you people just don't get it - and probably never will.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

They'll get it when Obama wins fewer electoral votes than Dukakis.

Otoh maybe not. Maybe they'll just blame the Clintons. Like the Repubs do.

And Obama actually wins the election? And actually does do a good joband manages to get some of his agenda through?

I know it sounds like a impossible scenario to hard core Clintonista but lets just assume it does. Will you'll be like the Republicans that don't give Bill Clinton any credit for any of the good things that happened in the 90s?

There are a couple of problems with trying to
answer your question. I mean, first of all, how
will we know if he has accomplished his agenda?
Since, as General Clark points out above, we
don't really know what his agenda is. And,
secondly, I thought it was going to be up to
his supporters to actually get whatever-it-is
done. He doesn't seem to be promising to do
anything, really, except get you to do the
work. Are you ready?

"He doesn't seem to be promising to do
anything, really, except get you to do the
work. Are you ready?"

Yes I am!

Seriously though, all this talk about being a 'fighter' for working people is just pretend robinhood economics, it ain't gonna fix our problems.

And Obama does have an agenda, whether or not you think it will work the way he says it will is a matter of opinion, but he does have one, so save the disingenoues comments.

But I doubt it. All the evidence points to McCain beating Obama like a rented mule. And like I've said, many times, the GOP and all its 527 minions haven't even gotten a good start on tearing him down the way they will.

See, that's where experience gives one a broader perspective. I know what's coming. You seem to want to wish it away, or blame it all on the Clintons.

I'm no "hard core Clintonista" btw. I'm not convinced she can win either. I am sure she'll fight back like a cornered badger before she'll admit defeat. That's what we need. That's the LEAST of what we need. If Kerry had fought back that way in Ohio and probably a half-dozen other states, we wouldn't have had to endure the last 3+ years of BushCo. I see a lot of Kerry in Obama.

You've got a little "padidog" ahold of your pant leg again, donjo. ;)

That same little "padidog" has gotten ahold of my pant leg a time or two. They just drive by and troll rate then leave.
Their two chicken to post.

BeckySue!

You need to start bringing a rolled up newspaper to the blog with you. Haha.

I think it likes me. Can I keep it?

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

You can keep it...but you have to take care of it. It's your responsibility. ;)

:(

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

more like "state of delusion", maddy.

NoQuarter is covering the Matt Stoller article you posted the other day. Here's an interesting snipet in the post from a "longtime Dem" (this may have been linked in your post the other day....can't remember):

Mr. O is setting up parallel party infrastructure to not only compete with the current Democratic Party, but ultimately OVERTAKE IT. He’s not just looking for control, but he wants to weed out EVERYONE who still has ties to Bill & Hillary Clinton. So say bye-bye to everyone currently working in some capacity on Hillary’s campaign… We’re not welcome any more! …

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/11/obamas-plan-to-overtake-the-democratic-party/

IF the Hope Boat sets sail....IF.....Clintonistas are NOT INVITED.  Particularly, it seems, in the Washington circle.  For many, I suppose, this is The Rapture.  So be it.  But, heck, he's already put VoteVets on the list of unwanted "Washington insiders".  They aren't on the passenger list and they haven't even endorsed Hillary....or worked for her.  ;)

A conspiracy, people say?  Yeah...that's what I was told back in 92 when I tried telling people if the right wing got a foot hold we would be in grave trouble.....we better stop it now.  They looked at me like I had two heads.  Heh.......

What.  Evah. 

Yep, that's the operative word, black knight.

after attempting to steal the nomination with fewer than half the Democratic Party delegates behind him.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

If you think that you really have drunk the kool aid. do you know how many delgates does Obama leads by? Heck he is even leading among superdelegates now for cripes sake!

And by the way how can he steal the nomination with fewer than half the delegates, whoever has less than half loses!

I'm going to tell you what is going to happen, that way it will be easier for you when it does.

Clinton will win WV and KY by big margins, you'll will all celebrate and feel real proud of yourselves, you'll think you've rocked the boat. You will all be popping champange corks and celebrating the demise of that darn evil uppity Obama.

