The reason I know about the 15% of disappeared Hillary voters in Caucus States is that I made 2400 volunteer phone calls and this was the number of older women for Hillary whose dread of falling kept them at home instead of at a caucus. It’s not official polling but a pretty fair sample. I had no idea of the extent of this fear of falling until I now bring it up and everyone says ‘Oh yeah, my mother/grandmother never goes out in the winter.’

My percentage was ratified by Texas—Hillary’s voters were plus 4 in the primary and minus 12 in the caucus on the same day. A 16% swing! Suppose we had only seen the caucus results in Texas? Well, that’s what happened in Iowa etc. 

There were many other people disenfranchised by the appalling caucus system, but they seemed to be a push among the candidates.

Maine does allow an absentee ballot but according to David, a convener or chairman of a caucus in Maine, it is not the standard procedure you’d use to get an absentee ballot in a regular election. You have to go to the town clerk and verify that you are unable to attend—leaving out again the people who can’t go out. I am not aware that any other caucus state allows an absentee ballot procurable simply by mail.

As it happens, if the situation were reversed &, say, 15% of black voters for Mr. Obama were arbitrarily prevented from participating, I would be equally outraged at a system which pretended to be about “the will of the people.” The will of which people. The will of (healthy) people? “Just because I’m sick doesn’t mean I can’t think!”

Since JFK was murdered on my 19th birthday, one person one vote has been precious to me. I just think it’s wicked to pretend that the results of pledged delegates and popular vote from the caucus states aren’t hideously skewed. That’s exactly the kind of ghastly injustice the non-lemming superdelgatesare supposed to think about.

Sometimes it is necessary to go back and check our posts for follow ups from others.  Almost missed this one, thanks cyerna. As a Vietnam vet I really oppose war, any war.

democracy : A system of government in which the citizens hold the legislative, judicial, and executive power, based on majority rule.

democratic republic : A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.

From:  Regents Prep: Global History & Geography:
Vocabulary

Leefeller,

Leefeller,
On the ‘war on the backburner’ concept, I understand that it certainly seems that way. We are of course too manipulated by the mainstream media, and so what they fail to cover, seems to indicate that it’s been forgotten.
BUT…I came across an excellent piece from Zbig Brzezinski the other day. (and I’ve since posted it on a couple of threads. You may remember him as National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, and I’m more familiar with him as a scholar on foreign policy, and particularly as a realist and a pragmatist. He is ONE of the current foreign policy advisors to Barack Obama, and I’ve tried to follow his thinking in the past few months.
The article (and I’ve posted the beginning with a link to the rest below) is pretty much in keeping with what I’ve sort of ‘pondered’ for the past year or better, in reference to what Obama can or cannot do, in respect to bringing about the closure of this most horrific disaster that is the war on, and occupation of Iraq. What we DO know, is that he is obviously limited in what he can do NOW, as opposed to what he can do as the President. I think that’s already been considered. He has to get there first.
Having said that, and keeping with what Obama recognized and articulated long ago; “There are NO ‘good’ options for the Iraq debacle, only bad options and worse options”..I think the piece from Brzezinski holds some measure of a workable plan for ANY new administration willing to consider it.
I don’t personally believe that the Clinton administration WOULD consider such a plan, because it requires engaging with Iraq’s neighbors and the remaining geopolitical players in the ME and elsewhere.
I DO believe though, that Obama would, if only because it DOES follow with what he has generally held from the beginning of his campaign.

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Washington Post

Sunday 30 March 2008

Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until “victory.” The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for “staying the course” draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios.

President Bush’s and Sen. John McCain’s forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of “falling dominoes” that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush’s obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -…...”

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there….In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

More at the link

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033008Z.shtml

Here is the Meet The Press transcript that I quoted in my post.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/5/

She didn’t appologize. Why the hell should she? She was fucking lied to!!!!

When was the last time you gave the I’m sorry speech to your signficant other when they lied to you?

Honey? Hey I know you told me that you were going out with Agnus last night but I happened to see your car at Arthur’s house and when I peeked inside I saw you two rolling on the floor in the throws of passion. I want to appologize to you for not taking you at your word. I sure am sorry that you lied to me, dear.

Is this what she should say?

Hillary: “I’m sorry I voted for the war. It was a mistake and I blew it. I took the best information I had at the time, Top Secret information that would have convinced anyone that the threats were real and that Saddam was in bed with Osama. I saw reams of classified documents that showed mobile chemical weapon labs, I saw nuclear materials and photos of the reprocessing reactor, I saw meetings took place between terrorists and Iraqi government officials and you know what? It was complete and total bullshit from the word go. I’m sorry alright! Sorry Nancy Pelosi sat on her ass and didn’t impeach W’s lyin’ ass...” (Storms off the stage)

The whole demand for a “I’m sorry” is totally without merit.

