We're not Republicans, so we don't have to defend Obama to other liberals at DU.

[Major Hogwash]

I'm not going to waste time defending Obama to anyone else who doesn't like him or doesn't "get it" or hasn't accepted the fact that Obama is going to be our nominee.

So, if you're a liberal, and you still call yourself a Democrat, then don't expect me to tell you why Senator Obama is far more qualified than Senator McCain to lead this nation for the next 4 years.

If you agree, then please recommend this post.

That is all.

[patrice]

1. I'm always thinking about others who read threads, not just the person I'm replying to.

So, it isn't always just aobut convincing some jerk; it's also about persuading others who post or just lurk.

[tabatha]

2. lurk.

[patrice]

3. Yeah, thanks. nt

[hfojvt]

4. what does Republican or Democrat have to do with it?

Is it reasonable to expect people to vote by Party? That seems awfully close-minded to me. Suppose, for example, that Lincoln Chafee was running against Joe Lieberman. or Chuck Hagel against Zell Miller. Those may not be the best examples, but there must be some Republicans that even strong Democrats think would be better than some Democrats.

And then there's the spectrum.
FL - L - CL - C - C- C - C - CR - R - FR

People in the 3rd, 4th and fifth groups might think of themselves as Democrats, or be registered Democrats, but might consider voting for a Republican who is Center Right especially if the Republican agrees with them on some of their pet issues. There is a spectrum on issues as well. A person could be a 1 on LGBT issues but closer to a 6 on tax issues. Or vice versa. Obama and McCain have a spot on the spectrum as well. Maybe Obama and Giuliani are both 3 on LGBT issues. Lord knows, both Gravel and Huckabee are a 10 on the issues of taxes since they both support the UnFairTax, and Ron Paul might be a 2 on the Iraq war. I don't think the work of arguing the truth or value of the leftward positions is a waste of time.

Finally, to me it is not about "being qualified" that I am basing my selection on. That's the Clinton frame and a typical Republican and incumbent frame. Who, after all, is more qualified than an incumbent? I'd rather have an 'unqualified' person who agrees with me than a supposedly qualified person who doesn't.

[Major Hogwash]

7. More super delegates agree with me than either you or Skinner.

*Oh snap* That's gonna leave a mark!

[NewHampshireDem]

10. Simple answer: vote D every time

"Suppose, for example, that Lincoln Chafee was running against Joe Lieberman. or Chuck Hagel against Zell Miller."

Having a majority in the Senate or the House matters more than the positions of the individual Senators themselves.

Do we often need 'better Democrats', to use Kos's phrase? Yes. But a bad Democrat is better than a good Republican every time.

(But, thank god it's not come down to your examples above. Eew!)

[hfojvt]

11. I think that's very debatable

A bad Democrat tends to undermine all Democrats by giving weight to Republican talking points. Suddenly they become bi-partisan and those who disagree with this conventional wisdom are just stubborn partisans. In much the same way a good Republican can give weight to Democratic talking points.

[Voice for Peace]

16. thanks very much for your pov.

I agree.

[Skittles]

17. I would never EVER vote repuke

in the situation you describe I simply ould not vote

[TBF]

32. I actually agree with you - and have voted for a few repubs locally

who do a fantastic job. I think you have to expect, though, at a forum called "Democratic Underground" that most are going to advocate straight ticket voting. If nothing else I would vote for the dem presidential nominee this year because of the Supreme Court. Of course I love Obama so it's an easy choice. If it were Hillary it would be harder, but I would like to think I would calm down from all the primary craziness and do the right thing. Even if she is repub-light, she's still better than McCain. She reluctantly voted for the war and now wants to end it, which is better insight than "100 more years". And her pick to the Supreme Court would be infinitely better. Even though the economy and war are first on everyone's minds right now, we must not forget the court. A McCain pick gives the fascists their victory, and the court will be unrecognizable the next 35 years. We can't let that happen.