Then Obama is going to win Oregon by 10 to 15%. If we do real well we might even win by 20% we did win next door Washington state by 67% after all, it is not beyond the realm of reason.

We will then win Montana and South Dakota in blowouts, this is all but certain, and while all of this is happening you will hear the slow drip, drip, drip of superdelegates announcing their support of Obama.

Then will come Puerto Rico, Hillary will win it by 15% to 25%. Somewhere in all of this a deal will be struck to seat Michigan and Florida. And then with all contests done and counted it will become obvious that Barack Obama is the leader of the elected delegates. The only question up in the air is the popular vote, but it is likely Obama will prevail if Michigan is counted fairly and the four states that did not release popular vote totals are also counted, those states being IA, NV, ME and WA.

If he wins only elected delegates there is a chance Clinton can pull the supers to her side by pleading the popular vote should she manage to win it, there is a chance, not likely, maybe 35% chance she will still win the popular vote.

But as for winning over the supers, it will be a long shot, at this point Clinton needs 69% of all remaining delegates, Obama needs only 36% to clinch. Odds are after PR, the flood gates will open and within a week Obama will be our nominee.

This will only continue to improve for Obama and worsen for Clinton as the contests wind down.

It is over, Clinton's once formidable lead among supers is gone. I think at this point there have been ten Clinton Superdelegates that defected to Obama. The same has not been true of Obama supers defecting for Clinton, none, zip, nada. Correct if I am wrong on that but I doubt that I am.

How is it that 10 Clintonites defect for Obama, even with all the hoopla over Wright, Rezko and Ayers? But not one defects for Clinton, not one! Maybe you could explain that one to me... maybe in the little world many still here live in Obama has removed the capacity for individual thought from all superdelegates that publically announced for him.

How is it that Barack has picked up superdelegates at a vastly superior ratio to Clinton since Super Tuesday? At such a superior rate in fact that he managed to erase Clinton's 70 superdelegate lead to nothing while going through the biggest scandal of his political career. How is that possible if he is somehow so damaged by Wright that he cannot go on.

I think you'll are banking on "hope" and in a miracle, there is a certain level of irony and humor in that.

Do you worship at the altar of Chuck Todd?

I Thought so. There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Being nasty just to be nasty accomplishes nothing and certainly is outside the standards of General Clark. How does this make you a good spokesperson for him and for Clinton?

Pretend I have posted my comment after every one of yours this evening to save me the trouble.

And, no I'm not a troll for O. Just have a look at my record.

all that is needed to nominate. Demand that they say 2,209 are needed to nominate. Demand that immediately!

You won't, James. You won't do that because it would ruin Obama's long-standing tactical play to convince voters and superdelegates that his nomination is inevitable. You will continue to play along with the lie that 2025 is enough until you've mislead enough people into Obama's camp.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

that the Media quit saying no one campaigned in Florida, when we all know that Obama had TV ads running there and also had a press conference (both forbidden under the RULES).

trust me, they'll be counted. Obama will have nothing to lose and everything to gain by seating them.

But don't expect 325,000 free popular votes from michigan, a good chuck of "uncommited" was Obama supporters, you'll want be handed a free pass to take that big fat lie to the supers and peddle it as truth.

suits him to seat them. How very kind, ethical, and democratic of him. I'm sure all Democrats will just love supporting a benevolent dictator who thinks it's OK for his Party cronies to say that FL and MI will be excluded until such time as he says it's OK to seat them.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

the winner of the 1992 New Hampshire Primary suited Bill Clinton, even though he lost...

Candidates invent their own reality all the time, it ain't nothing new. The only differnce here is that FL and MI broke the rules. Make all the excuses you want about how the republicans made them do it, but they still broke the rules.

The only reason FL and MI will be seated dispite their arrogant violation of party rules is because we can't afford to punish them. Though I do hope Howard Dean strips both states of their superdelegates, either this year or for 2012, punish the party elites rather than the voters, it makes sense to me anyway.

