I've gotta admit that Obama is attracting a number of new devotees to our Party

[mtnsnake]

If they're anything like half the ones on this forum, then may God have mercy on our souls because OUR PARTY WILL BE DOOMED!

[ingac70]

1. Speaking of dooming the party...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=100452

[Faygo Kid]

2. Nice. Don't worry, posts like that will drive them away from voting Dem.

Doom is what you are promising.

[JKaiser]

3. Haha! you are so right!

[skipos]

4. DOOOOOOOOM!!!! TERROR!!! MUSLIM!!!! BLACK CHURCH!!!! HUSSEIN!!! nt

[DearAbby]

15. RUN AWAY!!! * * n/t

[tabasco]

5. The party was already doomed with the likes of H. Clinton.

I will be happy to see the party oppose the republicans rather than kiss their asses.

[Hieronymus]

32. Damn right, Hillary just sided with McCain against Obama .. screw her.

[Birthmark]

6. Aw, they'll leave quickly enough.

...but not until the run up to the GE.

[Guava Jelly]

7. This must me one of the pro obama threads you were talking about

:sarcasm:

[indimuse]

8. you're right! Although..

I think some new voters have a lot to do with the state of our country..war...etc..hence Bush and the Reubs. By that alone I think that ads to the motivation for change, thus voting.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. there's going to be a lot of angry young people if Obama loses

[rug]

11. They should have been angry long before Obama.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. but they weren't

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. but they weren't

[anonymous171]

12. Hillary 08: GET OFF MA LAWN!

Seriously, stop with the ageist remarks, because mine are funnier.

[NanBo]

13. Doom and Gloom!

this calls for some of these (shout out to the clinton crew) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Forkboy]

14. Your OPs are really devolving into nothing lately.

:shrug:

[Catherina]

16. Devotees to the party?

:rofl:

Don't get confused. I, for one, am not a devotee to this party. I'm coming on board this election to help our country change directions by supporting Obama and voting for him in the General. Your party is in such bad shape and has made such a mess of things that you can't win any election without the help of people who fled from it in disgust a few years ago.

I leave senseless devotion to a party to people who don't realize the party is here to serve the people and NOT vice versa. If the Democratic Party tries to force its DLC queen on us, many of us will be walking out again, with NO support in the General.

[mtnsnake]

17. DLC queen? This is where you are confused. Obama is pushing more of a DLC agenda than anyone

else in the Primaries with his "Reach out to Republicans" theme.

Just because Obama isn't a card carrying member doesn't mean he isn't as much DLC, or possibly more DLC than the other candidates we had running. There is more than one reason why the DLC, Obama, and his close friend, DLC leader Harold Ford, are interested in establishing a working relationship with each other....

Ford predicted the DLC will play a major role in the issues debate that unfolds in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary process. The group will not side with any one candidate, he said, even though the organization has close ties to a number of potential nominees, from Vilsack to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Joe Biden (Del.) to Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.). Even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has expressed interest in "finding ways he could work with the DLC," according to Ford. (Ford describes Obama as a "personal friend" and says they talk regularly.)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html

DailyKos straw poll shows shows Kossacks prefer John Edwards 37% to Obama’s 27% with Wesley Clark a distant third at 14% (the Blogometer has checked these numbers at 6K, 13K ,and 16K votes and there has been no change in the %s).

Netroots ambivalence towards Obama’s candidacy seems to stem from two related sources: 1) his perceived centrist/Liebermanesque/DLC rhetoric; 2) and his inability/refusal to lead take the lead on a major progressive issue (especially the war).

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/obama_wire_the.html

The DLC doesn’t necessarily pre-select candidates, but they do keep an eye out for possibilities. Obama has been on their watch-list for some time. Now that they see his sex appeal, they may rally behind him. He could be Hillary without the polarizing effect, a real possibility to hold the office.

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/

[anonymous171]

19. Clinton is a FUCKING CHAIR THERE!

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[mtnsnake]

22. Calm down. She's a chair & Obama might as well be an honorary member

so what's the big deal. Jayeesus.

[Catherina]

29. Please. Clinton is owned by Murdoch and the weapons industry

Obama can play nice with the scum in the interests of "inclusiveness" if he wants. I just don't want the scum in charge.

I'm done with Democrats who think they can walk all over the base, without even paying lip service to it, and get our votes. That last sentence fits Clinton to a T.

Clinton's made it clear she doesn't even care what anyone thinks so she can KMA.

[mtnsnake]

30. Cough up some links that prove that she's owned by Murdoch & the weapons industry

I don't want to see half-assed associations. I want proof of your statement that she's "owned" by Murdoch & the weapons industry.

