RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Ball of Confusion

I had an interesting conversation today with a Democratic member of Congress who called to chat about the campaign.

This man is someone I’m proud to call a friend. He’s a serious person and a great patriot with a wicked sense of humor. He’s not a buffoon, a bot or a tool. He’s a staunch defender of women’s rights and civil liberties. He’s willing to put his ass on the line and take positions that are controversial and unpopular. He’s a stirrer of some very bubbly pots. He doesn’t vote “present” or find something more pressing to do when it’s time for him to stand up and be counted. In short, he’s a great, great guy and an example of what Democrats should be.

The poor man is also very confused.

How is it possible, he asked, that things are so fucked up for the Dems? And what in the world are women thinking? What’s with this mass migration of white women to the Republican ticket? What about the courts? Roe v. Wade? WTF?

Because I respect and like this man I took the time to roll out the explanation. If you want to know why women are so angry, I told him, I suggest you stroll down to the DNC and have a chat with Howard Dean. Ask him why, as the head of the party, he didn’t issue a strong statement condemning the media’s sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary season and demand that they cease and desist immediately. Ask him why the party dragged the Florida and Michigan situation out so long that the Democrats lost all credibility on the issue of enfranchisement. Ask him why he didn’t demand that the outrageous accusations of racism leveled against the Clintons – by members of the Democratic party – halt. Ask him why he allowed his surrogates to go on television and attack Hillary Clinton, a fellow Democrat? And while you’re asking questions, Congressman, ask your colleagues in the House and Senate why they were so hellbent on pushing Hillary Clinton out of the race before the final votes were counted at the end of the cycle.

In short, ask why the Democrats have fucked things up so egregiously that they’ve allowed Republicans to take the high road on enfranchisement and respect for women running for higher office, thereby alienating the Democratic base? Howard Dean has close ties to the netroots. Why didn’t he do a conference call and try to dissuade them from pushing grotesque conspiracy theories on their blogs, starting with a revival of the Vince Foster canard?

How on earth can the Democrats demand that voters buy a faulty product being peddled by an incompetently managed organization? If the party is willing to betray its own, how can it be trusted to represent the rank and file?

He listened. He wasn’t happy, but he listened.

Eventually, when it’s too late, they’ll all have to listen.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post243 Comments »

Comment by NoQuarter | 2008-09-11 19:37:26

Exactly. And combine this with the failure of Democrats to genuinely be a champion of women’s interests for these past decades (on choice, equal pay, etc.), and it all falls into place.

Women are fed up.

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 19:49:04

The Democrats haven’t genuinely been a champion of choice, huh? We haven’t been the ones who sponsored every single equal pay bill ever to come before Congress, huh? We haven’t been the ones who supported child care, education spending, pushing for SCHIP health care funding for children, paid family leave?

God, you people are full of shit. You will mouth any lie whatsoever if it lets you make excuses for voting for the Republicans. Why don’t you just come out and admit that you don’t care one iota about women’s issues or progressive issues of any kind? It’ll be a lot easier emotionally to just admit that you are now Republicans, and thus the enemy of all women’s issues.

Comment by Judy L. NC | 2008-09-11 19:53:48

Pfft! Nancy Pelosi couldn’t think of a single instance of sexism against Hillary—preposterous! YOU are full of shit.

Comment by TexasBuckeye | 2008-09-11 20:18:29

The Democratic Party is in breach of contract with American women. They cannot expect obligation, only repudiation.

Comment by Snickers | 2008-09-12 02:25:00

TexasBuckeye, that’s a great definition. You’re right, the DNC is in “breach of contract” with us. PUMA

 
 

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 21:19:44

I see. Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to be drawn into your insane anti-Obama campaign is more important than the Democratic Party’s forty years of championing women’s issues while the Republican Party fought them every step of the way? So you have to vote Republican now? Because you believe in women’s issues? So you want to let a Republican/evangelical administration put the new swing vote on the Supreme Court? Because you believe in women’s issues?

And you get offended when I say you’re full of shit?

Too funny. And sad. And dangerous.

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-09-11 22:45:30

Forty years of supporting Women’s issues (so you say) does not explain or ameliorate Obama’s complete disrespecting of Women and Women’s issues, nor Dean’s and the DNC’s complete failure in reminding Obama of the support of the female half of the Party. Instead, Brazilenut tells those dissatisfied to stay home. F*ck that. Kharma’s a bitch.

 

Comment by John House | 2008-09-12 03:26:07

Nancy Peloser is a fucking asshat and that was BEFORE the primary campaigns. Bitch “took impeachment off the table”. Lefties still sucking up to this dumb fuck should have their heads examined.

 

Comment by mkm125 | 2008-09-12 10:44:11

“Because you believe in women’s issues? So you want to let a Republican/evangelical administration put the new swing vote on the Supreme Court? Because you believe in women’s issues?”
*******************************************

SFHilary: Abortion is not the only important ‘women’s issue’ out there. There are anti-choice/pro-life DEMS in office too (”Of course, with the famously anti-choice Harry Reid as Senate Minority Leader and 30 percent of Senate Democrats voting for Rick Santorum’s abortion ban in 2003″). http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/15/where_are_the_prochoice_democrats.php

Stop trying to play the ‘abortion’ scare game. RR, GB I and GBII were not successful. As for another very important woman’s issue, let’s say equal pay–when did that become something only the DEMS can champion?! Give us a break. Why do you Obama supporters waste your time here?

MKM125
Liberal INDEPENDENT

 
 

Comment by Connie | 2008-09-11 23:32:51

The thing is why did the DNC allow Pelosi and her gang of losers call the shots and anoint a person who is full of his faulty and vicious self. Why can’t they see the the fact that Obama is an “empty suit” and he is just all talk. They wasted the party’s chance of a lifetime. And until now, they have not gotten it yet. The “less educated,” but not bitter,(Obama and his wife are the “bitter folks” they show it clearly in their pattern of behaviour)people will show them how they are wrong. It pains me to do this because I have always admired the ideals of the Democratic Party but Obama is a big mistake.

 
 

Comment by Greg | 2008-09-11 19:54:40

Any way somebody can delete this comment, it is offensive.

Comment by UBM | 2008-09-11 20:11:26

This isn’t the Soviet Union, Greg. No Quarter welcomes opposing points of view. How about responding to SFhillary with a stronger argument?

 
 

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 19:57:09

piss off troll, HUH?

 

Comment by mimi | 2008-09-11 19:58:58

And yet you come her every day.

Guess what SFHillary, we’re not confused about what we’re doing, even if you are.

So take a hike! Own your fucking pos candidate.

WIN WITHOUT US!

And you find out that you can’t, ask your Messiah why he alienated the Democratic base and expected that base to care about the issues?

And here’s my advice once 0bama loses:

Get over it ! He lost!

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 21:17:07

We will win without you. Trust me on that.

Love the Palin Moment in tonight’s puffball interview with Charlie Gibson where he asks her what she thinks of the Bush Doctrine and she doesn’t even know what it is. This after a full two weeks of cramming like high schooler before finals. What a clueless, over-her-head clown.

Yes, we will win without you. Easily.

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 21:20:23

You know Obama soretoro is losing…he’s tanking and he will lose in November. You are so worried that you attack the VP choice. You Obamabullies love the misogyny you can’t let go of it…..and it will come back an bite you big time, it already has, you’re just in major denial…hahahahahaha!

 

Comment by Donna Brazile hatin on Franarse, Skeezer & What the SFu | 2008-09-11 21:51:11

What the S FU!

Why so bitter?

You shouldn’t cling to that bible and gun so much and you really need to watch that whole antipathy towards people who AREN’T like you! It doesn’t bring out your likeable side.

I’m sure there are other haters out there that need a friend like you. You know what they say, there’s someone for everyone.

Love ya now stop the hate!

 

Comment by LBJ's Love Child | 2008-09-11 22:07:55

Yes, we will win without you. Easily.

Must be the new “math”, because the old math ain’t lookin’ so good.

Sadly, I’ve got news for you. Even if 90% of “us” came back, Obama still loses. He represents maybe 25% of the voters, with 20% more being loyal Democrats.

You’ve screwed us, you’ve screwed the Democratic (in name only) Party, and I hope you haven’t screwed the Country as well… although you are certainly trying to.

 

Comment by CJ | 2008-09-11 22:20:45

Well I am sure she knows that there are 50 states!

 

Comment by AnnieCarmel | 2008-09-12 01:42:26

Well at least you’re full of bluster if not smarts.

You are one silly bot. We don’t care what you think. We aren’t going to fold for your agenda. Get it? Of course, even you can understand that.

You just come here for a little company and conversation because down at the politboro all is hysteria.

 

Comment by Midlife Mama | 2008-09-12 08:45:25

Well, whay are you hanging out here if you are so confident? Go gloat with your hateful like-minded people at countless other blogs and leave us alone. Or are you one of the paid trolls?

 
 
 

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-11 20:01:51

It’ll be a lot easier emotionally to just admit that you are now Republicans, and thus the enemy of all women’s issues.

In fact the DNC’s disenfranchisement of Democratic voters has driven some out of the party to register as Republicans or Independents.
So if they’re Republican now, blame Howard and Nancy. And “Hurricane” Don.

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 21:21:31

Is that why the Democrats have registered exponentially more new voters this year than the GOP?

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 21:23:54

Oh, are you counting all of the corpses in the graveyards and the felons in prison as the “new” democrats? Chicago thugs at their finest!

 

Comment by Donna Brazile hatin on Franarse, Skeezer & What the SFu | 2008-09-11 21:45:55

What the S FU!

“Obama Implodes In Georgia; McCain Leads 56% To 38%

(9/11/08) A new InsiderAdvantage / Poll Position survey of likely registered voters in Georgia indicates a steep decline for the Barack Obama campaign and likely explains why the candidate is moving resources out of Georgia and into other states.”

One less state to worry about turning BLUE. Ha, Ha! Georgia even has a large AA population and he couldn’t register enough NEW voters.

Keep hope alive while you’re spittin’ in the wind. Watch the blow back by the way.

Stop the hate SF –the hatemonger of babies and children.

 

Comment by AnnieCarmel | 2008-09-12 01:45:36

Counting all the felons and guys with little crocheted caps no one has ever seen before in those small LA towns? Yeah, well they pretty much know there’s no mosque around their county so they will disqualify those. Crackers are smarter than you think.

 

Comment by John House | 2008-09-12 03:28:54

If you’re talking about these stupid “voter registration drives”, then these voters are registering to vote, yes. WHO they’ll vote for is up to them.

 

Comment by NoBamaNoWay | 2008-09-12 05:32:00

dems registered a ton of young folks and other people in 2004; they thought for sure they were going to win and they didn’t. and that time they at least had all the democratic party behind them. barky’s starting in the hole due to all the people he and you have pushed away from the party. oh well, i’m sure you don’t need our votes anyway.

 

Comment by Jim S | 2008-09-12 05:57:27

Are you counting the thousands of Republicans that changed their party affiliation to Democrat and voted for Hillary as part of “Operation Chaos”? Newsflash! They don’t have to re-register as Republicans until the next primary election and many are still carried on the books as Democrat. Don’t look now Dumbo, they ain’t voting for Bambi.

 

Comment by tzada | 2008-09-12 08:52:56

Dead people, Felons, Underage People, Duplicate registrations, ACORN, caucus fraud .Republicans changing registration “just messin wit ya” to Democrat. (They will NOT vote for BO in Nov.) Voters who were enthused by Barack before they found out he was Barry, and all his unsavory associations, and his Muslim leanings, and his hatred of the majority of us.

America before Party
McCain/Palin 2008

 

Comment by Ted Kennedy's Swim Coach | 2008-09-12 11:40:05

subtract the Hillary Clinton supporters and you have a McCain landslide win. It’s simple math.

 
 
 

Comment by CarlaforHillary | 2008-09-11 20:14:52

Hillary sponsered the Schip bill. That was her bill.

Comment by John House | 2008-09-12 03:30:17

And yet she wasn’t fit to be #1 on the ticket, right? Or even #2.

Bots who use SCHIP need to fuck off an die in fires, and that means SFHillary.

 
 

Comment by Enough o'Bama | 2008-09-11 20:15:22

you are now Republicans, and thus the enemy of all women’s issues.

Tell it to Sarah Palin.