[Exilednight]

49. Read the rules. n/t

[hfojvt]

60. What, these?

"This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.
6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately."

Specifically this: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

I read the "generally" to be a different word than "rigidly", "robotically" or "dogmatically" and don't see an "always" there except in specific cases. Thus, I believe, I can talk about a theoretical election where I might prefer the Republican candidate to the Democratic candidate, in theory, but in a specific or actual race I cannot advocate voting for a Republican candidate or voting against a Democratic candidate.

Although I believe I am ahead of DU in this regard. For a while DU had a banner ad that read "support Matt Blunt for Governor" without mentioning that Matt Blunt is a Republican. I took it upon myself to start a thread saying "support Jay Nixon for Governor" although I ended up having to kick it myself every time I saw the Blunt ad.

[truedelphi]

54. Having grown up in Mayor Daley Sr.'s Chicago - I understand exactly what you are saying

My first experience as a twenty year old was supporting a Progressive Republican, one of the few R's who opposed the war in Vietnam and was intelligent about most issues.

I went door to door campaigning on his behalf, and was followed by a rather spooky guy in a dark trench coat. He would take notes about who invited me into their home after I rang their door bell, and possibly things like how long I stayed etc.

Many people who opened their doors and asked me who I was supporting were quite apologetic about not inviting me in, but told me: "My job depends on my appearing in every way possible to be fully supporting the Democratic machinery of Chicago politics."

[kwenu]

5. I agree. If you're a Democrat it's time to support your nominee and that includes

supporters of all of the great candidates who brought a lot of excitement to the 2008 democratic primary season.

McCain!!!! We're coming after you McCain!

[H2O Man]

6. Exactly.

Nominated.

[roseBudd]

8. If ending an unjust war and insuring women have the right to choose isn't enough, I can't help you

[lojasmo]

9. K/R. Vote for the democrat, goddamnit. EOM

[TexasObserver]

12. Amen. Adults who understand the stakes don't have to be begged or sold.

especially people who are Democrats

anyone who insists they have to be wooed and convinced is not someone who is a Democrat

we nominate someone, and we try to elect them over the Republican candidate

[tomp]

35. helluva system. nt

[TexasObserver]

40. Yes, it is. Time tested.

thanks for sharing your keen insights

[tomp]

85. time tested?

do go on.

[AZBlue]

13. Indeed. K&R.

[iamthebandfanman]

14. i agree, shouldnt even take time to think about

if youre a democrat, youll vote for any D before you vote for mccain this election.

if not, maybe you should rethink your party and how your issues match up with it and other partys.

no more republican-lite .

[HuffleClaw]

15. translation: you can't n/t

[WillyToad]

18. Your post does exactly what you say you won't do

You just, 'wasted your time,' defending Obama, again

[Major Hogwash]

19. Happy Mother's Day.

I'm not wasting my time now, am I?

[KSinTX]

20. Where'd you see a defense in the OP?

If you saw one, please never go pro se in a court of law, OK?

[earth mom]

21. This thread is nothing more than "you're either with us or against us" bullshit.

Why do people have to accept and support someone the media picked? :wtf:

This is supposedly still a free country and if people want to sit this one out or they want to write in Edwards or Gore, or even sell their soul to McCain that is up to them-it is their OWN choice.

FYI-You have NO right to guilt trip anyone or smear people with innuendo or make people feel they must be in lock step with everyone or else!

:grr:

[raystorm7]

22. You missed the point entirely...sheesh! And are making up nonsensical points as you go O.o

[earth mom]

23. No, I've been here long enough to know what's going on. I've seen it before. nt

[verges]

44. Your 100% right.

You DO have the right to vote for whoever you choose. And, it is "You're either with us or against us." Every vote that doesn't go to Obama, makes McCains task that much easier. And one of those two is going to win in November. So, I hope you see, Not voting Democrat does equal voting Republican. You certainly don't have to do anything that some anonymous typist on the net says you have to. But, since this IS a site for Democrats, it seems reasonable to expect the people here to support the Democratic candidate. If that's a problem for you, you may want to ask yourself if you really should be here.

