Washburn University political scientist Bob Beatty noted in the Topeka Capital-Journal that no state has gone as long as Kansas in electing members of only one party to the U.S. Senate. In challenging Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Jim Slattery seeks to be the first Democrat since George McGill (in photo) in 1932 to be sent to the Senate by Kansas voters.
111 Comments
Yeahbut –
Pat Roberts is no Nancy Kassebaum. And Brownback is no James Pearson. Hell, Brownback isn’t even the new Bob Dole (who was vilified by the current wingnuts running the Kansas Republic Party as being “too liberal.” Bob Dole!)
It’s like the recurring Republic-bot screeds that try to equate today’s twice-born laden GOP with statesmen such as Everett Dirksen and Hugh Scott, Republicans of their era who were proud and effective liberals.
See Kansas rectangle thread.
Kansas is a lost place and a lost cause.
You think a Kansas senator could be part of a conspiracy with Dick Cheney to cover up Cheney’s mistakes and lies about Bush’s Misbegotten War and still get re-elected?
But, but, but…
I thought obama was turning kansas BLUE! I thought he would have coattails a mile long and help those down ballot! I thought it was all gonna change with obama!
Heh. Given that the kdp cant find it’s ass with both hands, and the state of the slattery campaign, I dont see this streak being in any jeopardy.
Even with the messiah at the top of the ticket.
Hope and change wont change kansas any time soon.
…oh yeah, and let’s see how those kansas house and senate races turn out this year. I wonder if the kansas legislature will be MORE red or blue after November? Seems like this coal fired debacle of a session should turn some folks off of voting republican, but I bet they even pick up a few seats this year.
Down ballot strength and all being the long suit of the kdp…
Too many aren’t even opposed. How do you vote em out when there is no one else on the ticket?
As I recall, there was a similar “GOP streak” when Sebelius ran for Insurance Commissioner. Streaks come to an end, like this one will.
so… why does the kansas democratic party not recruit candidates to run?
And, btw, Virginia Beamer was the only house member to run unopposed. She would be from the district that the governor’s former chief of staff said to me that “there just arent enough votes out there to matter” as to why they dont give a rat’s ass about races out here.
I wonder if they would have liked to have had a democrat in Virginia’s seat during this coal crap?
So… with only one member running unopposed, the kdp cant use that as an excuse. And if they try?
Where the hell is tim peterson to recruit candidates out here? The day before the filing deadline in 2004, he was on the phone LOOKING for candidates!
But.. the day after the caucuses, all I heard from obnoxious obama supporters was how kansas was turning blue, hope and change, obama had coattails, clinton didnt, obama would carry the state, he would bring new life to democrats….
Sorry. I’m not seeing it. IT was all bullshit then, and it is all bullshit now. The kdp isnt any better, and it isnt changing or trying any harder than before. So much for the obama factor.
Just keep “hoping”. But I see nothing “changing” with st. obama at the top of the ticket.
KFrmGrrl–
It seems that after attacking the RepubliCONs, you love to attack the Dems.
I worked pretty hard on Raj Goyle’s campaign. I volunteered about 6-10 hours a week all summer up until the election in November.
Because we got Raj in, Bonnie Huie wasn’t there to cast the single vote that would have over-ridden Sebelius’s veto of Holcomb.
The moral of this story? One need not agree with everything to do something.
Something besides complain that is . . .
Since Joan Finney, the ONLY statewide races won by democrats have been by sebelius. And then morrison last year broke THAT losing streak. Without Sebelius, the ks dems would have been shut out for almost 20 years.
Sebelius doesnt need the kansas democratic party, but they damn sure need her. And when she leaves the state? Let’s see how the kansas democrats do.
There really IS no kansas democratic party when it comes to kansas races.
And here, after the caucuses, I was PROMISED by the obama koolaide drinkers that he was a savior for the party and would turn ks blue.
Still waiting…
“so… why does the kansas democratic party not recruit candidates to run?”
Of course, they already do.
OMG, now raj is the reason the Holcomb plant isnt being built?
Jesus wept.
Do you even KNOW how many republicans voted AGAINST overriding the veto?
Who promised you that Obama would turn Kansas blue?
Kansas like the rest of the country is turning blue on its own in revulsion to business as usual in DC.
Holy shit. By that logic, the republicans WON on Holcomb in the ks senate because JANIS FREAKIN’ LEE is one of the main supporters.
And she is a democrat, no? Eber Phelps? Dennis McKinney?
Those are DEMOCRATS driving Holcomb.
Maybe raj needs to use those extraordinary powers of his to turn this fellow damn DEMOCRATS on Holcomb?
Lame. Very lame.
Quite a few Republicans voted against Holcomb. I saw a list of the names a few weeks ago.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that a single Bonny Huie would have over-ridden the Gov’s veto.
