Friday, June 20, 2008

A Lifelong Democrat's Prayer

Sweet Jesus, please save Barack Obama from some of his followers:

Goodbye and good riddance

My Sentiments Exactly

Stop, please ... you're not helping ...

.

36 comments:

John J. said...

Agreed. Sore winners are no better than sore losers. Both Hillary's and Barack's supporters need to treat each other with more respect than has been shown over the past couple months.

Mary Ellen said...

I find it interesting that Dr.Monkey goes from one blog to another, blogs that have supported Hillary, to do nothing but make snide remarks to the bloggers there, and then complains when they say they won't have anything to do with Obama. I mean really....is he that desperate for attention?

When I saw the video from when Gore endorsed him (I was on vacation and didn't see it until later), and heard all the Obama supporters in the audience boo when Hillary's name was mentioned, it just verified my feelings toward many of them like the Monkey who visits here...they're a bunch of immature, classless idiots. That also reinforced for me, what a classless bum Obama is. He is the one who, during the primary, encouraged this behavior from his supporters.

It would be one thing for someone like Doc Monkey to complain or be angry if Hillary supporters were coming to his blog to insult him and rail about Obama, but that isn't the case...he seeks out Hillary supporters or blogs which have Hillary supporters in order to pick a fight. Then he goes whining back to his blog to write a post about it and threaten those he insulted to be called cowards if they don't. How immature is that?

I would also like to say that many of those who choose not to vote for Obama and who choose McCain are doing so for more reasons than Hillary wasn't the winner or the sexism that was displayed during the primary. It has to do with Obama's relationships with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, etc. It has to do with his encouragement to his supporters to call anyone who didn't support him a racist. Yes...it was Obama who encouraged this by trying to point to the Clinton's and call them racists, this, after all they have done for the black community.

Many of us who have decided that Obama cannot be trusted as President choose not to hold our noses and vote for him because he is a Democrat. Many will not vote at all, in lieu of pulling the lever for Obama. That is our right as Americans and as Democrats!

Oh, and for those so-called "progressives" who have been saying that those of us who refuse to walk lock step with their candidate are not "real" Democrats....bullshit. A real Democrat is one who has the intelligence to look at a candidates record, examines it, and doesn't vote for some flim-flam man who is packaged to look like the Messiah and throw out words like unity and change to hide the fact that he is clueless on foreign policy, economic policy, women's issues and yes...gay rights issues.

We have had that already with GWB. I saw this same behavior by his supporters, calling anyone who didn't follow Bush un-American. Remember? You're either with us or without us? Isn't that the same as "Good-bye and Good Riddance"?

So, let the Obama supporters act like a bunch of right wing morons (or is it "morans"?). Let them go from blog to blog to seek out Hillary supporters so they can call them cowards, delusional, and not "real Democrats". But the only one they are hurting are themselves because they dirty up the DNC and their candidate with their childish behavior and they show their lack of intellect and maturity.

Mary Ellen said...

I forgot to add...I know of many Obama supporters who don't behave in this manner and I have the highest respect for them and those Hillary supporters who choose to vote for Obama as the nominee. They are not the one's that I am speaking about in my comment above. I also have the highest respect for many Republicans who never behaved in such a distasteful manner as the right wingers. We seem to have the our own version of "wingers" in the Democratic party.

John J. said...

To get respect, one must first give resepct.

Mary Ellen, you claim you are going to vote McCain instead of Obama because of some names that have been tied to Obama (no matter how tangentially) and how his supporters have treated some of the more vocal Clinton supporters. You say you are doing this because you are examining the candidate's record. And yet you don't hold that same standard for John McCain. For every "associate" of Obama's you have listed, I can name two worse people that McCain has sought out to work with and/or for him. John McCain was the same candidate who laughed encouragingly with a questioner who asked "How will you beat the b****?"

As for the boos during the Gore endorsement, Obama called those people out and said they were wrong. ‘I want everybody here to be absolutely clear, Senator Clinton is one of the finest public servants we have in American life today. . . . She is worthy of our respect. She is worthy of our honor.’ This bears a sharp contrast with how Clinton handles her own supporters booing Obama, even during her endorsement speech.

Mary Ellen said...

john j-

Your question was a good one, and I've been asked that many times before.

I have no doubt in my mind that McCain is no angel. If I vote for McCain, it will be because I've weighed the issues carefully. Obama is a loose cannon, IMO. He's young and power hungry and will say or do anything to get votes. He will associate with any thug or criminal who could get money for him and he is a product of the dirty filthy politics of Chicago, which I think is much worse than Washington politics. I've lived in Chicago or the Chicago area all my life...I've seen it up close.

I'm also looking carefully at who McCain chooses for his running mate. If it is someone that I think would be good to take the reigns if something happened to him, it will make me more comfortable. If it's someone like Joe Lieberman or Rudy Giuliani...I'll sit this Presidential race out and vote down the ticket only. But I won't vote for Obama, even if Hillary is on the ticket.

Regarding Obama's sudden "respect" for Hillary...bull. It's all an act. If he really felt that way, he would not have insinuated that Hillary and Bill were racists, he would not have given her the street finger, he would not have "brushed the dirt" off his shoulder when speaking of her. He would have stepped up when she was being attacked as a woman and would not have made sexist remarks. He would have made sure that this behavior was unacceptable from his supporters instead of laughing everytime they boo-ed Hillary's name at his rallies. No...I don't buy the phony bullshit and his sudden epiphany that Hillary is "worthy of respect" when he never gave her respect before.