 

Comment by valsthewoman | 2008-09-11 20:16:18

IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO MAKE THESE COMMENTS AND REFUSE TO HEAR THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF WHAT LARRY JUST POSTED THAT HAVE CAUSED THE BASE OF THIS PARTY YOU KNOW THE TYPICAL WHITE WOMAN WHO CLINGS TO HER RELIGION AND BELIEVES IN OWNING A GUN TO LEAVE AND FIND A MAN WHOM THEY CAN VOTE FOR, SORRY A PAT ON THE BACK WITH NO REAL END RESULTS IN EQUALITY AND ABOVE ALL RESPECT FOR WOMEN AND THEIR OPINIONS IS WHAT PUT YOU IDIOTS IN LINE FOR THE BIGGEST LOSS IN HISTORY. I LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON JUNE 3,2008 BECAUSE OF EVERY REASON LARRY WROTE. THAT IS IT IN A NUTSHELL. I AM ON A MISSION TO EDUCATE AMERICA READ LEARN AND DISCOVER WHAT YOUR PARTY AND THE MEDIA DIDN’T WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT OBAMA. HE IS NOT THE MAN I WOULD EVER SELECT FOR PRESIDENT. I KNOW I KNOW YOU WILL CALL ME A RACIST GO AHEAD MAKE UP EXCUSES FOR YOUR CLOSED MINDED THOUGHTS… IT IS THE CHARACTER AND THE JUDGEMENT PICK ANY OTHER DEM FOR THE TICKET…HELL KERRY GOT MY VOTE… NO NOT THIS TIME. TAKE ME FOR GRANTED NO MORE. WE WANTED A FAIR ELECTION IN THE PRIMARY NOT A SELECTION. CLINTON SHOULD HAVE WON AND THEN MCCAIN WOULD BE IN WORSE SHAPE THEN OBAMA IS.
NO OBAMA YES MCCAIN learn more at:
http://hillaryloyalistnowformccain.com/roevrswadeandthedemocrats.aspx

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-09-11 22:49:32

It would be better to not use ALL CAPS to be taken seriously.

Comment by Jim S | 2008-09-12 06:02:36

 
 
 

Comment by LandOLincoln | 2008-09-11 20:21:43

Don’t you dare refer to Democrats as “we,” you dimwitted shill.

PUMAs are the real Democrats now, and you lot and your corrupt Chicago thug are going down bigtime.

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 20:29:01

That’s right! I am so sick of these pissy little brats like sf talking like THEY are Democrats! They have no sense of history and no sense at all….they make me sick.

Comment by RottenFishArePeopleToo | 2008-09-11 20:42:27

That’s right! I am so sick of these pissy little brats like sf talking like THEY are Democrats! They have no sense of history and no sense at all….they make me sick.

They confuse the name with the thing,imustprotest. They’re a bunch of clueless kids and way whacko lefties wearing a name tag that says “Hi, I’m the Democratic Party”

But the Democratic Party has left the building, I’m afraid. I repeat: The Democratic Party has left the building.

Comment by AliasJohnDoe | 2008-09-11 21:03:58

Their new party is the Obamacrat Party. The Democrat Party is sitting this election out.

Comment by NoBamaNoWay | 2008-09-12 05:35:12

yep, and the obamacrats are going down in a few short weeks. if they know what’s good for them, they won’t show their faces anywhere for a long time after that.

 
 
 
 

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 21:25:14

Actually, a large majority of the American voting public identifies as Democrats now. Your paltry, clueless little band of PUMAs isn’t even a rounding error in any analysis of the voting public. While you pretend to be part of a vanguard leaving the Democratic Party, in reality there has been a massive surge of people leaving the GOP and becoming Democrats or registering for any party for the first time.

Sorry. That’s reality.

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 21:28:41

You’re living in your own reality stfu….and in your parent’s garage most likely. Obama Soretoro is LOSING…..seriously stfu…you really need to start grievance process now, waiting until Nov 4th will be too late.

 

Comment by Donna Brazile hatin on Franarse, Skeezer & What the SFu | 2008-09-11 21:32:59

What the SFU!

A return of piggy troll #2. Did you get a new layer of lipstick on that fat lip of yours?

How’s the new role working for you? You know the one of quiet desperation babbling into the night to a group of people who say they don’t give a rats arse what you think?

Stop the hate!

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 21:35:24

I’m so glad you’re here Donna Brazile hatin on Franarse,etal….this sf is really pathetic tonight, I mean more than usual! Thanks for stoppin’ his hate!

 
 

Comment by miriam | 2008-09-11 22:06:40

Ah, but many of us are, or were, part of that Democratic majority you speak of…and we are not prepared to vote for Obama. You are extremely misguided–or a victim of wishful thinking–if you believe those who label themselves PUMAs are the only ones opposed to Obama. Most of us are silent Democrats who will either stay home on election day, or vote for McCain or Nader, and will wait to formally change our party affiliation from Democrat to Independent until after the election.

Incidentally, almost all the bills supporting women that you cite in your first post were passed by women. The current do-nothing Democratic congress has little else to point to in the way of positive legislation.

 

Comment by LBJ's Love Child | 2008-09-11 22:12:59

Obama’s pulling his people and his dwindling money out of Texas, after promising Texas Dem’s a major down-ticket push (and money) if they supported him, in a state he claimed would be a battleground.

It isn’t. He’s gone. We’re (the down-ticket Dems) toast.

Thanks.

 

Comment by John House | 2008-09-12 03:32:12

Obama’s stupid “Democrats for a Day” drives to get Repugs to re-register as Dems during the primaries don’t count, you massive fucktard.

 
 
 

Comment by db | 2008-09-11 20:22:51

Oh yeah, & BO really cares about female issues.

The dems have shown by their treatment of Hillary that they are just faux republicans at heart.

I left the dumbocratic party two days after they cheated Hillary out of the nomination.

I just don’t get you people that are so tied to your party that you’re tangled up in a lost cause.

 

Comment by athy | 2008-09-11 20:27:21

SFHillary,

The Democratic party has been hijacked.

The Democratic party of the past is no longer recognizable.

We have the neocons on the Republican side and we have the Neoliberals on the Democratic side now and do you want to know something scary? Nowadays I cant tell the difference between the two.

We have excellent reasons for not supporting Sen Obama-or anyone for that matter who poses a threat to our democracy.

Here are just highlights from my list of reasons why I am not voting for Sen Obama…

http://www.barackbook.com/
Obama facebook

I dont want ANY of these people getting anywhere Washington DC, our Constitution, or our Bill of Rights.

These are all close associates of Sen Obama.

Sen Obama owes many people many favors…what are they expecting as repayment?
****************

Sen Obama’s ‘Fluffed Up’ Legislative Record

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/main3876941.shtml

CBS News 2/26/08 Does Obama’s Record Back His Rhetoric? CBSNews.com Reports: Democratic Frontrunner Promises To Bring Unity, But Work In Senate Limited Mostly To “Midrange Issues” “Some insight into Barrack”s domestic & int”l oppositions How difficult was it to write & pass some of the legislation he is getting credit for- what REAL value did bill have for citizens?
***********************
Sen Obama’s ACTUAL Legislative Accomplishments

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Beyondchron.org, The Obama Craze: Count Me out ” by Matt Gonzalez 2/27/08

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser
***************************
Why Does Sen Obama Continue to LIE about his relationship with Ayers? What is he hiding?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/10/lies-money-and-barack/#more-4698

Lies, Money, and Barack
By Matthew Weaver 9/10/08

Country first SFHillary. A L W A Y S Country first.

 

Comment by Chiten | 2008-09-11 20:28:01

sfhilliary,
do you have any clue what you are talking about? Seriously? You aren’t making friends here, you aren’t encouraging anyone to vote for your idiot. You’re only making it worse for obama by being so damn nasty all the time. Is that what you’re trying to do? Is this some kind of trolling experiment where you play the indignant obama supporter who insults everyone around you, making them dislike him even more than they already do? If it is, you’re succeeding, otherwise, you are failing miserably at whatever it is you are attempting.

 

Comment by Leisa | 2008-09-11 20:29:06

SF,

You come here and “talk down” to us with poor arguments littered with distorted facts and outright lies.

You are a perfect example of an Obama supporter.

Obviously, democratic principles and integrity are not important to you.

The fact that you come here slinging arrows and attacking people here is a testament to your complete and total lack of substance.

You are an angry troll that is behaving badly for your candidate. Why he attracts such supporters is a red flag for many. It was people like you that made me look closer at Obama, you know the sayings; water seeks it own level… like attracts like… I have learned that those cliche’s are true when it comes to Obama.

 

Comment by RottenFishArePeopleToo | 2008-09-11 20:32:01

you are now Republicans, and thus the enemy of all women’s issues

Sez you.

Yeesh.

Maybe you ought to can the binary thinking, tr00l.

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 23:06:05

You’re rooting for the Republican candidate. You are actively trying to empower politicians who do not support any major women’s issues. Where exactly am I wrong?

Comment by Elle | 2008-09-12 00:33:53

“Where exactly am I wrong?” – good question.

Now, if you genuinely want to know, do what dcmediagirl’s friend, a Democratic member of Congress, did, ie listen.

“He listened. He wasn’t happy, but he listened.”

 
 
 

Comment by dnesser | 2008-09-11 21:01:40

There is absolutely NO legislation that can benefit women as much as a Female Vice-President. Of course, it should have been a female President called Hillary. To break through the glass ceiling will benefit every women in this country, no matter what their position is. Legislation can not change the attitudes that exist against women. Attitudes will only change when there are enough strong women in high level postions. The Left demonstrated sexism against Hillary and now Palin. They took the women’s vote for granted.

 

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-11 21:07:11

Actually SCHIP went through because Hillary united with none other than Newt Gingrich to fight for it and got it passed in a Republican Congress.

We know one thing from looking at Obama — he could give a crap about women or women’s issues. Go back and look at how many times he voted present on women’s issues in the state legislature.

It’s not about (D) vs (R) — it’s about Obama — he is no Democrat. His actions show this. Go look it up and stop spreading this stuff and attacking people here.

 

Comment by ugsome | 2008-09-11 22:08:57

The downticket Dems may remain the champions you describe above. The man at the top of the ticket has done nothing to give me confidence he would back any of those measures above. Further, he has telegraphed his disdain for women for months. I have no good reason to support him.

Comment by NoBamaNoWay | 2008-09-12 05:40:18

it’s the people that support B.Hussein that really concern me; anti-american, pro-islam, nasty attitude towards anything female, professional whiners and victims, etc. no way do i want those folks taking over america or the democratic party.

 
 

Comment by truthtelling007 | 2008-09-11 22:28:33

hmmm, “you people”…the sign of someone who has to swath a batch of people instead of showing some intellectual integrity here.

The reality, whether you like it or not, I don’t trust and won’t vote for Obama. You can engage in your self diluted ad hominem attacks.

SFhillary, your political hubris is demeaning to anything you might want to say of value. You scream at others from a self ordained position of political piety, that to me makes you completely full of shit.

Now, I’ll be the first one to say I don’t get the running to McCain or the GOP at all after they took us to war, bankrupted the country, scoffed at the outing of Plame and the attacks on their enemies, the mass manipulation of the Congressional process when they had total control, and a smearing of anyone who wasn’t “conservative enough”.

I’m going to be voting for Ralph Nader with perfect confidence that this is the right vote. I see McCain’s pick as the perfect attack on Obama, but that doesn’t mean I’ve gone blind about her either. And I won’t reward Obama with a vote simply because his opponent is an ideologue. I’m tired of the DNC counting on the opposition vote and taking voters for granted.

DCMedia girl You Rock!
This article is dead on!
This is the conversation I’m having with my Rep. He is the only Dem I’m voting for. I’m not going to vote for any Republicans either.

And so SFHillary the self appointed sheriff of the net of loons, politely back the fuck up and don’t be so certain of the YOU PEOPLE crap you’ve built up in your head. You want to debate me, fine, make it you and me, don’t hold others accountable for my view, and me for theirs.

If I weren’t careful, since you and I write to the same board, they’d think I believe like you do!

 

Comment by Uppity Woman | 2008-09-11 22:52:40

God, you people are full of shit.

….and You are full of yourself. I have watched you post your arrogant, snotty horseshit on this board. You are a perfect mimic of your SHITTY candidate. It is people like arrogant, snotty YOU who have driven us away from our party. But make no mistake you little Typical Obama Pissant, we have only moved away temporarily. We will take our party back. But we won’t be bringing Barack Obama with us.

 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 00:05:05

Ah, yes….YOU again! Our most persistent troll, pissing into the wind!

Still scared shitless, angry, and huffy, now, too!
:lol:
PSSST….here’s a clue for ya–when you want to sell people on your position, calling ‘em “You people” ain’t the way to do it.

 

Comment by richasis | 2008-09-12 03:48:40

Hmmm… things change, SF…

There was a time when the Republicans were the Progressives – like, say, during the Civil War era…

Then there was Republican Teddy Roosevelt in the early 1900’s – you know, that women’s suffrage thing…

Then there was Republican Ike Eisenhower in the 1950’s – you know, nationwide infrastructure and that infamous forewarning of the ‘military-industrial complex’…

You see, SF, times change and people change – and with this, so too do parties’ agendas change.

You mention education; to equivocate this to the progressive movement is a misnomer – it’s more like a socialist one and has been since the ‘Great Society’.

Is it any wonder that we’re in the ’state’ we’re in?

Look – Not Party First, but Country First!

 

Comment by Jim S | 2008-09-12 05:39:33

Give SF his due, he’s right about the the issues he listed and because of that we got Cindy McCain. This is one strong woman. She’s a nurse, a pilot, and has used a ton of her own money on humanitarian causes, helping Mother Theresa get proper medical care for orphans. She is why McCain has so many powerful women on staff and why those in authority are women, women that get paid an amount equal to or more than men in like positions. Cindy recognized that the DNC is willing to pass legislation geared toward women but after crowing about it from the steps of congress, tell you to go back into the kitchen and cook dinner. She’s also raised her daughters to understand that there is right and wrong and that what they see coming out of the DNC and the MSM is wrong, even criminal.

