The dream is over...
From the Ron Paul website
February 8, 2008
Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky, of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you.
Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties.
How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.
Let me tell you my thoughts.
With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero.
...
But wait! Was it over when Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?
Hell No!
From the Ron Paul website
February 8, 2008
...
But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.
...
But wait! Maybe it is over after all?
From the Ron Paul website
February 8, 2008
...
Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
...
But wait! Maybe it's just sorta over-ish, but not really, for-real over...
From the Ron Paul website
February 8, 2008
...
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
...
Hmm.
It is a puzzlement.
Well, a puzzlement for me perhaps.
However, there is at least one young patriot for whom the direction is clear.
Who asked himself "What would Ron do?" and the answer came back -- as clear noon on Mercury --
Enthusiastic GOP Teen to Fight Citations
By Associated Press
1:48 AM CST, February 9, 2008
OWATONNA, Minn.
An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.
Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.
"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR -- driving while Republican."
Owatonna Police Chief Shaun LaDue said his officers followed the law.
"The political aspect of this doesn't enter into the equation at all," LaDue said. "It's very clear in state statute that you cannot have anything that obstructs the driver's vision."
Besides being in violation of the law, Hauer showed disrespect toward the officer during each traffic stop, LaDue said. "He talks himself into a citation each time," LaDue said.
Hauer said he'll argue in court that the law violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
"To be honest, I'm probably not going to win, but I'm going to go down fighting," he said.
...
Fight on, young hero. Fight on!
In earnest, I find some of what Ron Paul has to say about the nature of government, the catastrophe that the Neocons have made of American foreign policy, the economy, the Constitution and our international reputation admirable. As is his willingness to stay and try and save a Party he once believed in.
And while I find many of his follower's Randite-inflected beliefs alternately heartless and dangerously naive, I admire their zeal and cohesion and ability to raise funds to keep their cause alive almost out of thin air.
Someday soon -- as the bitter, crashing end of this Republican Party's long, massive and public string of epic failures, high crimes and casual treason is capped off by an historic ass-whipping -- some group of people are going to find themselves in the once-in-a-generation position to at least partially flush out the Augean Stables that is the current Wingnut Party of God remake it into something else.
And Ron Paul's electric boogaloo moves all point to the actions of a man positioning himself to have a chip in that game.
33 comments:
TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!
And I hope I am here to see that ass whippin.
These dirty fuckers have dominated the conversation almost my entire adult life.
Purge them back to the eleven hundreds, where they want to be, and lets get down to long overdue business in this country.
I wonder if Idaho is big enough to hold 'em all?
I do hope you're right, Mr. Glass;
an ass-whipping pendulum of epic proportions,
a fresh river-clearing torrent washing the metric tons of shit and filth from the divine cattle infesting the white wing stables. . .
Mm; ""boogaloo."
A modern dance to rock-and-roll music performed with swiveling and shuffling movements of the body, originally popular in the 1960s. . . how old are you, anyway?
Well, sigh, luck to him; once a republican, always a republican r3VOlutionary spirit of change and all that; as long as its Republican change, mmkay? Mmkay.
Maybe there's a place in an Obama government for Dr. Paul after all the shit and filth has been washed away. Why yes; he can dismantle the I R fucking S.
Ron Paul writes:
Your donations and work as Precinct Leaders are needed now more than ever.
*************
Driftglass writes:
And Ron Paul's electric boogaloo moves all point to the actions of a man positioning himself to have a chip in that game.
**************
I don't know, I think maybe chip is the operative word here, as in a lot of chips that haven't been spent yet. There were some rumblings that Paul was not spending his substantial campaign contributions. There was some speculation that he was contemplating a third party run.
I'm not seeing that happening. Instead, I'm picturing an old guy sitting on a big pile of money, an old Libertarian guy sitting on a big pile of money. What I'm not picturing is any good works taking place without the Paul clan being in the mix.