[earth mom]

68. Whether I stick around DU is not for YOU to decide. nt

[verges]

75. I decided nothing for you.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[earth mom]

76. Then don't tell me to leave or pledge some sort of loyalty oath.

You're the one supporting a candidate that is really a closet rethuglican.

[verges]

77. I have done nothing of the sort.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate come November. I urge others, including yourself, to do so. The reason I do so, is that I strongly feel that this country cannot well stand another 4-8 years of Republican control.

I would like to add that I am supporting the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. And I've been saying so since before I actually decided which candidate to vote for myself.

[quickesst]

24. Always spinning...

I come here every day, and I've never read where someone thinks Obama would not be a better prez than McCain.(remember Bush and "I'd vote for a rock before....") Clinton, on the other hand, would make, hands down, a better prez than either of them. As far as this goes: "So, if you're a liberal, and you still call yourself a Democrat, then don't expect me to tell you why Senator Obama is far more qualified" Noone's done that yet. He's a three term senator, with an as yet, unspectacular record, which is par for most new senators, who was pretty much handed the job on a silver platter. If that constitutes "far more qualified", have at it. As far as DU O fans go, the bottom line is, they want people to elect Obama because he is black, not because he is a credible, and qualified candidate who happens to be black. Big distinction, and DU fans apparently cannot tell the difference through the haze of guilt, and self-loathing. They have made a twisted caricature of a noble ideal. Thanks.
quickesst

[verges]

46. If you're here everday....

you certainly must have encountered folks saying that if Obama wins I'm sitting this one out. If Obama wins, I'm writing in Hillary. If Obama wins, I'm voting Nader. These really do equal supporting McCain. These are not votes against McCain, they make his task that much easier. So you see, people have written (indirectly) that McCain would be a better President than Obama.

Every vote Obama doesn't get, is one less that McCain has to get. Do we really want to help McCain that way? Be realistic. Obama or McCain is going to be the next President. I beg you: Please don't enable McCain.

[Jakes Progress]

61. Look, I'm voting Democratic.

Okay? But let's not pretend that a few weeks back, in the thick of things, there weren't just as many "I'll never vote for that bitch" postings as we see now about voting for Barack. And let's not pretend that we are really for getting the party together and just going after McCain when many (not all) of those threads are still about sticking it to Hillary. A little honesty would be nice.

I didn't start out as a Clinton supporter but chose her when all my preferred candidates got MSM'ed. I don't buy that she is a war mongering neocon anymore than I buy that Obama is an empty suit who is anti-American. Democrats who fall for either of those neocon constructs are not doing anything to help the country. There is such a thing as being a victim of Rove's tricks and then there is being a willing victim.

It certainly looks like Barack will be the nominee. If people want to get McCain, they need to just let it play out. Stop rising the the troll bait and stop being so gullible.

[verges]

78. Reply

"Look, I'm voting Democratic" Good for you. That's very decent of you.

Obama was not my first choice either. But, I did know all along, that come November, my first choice would be the Democrat.

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. ...

:thumbsup:

[FatDave]

69. "the bottom line is, they want people to elect Obama because he is black"

On whether or not Clinton would make a better president, I can respectfully disagree. But Obama supporters are only voting for him because he's black? Are you mentally challenged or just an asshole? Because if that's the case, why did I support Edwards before I supported Obama? I mean, if I, a middle class middle-aged white man from Iowa, am so hell-bent to elect a black president, why did I support Edwards until he dropped out? And why did I never vote for Jesse Jackson even though I've had many opportunities over the years?

So please, drop the fucking racebaiting, mmmkay?

[Dark]

25. Umm, I don't mind talking with Clinton supporters. I try to look at both sides, and present

an honest outlook.

And, I want to remind Clinton's supporters that most Obama supporters are genuinely nice people.