Sarah Palin understands it as well. Gee, she has a daughter that’s pregnant…and did you know, she’s pregnant! SO WHAT! I know, abstinence, purity, blah, blah, blah. Sarah’s not your “normal” 48 states mom, but she doesn’t live in the lower 48. She lives in Alaska where the women are strong. She/they hunt and fish and fly planes and, because it’s Alaska, she’s a “normal” mom. She understands right and wrong and what it means when you give your word as opposed to a Nancy Pelosi who thinks that you give your word to anyone but keep it only when it suits your need or that raising 5 kids for her was wonderful but then ridicules Palin for doing the same thing.

In a nutshell, yes the democrats have produced some wonderful laws on issues that concern women and when it comes down to the bottom line, they were looking for your vote to keep themselves in power. This year, they’ve proved it.

Now, SHUT UP, VOTE FOR OBAMA AND…GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN AND COOK MY DINNER!!

Comment by NoBamaNoWay | 2008-09-12 05:43:13

that’s pretty much the size of it.

 
 

Comment by Jackie | 2008-09-12 10:30:50

Being a woman…..I have not seen my interests being served by the DNC in the last few years.

They toute that they put forward equal pay bills but they are couched in a way that even the people pushing them know they will not be made law–nor do they try to make them law.

FACT:

Barack Obama does not pay the women on his staff the same as the men.

John McCain pays the women on his staff the same as or more than the men

I am tired of being told that the DNC knows better than I do about my uterus.

The DNC behaved badly where Hillary Clinton was concerned. They have behaved even worse where Sarah Palin is concerned.

Women are on the march.

 
 

Comment by Greg | 2008-09-11 19:52:13

I know many women feel this way, but as a man I must say that a lot of the issues are not gender related, the fraud and bias shown in the primaries were offensive to anybody who paid attention.

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-11 19:57:53

No election integrity, correct that is an issue that crosses gender lines.

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-11 20:01:41

Add to it voter suppression, caucus fraud, intimidation, and even letting that neophyte into the fray without some serious soul-searching and background vetting. Not to mention a discussion of respect for his elders.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-11 20:29:07

Hey YOU get ya shit loaded and clear off..

You’re the enemy of all our issues here. Take a long walk off a short pier.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-11 20:40:26

this is directed to SFArtillery

Comment by Andy Lewis | 2008-09-11 22:58:22

All that indentation gets tricky to navigate after several layers. ;)

 
 
 

Comment by btintaos | 2008-09-11 20:29:53

Yes. I cannot and will not vote for a criminal. End of story for me.

 
 
 

Comment by churl | 2008-09-11 20:26:45

Amen, brother. I will not vote for corruption.

 

Comment by athy | 2008-09-11 20:33:39

Greg,
I know many men and women who agree with you.

I am reposting this comment because it appears that we have new bloggers on NQ who may not have seen my blog comment on this topic (2008 election process)
Does everything in this campaign look okay to
you???

View the video’s released on August 9th 2008 by the Sam J
Ervin Jr, former chairman of Watergate commission, library and museum in Morgantown NC. According to producers, the DNC (with the support of the MSM) has perpetuated a crime and fraud against the American voters by claiming Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPCunsrI1Q

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Khsg8iKjU

Superdelegates votes can not count until convention

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXpz8AJk8TM

*VERY IMPORTANT PART: Why Obama is not the presumptive nominee
- these videos are very educational, interesting, and well-researched and documented. People are indeed repeating history. What is happening in 2008 has happened several times in the past. Educate your fellow voters. Forward these links to others.

http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/

This is excellent site too…

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

Obama & Vote Theft

 

Comment by misstickly | 2008-09-12 02:53:34

I know but we women believe(d) our time is now. Hillary was clearly the most qualified. As if she didn’t have enough to overcome, we watched the dnc pigs give Barry 600,000 of her votes. It makes it that much worse. I have never seen party leaders treat any voting bloc so cruelly and it was clearly sexual discrimintion.

So many of us vowed to never let them get away with it again. Thank you McCain for giving us a chance so soon, while the wounds are still fresh.

 
 
 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-09-11 19:40:20

And they will say, We were only following orders, doing what we were told…
I hope your friend can display the character necessary when it comes time to admit that motivations do matter.

 

Comment by Michael | 2008-09-11 19:41:57

…exactly. Once karma delivers a big blow to Barack -he will be done. The Clinton’s will then take over the Democratic party, and all those bafoons will have to listen. And then, maybe we will win a fucking (xcuse my language) election for a change.

 

Comment by Hillary or Bust | 2008-09-11 19:42:12

Can you please also tell him to watch this video – to me the main issue is caucus fraud, which so many have swept under the rug:

http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-11 19:53:49

This is what needs to be disseminated and understood by the public. Nobody really knows about this except PUMAs. Another failure on the part of the MSM. I started explaining it to a Republican friend of mine, and offered to dig up the videos to show her. She told me she didn’t need to see, she believed me.

 
 

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 19:42:30

Oh, please. You’re calling Sarah Freaking Palin a champion of women’s rights? Yeah, if you don’t count that she’s hardcore pro-life, anti-stem-cell research, anti-sex ed, pro-pay-for-your-own-rape-kit, and so on down the line.

Then there’s her answer to one of Charlie Gibson’s questions, which may well go down in history as an all-time great political fuckup:

“When asked by Gibson if under the NATO treaty, the U.S. would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

“Perhaps so,” huh, Sarah? Perhaps so?

Anyone who votes for this lunatic ticket is utterly deranged. And they aren’t going to find 50% of Americans who are willing to do so. I couldn’t imagine that the Republicans could come up with a ticket that’s even more warmongering than Bush/Cheney, but McCain/Palin clearly is. We’re already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military is stretched to brink of collapse, and we have McCain and Palin talking casually about going to war in Iran and, now, with Russia, of all people.

Of course, none of this is even remotely feasible, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would resign en masse if orders like this were ever issued. Still, to even have presidential candidates speaking this way is completely unprecedented, and terrifying, and bizarre. Expect this to be the big story tomorrow. I look forward to the official PUMA explanation of why this isn’t a big deal.

Comment by Hillary or Bust | 2008-09-11 19:46:18

“Anyone who votes for this lunatic ticket is utterly deranged.”

You know, right there, you completely lose all your credibility with your ranting and insults. You’ll read whatever you want to read into what Palin says, and ignore Obama’s comments about going to war in Pakistan. Do you honestly think by coming in here and calling us all deranged that we’re suddenly going to wake up and go “wow, you were right, I was being insane, I now see the light!”

The only people who are going to freak out over Palin’s comment are nutty anti-war extremists who are already in the Obama choir. Average Americans aren’t going to respond in the “lunatic” manner you just did.

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 19:56:00

Obama didn’t talk about “going to war” in Pakistan. He said that if he had actionable intel about Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership, he would swiftly move to take him out, even if he didn’t have the Pakistan government’s permission. It was typical Obama: aggressive, smart, tough, mature and absolutely correct. And even though the Republicans tried to paint him as naive when he said it, he stood by it, and a few months later, the Bush administration has begun doing aggressive bombing raids in that exact area — finally, after seven years, going after Al Qaeda.

Same with his original comments on Iraq, on setting a timeline for withdrawal, on ramping up our presence in Afghanistan — which he said we had to do over a year ago, and which Bush just announced he would do this week. Obama leads, the rest follow. Get used to it.

Palin is an idiot. You don’t casually talk about “going to war with Russia.” You just don’t. Her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and understanding of diplomacy is utterly appalling.

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 19:59:23

good lord, what is the matter with this troll?
It seems to be shooting nuts and bolts off of its little robot body.

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 01:46:21

This one shows up every time Obama drops a point in the polls–he’s like a little robin in springtime, actually.

The shittier and more caustic he is about the Anybody But Obama Ticket, the worse Obama is doing.

In an odd way, he’s a happy harbinger!

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-12 06:40:47

lol@ robin in spring

 
 
 

Comment by Steve_in_KC | 2008-09-11 20:02:44

We’re not defending Bush policy, dumshit. We’re mostly saying we are a lot more comfortable knowing that responsible adults will be running the country, not Obambi and his magic unicorns in the sky.

 

Comment by katmandu | 2008-09-11 20:12:09

Wasn’t it your VP guy, Biden, who said Obama was not prepared?

And so did Hillary.

Biden openly criticized Obama as a Johnny come lately to foreign affairs during the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Biden_Obama_stole_my_ideas.html

Sen. Biden has been talking about this for over 6 months. Dating back to January 5th, Sen. Biden said America Should Surge Troops in Afghanistan. He told the Washington Post, “If we’re surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan,” Biden said. Adding troops there would give the United States “the moral high ground” in its quest for more forces from NATO allies. [Washington Post, 1/5/07]

“We [Biden using the royal we] find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.”

Even if Obama had any experience, I’m not voting for someone who has their finger on the nuclear trigger and is friends with Ayers and Dohrn.

Comment by athy | 2008-09-11 21:04:47

katmandu,
Good point.
Let me add that Biden wasnt the only one who criticized Sen Obama’s lack of foreign policy involvement or experience

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece

Sen Obama has int’l experience? Really? Tell that to the Europeans and others

Comment by no vote for Oblabla | 2008-09-11 23:39:52

Ya he does, didn’t he live in Indonesia when he was a young boy?

LMAO

 
 
 

Comment by dcmediagirl | 2008-09-11 20:13:12

Palin is an idiot. You don’t casually talk about “going to war with Russia.” You just don’t. Her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and understanding of diplomacy is utterly appalling.

From that to this:

Obama didn’t talk about “going to war” in Pakistan. He said that if he had actionable intel about Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership, he would swiftly move to take him out, even if he didn’t have the Pakistan government’s permission.

If you bothered to read the news, you’d realize that Pakistanis are at much greater risk of being killed as the result of terrorism than Americans. They most definitely have a dog in this hunt, if you will. In fact, bombings and assassinations occur disturbingly frequently in that country. I seriously doubt that any serious minded person – and yes, they exist in Pakistan, believe it or not – would advocate allowing OBL to roam free if there was actionable intelligence as to his whereabouts. But invading a sovereign nation – an ally no less – without permission is a serious bit of business. I point you in the direction of Iraq. And perhaps it would be a good idea to ask Obama what a “win” in Afghanistan would look like. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer to that question. Can Afghanistan transform from a narco state to a country with an economy that does not depend on poppy cultivation? These are serious questions that require serious minded people providing serious answers.

And oh, by the way – Palin is the VP nominee. She’s not at the top of the ticket. Just sayin’.

 

Comment by Chiten | 2008-09-11 20:30:34

smart, tough, mature and correct are NOT adjectives that describe obi in any way whatsoever. You have him confused with Hillary, the person who SHOULD be the candidate but was cheated out of it by the good ole boy network

 
 
 

Comment by ohio | 2008-09-11 19:46:55

Maybe you need to understand the NATO treaty. It sounds like you don’t understand it, but then again, you’re supporting Obama so it is to be expected.

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 19:59:24

The NATO treaty calls for us to militarily defend any NATO member if they are attacked. Georgia isn’t yet a member, which she may or may not know. But the fact of that necessity is exactly why it is so irresponsible for Cheney and McCain to be arguing that Georgia and Ukraine should be permitted to join NATO. That is an open invitation for war with Russia, the only nation on earth with more nukes than the U.S. It’s utter madness and will never be permitted by the grownups (i.e., everyone but American Republicans).

You PUMAs cannot be expected to think about, let alone understand, these geopolitical niceties, of course, because you are too busy hyperventilating about “lipstick” comments, and saying that you’re going to vote Republican because the Democrats don’t support choice for women. LOL.

Comment by Steve_in_KC | 2008-09-11 20:06:26

It’s utter madness and will never be permitted by the grownups (i.e., everyone but Obamaroids).

Fixed.

 

Comment by KarenG | 2008-09-11 20:09:04

President Clinton believes Ukraine should be part of NATO, I will take his opinion over yours any day and your candidate also.

 

Comment by JoseyJ | 2008-09-11 20:12:05

Doesn’t Obama agree with Georgia joining NATO?

 

Comment by Tristan | 2008-09-11 20:16:59

The reason we are pumas is because Obama can’t be trusted on defense and similar important issues. You know what he said after Georgia – that both sides should stop the violence, which is pretty dumb when one guy’s invading another – and then that it should go to the UN security council, which Russia is obviously part of.

But I’m sure you’ll be in front of the TV applauding when, as he promised during primary season, he meets with the leaders of Syria, Iran, and N. Korea in the first year of his presidency with no preconditions and hands out drivers licenses to illegal aliens. I’m sure Obama is so nice and likeable that no terrorist would ever dream of attacking us, and if they do, Obama can just talk to them and find out what the US can do to make them happier with us.

 

Comment by athy | 2008-09-11 21:25:53

SFHillary-
Some people may disagree with you on this issue

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article

McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Oh…and btw, I know many VERY INTELLIGENT PUMAs who follow international affairs.
hmmOKAY….

And for those who can only squeeze it in between working two jobs, taking care of family etc… here is a good crash overview about NATO.

Yes SFHillary, some people do research before they open their mouths. Not everyone is a ‘parrot’ repeating what the msm tells them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato

Oh…please dont forget who is a chief person on Sen Obama’s foreign policy staff- Z. Brzezinski.

Ask ZB what he thinks about Russia.