Was it over when Germany bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no! Hey, that's a direct quote of Gary Hart, who, as I recall, never actually dropped out of the presidential race but merely "suspended" his campaign. If Donna Rice gets to be a superdelegate, this in and out business could get really creepy.
Drifty, drift over to my blog to receive your jpg Excellent Blog award and find out why.
RP has been puzzlementing to me too! WOW, that must have been one stinky sonofabitch stables!
Looks like the DLC wins again! BUT WAIT! Obama and Clinton are BOTH DLC. Wagers on how they manage to LOSE to a sock puppet like the last two DLC fronted candidates did? Hmm?
Well, tonight, the democrats took a nice little step toward making any repubican nominee irrelevant.
:o)
Obama swept Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands.
I think 161 delegates were at stake, and he should get about 105
with Hillary getting the remainder. He may not actually catch her tonight, considering all of the front-loaded "superdelegates" she has, but he's got the "mo", and no bullshit about it. :o)
If, on Tuesday, he can take Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, he will be rolling. :o)
A couple more wins after those, and I just might be toodling Mozart's "Unity Concerto" on MY dog-whistle, as I begin to suggest that it's time for Clinton to take one for the party and return to the Senate. :o)
One of the side benefits of finishing it up for Obama, is that for the republicans, the sight of their Clinton lifeboat slipping beneath the cold waters of the North Atlantic, will mean one HELL of a reality check.
In fact, I've got $20 bucks that says Rice will resign within 60 days of an Obama acceptance speech. :o)
Maybe sooner, if he starts piling up the delegates, and the honchos in the party can persuade Clinton that it's over, and that it's time to fall in and be a good democrat.
We haven't had many of these, lately, but tonight was a good night for America. :o)
Tanbark,
Why don't you get a head start and sign up for Nader now? That's who you'll be supporting in November.
Nader's running in November?
Wait, that's kind of a dumb question.
If the Democrats nominate Obama, I will vote for him in November, just as I will vote for HRC if she is nominated.
In neither case, however, will I vote with enthusiasm, because both are safely DLC-aligned. I still prefer the DLC to the GOP, mostly because of judicial appointments.
CMike, thanks for that Z-article link a few threads ago. After reading that, I no longer fear for Obama's safety; he is as much in the pocket of the DLC wing of the plutocracy as HRC, hence the plutocrats won't allow either one to be killed.
"That's who you'll be supporting in November."
Not the way it looks now. :o) :o)
No, I'm not into third parties. And the fact is, that the Clinton supporters like you are the ones likely to do the damage to our chances.
I say that because the party hacks and mossbacks who have most of the control in Denver, have frontloaded her with superdelegates, so that she went into EVERY primary with a delegate advantage over Obama and Edwards, when he was still in.
I think those superdelegates are SUPPOSED to reflect the will of the voters, but they are not bound to it.
If Obama goes into Denver with a good delegate cushion, fairly won, and within striking distance of the 2025 required, and if the hacks start rigging the rules and the floor votes to favor Clinton, and somehow manage to shoehorn her in, also using the Superdelegates, it will tear us apart.
Hey! You want a third-party scenario? Donna Brazile is commenting on CNN and she's a Superdelegate. She has said if that happens she will leave the party, and she won't wait until the next election to do it.
And. She. Is. Not. Alone.
If Hillary carries it, head-to-head in the primaries, even with her advantage in Superdelegates, the Obama supporters will have no legitimate beef.
But if he goes in with momentum and nearly, the votes, and the mossbacks and the Clinton's take it from him by machination, then all the bets are off. Anything could happen. Anything.
In the fireworks that would cause, we could see at least the threat of an Obama/Edwards independent run. It would probably ruin us, but since I feel that Hillary will ruin us anyway, I would feel "released" from my pledge to vote for her if she wins.
CMike, you and the rest of her people need to get over your fantasies about her being a good democrat.
She has sold the progressive wing of the party down the river time and again. That's why we don't like her, and that's why she gets her ass kicked in progressive polls.
