MyDD :: Heads in the Sand

Heads in the Sand

by zenful6219, Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST

"You know in the age of Barack Obama I don't know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we're bitter and economically anxious, we `cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd [at the National Rifle Association, Louisville, Kentucky]to laughter and cheers.
"You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued. "You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends."

Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama at the recent National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Kentucky. He signaled what will likely be a major Republican campaign issue should Obama get the Democratic nomination.

I imagine some people on MyDD will say, sarcastically, we should be trembling in fear because the great Karl has spoken. Still more will say we should just stop talking about it, as if not talking about it will make it all go away. The Republicans won't use it if we don't talk about it! They'd be wrong on both points.

There's no need for fear. However, there is a need for super delegates to take their roles seriously and use independent judgement to decide who is the most electable. To be clear, I have no doubt Obama can win the general election, but Clinton has a better chance.

We should be talking about these matters every single day. Considering our system for choosing a President, Clinton owns the map. In the Fall, Republicans are not going to pass on Obama's "bitter" comments, nor are they going to let Obama off the hook for his association with Reverend Wright.

As far as I'm concerned, this election is not about just Obama or Clinton and their individual aspirations. If our country is to survive, it needs a Democrat in the White House.

I've come to realize that we have far too many Democrats with their heads in the sand. To be sure, there are big negatives for both Clinton and Obama as prospective Democratic nominees. However, there is nothing new on Clinton that we haven't already heard over the past 15 years. It's much different in Obama's case. He is the new guy on the block, and his "known" negatives will significantly reduce his chances in the general election. If any new concerns pop up, it could be devastating for Obama, should he be Democratic nominee.

So, super delegates, pull your heads out of the sand, use independent judgement, and do what you were meant to do. In August, make sure the party nominates the most electable Democratic candidate.

Tags: Barack Obama Karl Rove (all tags)

Permalink :: 93 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

So what you're saying is the S.D's should disregard the will of the voters! Imagine what the repugs would do with that!

And he Repug Brand is in the toilet. 81% of the population thinks were on the wrong track. Only 27% of the people identify themselves as Repugs and McSame can't doesn't even have the full backing of his partys base. With all of that you're trying to tell us that that we should be running scared. Backi to Red State with you.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:52:52 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (1.25 / 4)

it's a tie, she's ahead in the popular vote that the entire point of the super's is to pick the one that can best win. I don't think Barack can win, but if he's the nom I'll be holding my fingers and hoping. He hasn't the judgment, too many gaffs. just today when he heard of Senator Kennedy's hospitalization he made a statement that sounded like he knew the man is dead already "He WAS one of my favorite people." Has he no advisors at all? She made the appropriate one: "My thoughts and prayers are with Sen. Ted Kennedy and his family today. We all wish him well and a quick recovery."

How hard is that?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

1. She's not ahead in the popular vote.

2. This is a delegate race, not a PV race.

3. The superdelegates are picking the one that can best win.

4. That's why the superdelegates are endorsing Obama at a >10 to 1 ratio.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 0)

They are (apparently) Picking the one that they THINK will be mostly likely to win. Or possilby simply just jumping on a bandwagon or trying to avoid a longer primary. Remember superdelgedates aren't possessed with special powers that enable them to pick presidential winners correctly. THey gave us Mondale in 84, for example. Many of them are the same people from back then too.

by Mayor McCheese on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

since they haven't rushed en masse to Barack, giving him a certain victory, what do you think they're waiting for? Many who haven't endorsed are in congress, and they want to win their seats back. many of their small town constituents voted for hillary and poll far less favorably for Barack. Are they supposed to turn against their own voters to go for a guy who is less prepared, and has a reduced chance of winning the GE? Well, it's rhetorical, we'll all see soon enough. How long until Denver? In this case the Dem's have an advantage over pug districts, they've been elected by Democrats and they represent Democrats, not indies or left-leaning libertarians. She's got the Reagan Dem's with her, that's a big loss for him, he praised Reagan and wrongly predicted they'd go with him in a landslide that would give him a mandate. he's already proven wrong, how much wronger does he need to prove himself to be?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but do you ever stop and read what you're writing. Half the time I don't even understand what you're wrighting. Take a breath before you start, already.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

stop the charm, I'm getting pulled to Barack by the force of your charm.