Of course the military complex made sure Gravel was out of the race.  So guess we can go back to racism, but you may have to attend you KKK meeting, so catch you next time.

Look, I have said it before our choices are selected for us by the elite, the wealthy people of power, they must protect their interests and increase them.  We live in a Plutocracy. It was planed that way by our founding fathers.

I prefer Obama to Hillary, only because I cannot stand seeing anymore of the Clinton’s,

Anyway, Le thanks for noticing, guess I will have to go back to Kucinich or do like George Carlin and stay home on election day.

You are correct sir! Your 90-year old grandmother was allowed to vote absentee in the Maine caucaus. Did you stick around to watch, or did you drop and run? The caucus in our little neck of the pine forest waited until the end to count them. When Obama had a slight lead the Obama captain, acting as caucaus chairman, asked for a show of hands to decide if the absentee ballots should be counted. She was sure to remind everyone that people who vote absentee favor Hillary. The vote to open the absentee ballots was denied to my horror.

So don’t tell me about any vicious lies. I saw it with my own two eyes.

Re: Lefeller

Hey Lefeller ...

I see you took some time away from your racism/obsession
... white racism that is ... to say that the
war has been placed on the back burner ... and, that
Hillary is a war monger!!! Well, genius, check out what
hit the news today:

Obama Adviser Suggests Up to 80,000 Troops Remain in Iraq By 2010

It seems your Hero is a war monger too!  tee hee ...

Do not know about some of you, (actually I do) but I believe having the Clinton’s in the Whitehouse would make little difference from Bush, especially for the war, she seems quite the war monger to me.

Sadly the war has been placed on the back burner of politics, and seems to be staying there.

This classic blunder of imperialistic pomposity is what drives this bus, while we the people are forced to sit in the back seats with blinders on, the sad thing is it may seems to be by choice for some of the people, seems most people do not want to see, hear or speak of blunt truths.

That link is priceless, Joe in Maine!!!!!!!! I didn’t understand what you menat until I clicked on the link. Thanks for the laugh. I needed that today.

Oh grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anti-war speech delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at a Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois.

This speech is the basis of his entire assertion that he was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Day after the Dem National Convention speech though he was already back peddling from his anti war speech. In fact, he began back pedlding when he ran for US Senate.

Boston Globe
“In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

more stories like this"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

[.....]”

“The last person Khalid is shadowy involved in getting Obama into Harvard.  This is just blowing me away the implications are enormous.”

Holy CRAP Lib in TX.

There you go again. Promises, promises, promises.

Obviously, You have NOT been ‘BLOWN AWAY’ or we wouldn’t all still be subjected to this stupid shit that you keep posting.

Where did you learn about Black Liberation Theology anyway? Was it in the Tuesday, Wedenesday, or Thursday night bible study sessions?

Blown away my ass. If only…

Now THAT would be some serious black liberation theology..YOU blown away!

Correction, my bad. The anti-war demonstrations of Feb. 15th, 2003. That was the day of the global turnout for millions against the Iraq war that hadn’t yet been launched.

I’m still trying to figure out which speech is it that bert can’t find.

What speech are you talking about bert. Are you talking about a speech made by Barack Obama during the global anti-war activities of February 15th, 2002?

Or, are you talking about his speech delivered at the Democratic Convention?

What speech are you talking about that nobody can find bert?

And bert speaks the truth.  I wouldn’t of believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes.

bert’s quote:  “I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win!”

Hey… at least we agree on something. Although it does make me wonder about bert....

Sixpack,

Could you provide the link which shows Clinton’s apology?

<<<<<<< I’m concerned about how disappointed people will be if and when the screen goes blank. >>>>>>>

Brilliant post and the line above is great.

<<<<<<< I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win! People think this is so distateful, but we’re not talking about running for president of the PTA. She can beat the snot out of McCain and she will. We need to win because another 8 years of Bush energy policy, blindness to global warming, conservative judges on the SCOTUS, and on and on, means we’ll all have no more hope. >>>>>>>>

I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY !!!!!!!

bert,

You can trash talk all you want, but at least I don’t quote Joan Rivers as a measure of my intellectual capacity.

Joe in Maine, April 3 at 11:58 am #
(162 comments total)

<<<<<< You’re flat out wrong. She has admitted her war vote was a mistake given what we all know now.>>>>>>

Great post Joe in Maine. I am so glad you pointed out that Obama’s name was not even mentioned in the newspaper accounts of that anti-war rally. He did not make the TV News either.

Amazing how one can build a whole Presidential campaign on so little.

But there is more about that day. No one, and I mean NO ONE has been able to find an audio of that speech and evidently there is no video of that speech either. In one of Obama’s ads there is an audio clip of Obama delivering that speech. IT IS A RECREATION. I wonder, since he has no records of his time in the IL legislature, how he ever managed to keep a copy of that speech in order to be able to recreate it for a political ad. It gets curioser and curioser.