And she is not half as electable as Barack Obama. Louisiana has a lot of black voters, and you could ascribe his win there to that, but Nebraska and Washington do not have a heavy black population, and Obama shellacked her in those states. I mean, landslides.
I didn't see his speech last night, but I read it. It was perfect. After he gets done with Hillary, he is going to shred John McCains ass like it was lettuce. :o)
Deal with it. :o)
BTW, just to add my 2c to heading this off: I hope and think that Obama is way smart enough to know that having her on the second spot on our ticket will be almost as bad in the general, as having as the nominee.
We are getting huge democratic turnouts. Way larger than the republicans. But if the word "Clinton" is on the touchscreens, that is going to change, and there will be plenty of conservative to moderate democrats helping to change it.
We need to send this candidate back to the senate, where she belongs.
Sorry about the multiple posts, but I had to come back to get in this shot :o) :
CMike and IvoryBill; would either of you two gentlemen like to remind us, for the how-many-ith time, how "politically savvy" is Hillary Clinton?
I mean, she's just agreed to a "debate" on FauxNews on the 11th,
tomorrow, according to Huffpo.
Who's she going to debate with? I ask, because I believe Barack Obama is smart enough to stay MILES away from that little charade. At this point, he can pick his spots, with a vengeance.:o)
If she's up on FauxNews, talking with whomever, all he has to do is point to it and smile. :o)
And I sure-God hope that that's what he does. Showing up for that would be gift to her, and to Fox.
I know he's been on there a few times, including once, recently, and it was a mistake. I hope his staff is getting in his shit, big time, about any more appearances on
"Agenda News, Inc."
Hillary, of course, is getting desperate, and when she gets desperate, it's not pretty; she starts sweating conservative sweat.:o)
But this is straight out of Bonehead Poli-Sci 101. :o)
If Obama can take Maryland and Virginia, and D.C., the day after she's holding forth with O'Reilly and Murdoch, etc., she's going to have some tough choices to make; as in the question:
"How far to the right can I triangulate, as I chase conservative votes, before I piss off 75% of the democratic party." :o)
Oh. Here's Roger Aisles, the CEO at Faux:
"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Queada."
Mike, I'm just wondering if you and IvoryBill subscribe to that.
:o)
As Mr. Burns woulds say, Eeeeeeeeexcellent.
Just to highlight tanbarks point a little, we have already lost Cynthia McKinney to the Green party, she is smart and eloquent and WAS a good Democrat.
I hear a lot of rumblings saying exactly what he did, if the Clinton camp starts pulling the old back door end reverse to shyster the win through Super delegate fuckery, thats going to be it for a lot of people and I have five bucks says that is EXACTLY what is going to happen.
Either way, we will wind up with a D in the Whitehouse but like he said basically, it would be a D with INO for a middle name.
I hate to say it as a lifelong, ardent and third generation partisan Democrat, I have had about all of the status quo I can stand.
Hillary Clinton has her own agenda and the DFH's in the crowd might as well be waiting for The Great Pumpkin as waiting to see a progressive agenda get any attention, other than health care.
And I'm sure any health care plan she does have will still find a way to keep Big Pharma shittng in tall cotton.
'And Ron Paul's electric boogaloo moves all point to the actions of a man positioning himself to have a chip in that game.'
Indeed...with a "funky 'get-down' feel".
However, his personal matching 'white-on-white' baggage might not meet the weight limit.
;>)
Oh, and just to give all you people a good laugh,
My Fathers name is Ron Paul, seriously.
You ought to see the fun I have with that.
"Thank you so much," Sen. Obama said to his hosts as he began his interview on Fox News.
Isn't he clever? After Roger Ailes told his Obama/Osama joke, Democrats had banded together to shut off Fox News access to the Democratic candidates. Suckers, Obama is quite willing to get some exclusive face time on Fox.
I think not so much, Mike.
He doesn't need it.