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

I don't think you understand what a "reagan democrat is". At least judging by your last statement, and a rather silly statement you made before that Hillary Clinton had won Reagan democrats - a feat that "not even Bill Clinton" had done.

Here: "Reagan democrats" are what the media likes to call ethnic working class whites. It's not an ideology - it's a demographic.

We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.

by Jess81 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, beginning a tour of hospitals in Eugene, Ore., told reporters that he had been in touch with the senator's family. "Ted Kennedy is a giant in American political history. He's done more for health care than just about anybody in history. We are going to be rooting for him. I insist on being optimistic about how it's going to turn out."

My source is here - where's yours from?

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillaryland (2.00 / 1)

'tis a magical place.

by JJE on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (1.00 / 1)

first statement vs. someone had a word with him?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

I'm sure you have some kind of source to back your accusation up, is all I'm saying...don't you?

Or are you making things up again?

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

actually anna, you're taking a horrible snark attempt by susanhu made at No Quarter and passing it off like its true. She doesn't have a source either. Grow up, anna.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

You usually make more or less rational arguments, but not this time. If you really think Obama response to Ted Kennedy's seizure then you are now in straw grasping territory.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

I'd appreciate a link to his statement where he refers to Ted Kennedy in the past tense.

Thanks.

by Pat Flatley on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

I'd like to see the link also. It's all partisan now, isn't it? Unfortunately, it is intra party now.

by futbol dad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

anna shame... (2.00 / 2)

That's really low, trying to make a political scandal out of that.

"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08

by obscurant on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

You stay classy, anna shane.

by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (1.33 / 3)

I thought it was funny. It's true, I didn't make it up.

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Yet you can't cite a source on it.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (1.00 / 2)

can't? Silly you?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

Either you can't or you won't. If you can't, your accusation is false. If you won't, its still false and you're fully aware you're lying. Which is it, anna?

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

This is pathetic, even by your standards. Cite a source to back up your absurd quote or retract it.

Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (1.00 / 2)

trying to bully me? Go to No Quarter, or google it.

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Oh, anna. I just did.

2 results. Your source on No Quarter is Susanhu. And she doesn't have a source either. She made a sarcastic comment and you fell for it, and more so, you tried to pass it off as the truth.

The only other source for that phrase in conjunction with Obama and Kennedy is another blog calling her out on taking a ludicrous low blow at Obama using Kennedy's medical emergency as a foil.

You're a fool, or a troll.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

And since you knew providing a link to this was going to prove your insincerity, I'll provide it for you:

Google search

Susanhu's sad little hitjob on No Quarter

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

Right, anna shane. I was just engaging in sexist bullying. It had nothing to do with you spreading lies.

Oh, and thanks to upstate girl for proving you were spreading lies.

Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

Wow. I used to count you as a somewhat reasonable Hillbot. No more.

by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

It's not a tie at all. By every measure that counts all voters, Barack Obama is ahead in the popular vote, and more importantly for the process of the nomination, he's virtually clinched the pledged delegate count even with FL and MI. There is no fair metric that shows Hillary Clinton in any kind of lead at all.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

that's the spin, but I'm not buying it. In certified votes she's ahead by about 50,000, not a lot, but sure to grow with kentucky. Nice diary, eh?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

Why are you abusing the rating system in many diaries??

Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!

by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

That's the problem: certified votes are meaningless when so many states have different ways of counting the vote and deciding their nomination. Whether that's fair or right isn't the question here; the fact is that they do, and certified votes alone leave a great deal to be desired.

There are two main problems with going only by certified votes:

Certified votes don't count four caucus states; do you want to disenfranchise them by not counting them in the popular vote total? That seems to fly in the face of the (since Feb 6) Clintonian notion that Florida and Michigan must be counted. Why shouldn't voters in WA, ME, IA, and NV be counted? Do their votes not matter as much as those in MI and FL?
Certified votes give Obama zero in the state of Michigan. True, he took his name off the ballot out of respect for the pledge he and the other candidates signed that said they wouldn't participate in the MI primary, but nevertheless, there is nobody who seriously suggests that he has zero supporters in that state. To be fair, at least some, if not all, of Michigan's uncommitted votes should be counted into Obama's total. This would erase her 30,000 vote "lead" (according to RCP, not counting WA, IA, ME, or NV) and acknowledge his actual lead in the primary votes.
Whether or not you count certified votes or actual votes, the fact of the matter is that the superdelegates, being as they are professional political actors in one way or another, are well aware of the two problems with the certified vote count above. This means that no matter how much you may make the case that only the certified vote count should matter, they know better than to make a decision based on an underestimate of Obama's support. This is made evident by the fact that Obama continues to pick up superdelegates day by day, while Clinton does not.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

I said "two main reasons" and added the third in. That preview button is there for a reason.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 7)

Baring any scandal like Obama being videotaped in the church pumping his fist in the air when Wright was damning the USA he would be the nominee .