[ClassWarrior]

51. I don't mind talking with them either, but I don't need to CONVINCE the ones...

...I know in real life because they're real Dems who understand and embrace Progressive values. Not disruptors and trolls hiding behind an anonymous message board and trying to manipulate the weaker among us.

NGU.

[Jakes Progress]

62. Me too.

I don't mind talking to real world Obama supporters. At the political functions and Democratic headquarters, they realize that about 49% of us would have preferred it the other way. They respect our views and welcome our support. You can get really bent out of reality by spending too much time on the net. You start to believe those sites represent more than the few percent of Americans.

Vote Democrat. Straight ticket.

[Perry Logan]

26. The problem is, you DON'T defend Obama. You just lie through your teeth about Hillary.

[Razorblade01]

31. Amen to that Perry!

I couldn't agree more. She'll be lucky to win back her Senate seat after the Obama supporters drug her through the mud.

[JTFrog]

36. She doesn't deserve to win back her Senate seat and I will campaign for any Dem running against her.

IWR
Kyl-Lieberman
Patriot Act
Bankruptcy Bill
Mandatory payments for Insurance Companies
No Child Left Behind
Gas Tax Holiday
NO on Banning cluster bombs
Silent on Telcom Immunity

OBLITERATE IRAN
QUEEN OF WHITE AMERICA - RACE BAITING CAMPAIGN
NON PAYMENT OF DEBTS

That's just my short list. If she's gonna vote like a republican, talk like a republican and campaign like a republican, then she can just run as a republican if she wants to keep her Senate seat. She will never be re-elected to anything after showing her true colors, no matter how many coats of white base she applies.

[Jakes Progress]

63. MMM. Bet a nice glass of Merlot

would help wash down that big old plate of RoveMeat you have swallowed. Try a little perspective for dessert.

[JTFrog]

67. Rove cast her votes? Rove is running her campaign?

Wouldn't doubt it.

[Jakes Progress]

79. So sorry. Too subtle.

What my reply meant was that you are a full fledged victim of the neocon game. You actually seem to believe the stuff you wrote, all of which are story lines prepared by the RoveCo pr firms. Those stories are used to convince the weak-minded that perfectly good Democrats are bad and to keep the party divided. You passed along every trite little line that has been used over and over and over. So tiring.

We have a better target for your misplaced hate and malice. We are going to try to beat McCain in November. See if you can find some way to dislike real Republicans for real reasons as much as you hate Hillary for doing things like voting just like Obama.

[JTFrog]

80. Her voting record and her actions speak for themselves.

My hatred and malice? Weak minded? Tiring?

Take your "too subtle" and shove it. And you can keep your republican in democratic clothing. I dislike anyone who acts like a republican just as much as I dislike real republicans. See my sig line for clarification.

Can't your candidate take responsibility for anything she's done? Are her supporters going to constantly make her the victim regardless of her voting record and regardless of witnessing her absolute lack of ethics not to mention downright incompetence? Vote for Clinton - Over a million dead, over a million more to be obliterated and millions in debt. Nothing neocon or republican about that, right? Good old fashion democratic values in action.

And talk about a Rovian tactic. Repeat a lie over and over and over again and the cognitive dissonant will believe it. Obama and Clinton's voting records ARE NOT IDENTICAL ON ISSUES IMPORTANT TO MY FAMILY. Did you even look at my list. Patriot Act. That's the only thing they have in common on my list and I will continue to take him to task for it even when he's president. I doubt it will be necessary given his commitment to restoring the Constitution.

See if you can find some way to pull your head out of your ass. Obama will beat McCain in November in SPITE of Clinton's obvious attempts to destroy a member of her own party so she can run again in 2012.

[Jakes Progress]

81. I see you feel very strongly about this.

I still question how voting with Clinton to keep funding the war rather than stand up with the braver Democrats who put their political futures on the line by voting for a timeline makes him less of a warmonger. Their voting records are identical in the point that they both have spoken and voted in whatever ways would advance their political career. They both believe they should be president. They both have followed campaign plans that were devised for them. Hillary made the disastrous mistake of using Penn for her campaign. She followed her campaign manager just as Barack followed his. They are both career politicians who have done some things they should not have in order to be where they are.