 

Comment by Karma | 2008-09-11 22:00:42

Really, PUMAs don’t understand the geopolitical implications?

Russia has already cut off the pipeline to Europe once during the winter.

Georgia and it’s pipeline represent competition and is important to Europe.

While Europe enjoys a lot of social benefits it due to the fact that America is paying the defense bill for them. Both Obama and Tom Friedman have made that exact point.

So geopolitically speaking we are continuing to protect Europe by keeping a strategic country free from Russian control. Since as mentioned previously, Russia has already proven it shouldn’t have a monopoly on the pipelines.

 

Comment by miriam | 2008-09-11 22:17:54

SF–It’s crystal clear that you either didn’t hear the whole interview or you don’t understand the issue. And Palin was well aware that Georgia is not yet a NATO member.

 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 01:49:22

Didn’t listen and comprehend, apparently, by the looks of that diatribe.

:lol:

 
 
 

Comment by carol | 2008-09-11 19:49:09

Read the duty of NATO members and then, shut the fuck up!

 

Comment by Diana | 2008-09-11 19:53:25

“When asked by Gibson if under the NATO treaty, the U.S. would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

This has already been addressed. Don’t like the reply go after BOTH Democrats and Republicans. That is the way NATO is set up, and while you’re at it go read the NATO mission. If Georgia becomes part of NATO it doesn’t matter if it’s Obama or McCain in office. As part of our treaty/alliance with NATO we will go. Perhaps you should have educated yourself on NATO what it’s mission is, the agreement we have with 26 other countries, before coming here and making yourself look like a fool.

Comment by JoseyJ | 2008-09-11 20:13:59

 

Comment by SFhillary | 2008-09-11 21:13:46

You don’t get it. I know what the NATO Treaty says. The point is that for someone who could very plausibly be commander in chief within a few years to casually say “Perhaps so” when asked about going to war with Russia is…oh, never mind. None of you care.

Comment by imustprotest | 2008-09-11 21:16:28

Obama is unqualified. Obama has only run for president, he has done NOTHING, he is an empty suit. Obama is your cr@py candidate. Own him.

 

Comment by CJ | 2008-09-11 22:32:29

May be you would have been happier if she had answered, “it’s above my pay grade” with a few uuuummmms thrown in for good measure.

 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 01:51:21

No, you don’t know what it says.

But then, you’re just a stupid Obama troll…so it’s to be expected that you’d be long on mouth and short on knowledge.

 
 
 

Comment by FrenchNail | 2008-09-11 19:54:39

I am not a lunatic, thank you very much!!!! But I guess that is your gentle way to ask me to reconsider voting Mccain over Obama? Don’t you know that you get more bees with honey than vinegar?

 

Comment by The Lizard | 2008-09-11 20:02:11

You must be an idiot. The reason is that as a member state of NATO we have said we would protect any member state that is attacked as has evey other member state. This is a pact the support and defend. Are you saying we should just turn our backon our allies? Are you a coward? Does your word mean anything? We have responsibilities. This treaty is but one of those responsibilities. Please read a little history and get an idea. While you’re at it read the NATO charter and you will find out that Palin has more of clue on foreign policy than Obama, the pathetic pawns (MSM) or you. Get back to me when you can defend yourself. Until then back to school and learn something.

 

Comment by The Lizard | 2008-09-11 20:02:47

You must be an idiot. The reason is that as a member state of NATO we have said we would protect any member state that is attacked as has every other member state. This is a pact the support and defend. Are you saying we should just turn our back on our allies? Are you a coward? Does your word mean anything? We have responsibilities. This treaty is but one of those responsibilities. Please read a little history and get an idea. While you’re at it read the NATO charter and you will find out that Palin has more of clue on foreign policy than Obama, the pathetic pawns (MSM) or you. Get back to me when you can defend yourself. Until then back to school and learn something.

 

Comment by kgirl1028 | 2008-09-11 20:09:33

You know what? cutting the crap, I have to say this. If Barak Obama would do a great job as president, if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would be a great commander in chief, and would lead us into a better tomorrow. Regardless of the fact he stole the election from hillary, I would hold my nose and vote for him. I don’t need larry to tell me obama doesn’t do well in crisis, I don’t need any one on this board to tell me he’s one of the worst president in America. i knew this. obama is a nasty individual who get’s off on himself. he has done nothing but divided people the moment he stepped in this race, he used the pathetic Race card, he’s allowed his constituents to live in squall or, he hangs out with sociopaths, he drops people who are supposed to be his close personal friends like Rev Wright. he’s inept with a teleprompter.

See what obama supporters don’t understand is that our country is in bad shape on all fronts. We are knee deep in a war and complete economics collapse, gas is extremely high, food is going up. And so what’s you stupid behind decision, a man who brings only excuses, greatest speech and his race to the table and then you act as if this fool craps gold. Hillary was the best choice, but you would give her the nomination, so now you have to live with second best. Don’t get me working women’s rights issues are important, but they are not vital to the economic health of this country. obama wants to jack our taxes all so that we can send money to other countries.

now if you want to support the vapid, mr obama, then you can dos so till you your little hears is content, but just remember this, Barak Obama is all he will ever be. All he has like Hillary said are speeches. And if that’s all you want fine. But don’t get all snippy with me, when it was democrats that made the concious decision to pick the weekest candidate they could find and i refuse to vote for him.

My middle school principal would always read us a poem called the kid in the glass. and the ending vs has stayed with me.

You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years
And get pats on the back as you pass.
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
If you’ve cheated the man in the glass.

Cheat yourself but don’t expect me to follow you ok. Because i’m not going to cheat myself or the people of this country out of competent leadership knowing full well what obama has done, and is capable of.

 

Comment by valsthewoman | 2008-09-11 20:19:24

IT DOES NOT MATTER… JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN OBAMA HAS TO GO TO COURT AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT HE IS EVEN A CITIZEN. IN PHILLY BY SEPT 27.

 

Comment by CarlaforHillary | 2008-09-11 20:20:01

Freaking out a little?

Comment by CarlaforHillary | 2008-09-11 20:22:53

That comment was for SF. Not Valsthewoman.

 
 

Comment by Fallon | 2008-09-11 20:21:41

Governor Sarah Palin is a living breathing example of women’s rights. She is a working mother. She is a strong self-made woman, just because her views do not align with mine 100% doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for her. Who better understands women’s issues? Obama? He may be involved, but by the virtue of being a woman, she is committed.

Just for the record, there has never been a single cure produced through embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to the far more effective, and infinitely less objectionable, adult stem cell therapies.

I don’t believe in man-made Global Warming, either. I believe the earth has gone through many cycles of climate change. Sometimes it cools and sometimes it warms. Weather patterns are more extreme when the Earth cools. After a warm period in the Middle Ages there was a “Little Ice Age” from about 1350 to 1850, during which time the earth experienced extreme weather patterns. Many more people die from cold than from warm temperatures. The earth doesn’t have a perfect constant temperature, it never has. There is no such thing as man-made Global Warming.

I don’t believe we should trash the earth, either. We should recycle and reuse as much as possible and maintain air and water quality, but we should also explore all types of energy including oil, wind, nuclear, bio and solar. That has nothing to do with the cult of Global Warming, energy is an economic necessity.

See we all believe different things. I think it is time to look at the content of a person’s character and I really like Governor Sarah Palin’s character.

As far as the Charlie Gibson interview, Governor Sarah Palin did just fine. I don’t know when people started believing that the President and VP had to know everything on every subject. It just isn’t so. Bill Clinton said he wasn’t totally prepared for the presidency. He said no one is. He learned as he went along. Presidents rarely make decisions without the input of their Cabinet and other experts; and McCain said he would include Independents and Democrats in this circle. Relax. Have a mooseburger.

Comment by Kal | 2008-09-11 20:40:25

Wonderfully said. Thank you!

 
 

Comment by Leisa | 2008-09-11 20:35:05

More SF lies…

 

Comment by bemused | 2008-09-11 20:43:18

Duh, SF, that IS what NATO and similar treaties are about. It is mutual defense and it is also mutual interest to protect each other. And, of course, to keep our allies out of wars so we stay out too. She answered correctly and you don’t like it because you think all we have to do is retreat into Fortress America? Hello? This is your 9/11 call.

 

Comment by athy | 2008-09-11 20:45:12

SFHillary- please read the following…

There are so many blatant lies out there regarding Gov Palin that Fact checking organizations can not keep up with refuting them and writing corrections. What is going on here?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE
Fact Check Ad on Gov Palin

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/09/move-ons-and-others-rumor-mongering/#more-4666

Move On’s (And Others) Rumor Mongering Posted 9/9/08

Oh…and please dont discuss war mongers with me UNTIL YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING :

Sen Joe Lieberman (strongly pro-Iraq invasion) was being opposed in the CT Senate race by Ned Lamont- a VERY popular candidate who ran on strong Iraq War opposition platform.

Sen Obama flew in to CT to support Lieberman.

Yes, the same Sen Obama, who says that he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/nyregion/02lieberman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

“Suppport for War Tests Lieberman”s Re-election Prospects” by William Yardley , New York Times, 4/2/06

Yes, the same Sen Obama who has taken on board Zbigniew Brzezinski- as major foreign policy advisor. ZB wrote book advocating US control of Iran-by use of pre-emptive force if necessary:

ZB has been accused of being 1 of the several MAJOR reasons Osama Bin Laden was able to carry out terror attack on 9/11. Read why. He helped to arm Bin Laden & provide trained soldiers for his war on the US.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard#a1097chessboard

“Context of ‘October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination” Cooperative Research History Commons

Sen Obama has also taken on board as foreign policy advisor-Dr Susan Rice.

Dr Susan Rice has been accused of being another MAJOR reason why Osama Bin Laden was able to carry out terror attacks on 9/11. She convinced US govt not to accept Sudan offer to turn over Bin Laden to US in 1997 despite convincing arguments to the contrary provided to her by other US and foreign officials friendly to the US. .

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201

The osama Files, January 2002, David Rose

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html

“Thanks But No Thanks-How the U.S. Missed a Chance to Get Bin Laden”
by Jennifer Gould, The Village Voice, 10/30/01
Sen Obama…anti Iraq invasion? Really? Read this interview (referred to in this excellent article) with Tim Russert and you tell me…

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/05/oppo-research-on-obamas-shifting-finger-to-the-wind-iraq-stands/#comment-426376

“It’s quite something that he was able to exploit a single speech, unnoted at the time, to attract legions of followers. It’s quite something that, since no video or audio exists, his campaign media experts had to recreate his speech in a recording studio. It’s quite something that his followers continue to support him, even after he joined the U.S. Senate and voted exactly as did Hillary Clinton, except that she voted against Gen. George Casey while Obama voted for the unqualified general whose knowledge about troop and supply deficiencies were wholly inadequate, as Sen. Clinton’s grilling of Gen. Casey during a Senate hearing proved.
So, Obama’s followers have bought into his opposition to the Iraq war on rather threadbare proof: A single speech followed by, in the last 18 months, a lot of campaign rhetoric in rally speeches. Clear back in 2004, the late Tim Russert, on Meet The Press, exposed Obama’s shifting statements:

In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5488345/

Comment by Caya | 2008-09-12 08:15:12

Can I just add to this list that George Soros was behind Saakashvili and the Rose Revolution the same way he is now behind Obama & MoveOn.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-velvet3-2008sep03,0,5896161.story

 
 

Comment by miriam | 2008-09-11 22:13:44

SF—Please do us the courtesy of quoting ALL of Palin’s answer, not just the part you think is inflammatory. In fact, her full answer was very similar to Obama’s.

 

Comment by cplummer | 2008-09-11 23:42:18

GET OVER YOURSELF…Gov. Palin was answering a hypothetical question, and CG wasn’t doing a fluff piece of an interview as I just saw a BO supporter write…or was that you?

You see, your brand of Democrat is different from mine. What I’ve seen happen to my former Party during this election cycle is disgusting…people like you are driving moderates like me away in droves. You think you can win without the likes of me, NOT! What the Democratic party is becoming under the leadership of Sen. Obama is not something I can support, and I will do my best to make sure he fails.

 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 00:10:51

Keep posting, fool!

Your posts tend to get longer, increasingly vitriolic, and more hysterical every time Obama takes a dive in the polls.

So please, DO go on!

:lol:

 

Comment by propertius | 2008-09-12 01:12:34

It was a hypothetical – and, hypothetically, if Georgia *were* a member of NATO then we would indeed be obligated under the NATO treaty to retaliate, just as we would if Germany, Britain, or Canada were attacked. Are you suggesting that Obama should pull out of all our treaty obligations, lest he be deemed a “warmonger”?

 

Comment by Bellevue_NW_Voter | 2008-09-12 02:47:01

And they aren’t going to find 50% of Americans who are willing to do so.

I’m fine with McCain/Palin winning with less than 50%.

[ PUMAs can now skip to the next post. Obots please stick around for the civics lesson. ]

You see, we don’t need 50% of Americans to vote for them. (Ref: 2000 election in which one person won the greater percentage of the popular vote but not a greater percentage of the electoral votes.)

No, we don’t even 50% of the electoral votes, either. (Ref: how elections work. They do not require a simple majority, ie, it is not necessary that the victor win more than 50% of votes cast.)

We just need a greater percentage of electoral votes than your guy gets.