And Hillary does. :o)
Or, she THINKS it'll help her, which is the worst thing that can be said about agreeing to the "debate".
The Democratic rules say the winner at the convention has to get support from a majority of the delegates at the convention. According to party rules 20% of the delegation is made up of so-called Super Delegates. Yeah, it would be quite corrupt if we followed the rules and allowed those insiders, those super delegates, to vote.
State legislatures in both Michigan and Florida voted to move their primaries up to January dates. Both the Democratic Gov. Granholm and the Republican Gov. Crist signed the bills that the legislatures passed so that the voters in their states could have a more meaningful role than they had had in previous campaigns in selecting the major parties' nominees for president.
Democratic party officials - you know, party insiders - decided that the voters in Michigan and Florida would not be allowed to select voting delegates for the convention because...well you have to have rules and someone has to make them. Sen. Obama lined up right behind the party insiders' ruling and removed his name from the Michigan ballot.
One wonders why that great advocate of small "d" democracy did that. Surely it was not because he figured leaving his name on the ballot would lead to a problematic result for him. No, I guess he's a stickler for the rules insiders make.
Oh, and are we going to insist the candidate with the most pledged delegates win the nomination or are we going to insist the candidate who won the most votes during the primary season win the nomination? Tanbark, you better go check to see which basis is more advantageous to Obama before you settle on your principled position. Hey, maybe we should base it on number of states won.
CMike, you've rounded up a strawhorse posse.
It won't work. No one is saying that the superdelegates shouldn't get to vote; only that their votes should reflect their districts and the wishes of the voters they represent.
As for Michigan, and Florida, ALL of the democratic candidates agreed to respect the dem honchos' wish that they not campaign in those two states.
And then Hillary, desperate for anything that could be spun as momentum, broke her word and showed up in both of them.
NO OTHER DEMOCRAT DID THAT.
And, especially in Florida, we were treated to her 100% bullshit "victory party", where she blathered about her "win", etc., etc., ad nauseum.
If they allow those delegates to be seated for her at the convention, when Obama kept his promise and didn't campaign, we can start assuming that the fix is in.
If you're so concerned about those voters being able to make a "choice", are you willing to have a quickie mulligan in both states? :o)
I'd rather go to that trouble than just hand them to her, when she broke her word about the situation.
Also, in Michigan, the candidate named "undecided" didn't run all THAT far behind "Clinton".
:o)
As always, this is not rocket science. She got her ass handed to her last night in the primaries in 3 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
She's in trouble money-wise, and she was stupid enough to agree to appear on Fox's "debate" tomorrow.
Let me ask YOU: do you think seeing her up there by herself is going to make her more attractive to democratic voters?
The republicans have issue-turds hanging around their necks like they were flowers in a fucking plumeria lei. And the biggest flower is the one named Iraq.
If we can't point to that and jab them with a cattle prod while we do it, we cannot win this election.
Period. Exclamation point.
And Hillary Clinton has no cattle prod, and I have yet to see any real outrage from her, about what bush and the republicans have dragged us into.
Would you like to know just how politically savvy she is?
She sold out her natural base, the progressive wing of the party, and went haring off after conservative votes that simply do not exist for her.
What political wizardry!
Instead of utterly recanting and apologizing for, her mistake in voting for the authorization, as John Edwards did, she's tried to have it both ways.
She and Obama are both veteran politicians. They understand symbolism. And that's why she was applauding bush's surge-pimping a few nights ago, while Obama sat stonefaced.
At this point, you guys defending her can't point to a single instance where she's risked one micron of her political ass for our side. Instead, all you can do is yowl that they're just alike, with the clear, and lame-ass, implication that therefore, we might as well vote for her, because she's a woman named "Clinton".
It's been said time and again on progressive blogs, but it's worth repeating:
If she were a male senator named "Smith", with her track record, her supporters wouldn't give "him" the time of day.
And they would be right.