If Obama is elected, I'll deal with it just as I dealt with GWB. Life goes on.

John J. said...

So what you want of Obama is to have been the DIAMETRIC opposite of Sen. Clinton? When anyone even loosely associated to Obama said anything that could be taken out of context to sound sexist, Obama was expected to disown that person, but when a strong supporter of Clinton introduced her at a rally by throwing racial slurs at Obama that was just par for the course? At campaign rallies, when Clinton was drowned out by boos against her opponent and she stood there laughing and cheering them on, that was appropriate, but Obama calling his supporters out on it is "phony"?

Supporters on BOTH sides have stepped WAY over the line. Sen. Obama was the candidate that did not launch any personal attacks against Sen. Clinton, unlike what she herself did throughout the campaign.

If you want to undermine everything that Sen. Clinton ran on - health care, a stronger economy, getting us out of Iraq, civil liberties, women's rights - then stay home or vote for McCain. I personally am going to vote for the person who has stood up for all of those things, and fought for them time and again both in the state and national Senates. I hope you will do what is best for your interests and the interests of the country as a whole and join me in that vote.

You are very clearly still biased. I only ask that you examine your own biases and do some real, open minded research to see if those are still founded. In all the research I have done (and I have dug into every one of your unfounded allegations), Obama has comported himself legally and ethically. If you are interested, I can get you the unbiased information that has led me to that judgment.

Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

The notion that somehow Democrats need to soothe the hurt feelings of Hillary supporters so you'll be nice and come back into the fold and vote for the Democratic party's candidate is nonsense. The race is over and we have a nominee, it's time for the whining to stop and for all of us to come together, just like Ed Rendell said, you remember who Ed Rendell is don't you? He was Hillary's campaign manager.

Speaking as a life long Democrat, it's the behavior of the people who cling to the delusional belief that somehow Hillary is going to be the nominee so it's okay for you to slag Obama constantly is what is not helping.

But to be honest with you Bac, I could care less if you vote for Obama because as I said in my post that you linked the Obama campaign is registering thousands upon thousands of new voters that will more than make up for the lack of votes from bitter Hillary supporters who won't vote or who will vote for someone else.

Infidel753 said...

When Obama loses in November, the only thing I'm actually going to enjoy about it is watching these jackasses frothing up as the realization sinks in that they helped to blow it for their guy.

John J. said...

Monkey, there is a difference between not "sooth[ing] the hurt feelings" and being insulting. It is time to rise above the partisanship that this drawn out primary has engendered. You need to do that as much as the angry Clinton supporters need to.

BAC said...

Dr. Monkey - once again you demonstrate why you are no friend of Obama. You claim you want "the whining to stop" -- my suggestion would be for you to lead by example. You have been whining here for months now. To the point where you are driving sensible people crazy!

You certainly don't have to take my word for it, but maybe it's time you listened to JohnJ.

You have NO idea who I am going to vote for, yet that has not stopped you from hauling your whining ass over here to ... well ... whine.

In the process, all you are doing is weakening your candidate.

It is the behavior of the people who cling to the delusional belief that you can bring others into the fold by insulting them that may well cost Sen. Obama this election. Think about that my friend.

I will leave you, once again, with the fictional quote from Obama, who I feel certain if he were reading this would say to you ... "Stop, please ... you're not helping ..."


BAC

Mary Ellen said...

John J-

So what you want of Obama is to have been the DIAMETRIC opposite of Sen. Clinton? When anyone even loosely associated to Obama said anything that could be taken out of context to sound sexist, Obama was expected to disown that person, but when a strong supporter of Clinton introduced her at a rally by throwing racial slurs at Obama that was just par for the course? At campaign rallies, when Clinton was drowned out by boos against her opponent and she stood there laughing and cheering them on, that was appropriate, but Obama calling his supporters out on it is "phony"?

Please, do yourself a big favor and don't tell me what I want or how I base my decision on who I vote for. I told you exactly why I would choose McCain over Obama and if you don't want to accept that, it's not my problem. The so-called "anything that gave the appearance of sexism" just shows how biased YOU are. If you could not see or distinguish what a sexist remark is, I would say you have your blinders on.

I have no idea who you are talking about or what was said that was a racial slur against Obama in an introduction at a rally. I DO know that what Bill Clinton or Hillary said was not racist. Even Jessie Jackson said that what Bill said was not racist. So, like I said...I have my reasons and if you don't like it, too bad.

The one thing I have not done is go to Obama supporting blogs and harass them, call them names, and tell them they have no right to call themselves Democrats in order to bait them into an argument. This is the behavior that I've seen coming from Obama supporters. It happened before the primary was over and still continues. I will, however, hit back when I'm insulted and I'll do it in spades. I don't take shit from anyone, especially the likes of the primate doctor that's been coming around.

At least with you, John, the discussion will be about policy, in the case of Doc Monkey, it is nothing but childish behavior. He doesn't really care about Obama or his issues, IMO, he only cares about playing the bully for his own satisfaction...like I said, he's behaving worse than the right wing crowd and it shows his lack of intellect.

Oh...and all that bullshit about "soothing hurt feelings", my feelings aren't the least bit hurt. I do have legitimate reasons to be disgusted with the DNC and Obama.

I don't take this election personally, but I do have a right to my opinion and I'm damned sick and tired of the Obama supporters like Doc Monkey telling me what they believe I feel or think. If I were "hurt" and needed to be "soothed", I wouldn't be reading or commenting on blogs in my spare time.