So, yeah, Raj is the reason it got stopped.
Damn right.
And you can thank me and all the good Democrats that spearheaded this.
“Who promised you that Obama would turn Kansas blue?”
Go back and read the threads the day of and after the caucuses.
I think you will recognize many of the posts and posters…
“But that doesn’t negate the fact that a single Bonny Huie would have over-ridden the Gov’s veto.”
Man, you really have jumped the shark. The same could be said about EVERY seat that voted to sustain the veto.
Your arrogance is only overridden by absurdity.
Need another pitcher of koolaide to clear your head?
I STILL have high hopes for a more purple Kansas this fall.
And those days after the February caucus I was an excited, motivated Senator Clinton supporter.
Today, I know either of the two remaining candidates of the Democratic Party are head and shoulders above McCain!
Holcomb was NOT decided by party line.
“And you can thank me and all the good Democrats that spearheaded this.”
And I will also be sure to thank every REPUBLICAN who voted to sustain the veto.
Without those REPUBLICANS, the veto would have been overridden. It could NOT be sustained by democrats alone.
Which is my point all along. The kdp is so weak and ineffectual, that they cant even win enough legislative seats to help their own damn governor.
Woof.
Dennis McKinney, the leader of the democrats in the house, voted in favor of Holcomb.
I guess you will be working really hard for his defeat this year. I mean, he supported and still supports the hate amendment.
I’ll be sure to thank the kdp for Dennis. I hope he is on your hit list next.
Oh, and did I mention Eber Phelps, the second in command in the house after Dennis?
Seems like HE supports Holcomb too.
So.. if the TOP TWO LEADERS of the demcrats in the house hadnt OPPOSED the governor…
it would have never come down to raj’s vote, now would it?
Will you be working to defeat Eber this year too?
I think I hear the shark calling….
Oh, and it’s bonbon huy.
I guess you worked so hard to defeat her you forgot how to spell her name…
By carefully reading between the lines, “ksfarmgrrl” –
I get the idea you might prefer Senator Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee.
What I don’t understand about Clintonistas is how virulent your attacks against Senator Obama and his supporters. It’s spooky like the Right Wing Noise Machine’s attacks against President Clinton in the 90s. Consider some of the whole-cloth fictions of that era (e.g., “Hillary-shot-Vince-Foster-in-their-Love-Nest-Gate” and “Mena-Arkansas-Gate” and “Arlington-Gate” and “Clinton-Doesn’t-REALLY-Like-Big-Macs-Gate…”)
Patent absurdities.
And not all that more absurd than knockin’ back boilermakers in Indiana and shootin’ ducks in Pennsylvania and claiming “I’m the white person’s candidate” in West Virginia.
If it works for you and “BlueJay,” solid. Senator Clinton is my second-favorite candidate.
I’m not delusional enough to think Obama at the top of the ticket will turn Kansas blue. But the Clintons are such lightning rods for red-state hate, they seem highly more likely to reunify a fracturing Republic Party in Kansas and nationwide?
As the philosopher says: “Pick your enemies carefully, for they are whom you’ll come closest to resemble.”
McCain could take away the tanker contract from Boeing and Kansans will vote for him anyway. Kansas is so red its masochistic voters will vote for four more years of Bush’s War, Bush’s Budget Deficit, Bush’s raising taxes on low and middle income families, and billions of dollars of subsidies to the oil companies. Grandpa “Lost his Bearings” McCain won’t have to campaign in Kansas. He’s got it in the bag. Fortunately, Texas, California and New York have more electoral votes.
And I find it interesting that ANY criticism of st. obama is framed as an attack.
THAT is more like the right wing noise machine than anything else, and weirdly reminiscent of bush’s extreme sensitivity to criticism.
And I notice the same sensitivity to comments about the kdp being ineffective. Those were also called attacks.
Waaaaaaaaaaa!
Please repost my “attacks” on obama. He has a problem with “the gay” that is well documented. He supported bigots like hezakiah walker, marymary, and the infamous mccloset, AND he took money they raised. He refuses to have his picture taken with the mayor of San Francisco, even though Newsome raised money for him.
Those are FACTS, not attacks. And you have already noted they are no big deal monkey, so dont bother. IIRC, it’s no more important to you than a flavor of mcrib.
SO much for the party of civil rights.
But if you chose to play tit for tat, your attacks on Clinton and those of the captain are well known, but I could sure post a few “hitlary” threads and such…
I wouldn’t mind seeing all the coal supporters voted out, dem. or repub.
Me too phantom. Let’s start with traitors mckinney and phelps and lee!