I have no problem voting for Obama in November. Unlike you, I will not be a part of the GOP plan to divide the party. I don't have to cast my vote in hatred and ignorance. I preferred Hillary to Obama. I preferred Edwards to either. I preferred Gore over all other Democrats. i don't have to have some manufactured hate for Obama because he ran, with the media's help, against my preferred candidate. I didn't hate Hillary because she beat out Edwards, again with the media's help.


Frothing and rolling in bile will not help the party. Not realizing that the bile is a product of manipulation by GOP pr firms is just naive and infantile. Recognizing that is how we will be ready for what Barack has coming. Blaming the problems on Hillary is exactly what we mean by saying that the media are dividing the party. It's like the super rich convincing the middle class that the poor are their enemy. Vote for Obama. Stop letting them convince you that other democrats are your enemy.

[JTFrog]

82. Again with the name calling.

I am not the one lost in cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

That is all.

[Jakes Progress]

83. Ah, but that is my contention.

You are one who is lost in cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

I wish that were all.

[JTFrog]

84. And I'm sure that you think you're omniscient, but.... you're not.

You've shown your ignorance in continuing an argument based on a false premise to begin with. My conclusions about Clinton are based on her voting record on specific issues important to me (war, education, economics, civil liberties) and her actions during this campaign (from lying about Tuzla to claiming whites won't vote for Obama). They are not based on distorted media profiling. I don't own a TV nor do I listen to talk radio. I'm an avid researcher and I love to read.

Go figure.

So long....

and thanks for all the fish!

[Jakes Progress]

87. Sorry to have upset you.

My profiling experience tells me that your attempts at sarcasm are defense mechanisms that people use when they are cornered in their self-made argument dead ends. That doesn't take omniscience, just an examination of your spinning POV. You said you did not hate Hillary, but then you say you concluded that Obama would make a better choice based on her voting record on the issues important to you - war, education, economics, civil liberties. But of course you only attack her record without acknowledging that his record on those same issues is almost identical to hers, any small differences being easily explained by the vagaries of voting trades and personal spite that goes on in the Senate. The argument that Hillary claimed that whites won't vote for Obama is an silly extension of the polling data that shows somewhat conclusively that there are still areas of the midwest, east, and south where she carried giant majorities of the white vote in the primaries. Of course Barack carried giant majorities of the African American votes. Does that mean that he says that Blacks won't vote for Hillary? Silly. Silly. Silly.

You do not address the fact that your posts did not address the OP, that the author's name merely triggered as a kneejerk reaction, a little HH rant. Again, the OP was about how the media had influenced the general populace to have negative opinions about Hillary, and how they will use their positions to create a the same opinions about Barack. The point I took from it is that if they had such an easy time convincing liberal minded Democrats that Hillary was so terrible, they will have a much easier time doing the same thing for Barack to the millions of moderate, independents, and situational libertarians that Obama supporters cite as his huge base of new voters. I don't doubt that we can keep those voters in the Democratic camp, but we need to know that they cannot be taken for granted, and that rabid Hillary hate will only turn off a substantial number of those that Barack will need to counter the coming loss of many of those who now champion him.

We started this exchange probably because of a tiny flaw in the English language. The word "you" is both singular and plural, both personal and generic. My generic use of the term about people refusing to see the truth was worded in such a way that you could take it personally, I didn't mean that you were the only person that I thought the idea referred to, just that what you wrote was an example of such a line of thinking.

It's going to be a bumpy summer and fall. Rather unpleasantly like being drunk. We all need to keep our towels handy.

[Historic NY]

72. Yeah like the Repukes control NY.......please.........

she has 4yrs for the dust to settle so maybe that will be incentive for her to do something for NY instead of herself.