Thanks for the help. Your link is exactly what I meant.

Better take another look at those precious polls of your ‘raged.

More people think Obama is too inexperienced to be President than think Clinton is untruthful or hold McCain responsible for his stance on the war, for that matter.

Keep drinking the kool aid Outraged. If you knew how to read and understand polls your posts would be more intelligent. Why don’t you take a course in statistics, or poll creation, or poll analysis at your local college. Oh, I know. That would involve WORK. That would take MENTAL EXERTION. You on the other hand just prefer to HOPE and criticize and belittle others.  Joan Rivers used to have a great line – Oh grow up !!!!!

You’re actually very wrong here about Dr. Ron Paul. However, I’d admit that had he been given more ‘exposure’ the truth would have come out, and then we’d be even more screwed than we are.

Because, while the war is at the top of the issues concerning Americans in this election, it is not the ONLY issue, and the economy, the loss of jobs, the effects of the free market, etc, etc, are very much on the minds of most Americans.

Dr. Paul has zero solutions for any of those other concerns. You talk about what ‘even homeless’ people might think, as if their homelessness should be an ‘accepted’ reality of our collective society. Ron Paul DOES think that way, but it’s clearly NOT the way most Americans feel.

When we talk about Ron Paul, we are talking about exactly what Barack Obama declared of the current admin, “You’re on your own” folks, and let the survival of the fittest be the doctrine by which to live.

So, there you have it. In a Ron Paul rabbit hole world, we wouldn’t be ‘at war’ in Iraq, because we’d be ‘at war’ with each other right here at home, in the Hobbsean view of dog-eat-dog, and that’s just the way it is.

Had Ron Paul ever gained enough attention, all of this would have eventually come to light. He has no platform other than ending the war, and embracing isolationism, while still encouraging a free market in all sense of the literal term. “Club your neighbor as you would anybody else”….only the strong survive.

He also has no problem with maintaining the dictatorship that our government has become, since he was the only one to present a case AGAINST the resolution prepared by Dennis Kucinich, to impeach Dick Cheney.

It goes without saying that it has been the JOB of every single congressperson to do...EXACTLY THAT..IMPEACH, and Ron Paul has been among those most ferverently devoted to STOPPING any efforts to do exactly that.

That (and many other things) speaks volumes. He’s basically just another Authoritarian under the wrapping.

Re: Sixpack

Maybe this link will give you a broader view of reality.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl =1148268362&hl=en&topic=el

Re: bert

You never learn do you?  As people read through these posts sixpack and yourself consistently show your negativity and overarching BS.  It’s too bad that you are always wrong, lying or otherwise spewing fictitious garbage.  Somehow in your demented logic you think you are changing public opinion in your favor.

But you are not, as evidenced by the fact the Obama just passed Clinton by 2 pts in the polls today in Pennsylvania. Remember, the ones you said that didn’t matter but then the next day said they did matter since Clinton was ahead.  So what is it today...? I’m guessing that in your opinion they don’t matter again.

No, this 15% of older women will not support Clinton.  A portion possibly.  But most people don’t endorse viciousness and lying.  So the majority will not, most people are much nicer and smarter than you give them credit for.

Since I do not and maybe some ohers of us do not get our information from the Mass Media, maybe you could keep us up on the good news about Obama?

So on the day it’s announced that Obama only raised $40 million dollars last month the headline is this:

“Obama has second-best money raising month to date!”

It could easily have been:

Obama raises $17 million less than last month.”

I just wish that the media outlets would stop feeding us a thin veneer of objectivity and simply endorse Obama.

Instead they focus on Hillary’s “money troubles”. She also had the second best money raising month ever but this is what they reported on MSNBC this evening:

“Hillary has a new 3AM phone call add airing today in PA. I wonder if it’s a bill collector calling?”

Fair and balanced? You Obama-lovers better hope the media keeps loving you for the next nine years. It can get so ungly when they turn on you.

Sorry Mikhail.

Dr. Paul has some interesting ideas but unfortunately he’s not taken seriously because those good ideas are all wrapped up in a wacky package. I tried to listen to what Paul had to say in the debates but he was so shrill and out of breath from trying to get 3 points into every answer I found him caustic and I like some of his ideas.

Too bad he doesn’t have a more polished personality. He’s too easy to dismiss with a chuckle.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not...a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s...,” Kroft said.

(Your proposed Hillary Answer:

Hillary - “Steve, I have to ask, what’s wrong about being a Muslim? In my state of NY I represent one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States. I think to some people when they hear Muslim they think radical fundimentalist. Nobody believes Barak Obama is any type of radical. So I reject your question and remind you that Muslim Americans are being unfairly singled out.”