John J. said...

I did not say there were no sexist comments, but more was labeled sexist than actually was. As for the person attacking Obama in a Clinton introduction, it was the president of BET (I forget his name) at a NH rally.

As far as I have been able to understand, your complaints against Obama are 1) He didn't campaign for Clinton, or at the very least ride to her rescue every time someone said anything remotely sexist, and 2) He is (politically) from Chicago. On the first one you won't listen to anything I have to say and on the second one I already offered to address point by point. I won't do this here because there are too many smears to address here and it is very off topic. I don't ask you to drink the kool-ade (I don't have any if I wanted to give you some), but I would ask that you stop drinking the anti-Obama kool-ade.

Mary Ellen said...

John J-

I was against Obama from the time he became our Senator in Illinois and I saw what a loser he was. There is a lot more to my reasoning than the two sentences you put forth, and to be honest with you, I don't feel that I need to explain them to you. I personally don't care if you agree with my decision not to vote for Obama. I don't know what you're worried about anyway, didn't the monkey guy say that there are thousands upon thousands of "new" Democrats now and they don't need our votes anymore?

Oh wait...According to the latest Rassmussen poll (they usually favor Obama), Obama was polling 8 points below McCain in Florida, and after McCain said he was in favor of off-shore drilling, McCain jumped to 11 points over Obama.

I guess those thousands upon thousands of "new" Democrats don't live in Florida. Ooops!

I base my vote on what I feel is important, not on what Obama supporters tell me to do.

Dean Wormer said...

BAC-

Do you share ME's take my ball and go home attitude?

She's been GBCWing for going on a month now.

Because the flipside of your problem with Monkerstein is people like her who claim to be progressives and insist that voting for McCain, rather than not voting at all, is the "principled" thing to do.

She obviously has no interest in making peace with the rest of the party.

Do you?

John J. said...

Mary Ellen, to be perfectly honest, I don't expect you to vote for Obama. What does bother me about this though is your willingness to spread lies, smears and innuendo about Obama to those people on the fence. You are out here campaigning people to vote McCain or stay home now that Clinton is out of the race.

I can, at some level, understand you being against Obama personally. What I don't understand is why you, and many others, would actively campaign against the issues that your former candidate of choice espoused. You were one of the many insulting Obama supporters by saying they were only voting for him because he made a good speech. And yet now you are pushing other people to vote against someone for reasons even more hollow - because you personally don't like the guy.

Mary Ellen said...

Dean Wormer-

Gee...I didn't know that I had to vote party line or get out. Was that in the small print on the registration form I filled out over 35 years ago?

Now, it seems that you and other Obama supporters are upset that I have the NERVE to talk against Obama on blogs that have posts that are speaking to his mistakes. I don't go to blogs that are supportive of Obama and complain about him there or insult the Obama supporters, so what's your problem?

Have I been on your blog and said anything about Obama or Obama supporters? Have I been over to Monkey Muck's blog and written about my dislike for him? No.

So, what right have you or any other Obama supporter have to come to blogs that I comment on, and then bash me...not just Hillary supporters, but me, because I have a different view than yours?

Why do I have to "make peace" with "the party"? Where does it say in the Constitution that a person has to vote according to YOUR will or the will of "The Party"?

And if you would get your head out of your ass, you might look at your history book and see that a weak nominee for any party will not get elected. Obama may have won with more delegates, but fewer votes. He's currently losing by 11 points to McCain in FL, a State that we could easily have won with Hillary. So, if the DNC chooses to back Obama, they will reap what they sow. If he does manage to pull off a victory in November, I'll just sit back and watch him screw up. It won't bother me either way.

You, and the rest of your "ilk" need to realize that your continued crusades to rid the blogosphere of dissenting voices is only making you all look like a bunch of brown shirt Nazi's or Right Wing Lunatics.

Get a clue...you're not helping your candidate.

Mary Ellen said...

John

Mary Ellen, to be perfectly honest, I don't expect you to vote for Obama. What does bother me about this though is your willingness to spread lies, smears and innuendo about Obama to those people on the fence. You are out here campaigning people to vote McCain or stay home now that Clinton is out of the race.

Wait a minute here....I have not spread ONE lie about Obama. Everything I have said is backed up with fact. And I'm campaigning people to vote McCain? Since when? Where have I been doing this campaigning? Have you seen me on any blogs that are Obama supporting blogs? Have you ever seen me say that anyone who votes for Obama is not a real Democrat, as I have been told by Obama supporters? Where do you come up with this stuff, John?

So, are you telling me that unless I have something nice to say about Obama, I should say nothing at all? Are you saying that I am not allowed to agree with a post that is written on a blog that says anything against Obama?

When I was writing things about Obama and made that comment about his one speech on the war, it was when the primary was still going. Are you telling me that I have no right to my opinion? The fact is, John, that's all Obama did...one speech in Chicago. He also said that he might have voted for the war if he was privvy to the same information as Hillary was...that was before he ran for the nomination. That's a fact. Deal with it.

And yet now you are pushing other people to vote against someone for reasons even more hollow - because you personally don't like the guy.

Wrong again...tell me where I pushed or told anyone to vote against Obama. Show me this, please. On the other hand, you , Monkey, and now Dean Wormer, are telling me that I have no right to my own opinion or my own vote. In fact, I said that I respect those Hillary supporters for their decision to vote for Obama and that I would never tell them they were wrong doing it. On the other hand, I choose not to.