I don't see her argument swaying the sd , she has to prove he cannot be elected under any circumstance which she cannot do at this point.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

This is exactly right.

Anybody with experience in electoral politics that isnt a knee jerk partisan should know that Clinton probably has a better chance of winning than Obama. But Obama still has a very good chance, and there's just no way that the SDs will do a 180 unless something comes out that truly makes him look unelectable.

John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."

by Fuzzy Dunlop on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Wow. "Anybody with experience in electoral politics that isnt a knee jerk partisan should know that Clinton probably has a better chance of winning than Obama." I'm just going to let that sink in.

by futbol dad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 3)

That's not really the point Lori's trying to make, though. That part is still a matter of opinion and could be argued to death. But she's absolutely correct that the "more electable" argument isn't what Clinton needs to be making - she had to be able to make the argument that Obama isn't electable at all, and barring live boy/dead girl, its not gonna happen.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

I agree with you on this.

by futbol dad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

But she's vetted, remember?

That's why she started making up new lies this season (Tuzla), which helped torpedo her campaign.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be my guest (none / 0)

Let it sink in.

The point is that its irrelevant. Obama is the nominee. He is almost certainly still a favorite over McCain, and the SDs aren't going to take nomination from him under those circumstances.

John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."

by Fuzzy Dunlop on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Be my guest (none / 0)

Right Fuzzy, I agree. But I think we can agree that we are not "knee jerk partisan(s)" because we may disagree about the electability of one candidate over another. And, on top of it, the two candidates are electable in differing ways. Truly calculating who is "more electable" is not as easy as it seems. My comment above was directed at the knee jerk portion.

by futbol dad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Would mojo this if I could, Lori.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here's a mojo by proxy (none / 0)

"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08

by obscurant on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

Some of us won't piss our pants over what the Republicans will do. Leave it to us to fight back against their bullshit. If you can't handle it please take solace in the fact that others can.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 0)

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."-Ulysses Grant

"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08

by obscurant on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

No, I can promise you that the reason that Grant beat Lee was that Grant was far more concerned with what Grant was going to do than he was with what Lee might do.

Lee managed to get into the heads of most of Grant's predecessors. They were generally quite afraid of possibilities, and were reacting to him, rather than the reverse.

Grant used plodding numbers and inexorable reality to grind Lee's army into dust.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

I disagree with all the "shes been vetted bs". Really? Ok then Senator Clinton lets release the names of donors to the Clinton library and foundation. Im sure the republicans have nothing here, snicker.

A vote for John McCain is a vote against Hillary Clinton

by realistdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

Better yet, let's have some press on her relation with Vinod Gupta, a despicable lump of a man whose phone scams the elderly and purchased the Clinton's donations list for 8000 dollars - 800,000 less than it was worth.

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for your... (1.66 / 3)

concern.

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 4)

You could have just replaced this diary with 72pt typeface "KARL ROVE IS SCARY AREN'T YOU SCARED".

We're not. He's a joke, the Republican party is terrified, and there's nothing more amusing than all bluster with no backing.

Have fun Karl - soon you'll have all the free time you need to write your memoirs in peace and solitude.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:58:46 PM EST

More concern trolling (2.00 / 3)

That pretends to not be concern trolling but subtlety says "this is concern trolling, be afraid of what might happen, vote for the candidate I support."

When winning by normal means won't work.
When winning by delegates won't work.
When changing the goal posts won't work.

Try to scare the shit out of the people you're talking to.

It's the American way. It's so lovely to see the Republicans have passed that wonderful little trick onto us.

Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"

by Lord Hadrian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:58:54 PM EST

Karl Rove has The Math (2.00 / 1)

He's certain of victory!

He's an overrated hack.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST

Take that back (2.00 / 1)

Karl Rove was key to ensuring the Democratic House and Senate!

