I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if there's anyone who is an embodiment of the intelligence, coherence and unity of the democratic party on this site, it's you.
And I don't say that because you've moved your fantastic support for Hillary to Obama. That's only a side effect. What's really impressed me is the way you've made me realise, having been against her for months, what a great candidate Hillary genuinely was.
I can't tell you how happy I am that you and Canadian girl now regularly make it to the top of the rec list. You're genuine democrats, unlike others who used to dominate the rec list, and now have outed themselves as supporters of McCain all along. And fairweather feminists to boot.
Mojo and kudos to you all the way
because of you, Brit. You know I disliked her for a long time -- even longer than Barack. You told me why you liked Michelle and asked me to give her another chance. Thank you, you were right. I would recommend your advice to anyone seeking guidance.
You're a star, sricki.
Well certainly fair weather feminists then. Have you checked Texasdarlin's blog recently? She's trying to do to Michelle what the worst repubs did to Hillary during the 90s. The Whitey Tapes reward she was offering was just one example.
Any feminist who uses such tactics is partisan hypocrite, wouldn't you agree?
PS I suspect TD was a republican all along. She was always changing identity.
I'm sure many will recognize that TD is a "pissed-off" Dem, as many are. That is different from being a Repub.
I'm not so sure. And she's a complete McCain supporter now. And a promoter of sexist bullshit. If someone talks like a repub, acts like one, etc...
Which reminds me Chitown. I don't get it. You argue reasonably, you mojo comments you don't entirely agree with, and you rarely troll rate. What is going on with that McCain site? Is that someone else or are - shock horror - a reasonable republican who could be persuaded.
Just asking. Don't want to get these identities confused.
Line----crossing it! Chill!
No, no. You misread me. Totally chill. Just confused. But hey, I rate your comments anyway.
"I'm sure many will recognize that TD is a "pissed-off" Dem, as many are. That is different from being a Repub."
If Senator Clinton had won the nomination, I'd have been a pissed off Dem.
But I would. not. ever. have considered voting for anyone other than Senator Clinton. And I damn sure as hell wouldn't have run around offering a freaking reward for dirt on the Clintons.
She might as well be a Republican now.
You speak to why I am proud to be an American. We, all, have the ability to make up our own minds and vote on it.
Do you know if TD has figured out that a McCain presidency would hurt HRC? I mean I hope she realizes that Presidential veto powers would be used against any Universal Health Care plan, which quite frankly is the most defining policy/program for Hillay. I really hope people that adamantly supported Hillary realize that all of her other positions would be compromised, if not reversed, by a McCain presidency.
I have asked others who supported Hillary and now openly support McCain and I never get a response.
Oh, so only 4 more years of Iraq, likeyl invasion into Iran, no chance of Universal Healthcare, potential conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, veto'd regulations on various markets, industries, oh I wonder if they know that the guys who started this war and got thrown under the bus by Bush (a political attempt to maintian some integrity) are McCain's advisors. Cool, Just 4 more years of BushIII. I apologize if it seems I am using you as an intermediary to rant on them, really I'm not, just expressing my frustrations of their short-sightedness in this forum.
But you are right, one of America's virtues is their right to hold any political positon they desire, no matter how callous and thoughtless. I give them credit for at least having the resemblance of a plan.
I am not talking about Barack, my point is that these PUMAs aren't thinking this through. If they truly support Hillary, then a McCain presidency does not help HIllary advance her goals and agendas and could potential harm or reverse her accomplishments and goals. It doesn't make sense, that is my point. How does McCain winning help Hillary? Is it just her attaining the presidency in 4 years without regard to possible destruction of Hillary's actual goals, objectives, beliefs?
OK. Barack's out of the equation for this conversation. Party unity vs. protesting the Dem party. What's hard to understand about that? How many Dem AA's threatened the same if Barack wasn't the nominee?
Pot, meet kettle? Anyway, just tryin' to enlighten.
What do you mean? How am I a pot or a kettle? I am re-reading what I posted and I think you may think I am saying This.
And again, I am not directing any of this towards you, I was under the impression that you had a clearer understanding of their motivations than I and I am trying to get to understand it
Something got lost in translation up there, I was just reiterating PUMAs position how their protesting the party is going to hurt Hillary. I don't see how I am a pot or kettle by attempting to summarize their position and reasoning
No. You're not pot or kettle. Tactics by supporters of the Dem candidates refers to pot and kettle.
I don't think it is really a fair comparison by asserting a certain segment would stay home if Obama didn't win vs. HRC supporters for McCAin...But I agree, given this Obama's lead in this race, if theSupers gave it to Hillary, yes many people would've stayed home. Not sure if many would vote for McCain. However, again, even this is different because everyone knows this primary was won fair and square and people that don't beleive that are either insincere, not getting their news from a reliable source, is kidding themselves, or just doesn't know enough about how primary elections work.
But I undertand your point by reviewing your posts further down, that even if there is a perception that it was unfair, people could be led to this protest, and that is understandable. I think I gleaned some understanding from this PUMA group, though my intial analysis of it remains the same.
If Hillary had won the primary fairly, I wouldn't have been pissed off. If I felt she had stolen it then, yes, I would have been pissed. However, keep in mind that many Clinton supporters see it the second way. They feel that somehow Obama stole the nomination. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, perception is what matters. I'm not sure how you can counter those feelings.
Woah, calm down. I didn't say anything about supers. I said I wouldn't have been upset about Hillary winning if it had been done fairly. She didn't win, so how can I be accusing her of winning unfairly? My point was that many Clinton supporters think Obama won unfairly and that many Obama supporters, including myself, would have been upset if we thought the opposite had happened.
I'm not speaking of any unfairness by Hillary's campaign. I said 'if' people thought she had won unfairly. It's like saying, 'if Obama was a woman the results would have been different'. That sure doesn't mean I think Obama is a woman.
Ok, so if the PUMA's want to change that system, don't you think it would be easier to do from the inside? As opposed to alienting themselves from the party by voting for McCain, how exactly is that going to change the democratic primary system? Seems to be a bit odd, so you can understand my frustration with their reasoning and my suspicions of their sincerity.
And, I find it interesting that anyone could claims that it is "unfair" to have Supers vote for the leader of the pledged delgates.
Yes you have had a positive influence on the healing process. Like Senator Clinton you know who the enemy is. Cheers.
