Obama supporters! - A positive place to talk about his campaign

[NewJersey]

Watching the news this morning, they played about 15 seconds of her attempt to reignite the Wright issue, followed by a 4-5 minutes of why she would do it, bringing up the sniper lie and her loss in states won, her impossible task of winning in pledged delegates, and now that MI and FL are officially out, her inability to catch Obama in the popular vote. Noone's buying into the Clinton sitcom anymore, and the party's tiring of talk of her going nuclear and tanking Barack's chances so she can run again come 2012. She's got to see the writing on the wall her sooner or later, doesn't she?

One would think but based on the past month or so, I don't think so. I do however, seen a change in tone on the political blogs and in the media regarding her chances, like you pointed out above. It all just screams of egocentrism and desperation on her part.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Watching the news this morning, they played about 15 seconds of her attempt to reignite the Wright issue, followed by a 4-5 minutes of why she would do it, bringing up the sniper lie and her loss in states won, her impossible task of winning in pledged delegates, and now that MI and FL are officially out, her inability to catch Obama in the popular vote. Noone's buying into the Clinton sitcom anymore, and the party's tiring of talk of her going nuclear and tanking Barack's chances so she can run again come 2012. She's got to see the writing on the wall her sooner or later, doesn't she?

'sitcom' Wow. Harsh, but true.

 

[chris1gill]

she can run again come 2012. She's got to see the writing on the wall her sooner or later, doesn't she?

She see's the writing on the wall, she knows if she tanks Obama's chances, she can run again in 2012... that's the explanation, that's the tactic, and frankly I've now had more than enough. I'm sorry, but she would rather have us lose this election so she can run in the next one. It's as obvious as the lies that she tells.

 

[chris1gill]

'sitcom' Wow. Harsh, but true.

"Sitcom" per MSNBC's Chris Mathew's, who I think has been quite fair and balanced up until this point, but I think he is just as fed up as the rest of us. I think it sum's up the situation quite well.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

"Sitcom" per MSNBC's Chris Mathew's, who I think has been quite fair and balanced up until this point, but I think he is just as fed up as the rest of us. I think it sum's up the situation quite well.

Yep...but in my defense, I stole it fair and square!

 

[chris1gill]

Yep...but in my defense, I stole it fair and square!

Agreed!!

 

[wvrevy]

'sitcom' Wow. Harsh, but true.

"Sitcom" per MSNBC's Chris Mathew's, who I think has been quite fair and balanced up until this point, but I think he is just as fed up as the rest of us. I think it sum's up the situation quite well.

That video of Chris going off on the Clinton "sitcom" and James Carville was just awesome!!! Chris was seriously fired up!

Yep...but in my defense, I stole it fair and square!

Good writers borrow...great writers steal outright. (TS Eliot...though he may have gotten it somewhere else. )

 

[NewJersey]

"Sitcom" per MSNBC's Chris Mathew's, who I think has been quite fair and balanced up until this point, but I think he is just as fed up as the rest of us. I think it sum's up the situation quite well.

I really love the sitcom analogy from Chris Matthews. It really does sum up the Clintons perfectly and frankly I've had enough of both of them.

 

[lilyv]

I'm just trying to understand where we are, today. Obama supporters respect the voters, and think their voice matters, that their votes are absolutely relevant, and should be respected. Hillary supporters are OK with voters casting ballots, but if they vote for the wrong person the Super Delegates should correct them. Regardless of how few actual votes she gets, the Super Delegates are the ones who really should decide who the nominee will be. Am I getting this?

Why do the Hillary folks allow the silly little dumb people to cast ballots, at all? Why not just have a big chicken dinner, followed by a quick vote by Super Delegates?

 

[chris1gill]

I'm just trying to understand where we are, today. Obama supporters respect the voters, and think their voice matters, that their votes are absolutely relevant, and should be respected. Hillary supporters are OK with voters casting ballots, but if they vote for the wrong person the Super Delegates should correct them. Regardless of how few actual votes she gets, the Super Delegates are the ones who really should decide who the nominee will be. Am I getting this?

Why do the Hillary folks allow the silly little dumb people to cast ballots, at all? Why not just have a big chicken dinner, followed by a quick vote by Super Delegates?