Interesting. I was going to do a bone dig and repost some of captain and monkey’s greatest hits regarding obama and Hillary. But…
I cant load them past Feb. 26. Maybe because I’m on my old gray mare computer today, or is it a word press thing? Anyway, I cant get into the caucus threads today.
And a couple of posters should be REALLY glad I cant!
“I mean, he supported and still supports the hate amendment.”
And Co-President Hillary Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but hey, it’s okay if you’re an older white angry woman apparently . . .
I did put a lot of time into defeating Huy–thanks for the correction.
So it kinda pisseth me off when I hear people especially liberals trying to equate the really horrible RepubliCONs with the much less horrible Dems.
It’s “Squirrel and Bear Soup.” We’re the squirrel and they’re the bear but somehow we’re “just as bad.”
Well . . . we’re not. Dems should be a lot more consistently liberal than they are, they should divorce themselves completely and totally from the big-money lobbyist system of legal corruption in DC.
But still, we wouldn’t be in Iraqmire with Al Gore as President and we’d have the world’s biggest producer of CO2 in Holcomb, Kansas without the Democrats that stopped it.
We’re not “just as bad.” That’s just defeatist talk from people who’ve given up.
“America–Love It AND Change It.”
He refusesd to have his picture taken with the mayor of San Francisco, even though Newsome raised money for him.
Fixed that for you.
This is what happened four years ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
Hmmmm . . apparently Wordpress doesn’t like combined italics and strikeovers.
“ksfarmgrrl” alleged –
“…your attacks on Clinton… are well known”
And I was ready to call her on it. Because I don’t believe it’s true.
But “ksfarmgrrl” posted –
“Interesting. I was going to do a bone dig and repost some of … and monkey’s greatest hits regarding obama and Hillary. But…”
First off, don’t try to weasel out of this by lumping be with whatever “CapnAmerica” may or may not have said.
If you can cite my “attacks” on Senator Clinton, produce ‘em. Because I think you’re wrong or mis-remember or are carrying a personal grudge to the point of a complete misrepresentation of my view.
Sorry captain, but in Kansas, they are just as bad. As noted, the Holcomb issue was NOT decided by party lines. It was more of an east/west or urban/rural issue than a partisan one. Neufeld made it a republican issue. And I’ve already said I give Sebelius credit for stopping it. But dont act like the democrats stopped it. Lee, Phelps, McKinney, etc. are LEADERS in the kdp.
And dont forget, from my point of view on the hate amendment? I can match a tim huelcamp with jan pauls or candy ruff any day. And I dont give repukes a pass on it in any way. But from my view, it was a REPUBLICAN who kept it off the ballot in 2004. David Adkins.
And mckinney, phelps, lee, peterson, et al?
They supported the hate amendment.
So maybe the democrats are all good for you captain, being a young white straight male and all.
But from my point of view, having been in the trenches, they all look the same.
…and nice conflation saying co-president Hillary SIGNED the doma. She is for repealing it now. Shows she can learn from mistakes.
But thanks for playing…
Monkey, the hot computer is coming home on Saturday. You can bet your sweet bippy I’ll be getting back to you and the captain on those greatest hits.
And you both already know, if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.
“ksfarmgrrl” posted –
“Monkey, …[y]ou can bet your sweet bippy I’ll be getting back to you … on those greatest hits.
And you… already know, if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.”
It’s a deal.
And I’ll match it. Because I really believe you’re mistaken about me.
But, “…sweet bippy”?!
You’re showin’ our age, “ksfarmgrrl.” Next thing ya know I’ll ask if you “…want a taste of my walnetto?”
Oh. . .looking over the article, I see Newsom did claim this:
“One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me,” Newsom told Reuters, “even though I’ve done fundraisers for that particular person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.”
My bippy’s always floated to the top after the Algae Eater rammed them fighting over fish tank territoreal claims.
Rage, I dont have those articles bookmarked any more, but there was more than one that noted obams just would not be photographed with Newsome and he said it to people hosting the event.
It seemed petty but dismissable at the time. However, there is a pattern here.
Forgive me for thinking voting democrats would actually walk their talk about equality and not nominate someone like that. Or someone who would stoop to pandering like the mccclurking thing.
I was so obviously, painfully, wrong.
IOKIYAAD
OK — I agree that the coal plant was not a party line deal. I dont even think it was an east/west deal. From what I picked up out in SW Kansas, it seemed to me it was more of a money deal - investment deal. Those invested in energy expansion(with real dollars) wanted the Coal plant. Those who had some fluidity with their investments took the environmental approach.
I think the Coal Plant deal was all about money, and not that much about politics. Even the Veto.
More of the pattern. AND this is the guy who married the preznit’s daughter over the weekend.
http://overthetopblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/b...