Obama supporters would LOSE THEIR MINDS!

There would have been a far bigger and nastier response to “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” than a little, “as far as I know”.

The media would have forced her to withdraw in a single newscycle.

I hope the fact that Obama’s “caucaus advantage” was nothing more than a mugging in a lot of places. That should make you feel really proud of your fellow Obamabots. In Maine overzealous caucaus captains took over polling places with weak democrat leaders and dismissed absentee ballots by a show of hands after explaining that most of them were “just Hillary votes anyway”. I hope that reminds you a little of Gore getting screwed in Florida and Kerry in Ohio four years later.

Imagine. Some people only think Rethuglicans do stuff like that. Funny thing is that in November the real pros will be out at the polls with much dirtier tricks and this time people actually have to vote, so no more caucaus advantage. Sorry Obamabots.

Somehow, I feel if you were feeling like you were going to win against McCain your answer would be quite different. But that is just me.

I appreciate you taking the time to get into specifics about why you support Obama. I have a better understanding of your positions and I value them. Thank you.

You wrote: “But seeing clearly other’s positions first comes from not projecting your own viewpoints and emotions upon them.”

That’s refreshing to read. Too often I am reminded of the line in Obama’s book.

“Undoubtedbly, some of these views will get me in trouble, I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”

I find many Obama supporters are looking into that blank screen and projecting all of their hopes and dreams onto it. People who dream of universal healthcare, people who dream of their husbands and wives and children coming back from the wars. People who dare to dream about alternative energy or just keeping the home they live in. I’m concerned about how disappointed people will be if and when the screen goes blank.

I believe that the republicans will peel Obama like a banana in the fall and all those Hopes for Change will spill out on the ground and spoil there. I worry that Obama is too young and too inexperienced to take on the last job he’ll ever have. I am frieghtend when I consider all of the true leaders we’ve ever had have been murdered. I have been so bitterly disappointed in past elections when I thought Kerry was a good man, that Al Gore would have been a great President, that we should never have nominated Dukakis or Mondale. I hate to lose. I am concerned that the Obama campaign is riding on the uncertain rails of a friendly media that can so quickly turn on you and swing opinion from greatness to nothingness with nothing more than a little stain on a blue dress.

I think it’s wonderful to dream. I get accused of having no more hope. Well a bright little spot inside me is so happy to see what I call the Youth Brigade in Obama’s Crusade get all Fired Up and Ready to Go! I fear for their disapointment too.

I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win! People think this is so distateful, but we’re not talking about running for president of the PTA. She can beat the snot out of McCain and she will. We need to win because another 8 years of Bush energy policy, blindness to global warming, conservative judges on the SCOTUS, and on and on, means we’ll all have no more hope.

You’re flat out wrong. She has admitted her war vote was a mistake given what we all know now.

Febuary 10, 2007

SEN: HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. But I also--and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision. I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.

Shortly before the vote to authorize, the Senate Armed Services committee was given a classified TOP SECRET briefing in the basement tank (electronically sealed room). The briefing was given by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency and in that briefing where the committee members, including Clinton. They were shown the “bonifieds” - actual raw intelligence data that include the crown jewels - the sources of the intelligence and the methods of collection giving the arguement to go to war. All of them left the brief convinced of two things. The confirmed presence of WMDs in Iraq and the connection of Saddam’s WMDs to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. This briefing was the case to go to war, including half-truths, information that was single-sourced and plenty of fat lies. This case was produced mainly by the DIA because Rumsfield and Cheney couldn’t get the CIA to play fast and loose enough with the truth to produce such a thick file of lies.

Given what she was told, and not all the Senate had this erronious information, she voted to authorize the war. She was LIED to. So were the American people. In my opinion this was enough to impeach the Administration, but Nancy Pelosi chickened out.

Go ahead and tell yourself that she should have known better because we ALL should have known better. I think if someone wants to lie to you and is clever and bold enough, you’ll believe what they want you to believe. Who’s fault is that? Hillary’s? Please.

Now let’s talk about Obama’s favorite subject of judgement.

Would you prepare for a speech to be given in front of a large, anti-war crowd, people you are trying to get to vote you into the senate and not make the central theme of the speech an opposition to the war? Of course not. The write up the next day in the Chicago papers didn’t even mention Obama spoke to the crowd of perhaps 1000 anti-war demonstrators.

His 2002 words were before he was a Senator. After he became one in 2004, he admitted he didn’t have access to the Senate Intelligence Reports, and admitted he doesn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution had he been a Senator. Subsequently, he voted multiple times to fund the war, and called early withdrawal a “slap in the face” to the troops. Now he is back in the anti-war stance, trying to pretend he was there all along.

