Aywaller

Of course conservatives are going to adopt the hypocrite position and stay silent on the Norquist remarks. Why would any rational being expect otherwise? posted 06/28/2008 at 14:50:00

That was TOO funny! Thanks! posted 06/27/2008 at 19:38:33

So, it's okay if Dowd "attacks" Michelle Obama but not if the target is Hillary Clinton? Not that I would concede that Clinton was attacked by Olbermann and Schuester especially, but your lack of consistency strikes me. posted 06/11/2008 at 17:07:26

No one is asking you to be an appeaser. Just a bigger human being.

I know where you're coming from cuz I was right there with you. But I have to remember that there are bigger issues out there so I'm trying. Stirring up division does no good for the Democrats. Unless that is what you are up to. posted 06/10/2008 at 10:47:39

The only thing not to like about Obama is that he beat your candidate. One can easily wrap one's brain around the concepts of pettiness, spite, irrationality and that is what you are engaging in.

You say you choose McCain. Given how anti-woman his policies are, how is that at all logical? It isn't. You're mad because Obama beat Clinton. Understood. If McCain is the beneficiary of your irrational anger, so be it. Just stop trashing Obama for no reason. posted 06/09/2008 at 13:38:22

So because you personally can't get pregnant you don't care about reproductive rights? That's a selfish position to take.

Because your candidate lost, you will vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat even though you know that McCain will be bad for the country? That, too, is selfish.

I hope that once you get over the hurt you are feeling right now that you can see the forest for the trees and come to your senses. posted 06/09/2008 at 13:29:07

That was nice. Thanks! posted 06/07/2008 at 19:58:12

"I will vote Mc Cain, without thinking twice . . ."

If you're voting McCain, you're voting without even thinking once. How sad! posted 06/07/2008 at 13:46:33

It's there (unfortunately). Lose the hyphen. posted 06/07/2008 at 13:44:02

But doesn't she stand to recoup the money she's lent her own campaign? And isn't Marc Penn owed a lot of money? Somehow, I think they're going to get paid before those creditors.

You are right, though. I'd hate to see more small vendors getting stuck with unpaid bills.

Ahh, tough decisions. posted 06/06/2008 at 22:46:39

You are so gracious! I'm sorry, I can't be so. Clinton gets not a penny from me directly. posted 06/06/2008 at 21:59:52

My thoughts exactly! posted 06/06/2008 at 21:33:06

If you would rather elect a fictional character than a man of character, you are a fool. posted 06/06/2008 at 21:29:23

I don't know how to say this any more clearly--stop pouting! You lost! Either get over it and behave like a grown up or stay home or worse, go throw away your vote on McCain. Just stop complaining and expecting people to cowtow to you. It's not happening. I want to heed the calls for unity and being concilatory to Clinton supporters, but boy, some of you sure are making it hard! posted 06/06/2008 at 21:07:21

Hah! How elitist! posted 06/06/2008 at 19:28:02

You ask too much, sir. For the sake of party unity we are to let Hillary Clinton's juvenile behavior go without even calling her out for it? No. I am bitter toward her and I have every right to let her know it. Yes, Clinton has her faults as do we all. But human misbehavior needs to be corrected. She is not exempt from being condemned for her lack of graciousness and her apparent inability to see beyond the tip of her own nose. Clinton has shown not only the Democratic nominee Obama disrespect, but also the Democratic party as a whole. There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting her and her supporters know.

That is a very different thing than the so-called Clinton supporters saying that they will never vote for Obama. Those of us who are upset with Clinton are upset because of HER actions. There is nothing that anyone can point to that Obama has done or said that was disrespectful to Clinton. I say the "so-called" Clinton supporters because I don't believe these people truly support Clinton or the Democratic Party. Just as we are supposed to allow her and her supporters time to heal and give her the space to give the concession speech she was supposed to give on Tuesday, give us the time and space to get over her betrayal of the party. It's only fair. posted 06/06/2008 at 20:46:54

"A majority of his supporters want him to pick her, too."

How do you know that? Speaking only for myself, I, AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, DO NOT WANT HIM TO PICK HER. I don't know if mine is a minority opinion, but I don't think I'm alone. posted 06/05/2008 at 12:41:50

comprehensiveness = comprehension

simply = simple

Other than that, agree with everything you said. posted 06/05/2008 at 15:00:40

Thank you for posting this video!!!!! It was inspiring. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! posted 04/01/2008 at 13:08:41

I certainly hope you're right, but I fear you may not be. For me personally, every day that goes by where Hillary Clinton makes it clear that she cares more for her own personal ambition than the Democratic party, so much so that she is willing to jeapordize its chances of winning in November, the harder it becomes to stick to my resolve to vote for her if--and gratefully this seems more and more unlikely--she were the Democratic nominee. posted 04/01/2008 at 12:29:20

". . .the intelligence of whites and the determination of an African American" ???

