Hillary supporters act like it's a bad thing that Obama appeals to Indies and Republicans.

[Bonobo]

Same old politics of fear and division.

The public are smarter than that after 16 years of it.

They know that CHANGE is the very last thing that Hillary and Bill Clinton will bring.

Anyone should know it. It is an absurd claim on its face.

Yes, Obama is inspiring and a great speech maker. Even his critics admit. He is inspiring. Even his critics admit it.

He will win the GE because he will draw Indies and Republicans.

Isn't that what we want?

On edit: Changed Hillary stooges to Hillary supporters to be politically correct, even though I was referring to the zealouts not the thinkers, so I intentionally chose the term.

[mckeown1128]

1. Yep!!! nt

[Freida5]

2. The Republican voting and supporting Obama is designed to help him

win the nomination so the Repubs can win in the fall

[Bonobo]

4. Asinine.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. the same could be said for Ms. Clinton.....

[EFerrari]

7. The same should be said for Clinton because she's already being used

by the Republican nominees to get votes in their primaries.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. i agree. they think it's a foregone conclusion that hillary will be

the nominee, and they've already got their knives out. nothing riles up the g.o.p. like a clinton.

[EFerrari]

38. How was it on the ground today?

Have you heard of any problems at the polls with the machines? I was sort of worried about how it would go after last week.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. unfortunately, i'm in "north" carolina, and by the time it gets around

to us, the nominee is already chosen. I hope everything went well on the ground for my neighbors down South.

[EFerrari]

47. Oops! Sorry. Imagine how a Democrat feels in California.

We're just supposed to show up and vote, too. :)

[Zorra]

59. Bingo...it's the perfect set-up. Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws

of certain victory once again.

[Tweed]

6. Oh man

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You should get a contract with Zanies! Keep them coming!

[DJ13]

11. Yeah, sure

All these nasty old Republicans are going to vote for Obama to help him get the nomination, while throwing away their choice of which Republican they will be voting for if this dastardly plan is successful.

Do you Hillary supporters ever stop to think these things through before parroting someones dumb ideas?
:eyes:

[Freida5]

12. Obama cannot win in a three way race with Bloomberg and Romne or McKain

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. and neither can HRC...

for that matter, i don't think she can win a two way, against McCain. And as I understand it, Bloomberg has only threatened to jump in if HRC is the nominee.

[angie_love]

57. but

The difference is that Bloomberg made it clear he'll only run if HRC is the nom. So there.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

32. Do you have any real evidence of this?

Supposition is not fact.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. perfect state with "open primary" to accomplish this in too

[Tweed]

3. I like winning, so in addition to LOVING tonight

Yes, I want a candidate that appeals to everyone, especially if he is appealing to Republican because of his message, not his policies. People just like the idea of 'oh, let's not be against an issue just because a Republican is for it. Let's take two seconds and think about what is really best for the country."

[Bonobo]

9. Common sense appeals to both sides.

As does the idea of a united country when we in danger as a country.

[Frances]

8. I don't think you are helping Obama when you call DUers

stooges.

And those of us who have been around for a long time wonder why you think Bush, Mitt, Rudy, Huckabee, McCain supporters are better than Hillary or Edwards supporters.

It's posts like this that make me think twice about voting for Obama in the primaries.

I've had enough of Republicans; I want a Democrat in the FDR, HST, Carter, Bill tradition.

I do not want a Reagan or Bush admirer.

[Bonobo]

10. The old "You were mean so I'm not voting for your candidate!" post.

"I love that story!"

[Frances]

14. So you think that being obnoxious

is a benefit to Obama?

[Bonobo]

16. Whatever, Fran-ces!

[billbuckhead]

15. If Clinton supporters stay home the Democrats lose in November

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. double-edged sword, cuts both ways (eom)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. AfriggenMEN....AMEN!!!!

[krabigirl]

13. I am suspicious of candidates who draw a lot of Repug support. Indies, no problem.

[Bonobo]

17. I don't blame you. You've been sucking the milk of divisive politics your whole life probably.

It's impossible for you to believe or conceive of any other thing.