Somebody has to pay for breaking the rules at the end of the day, and if the voters are punished it will be the nominee who suffers.

"it ain't nothing new" ain't?????
"differnce" spelling, please?
"dispite" spelling, please?
College, please?

But my computer is very slow, typographical errors happen, deal with it. I barely have time to respond, and I certainly do not have the time to proof read every comment I post.

As for "ain't" please forgive me for my southwest Virginia background, sometimes it still bleeds through.

seperate is separate
ad homniem is ad hominem
memebers is members
mysoginist is misogynist

I am a native Memphian and the word "ain't" never bleeds through.

I'm totally with you here, but we need to make our voices heard. Not voting for the O! isn't enough, he cannot and must not be the next president.

Please consider casting a protest ballot for John McCain this fall and make Barack Hussein Obama pay for what Obama has done to this party that we once loved.

Anybody but Obama 08!!!

to go around for the state of the Democratic party, and the behavior of so many of its members - Obama doesn't get all the credit for it by a long shot.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

Suffice it to say that General Clark obviously
believes whole-heartedly and deeply (to use
his words) that his philosophy and worldview are closely aligned with Hillary Clinton's. I, myself, see
no resemblance between Clark and Obama except
that they state that they belong to the same
political party.

that Bill Clinton was Gen. Clark's President during the NATO war in Serbia/Kosovo and worked closely with the Clinton White House both before and after, and in the face of some pretty stiff Republican opposition. There was alot of fallout from that for Ge. Clark both personally and professionally.

I'm not saying the Army is political, not should it be, but it's my guess that there were alot of resentful Republicans at the Pentagon who were only too happy to see Clark retired a little bit early, which is what happened. The Clinton's stood by him through all of that and helped protect his reputation from some smear campaigns run. You can still find some remnants of that smear campaign on the Internet if you've looked into the matter at all. I have, somewhat.

Yes, I agree that while the bombing of that television/radio station was outside the realm of what we'd all like to see, I do also believe and there is lots of evidence to support the fact that it was being used as a strategic asset by Milosevic and therefore it was a legal target.

I also agree that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was a complete accident and Clark would have chewed through a mile of barbed wire if he could have prevented it from happening.

I further agree that deploying troops to counter a possible Soviet grab of the most important airfield in the area would not be 'starting World War Three' despite what some highly respected but totally off-base Brit Lord General said when he almost disobeyed a direct order from General Clark, SAUCER, to secure the f*cking airfield. There would not be World War Three, there would be some heated conversations by some diplomats and the Soviets would have had to back down, which they ended up having to do anyways.

I stipulate, however, that there were some rather glaring problems with that Administration that it is not politic to discuss if you are a Clinton supporter this year. I've posted about these things already, so I won't detail it here. Suffice it to say that it wasn't all roses and peaches like the centralized media apparatus described for the Clinton Administration. We all remember the Bush Administrations handling of the media, now don't we? 'Nuff said.

I take a caveat, here, with Phyl's proposal that Gen. Clark's and Senator Clinton's philosophy and worldview are that closely aligned. Clark spoke vociferously against the IWR, Hillary voted for it anyways. Clark was adamant about not 'going along' with the neocons, Hillary went along. Some big differences there.

Conversely, many of the defense and foreign policy decisions make in the Clinton White House were informed and advised upon by Clark in his role as top NATO commander and a participant in the execution of many of the provisos of the U.N. resolutions and the Dayton Accords that shaped the process. There is some alignment between Clark and the Clinton Administration of the 90s, to be sure.

What Clark has not really talked about is many details of Senator Clinton's agenda. He endorses HER, on the basis of character and experience. He's giving her a personal reference to present to America, but he has explicitly stated many times that he is not privy to her staff, nor is he an 'insider' to the Clinton foreign policy staff. He may get phone calls, but he's not 'on the team'.