Actually, you are missing one important fact. Pledged Delegates aren't pledged at all, so they to should go against what the people in their region voted for.. (only when they voted the wrong way however)

Now you know it all, there we have it....

The world according to Clinton..

 

[lilyv]

Actually, you are missing one important fact. Pledged Delegates aren't pledged at all, so they to should go against what the people in their region voted for.. (only when they voted the wrong way however)

Now you know it all, there we have it....

The world according to Clinton..

Thank you! I just needed to understand what's really going on and why any candidate would be so happy to disregard voters.
That just seems so undemocratic.

 

[chris1gill]

Thank you! I just needed to understand what's really going on and why any candidate would be so happy to disregard voters.
That just seems so undemocratic.

No, not undemocratic, those 3300 delegates get to vote and form a majority... that's democratic afterall right?

From now on, I think they just ought to get those people together, so that they can form their own opinions, the delegates should just vote & let us know who the nominee is

On the plus side Mike Gravel has switched parties and will be running as a Libertarian... I like Gravel & I'll vote for him if Obama doesn't get the nom & I won't even feel bad about doing so.... I prefer Obama of course, but if I have to cast a vote for someone other than Obama, Gravel's not a bad choice....

 

[chris1gill]

I wonder how Reedi did today? What was the experience??

 

[reeddi]

I just got back from a WONDERFUL experience. I don't have a lot of time to post right now but I will say it was great to see him in person. There were people of all ages, races and religions (I saw a nun, a priest and a rabbi - no joke). It was a beautiful day to stand in line to see him. It took about 2 hours to get everyone checked, in the theater and seated. We wound up in the balcony but it was ultimately a good thing as we could see him very well. He gave a speech of about 20 minutes and then took 6 questions from the audience. He was inspiring, he explained all sorts of issues very well. He took no real shots at Clinton. He referred to her twice and said "Where we differ...". He did talk about the McCain's speech on the economy.
Best quote I felt "McCain/Bush talk about an ownership society but what they really mean is an on your own society."
He answered questions throughly with step by step plans. And explained very well what each meant. He was asked about religion, poverty, education, technical advancements, elder care, and how he planned to bring people together.
I will post some pictures and more detail hopefully later tonight.

I just have to say - if you get the chance to see him RUN!!!!!!!
I liked him before but after today it is pure love.

Reeddi

 

[NewJersey]

I just got back from a WONDERFUL experience. I don't have a lot of time to post right now but I will say it was great to see him in person. There were people of all ages, races and religions (I saw a nun, a priest and a rabbi - no joke). It was a beautiful day to stand in line to see him. It took about 2 hours to get everyone checked, in the theater and seated. We wound up in the balcony but it was ultimately a good thing as we could see him very well. He gave a speech of about 20 minutes and then took 6 questions from the audience. He was inspiring, he explained all sorts of issues very well. He took no real shots at Clinton. He referred to her twice and said "Where we differ...". He did talk about the McCain's speech on the economy.
Best quote I felt "McCain/Bush talk about an ownership society but what they really mean is an on your own society."
He answered questions throughly with step by step plans. And explained very well what each meant. He was asked about religion, poverty, education, technical advancements, elder care, and how he planned to bring people together.
I will post some pictures and more detail hopefully later tonight.

I just have to say - if you get the chance to see him RUN!!!!!!!
I liked him before but after today it is pure love.

Reeddi

Thanks for posting! I agree..seeing him person is like a whole 'nother experience.

Glad you enjoyed yourself.

 

[wvrevy]

Wait, you had a nun, a priest, and a rabbi in the same room...are you sure you weren't in a bar when a duck walked in and told the bartender to put his drink order on his bill?



He was in Charleston, WV a week ago and I couldn't go because of a minor catastrophe at work. If he comes back, I'm goin' if I have to call in dead.

Glad you had fun!

 

[JennyMominRI]

Wait, you had a nun, a priest, and a rabbi in the same room...are you sure you weren't in a bar when a duck walked in and told the bartender to put his drink order on his bill?

:!

A skeleton walks into a bar and says I'll have a beer and a mop





i'll get my coat

 

[DisneyDad1960]

A nun, a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar and the bartender looks up and says " Hey is this some kind of joke?"