[mtnsnake]

19. You sound just like an arrogant balless repuke

Why is that?

[Bonobo]

20. Sorry, I'm not your mother.

[krabigirl]

28. Yep.

[krabigirl]

25. Huh? I haven't been alive that long (30).

How condescending of you to say, anyway. I live in Orange County, where you are ridiculed for being "liberal." I'm PROUD to be liberal, dammit, and I distrust Democrats who appeal to the very people who ridicule liberals.

[Bonobo]

30. That's my point. 30.

You were 3 years old when Reagan was elected.

You were 15 when Clinton was elected.

You were 22 when Bush was elected.

You are naturally cynical. That's all I'm saying.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

55. YOU ARE ONE NASTY PERSON AIN'T YOU!

[Bonobo]

61. Well, I like to DO the "nasty"...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

63. Let me say again: I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

[Bonobo]

64. Yeah, umm, I heard that already. Thanks. Cherish away.

[butterfly77]

18. The only change he will bring is...

the color of the president.

[Bonobo]

22. Could you say why you think that? I am interested in all seriousness. nt

[OHdem10]

21. As an Edwards supporter, and a Liberal Democrat, here is

the problem I have with Obama and GOP.

First, I understand fully that it is desireable in the GENERAL
ELECTION to try to attract some GOP support. This is commendable.
in the GENERAL ELECTION.

Obama is the first Democrat I have ever seen try to attract
Republicans so overtly in the Primaries.

I do not appreciate being called a stooge because in time I
might support Hilary Clinton.

It is my position that Primaries are for each party. The
Democratic Party should be the only ones deciding on our
Candidates. Democrats should choose Democratic Candidates.
Republicans should choose Republican Candidates. The GE gives
plenty of time to bring in Republicans if they really wish
to come.

There will be a few disgusted Republicans who will stick
with our Candidates. But very few. So why should they
decide our Candidate then vote against him or her in the
GE.

In Iowa sure Obama received GOP votes but within a few
days they changed their Registration back to Republican.
Barnes at Fox News explained at the time that some Republicans
deliberately changed to vote for Obama, knowing they would
vote for their party in the GE.

Just as some Dems were scheming something similar in Michigan.

I do not care who does it--taints elections for everyone.

I would like to think we have a strong enough party we do
not have to depend on the GOP. I welcome their vote in the
GE because it is only then they really support you.

[Frances]

24. Very thoughtful post

Thanks for taking the time to express what I see as common sense.

[Bonobo]

26. So you are starting with the belief that he is overtly appealling to republicans for help

in the primaries. So therefore it is natural for evverything he says to be colored with that pre-conceived notion. I understand where you are coming from with that.
However, that is not the way I see it. I see it more as that the message of "healing" has been his message from the beginning because that is what is in his nature as a person. Healing necessarily involves seeing the other side as humans and trying to win them over.

Many people have overcome their ignorance, anti-semitism, racism, etc. because they had someone who they trusted talk to them and convince them. In order to achieve unity, yes, it is necessary to talk. You cannot avoid that fact. It does NOT mean conceding one's ideals. It means finding common goals.

If you are not a stooge, the OP was not addressed to you.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

56. that speaks for me too

[Jamastiene]

23. This is a progressive message board for progressives.

If he appeals to Republicans and you are ok with that, maybe you need to rethink what party you and Obama really belong to. If the shoe fits...

[Bonobo]

27. I think you don't really get what the point is.

With an honest chance and an open hear, I think we could talk and maybe understand each other.

But for most here, that is impossible.

No one would mistake ME for a republican, I assure you.

[krabigirl]

29. Really? I would, by the comment you made to me. Arrogant and condescending.

[Bonobo]

31. Wow, that one stung you pretty bad. A large measure of truth then, I would guess.

[goodgd_yall]

43. Gee, you really are arrogant..

How dare you sully the name of the bonobo with your smugness.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

58. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

[Maven]

48. Yes, obviously, we're the ones who have been standing in the way of reasonable solutions

by standing against Republicans. Because Democrats have been so divisive over the last 15 years.