This indicates to me that Gen. Clark's endorsement is based on his estimation of her personal character and experience, having been present at many of the high level meetings at the White House in those years, and also what she learned by her previous failed attempt to reconstruct the healthcare system, not any kind of ideological symmetry with what her advisors are telling her.

That's a big difference in my mind.

Has discussed Hillary's policies, positions,
and seems, to me, to know them quite well. He
has said that the vote on the IWR is in the
past and that he does not see it as any reason
not to support her. I think those of you who
somehow seem to think that General Clark is less
than fully supporting and engaged with Hillary
Clinton are, yes, in a state of denial. If
you have been paying attention to his words and
actions, you would know he is supporting her
completely and with his eyes wide open. Would
you, really, expect any less of him???

 GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I've never talked to Barack Obama on this issue, and so I'm not an expert on his thinking. I will say this, at one point I, I, I've seen a sixteen-month withdrawal proposed, and at another point I've seen his former senior foreign policy advisor say, "No, no, that was just the best case." So, I don' t know exactly where Barack stands, but I do know where Hillary stands. Hillary stands for a prompt beginning of the withdrawal and then a responsible withdrawal. She stands for the full use of diplomatic, political, economic measures to create a new U.S. strategy in the region, one that puts U.S. interests and U.S allies first and uses the military as one among many different tools in, in a U.S. toolkit. And I think she's got the experience and she's got the team around her that can do this. So, I think she's our best bet for getting the strategy right in the region and for getting our troops home responsibly.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2884

Foreign Policy Amateur Hour

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27647

"This is no time for amateurs." - Wes, Miami Book Fair, November 2007 

Wes isn't alone....no one seems to know where Barack really stands. 

He's so similar to Wes....Wes doen't even know it, apparently. 

are red states that Obama won and by some bizarre twist of logic his supporters think that they will translate into his winning them in the general. They seem to add up to close to nine or so:

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Utah
North Dakota
Colorado

(Not unless it's Hillary's fault that they got together)

Obama Adviser Who Met With Hamas Resigns May 11, 2008

Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas - something Obama pledged he himself would never do.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Saturday Malley called the Obama campaign on Friday to sever ties with the candidate after learning the Times of London was publishing a story about his contacts with the terrorist group.

Malley is an analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based International Crisis Group, specializing in the Israeli-Arab conflict. He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say. I've never denied whom I meet with; that's what I do."

LaBolt said, "Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements."

LaBolt, downplaying Malley's role, said, "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."

The issue of whether to have dealings with Hamas is a particularly sensitive matter for Obama, who needs to persuade skeptical Jewish voters that he is a strong supporter of Israel.

Last week, presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) highlighted a Hamas leader's statement that he hoped Obama would win the White House. Asked about McCain's suggestion that Obama is "favored by Hamas," Obama said McCain was "losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

Last month, as former President Jimmy Carter was set to meet with Hamas leaders, Obama told a group of Jewish activists and clergy in Philadelphia that he would not sit down with Hamas.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/943467,CST-NWS-Sweet11.article

Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas

Are we sure about this? Wasn't the whole flap over his will meet with Ahmajinedad, Kim Jong-il, etc. in the first year with no conditions doesn't fall into this? 

p.s. I'm not advocating or not advocating this in itself- but it speaks to mariner's assertion that we don't have a strong sense of the true philosophical tendencies here. Maybe Hamas gets folded in under a "terrorist" category & due to the (lack of) status of Palestine they wouldn't count. This was the question at an early September debate, for which I can't locate a transcript. But I thought it was phrased as, Iran, North Korea or "other" - and that may or may not include Hamas. 

Again, not advocating or advocating.  

That's my understanding, Bluemoon. I think that what Obama said is that he'd be willing to talk with any STATE, but not a more amorphous organizaion like Hamas.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Just out of idle curiosity, Jen, what do you call a person who predicted grandly on this blog that Clinton would win by 12 points in Indiana and 5 points in North Carolina?

