Sorry, Ben, but I'm with Waldo here. Now I'm definitely nowhere near a Joe Lieberman, but what is so wrong with a Democrat placing national security as a top, top priority. Personally, it may be this Democrats number one priority! And not in a "let's pre-emptively attack countries or be really mean and not talk to them" kind of way. National security is a very, very important issue. In fact, I'd like to see the Democrats grow a pair and tackle the issue in a more robust and sincere way. There is no reason that the Republicans need to 'own' this issue. As you would probably agree, Mr Hocking, perhaps the biggest reason that this immunity bill and Sen. Obama's support of it is so troubling is because this was an area where Obama could have shown strength in attacking national security issues in a profound way. But instead, he ran (at minimum) towards a resolution that was politically more central. Thus, he lost an excellent chance where Democrats can (and should) effectively show their national security prowess.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:20 AM in response to Serious question (really): Why is the FISA telecom immunity important?

I agree that Romney would have been a 'better' candidate for the Republicans. But I truly suspect that the Republicans so no chance at all at winning the White House in 2008, so they put their 'support' behind McCain to make his fall from the party ranks that much bigger. Think about it---when the Republicans get crushed in the fall, they can blame it all on that 'liberal' conservative, John McCain.

Posted at June 11, 2008 10:08 AM in response to McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"

Can you imagine a country where one person, one vote mattered. Like a primary instead of a caucus? Like a vote, of any kind, in Florida in Michigan?

Posted at May 12, 2008 4:50 PM in response to Obama and racism. READ.

You cite no numbers, and now you say Clinton has won more Democrats and Republicans. Yet, she is losing in every metric. Ask yourself, does your assertion make sense?

Also, HRC's metrics conveniently do not include caucus states. In caucus states, we voted too. And in my state (Washington) he won the Democrats by 2 to 1. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by libgirl

Again, this is where things get a little silly. I am saying VERY nice things about Barack Obama. I like him very much. And it is EXTRAORDINARY the number of Republicans he can get to vote for him. It's truly a test of strength for him going into November.

I have never said here at all that Sen. Clinton won a majority of Republicans. She did not. Yes, she won a majority of them in four states, but she has not won a majority of them. And I am not saying that, because more Republicans voted for Obama that the difference in his margin of victory is 'tainted.' Those are the rules, and he played them well.

In fact, I am applauding Sen. Obama very much on this point. I believe the ONLY thing I was defending was that Sen. Clinton has (I think until now) had every right to stay in this race and certainly should not be seen as someone destroying the party when, in fact, she has more support from the Democratic base. I'm glad this base is shifting and broadening.

Finally, in regards to your 'what about the will of the people in caucuses,' here I may have to, forcefully, object. You can't have it both ways. Obama fans like caucuses, in PART, because they did favor and help propel a lot of big margin victories for Sen. Obama. Consider, in fact, the primary in your state, and the margin is much different. It is just as easy to say that if caucuses were proportioned to how a primary would reflect its process that the numbers would actually HELP Sen. Clinton. Either way, that's what the rules are and they helped your guy (which is totally within, of course, the 'rules'). But you can't change those rules anymore than you can't change the superdelegate rule; which is that they could vote any way they saw fit---whether it be pledged delegates, popular vote, or who's the better dresser.

I am not saying Obama fans or Hilalry fans owe anyone a hug. I was happy to vote Clinton, I will be happy to vote Obama. But it is my contention that Obama supporters have more of a burden than Clinton supporters do in terms of 'uniting' this party.

Posted at May 12, 2008 4:45 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

Any linking on my part between "rip McSame a new one" and saying that people call Clinton supporters, such as myself, 'assholes' was completely coincidental. You, sir, are the one not reading between the lines.

Posted at May 12, 2008 3:47 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

I understand where gotalife stands on this board and website. gotalife is a loser Clinton supporter, and I am a Clinton supporter. I have never 'defended' gotalife on this post or any other.

I know, as a Clinton supporter, I may lack the intellect required to separate the snark from the serious here. But I think, at least on this board, I've got it covered. (Thanks for the advice, though).

Posted at May 12, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

You are utterly and completely wrong. Sen. Clinton has received the majority of Republicans in four states.

Sen. Obama has received them in ALL other states (INCLUDING Texas, by the way).

Yes, Indiana represents 25% of the states that Sen. Clinton has received more Republicans.

By the way, I think Sen. Obama receiving votes from Republicans and independents is a good thing, and it is something that you should (I know I do!) embrace!

But my point about her receiving more DEMOCRATS is still valid. A point, I argue, that is valid when Obama supports claim that she has destroyed the party.

Posted at May 12, 2008 3:29 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

You mean the revisionist crap that Sen. Clinton has received more votes from Democrats--you know, that party that 'she' is destroying--than Sen. Obama. Hell, I'll buy your theory that "Bill Clinton didn't win 1992, and Bush didn't lose it---Perot just interfered" (Which is bullshit, but I'll buy it).

But the fact of that matter is that this long primary fight has not only been one of the more civil epic campaigns that I have seen in awhile, but that Sen. Obama did in fact attacking Sen. Clinton a lot. especially hitting her in her weakest spot consistently---calling her a liar everyday.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:55 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

With party unity in mind, Obama was a gentleman and showed restraint during the primaries against a formidable adversary. However, he will tear McSame a new one.

Posted by AdAbsurdum
May 12, 2008 1:37 PM

You see, gotalifefan, it's precisely that attitude I am talking about. Your candidate preaches for unity among all people of all parties. And you? You essentially call me an asshole. I am very excited that the Democrats have an amazing opportunity to regain the White House and pad our majority in both chambers of Congress. I like Obama. I like Clinton better. It's absurd to me that Democrats would hate either one of these candidates. It's also difficult for me to see how the party will unite when Obama supporters treat Clinton supporters this way.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill

He who cast the first stone, calling Senator Clinton Bush-Cheney lite? He who has repeatedly said that "Sen. Clinton would do anything to get elected." He who has been unrelenting on his campaign to call Sen. Clinton a liar, perpetuation the myth that she is the most untrustworthy person in Washington? He who has called for a new kind of politics, yet clings to issues, such as his Reverend, for political advantage because it helped him at first and then dumps the same person---for political gain?

I am proud to be a Democrat, and I am proud that BOTH of these candidates are qualified to be President of the United States. But please, people, if you want to unite the Party again, it is an Obama supporter---not a Clinton supporter---who needs to put their arm around the other.

And please, can we stop this talk about "ruining the party." Both candidate received a similar number of votes, in fact, Senator Clinton has received more votes FROM Democrats. She is well regarded among Democrats. The Clinton's, improbably, took back the White House against all odds following the most popular Republican reign in modern history.

Let's keep our facts straight, please, and let's try to keep our eyes on the ball.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:13 PM in response to Obama Hits McCain For Failing To Support Webb's GI Bill