[ClassWarrior]

48. Got anything to substantiate that nasty accusation?

NGU.

[muyojoe]

27. I'll tell you what I told the repukes at work when Bush was handed the

presidency. The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.

Nobody is saying you have to persuade or sell anybody, but it would be in the best interest of you and your candidate to be gracious. If you think you are, then I regret to inform you that you don't come across that way. I'm liking your candidate more and more, but I'm still not liking many of his more vocal supporters.

[RTBerry]

28. Amen.

n/t

[muyojoe]

29. Thanks RT

[pollo poco]

56. Best ignored

Our fascist zeitgeist encourages bullying, bellicose dialog. Warlike fellows who love to get up in your face. They will not be gracious winners. Their mind set is very like the other side. It's all combat to them, but they don't see it. Republican tactics, and the bullying, confrontational tone they have set have shaped a whole generation. The whole cultural dial is set far to the right. Another symptom I have noticed: they want everyone united and walking in lockstep. Dissent from their point of view causes expressions of outrage. Stragglers are urged to round themselves up, and get mitt der program. Those who will not should leave das party immediately.

Hopefully, Obama will be a better role model for them than the father figures of our current government. I swear, a lot of his combative followers think he is as rash and rude as they are. But they are wrong. He is of a different generation and a different mindset, whether his followers realize it or not. He is not a petulant, angry young man. He will represent all Americans.

In fact- that's what I love about Obama. He is gracious, compassionate and NOT in your face. A mature statesman, who is master of his emotions. I hope his followers can learn to model him, instead of taking their cue from the shouting pundits we see "debating" on TeeVee. The political and cultural leaders of the recent past have made rude and stupid the fashion. Obama stands against that tide.

Obama will win, despite these noisy hotheads. Because he is not one of them. He is neither rude or stupid. It's not Obama's fault that so many of his supporters mistake him for themselves. Please don't hold it against him.

[Jakes Progress]

64. You are the kind of Obama supporter

who can make a difference. I pray that there will be more like you and that you can help those of us who will now look to Barack for leadership believe that he is the man you say he is.

More like this will make the difference in November.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. ...

:thumbsup:

[Razorblade01]

30. Fine. Then Obama Had Better Win!!!

No more throwing the better candidate at a loser Republican candidate and have a Rove tactic beat us. Obama needs to ocme clean with some of his associations..namely a one William Aires. Because the Republicans WILL bring it up. Obama better act swifty and fast upon any swiftboating. Having said that...I will vote for him in November. I just better not had be dissapointed AGAIN!

[OneAngryDemocrat]

34. Hey, Mr 47 posts!!! Er, I meant Razorblade01!!!!

Hey, Mr 47 posts!!!

William C. Ayers (and not Aires) is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has worked on school reform in Chicago. He was a 1960s-era radical and a founder of the Weatherman group, which later became the Weather Underground.

In 1969, Ayers joined the Weatherman, a radical group which arose as a result of a schism in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The following year he "went underground" with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which three Weatherman members (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers' girlfriend at the time) were killed while constructing a nail bomb. He was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him. While underground, he and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn married and had two children. They were purged from the group in the mid-1970s, and turned themselves in to the authorities in 1981.

All charges against him were then dropped.

Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. His interests include teaching for social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, children in trouble with the law, and related issues.

He began his career in primary education while an undergraduate, teaching at the Children’s Community School. After leaving the Weather Underground, he earned an M.Ed from Bank Street College in Early Childhood Education (1984), an M.Ed from Teachers College, Columbia University in Early Childhood Education (1987) and an Ed.D from Columbia University in Curriculum and Instruction (1987).

Ayers was tapped by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to shape that city's now nationally-renowned school reform program. Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established in 1941. This has somehow became controversial in the 2008 United States presidential election, simply because Barack Obama has also served on the same board until 2002, with overlapping times of service with Ayers.

One thing I hate are Republicans PRETENDING to be human beings.