Back in January, when Rev. Caldwell announced his support for Sen. Obama, an online magazine called TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime said “new questions about Obama’s commitment to fighting homophobia will be raised by the news of this endorsement by Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. This is troubling because Rev. Caldwell is, like Donnie McClurkin before him, a believer that homsexuality is a curable disease of the soul.”
The online publication alluded to a program sponsored by Rev. Caldwell titled “The Way, The Truth and The Life,” designed “to provide Christ Centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins.”
Another online publication, Pam’s House Blend, cited passages from Rev. Caldwell’s pitch for the program: “Since the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden, men and women throughout the ages have attempted to fulfill these deep emotional needs outside a relationship with God. In doing this, sinful patterns of living were developed, preventing the fulfillment of these needs as God intended. If you desire to learn to live life as God designed it, you are invited to join ‘The Way, The Truth and The Life’ program.”
Obama sure surrounds himself with the damndest people…
Oh I disagree Chas. The veto was ALL about politics. (And of course, where politics goes, money follows.)
Until recently, governor “leadership” had been building herself a real red state record on the environment, particularly with water and big ag.
When the national stage beckoned, she had to shore up her environmental creds. Quickly. SO.. the word is she was going to fight Holcomb publicly, but privately, it was said she would win either way. If it passed, she could blame the wingnut robber barons. If it failed, she could take credit.
She has a way of triangulating successfully, I gotta give her that. And I’m glad this is the issue she is using to launch her national ambitions.
But pul-eeze. Dont say it wasnt about politics. With sebelius, EVERYTHING is about triangulation.
…and I notice, back to the subject, not ONE poster thinks Slattery will win?
We have a name for that out here. Pissin’ up a rope.
However, there is a pattern here.
Maybe so, but you’ve been throwing so much at the wall in your campaign against Obama that it’s hard to keep track. You’d think the man was Satan-on-Earth or something, instead of a politician.
I don’t see this vaunted pattern, apart from the same kind of bullshit we’ve seen from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, I know: the McClurkin incident. Consider this:
KFG, I know where you’re coming from. If Obama had allowed a neo-Nazi to rant like that, his campaign would be history, period. And rightfully so. And, by your judgment, the fact that he allowed it proved that he’s a bigot, period. End of the debate.
Unfortunately, you seem to be ignoring the shitty political and social context which, unfortunately, exists, and was inevitably part of the decision-making process that led to that foul act of political convenience. That’s highly ironic, as you, of all people, are painfully aware of it. Constitutional amendments. Job discrimination. And so on, and so on. and so on.
John Kerry voted against DOMA, but broke with the entire Massachusetts delegation. . .. to oppose gay marriage. He was alone in this, and no doubt eventually had to look his Massachusetts colleague Barney Frank in the eye.
Suppose a youngish German poltician (we’ll call him “Boris Obecker”) ran for chancellor in Germany in the 20s, and, like his opponent in the Weimar primary, supported the notion that jews were normal human beings (the history is not spot-on, but I’m making a point). But the guy organizes a series of fundraising concerts headlined by a notorious anti-Semite and friends. He notes his disagreement, but allows it to continue.
Now suppose most everything the guy did before and after was still very much pro-jew, including sponsorship of equal-rights laws, back when he was a nobody. What do you make of it? Well, you can assume the guy’s a closet bigot, no matter what else he’s said or done. You can assume all of his supporters are closet bigots, no matter what they’ve said or done.
Or you can more realistically regard the guy as a politician playing to a bigoted segment he needs to win the Bavaria primary, and examine him with a wary eye. You might justifiably wonder if he’s going to sell you out as a bargaining chip.
But would you conclude he’s a closet Nazi?
I could understand someone suspecting that, but what do you do when there’s ample reason to suspect the other candidate as well?
And more to the point, what do you think he’d do as president? And how it could be any worse than that “great president” (your words), Bill Clinton?
Or any worse than John McCain, for that matter?
And of ALL the years that patsy could have been and SHOULD have been most vulnerable, the kdp choses this year to polish up their keystone kops routine when it comes to “recruiting” candidates.
sebelius and a couple of crossover republicans may be winning some races, but the kdp seems to be unable to punch their way out of a wet paper bag.
Maybe they just need MORE republicans to crossover so they can show the kdp how it’s done…
“Chas” posits –
“I think the Coal Plant deal was all about money…”
Y’think?
Look. It’s always about money. Even when it isn’t about the money it’s about the money.
Now, there are tangents. Sometimes the politician’s goal is power. But how do you get power? Money frequently helps.
As we’re seeing on another thread. “MaxGrobnik” is perfectly willing to mix and match concepts such as percentage points and percentage to spin convoluted language into some kind of partisan argument for his predetermined biases.
For all I know, “MaxGrobnik” is the richest guy in Iowa (probably has the state’s pig-porn monopoly or something), and really benefits from the Republic Party’s tax policies. But I doubt it.