All Dems hail turdblossom, boy genius.

by JJE on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take that back (none / 0)

I'll send him a donation for his hard work on behalf of the Democrats!

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hang on. How do you KNOW there's nothing (none / 0)

new on the Clintons??

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

You're right about some people having their heads in the sand. Can you believe that there are some people, probably asleep since February, who believe that there's still a race going on for the Democratic nomination?

by vermontprog on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

apparently Obama is one of them.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 0)

He's already started his GE campaign.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sad sad sad. (2.00 / 2)

It's over, buddy. Not even the superdelegates will save the HMS Clinton. Climb aboard the USS Obama, and sail with us to the presidency.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST

Re: Sad sad sad. (2.00 / 1)

Obama will lose the GE Buddy. He can ignore state like WV if he wants to for now, but there will be no superdelegates to bail him out in Nov.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, yes, as goes WV, so goes the nation. Please send this argument to the superdelegates. There's plenty of time left today for another endorsement.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (2.00 / 1)

Obama has more problems than you think.

He has an Obama's "Appalachian problem" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na tionworld/2004415452_whitevoter15.html

Obama also has an "Obama Sweetie Challenge" http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump er/archive/2008/05/16/Obamas-Sweetie-Cha llenge-.aspx

Then there's still the Rev. Wright problem that will never go away.

He will lose the GE.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Defeatism!

Will you keep saying that after Senator Clinton endorses him?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

She has no choice but to go along with the program. I do.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

What, is she some kind of victim here?

Seriously, what the fuck does that even mean? Of course she has a choice.

She can choose to try to bring about universal healthcare, end the war in Iraq, and do all those other things that matter to her and to her real supporters.

You can choose to whine about it while we go out and win it. Senator Clinton will choose to help us because it's the only sane choice.

So please, litter the internets with your sadness. We get it. You aren't happy with the result. You can choose to do whatever you like.

But please don't pretend its anything other than sour grapes.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Just the facts; party insiders must unite no matter what. If the situation were reversed, Obama would be the one going along with the program. I don't have to go along with any program because I'm free to do what ever I want. That's what makes U.S.A so great.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Yes. You are free to do whatever you like.

So is she. Any constrictions on her freedom are entirely pragmatic and on her own part. If she wants a future in the party, she'll toe the line. Not because it is demanded of her, but because it's the only way to further her issues.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

If she wants a future in the party, she'll toe the line

EXACTLY! Now you understand what I meant when I wrote "get with the program"

On the other hand, I will not vote for Obama...Freedom; ain't it great? :D

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

It certainly is. I hope you enjoy a McCain presidency if we get one!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (2.00 / 4)

When the facts don't fit your opinion, prognosticate 6 months into the future and make your argument based on what your magic 8 ball tells you.

If you write the superdelegates, throw in some Nostradamus quotes too, two soothsayers for the price of one.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Oh but the facts are there....you're the one that wants to ignore them.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

No, dear, that's what "making things up about the future" means.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

You are in the "see no evil" mode. You will stay in this mode by ignoring valid links/information. Good luck with that. La la land is always comfortable.

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

You're in the "Obama is evil" mode, which is making you a strange bedfellow for the Republican party. Your tendency to prognosticate 6 months into the future based on the most tenuous of reasons doesn't exactly tether you to reality.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (1.00 / 1)

Obama isn't evil, he just lack integrity and has poor judgment.

"Obama losing the GE" is an opinion but it's based on History. What's your forecast of Obama winning the GE based on? "Hope?"

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Where's your historical analysis? Any comparisons I've seen are taking results from 30-50 years ago and trying to apply them to today's political landscape in an attempt to forecast what will happen six months from now. It sounds like a shell game to me.

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Sheesh! the electoral map that has been posted on this site time and time again, it's not a shell game it's fact. Obama says he's going to ignore it and create a new path to the white House. :D Heh!

by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Heh! Its not like it worked in the Democratic Primaries, right? Everyone knows you go for the big states and its wrapped up by Super Tuesday. Everyone!

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad sad sad. (none / 0)

Likewise there's none to save Senator Clinton in the general.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

B/c the Republicans will never attack Clinton... (2.00 / 1)

on guns or anything else? This diary is not silly, b/c it points out Republican attacks; it's silly, b/c the diarist thinks those attacks won't be made against Clinton.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST

ha (none / 0)

"So, super delegates, pull your heads out of the sand, use independent judgement..."