Please visit my anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com




THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO BE A BLACK MAN - GET USED TO IT.

[Razorblade01]

74. First Off I have been here for years..

Just got the newest user name a few weeks ago. Second-I am NOT republican and never will be. I am a lifelong yellow dog Democrat. So your judgement of me is just plain wrong on several counts.
I voted for Hillary on Super Tuesday. i am appalled at the way Obama supporters have treated the Clintons. So don't accuse me of acting "Republican when it's You who has acted more like it.

[ginnyinWI]

37. He will be our next president.

I just realized this again while listening to him speak at some town hall meeting--(it was on xm radio so I don't know where). He will be our next president. There isn't enough standing in his way to stop him. Not McCain (weak candidate) nor the (now underfunded)GOP slime machine.

Not this time. People have had enough of the usual politics and they are hungry for change. He and his campaign are making all the right moves, continue to have plenty of money, and he will win in November.
We are going to have a brilliant Harvard Law graduate who respects the Constitution and the rule of law. He's got answers. And he'll have to roll up his sleeves and get right to work--because this country desperately needs fixing.

[Chalco]

33. That's just hogwash. No pun intended.

Naive, stupid, pathetic also come to mind. What the hell are you thinking?

If you can't back up why you think he can win against McCain then you shouldn't vote for him. If you can't state the evidence for why his experience buttresses his claims for what he will do for our country, you shouldn't vote for him.

Get a grip!

And thus far 73 people have recommended this thread. We are in a sorry state.

[IronLionZion]

38. A shocking number of GDP DUers have never been to either candidate's website

and have no idea where they stand on the issues. It's so absurd it's almost Republican.

[Jakes Progress]

66. I'm a big believer in reading the websites

of the candidates, but I don't put a lot of faith in them. They are campaign material. They can establish a feeling about the candidate, but the candidates themselves do not write or often read the websites. They are prepared by advertising agencies.

Look to voting records and past experience. And most importantly. Vote straight Democratic ticket. Being in the Democratic party is the most important part of a candidate's record.

[Coexist]

39. .

[santamargarita]

41. I've always considered Republicans irrelevant anyway!

Bastards count for nothing!

[Overseas]

42. I disagree. It is good practice to enumerate Obama's differences

"Time for Change" journal does a good job at reviewing them in detail:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/308 .
Here's my take on the big two issues:
War = McCainy plans to continue the Iraq war, but will discuss strategic errors during the campaign to sustain his maverick image. "See, he agrees that Bush made mistakes. Golly gee, he's different." Obama = begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Begin roll back of disastrous privatization of the military and the subsequent war profiteering promoted by Dick Cheney. Rebuild military and intelligence agency reputation and capacities and restore U.S. adherence to international legal and human rights standards.
Economy = McCainy supports making Bush tax cut to the super rich permanent and will call its repeal when promoted by Obama as "the largest tax increase in U.S. history," in spite of Bush's shameless admission that middle class tax breaks work best with his $600 check distribution.

[JimmyJubes]

43. The best bet is

OBama/Clinton

[ToughLuck]

45. I can't stand Hillary, with that said, if she were the nominee, I would have

voted for her because of any possible SCOTUS seat to be filled..that is the primary reason for me.
I would never vote for McCain, and I would not waste my vote on Nader.

[carolinablue]

47. straight ticket voter

My grandmother was the staunchest Democrat I ever knew. She grew up in the Depression. She would readily recite the successes of the Dermocratic party to anyone at any venue who wanted to challenge her- despite being a true "southern lady". ( She and her sister didn't speak to each other for months after a heated debate over whether one voted for the Party or the Individual). When she was ill with Parkinson's disease, my mother or I would drive her to the polls and an election worker would bring a ballot to the car. The last year of her life, she voted absentee ballot from the nursing home where she lived. When I was younger she and I used to joust over whether party affiliation or an individual's beliefs were more important. As I have aged and experienced more in life, I have come to believe that she was right. I, too, will NEVER vote for a Republican. In politics, it takes more than one individual to bring about changes and the Democratic party for all its imperfections remains the party of the people - while the GOP is the party of Big Business.