And that’s the core of the idiocy of Republic Party advocates. America has long accepted the power of the richest upper crust and the Republic Party has brainwashed (often times hardly working up a lather) stupid people to think they’ll hit some sort of lottery and benefit from what the Republic Party’s doing to them. For all I know of “MaxGrobnik,” all his worldly possessions amount to a used double-wide and a 1983 pick-up truck. (Which, admittedly, doesn’t entirely rule out his being the pig-porn king of Waterloo.)
And if “MaxGrobnik” actually considered what Republic Party policies were costing him, all they have to do is wave a red cape and distract him with fantasies that Barrack Obama’s gonna personally come for his guns.
Wow Rage, and I never expect YOU of all people to jump the shark!
I certainly do not consider all of obama’s supporters to be bigots. Some here on this blog are not, and I know that.
But a pattern, like refusing to have your picture taken with the mayor of San Francisco, letting hezakiah walker and marymary AND mcclurkin raise money and PREACH at a fundraiser, buddying up to a bigot like kirbyjon caldwell, is a pattern. Connect the dots.
And I agree with your implication that the majority of the democratic party have decided that pandering to homophobes is ok, but pandering to racists and anti-semites is not ok. WTF do you think I’m ranting about? They can talk the talk, but they cant walk the walk.
And nazi’s? Rage, you? Jesus WEPT! Just to invoke the idea that obama has some moral equivalency to a guy who could in theory have prevented the holocaust?
I’m speechless. SO.. would this theoretical thing have let the Nazi PREACH his crap for thirty minutes at the end of the fundraiser?
And would that also be ok in the name of victory?
One of the things the Hillary bashers have been whining about is that she would do ANYTHING to get elected.
So I see here, that the line for “what is ok” to do to get elected is set on THIS side of giving a platform for homophobes to preach.
NOW who is getting by with “doing anything” to get elected?
IOKIYAAD
Yeah Rage, I get that you get it. And that you are ok with it as long as obama wins.
I get that monkey gets it. And he’s ok with it as long as obama wins.
Just where DO you draw the line at what is ok to do to get elected?
Damn Rage, and in addition to invoking Nazis, you are saying “Bill Clinton! Bill Clinton!”
Vote for obama because he wont be as bad as Bill Clinton? And yes I think Bill was a great president.
These “compromises” that obama supporters support, but then cant understand that DOMA and DADT were the RESULT of JUST such compromises at the time?
And that such “reaching across the aisle” is what got us DOMA and DADT?
And you wonder why I’m suspicious about obama being an appeaser?
Woof.
No worries kfg, Osama Obama will deal with the ‘McClurkn issue.’ After all, he is always “fer somethin before he was agin’ it.”
Looks to me like the homophobes will be the real winners in November, whether obama wins or mccain wins, we’re STILL gonna be in the weeds for a very long time.
He may provide hope for some of you, but, uh, “hope” isnt exactly the word this election brings to mind for gay people.
Ksfarmgrrl. In the “pissin up a rope” comment and think you and I have found something to agree on.
“No worries kfg, Osama Obama will deal with the ‘McClurkn issue.’”
No shit. He’ll probably give him a cabinet position or the medal of freedom.
Why is it that in America, when someone says “compromise” and “work together” it’s always MY ass that gets bargained away?
I guess the answer to me and my community from the obama camp is “No we cant” and “it’s not your time”.
I’m sure it will inspire us to hope for change.
MH, I seriousl suspect of all the republicans posting, HLP might be the only one with a dog in the income tax fight. The rest I think are just wanna be’s.
“ksfarmgrrl” can’t restrain herself from alleging –
“I get that monkey gets it. And he’s ok with it as long as obama wins.”
Sure wish you could do that bone-dig, “ksfarmgrrl.” Because you totally misrepresent every post I remember making about the outcome of the race for the Democratic Party’s nominee.
You’ll see that once you get the good computer out and reread what I’ve contributed to this forum.
“Just where DO you draw the line at what is ok to do to get elected?
I’m not gonna follow your troll and cite some of the arguments and tactics of the Hillary Clinton campaign have chosen which go over “the line.” I’ll sketch in a line, in pencil anyway, the Clintons’ playing not-so-subtle race cards throughout the primary campaign. I’ll pencil in “a line” with the utterly stupid Gasoline Tax Holiday issue.
I understand and respect why you chose to draw “the line” with the McClurkin issue. It’s a hot-button issue for you. Fine. But you seem, from my perspective anyway, to weigh it more heavily than is proportional.
And, since it was a Clinton who proposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the DOMA, I’m perplexed at your devotion to Senator Clinton’s purity on the issue.