If he was so eager to give the anti-war rally some red meat that October day in 2002, it makes me wonder if, once in the senate, he was just as eager to please a different crowd. He could have easily voted not to fund the war, at least once, to show his disapproval, or maybe even abstain on principal if he was so strongly opposed. Some say the reason he didn’t do that is because of raw ambition. Let’s face it. It’s tough running for President when people are scream at you for not supporting the troops and aiding and abbetting the enemy. That makes the who question of Obama’s great judgment seem more like armchair quarterbacking to me. It took no political courage to deliver raw meat to the anti war crowd that October. He showed no political courage or the courage of his convictions to keep funding the war.

Clearly that’s the kind of judgement you want in the White House, but I sure don’t.

Dear lib in texas ...

Could you please post the url which explains how
Khalid Abdul Muyhammad (who was a member of the
Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers) assisted
in getting Obama into Harvard? The implications
are enormous ... and, if true, should be brought
to light, big time.

True - the Ameriac’s founding fathers created a democratic republic.

OMG - that fact is all over the place and very well known. In fact, ageism is alive and well here in TD. Haven’t you seen posts where the usual suspects (cyrena and her gang if ignornat bullies) call this large denographic groups old ladies and grandmas. And those are the nice terms.

Yes, consistently Clinton is winning older white and black women and Obama is not.

How do you know that this 15% of older women voters would have voted for Clinton?  You are “claiming” them as Clinton’s yet I do not see any data to prove that nor any links.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community
... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
I don’t know what to say Google and see for yourself.
James Cone, Kamau Kambon, Khalid Abdul Muhammad.  The last person Khalid is shadowy involved in getting Obama into Harvard.  This is just blowing me away the implications are enormous.

FYI

We do not live in a Democracy, how about the electoral college for starters?

Somehow, I feel if you were feeling like your were winning your comments would be quite different. But that is just me.

Got to give it to you, you sure can spin. However your post was very interesting. Blacks have had the vote longer so why is Obama having an up hill climb. With the MSM behind him hes going pretty fast.

Thanks for your comments. I never realized until this election how bad the caucus system really is. Almost anyone can show up and vote. In several states ther were busloads of people who showed up wuth no ID and just said we are college students. From videos of some caucuses there was a lot of chaos and little accountabilyu. It lloked like what I would imagine would happen in a third world country. There are a lot of stories out there and many folks are gathering evidence of the shenanigans that went on this year.

Again, thanks for posting and sharing your story. No one should be denied the opportunity to vote on a primary or general election in the United States of America.

15% of Hillary’s older women voters are cheated of their rightful share of the pledged delegates & popular vote because Caucus States forbid them an Absentee Ballot. “If I can’t be there in my body, I don’t count.” These disappeared folks have a terrible fear of falling.  No ride can help them.  It’s the will of only the (healthy) people? Can we really accept that in a democracy?

This Caucus Skew travesty of democracy is the kind of shameful injustice that the non-lemming superdelegates were designed to account for in their thinking.

When the extent of the Caucus Debacle finally get reported fully, people’s notion of what’s actually fair will change. “Oh, no, honey, I don’t dare go to caucus. I’m off-balance.” (In Texas, Hillary was +4 in the primary & -12 in the caucus on the same day! Suppose we had only seen the caucus results? That’s what we saw in Iowa etc. Hillary didn’t ‘gain back women’ in New Hampshire because she teared up in a diner. Nonsense. She never lost them. They just got cheated in Iowa & had Absentee Ballots in New Hampshire.) Unlikely that the Obama-besotted Media will report on this shameful Caucus Skew, but like Diogenes, I hold out hope for one honest reporter.

Wordsonfire,

Thanks (again) for your excellent post. Your perception of these various remarks and other incidents referencing Hillary’s “Kitchen Sink” campaign, from the Muslim comment, to the endorsement of McCain over her own party’s candidate, to the whole damn kit and kaboodle.

Reasonable people have reached the same conclusions over these past many weeks, and your own ‘perceptions’ and values and principles, (at least as displayed in your posts) seem to me at least, to be in line with the thinking of the average Americans who read and comment on these threads.

In other words, not so different from what I guess I would call the mainstream, though admittedly the term is relative these days.

That said, your mainstream opinion seem to have attracted the wrath of Lib in Texas. It would appear that you have replaced me, (and a few others) at least temporarily, as a “RADICAL” who HATES Hillary Clinton.

Now of course I’m not a ‘radical’ and I don’t ‘hate’ Hillary Clinton. It probably goes without saying that I don’t LIKE her, and would NOT want her as the president of this country that has always been my home, and the home of my ancestors, and theirs before that.

I’ve not always felt this particular dislike for Hillary Clinton, because we simply have not (or I have not) been privy to ALL of her former dealings, which have begun to surface in the consciousness of the public. Even more than that however, are simply HER OWN ACTIONS including some of the votes and legislation that she’s sponsored in the Senate.  Her vote for the illegal and immoral aggressive war on Iraq IS NOT A SMALL THING, for anyone we might consider for the highest office in the land.  Her support of the Kyle-Lieberman bill is equally egregious, and proves her lack of judgment in most matters of foreign policy.