So, as a former Hilary supporter, I voted for Obama in the North Carolina primary - because I don't think there is any way Hilary could win the nomination without totally destroying the Democratic party's chances for November. It is time for us to close ranks!!!

[liberaldem4ever]

71. You sound like me-God bless your Grandmother

My Papaw taught me all about politics. He was a lifetime Dem who was born in Indian territory in OK and lived in a tiny rural conservative town in Texas, and loved to argue with his Repub brother-in-law who lived next door. I would listen to them argue about politics when I was a little girl and was just in awe of my Papaw. The last election before he died of skin cancer (he was a carpenter who worked outside in the sun a lot), my Mother helped him climb the steep courthouse stairs to vote for a Dem for president. I remember him saying no matter how much he hurt, his vote was that important to him. I think about him and it really puts things in perspective for me. I'm ashamed that I said several times here on DU that I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the nom. Since I've thought about my Papaw, I know when I look at that ballot in Nov., I will vote for the Dem, no matter who it is because he would be proud of me if I did and it is the right thing to do. I think my Papaw would have loved Barack Obama, but he probably would have liked Hillary Clinton too. He was a good man.

[myrna minx]

50. K&R It's sad that you had to make this post at all.

:-(

[mcollier]

52. Get out and campaign

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. K&R

[Ytzak]

55. I don't think we should vote Democrat everytime...

But we should vote Democrat this time. Democrats are as prone to Republican's to corruption. We should be willing to vote out the Democrats that don't act according to our principals.

[kid a]

59. kick rec & pin

[Tommy_Carcetti]

65. Pandering for recs?

You've got yourself a Squirrel Award!

[liberaldem4ever]

70. K&R! nt

[bridgit]

73. I consider *that* a major breakthrough Major Hogwash. To admit there are other liberals at DU...

other than the ones that support BHO :patriot:

[Creideiki]

86. Let me explain something to you

I'm looking at a choice between getting anally penetrated by someone with no lube for the next four years because I'm gay or...well, a choice between getting anally penetrated by someone with no lube for the next four years because I'm gay.

I'm looking at a choice of any legislation Congress can motivate itself to pass on my behalf getting vetoed from the RIGHT or...well, a choice of any legislation Congress can motivate itself to pass on my behalf getting vetoed from the RIGHT.

I'm looking at someone likely to nominate Supreme Court Justices who are openly hostile to my needs or...well, someone likely to nominate Supreme Court Justices who are openly hostile to my needs.

I'm looking at a first lady who can't disguise the disgust on her face when someone like me appears or...well, looking at a first lady who can't disguise the disgust on her face when someone like me appears.

I'm looking at not being welcome in the Republican Party because I fall in love with people of the same gender that I was born with or...not being welcome in the Democratic Party because I fall in love with people of the same gender that I was born with.

Do you get this yet?

I keep getting told that the problem is that working class people have been voting against their own best interests for the last 8 years. So why is it okay now for me to vote against my own best interests for the next 8 years?

I get told to look for the candidate that will veto from the Right. So why should I be supporting a candidate that will veto from the Right?

I get told to avoid the candidate that will "triangulate". So why should I be supporting a candidate that has been showing every indication that he will "triangulate" if my rights are up to his decision?

Obama's got significant weaknesses.

His education policy makes me glad I'm not intending to teach any more.

His healthcare policy, well, it's not really a healthcare policy, is it?

We're screwed and we did this to ourselves. Makes me really, really wish that Amy Madigan decided that she wasn't having so much fun being Illinois' Attorney General and heir apparent to the governorship in Illinois.

[MethuenProgressive]

88. I recommend this post.

Thanks, Dinkeldog.

[Lannigan]

89. Thanks Dinkeldog

You said it. Perfectly.