What America needs is a Democrat in the Oval Office and Democratic majorities in Congress to eliminate all the counter-veto posturing that’s going on in Congress (and electoral politics, as if there were any difference).
If we get out of the war in Iraq, reestablish constitutional rights such as habeas corpus, eliminate Shrub’s “No Billionaire Left Behind” tax policies, and raise health care to a basic human right such as a clean water system or a viable fire department, sewers that don’t pollute rivers and ground water and lakes and oceans, adopting an energy program that’s not doomed to kill us all, there’s plenty of time left to address GLBT issues in Year Two of the next Democratic President’s term.
Frankly, I think either Democratic candidate will get to that. And, even more frankly, I can understand why GLBT issues aren’t top of the agenda for either Democratic candidate.
My ex- was a single-issue voter. She declared she would never vote for a candidate who wasn’t pro-choice. I respected her passion until she voted for the Register of Deeds on the pro-choice/anti-abortion issue.
Perspective, people.
Consider it.
It’s a perspective for you. Proportional.
It’s my life for me.
And I am VERY clear what it is for the democratic party.
Nothing.
And how funny that in response to the question of where to draw “the line” all monkey can do is cite Hillary’s misdeeds.
“there’s plenty of time left to address GLBT issues in Year Two of the next Democratic President’s term.”
So indeed, I am correct, that the message from the party of obama is “not this time”.
I’m sure those agitating for racial equality wouldnt mind a bit being told it’s not time for you… yet….
If we have to get through all those problems before we address the issue of marriage equality, we might as well move to Spain.
It’s not an either/or monkey. We can do two things at once.
Multitasking.
Consider it.
Just where DO you draw the line at what is ok to do to get elected?
I’m not sure. It’s not entirely up to me. I almost voted for Perot in 1992, I was so digusted by Bill Clinton’s pandering to the right. I was talked into voting for the man, because Perot was decidedly nuts and, ironically, because of Bill’s support for civil rights–including gay rights–in that election.
I did vote for Ralph Nader, in 1996 and 2000.
Yeah Rage, I get that you get it. And that you are ok with it as long as obama wins.
That’s bullshit, and you know it.
I deliberately chose an extreme analogy because I do not in fact think it’s “okay.” That was the point. It was also to point out the difference between political cowardice and outright malevolence.
But, beyond the ugly incident, I don’t see this pattern of which you speak. I literally have not seen the pattern. Feel free to enlighten me.
For example, where is your evidence that Obama is “buddying up” with Kirbyjon Caldwell?
Maybe he has been, but all you produced was an endorsement. Do you think Obama is friendly toward Hamas, too, since a Hamas official spoke well of him? Or Louis Farrakan, since he endorsed Obama, too?
My point is not that the evidence isn’t there, but you seem more than ready to leap on any tenuous connection as “evidence.” You want so much to take the man down, because the voters haven’t. I understand that, but I don’t think it’s a useful approach.
And, if you were paying attention earlier instead of sharpening your rhetoric, you would have noticed that I’ve expressed serious doubts about Obama, for reasons that are factually undisputed. I reserve the right to vote for Nader.
I also don’t think it was okay when Lyndon Johnson seated the officially segregationist party. But Goldwater was not a viable alternative.
I would suggest less heat and more light, but you don’t seem interested in that.
Again, simple questions:
1) Describe this ‘pattern’ you’ve seen with Obama, with facts , not innuendo, and guilt-by-association.
2) What do you think, realistically, should be done, at this late stage? Have you contacted the DNC? Do you know the names of the Kansas superdelegates?
I’m sighing here.
I already said what I thought was the pattern. I was posting what I posted about Caldwell because it was handy and because it illustrates WHO he is.
What’s to be done? Well hell, NOTHING of course!
You think the DNC gives a rat’s ass about it? You think the KANSAS delegates of all the damn people, give a rat’s ass?
If the democrats cared about obama and his penchant for homophobes, he wouldnt be the nominee.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. You CANT support obama without giving him a pass on the homophobia thing. THe mcclurkin thing.
Now some good libs here dont want to admit it, maybe you are not among them, Rage, but it’s true.
If someone supports obama, they are giving him a pass. I guess each person will have to rationalize that for themselves.
But dont take the guilt out on me for speaking out.
So Rage, will this link from the Wapo do?
Interesting. Upon further research, I found that the obama campaign INVITED caldwell to go on the same tour with mcclurkin, and he did APPEAR on the bill, at obama’s invitation, WITH mcclurkin.
Caldwell is quoted in the article about the tour. BEFORE he endorsed obama in January.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html
So… is an invitation, like the one issue to both caldwell AND mccloset, close enough for “guilt by association”?
Or do you still want to claim obama was “just” endorsed by these homophobes?