Sorry - back to cursing you guys out on the Hillary thread.

Michael

 

[NewJersey]

From DailyKos:

Obama gets the Blue Majority endorsement
by kos
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:14:19 PM PDT

So today the Blue Majority sites (dKos, Swing State Project, and Open Left) added Barack Obama to our ActBlue fundraising page. All three sites held votes of their readership. Daily Kos passed the super-majority threshold a few weeks ago, SSP and Open Left did it yesterday.

It's clear our communities have become heavily pro-Obama, especially as Clinton's only path to victory is via coup by super delegate and civil war, and she doesn't give a damn. Bowers gives his four reasons for the move:

First, many people have said that there are few policy differences between Obama and Clinton, but the truth is that their telecom policies could hardly be further apart from each other. Obama proposes exactly the sort of transformative, open telecommunications policy that we need to transform the media landscape in America, while Hillary Clinton's telecom proposals are nothing more than heinous corporate welfare. Without a transformed telecommunications landscape, we are going to have an extremely difficult time building a progressive America or passing any of our other legislation.

Second, in terms of electability, in order to win the general election a candidate must first become the nominee. Simply put, I don't see many ways for Hillary Clinton to pull that off. Further, in order to win the general election, Democrats will need time to define McCain, and time to heal the party once the nomination contest is over. However, Hillary Clinton's only path to the nomination is through convention in late August, and also through a intra-partisan civil war. In other words, Clinton's path to the nomination renders her unelectable in the general. There simply won't be enough time to heal the party and define John McCain.

Third, how a candidate campaigns is a strong reflection on how that candidate governs. For example, we could tell from the 2000 election that George Bush would govern through a series of power grabs, Orwellian language, and with a total disregard for popular opinion. Barack Obama, by contrast, is campaigning through unprecedented national grassroots organizing, speeches that are becoming the stuff of legend, and the manifestation of a new political coalition that moves us away from the political alignment of 1968-2004. Too often, I have heard from the Clinton campaign and its surrogates about states and demographic groups that don't matter. Such statements are a stark reminder of a recent version of the Democratic Party that takes its base for granted, and only campaigns in a select few swing districts. We need a Democratic Party that organizes and governs based on Barack Obama and Howard Dean's campaign styles, rather than one that is based on Hillary Clinton's and Terry McAuliffe's.

Fourth, coattails and movement building matter. In both of Blue Majority's victories so far in 2008, Donna Edwards in MD-04 and Bill Foster in IL-14, the energy and activism brought to bear by Barack Obama were key. The activism in support of Barack Obama has the potential to greatly enhance the political reach of the progressive movement, and also to provide Democrats with sweeping downticket victories. I once called this progressive movement symbiosis, and I still believe it is the most promising path to a truly progressive governing majority that I have seen in my lifetime.

Those are pretty solid reasons. For me, the third and fourth are pretty much 95% of the reason I decided to begin aggressively supporting Obama after spending most of this cycle either uncommitted, pro-Dodd, or soft Obama.

Remember, we're looking for 6,500 donors by the end of the quarter, so we've got 860 to go. And aside from Obama, we've got some great House and Senate candidates on our Blue Majority page.

We didn't notch victories like Donna Edwards and Bill Foster this year by slacking and sitting things out. We change our country one candidate at a time, and we've got great ones. So chip in what you can. Even $10 helps. Two is a start, but we've got lots more to go. So join the 5,640 who have already chipped in for a Bluer majority this cycle.

And MSNBC is reporting that Clinton's latest tactics are turning off superdelegates.

 

[NewJersey]

I was at my friends place last night and his roommate, him, and I were talking about the race. My friend said he was originally an Edwards supporter but set up a recurring donation to Edwards, Obama, and Clinton for $20/month. He voted for Obama in the VA primary and has been trying since South Carolina to cancel his recurring $20 donation to Clinton (he now really dislikes her for reasons stated on this thread) but the campaign won't return his call so she still gets $20/month from him. I don't know how hard he is trying to contact the campaign but I thought it was kind of humorous.

So even out of this Obama thread there are Democrats who have been completely turned off by Clinton even though we supported her at one point.