Intelligence is not the exclusive province of whites, nor are African Americans singularly determined. And I would only remind you that Obama's mixed heritage is not at all unusual, even among us "ordinary" black folk. My people are from Tennessee and I and my children are a caramel color because, in part, my great, great, great grandmother's owner decided to have more children with her than with his wife. Despite this "mixed" heritage, I am, and have always been, Black.

This campaign has to be about race because Barack Obama is the first black man to have a realistic chance to become president of these United States of America (with apologies to Jesse Jackson). As a black american, I am glad that--finally--people are talking about race. I only wish that the "talk" were more constructive and less destructive. posted 03/31/2008 at 15:50:10

There's a big difference between making up a story that never happened like Clinton did with the Bosnia story and being mistaken about how you parents met before you were even born. Someone may have told him the Selma story and it became family legend, I don't know and neither do you. In any case, it doesn't speak at all about his own veracity, whereas the Bosnia story casts serious doubt on Clinton's. posted 04/03/2008 at 12:37:14

You are absolutely right. It's not even just that the attacks on the candidates are venomous and uncalled for, but the attacks on their respective supporters are as well. I have been reading these posts for a while now and it is disheartening. I am an Obama supporter--definately not a "cultist"--and I don't know what it is that seanwalter1969 has seen that "make[s him] sick of [his]Democratic Party. . . " I would only ask, seanwalter1969, if Obama supporters make you "disguisted [sic]," why is it that you hold what anonymous posters on a blog say against him? I submit that taking such an illogical position says more about you than it does about him or those supporters that you complain about. posted 03/31/2008 at 13:51:54

I believe it was Chuck Todd on MSNBC--but I won't swear to it--who proposed that Obama may agree to seat the disputed FL and MI delegates because after the rest of the primaries and caucuses are done, Clinton still won't have enough to overtake him in the pledged delegate count and the supers will be very reticent to go against the "will of the people" as expressed by the pledged delegate count. This is getting really difficult to keep track of, but it seems that by anyone's count, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to win. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:21:01

Thank you, thank you, thank you! As AndrewInToronto said, "While each of us may differ in our politics, this does not mean that differences cannot be addressed amicably and respectfully as you have." I am often disheartened by the vitriol found in the comments by some on HuffPo and am grateful that you and others have demonstrated that "reasonable people can disagree reasonably." Thank you for your post and thank you for being willing to do the hard work of our democracy. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:47:45

Who do the Obamas need to be grateful to? Because I've heard Barack Obama say many times that he was grateful to his mother and grandparents who didn't have much but made sure that he got an education and had tools to be successful. To whom else does he owe his gratitude? And who will ensure this failure to which you refer? Sounds like a threat to the "uppity" black man to me. posted 03/30/2008 at 18:15:51

You are so right! For me, it's Obama first, Hillary second, and McCain (hopefully!) never! posted 03/30/2008 at 13:44:23

You are definitely "reading" into what she said something that simply was not there--she did say, in response to questions about whether she believed that Obama was a Muslim, that she had no reason to believe that he was, leaving open the possibility that he was but that at this point, she was was unable to prove it.

If what she was trying to say was, as you say, "it is none of her business what his faith, my faith or your faith is or is not," is she not capable enough to have simply and explicitly said that? And if she is not capable enough to say what she means in a mere interview, why would we vote for her as CIC where she might similarly misspeak on the world stage? posted 03/30/2008 at 13:29:59

Where did he ever say that he "sold" drugs? At least he is truthful in admitting his youthful indiscretions, unlike Bill Clinton who, when asked about his past marijuana use told the lie, "I didn't inhale; I didn't enjoy it" or some other such stuff. Whether its racial or generational or what, it does seem that there is a double standard when it comes Clinton versus Obama. Our task is to question why. posted 03/30/2008 at 13:17:42

"The political deck has been stacked against Hillary from the beginning . . . ."

How so? I seem to remember at the beginning of this campaign there being an air of "inevitability" about Hillary's candidacy--an air that she was willing to accept and foster until it became clear that it was imaginary.

I back Obama and must admit that I have been heard in the past to utter the nonsensical statement that I simply wouldn't vote if Hillary Clinton were she the nominee. I felt justified in saying this because I was so turned off by the kind of campaign that she has run--so angry that I simply didn't believe that I could hold my nose long and hard enough to stomach the stench of voting for her.

But I have to agree with those that say that this kind of thinking is simply petulant and only helps the other side. And in a general election, if my choice is between Clinton and McCain, my choice is clear. I admit I've changed my mind. I only wonder if there are enough others will do the same-- particularly Clinton supporters who, if they are honest, will acknowlege that her chance at winning the nomination is very small. I also wonder if they will do so in time to deliver on what was, at one time at least, the hope promised by a Democratic victory in November. posted 03/30/2008 at 12:21:05