Get your freakin' facts straight, mister, and quit spreading lies about my views and what I've written.

John J. said...

"I have not spread ONE lie about Obama. Everything I have said is backed up with fact." False - From this post alone:
"He is the one who, during the primary, encouraged this behavior from his supporters." He never did that.
"Obama who ... point[ed] to the Clinton's and call[ed] them racists." He actually always said the opposite.
"he is clueless on foreign policy, economic policy, women's issues and yes...gay rights issues." Not last I checked his site. Also not according to NARAL, Emily's List, and numerous other civil rights and environmentalist organizations that have given him 100% ratings for the entire time he has been in the Senate.
"He will associate with any thug or criminal who could get money for him" - He hasn't done that.

This doesn't include the innuendos and unfounded opinion you are spreading. If these are backed up with facts, please share.

As for your campaigning: this blog you are commenting on now is run by someone who has said that, while she won't like it, she will vote for the Democratic nominee. I don't know if that is still the case, but I believe that BAC will vote based on the issues. You, with your comments here, are attemping to push her, and her readers to follow your lead. The way you present this misinformation you are saying that we Obama supporters are wrong for voting for him. In fact you have called me an idiot and an asshole for disagreeing with you.

I haven't said that you have to vote for Obama, in fact, I said I don't expect you to, but I do expect that if you support progressive causes as you claim, that you will not do your best to counteract your own interests. Push your issues and if Obama doesn't support those issues, push him on that - I will stand with you (or share where he already has endorsed those positions).

I do not think you should remain silent if you disagree with Obama. If that were the case I would have to delete some of my own blog posts and comments here. Democracy demands that we criticize our leaders and their policies. However, I will not stand by and let you spread lies and misdirection without countering it.

Dean Wormer said...

Mary Ellen,

My comment was not directed at you but at BAC. Thus the "BAC" at the beginning of the comment.

My last comment directed at you some time ago on another blog in which I reached out with a rhetorical hand of peace, mentioned I enjoyed your blog and that I was sure we had a lot more in common than we didn't was met with silence on your part.

That told me everthing I needed to know about you and the kind of person you are.

Your calling me a nazi and referring to my "ilk" above does nothing but confirm that impression.

I have no interest in being part of your tiresome drama. It's really getting old and it's simply beyond childish.

I've already wasted more than enough digital energy trying to dialog with you. Dialog requires both parties have the ability to listen and it requires give and take.

Clearly things that are beyond you.

Mary Ellen said...

John-

Again, I did not lie about Obama. Just because you read his website, does not mean he has any clue about the economy, healthcare, etc. If you recall, he claimed he is for Universal Health Care, and yet his policy is NOT universal. It only covers who anyone who wants to be covered. He actually has the harebrained idea that he doesn't need everyone to pay into the system to give everyone healthcare. That's ridiculous and has proven to be wrong. I set the record straight when I see this bull...you accept whatever Obama says on his website. What can I say? You're misinformed.

And as far as Emily's List...if they push Obama propaganda, and I know for a fact they are wrong about something, I don't swallow it. I don't read Emily's List and don't need to in order to know what is going on with Obama.

"He will associate with any thug or criminal who could get money for him" - He hasn't done that.

Three words, Rezko, Ayers, Wright.


This doesn't include the innuendos and unfounded opinion you are spreading. If these are backed up with facts, please share


Why don't you tell me what these "innuendos" are, John? The only blogs I go to regularly are this one, Sue J's blog, and Rev. Amy's blog. The only other regular I comment on is Randal's blog, which is not political. So, you, Dean, and the monkey, are talking as if I've been ALL over the internet spreading lies about Obama. That's three political blogs, John. Don't you think you guys are a little over the top with your exaggerations about my ability to "sway" those on the fence not to vote for Obama.

And like I said, I NEVER told anyone they should not vote for him, but only said that I wouldn't. If that's all it takes to sway someone...what can I say? I think you guys are a little intimidated by the big bad flying nun.

The way you present this misinformation you are saying that we Obama supporters are wrong for voting for him. In fact you have called me an idiot and an asshole for disagreeing with you.

Number one: I don't present misinformation, I present facts.

Number two: How could I be intimating that Obama supporters are wrong for voting for him, and then say outright that I respect those who choose to so? I think you have a very active imagination.

Number three: I didn't call you an asshole and an idiot because you disagreed with me. I called you an idiot and an asshole because you were twisting my words and doing what you always do, like saying what you think I am thinking. If I recall, your behavior has caused BAC to shut down comments on particular threads. So, I guess I'm not the only one with those opinions. Most of the time, I just take what you say with a grain of salt, though....depends on what kind of mood I'm in.

However, I will not stand by and let you spread lies and misdirection without countering it.

I don't spread lies and misdirection...and you can counter all you want, it doesn't bother me one bit. If you think I've lied about something, prove it, but don't just try to tell me that Obama said so, therefore it must be true. That's just the kool-aide talking.

but I do expect that if you support progressive causes as you claim, that you will not do your best to counteract your own interests.

I guess it all depends on what you call progressive. I don't think it's progressive not to count all the votes in FL and MI. I don't think it's progressive to give away delegates to another candidate who did not earn them. I don't think it's progressive to tell people they no longer deserve to be called "Democrats" and they should just leave the party if they won't support Obama. Most of all, I don't trust one damned thing that Obama says because he changes with the wind. Rev. Wright said it himself, Obama does and says whatever is politically good for him. That's called being a phony and a liar. Now, why would I support him?