And can we get them? YES WE CAN.

McCain/Palin ‘08

 

Comment by Jackie | 2008-09-12 10:55:40

Governor Palin is not anti-sex ed nor is she anti-birth control.

The policy of many municipalities is to charge for Rape kits and that ended in Wasilla.

Just because you believe killing children is acceptable it is no reason to condemn those who do not hold that view.

Abortion is a real hot button but it is being misused.

More than a million abortions are performed every year. Very few are as a result of Rape or Incest and even fewer for the sake of the life of the mother.

Most are eugenic or selfish in nature.
I am not saying that we should out law abortion but let us talk about it in real terms not euphamistic ones.

Palin thinks abortion is bad–has she moved to apply that to you?

 
 

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2008-09-11 19:42:44

Everytime I heard a Democrat open their mouths now I cringe. Cringe.

It seems the Democrats are now doing everything in their power to undermine their own credibility.

Bodes poorly for your neighbors to the north.

 

Comment by Andy | 2008-09-11 19:46:02

Good dcmediagril; well said. And the list goes on: a book should be written that brings home to the Dems. precisely and poignantly how bad and by how much they have screwed up.
Even if BO wins; Dems should make no mistake: they have screwed up on basic issues (like enfranchisement, sexism) BIG TIME. These primary season has been a disgrace for the DNC and Congress leaders.

 

Comment by pumapower | 2008-09-11 19:46:29

hubris is the word.

they stereotype the electorate by race and gender and expect us to follow like sheep for issues like the first AA president or roe v.wade. they treat us like single issue voters and disrespect our ability to make independent decisions. they treat us like sheep rather than asking for our votes through hard work.

they forget that they are supposed to be representatives of the people’s will and not some elite authority with the decision to override people’s will.

Comment by Jackie | 2008-09-12 11:03:54

 
 

Comment by Michael | 2008-09-11 19:46:40

I think it is amusing that Barack spends so much time attackin Palin. I thought he was running against McCain? LOL!

DUH!

 

Comment by Steve1 | 2008-09-11 19:47:30

Hey, excellent post-Do you think it will help! When this mess is over with. We need to be ready for a complete house cleaning. Purge! Bigtime-starting with the screamer and his hench buds..in Congress!

 

Comment by Steve_in_KC | 2008-09-11 19:49:39

The greatest irony is that BO, like W, campaigns on being a “Uniter,” and then does exactly the opposite!! Yes, he is like another GWB!

Just as the “neo-conservatives” are a sub-group of Republicans that have little resemblance to traditional Republicans, we now have “neo-liberals” trying to take over the Democratic Party. It’s a coup, plain and simple. Whether we, as a people, or as members of the traditional Democratic Party, allow this to happen is what it’s all about.

JUST SAY NO DEAL! PUMA!

 

Comment by Honora | 2008-09-11 19:49:42

When you attacked Hillary, you said it was not all women just that bit#h. We didn’t believe you but we had no empirical evidence to back us up. Now with Palin, we do not agree with her politics, but we know that she is as smart as Obama, we know that she has as much experience as Obama, we know that you never discuss this when men are running and we know that she is ‘only’ running for VP. You made us lose Hillary and we are mad and bitter and you are not going to do it to another woman. We are not going to let you do it to the women of America. Enough is enough. PUMAmerica

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 20:02:15

correction: Palin is smarter than Obama. My footstool is smarter than Obama. He just looks smart once in a while because he’s talking to someone from the media, and in comparison…

 

Comment by valsthewoman | 2008-09-11 20:21:06

 
 

Comment by CJ | 2008-09-11 19:52:14

Good job explaining things to this congressman DC. You should also send him a copy of Uppity’s Sawdust post and if the Dems don’t get after both of these explanations, perhaps they should find a new line of work.

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-11 19:56:04

Yes that was a great summation, beautifully delivered.

 

Comment by CJ | 2008-09-11 19:56:43

 

Comment by PJ | 2008-09-11 21:23:05

Janis explained it well too.

 
 

Comment by fiscalliberal | 2008-09-11 19:52:19

I did not think Palin did well on the Gibson interview. However I come back to this. In her tenure of governor she did some thing, in attacking corruption against big odds and she won.

Obama took the responsibility of a important subcommittee ( European Affairs and NATO) and did not hold one meeting.

So she did a job and he did not –

Yup she is weak on Foreign Affairs, but in my book is even with Obama – what has he accomplished in Foreign Affairs. He will have on the job training as president. She will be as vice president.

Comment by pm317 | 2008-09-11 20:06:27

He will have on the job training as president. She will be as vice president.

Good point. She will get her training as the VP but with a President who is ready.

 

Comment by Jackie | 2008-09-12 11:17:08

I think that Governor Palin will do better in interviews in the coming days. Remember she sent her first born off to war that morning. That is hard I don’t care who you are.

Obama sucks at interviews and he has no such traumas.

 
 

Comment by Michael | 2008-09-11 19:55:40

Oh, and much more. Why was Obama never vetted? Why is he still getting a pass? The double standards are dizzying.

Howard and the rest never minded that he ran on race. They never minded that he has nothing he believes in and will say anything to anyone for their votes. They never minded that he made up his bio which was a fairy tale and which anyone can research and see for themselves. They never minded that he does not tell the truth and conceals information and records so he cannot be vetted. They never minded that he uses Chjicago style thug politics and then prances around like an innocent child who cannot be criticized. They never minded when he trashed the Clintons with Rove-style attacks. They ate it like ice cream because he is their Manchurian Candidate.

Comment by snosandy | 2008-09-11 20:07:12

I just watched the “Manchurian Candidate” for the first time this past weekend. Very disturbing. Did you know the name of the Director of the movie is George Axelrod. I wonder if he’s related to David.

Comment by churl | 2008-09-11 20:35:49

The new version is not as good as the old one with Frank Sinatra. Check it out.

 

Comment by Joe Biden's hair plugs have left the building | 2008-09-11 20:51:17

That’s an interesting bit of synchronicity. And yes, disturbing!
I agree with churl, the Frank Sinatra version is better.

 
 
 

Comment by Jana | 2008-09-11 19:57:14

Oh, they may “listen” after Nov. 4th…

…but something tells me they won’t “understand”.

It may be a “genetic political” blindspot..I don’t know.

Failure to UNDERSTAND will only cause them to make the same mistakes in the future, and the fact is, the ol’ bugaboo of RACE gives them a perfect “out” to put the blame on…

When in truth, they have no one to blame but thmselves!

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-11 20:07:09

Maybe they should learn a little something about integrity and principle, and think about why they are partisan sheep, following the party line, even when it is disastrous (e.g. BHO). Maybe we are setting the example for them….the electorate are not a flock of sheep, and we won’t respect our elected officials when they act like sheep. Don’t expect us to follow the party line anymore. We are thinking people. We have values and priorities, and more common sense than they are exhibiting. Nancy Pelosi should have sat Barack down after Super Tuesday and told him to go back to his place in the line…after all, Hillary will pick you for VP, and you can be president in 2016 for the good of the party.

 
 

Comment by CountryFirst | 2008-09-11 19:58:11

Just listening to the Fox coverage of the Cambridge interview with McCain and I want to scream everytime the press asks why this campaign has been so dirty (forget the exact wording). I’ve lived through a lot of campaigns and this campaign has been very mild and on the higher road. It is the Obama crowd that keeps dragging it down and Palin is still taking her heat for her rightful response to the denigration Obama laid on her. I hate the press!

Comment by CountryFirst | 2008-09-11 19:59:02

correction “taking heat”

 
 

Comment by Linda | 2008-09-11 19:58:49

I do wish you hadn’t neglected to mention the Obama campaign’s rampant caucus fraud.

Comment by CountryFirst | 2008-09-11 20:02:08

or the buying of the Super Delegates…

 
 

Comment by CountryFirst | 2008-09-11 20:00:36

Larry, what was your friends response. Don’t leave us hanging.

Comment by Steve_in_KC | 2008-09-11 20:14:29

Larry didn’t write this article. He has many writers here. This article, as it says at the top under the title, was written by dcmediagirl. FYI.

 
 

Comment by RottenFishArePeopleToo | 2008-09-11 20:01:03

I am interested in Democratic Principles, not the Democratic Party. When the Democratic Party returns to its historical Democratic Principles, I may return to the Democratic Party. Until then, I am an Independent.

 

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-11 20:01:30

“what about the courts? Roe v Wade? WTF?” Maybe a lot of these women are not sure they like seeing a million people killed every year in the name of “choice” — especially not when we have less choice in lawnmowers than we have in killing little babies.

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 20:05:38

oh shut up.

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 20:09:29

lots of us pro-choice people are backing McCain.
Back of with the baby killing crap, would you please. You can simply state that you are pro-life without spinning the hysterical wheel.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-11 20:20:34

I’m not hysterical, but it’s a scientific fact that every abortion kills a human being. I say this though I have fathered two human beings who ended up dead that way.

Also, the “pro-choice” label is misleading. It implies that the person believes individuals should have choice to do anything that does not harm others. But a) abortion harms an other and b) many things (like smoking pot, for example) harm no other and are still illegal. Why do most of those who promote legal abortion also promote illegal pot (Hillary, for example). Because they’re not pro-choice — they’re only pro-abortion-choice.

Which is to say, they believe that it’s okay to kills little babies. I was pretty much pro-choice until I saw my daughter’s femur in an ultrasound. Then she kicked. Changed my mind.

As for shutting up, do you find that tactic persuasive? Doesn’t it suggest that you are at a loss to defend your side of the argument rationally?

Comment by churl | 2008-09-11 20:38:14

What makes a human being?

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 01:11:56

What a good question? This question has an unambiguous answer. DNA determines if cells are human. Dandruff is human, but certainly not a being and certainly not alive.

A transplanted heart is alive, but not a being.

A fetus is human, alive and (almost always) a whole and distinct being (those that are not generally do not survive, in any case). It is not a matter of dispute whether an abortion (almost always) ends the life of a human being.

The more important political question is like the one posed to Obama, the one he said was “above his pay grade”. That question is, at what stage of development should a human life be protected by law?

Of course, there is tremendous disagreement on that question.

 
 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-09-11 20:44:03

A ZYGOTE is NOT a human being. It’s nothing but TISSUE and a group of cells….Damn. I just love it when men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies. It’s none of your freakin’ business what I do with my body or what ANY woman does with her body. IN FACT…IT’S NO ONE’S BUSINESS WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT. I cannot believe this is still debated in 2000 freakin’ 8!

Animal zygotes undergo mitotic cell divisions to become a blastocyst then an embryo.

 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 00:49:05

Your “scientific facts” are “scientific bullshit.” The procedure eliminates a PARASITE, a fetus, not a “human being.”

Human beings breathe in and out and don’t require a host to sustain themselves from second to second. Cells that have potential to become human beings are NOT human beings. That’s like calling a pile of metal and rubber a car. That’s like calling a glass of water, a pot of dirt, and a few seeds a tomato plant.

Get over that stupid shit–your arguments are idiotic and male-centric, certainly. When you grow yourself a womb and can carry a child to term, then you can have input. Until that day, it’s not your womb, it’s not your business.

Now, if YOU don’t like abortion, you do have a choice not to EVER be associated with one, and it’s an easy thing to do, too– put a rubber on–TWO, to be safe. Take some fucking responsibility when you’re fucking, and then you’ll never have that hanging over your head again.

See, you DO have “choice.” You can choose to behave RESPONSIBLY, so you don’t knock someone up unintentionally, or you can choose to behave like an asshole and then get all righteous when your sloppy and selfish behavior results in requiring a woman to have to make a difficult and personal decision.

And certainly, women should protect themselves as well–but men should NEVER, EVER “ass”ume that the bases are covered unless they’ve covered them PERSONALLY and conducted themselves responsibly.

Your opinion on the matter of abortion does NOT count for anything more than your personal and easily dismissable view, it holds no sway and you have no say, because your body is not involved in the hosting of the fetus.

The Executive Branch can’t change Roe. If they could, Bush would have done it when he had a GOP CONGRESS. Hell, REAGAN would have done it.

Even Palin understands what the deal is with Roe–it’s not going to be overturned, because women would riot in the streets.

There’s a Democratic Congress in DC–they’re going to have to do a little WORK for a change. They’ll have to vet Supreme Court nominees, say NO if need be, Bork ‘em if they have to, and hold the damned line. They’ll have to refuse to put up with proposals that are halfassed, and override vetoes that don’t make sense. In short, they will have to EARN THEIR PAY, such a concept.

No one is ordering women to have abortions, and no one is requiring them to have unwanted babies, either. But it’s sure a fun wedge issue for the easily-led, isn’t it? Obama’s crew scream “The sky is falling!! Roe will go if you don’t elect the Anointed One!!!” while the Fundies yell “McCain and Palin will do with a Democratic Congress what Reagan and Bush couldn’t do with GOP stooges up on the Hill–overturn Roe, praise JEEEEEBUS!”

It’s all bullshit. I refuse to play that “Look over here” game anymore. I want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, and I’ll wait out four years with the Ancient Mariner until that happens.

In the meantime, maybe McCain can do a little cleaning up after Bush–seems fair. The GOP made the mess, they can start cleaning it up.

