They're working against what should be our common goal: Putting Barack Obama -- or, to be more generic, a Democrat -- in the White House. By working against Obama, they work against what they once believed in: The same policies Hillary supported. Healthcare, women's rights, gay rights, protecting the environment, withdrawing from Iraq, etc.
That's what most of us are working toward. Not to say we won't get mad at each other -- I've been uncharacteristically angry the last couple of days, as many of you may have noticed, but after a bit of venting, it's mostly passed. Sure, a lot of people are wandering around aimlessly, but most people have a purpose and a goal. Why people are picking at each other so much over the last couple of days is beyond me. Maybe it's something in the water.
The convention has not yet taken place, and we do NOT officially have a nominee.
Yeah, it's realistic that nominating someone in late August with no existing ground operation in a single state, no fundraising apparatus, no ads, and no campaign staff is the key to victory. Oh, and re-opening every single division that people have been trying to heal over the past month. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I can't tell whether you people are hopelessly naive or your self-destructive anger makes you incapable of giving a shit. I think the latter, but I'd think better of you if it was the former.
is there any way I could get you to rec this diary for me? I know it's weird to plug someone else's work, but it was helpful to me -- I'd really like people to see it. I'm afraid it will be hard to get it on the rec list this late at night.
Done.
done also....
but we couldn't win that way. If the supers gave her the nomination, there would be an uproar. There'd be no time to pull the party together. Hillary would lose. The only thing worse than losing the primary is losing the general election. I don't want that to happen to the country, and I don't want it to happen to her.
the party would go down in flames if that happened. The party would not be split, it would be dead.
Because they have no respect for the presumptive nominee. I've been to those sites. The names that Barack and Michelle are called is beyond the pale. THe Obamas do not deserve and have not earned the vitrol spewed at sites such as No nickles, Confluence, Bitter politicz, etc., etc.
IMO most of the posters are Repubs egging on the worst in people. They are sinking dollars into this tactic. But it will fail, because Repub is a broken brand.
A 20 mil payoff for the hostages in Columbia. Who paid it?
Obviously you've never visited any of those sites to make such a wild, baseless accusation.
And if you're pissed off about "vitrol spewed" against progressive Democrats, where were you on this site when the same was spewed at Hillary?
<crickets>
I've visited these sites and found lots of vile comments aimed at Obama, Michelle, Donna Brazille, and others. I will not promote their filth by posting it here. If anyone has any doubts just spend 10 minutes on any of those sites.
Obama will NOT work for universal health care, and look at how far to the right he's going. He may not even support a woman's right to choose, from what I have seen. When he talked about including the minister in the decision, and all those other people, he showed he really doesn't support choice. It's all about religion.
Sorry, that's how I see it.
I couldn't disagree with your McCain talking points more. Our Candidate will clean up the Bush mess and create a much better America with our help.
You are so wrong about abortion. Obama said what Bill and Hillary Clinton both said - that is a complex moral decision that women often want to talk it over with people they trust. Recognizing the reality that it is often a hard choice for women rings true to most Americans and garners respect from across the political spectrum.
And you're wrong on health care, too. His goal is universality.
Besides, doesn't it come down to this: Which comes closer to your position on abortion and health care -- Obama or McCain?
"They're working against what should be our common goal: Putting Barack Obama -- or, to be more generic, a Democrat "
Wrong. PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House - Hillary Clinton. Not a DINO.
It's not over yet, until every last vote is counted.
"PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House"
That's why its founder only ever donated to McCain, I guess.
Not true
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh bors.php?type=name&lname=Murphy& fname=Darragh&search=Search
to realize the primary is over and if they can't get on board, then get back to Free Republic, No pennies, Conflagration, etc. Amen.
Then you're too late. You tried to do that, and were not successful - because by the affirmation of all, including Hillary Clinton (in whose name you are supposedly working), Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. The only two people with any chance at all of becoming President next January are Barack Obama and John McCain; the sooner you accept that reality, the better.
About that you're right. We have a long season ahead, where we're going to have to work really hard to ensure that the Democratic nominee becomes President. The stakes are quite simply too high for you not to accept reality and start working for the presumptive Democratic nominee.
issues: i.e. women's issues: he pays his female staff an average of $10,000 less, does not want abortions for women who suffer mental distress, he's against universal or mandated health care for adults which women use the most, etc., etc., etc....
please list all his campaign workers and their jobs.
also, Mental distress and mental disorder or disease are different things. By mental distress it means that a month before birth you decide you just don't want the baby, which is not a reason for abortion. I know you are just a troll, but telling small parts of something just makes you look like the troll you are.
The difference in salaries report, as I understand it, comes from a PUMA site, not a credible news organization. Am I right? I could not find it reported in ANY credible news organization.
And, if it were true, that would be absolutely meaningless without further information.
Once again, it appears people don't understand the concept of "average." If there was one lower paid woman who is, say a receptionist, among a larger group of professional staff, that would bring down the average for women as a whole, but it would say NOTHING about commitment to equal pay.
Yep. Take a room of men and women with equal salaries; if Bill Gates walks into the room, the average income of the males becomes a hell of a lot higher. That's why average is not a good measure of these things.