Now, if I really wanted to try to change people's minds about who to vote for, I would re-open my blog and write daily posts dealing with nothing but Obama's lies and flip-flops. In addition to a large group of regular readers on my blog, I had quite a few from France and Germany who used to e-mail me all the time about how much information they got from my blog that they didn't get from the news in Europe. In fact, I still hear from some of them and I'm happy they don't want to lose touch. Unfortunately, the blog was taking up too much of my time.

And like I said before, what are you guys all worried about? Monkeyman said that there are thousands upon thousands of "new" Democrats to make up for those who are not voting for Obama. He should win by a landslide--start your celebrating now!

BAC said...

Dean Wormer - thanks for asking, instead of assuming (like Dr. Monkey) that you know what I think or will do regarding the upcoming election. But first let me ask (and I'm sure my age is showing here) what does GBCWing mean? Am I correct in assuming it's not a compliment? ;-)

Regarding Mary Ellen, she has made it perfectly clear here, and on her own blog, that she does not like or trust Sen. Obama. ME is an IL voter, so I will take her at her word that she has come to that decision through observation and investigation of his record. I will also take her word that she has not gone to "pro-Obama" blogs to for the singular purpose of harassing people who DO support Obama. That cannot be said about some of the people who have attacked her here. For those reasons alone, I will not "throw her under the bus" -- but will let her speak her mind here. Do I always agree with what she says? No, but I think she has every right to speak her mind. And I think she knows that while we might not agree on everything, I do understand her anger.

Let's take a look at the other two primary participants in the current discussion: John J and Dr. Monkey.

I sincerely believe that John drank the Kool Aid a long time ago regarding Obama. At times John can be civil, but there are also times when he's not. Another thing about John is that he doesn't seem to understand what he DOESN'T know. Looking at some of his comments above a clear example of this is when he made this statement: "... but more was labeled sexist than actually was." That is not something HE can decide for others. As a young white man, it is absolutely impossible for him to be able to so absolutely comprehend comments or actions the way a not-so-young woman would. He has never been a woman, therefore he can not with absolute authority that he knows how a woman would view something.

John can't accept that some people just might not view Obama with the same rose-colored glasses he is wearing.

Dr. Monkey is a complete different story. The only reason he came here was to harass me. It was a bonus for him that in the process he could also harass Mary Ellen. He is the classic example of an abusive man. He is always right, you are always wrong, and what the hell is your problem that you can't just drop to your knees and admit it.

In assuming that he knows how I intend to vote he has only managed to make an ass of himself. And his actions do nothing to further the cause of the candidate he supports.

Now, on to a discussion of the two candidates.

Let's start with John McCain. I think quite by accident the Republicans have managed to nominate their strongest candidate. He makes corporate American and the Religious Right anxious -- which is fine with me. He was one of the first presidential candidates, in not the only, presidential candidates in the 2000 campaign to even address the issue of corporate welfare. And I think he deserves credit for coming out so strongly against them. But the John McCain of 2000 is not the same John McCain today.

I think recognizing that time is running out for him to secure the nomination he made a pack with the devil to do whatever it would take to secure the nomination this time around. Where he once called Jerry Falwell and agent of intolerance, for this election he embraced him. Where there was once no question about where a man who had been tortured stood on the subject, he has now backed down in the interest of garnering a few more votes. And the corporate dragon slayer is now in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Here is what I don't know about all this. The way the job ages people, does John McCain think that even if he DOES win he would only be a one-term president? If that is the case, will he change course yet again if elected and go back to being the maverick he once was, or will he continue to embrace the failed policies of GWB? I honestly can't answer that question -- so for that reason, I could not in good conscience ever consider voting for the man.

Abortion is used as a fear tactic to get women to support Obama, so let me say two things about that. First, I have voted for politicians who did not support abortion rights. The late-Gov. Lawton Chiles, D-FL, did not support abortion, but he vowed that he would never impose his views on the women in the state -- and he kept that promise. And second, a strong Senate could stop any president from stacking the Supreme Court with bad Justices. Unfortunately, most of the Democrats in the current Senate don't have a spine.

A strong Congress could provide the checks and balances needed to reign in an out-of-control president. That fact sadly goes unnoticed because of the weak leadership we have there now.

My feelings about Obama have largely not changed. I don't think he's ready to be president. I don't have a lot of faith in his ability to turn the economy around, and he has already started to waffle on his "Change" and "Hope" theme before he's even been formally declared the nominee at the Democratic convention.

I've been a Democrat for more than 45 years, if you count my support for JFK before I was actually eligible to vote. I take citizenship seriously, and I view it as my obligation to point out if my party, or country, is heading in the wrong direction. I have never been a blind follower of the Democratic Party, even though a vast majority of the votes I've cast have been for Democrats. I'm also someone who votes ... because I firmly believed that if you don't participate you forfeit your right (well, maybe not your "right" but your moral authority) to complain.

I can tell you one thing with certainty -- I will not vote for John McCain, Ralph Nadar or Bob Barr. And there is another thing I can say with certainty -- Dr. Monkey can take his thousands and thousands of voters and shove them up his ass ... but I digress. I find myself -- for the first time in my life -- trying to decide whether or not I will sit out a presidential election. I have not made a firm decision either way, however, since I don't live in a swing state it's highly unlikely that my vote would make a difference whatever I decide to do.

And as Obama is trying to win me over, some of his strongest supporters seem to be doing their best to drive me away -- which is why I posted the appeal for them to please STOP.

