neighbors are not talking about GOP Lite. They're talking about a Democrat vs. McBush, and they see a clear distinction.

I have a strong feeling that Kershner and those whom he believes ARE paying attention decided a long time ago not to vote Democrat. They'll decided a long time ago to vote for Nader or McKinney.

I confess to Kershner-style logic in the past and even once (gasp!) a vote for Nader. That was before I awoke and realized Nader had no interest in governance, only in sneering and posturing. Good gawd, if Ralph Nader is the best that progressive purists have to offer us, THAT style of progressivism is in deep shit.

The reason for the propaganda re Obama's relationships with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and his "America-hating" wife Michelle is to portray him as a "far-left" radical who needs to be marginalized. Therefore, you may as well have chosen Kucinich or someone like him, who represents the highest ideals of your party.

The GOP would do this sort of Red-baiting with any Democratic nominee. Beyond that, why should my decision about voting be predicated on GOP tactics? As for Kucinich: in some ways I liked him, in other ways not. Why you think he "represents the highest ideals of [the Democratic] party" is a mystery to me.

Even if your "moderate" actually wins, and actually fights for her win, you end up with Republican Lite, so you lose, too (assuming you're not in favor of Republican Lite). And the next election cycle begins with the debate having been moved further to the right.

I'm just way too old for this sort of progressive puritanism.

joel dan walls said:

(1.)"In the world I inhabit, my relatives, my co-workers, my neighbors are ...talking about a Democrat vs. McBush, and they see a clear distinction."

I think you've allowed reality to disappear down the memory hole, e.g., McCain was the "liberal" Kerry's first choice for a running mate just 4 years ago, and most Democrats were all atwitter then about "the straight-talk express". There are many other examples of Republican Lite proclivity, including almost daily posts to BO of threats to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

McCain, Clinton and Obama are all "moderates" by DLC standards, and they are all right-of-center corporatists/hegemonists by the standards of the international community. That doesn't mean there are no differences, of course, just no differences on the issues that matter most to centrists/progressives.

(2.) "I have a strong feeling that Kershner and those whom he believes ARE paying attention decided a long time ago not to vote Democrat."

I think your psychic abilities need a tune-up. I would have worked for a Kucinich run, and I would have voted while holding my nose for an Edwards candidacy, but I will not vote for corporate-dominated militarists like Obama and Clinton (unless you can convince them to change their platforms).

(3.) "The GOP would do this sort of Red-baiting with any Democratic nominee."

That's my point. Democrat liberals keep choosing "moderates" in the hope of influencing McCain's base to vote Democrat, but you would be better off choosing candidates who represent your highest ideals, Kucinich or not. (If Obama or Clinton represent your highest ideals, you need to return to the sleep you were in when you voted for Nader.)

(4.) "I'm just way too old for this sort of progressive puritanism."

"Progressive puritanism" has the flavor of Rovian charlatanism. I recommend that you talk to liberals in Canada or Europe and find out what they think about Democrat policy-making. I'm a centrist by international standards, and I'm a geezer, too.

Chris: I have re read my posts that refer to moveon.org, as you might want to, and i asked the question in all my posts as to why move on would support a candidate who said "democrats don't have all the good ideas, republicans have good ideas too."? a poster answered my question, I also agreed with another poster who felt moveon should have maintained nuetrality. Now i don't know what your state of mind is, but I have never made a post that refered to muslims, so given what i have said and have not-you must be confused and i will accept your apology

Chris Lowe: Thanks for the attempt to clarify my "rectify the names type of exercise". Much of the difficulty of creating a broad progressive movement stems from the unwillingness of many to recognize the meaning of "the center". Most Americans are progressive on the issues that matter most to me, even if they are not formally ideological, but they fall prey to marginalization by elites who seek to cloud the "centrist" matter.

That "you can generate rather different results if you formulate the questions differently" is pretty obvious; it's our job as analysts to make sense of it anyway. And it's not "cherry picking" to select results of polls that we find to be more compelling in their formulations; this is the way social science is done.

Furthermore, that "...public opinion can be stampeded by properly organized media lie campaigns away from what [I see] as the real center" doesn't detract from the argument that there is a real progressive center that can be measured if the questions are formulated properly.

An example that I'm particularly fond of is the PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll of March 7, 2005: THE FEDERAL BUDGET: THE PUBLIC’S PRIORITIES. Respondents were presented with the major items of the discretionary budget, including a breakdown of the proposed funding for each item, and given an opportunity to redistribute the funds as they saw fit. What this reveals is how the budget would look if Americans could each specify where their own tax dollars would go.

While I agree that public opinion in the U.S. is not always "internally consistent, cohesive, or stable", polls on health care, as long as they avoid terms like "socialized medicine", are quite consistent in favoring the kind of system Nader and Kucinich are supporting, and the public desire is consistently thwarted by corporations and corporatists.

I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the writer. As I think most who post here would agree, there is a very big difference between either of the two possible Democratic candidates and John McCain. People who pay attention, as I think most who write here do, should be alarmed if McCain is our next president. So, as Chuck Butcher writes, I will vote for Hillary and hold my nose if she somehow, improbably, becomes the nominee.

However, it is not lost on me that Hillary could very well be doing all of this because she feels she can weaken Obama enough to lose this fall, and then she can be free to take on McCain in 4 years.

If the Democratic Party manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (again)in the presidential election this fall, I will be looking for other options in future elections. But if a presidential defeat comes at the barrel of Hillary's smoking gun, the last thing I will do on my way out the door of the Democratic Party is to protest and vote in any way to so ensure that Hillary Clinton will never be elected dog-catcher of Chatauqua.

"Rape and torture of Hillary"?

"Obama and his pastor would love to see a rich white woman, beat down"

Using an appeal to racism or promoting violence against women as a cheap campaign tactic is unacceptable for any person under any circumstances.

These people aren't Hillary supporters or are the kind of bigots and racists no candidate of integrity would want.

Racist appeals or promoting violence against women by making light of it is NOT acceptable.

<h2>There is no valid reason to drag 19th century ignorance and intolerence into the future.</h2>