Oh, and btw, I got the link from Americablog.
Here’s what Aravosis had to say:
“UPDATE: A reader emailed me this link, noting that Caldwell was invited by Obama’s campaign to appear at the McClurkin fundraiser. I knew that already, and the campaign didn’t lie to me about it - in fact they acknowledged that he was there.”
“He’s more than a conqueror through Jesus Christ,” said Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Houston pastor who was on the tour and is backing on Obama.
So he was part of the traveling freakshow. That’s the same incident. Where is the pattern?
“ksfarmgrrl” continues with –
“And how funny that in response to the question of where to draw “the line” all monkey can do is cite Hillary’s misdeeds.”
And yet, all I recall hearing from you are Obama’s” alleged “misdeeds.”
Then “ksfarmgrrl” adds –
“So indeed, I am correct, that the message from the party of obama is “not this time”.”
I think I explained political priorities the first time. Reread it.
“I’m sure those agitating for racial equality wouldnt mind a bit being told it’s not time for you… yet….”
As it turns out, that’s how it’s worked. Get the message.
We went through Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954, the Little Rock High School confrontation, Selma, Medgar Evers, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, court-ordered busing, and a lot of other crap to get where we are today. That certainly is not how I would have liked it. But that’s the way things happened.
“If we have to get through all those problems before we address the issue of marriage equality, we might as well move to Spain.”
And Gertrude Stein did exactly that. To France, anyway. And 90 years ago.
I’m sorry, but in a previous post I mentioned some issues which might, just might, be of a higher legislative priority than Marriage Equality, it’s not bigotry on my part. It’s simply my assessment of political reality.
It is fair? No.
Is it just? Nope.
Does it make sense? No way.
Can it be the issue on which the next four years of the presidency depends?
Tell me, “ksfarmgrrl.”
Just where in this campaign has Senator Clinton stood up and advocated Gender Equality on the order you (rightly) expect from elected officials?
“It’s not an either/or…”
But it seems you keep couching the issue in those terms.
We’re really on the same. We’re really working toward the same goals.
I must be an ignorant, illiterate fool in my inability to get that central core message to connect with you.
It isnt “an incident” Rage. It was a tour. Multiple.
Obama INVITES these guys to campaign on his behalf and raise money. Not just one mistake. At least two. And no apologies for either.
And the Gavin Newsom thing. Petty for a president, no? Just because he performed some gay marriages as mayor that were later declared null? heh. Nothing h omophobic about THAT.
So how many incidents make a pattern. Three? Four? A hundred? Let me know so I know how many you want me to present. I’ve backed up every claim I’ve made, met every challenge you’ve thrown in here. If I’ve missed something, remind me.
You wanted proof that they were more than just associates? That this was more than just guilt by association? There it is. You want more? Tell me how many. How much more light do you need? Sorry if the light generates heat.
Monkey, I read your assessment of your political priorities. You seem to think that what you believe, or your “perspective” is THE truth. And I must be too stupid or stubborn to “get it”. But I do get it. You admited the message is “not this time” for gay folks. Wrap in whatever freakin’ shiney paper you like, that’s the message.
I guess it just never enters your brain that YOUR truth is not the universal truth. Neither you, nor Rage, nor Captain have been able to shake the truth of what I’ve posted. Just because you refuse to see the pattern doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Just because my “perspective” shows me a different truth doesnt make me wrong, or stupid, or unable to receive your high level communications.
If you can sort through all my rhetoric, find fault with my facts, or tell me how much MORE proof you need to see what I see. You can believe whatever you want, but dont piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
And I’m not going to waste one keystroke defending Hillary. It doesnt change one thing obama has said or done. But nice try of changing the subject.
Hillary was not my first choice. Obama would have been my last.
And given the Hillary hatred here? When’s the last time you saw me post anything defending Hillary?
Why bother? Obama’s been blessed as the nominee. It’s all over but the shouting.
And when he comes asking for money or votes from SOME of us in the gay community?
I’ll just have to say “not this time”…
Neither you, nor Rage, nor Captain have been able to shake the truth of what I’ve posted.
What “truth” are we talking about?
Just because you refuse to see the pattern doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Okay. So the ‘pattern’ is the traveling freakshow. But how do you reconcile it with the rest of the man’s career? It’s a question, not a imperative.
Is it the truth that he allowed bigoted nutjobs to campaign for him, repeatedly? That’s an issue. You bet your ass it is.
But I have a hard time believing that Obama is just a homophobic phony, who mouths gay-friendly positions and sponsors gay-friendly legislation for temporary political advantage. That doesn’t make sense. If anything, I regard the reverse is true: he let those assholes do their thing as a crass attempt to win votes.
In an enlightened country, he would have been roundly pilloried for that. He wasn’t.