You have been most fair during this process, and for that I would like to thank you.


BAC

Mary Ellen said...

Dean-

I realize you had BAC's name at the top of your comment, but within that comment you said, "
Do you share ME's take my ball and go home attitude?

She's been GBCWing for going on a month now."

Now, I think I had a good reason to address this, since you attached my name to your insult. That shows me what kind of guy you are.

I'm not sure what dialog we've been having on other blogs in the last month or so, as you seem to say I've been GBCWing (what the hell does that mean, anyway?) Like I said to John, I've only been on a couple of blogs and that has been sporadic. So, you are either taking the word of the monkey man that I've been spreading Obama hate all over the blogosphere, or you are a regular reader of this blog and Sue's blog. I don't make political comments on Randal's blog and I don't go to any other blogs that you visit.

But hey...what can I say? Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned me in your comment to BAC, and I'm sure you could have made that comment without mentioning me and got your point across...so what kind of man are you, Dean?

No need to continue the dialog, AFAIC.

Dean Wormer said...

bac-

GBCW = Goodbye Cruel World. It's usually used when someone writes a long, dramatic explanation as to why they're leaving a specific website rather than just leaving. Sometimes they write more than one.

It can apply to anything including political parties.

As for McCain- I don't see a moderate record with the man. I see a lot of moderate posing but he's done nothing but roll on the important issues. Hell- he rolled on torture. How can you respect a many who flops on something like that in which he has so much personal experience?

I have to disagree with you on the supreme court but only because you qualify that a a "strong senate" would stop crazy McCain appointees. Though I'm sure the senate may even reach 60 dems after the next election I see no sign that many of those democrats won't roll over under pressure from McCain as they've done for Bush. Most of the senate democratic caucus that as you say is pretty spineless.

Incidentally I believe the inverse of this is true in that a democratic president is going to have a hell of a time getting even moderate nominees through with anything less than 60 dems in the senate. Republicans will rediscover the fillibuster.

So it seems to me the only thing we have to stop a regressive supreme court is gaining as much political power (presidency, more senators) as possible.

That's just my take on it afting banging my head on my desk for the last eight years.

With regards to Obama and candidates in general and speaking only for myself - I'm not looking for a saint. I like his hope message but I fully remember Bill Clinton sweeping into office with a similar message and hitting a huge wall in the media and the disloyal opposition shortly after being sworn in. The writing was on the wall with don't ask don't tell.

I guess what I'm saying is that I expect there would be scandals and disapointments with a president Obama. There always are. Nobody's perfect and the opposition lies.

But if we can do something to start digging out of this hole...

Thanks for indulging me and I continue to enjoy your blog and your take on things.

Dean

John J. said...

Actually, Mary Ellen, I was and still am a vocal critic of Obama's plan as not going far enough. I was more vocal against Clinton's mandate because that has been proven to do more harm than good. I was very clear about my views on universal health care on my blog and you can dig in the archives if you would like to see. I DO NOT just accept whatever I see on his site as truth.

The money Rezko raised for Obama was returned when he was indicted, all other implications you would like to lay with him have been proven false. The Ayers connection is so weak as to be non-existent. Wright is a much more complex subject, but doesn't qualify as thug or criminal.

I am only talking about your comments here on this blog. Of the four lies I pointed out, you ignored two, said my counter evidence on one didn't count, and repeated your fourth lie, even though it has been debunked. I haven't ever gone just on "Obama said so," I have always backed up my debunking with direct links to independent authorities.

You have said that voting for Obama is voting in favor of these "thugs" you assume he associates with and voting for someone who doesn't know what he is doing. You have also said that not one promise of his can be trusted because he changes constantly (something that has 0 basis in fact) If that isn't telling people not to vote for him, I don't know what is.

BAC, I have never put on "rose-colored glasses" and ignored facts against Obama. Every accusation you and Mary Ellen (and others) have thrown against him, I have researched and responded with the facts. When he is wrong on something (gay rights, health care) I have agreed with you and spoken against his policies. When false or misleading information was presented though, I responded with the facts.

Mary Ellen said...

Dean-

So, I've been GCW for over a month? So, when I write my opinion on a post about Obama on a blog, that is supposed to be GCW? That doesn't make any sense. I commented on the post written by BAC about Obama's Verbal Gymnastics. Sue J wrote a similar post about the same thing and somehow, I was not supposed to make a comment that I agreed with what they said, without the ire of the Obama supporters such as Monkey, John and now, you. But, if one of you make a comment on those posts, that's ok.

Really, this demonizing of all Democrats who feel they cannot vote for a man who has lied, and made horrible judgments regarding who he associates with, and his lack of experience, is getting ridiculous and like BAC has said, you are hurting the candidate that you say you support. Well, I shouldn't say that you, personally, do. I haven't run into any rude comments by you until today. But then again, I don't go to most of the sites you visit because I don't visit pro-Obama sites anymore....for very good reason, it appears.

I'll just end with this, I will not be silenced by Obama supporters who choose to say things like "If you are with McCain, you are the enemy". I have the right to my opinion, and since most of the time I am agreeing with the person who wrote the post, I don't find that to be rude or insensitive. My advice to you and others who are not happy with those who choose not to vote Obama...deal with it and quit your whining. And for gosh sakes, quit making it personal. My decision not to vote for Obama shouldn't be considered a personal affront to any of you. Being called the enemy because I won't follow lock step with Obama shows how very un-American you are. I have the right as an American to vote for whom I choose, not who the DNC chooses for me.