Well, at least I wouldn't call that person dangerous.

have to do with anything? People make wrong predictions every day, including your great Messiah, Obama, who said he would win Indiana. And even with the Lake County shennanigans, he didn't do it. Once I thought all Clark people were decent, caring, thoughtful, respectful, intelligent human beings; I was wrong.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

wanna play with predictions?  

Obama: "I don’t think anybody predicted 9/11"

Yes, we were overly optimistic in our hopes
for Hillary in NC and IN. We so much want
her to win because we believe her to be, by
virtue of experience, policies, character -
and the support of General Clark - to be the
vastly superior choice for President.
And, no, Jen is not dangerous. But then she's
not running for President, either.

egads- make calls, forget these people

IN was the tie breaker. That is, before he LOST.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

You can tell in her post that she was just trying to get positive vibes going to start the Indiana and North Carolina voting.

It put a smile on my face.

I admit, I'm delusional. Happy? :D

For some dumb reason I actually didn't grasp the lengths O!, his team and his supporters would go through to get him the nomination. It was dumb, because I knew the tactics he used in IL to advance his political career -- hence, I should have logically known he would use any tactics necessary to win. I think what they did in IN was as crooked and corrupt as what Jr and his gang of thugs did in OH in 2004. Oh, Lake Country had a haaaard time counting their votes, because of all those icky old people counting absentee ballots. But, voila! suddenly when the Mayor of Gary is on teevee, being called out on it by the Mayor of Hammond, who knew the totals had been reporteed earlier in the evening -- why suddenly, the totals come pouring in!

I imagine if no one had confronted the Mayor, everyone would have gone to bed with Hillary in a comfortable lead, only to have awoken Wed. morning with O! suddenly, shockingly, against all odds, the winner!

So yeah. I think they rigged the vote in IN. Just as they rigged the caucuses, and just as they rigged MI by Obama voluntarily removing his name from the ballot and encouraging everyone else to do the same, leaving Hillary as the lone candidate. Too bad for Obama, everyone didn't go along with scheme, and only he, Edwards, and Richardson removed their names.

So I hope it made you all tingly and smiley to mock my lousy prediction, but in a fair and transparent election she would have whooped his a** in IN and beat him narrowly in NC. Ha!

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

And what about that little erm neighboring Illinois State Legislature literally taking the day off (the whole body, as I understand it, not individuals) to hustle gotv... It really seems like his entire political career, what there is of it other than speeches, consists soley of getting people organized to vote for... wait for it. him. All about the O!

Swept Under the Carpet, the day off. Is that even legal?! <<seriously

.

You know, there was a time when I was actually respected, even praised by many of the same people who now hate my guts, all because I back Obama and wouldn't stay in the closet about it.

Oh well, the rest of the world and old politics had to come crashing in on CCN sometime. Even a blog like this can only be an island for so long before it is swollowed up by the ocean.

I really do think politics brings out the worst, rather than the best impulses in people. Thankfully, presidential elections come only once every four years...

How's that obamamania working for that relationship of yours with that muslim girl. Oh, so she didn't fall for you because you voted for the "hip" candidate, that is so... tragic.

I am going to report you.

These kinds of attacks do much more harm than anything else, and have no place here. Really not good.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

the line. James didn't attack you personally - don't do it to him. Please apologize to him for that, will you?

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

why should I be sorry for telling the truth?

He came here and went off chanting about the greatness of the O!, he just got what he had coming to him.

on what you think the state of his love life is. And, by the way - in case you didn't notice it - that comment came off as slamming a religion, not a person.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

strongly disagree with you on many points you made, or tried to make. But if you take every such disagreement in debate as a personal attack, you'll not only wear yourself out,get frustrated, your arguments will lose coherence, and you'll wear everyone else out too.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

Its being hounded by trolls who can't seem to seperate personal ad homniem attacks from rational debate, and being told by memebers that I am too young to have opinions.

One long time member who shall remain unnamed even told me to: "crawl back into your crib." His words, not mine. I have been called a mysoginist, the list goes on and on.

I don't think I'm hated by everyone, and I really could care less what Jack has to say about me.