Your post reminds me of the movie Mars Attacks. Did you see that? Where Pierce Brosnan's character is so convinced if we just talk to the Martians we can reach some common ground. So he builds a computer to translate his words into alien-speak. The Martians wind up annihilating everything, of course, but they keep Brosnan alive--albeit as a human head attached to the body of a Jack Russell terrier.

[Bonobo]

60. I like the imagery.

I am serious when I say I generally am all in favor of reducing people to 2-dimensional pop-movie references. Except when it's me.

I hear what you are saying, but naturally I disagree that I am that naive. It was however a cute and clever characterization.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. this sort of stuff happens when you channel Raygun

[Bonobo]

36. What is it like to wear blinders AND earmuffs at the SAME time?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. you condemn yourself with your own words, my friend

[Bobbieo]

37. Who are "Indies" - you mean Native Americans or American Indians?

[goodgd_yall]

39. There's a reason there are political parties

They represent different outlooks about power and the role of government. It's only natural that the two parties will be divided on issues. What's your problem with that?

[PondoNavyNuke]

42. Hillary won Indies and Repubs in NY State. She courted them

so maybe you need a fact checker

[Bobbieo]

45. Again, who are "Indies"?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. Independant Party...THEY DECLINE TO STATE THEIR PARTY FOR MOSTLY EMPLOYEMENT REASONS

[Bobbieo]

49. Thank you, E.D. - that makes sense!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. you're welcome....I'm glad you saw it over all the din

[pat_k]

50. It's his determination to appease fascists that's repugnant. . .

It's the Republican propaganda (Reagan mythology; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2771107&mesg_id=2771107">the fantasy of bipartisanship. . .) that he and the rest of the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobes on the Hill parrot that's so devastating to our constitutional democracy.

If Obama, or anyone else who aspires to be an effective leader, wants real "unity," they must become a champion in the fight for impeachment. (More on that http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/16">here). They must buck the beltway "conventional wisdom" and "be divisive" (i.e., divide the fascists from the anti-fascists; divide the torturers from those who believe in the principles we founded this nation on -- the principle that legitimate government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed; the sanctity of human dignity; and the inalienable right of every person to equal treatment under the law).

We will never get back on the path to "a more perfect union" until we confront the truth, accuse the criminals of their crimes, and re-commit to our founding principles.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. I concur

[Bonobo]

62. Ironically I agree with much of what you said.

And I think what is most fascinating is that we bith see the other candidate as the one that DOES NOT EMBODY CHANGE.

Perhaps that would be a good topic of conversation since it seems to be where much of the "dissonance" between our opinions is.

If we could talk about it calmly, the reasons we have for "feeling" the way we do, we could perhaps learn a lot. I really think so.

I am not sure, however, that such a "dialog" could happen easily in this format.

[pat_k]

66. It's not really about "them" at all. It's about us. . .

The points in my reply actually have little to do with Obama per se, so it's not surprising that you might find yourself in accord. Obama is front and center with the "bipartisanship" meme at the moment, but he is simply echoing the bizarre assumptions, irrational fears, and destructive beliefs that pervade the insular beltway world.

I have the same "feeling" about Obama as I have about all the impeachophobes on the Hill -- a combination of anger, frustration, compassion, and despair. The feeling is akin to what one might feel when they witness a friend's dissent into destructive addiction, but it is compounded by the magnitude of the destruction impeachophobia has wrought. I have little doubt that many of our elected officials will come to bitterly regret their blindness and failures.

I don't think the format is a particular barrier to meaningful exchange. While virtual dialog may not have the power of face-to-face exchange, the asynchronous nature does tend to check reactivity. (Although it may not look like it at times.)

What makes productive dialog so illusive these days is the fact that our current crisis relegates a lot of topics to the realm of the irrelevant or even absurd. (When your house is burning, it doesn't make much sense to talk about rearranging the furniture or remodeling the kitchen.)