As you well know, Sen. Clinton was allowed by the rules to fund raise in Florida and that's what she did in the state prior to the vote. The victory party occurred after the polls closed. It's all right if you whine Tanbark but you should be honest.
Sen. Obama advertised on television in Florida as part of a "national ad buy" and "spill over" from advertising in Georgia.
Of course Clinton is willing for the DNC to sponsor "do over" primaries in Michigan and Florida. Chris Matthews has your talking points on that. He claims "sure she wants a do over" because now she knows what the result would be. Of course Clinton would not favor "quickie" (your word) caucuses in those two states. Caucuses are not democratic in the same way that primaries are.
You write: "She got her ass handed to her last night in the primaries in 3 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
Of course, as you know, there were no primaries in Kansas, Washington and the Virgin Islands yesterday. Caucuses were held there.
Florida has a population roughly the same size as the combined populations of Virginia, Kansas, Washington, D.C. and Washington. Michigan has a population roughly the same size as the combined populations of Maryland and Louisiana. Just saying.
If Sen. Obama was a white female named Jones, with his track record, his supporters wouldn't give "her" the time of day.
As I said earlier, Tanbark, I will vote for whichever candidate the Democrats nominate, so do not mistake me for a fan of HRC.
I agree that HRC will have a very hard time winning the general election if the Democrats nominate her, and that she triangulates too damn much, just like her husband did.
However, my eyes roll as if they were Teflon-coated ball bearings at your fatuous assurance that Obama will have an easy time winning the general election if the Democrats nominate him, and your equally fatuous assurance that he is some Great Progressive Hope with light-year-long coattails. [Again, CMike, thanks for the article link a few threads ago.]
If you think the average Stupid White Folks of the USA will put aside their ingrained habits of bigotry and vote for an African-American in sufficient numbers to deliver Obama a clear victory, then you have allowed the opiate of hope to dull your previously sharp mind.
Also, the character assassins of the Elephascist Party and the Corporate Holodeck Media still expect HRC to be the nominee, so they have not turned their full smear artillery against Obama yet, which they will do if he is nominated, and then his popularity will drop faster than Bill Clinton's trousers, unless enough voters have FINALLY learned to quit listening to the CHMedia.
Also, have you forgotten the proven Elephascist expertise at voter suppression and vote fraud? Diebold and friends could switch votes from Obama to the Elephascist candidate in predominantly white voting areas and then BLAME bigotry.
If Obama IS elected despite all of that, I will probably support him more strongly by 2012 than people like you will support him, because I WON'T be expecting him to wave a magic wand and give us all flying unicorn ponies, hence I won't be disappointed with him. I will be content if he, or HRC, can slow the decline of this country long enough for me to die of old age first [I turn 45 in May].
Dear Bill;
Teflon-coated; WD-40 lubricated; or bear-greased; your eyes are going to roll even more, AND more pleasantly :o), if Obama can carry this run out, and go into Denver with a vote margin on Hillary that not even the Supr...errr, the DNC can steal from him. :o)
Because, after that, the voters in the general are going to have a choice between an ageing, foolish, 1/3rd senile, candidate who brags about staying in Iraq for a hundred years; and a smart, articulate, candidate who really wants to get us the fuck out of the shitmire. And whom, I believe, will do it.
And who, unlike Hillary, will be perfectly willing to point out that discussing "the economy" and "wasteful government spending" without mentioning that little factoid about the $3 billion a week being pissed down the Mesopotamian urinal, is like talking about good looking women in Hollywood without mentioning Nicole Kidman, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Helen Hunt. It don't make no sense. :o)
And those voters are going to take a look at the past, and take a look at the future, and decide which candidate offers what direction, and when they do, the republicans are going to be like the dinosaurs looking up at the meteor.
:o)
True. There is not going to be a happy ending for us in Iraq. None is possible; and that is not because "tactical errors were made", which is the GOP exculpatory shitspeak. (Parroted smoothly, by Clinton, incidentally...)