John J. said...

I too want to address your assessment of McCain. You are very correct in saying that the McCain of 2000 is not the McCain of today. However, that change started long before 2007. For at least the past four years (and possibly before), he has steadily moved closer and closer to the right. Dean's mention of the torture bill is just the most stunning of his flips. He gave the commencement address at Bob Jones University in 2006. He has consistently voted against women's rights (beyond just abortion) and homosexual's rights, and his environmental policy shows a complete lack of understanding of the most basic of the terms. When it comes to business, he has also completely capitulated to them as well. He now not only supports extending Bush's tax cuts, but wants to expand corporate tax breaks even further. These changes began long before he started running for president, but maybe not before he decided he wanted to try. Sadly, I don't believe that the maverick he was once perceived as still exists.

A strong Congress could provide a check on executive power, but as has been shown for the past 8 years, we don't have one. Even if we were to get 67 Democrats in the Senate, they wouldn't be able to stand up against a McCain presidency, at least not for more than two years. If McCain were to appoint a justice that he and the Republican media could portray as moderate and the Congress tied it up for a year, there would be no question about how the 2010 election would be run. This is how Bush has gotten his things through so far, and I expect it is how McCain would run his presidency as well.

If Democrats fail to get a Democratic president elected in 2008, do you really expect the "leaders" in Congress to suddenly grow a spine?

As for your criticism of Obama's waffling on "Change" and "Hope" I can't see what you mean. How is forcing the Democratic party to no longer take lobbyist or PAC money not following through on his "Change" message? Or Move On's decision to stop 527 activities because of their support for Obama's message?

Anonymous said...

This was interesting - for about 6 seconds. I'm out of here and deleting the blog from my bookmarks as well.

Mary Ellen said...

John:

You have also said that not one promise of his can be trusted because he changes constantly (something that has 0 basis in fact) If that isn't telling people not to vote for him, I don't know what is.

Really? Zero basis in fact?


Barack Obama on NAFTA in primary campaign in 2008:

“I have always opposed NAFTA.”

“I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.”

“Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. … Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.” –Senator Barack Obama in Toledo, Ohio on February 24, 2008


Barack Obama on NAFTA in Senate Campaign in 2004:

“The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” quoted in an article by Ron Ingram, Obama, Keyes Court Farmers, Decatur Herald & Review, on September 9, 2004. Source: Lexis/Nexis.

Obama said at the beginning of the primary campaign that he would accept public financing for the general election if McCain agreed to do the same.

How do you explain his change of heart? Now he's against it, much to his supporters like Feingold's dismay. He suddenly claims that it's a broken system, but it's the same system that was in effect when he said he would accept it.

Those are just two examples of many when it comes to Obama backsliding. Now that he has come out to say he's against off shore drilling, and after he said that he dropped from 8 pts. behind McCain in Florida to 11 pts. behind...we'll see if he changes his mind on that one, too.

So, please, be careful when you say that I don't have facts to back up what I say.

Regarding the so-called lies that I didn't address...it was only due to time constraint. If it's that important to you, tell me what they are and I'll address them again. I don't lie, so it won't be hard to de-bunk what you say.

BAC said...

The first thing I would like to say is let's all take a deep breath.

Next, I'd like to clarify something for Dean and JohnJ -- the "maverick" to "panderer" I've seen McCain morph into has been taking place SINCE 2000. I truly do think that primary season changed him, and not for the better. I think the swift boating Rove & Co. did to him truly did alter whatever moral compass he might have still possessed at that time. And the most recent example of his flip-flop on torture is testiment to that change.

The next thing I'd like to clarify is that yes, Dean, even if Democrats get a super majority in the Senate it's quite likely they will remain spineless. For that reason it almost DOESN'T matter who sits in the White House, because the Republicans are going to get their way. They have for the past 8 years, and the Democrats show no signs of that changing. Which is why I think over the next decade it is critically important to work on changing the make-up of Dems in the Senate ... and in the House. We must find REAL progressives/liberals and then work to get them elected.

Here is how I see the next four years: If McCain wins, and the Democrats get 67 seats in the Senate, the minority party will STILL manage to block everything. If Obama wins, and the Democrats get 67 seats in the Senate, the minority party will STILL manage to block everything. Oh, wait ... I just said that! Either way, we're fucked!

We must seek out and elect Democrats who have a spine ... NOT the candidates currently being put forward by the party leaders, who in my opinion are part of the problem NOT the solution.

Do I think the "perfect" candidate exists? I'm 55 years old ... what do YOU think my answer to that is? ha That does not prevent me from at least asking for what I want. I am of the opinion that if you don't ask the answer is "no" -- and if you do ask, your percentage for success is generally increased.

And now to John J, let me just say this: I'm not going to respond to you because I have learned over this primary season that it's useless. I have read the definition of insanity and I would strongly suggest you do the same!


BAC

Randal Graves said...

The title of your blog certainly covers this thread!

If I may add my half a cent - devaluation of the dollar and all that - none of the candidates, save Kucinich, struck my fancy, but I'll never vote for a Republican.

Mary Ellen said...

I'm voting for Randal for President. I think instead of "A chicken in every pot.", he could use the slogan, "Pot in every pot".

C'mon, Randal, you know you want to do it? Could I be in your Cabinet?

Dean Wormer said...