That's what they did. Sorry you disagree.

by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST

And don't forget Obama's latest PANDER with his (1.33 / 3)

*FLAG Pin.

He's picked up the wrong traits from Kerry. Now he is becoming the biggest Flip Flopper and Hypocrite.

He would have served himself better if he held to his supposed own conviction of not wearing a Flap Pin instad of now flopping back to wearing one and calling attention to the entire (new) spectacle.

from CNN
"We here have news for Barack Obama," Rove said. "The values of those people you diminished are the values of America. And those people don't like getting patronized, or viewed as an alien species, by a fellow who pretends to embody a new kind of politics, and especially by someone who wants to be president not of red states or blue states, but the United States."

Rove, who does not have an official role within John McCain's presidential campaign or at the Republican National Committee, also took Obama to task for recently wearing a flag pin.

"It is distracting to say in a Democratic primary when you are trying to cozy up to Moveon.org that an American flag on your lapel is a quote 'substitute' for true patriotism," Rove said. "Belittling all those who care to wear our country's flag, calling them false patriots, and then when you focus on the general election, like this week, start to showing up with an American flag on your lapel again. That's distracting."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/05/17/rove-slams-obama-over-bitter-com ments-flag-pin/

by LindaSFNM on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM EST

Re: And don't forget Obama's latest PANDER with hi (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for being Karl Rove's mouthpiece on a Democratic blog. WooooOOOOoooo that Rove sure is scary with his pointless attacks on flag pins! He's sure gonna put the economy and the war on the back burner with that kind of tough talk!

by upstate girl on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's wrong with you? (2.00 / 1)

by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (none / 0)

What an ironic diary title!

"Clinton owns the map."

Yes, and this is surely the reason why she is "winning" the nomination right now.

You do know that previous states whose primary voters supported Clinton would now switch their votes if they could and vote for Obama (even after all of these issues you are bringing up). California, for example, would go for Obama if the election were held now. What does this say about Clinton and her supposedly "owning" the (electoral) map?

by DrPolitics on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:35:46 PM EST

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 2)

well, yes, she is winning although neither has won. She'll have to do well in Kentucky to increase her margin of victory which is now only 50,000 votes, and she'll probably have to make further inroads into his base in Oregon, but the electoral map gives it to her, she's ahead in dem strongholds, the states we'll need for the GE, and his argument that we can afford to lose those states cause he'll pick up new previously red states is pure theory and not born out by any facts, past or present.

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads in the Sand (2.00 / 1)

Please stop using a lie.

Your total is excluding Nevada, Iowa, Washington state, and Maine.

Please, don't do that.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dear lord, the delusions! (none / 0)

by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dear lord, the delusions! (2.00 / 1)

we'll all get t see for ourselves, come Denver?

by anna shane on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dear lord, the delusions! (2.00 / 1)

Such supreme confidence.

Here's what I want you to do: after Obama wins the nomination, think back to all the times you declared a Clinton victory; think about all the times you said Clinton would definitely win; think about all the confidence you had in Clinton's lead and her chances in this primary.

Think about all that, and realize you were completely wrong about all of it. Then, consider that your supreme confidence in a McCain defeat of Obama might just as foolishly misplaced.

What I'm saying is, when this primary is settled in Obama's favor, take some time for introspection.

by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dear lord, the delusions! (none / 0)

And they accuse us of havin drunk to much kool aid!

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:51:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But did Rove or Anyone (none / 0)

Take the gun from Charlton Heston's cold dead hand?

by hypopg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST

Nothing new on the Clintons?-Wron (none / 0)

"However, there is nothing new on Clinton that we haven't already heard over the past 15 years"

Not quite there is the 500 million dollar pandoras box that is the Clinton Library Endowment. Millions have been donated by foreign rulers, apparently most promenent among them, the Saudis and other Arab leaders. Hows that going to play? Taking millions for the leaders of OPEC that you promised to crush?

And we probably won't get to know many of the folks who tossed in the big bucks. Hillary has said she would only disclose NEW contributors after she was elected president (notice we dont get to see it before).

The GOP can say "If 400K buys a pardon (Marc Rich) what does a million buy from a sitting president"

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

by xenontab on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.