This petro-abomination was THAT, from the gitgo; and not because L. Paul Bremer listened to Nostradamus-fucking-Chalabi, and ran all the Baathists out of the army and the government.
We were phucked with a capital P when that first Abrams rolled across the drybed rubicon known as the Kuwait border, and Barack Obama knows it. It's simple; Iraq is being held together at the point of a military occupation gun, and a wide-open U.S. Treasury checkbook.
We have to leave and let those people decide if they want to make some VERY difficult compromises (most notably about the oil and natural gas) to try to hold what used to be Iraq together, or if they want to have the Mother of all civil wars.
Their call; 10 weeks from now, or 10 years from now.
No one I know thinks that Obama, or anyone else, is going to be Jeanne D'Arc, chasing the hated Sassenach out of France. You too, erect a windmill to tilt at, when you say that.
But one hell of a lot of people are beginning to believe a young black man, when he speaks, and speaks so well, about changing things. They are getting fired up, and it fires me up.
I understand your cynicism; can't blame you too much for it; but, as sure as I'm sitting here typing this, I tells ya we are on the verge of making history. I got goose bumps looking at those returns from snow-white Washington and Nebraska. They could well mean the beginning of the end for a hateful, arrogant, greedy, political and social construct that has been bedevilling us for decades, not to say centuries, now.
If we continue this, and put Obama so far ahead that no amount of chicanery; no amount of procedural floor-fight-fuckery, can deprive him of the nomination, then, I think that the republicans will begin to head for the gangplank like the Rattus Norwegicus specimens that they are, for the simple reason that they will know that the "Carpathia" has sent a "Sorry, we're sinking, too!" message to them, as, figuratively speaking, they stand on the 30 degree inclined-deck of the world's most famous four-stacker. :o)
Specifically:
I think Condoleeza Rice will resign within 45 days (I've been saying 60, but I think it will happen sooner.) of clear evidence that Obama is going to be our nominee.
I think that the part of our ACTIVE DUTY military which is already sick of being used to cover george bush and the republican's political asses, will then feel more emboldened to stand up and say:
"That's it. We can do no more here. Bring us home."
And there will be more of them.
I think that in fairly short order, the polls will become like oceanic data-gathering-bouys as they point to a small mid-ocean democratic pelagic ripple, which the gooper-congers will know is going to become like the denouement of one hell of a catastrophe movie, and, as I've been saying for some time now, I think that that may very well trigger the mustering of the Goldwater Swat Team.
We'll see about all of this, of course, but after last night, I believe that an ass of democrats want no part of passing the white house back and forth between the Bush's and the Clinton's like it was a fucking Myrtle Beach timeshare, to steal an analogy from "Get your war on."
If the Obama bandwagon keeps rolling, you just get out the popcorn, put your feet up on the desk, and enjoy.
You read it here first. :o)
Tanbark,
I read about half of what you wrote. Stop back by when you're sober. You'll be good to go when you can figure out which one of these does not belong in your "best of the best looking women in Hollywood" list:
Nicole Kidman
Michelle Pfeiffer
Helen Hunt
I'm very sober, thank you. :o)
Sober enough to take a little chance and say that we MAY have an endorsement by John Edwards tomorrow.
And I will be very surprised if it's for Hillary Clinton. :o)
BTW, Mike; did you ever hear that old saying:
"As Maine goes; so goes the nation?"
:o)
BTW, if you're talking about Ms. Hunt, I'd have to disagree; the word "luminous" was coined for her.
:o)
Tanbark, I will vote for Obama in November if the Democrats nominate him. HE doesn't give me the creeping fantods, but the intensity of a small section of his supporters does.
You brought up "snow-white Washington and Nebraska". Has it occurred to you that these primaries and caucuses are composed mostly of white DEMOCRATS, and that white Democrats might be disproportionately disinclined to be racist, and thus they would be more likely to accept a black Presidential candidate than the Average White USAmerican Dumbass?
You maintain greater faith in human beings, particularly the white USAmerican variety, than I do.