And, that was all BEFORE she started the most negative mud slinging campaign that I’ve even witnessed, with the exception of a long ago TX Governor’s race. (But, that was TX, so that’s SOP there---ankle-biters and all of that).

So, just to reiterate, reasonable people make reasonable decisions based on rational judgment and logic. Reason intertwined with values and principles are what I believe the majority of us use for our basic decision-making exercises.

There will always be those who operate from raw emotion that is totally divorced from reason, (ie, Lib in TX and others) and so we accept that as well. Ignoring the ignorance doesn’t always work, but it seems to be the best of bad options.
March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

There’s no other way to put it. The woman who would be President inflated her resume, lied outright about being “under fire” in an attempt to bolster her national security credentials, plotted to overturn the will of pledged delegates at the Democratic National Convention in August and lobbied to change the rules after she signed a pledge to honor her party’s decision on voting in Michigan and Florida.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cat_politicselection scorruption.html#081846

apprehended . . . that there is no “them,” and there is only “us,” doing the very best we can . . .

want someone who can win in November . . .

On that we agree. 

I’m so confused Bert!

Hillary . . . politically savvy and brilliant. . . (pointing out her differences playing on our national security fears, willing to kick ass and do what it takes) . . . GOOD!

Obama . . . (purportedly . . . as I can’t really tell what the central point of this sentence actually says!) political opportunist . . . not voting NO to please his constituents . . . BAD

Or, when something gets the negative connotation of “opportunistic” or the postive one of “politcially savvy.”

It’s all about the filters we employ.

How much would it enhance our democracy to be able to engage a substantive conversation instead of name-calling and invective?

Thanks!

SO LIB IN TEXAS ABSOLUTELY NOT BY A MILE DON’T GET IT . . . unless by “GETTING IT,” you mean:  “NO MATTER HOW CLEARLY AND FORCEFULLY YOU ARTICULATE YOUR VIEWS I WILL TWIST AND LIE ABOUT THEM,” which based on your last post would be a more accurate reflection of what you “get.”

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t hate Hillary.  But, in your mind . . Black is white . . . Now, if I end-up with Hillary as a democratic candidate and she is my most progressive choice, I’m not stupid, I know that she is a much better choice for this country than McCain.  Do you know that?  Is one of the reasons you don’t know that is because Hillary told you that?  I’m not saying that’s the reason, but given her words and your deep support for her I need to ask that question explicitly.  Again, please learn from my modeling . .. I’m not projecting onto you what I cannot know, hence, the question!

I now also need to state I don’t “love” Obama.  I support him because of his position on the Iraq war and his fine, nimble mind . . . and maybe because I’m ready for something new and Okay I’m willing to admit because in my largely white upper middle class somewhat moderate world, he is enthusiastically being supported by many inde-repubs I know who are very tired of the Bush Administration and they won’t vote for Hillary--for reasons that aren’t either particularly fair or well articulated and I do have some distaste for that idea and really have had to do some deep soul searching on this supporting reason for me to vote for Obama.

I’m tired of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton roadshow.  I worry about having the seat of power reside in two families in this country for close to three decades.  That makes me neither a hater nor a lover, but does make me a citizen who takes my franchise of voting seriously and my obligation to be as informed as possible.

I hate how telling the truth about someone is “bashing.” I see it as sharing information so that we may all be more enlightened and informed . . . you clearly have calcified your views and I fear no amount of illumination will ever radiate through.  Because you have a closed mind, you PROJECT that others have a closed mind . . .

Thanks for calling me names!  No, I don’t like liars . . .
I’m very interested in how all of the candidates are financed.  Thank you for sharing that information.  I will due my due diligence on this topic.  I’ve been very worrie about Obama’s health care policy and believe Hillary’s is stronger . . . But, again . . . the whole Iraq War Vote and then the McCain is ready thing . . .those two things in concert concern me more!  Don’t need hate/love to make this decision. You may weight your decisions on a different set of values and priorities and that’s your complete entitlement.  But it is not your right to intentionally lie about my positions.

And, clearly this e-mail circulating has a bunch of people in a twist . . . but I’ve never seen it and have little interest in it . . .  I already on my own have researched both candidates’ positions/views/votes, so I probably wouldn’t pay any attention to it anyway and would wonder it’s origins regardless.

But, again, you just don’t get it . . .  as a proud member of the reality based community . . . I don’t like lies . . .I actually haven’t seen the ad with the claim on financing and I know I actually haven’t done enough work on this front . . .I do know I was very interested in how they both voted on the Bankruptcy bill and how in bed they are with Big Finance . . .