The fact that our Constitution is in breach and that the people we hired to enforce the terms are refusing to do their duty, colors all "political" dialog. Talking about "unity" with fascists is nonsensical. To claim you are holding people "accountable" with blame and empty complaint is ridiculous. Talking about "restoring" that which is inviolate is irrational. (Law breakers don't "take" our laws from us. Passing duplicate law accomplishes nothing as long as those we charge with "policing" officials in the Executive and Judiciary refuse to do their jobs.)

I'm not actually very interested in judging THEIR "plans" or their "vision." The question that is most important to me is "Which candidate is most 'reachable'?" "Which candidate is most likely to hear our calls to stand and fight for our most treasured principles?" "If we keep hitting them upside the head with a big http://www.wordspy.com/words/cluestick.asp">clue stick, which one is most likely to wake up to reality?"

While there may be evidence that one or the other is more capable of extracting their head from the beltway sphincter, the only way to actually find out is to test them by challenging them to act or by confronting them about a past failures, contradicting the rationalizations they offer for the failure, and seeing how they respond. Sadly, there are a number of monumental failures to pick from. Like their failure to Object to the Ohio electors on http://january6th.org/">January 6th; their failure to call on their colleagues to filibuster the War Criminals Protection Act of 2006; and their current refusal to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the ONLY rational response to our current crisis.)

And thus we transform the "debate" from one that is about "them" to one that is about us. The focus moves from "What are they doing?" or "What do you think about what they did" to "What can we do to wake them up?" "How do they respond when others have challenged them?" (More thoughts on the dynamics http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2463516">in this post.)

Of the top contenders for the Democratic nomination, I've concluded that Edwards is the most "reachable." He is still surrounded by beltway insiders, but he has spent a good deal of time "out here" over the past few years. He was first of the viable candidates to call Bush and Cheney torturers in clear and simple terms. (Kucinich was of course way ahead of him, but wasn't viable.)

The likelihood that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards would come out for impeachment is probably about nil, but I consider Edwards our best shot. As the "underdog" he is more likely to "risk" it (even though it's not really a risk). Figuring out ways to motivate his campaign to call on Congress to impeach is the best thing I think we can do for his chances. Demanding impeachment would not only be the greatest gift that John Edwards could give the nation, it is boldest and most effective thing he can do to make victory a real possibility.

By demanding impeachment Edwards would show voters that he truly is a principled outsider willing to take on the Washington establishment. Past opposition to impeachment is not a barrier. Americans embrace the "sinner" who sees the light. (And the "reformed" often garner more attention and respect than those who take the right course from the start.)


A majority of Americans "would love" to see Bush impeached and removed. (Even the impeachophobes in Congress tell us this.) But too many have been silenced by the relentless efforts by the DC establishment to banish impeachment from the realm of possibility. (Why call for something "everybody knows" is impossible?) Too many have become resigned to the mistaken belief that there is no recourse but to tolerate the intolerable, and watch as the DC establishment allows Bush and Cheney the pretense of an honorable exit on January 20th, 2009.

John Edwards is in a unique position to remind the silenced that they DO the power -- and the moral obligation -- to do what they can to make impeachment a reality. He has a big megaphone (same goes for Obama or Clinton). Even those who have written him off as a contender view him as a potential "kingmaker." He has earned the respect of Americans across the nation. He has the power and the platform necessary to reach the silenced and put impeachment front and center. And that could potentially transform the public's anger and resignation into a surge of hope and action that could not only make impeachment a reality; it could carry him into the White House.

[populistdriven]

65. K&R! nt

[Metric System]

67. What I'm wondering is how will these Republicans...

react when President Obama starts implementing a progressive agenda? Does this mean that all along we could have gotten along with Republicans if we just had the right messenger? Will stem-cell research, civil unions for gays, abortion rights, etc., etc. now be accepted by those on the right?

[pat_k]

68. If they are anti-fascists who mistakenly label themselves "Republican"

. . .then they would have the same response as the rest of the American anti-fascists.

Characterizing the infamous "divide" that our so-called "leaders" are so fearful of promoting as Republican v. Democrat, liberal v. conservative, or left v. right doesn't really capture true nature of it. The divide is fascist v. anti-fascist. It's insider v. outsider.