"You maintain greater faith in human beings...than I do."
True.
IT was enhanced when Obama pulled a quarter of the white votes in red-state South Carolina, on the way to handing Clinton a woodshed job.
And he didn't do too bad in New Hampshire, which aint exactly the Mississippi delta. :o)
and last night he purely swamped her. :o) With two of the "bogs"
not having a large black demographic.
And today, there was Maine, which is a pretty good haul, miles and population, from Harlem, N.Y. :o)
So, yeah, I'd have to say I feel pert' good about my fellow honky's this evening, and I'd like to point out that everyone one of them gets to vote in the general, too!
:o)
Those were white DEMOCRATS, Tanbark. Are they truly representative of the Average White USAmerican Dumbass?
[For the benefit of any new readers, I am a USAmerican paleface myself.]
Actually, Bill, I think they are.
:o)
Don't forget, I LIVE in the "cradle of the confederacy", and I promise you, while it's not as violent as what W.T. Sherman imposed on us (a good man, if a little careless with fire...:o) ) we are being dragged, kicking and screaming, back into the Union, and, into the 20th century.
Lester Maddox's body likes a moldering in his grave, and in large and still-increasing measure, so does his ignorant, hateful, philosophy.
Trust me, I would not lie to you on this: Barack Obama will engender not a third of the visceral anger against his being the democratic nominee, that we will see if we're brickdumb enough to nominate Hillary Clinton.
Tanbark honey, I'm witcha. (Chicago talk there, for our accomodating host.) I too have the same inate gut feeling about the Obama landslide you so colorfully describe.
So take a deep breath and put all of your focus on what you WANT (Obama nominated) and NO ENERGY OR FOCUS WHATSOEVER on the Clinton nomination. Because in sending all of your power and eloquence in the direction of what you support there is no energy going toward what you don't.
And yes, that is most decidedly woo woo talk. Just call me the friendly Hippiegranny of the Toobs who has the exact same intuition you do, but just doesn't have the same writing and descriptive skills!
PS - 4 out of five very psychic people I know all know deep down what we do.
Gabrielle, thanks for the props, but I am way-tired of being banged on for being a "misognyist" by Clinton supporters, who refuse to look at the reality of her track record.
And, who refuse to discuss the huge negatives she would bring to the election.
I have a hard time being all positive, all the time, when we are dealing with people who think that the democratic nomination belongs to ANYONE, like it was their grandmother's inherited tiara. Especially, if that candidate has blood on her hands up to her elbows.
If you, or anyone else on here can show me one example of her outrage about what george bush has done to Iraq, and to us, then I am willing to listen.
That is, her pre-midterm outrage. When she saw the poll-writing on the wall, only then did she discover her inner antiwar self.
Again, she got 10% of 2309 votes on a poll taken on FDL last October, and for a good while, if you read the posts over there, you'd think those of us questioning her innate right to the nomination were in the 3 percentile range, as we got blasted for putting up links to her votes and her speeches.
We HAD to poke to the sacred cow; had to make she, and her supporters, move around and talk about her votes and her speeches and her electability. And the result is that most progressives have abandoned her in favor of Obama, along with, obviously, a lot of other democratic voters.
This would not have happened to the extent it did, without a substantial number of democrats having the courage to risk the near-mindless wrath of a lot of her supporters, as we insisted on popping the fantasy-balloon about her being a good progressive, by talking about the facts about her positions for most of the five years of the war.
As we look at what a great run Obama seems to be making, with, I believe, every probability that he can duplicate it in the general, I feel confident that my, and others, "negativity" toward Clinton has been both fair and effective.
But there is this: with any luck and with the scales falling from a lot of democratic eyes, it may not last much longer. :o)
Thanks for the thoughts. Don't be a stranger here. :o)
That signed, autographed, photo of Gilliard on the wall behind Mr. 'Glass, the bartender here, was well-earned. Aint no place like this place. :o)
Post a Comment