Here is how I see the next four years: If McCain wins, and the Democrats get 67 seats in the Senate, the minority party will STILL manage to block everything. If Obama wins, and the Democrats get 67 seats in the Senate, the minority party will STILL manage to block everything. Oh, wait ... I just said that! Either way, we're fucked!

I couldn't agree more. The minority party won't accept anything from either man but a right-wing nutjob on the court.

The FISA thing has me pretty miffed at the moment but it's just the latest example.

FISA's (specifically telecom immunity) the sort of thing that brings my blood to a boil.

We can't win for losing.

FranIAm said...

What a fascinating thread. And a telling one in many directions.

BAC, let me ask you about these words in one of your comments:

"I sincerely believe that John drank the Kool Aid a long time ago regarding Obama. "

Do you think that there is such a thing as valid support for Obama?

I am truly curious.

Honestly I watch all this from a distance.

As pretty much anyone who is commenting here and as you know, I was lukewarm at best on both Obama and Clinton.

As I started to lose respect for Clinton and grow in my frustration, I grew closer to supporting Obama in a counter-intuitive way.

While I do support Obama today because my own personal assessment is that to do otherwise is to support McCain.

And supporting McCain is something I most consciously choose not to do.

However, I am wondering among you, and among the others who take their positions here, is it possible to do this...

Is it possible to support one candidate without having to lash out at another? It is a question that I ask myself a lot and reflect on frequently.

I found myself in that position and did not (and still do not) like it.

However, here we are with two presumptive nominees and what do we do with that?

Most recently I must say that I am deeply upset with Obama because of his support of this most recent FISA legislation. I am sorry I do not have the link handy and if I have misunderstood, I can be certain someone will point it out to me.

In any event, I am so deeply saddened by the record and toxic amounts of vitriol on all parts, including and especially those I have taken part in.

How can we ever heal? I ask that question both rhetorically and practically.

If anyone has any answers, I would love to hear them.

However - the question also goes begging, do we all thing that those on other sides have consumed some crazy cool aid?

I do not know and I feel terribly depressed about the whole thing.

BAC said...

Fran - good question, and thanks for stopping by to comment. The reason I said that about John is because at times he as presumed to ABSOLUTELY KNOW what his candidate is thinking and doing. I simply don't think that is possible, unless he is with Obama 24/7, and then I might still be suspect.

John has sometime come back to add two or three additional comments, before I've had an opportunity to respond to his first one. To me, that seems obsessive.

Do I think someone can be a valid Obama supporter? Sure.

Have there been (or maybe I should say ARE there) supporters who are obsessed with the candidates they support? Absolutely.

I don't know that anyone other than Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are obsessed with McCain -- but their might be others. Who knows?

What I have tried to consistently say is that when passions run deep it is sometimes not possible for a person to immediately change course.

In the world of politics now, through November, is an ETERNITY! There is PLENTY of time for "healing" and "unity."

If I don't jump on the bus today, that doesn't mean I won't ever get on board.

But people like Dr. Monkey want to throw ME under the bus because I won't jump when he tells me to. And the motivation behind this post was to tell people like Monkey Man to back off -- as I truly DO believe he is doing more harm than good.

Politics has never been a spectator sport for me. I take it seriously, and want to be taken seriously -- and for far too long I don't think MY PARTY has taken me seriously, I think it takes me for granted.

I've allowed it to happen for 37 years, and what has it gotten me? We have a Democratic-led Congress that gave us John Roberts and Sam Alito. We have a Democratic-led Congress that just gave immunity to AT&T for spying on us. And we have a Democratic-led Congress that bends over to the whims of a President with a 28% APPROVAL RATING. How fucked is that!!

When all is said and done this year I will have contributed thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates (running at every level) all across the country. Candidates I think WILL stand up for what I believe in.

In 2004 I sent contributions to about 25 candidates (in a number of states) running for everything from county council to Congress. But I won't send a dime to the Democratic party ... not as long as it continues to take me for granted.


BAC

FranIAm said...

Hi BAC,

Thanks for your really substantial comment in return. I love that blogging is about conversation and that is what we are having here.

In general I have found John J. to be able to have conversation, but your answer puts things in context, thank you.

As for other bloggers - I will refrain from saying anything here having gotten into enough dust-ups of my own and not wanting that to happen again if I can help it.

Well - coincidence or not, a major thunderstorm is coming through (LOL!) - well it actually is, the coincidence part is what makes me smile.

In any event, I shall return later with more.

Thanks for providing this essential space for informed conversation.

mwb said...

I came late to the party (ugly week at work) and clearly things are dying down so I don't want to pointlessly stir them up since others have expressed themselves so well (and others just embarrass themselves.)

For me, I began the primary season more or less fine but not thrilled with all the potential candidates. As it was winnowed down, partly by the media, to essentially being Senators Clinton and Obama - I began to look at things. Initially I saw a fair amount to like about Senator Obama and had hesitations about Senator Clinton.

But as I investigated all the grandiose claims about him, the more I found to be not quite true and more suspicious I was. In contrast, the more I looked at the facts behind the attacks on Senator Clinton the more I realized they were misguided and she was a much better candidate than I thought.

Not ideal mind you, but I'm used to sucking it down and dealing with my disappointments with Democratic candidates.

And some supporters of Senator Obama who continue to attack Senator Clinton and those who supported her, just demonstrates to me how insubstantial they must think their own candidate is since they only way to lend him substance is to tear down others. It's like he doesn't exist except in the reflection of their hatred for Senator Clinton.

Now that the nomination is essentially over surely you have something good to say about your candidate, don't you?