Exactly what “untruth” did I speak about Hillary?

You don’t get anything at all . . .

<<<<<<<<<< I want someone who demonstrates good judgment.  >>>>>>>>>

I want someone who can WIN in November.

Plus Obama’s so called judgement is a pretty flimsy example of judgement. He was not under fire and in the US Senate and had to actuaally excercise that judgement. Based on his record in IL who knows, he may have voted “present”; he may have pushed the “wrong” button’ or he may have voted “no.” But I doubt that last one. He is too much a political opportunist.

Yes, we know there is only two ways to look at Hillary, you either love her or you hate her.  You are with us or you are against us, the mentality seems to be similar to something I heard from the enlightened mind of a moron, guess who?

Okay we all get it you HATE Hillary Clinton and LOVE BARACK OBAMA.  So much so that you are posting untruths about Hillary.
April 1, 2008
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

arch 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn’t take money from oil companies. We say that’s a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

Technically, that’s true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Since you LOVE OBAMA so much I guess you love his lies too!!!
Just from your post you are a radical person and I for one know you’ll never change your mind just lay off Hillary cause some of us do like her and you constant bashing will make no difference.
The above are from Factcheck.org who does tell the truth.

They both have tons of “experience” being flat-wrong on Iraq.  That fact is not in dispute.  And, I won’t cut them any slack, because I knew just from reading the newspaper and doing some good research, etc. that there was a very low likelihood that there were WMD and that we had some pretty serious work to do in Afghanistan. 

And given her very wrongness on Iraq, which she has never admitted . . . she exacerbates her bad judgment by aligning her foreign policy with McCain’s vis a vis “I’m ready, he’s ready,” language.  And the biggest capper, she condescends and says Obama doesn’t have the “experience.” Will let’s just reframe this . . .  I don’t care about her “experience.” I care about her “judgment.” And, again, her words, actions and behaviors lead me to believe that she makes judgments that are neither in my family or the country’s best interest.

Nor did I say there was anything wrong with pointing out the differences--but if the difference you are pointing out that the most significant vote you had to make . . .the authorization for war was wrong and you mock your opponent’s experience who was right in his judgment and align yourself with someone who lies about what is currently happening in Iraq whose platform is the antithesis of your own . . . I say to hell with her wonderful experience.  I want someone who demonstrates good judgment. 

And, this total non-sequitor “gotcha” at the end . . . who said he can’t stand the heat . . . he has withstood the heat . . . what does that even have to do with anything that we are discussing . . .?

<<<<<<< Edwards has been known to have a vibrant dislike of Hillary. >>>>>>>>>>

Or so the MSM would like you to believe. I stopped listening to the MSM years ago. They like stoires that sell. They like to create ‘narratives.’ Problem is narratives by definition are fiction.

Better not to belive 90% of what you read.

If Obama cannot stand the heat of the kitchen then maybe he should NOT be in politics. That is just stark reality.

Hillary does have more expereince than Obama.
McCain does have more expereince than Obama.

There is absolutely positively nothing wrong with defining the differences between you and your opponent.

if Obama cannot stand the ehat of the kitchen then maybe he should be in politics. That is just stark reality.

Each of us - without access to first-hand knowledge - gets information from what she reads and what she’s told from the tube crowd.

Obviously, political opinion, polls, rhetoric changes day to day.  Eliz Edwards says one thing one day, seems to contradict it the next - and in the end it all boils down to what is politically expedient one day is not necessarily so the next. 

Edwards has been known to have a vibrant dislike of Hillary.  ‘Monster’ was my word - for the sake of brevity.

5.  “As far as I know” disgusting . . .
I don’t care how many times she had to say NO . . . “as far as I know” should have never been said . . . even if she had to say it 1 billion times.  Again . . . you called her “brilliant.” Someone who is “brilliant” and “engaged” knew exactly what that would mean or do in the public sphere . . . Actually, she shouldn’t even have been talking about him not being Muslim . . . she should have pushed back and challenged the inherent bigotry of the question . . . Or, stood up for herself and said “I’ve answered that question numerous times, do you have any questions of substance and interest to the American people.” My perception of that AS FAR AS I KNOW was that it was totally calculated to generate just the negative buzz about Obama that it did . . .but, she didn’t count that it would also generate negative buzz about Hillary too.  As an attorney who has participated in depositions, etc., it would have been easier and more straightforward to say “I have answered that question numerous times.” She’s a skilled leader/negotiator and she can’t handle that exchange and deflect that question without doing damage to a fellow democrat who is being maligned?
Her comment that she and McCain are ready . . . pretty much explicitly telling her supporters that McCain is better than Obama . . .when issues like the Supreme Court are up for grabs . . . I consider that well beyond the pale . . . when my children have lost the supreme court for at least a generation . . . I will look back at that one moment . . . “McCain is ready, I’m ready and Barack has a speech he made in 2002” (BTW . . .that speech was his principled and prescient opposition speech to the Iraq War).