Comment by AnnieCarmel | 2008-09-12 02:09:31

Well! Clinton Fan, I think you covered it! Good job.

Bob White, I think that buzz saw you just ran into may have been a taste from some of the women who took to the streets to achieve our rights.

Have no fear. We will demonstrate to the Democratic Party that we will not be bullied and we know how to get things done. It should become perfectly clear to both parties that women are finally a force to be reckoned with. We have stopped going along to get along and if you try to mess with us, we’ll show you how to be sorry. And the Democratic Party? I don’t know who the hell they are now but I want nothing more to do with them.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 00:51:57

I think that a fetus fits the scientific definition of a parasite, except that reproduction is not usually described that way in most species. It is usually described that way when the unborn is deposited in some way inside an animal of another species.

Hence, the description of a human fetus living in her mother’s womb as a parasite tends to imply that it is not of the same species, or that it was artificially implanted there, or that it has attached itself in some unnatural way. These would be bizarre descriptions of the typical fetus within the uterus.

Still, none of that changes the fact that the fetus is human and alive. It is a human being — just not fully formed — and just not a human being whose life you care to protect.

You also err about breathing. Humans do not cease to be human when they stop breathing. It is a somewhat common occurrence for people to have their blood mechanically oxygenated for them — usually via their lungs, but sometimes not. Do they stop being human when they are put on such apparatus? If so, could I kill them with impunity (or only if I were their mother)?

Your analogy about cars and tomato plants is flawed, but worth exploring. The chief difference between a fetus and a born baby is that the fetus is not yet fully formed. This does not mean the fetus is not a living human being, just not fully developed. A wrecked car is no longer organized as a car, but a fetus is extraordinarily well-organized as a human being. At a very early stage of development, it has human features — girls even have ova at a very early stage. And left to grow, the organization generally produces a healthy living baby — one that can breathe (I know how important that aspect is to you).

The argument that men should have no say about abortion law is only valid if one has determined that the life of a fetus is not worthy of protection. Your view is clear, however, you have no more say about that decision than do I. You cannot make decisions for the rest of society — to do so removes choice for the rest of us. We as a society decide what rights we imbue and to whom. It makes no difference whether the person accorded those rights is someone you respect and acknowledge.

So you are hearless enough to halt the heartbeat of another human being. Wear that badge with pride. I cannot. But there are millions who disagree and they too want to have their voice heard.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 01:43:33

Of course, I meant to type “heartless” above.

I should mention that I completely agree that the Executive can accomplish very little to affect abortion law. It is unlikely that a pro-life amendment could ever pass.

I think Roe is horrible law. I believe that it is the primary cause of the 50/50 political split in the country. This is what happens when you remove important matters from legislative consideration.

My god, even slavery was ended by legislatures, not by judges. Judges only prolonged it! Even Lincoln could not free the slaves except those states that had rebelled. Civil rights were granted by Congress (opposed mostly by Democrats, sad truth be told).

The Executive alone cannot change things.

 
 
 

Comment by Snickers | 2008-09-12 03:23:09

Great job, Clinton Fan. Very well said!

 

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 00:06:14

Roe is bad law. Let abortion be legalized by legislators, not unelected judges. I can’t say that I want abortion to be illegal, but I want the matter decided by elected legislators.

Years from now, if my daughter were to decide to have an abortion, because I love her, I would want it to be safe, which means that it almost certainly would have to be legal. Of course, I would plead with her not to have the abortion, but I don’t want her to die. I would not want the baby to die either, but if she had made the decision, I would want her safe.

So I have to accede to the legality of abortion, but every abortion kills a human being. There is no other scientific explanation. Science cannot say that it is wrong to kill a human being. I believe that it usually is wrong, but that is not a scientific fact. Science cannot judge this. That is just my opinion.

But certainly every zygote conceived of man and woman is human. No one could prove otherwise. It ain’t going to grow into an alligator by accident. It is human. It is also a being, just not fully formed. It is also alive. Therefore, to kill it is to kill a human being. It has nothing to do with breathing. When I die, will I cease to be a human being? No, I will be a dead human being — a useless mass of cells, but still a human being.

To my pro-life friends, I argue that there is something quite different about an embryo and earlier stages of human life such as a blastocyst. You can freeze and revivify them — can’t do that with more mature human beings. That, to me, argues in favor of treating them differently than more fully formed human beings. Life begins at conception — that is undeniable — but does that mean that we must grant all human life full legal protection? That, of course, is a matter of hot debate.

Ranting about me or threatening to riot will not change any of these facts. Being a woman does not give a person any better perspective on scientific fact. In fact, it seems to sometimes lead one to illogical conclusions.

I find it interesting that people who support abortion rights are so angry and refuse to accept that they believe that it is okay to kill a living human being if that human being is insufficiently developed. That is the crux of your belief. Why not accept it? Is it shameful? If so, then maybe you too find abortion to be shameful. But don’t mask your shame by twisting science.

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-09-11 20:35:53

Do you have a WOMB? If not, I suggest you F*ck off.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 00:17:45

Having a womb has no bearing on the matter of whether unborn babies are human beings. That is a matter of scientific fact.

Moreover, the decision as to whether to protect the males and females that result from conception is not something only a woman can decide. It is something for a society to decide — and that would include men and women.

The notion that a woman in primarily interested in protecting her body when she chooses to abort a baby is laughable. She is primarily interested in ridding herself of the fetus. Her body has already been invaded. Her body already contains another human being. If we are to concern ourselves blindly with protecting all human bodies, we would have to concern ourselves with the baby’s body.

So it’s really not about maintaining the integrity of the human body. It’s about preserving the right of the mother to kill the fetus. That may be a right worth protecting. Feel free to argue that case to your heart’s content.

But this in no way contradicts the fact that almost every abortion kills at least one human being.

BTW, I am not inclined to F*ck off when people tell me to f*ck off. Does that work with anybody you know?

 
 

Comment by LandOLincoln | 2008-09-11 20:40:17

If you have a XY chromosomes you have NO RIGHT to any say in what us XXs do with our bodies, unless you are the father of the child in question. Is that clear?

Didn’t think so…

 

Comment by LandOLincoln | 2008-09-11 20:40:42

If you have XY chromosomes you have NO RIGHT to any say in what us XXs do with our bodies, unless you are the father of the child in question. Is that clear?

Didn’t think so…

Comment by Vince P | 2008-09-11 20:52:33

So if the person inside you has a Y does that mean he gets a say in his murder?

Comment by LandOLincoln | 2008-09-11 21:21:36

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 00:28:53

When you call someone an idiot, you pretty much demonstrate that you have no argument left. Besides which, I doubt Vince is convinced he is an idiot on the basis of your remark. He may very well be an idiot. If so, he has amazing command of logic, for an idiot, that is.

 
 
 

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 00:26:14

No, that is not clear. That is far from clear. If it were clear, the debate would have ended 25 years ago when Roe was wrongly decided.

I believe abortion should be legal for the same reason I believe heroin should be legal: because the alternative is worse. If people are dumb enough to inject drugs, let us not compound the problem by forcing people to get unregulated drugs from criminals. I say this even though my son killed himself by overdosing.

Similarly, I think that people who care to rid themselves of the human life growing inside them, although that be a cruel and heartless thing to do, should not have to worry if the procedure will be safe (well, safe as possible).

That said, many people disagree with me and — being pro-choice, I do not wish to disenfranchise them. Roe is very undemocratic.

The matter of whether to protect unborn human beings is not something to be left only to those who profess the heartlessness to stop a beating human heart. I don’t care what your chromosomes are.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:23:16

Excuse me — 35 years ago.

 
 
 
 

Comment by vbonnaire | 2008-09-11 20:03:36

Yes, this sums it up perfectly — the betrayal of Hillary by the Party.

The Feminist vote will follow Palin, I’m sure.
Also, I feel McCain is far more of a maverick and closer to a Dem in values than people realize.

I almost voted for him in 2000 — it’s his record, tenure, grace — all of that.

I’d be happy to return to my Party if it were reformed. Perhaps it shall be — but this year — it betrayed itself!

hugs to all — (in the election of our lifetimes!)

Whew.

 

Comment by katmandu | 2008-09-11 20:04:31

In another comment to another diary today, I talked about the comments of Marc Fisher, a Washington Post reporter. He has talked to numerous women in the highly populated, affluent area of Fairfax County, Virginia. Some women told him abortion was a dead issue with them.

My wife says the availability of effective contraception + the highly effective morning after pill + RU486 if that doesn’t work gives women lots of alternatives not available before. We also agreed that the old liberal mantra — no parental notification — was a bad idea. (We have three daughters. We want them to have the best medical care possible, and don’t want them sneaking off to a clinic that may or may not be an excellent provider of health services.)

I’d be interest to hear the reaction of others to these thoughts.

Personally, I thought the diarist made a series of excellent points about the DNC. I would add that I felt Obama personally did not show respect to Senator Clinton.

As far as foreign policy experience goes, and whether Palin has the right stuff, let’s remember that some of the biggest foreign policy screwups have come courtesy of people who were allegedly very well read and traveled, and here I am thinking of, to name two, Z. Brzezinski and Rice. I thought Kissinger was not very good. I was shocked at how inept Cheney turned out to be. Carter was a very smart man, but mismanaged foreign policy. There are many contrary examples — Bill Clinton studied foreign policy as a student, and worked for Fulbright. He had very good foreign policy instincts.

But knowing foreign policy is not about book knowledge. It is about listening carefully and intelligently to the best experts one can assemble. Our State Department and our military have people with widely varying qualities, and frankly there are some dunderheads in the bunch. The ability to listen carefully, ask good questions, be culturally sensitive, and a host of other qualities are the necessary ingredients to being a good CIC. In terms of pure experience — Obama has no more foreign policy experience than the man in the moon. To paraphrase Norman Mailer, if Obama has foreign policy or governing experience, then I’m a first baseman.

Comment by RottenFishArePeopleToo | 2008-09-11 20:19:52

Some women told him abortion was a dead issue with them.

It’s a dead issue with me. I’m 58 years old, and my daughters are pushing 40. If anyone I love needed an abortion and could not get one in her state, I’s put her on a plane to a state that will do abortions.

I am fed to the teeth with being fear exploited regarding abortion. I am fed to the teeth with being regarded as nothing more than a walking uterus.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:27:08

It’s not a question of what you are, it’s a question of what the fetus is.

If someday ages from now one of my daughters wants an abortion and comes to me for help, by all means, I will make sure it is as safe as possible.

But I will also plead with her not to kill the human life inside her.

 
 

Comment by mimi | 2008-09-11 21:18:51

katmandu,

You make many excellent points. I also agree with parental notification for the very reasons you mention. Kids can make stupid choices even in an understanding family. So wanting to make sure your daughter goes to a reputable clinic is certainly important.

No one elected POTUS is an expert on foreign policy. JFK anyone? Everyone is still so busy worshipping the memory of Camelot they block out some of his history. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a scary thing. But fortunately, every president has a Cabinet and advisors to serve as guides.

Again, it’s the misogynistic American notion that a woman can’t handle the situation. I think Rice’s problem was W. He didn’t want to listen to anyone. She did his bidding. And considering the fact that we’re still here and not blown to smithereens, she must be a very good talker.

I am pretty dumbstruck that Democratic Party members are so clueless. Another reason I won’t vote for them. They don’t deserve to be in charge if they can’t figure out their own constituents.

Throw all da bums out!

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 08:07:43

the biggest change has been a near parity between the two candidates among the youngest of voters

Ah. Oops! Looks like Obama lost one of his only two reliable core groups! But it’s when the AAs wake up and start running for it I’m gonna really laugh! ;)

 

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:28:45

What makes you think Rice was the smart one and Bush was stupid?

 
 
 

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2008-09-11 20:07:20

Here’s the thing, DC – WHY did this congressman NOT understand why we are so angry?? We have been saying it, laying it all out, for MONTHS!!! How has he not HEARD us? Why wasn’t he listening?? Why did he not pay attention to what all of the polls were saying, or what the 18,000,000 votes were saying?? Hillary Clinton was, bar none, the BEST choice for president, and the BEST chance for the Dems to take back the White House. But for whatever petty, power hungry, self-centered, SHORT-sighted reasons the DNC leadership had, they were hellbent on putting in Obama. Hell, most of those people are nowhere CLOSE to her level, so maybe they’re jealous. Whatever, they made up whatever rules they could to make sure that happened. So, it isn’t just that it is not Hillary, it is – and more IMPORTANTLY – because the DNC betrayed all of us who thought it stood for the PEOPLE, for the votes of every single person, not just the ones they could finagle for their selection. It is that they have acted with such callous disregard for women in general, and Hillary specifically.

So my questions to your friend are: How could he NOT know why we are so angry, sad, frustrated, and LEAVING THE PARTY?? And was it WORTH it? Was it worth it to the DNC to disenfranchise so many lifelong, devoted Democrats just to push through this unqualified, inexperienced, arrogant, sexist man who has not met a legislattive position on which he can make, and KEEP, a stand? The one who stole Hillary’s positions, and now McCain’s and Palin’s, because he cannot come up with his OWN? Did he and the other “representatives” not think that maybe we wanted the ORIGINATOR of those policies, and not the COPIER of those policies? Did he really think they could so blithely ignore the will of the people and have us NOT be angry???

Ahem. Yeah. Like that.