But I am certainly not on many people's good side, my 75% decline in my karma rating in the last 6 months is a testament to that. People abuse the troll rate and use it to punish anyone who says something that they don't like.

It just doesn't make one feel welcome, and yes I do feel resented, it crossed the line of disagreement when people started abusing the troll rate.

enough, already, enough. The only hounding being done here seem to be by your own hand. If you're reading for keywords, try narcissism.

------------

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection

Counter-projection

When addressing psychological trauma the defense mechanism is sometimes counter-projection, including an obsession to continue and remain in a recurring trauma-causing situation and the compulsive obsession with the perceived perpetrator of the trauma or its projection.

Jung writes that "All projections provoke counter-projection when the object is unconscious of the quality projected upon it by the subject."

The concept was anticipated by Friedrich Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

Common definitions

• "Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."
• "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
• "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."
• "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
• "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others."
• "An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."

Psychopathology

In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders:

• Paranoid personality disorder
• Narcissistic personality disorder
• Antisocial personality disorder
• Psychopathy

When you are abusing General Clark's website to push Obama or attack Hillary.

I cannot vouch for every single "0" you've received, but I know the ones I've given you are for that. NOT because you happened to say "something [I] don't like."

But again, you are refusing to take responsibility for the role your own actions and attitudes play in how you are treated by the other bloggers here. It's always someone else's fault.

The poster is an extremely bright & gifted person. It would be nice if he would choose to go ideally elsewhere & support his candidate, but does not seem to indicate interest in doing so. Replying to these posts is like watering weeds & widens the conflict. Back & forth does not help.

There is no & has never been any indication that further "conversation" or "debate" w/said poster will do anything, anything, anything, anything at all other bruise feelings, get your "irish!" up & widen the chasms between we, who should be more or less on the same side of the fence. 

Note to anyone/everyone able to make calls- 

perhaps time would be better spent on GOTV efforts today if you have cell phone minutes to  call WVA, KY, OR, etc. - seriously.

-----

ODD- Oppositional Defiant Disorder  

the election for awhile. Try a few topics that have absolutely nothing to do with politics - there is considerably more to life than this election, after all.

talk about a book you like, or a writer, painter, musician, althlete, sport, places you'd like to go, etc. Plently to discuss without it being political, or even being a debate.

If posting here is somethng you at least used to enjoy, then try showing people here there are other dimensions to you.

Just a thought.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

Now THIS is the ultimate denial. And I hear it from the same three or four people over and over.

I don't know that anyone here "hates your guts," but if you are disliked or disrespected, it is NOT because you back Obama. It is because of your own personality, the things you say, the way you treat people. It is much too easy for you (and the others) to blame it on something relatively superficial like supporting one candidate over another -- it saves you from having to examine your own behavior, see yourself the way we see you, and make adjustments to get along with the group. Of course, there will still be people who don't like you (there are people here who don't like me either), but it still won't be because you support Obama. It just makes you feel better to think so.

"It is because of your own personality..."

If it had to do with my personality I would have even had any respect here. And pre-endorsement I was actually pretty well liked. The only thing that changed was I went for one candidate, and everybody else went for the other.

Denial.

Editing to add:

This is a good example. I wrote, "It is because of your own personality, the things you say, the way you treat people." But you chose to quote and respond to only, ""It is because of your own personality..." This is precisely one of the behaviors I'm talking about. Cherry-picking pieces of what people say to make you own point, instead of caring about the point the other blogger was trying to make.

Maybe you didn't do that before you chose Obama.

But I doubt it. I think more likely the people who didn't like you before were just too polite to say so.

in posting here, it seems, is not for enlightenment or discussion, since he refuses to acknowledge when his arguments are utterly destroyed, it's to waste people's time answering his repetitive posts. The best solution is to I G N O R E.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

for a visit from a clear-headed voice of the past.

for the 0 rating of this post

But I found them both insulting. The regular pro-Hillary posters to this blog are plenty "clear-headed" thank you. Nor should our VERY justified complaints and fears about Obama be dismissed as mere "extremist partisanship."