Clearly, we have very different perspectives and values.

So . . . thanks for your thoughtful post and here’s the pushback from my perspective.
1.  flag burning – You may have thought she told the republicans “to go screw themselves.” But, in fact, CO-SPONSORING OF THE BILL WITH A REPUBLICAN, told me as a progressive believer in the first amendment TO GO SCREW MYSELF.  So, I won’t EVER under any circumstances vote for anyone who sponsors an anti-flag burning amendment.
2.  Iraq War – Yes, and the most populated city in the State voted overwhelmingly 85% against Bush in 2004 post-9/11 . . . I knew that going into Iraq was a bad idea and I don’t sit at the seat of power.  Again, she played it safe, I want a leader who knows the difference between who attacked us and those who just superficially looked like those who did.  There were people who knew the truth and spoke truth to power . . . including Obama.  But, again, her positions/vote in no way reflected my values.  AND THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE THING UPON WHICH I AM BASING MY VOTE. WHO WERE THE PEOPLE WHO KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? and WERE THEY WILLING TO STAND UP WHEN IT WAS AN UNPOPULAR POSITION?
It is a leader’s job not just to do what’s popular, but also what’s RIGHT.  And, she didn’t.  I think she didn’t for political expediency, at least that is the narrative you find in places like the Atlantic, New Yorker, New York Review of Books . . . That was her strategic gamble . . . She must face the consequence of this gamble, just like Obama will have to face the consequence of being a member of a black church.
And, she has not fully answered for this vote yet, or that she was wrong . . .
3.  Marriage conflation:  Actually, this one I don’t feel so strongly about, but the fact that she keeps touting her “experience,” makes me actually able to say . . . now wait a minute, how many elective offices has Hillary held, etc., etc.  I agree that she’s totally brilliant.  In fact, in 1972 all of her professors, etc. pegged her to be the first woman president.  I had been looking forward to putting Hillary in the White House ever since she was there the first time.  Imagine my surprise to discover through evaluating what type of temperament, etc. I would want there now, is not Hillary.  Again, not because I HATE her, but because of the way she has overplayed her “experience.”
4.  Support of anti-worker organizations.
No, I’m not suggesting that she did that work poorly . . . Again, I don’t HATE her for “being able to get a job at the very top levels of a corporation.” I’m just such a type of person myself.  I won’t take on a client or work with any individual or organization that does not reciprocally add value to the community.  Which under my own personal code of ethics would estop from taking either on as a client (and yes, I do play in those playgrounds and yes, I’ve actually had the honor of saying NO) . . I’m one of those weird “social capitalists/social venture philanthropists” who operates under at least a triple-bottom line and reinvests its profits into the community . . . You’ll be hearing more and more from businesses/organizations like mine . . .

Joe in Maine . . . I’m putting this up here, because I haven’t quite got the hang of exactly where the “replies” to posts show up . . . so sorry to start anew!
In response:  YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT “COOL.  GET IT” . . . I don’t hate Hillary.  That’s just my point.  I don’t hate her now & I didn’t hate her in the beginning and only through her words, actions and behaviors have I determined that she is not the candidate I want to vote for.  That’s the problem with political dialogue in this country.  I expressly point out that I’m not saying generalized things and it comes back “I get it you hate Hillary, explicitly NOT what I said.
My position on Hillary comes not from sexism and not from racism and not from hate, but instead result only from her behaviors/words/actions . . . They are not made out of passion or anger, but with a strategic eye to what I want to help build/create for my future, the future of my family and community.  Because I am a proud member of the reality based community, when a candidate’s words, actions and behaviors no longer correlate to the outcome we are trying to achieve I am forced to select/elect a different candidate.  Thankfully, as time as progressed and I’ve learned more about Obama . . . . although I’m not high on his position on universal healthcare (oh that a leader just stood up and said the words “single payer” in this country, but then again, none of the current field of candidates has managed to say that yet!) Of course, this is a frequent tactic . . .when one accuses another as just “hater,” as in “Bush Hater,” then it gets delinked from a completely rational and not-emotionally based reason for not supporting someone on a policy level . . .
I agree that there are frequently more than two sides to a story . . . Rashamon anyone?

But seeing clearly other’s positions first comes from not projecting your own viewpoints and emotions upon them.
& Bert . . . I have a post from you saying “what is sad is my reply to Joe in Maine” but I was talking to Lee . . . this is my first time posting here and I haven’t quite got the hang of how the whole reply thing works to a reply . . .

I just have had time to read Joe’s thoughtful post about the Rev. Wright flap and it seems we are in agreement and without quarrel with one another on this front.  Joe I hope you didn’t think I was say “sad” to you!

It