Comment by roseeriter | 2008-09-12 05:46:53

Amy, You asked my question- the congress critters seem to be living in a bubble- but then I blame the Media for that. The majority of people do not blog and only listen to the phoney NEWS on teevee.

Most of them DO NOT KNOW what we all here know about Obama’s danger. That’s the issue.

Fox is getting some stuff out but most Democrats don’t watch Fox because they were so in the tank for Bush and we all hated Bush. Now Fox is the only station reporting any negatives on Obama. The other stations are pro-Obama.

Getting the truth out to the masses just isn’t happening and that’s the most frustrating thing to me. I can only yell and tell a few people where I live and while blogging.

 

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 08:10:21

WHY did this congressman NOT understand why we are so angry??

EXACTLY, Amy! They are soooooo out of touch they deserve to be taken out of office.

 
 

Comment by Karen | 2008-09-11 20:08:42

Did you tell him that many never considered voting for him? Many shook their heads and chuckled many moons ago that the Dems would actually put forth someone with no experience.. at all?

Here’s a question.. have they learned nothing from losing?

Comment by NoTrollZone | 2008-09-11 20:11:28

you know the old adage that you learn more from you failures than your successes? The dem leadership is hell bent to prove that assertion wrong.

 
 

Comment by Papoose | 2008-09-11 20:10:39

The Funny Forum 9/11/08

Heil, Obamarama
yep, government and the citizens’ are going to be co-partners. hhmmmhmmmmm, yeah, right.

John McCain was a true American gent and compatriot tonight. He was honorable.

How is hoBO going to sit with our enemies when he cannot face his opponent in person?

Obamboozle…nope. No Can Do!!

 

Comment by Prem | 2008-09-11 20:18:20

I’m sure your Congressperson, DCMedia, is sincere, but he/she is the answer to his/her own question. If he/she has to ask why the Dem. party is so screwed up, then he’s/she’s the problem.

Completely unaware of what is going on with the Dem. constituency, not knowing about the MI/FL disenfranchisement and thinking it was okay—OMG! Now I completely understand why the Dem. Party is such a mess and why they allowed the BHO phenom. to get shoved down our throats.

Comment by Ani | 2008-09-11 20:24:18

Yes, that is a problem. Decent public servants or not, how can these people be so irresponsible not to have an “ear to the ground.” Do they live in such a rarified air that they are just sucking the DNC and media koolaid?

That is their responsibility to know better and to understand their consituency better.

I called my own Congressman numerous times during the primary to report all the problems I had with Obama and to caution him that I would not vote for this nominee. I cautioned him also that by going against his constituency and endorsing Obama, I would not vote for my Congressman this November. His reckless endorsement would telegraph to me that his judgment was lacking. I was basically ignored and told they heard about all the dirt, they are looking at the “bigger picture.”

How’s that “bigger picture” looking now?

Comment by Prem | 2008-09-11 21:13:12

Right, Ani—that’s why it’s going to be so important to send the Dem. leadership a huge, loud, clear message by voting for McCain/Palin. I’ve never voted Repub. in my 40 years of voting. Maybe they will be limping so badly then, they’ll have to pay more attention to what their constituents are saying.

I also called Waxman several times after I found out that he was a delegate for BHO, when our congressional district went overwhelmingly for Clinton. I was so upset but diplomatic, but his intern just said, “yes, I understand why you feel that way.” Nothing else added from his office. I’ve been proud of Waxman’s work in Congress with his investigations, but nothing has really come of them.

On one level, maybe their selection of BHO is a perfect statement on the current mindset of most of the Dem. leadership—-arrogant, narcissistic, hateful, conflicted, self-absorbed, but weak and ineffectual. Maybe he is the true reflection of who they are and how they see themselves.

Comment by Karma | 2008-09-11 21:48:32

Great points!

He really did fall into step with them when he hit the Senate.

After his convention splash I watched for any signs of a brave politician and he showed none. Even praising Bush on Iraq with his ‘lockstep’ comment.

He is political playdough molding himself to the situation.

 

Comment by AnnieCarmel | 2008-09-12 02:24:00

You are exactly right. He is the mirror for their true reflection.

 

Comment by Snickers | 2008-09-12 03:42:51

Prem, Ani, Uppity, DCMedia and others. I agree. I talked to one super delegate and this person was not at all interested in listening to any of my points. Had heard them all, tuned them out. Sent my congress people emails asking them to vet the candidate and check his birth certificate. No answer. My congressman has been pretty good and my area voted overwhelmingly Obama, but how about a courtesy response, or how about vetting this candidate instead of slinging mud at Hillary. I don’t care how good he was in the past, I’m not voting for him or the Democratic Senate candidate. Whistle for my vote, it’s gone.

 
 
 

Comment by PJ | 2008-09-11 21:28:39

They’re just upset that we refused to swallow.

 
 

Comment by fred | 2008-09-11 20:18:21

Obama rambles to damn much, shit he takes 10 minutes to answer a 1 minute question

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-09-11 23:03:28

That was my original reason for disliking him. Now, there are many others.

 
 

Comment by Ani | 2008-09-11 20:19:08

dcmediagirl,

Great post. Thank you so much for sharing this and for sitting this man down and having such a conversation.

I am so deeply sorry it is way to late for these boobs to correct the situation. Speaking as a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democrats, I’ve left the Party. There is absolutely nothing Obama or the DNC could do to get me to vote (D) for President this year.

Except throw the whole ticket out and name Hillary as the Presidential nominee. And you and I know that would never happen.

 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-09-11 20:30:29

Interesting that he couldn’t quite figure out their dilemma. Too bad for him and his party, but we women were TOLD by the BO campaign that they didn’t care that women were being verbally abused by their supporters because after THE ONE became the nominee, their plan was to “PLAY THE ROE V. WADE CARD.” That came straight from a BO campaign spokesperson to an MSNBO talking head. They deliberately let the abuse of Hillary and her supporters continue unanswered TO DESTROY HILLARY because they had their “secret card” they knew would bring us all back to the party.

Honestly? I find it hard to believe that your friend didn’t know WTF is going on and why. Is he out of the loop? Living under a rock? Blind? Deaf?

 

Comment by wodiej | 2008-09-11 20:31:49

I come from a family who votes Republican. However I am my own person and always vote for who I feel is best regardless of which party they come from. I never agree w anyone on all of their issues. So I have primarily voted Democrat but have voted Republican once or twice.

I am becoming disappointed with Bill and Hillary Clinton. I am unsure of their strategy and motives. Bill said Obama is going to win by a landslide? I just feel betrayed. We stood up for Hillary and now she is supporting and praising BO. I thought she felt he wasn’t ready, not experienced or qualified. Now all of a sudden since the DNC selected him and he’s a Democrat, he’s qualified? I’m sorry, that shit doesn’t wash w me. I know it’s politics and all of that. But if a political party means more to you by helping someone like Obama get into office, well I guess you’re just too political for me.

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-11 21:10:44

Bill also said Hillary would get the nomination if she won TX and OH. He said the same thing about PA.

He could be enabling Obobo and saying this crap because it’s what the egotistical asshat wants to hear. Don’t put too much stock in that. It’s also a way for Bill to say, aah, you’ll win easily, you don’t need me, I’m going off to do my global initiative.

Just a thought.

You know damned good and well he can’t stand Obama and would not want to help that incompetent.

Comment by Bellevue_NW_Voter | 2008-09-12 02:56:54

Also: if the prevailing view is that BO will win in a landslide, well, gee, “I’ve got a test to study for tomorrow, and that sociology paper’s due… my vote won’t make or break this thing…”

The Clintons know how to play the game.

 
 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-12 00:59:36

What did you want him to say? “Fuck off and die, Barry?”

No one’s THAT stupid. If you can’t understand the difference between “politicalspeak” and sincere commentary, maybe you need to go take a few polisci courses.

Clinton knows full well which way the wind is blowing. He’s covering his bases, holding his fire, and pulling his punches.

He (and most importantly, SHE) who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day….four years from now.

 
 

Comment by Vince P | 2008-09-11 20:33:22

The problem, as I see it.. is that the politicians and leaders in the Democrats never do any introspection, and they never publicly admit to any of their mistakes.

I see the Republicans to be a little better in this area.

And the reason I start my comment with that is because of what I see as an arrogance and sanctomony in the Dems in Washington.

They are driven by partisan warfare. I don’t think they have any objectivity.

Glenn Beck’s CNN show sends the message that people in the country have no faith in anyone in Washington…and he can rarely find any Dem. who will acknoweldge it.

There’s a lot of Republicans like this too, but the problem is not to the scale that it is with Dems.

everyone i knew is totally fed up with this stupid partisan warfare. Nancy Pelosi is the worst political leader and she needs to go.

Comment by penguin | 2008-09-11 20:53:49

You are right about Pelosi and she is 3rd in line for the Presidency. A member of the Dem Washingtion Club is wondering why women are flocking to the Republican party. Democrats have lost all sense of reality. They have been taken over by the extreme left. The result is that they have forgotten their base: working middle class people, of all races. They only remembered us when Palin came onto the scene. Now they have decided they need us.

 

Comment by Perry Logan | 2008-09-11 21:04:50

Far from being adept at self-criticism, Republicans I find that have a pathological incapacity for it. How else could so many of them could vote twice for The Worst President Ever™, and still think they’re cool?

As far as I can see, Republicans do nothing but screw things up, then blame the Democrats. I’m waiting for the Heritage Foundation report that proves the Geoirge W.Bush Administration was Bill Clinton’s fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyrMS6MBuSg

Comment by PJ | 2008-09-11 21:34:55

Maybe Republicans are trying to correct their horrific mistake of nominating W. over McCain in 2000.

Lets hope Dems are able to correct their horrific mistake in 2012.

 

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:34:57

I didn’t vote for W in 2000 primarily because of how his campaign treated McCain in the primaries. But seeing how he has kept us safe since 9/11, I changed my mind about him.

And no way is he the stupidest President. Nobody could come close to Jimmy Carter. Please!

(And I voted for Carter twice! I was young and stupid).

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:36:11

But Obama would be Carter 2.0.

 
 
 
 

Comment by Deb | 2008-09-11 20:40:12

I’m starting to consider investing in prozac; based on all the koolaid drinker’s current frenzy from fowler, fowler, damon and pamela anderson’s recent comments. I think there about to go over the edge…

 

Comment by KendallJ | 2008-09-11 20:56:43

SFHillary,

The only ones fighting for women’s rights in the dem party is Hillary Clinton and a handful of others. Other than that, its nothing more than a campaign slogen. They have allowed these horrible Bush picks for the supreme court all along, and I mean both Bushes. Bidon humiliated Anita Hill during the Clarance Thomas hearings and refused to let other women witnesses testify to Thomas’s pattern of sexual harrassment. Shortly, after, Thomas was confirmed. The men always stick together in the end and only talk a good game around election time.

I would also like to remind you that Justice Blackman, the author of Roe v. Wade, was a republican appointee. Furthermore, Justice Stevens, one of the remaining justices that the dems are worried about retiring or dying, was another republican appointee. The Dems themselves have not done very much to advance women’s rights, as you can see if you look through History. President Wilson, a REPUBLICAN signed the 19th Amendment into law giving women the right to vote. The dams have been champians for Blacks, but have done SHIT for women!!!!

I’m a life long dem and I generally go along with them because they are “supposed” to be “progressive”. But in this election season they have once again told women that we are shit and need not apply. They made clear through their actions that they do not really believe in fair and equal treatment for women.

They rigged an election for the less qualified black male (Black males are 6% of the population and about 4.5% of the dem electorite.) while fucking over the more experienced, qualified and stronger female candidate (Women are 52% of the population and WERE 58% of the dem electorate). The majority in South Africa are black, but until Mandella they had little to no representaion. Throughout the 80’s and 90’s people screamed about how unfair and racist it was for the majoity of that country to have no voice or representaion. Get it, neither do women here at home. Hillary was our hope and the sexist dems crushed it!!!!! FUCK THEM ALL. Sounds like gender apartied, doesn’t it? When the DEMS rigged the election, they lost all credibility regarding issues of gender equality, or voters rights for that matter.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOADER THAN UNFULFILLED RHETORIC.

This is why white women are switching to McCain. They are protesting the election rigging and the FUCKING democratic misogyny.

Comment by Keir | 2008-09-12 03:17:33

Very well spoken.

 
 

Comment by EightBelles | 2008-09-11 20:57:56

If a respected Democratic member of Congress is at a loss to explain why so many Hillary Democrats are disenchanted with the party, well, I give up. Do we have to paint him a picture? That this member of Congress is otherwise “a staunch defender of women’s rights” leads me to the conclusion that the Democratic majority led by Nancy Pelosi must be blind, deaf & mute. They’re hopeless and we might as well move on.

An earlier post made an excellent point about men feeling equally disenfranchised by the DNC’s underhanded tactics. How any Democrat, be they Obama or Clinton supporters, could want to have any part of a party that reduces its time honored roll call to a shameful rollover of votes for their hand picked candidate, is a mystery to me.

I won’t become Independent until after the election. I want my Democratic vote to be counted as a crossover vote for John McCain. In fact, many of us should stay Democrat just to remain a thorn in the DNC’s ass.