Something like 25% of Americans are authoritarian personalities (see Note 1). These are the people who believe their tiny faction has some inherent "right" to impose their will on the rest of us. These are the people who would remake the country into a fascist state. (Whether they would have us become a theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, or dictatorship, it's all fascism.)

The Republican Party has surrounded to bushncheney-ism. It has become a quasi-fascist followers Party. Many of the anti-fascists who identified themselves as Republican see this and are leaving the Party, but some remain in denial.

As of Dec '07, 34% of the electorate identify themselves as Republicans (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation">Rasmussen). Although a vast majority of the authoritarians are Republicans, the numbers suggest that something like a third of them (10% of the electorate) have "mislabeled" themselves. Whatever the number may actually be, there are Republicans who don't actually have much interest in imposing their will on everybody else. I don't think the 'mislabeled" would be disconcerted if Obama sought to implement the policies that a vast majority of the nation wants. (e.g., an overwhelming number of Americans have no desire to toss frightened women and their doctors into jail.)

Unfortunately, although Obama (and the Democratic leadership as a whole) claims to reject the worst of the bushncheney regime, without impeachment nothing is "getting better" in 2009 (see Note 2). Given his rhetoric of appeasement ("bipartisanship" with fascists), he is likely to limit his proposals to things the fascist "let" him have (i.e., patched together "compromises" that fail to enforce our Constitution or actually solve our common problems.)

The only way to deal with fascist officials who have no qualms about going to any lengths to advance their agenda is all out battle. The Congressional oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." The Constitution gives members of Congress the weapon they need to carry out their moral duty: impeachment.

Criminals don't destroy a legal system. Only the failure or corruption of the people we charge with enforcement can do that. Bush and Cheney are violating the Constitution, but it is the refuaal of Congress to impeach that has put our Constitution into breach. They are ultimately responsible for allowing the USA to become a war cimrinal that illegally spies citizens. (And if they value their freedom, the Congressional leadershiop may want to avoid overseas travel. If other parties to the Geneva conventions decide they need to be held accountable, they would be well within their rights to take a Member into custody and try them at the Hague.)

_________________________________________

Note 1: John Dean on Countdown, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13816491">July 10, 2006

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that had really been going on for 50 years now, by academics. They‘ve never really shared this with the general public. It‘s a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality, both those who are inclined to follow leaders, and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. . .

OLBERMANN: Does it really—do the studies indicate that it really has anything to do with the political point of view? Is it—would it be easier to essentially superimpose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Or is it theoretically possible that they could they have gone in either direction, and it‘s just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They found—they have found really—maybe a small, 1 percent of the left, who follow authoritarianism, probably the far left. But as far as widespread testing, it is just overwhelmingly our conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: There is an extraordinary amount of academic work that you quote in the book. A lot of it is very unsettling. It deals with psychological principles that are frightening and that may have faced other nations at other times, in Germany and Italy in the ‘30s coming to mind in particular. . .

DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, I look at the numbers in the United States, and I see about 23 percent of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers. They‘re not going to change. They‘re going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them—and they‘re growing. And they have tremendous influence on Republican politics. The best thing, the best defense is understanding them, to realize what they‘re doing, how they‘re doing it, and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective, then they can be seen for what they are. . .

Note 2:The following is an excerpt from http://january6th.org/talking-impeachment-customize.pdf">Talking Impeachment, a four-panel bi-fold brochure that challenges the rationalizations (lame excuses) for opposing impeachment.

. . .
Without Impeachment Nothing Will "Get Better" in 2009

• Failure to challenge bushchenyism now allows it to flourish. Even if Democrats would otherwise win the next election, it is ONLY by impeachment that the scope of damage can be exposed. Without
  it, they are left to regroup and reemerge.
• There is no "restoring" of that which should never be lost. Failure to confront these violations of our core values and the violations themselves are 2 sides of the same coin. Without impeachment, that which was inviolable becomes fungible. . .