[Catherina]

31. Google is your friend but I'll be kind and get you started.

See there's the problem right there with many supporters. Uninformed and worse, unwilling to research anything on their own.

But wothehell I'll get you started.

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Friday, 19 October 2007


The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

(snip)

Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

(snip)

After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.

(snip)

Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.

So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive US military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.

(snip)

Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-bucks-the-trend-and-rakes-in-cash-from-the-us-weapons-industry-397281.html

Of course, I doubt you even care. The weapons industry knows a good friend when they see it. Nothing says love like voting for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment to depict Iran as a terrorist state and our enemy. Whoops she did it again!

I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice. We shouldn't repeat our mistakes and enable this President again. - Chris Dodd

Of course, if I had no morals and my stock portfolio relied on getting the US government to order and distribute cluster bombs, I guess I'd be pushing Clinton too on that cold day in hell. Hillary Clinton voted against banning the use of cluster bombs in CIVILIAN AREAS.

.AMDT.4882

Amends: H.R.5631

Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne (submitted 9/5/2006) (proposed 9/5/2006)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S58975

But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

(snip)

of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

On not one but two of her most important life-and-death votes in the Senate, Clinton embraced political expediency over the protection of innocent human lives.

(snip)

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/hillary-vs-obam.html

Here is the exact text of the bill straight from Senate Amendment No. 4882:

Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my <sic> be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages, camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups of nomads.

Here's the roll call.

Cluster bombs in a civilian area is a fucking war crime.

(snip)

Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

A cluster bomb is a 14-foot weapon that weighs about 1,000 pounds. When it explodes it sprays hundreds of smaller bomblets over an area the size of two or three football fields. The bomblets are bright yellow and look like beer cans. And because they look like playthings, thousands of children have been killed by dormant bomblets in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. Each bomblet sprays flying shards of metal that can tear through a quarter inch of steel.

The failure rate, the unexploded rate, is very high, often around 15 to 20 percent. When bomblets fail to detonate on the first round, they become land mines that explode on simple touch at any time.

(snip)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0126-04.htm

Cluster bombing


Unexploded cluster bomb


A cluster bomb victim

Another cluster bomb victim



Look into that little boys eyes and dare excuse that vote. It's unconscionable to know all of this and excuse it.

There's a pattern here that even a 6 year old can figure out. Vote to keep the war going, get more money from the arms industry, vote again to keep it going, vote for every prowar bill that crosses your desk, rinse, lather and repeat. The arms industry in this country figured it out so it's not that difficult.


For Murdoch, I'd suggest you google Hillary + Murdoch + fundraiser.

[iilana X]

18. Ah, which party DO you belong to? Just wondering. n/t

[Yael]

20. Don't worry. After tomorrow they are with Sen. Obama and the party or the 7 day

clock runs out.

[Maribelle]

21. How true.

My only consolation is that I truly believe they'll be gone with the wind soon.

[dionysus]

23. lay off it shipley... you're over the line...

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

24. Yes he is... and those new voters will turn right around and move away from the Dems if Hillary wins

....sorry... it's just a fact.


Those 18 to 34 year olds that are registering to vote in record numbers are doing so SPECIFICALLY to vote for Obama.

These are not people who are going to say "Oh well, I guess I'll support Hillary now."

These are people that will withdraw from the process as quickly as they joined, if Hillary succeeds in snuffing out the greatest hope we've had for a change in tone in Washington in decades.


These people aren't as much anti-Republican as us older Democrats.

Hillary... if she succeeds in winning the battle vs Obama... will lose the war with McCain. There will be no enthusiasm for her campaign.

[cbayer]

25. Attracting new devotees to the party is a good thing

and I think our party will be saved by it, not doomed.

I agree that there has been some over-enthusiastic Obama fans who are driven by the image and know little of the substance, but that's OK.

I didn't know much when I started getting involved in politics either. But my anger at the status quo and that other terrible war we were in drew me into politics. And young people coming aboard changed the course of the ship.

Whether Obama or Clinton wins, things will be better. And I hope younger people who have gotten involved stay with us no matter who wins.

[sueragingroz]

26. Yep... they loved Bush... and now they love Obama

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece

and here's why:

But last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama � that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Kagan is an informal foreign policy adviser to the Republican senator John McCain, who remains the favoured neoconservative choice for the White House because of his backing for the troops in Iraq.

But in an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by

Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was “pure John Kennedy”, a neocon hero of the cold war.

In his speech, Obama called for an increase in defence spending and an extra 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines to “stay on the offense” against terrorism and ensure America had “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world”. He talked about building democracies, stopping weapons of mass destruction and the right to take unilateral action to protect US “vital interests” if necessary, as well as the importance of building alliances.

“Personally, I liked it,” Kagan wrote.