 

Comment by KendallJ | 2008-09-11 20:58:03

SFHillary,

The only ones fighting for women’s rights in the dem party is Hillary Clinton and a handful of others. Other than that, its nothing more than a campaign slogen. They have allowed these horrible Bush picks for the supreme court all along, and I mean both Bushes. Bidon humiliated Anita Hill during the Clarance Thomas hearings and refused to let other women witnesses testify to Thomas’s pattern of sexual harrassment. Shortly, after, Thomas was confirmed. The men always stick together in the end and only talk a good game around election time.

I would also like to remind you that Justice Blackman, the author of Roe v. Wade, was a republican appointee. Furthermore, Justice Stevens, one of the remaining justices that the dems are worried about retiring or dying, was another republican appointee. The Dems themselves have not done very much to advance women’s rights, as you can see if you look through History. President Wilson, a REPUBLICAN signed the 19th Amendment into law giving women the right to vote. The dams have been champians for Blacks, but have done SHIT for women!!!!

I’m a life long dem and I generally go along with them because they are “supposed” to be “progressive”. But in this election season they have once again told women that we are shit and need not apply. They made clear through their actions that they do not really believe in fair and equal treatment for women.

They rigged an election for the less qualified black male (Black males are 6% of the population and about 4.5% of the dem electorite.) while fucking over the more experienced, qualified and stronger female candidate (Women are 52% of the population and WERE 58% of the dem electorate). The majority in South Africa are black, but until Mandella they had little to no representaion. Throughout the 80’s and 90’s people screamed about how unfair and racist it was for the majoity of that country to have no voice or representaion. Get it, neither do women here at home. Hillary was our hope and the sexist dems crushed it!!!!! FUCK THEM ALL. Sounds like gender apartied, doesn’t it? When the DEMS rigged the election, they lost all credibility regarding issues of gender equality, or voters rights for that matter.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN UNFULFILLED RHETORIC.

This is why white women are switching to McCain. They are protesting the election rigging and the FUCKING democratic misogyny.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:47:16

Biden humiliated Thomas, as well.

The Republicans have a splendid record on Civil Rights. The only ones standing in the way of minority rights — EVER — have been Democrats. It was not until brave Democrats like HHH and LBJ were willing to alienate the Dixiecrats (e.g. Robert Byrd, former KKK leader still in the Senate, Sam Ervin, Al Gore, Sr. and Wm. Fulbright) and were willing to join with Republicans, was there any hope of passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Republican Party was founded to end slavery and since Lincoln have supported Civil Rights. Democrats have only helped blacks since the mid-60s. FDR did shit for blacks.

And, Wilson was a Democrat. He supported the 19th amendment, but it was blocked in the Senate before he left office. Presidents have no explicit role in Constitutional amendments (just have the “bully pulpit”). The amendment passed the following year with broad bi-partisan support.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 02:57:41

Democrat Wilson, by the way, was a horrible racist. Awful.

And Nixon (the lying bastard) had a great civil rights record. He is chiefly responsible for integrating southern schools (you can look it up). And he invented Affirmative Action. That was an Executive Branch policy — is to this day. Nixon’s baby.

But Nixon was so liberal he might as well have been a Democrat compared to Reagan. He was more liberal than Carter or Clinton. He was our last really liberal President. Ironic as hell, eh?

And there is only one party that really accepts both pro-Life and pro-Choice voters, and that is the GOP. Pro-Life voters have next to no voice in the Dem party, but look who spoke just before Sarah Palin at the GOP convention: Rudy (pro-choice) Giuliani.

Who else did McCain consider for Veep? Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman — pro-choice.

 
 
 

Comment by hootnannie | 2008-09-11 21:06:14

Apparently, the far-left wing of the party decided to seize control, thinking that the Repubs were dead meat this year. They picked Bobo as their puppet, figuring that, if they gamed the system correctly, they’d get the black vote away from Hillary and pick up the support of niave, idealistic youth. White-guilt liberals jumped on board, determined to push through the first viable black candidate, attempting to right historic wrongs. Anyone who got in their way was to be destroyed. And they seem genuinely shocked that all Dems have refused to just go along! The party has been steadily losing the common people for decades now, and there will be a major lose this year.

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-11 21:12:25

 
 

Comment by PJ | 2008-09-11 21:31:30

“On one level, maybe their selection of BHO is a perfect statement on the current mindset of most of the Dem. leadership—-arrogant, narcissistic, hateful, conflicted, self-absorbed, but weak and ineffectual. Maybe he is the true reflection of who they are and how they see themselves.”

Wow…You said it Prem!

 

Comment by jc | 2008-09-11 21:32:38

That was an excellent response! Thank you for laying out for him… What a shame that they are so out of touch and that they don’t see what scum Dean and Brazile are! They MUST GO!
JC

 

Comment by Ellen | 2008-09-11 21:49:11

SFHillary,

Let me explain it to you this way. Let’s say you are married to a man, who makes a lot of money and occassionally buys you flowers. However, when things aren’t going his way, he beats and belittles you. So, should a woman stay with a man like that? Nope, she needs to go her own way.

Instead of worrying about the women who choose to register Republican, you should be more worried about those who unenroll – because those numbers should make you shit your britches. For every new registration the Dems pick up, you are loosing one to those who are now unenrolled voters.

And you should really be worried about women like me. I’m still a registered Dem, but the DNC will never get a penny of my money until Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are gone from the party leadership and the headquarters of the DNC is returned to Washington, DC. Moreover, right now I’m not voting for Obama and I’m teetering on voting for McCain. The more nasty Obama and his supporters become, I’m reminded of how they treated Clinton. There is a damn good chance that when I walk into the voting booth, I’ll vote for McCain instead of writing in Clinton. So, keep up the good work and keep pushing women further and further away from the Democratic Party.

 

Comment by Alien | 2008-09-11 21:52:26

The problem of Ukraine in NATO would be that it is a trojan horse. A significant % of Ukraine is ethnically Russian .

Thus Russia could get to sit happily there as well. Do not beleieve that Ukraine is anti-Russia. They have may interrelated families – Ukrainians lived thruout USSR & still live in Russia.

Ukraine is 100% reliant on Russia fr energy. The economy would break if Russia demanded anything near market rates.

Comment by Bob White | 2008-09-14 01:30:22

Good point. Leaving aside the problems of defending them militarily, could we feed and shelter them if Russia cut off their fuel pipeline (again). Frankly, no. The Berlin airlift was massive and provided for only one city. Even if the NATO allies were willing, they could not bring Ukraine through one winter.

But cutting off fuel to Ukraine would seriously damage Russia in short order. What a wake-up call that would be to the rest of Europe about the insecurity of relying on Russia for fuel!

As for ethnic Russians’ loyalty to the Putin regime, they are by no means homogeneous. My impression (being married to one) is that they are incredibly cynical, even after the Orange Revolution. True of all FSU. No deep trust or loyalty to anybody outside the family. No trust in the democratic process, rule of law, banks, police, military, Russians or Americans.

But my what devoted capitalists they have become.

 
 

Comment by NoBO | 2008-09-11 21:59:29

Heck, it isn’t just women. I’m a guy and I’m completely fed up with the Dem party, the DNC, and the Dem leadership. What happened this election cycle was thoroughly disgusting, uncalled for, unnecessary, and undemocratic. All that crap was done for one reason: to subvert the will of the people and get Barack selected. To hell with the damn voters!

Dcmediagirl, one question: how in hell could your nice friend be so fucking clueless? How could he be surprised that McCain is ahead and that women are flocking to him? How clueless can you get to not know there’d be a reaction to all the crap that the damn Dems pulled?

 

Comment by yttik | 2008-09-11 22:20:15

Good post,DC. Thank you.

LOL, and thank you for enlightening one of our respresentatives. They often need to be clued in.

 

Comment by Linda C. | 2008-09-11 22:26:16

The one democrat that has fought for women her entire life was thrown to the side lines of the party by maneuvers and back room deals. Now the party still wants the support of women?

The arrogance is overwhelming. The democrats will reap the rewards of what they have sown. The party may be damaged for another generation unless a major shake up doesn’t happen and soon

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 07:57:52

Right now I would vote for Kermit the Frog over that Obama charlatan if I had to. Especially if he had Miss Piggy on the ticket as VP. ;)

Comment by Perry Logan | 2008-09-12 08:00:43

If we’re willing to vote Republican to defeat Obama, we’re willing to do anything.

 
 
 

Comment by fif | 2008-09-11 23:45:53

Don’t forget the caucus fraud, the RBC debacle and the bullying and intimidation of superdelegates and delegates at the Convention.

Voter suppression, manipulation and fraud are KEY to the disillusionment and resistance.

They took the democracy out of the Democratic Party.

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 07:52:57

The most humiliating thing is – and I know this only second hand as I was not present or online at the time – is that the DNC somehow convinced Hillary to ask the delegates for an ‘acclamation’ of Obama rather than have her own votes counted. Probably in the interest of ‘PU’ of course. (MA!)

Is this true?

 
 

Comment by Steve-O | 2008-09-12 05:44:00

Back in January, the election seemed to be rigged in favor of the Democrats. They were the good guys and the good gal, they had the better rooster of candidates, they were not responsible for a terrible president.

I mean, take a back at the Republican candidates: The defining word was ‘former’: Former mayor, senator, governors. The only active politicians in the field, Paul and McCain were old as dirt. It looked as it the GOP was trying to say “We throw the towel. No use for nominating good candidates. Waste of talent, we are going to lose anyhow.”
And they presented a picture of disharmony. While the Dems were down to four candidates after 1 caucus, with Richardson and Edwards dropping out soon, some Republicans (Guiliani) even skipped the first few contests and I have the suspicion that Thompson is still gearing up to start his campaign… So, while the Democrats were focused, the Reps were confused and diverted

The Republican rooster was so weak that the mediocre Democratic field looked like the Avengers, a team of superheros with super-powers and without supervillains.
However, if you look closer, you realize that the Democratic field was not much better than the Republican one, due to one candidate dominating the competition and what really good candidate would be stupid enough to go against the Clinton machine?

Edwards was a former something, present hasbeen, Dodd and Biden were old men from small states without following, Obama was exotic and Richardson, the only guy with executive experience was and is weak as a lamb. He would not even win his homestate in a primary contest!
Where were governors such as Sebilius or Napolitano or Easley, Rendell or Stickland?

Thanks to a wrong stategy (”She is inevitable”) and good public transport from Illinois into neighboring Iowa and a lack of African American voters (remember, she had 60%+ of that vote in her pocket before IOWA), Clinton failed to win that caucus.

This was where the Dems stopped to be the good guys. This was when the media wolfpack smelled blood.
After Iowa, the first of 50 state primaries and caucuses, media and opponents called for her removal, called for her to step down.
This was where sexism became obvious, this was when Democrats aimed to hurt fellow Democrats.

Obama stole the battles, but he is going to lose the war, because the scorched victory in the primaries comes with a price.
Clinton ran the primaries like a GE, Obama runs the GE as he had run the primaries.
McCain runs the GE like a GE and this is why he will win: Energize your bases, secure your red states, go for independents, steal democrats, appeal to the groups your opponents leave out (white working class, women, rural voters, religious people) and adopt your opponents positions when they please many voters, when they fit to your image and when your opponent abandonned them, such as change.

I am still waiting for the “Whitey” tape, but I guess that the debates will be enough to derail Obama.

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 07:50:35

Astute. Kudos. I never realised Iowa was the 1st primary and the pigs were already asking for Hillary to drop out. Disgusting.

 
 

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-12 07:46:40

Do these congresspersons live in soundproof hermetically sealed booths? How could someone be as clueless as he is? I think there’s a strong case for this person – or anyone like him – being incompetent and undeserving of a well paid cushioned seat in the capital city.

 

Comment by Sassy | 2008-09-12 08:37:20

“What are women thinking”?
Try this on for size! We are, and have been, carrying our share of the load!
Apparently, that is unappreciated in the Democratic Party, so let’s see how the other half lives!
Sounds like a plan to me!

 

Pingback by Dollars & Numbers Expose Obama’s Real-Life Practice of Sexist Inequity : NO QUARTER | 2008-09-12 11:20:49

[...] exceptional essay yesterday, “A Ball of Confusion,” expressed my own quandary and the sources of my own anger, in good part about Obama’s [...]

 

Comment by Smilin' Jim | 2008-09-12 12:46:11

Yes, that is part of what happened but not why it happened.

The fault lies, dear Brutus, not in the stars but in ourselves.

The Bush tragedy lead the DNC to believe that they had a free ride and an immense amount of political capital, capital to burn and burn they did. Everyone went along with it.

It was a golden moment in history so why not make a bold change in history, try to elect either the first woman or the first black man (well, sorta black) to the Presidency. It was a chance that would not come again, so go for broke.

They were going to win and win big so why not show a couple of states that they couldn’t buck the national party organization?

Maybe the could have carried it off in the conditions of 2000 but 2008 gave them the worst economy since 1929, a world that hates our guts, an exhausted military facing an undefined enemy and a Russia and China that can nuke us just by switching to the Euro.

It’s Hooker at Chancellorsville, Hoover in October of 1929.

It’s time to start taking this seriously, people.

 

Pingback by Who are the racists and how do you know? : NO QUARTER | 2008-09-16 07:21:41

[...] Ball of Confusion [...]

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)