What I don't understand is why some people feel a need to come to General Clark's website to promote a candidate he is working very hard to defeat. You will not convert anyone here. There are MANY pro-Obama websites where you can go. I can only assume you are the type of people who enjoy harassing people for holding different opinions than yourselves. You certainly show no respect at all for us or General Clark.

Nice to see you here again. Hope you stick around - and debate issues ;-) - whether election related or not.

Kelly

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

I would say you need to turn your arguument around 180 degrees. I can't in recent memory recall a candidate of Hillary's caliber, a former First Lady, being treated with such hatred from so many supposed democratic camps. This ia pro-Hillary site and it is the unbending Obama supporters stirring up the pot that cause most of the trouble here.

Prior to Wes endorsing Hillary, there was no shortage of outburst of Hillary hate here. During the 2004 election there was no shortage of negative posts on other candidates including Kerry, Edwards, etc. Even after Kerry won the nomination he was criticized here.

I don't like Obama as a candidate. He is inexperienced and was forged from one of the the most corrupt (Chicago) political environments in he country that also happens to one of the most blatantly anti-white america biased communities in the country.

I know someone who's wife grew up in that community and his assesment is that there is no shortage of residents there that believe and applaud the extreme idea's and rhetoric that come out to the mouths of guy's like Farrakhan and at times Wright.

There is some sort of open or silent acknowledgemnt among his supporters that these views are acceptable. There is some elitist view point that, that communities bias and hatred is ok. These same people who attacked Bill Clinton for making factual statements about former black candidate like Jesse Jackson success when they ran.

Personally, I don't care about the race issue but IMO, it is Axlerod and Obama's camp that has skillfully played the race card while blaming it on the Clinton camp.

Part of Mrs O's stump speech was whining about how difficult life and how she feels her communties pain, as she lives in her Rezko sweet deal mansion and collects her >$300k annual salary with the benefit of a Harvard education while playing the race card with silent acknowledgment from the other elitist who support her.

Hillary and Bill are far less racist then Obama and his wife and collectively they are are far more qualified and more in touch with the needs of this country.

One takes on invincibility defending, one takes on vulnerability attacking.

One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking.

::

the victories from those skilled in warfare are not considered of great wisdom or courage, because their victories have no miscalculations.

No miscalculations mean the victories are certain, achieving victory over those who have already lost.

::

a victorious army first obtains conditions for victory, then seeks to do battle.

A defeated army first seeks to do battle, then obtains conditions for victory.

Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg’d comrade.  Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel but, being in,
Bear't that th' opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement.
...Neither a borrower, nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

-------

On one hand, each to their own. OTOH, when I hear people complain about tone it usually seems like it is on a drive-by level by people who don't invest much or usually any time blogging here, other than to stop by & strike out & register their disapproval. Understood. 

Here's what bothers me far more than the tone here in the peanut gallery (that's all of us) is:

An untested president with a sketchy background who gives every sign of twisting & applying rules in an undemocratic fashion, given a free ride by the so-called Fourth Estate, whose inexperience is masked by  some kind of vacuous "judgement" based on a speech he then had an ad agency weave the sounds of adulation & applause back into, someone rammed through by the usual suspects "KERRY" etc. HELLO. This is your brain on establishment Democrats. Meanwhile, a board of national security Democrats whose detractors disregard the guidance & expertise of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Wes Clark, the list- it goes on. What particularly galls me is he's had his arse handed to him in 20 debates on policy- and that isn't even a question. Much less refusing to campaign in certain states while half his whole illusory appeal was supposed to be luring cross over voters. Map changer, sure. Just not in a good way. Refusing debates, etc. 

Tone? That's what's wrong?  (this is what I picked up last night - where the direct post is to reply to, I'm not sure.) 

I beg to differ.  

That is laughable. Did you take Axlerod politics 101 recently?

It is Obama supporter posting on this site doing just as you say. Your come here to pick a fight. There is nothing constructive in your post and others like it.