So maybe progressives should stay home, or vote third-party. If you live in a safe state, I would encourage the latter, in fact.
But I don’t want to see John McCain elected over this. There’s too much at stake, including gay rights.
Most of the GLBT folks I know don’t have the problem with supporting Obama that KsGrrl writes of.
In fact between the two, they see Obama more consistently on the gay-friendly side than Hillary. She can’t even utter the word “gay” apparently.
Obama has been asking for more acceptance of GLBTs in black churches, where it counts, and where he doesn’t have to for political points.
Funny captain, the polls regarding gay folks and this race dont support your opinion.
Yes, some high profile folks like melissa etheridge support him. Some here in Kansas support him. But dont try to paint this as a non-issue in the gay community.
Unless you have FACTS to support that?
Rage, you questioned the truth about whether these guys were merely endorsers or ACTIVE campaigners. They were invited by the obama campaign. I posted a link to support that.
THAT is the truth you questioned, and I answered.
you are welcome
Ya know, there are a HELL of a lot of Clinton supporters in America. Captain can dismiss me as an angry older white woman, you can paint me as be outside the mainstream gay community, you can hail obama ’til the cows come home.
But you cant deny the number of votes Hillary supporters represent. You cant win without us.
And I see how you and your st. obama are winning us over and untiting folks…
Slattery has no chance. However, when Brownback
does not seek reelection in two years to run for governor instead, Kathleen Sebelius will have a real shot. Of course that assumes she isn’t vice president by then.
Ya got a right to your anger farmgrrl.
Obama already threw you under the bus.
Me? I just wonder if I’m next. Obama and some of his supporters, it seems they want to build a new and strange coalition.
On the broken and forgotten bodies of their former friends.
But you take heart kfg. The suspicion as to Obama is deeper and wider than I think you know.
And yes among posters here. Some of whom are riding the fence just now.
I am…aware… of an undercurrent. There is a growing perception that something with Obama is just not right.
A good thing we still have a fence for folks to ride I think. Because once the hesitant are restricted to two sides of the fence?
The other one may look greener.
Especially in comparison with the great unexplored candidate.
outfordemocracy.org/arch/000718.html
February 02, 2008
The Advocate reports “a critical mass of John Edwards’s LGBT steering committee is going public with support for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton. Twenty-two members of the Edwards campaign’s original 59-person gay and lesbian committee will now be working for Obama victories next Tuesday and throughout the rest of the primary season.
The new Obama converts include Eric Stern, who headed up Edwards’s LGBT steering committee, and longtime gay activist David Mixner, who famously campaigned for Bill Clinton in 1992, holding some of the first gay fund-raisers for a U.S. presidential candidate.”
Posted by David Mariner at February 2, 2008 08:26 PM
http://www.washblade.com/2007/2-2/news/national/9935.cfm
Gay politicos impressed by Edwards, Obama
Some say Clinton failing to ‘speak from the heart’
JOSHUA LYNSEN
Friday, February 02, 2007
Just weeks into their presidential campaigns, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are impressing some political observers for their handling of gay rights issues.
Democratic National Committee GLBT Caucus Chair Rick Stafford and other politicos said Edwards and Obama have quickly outshined a crowded field of other White House hopefuls because they’re prepared to sincerely discuss gay issues.
Stafford said such genuineness is a key quality that many other candidates — including top Democratic contender Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — have yet to demonstrate.
“When Obama and Edwards talk about our issues,” he said, “I think there’s a sense that they speak from their hearts and they’re willing to show that they’re not there yet, where I’m not sure that kind of speaking from the heart comes from Hillary.”
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/01/barack_obama_on_lgbt_equality.php
Barack Obama on LGBT Equality
Filed by: Michael Crawford
January 31, 2008 10:30 AM
One thing is clear about the race for the Democratic presidential nomination between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: by voting in large numbers LGBT voters can play a crucial role in deciding who will be our next president. Hillary Clinton would be a fine choice as president for LGBT voters. Barack Obama would be better.
Throughout the campaign Barack Obama has spoken out about his strong support for LGBT equality in front of gay and non-gay audiences and often unprompted by questions. No other candidate did this.
When Obama speaks about LGBT people and our fight for civil rights he doesn’t just speak about us in an isolated fashion. He weaves our lives, hopes and dreams into his vision of what the United States can be.
When he spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church, the church that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led before his death, Obama spoke to a Black and Christian audience about homophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant hysteria. That’s something that no other presidential candidate has either the courage or vision to do.
Most recently in the Democratic debate in South Carolina, Obama talked about the importance of supporters of LGBT equality and reproductive rights to reach out to religious voters.
Looking at all of this it is clear to me as a gay man that Barack Obama is the best presidential hope for the LGBT community.
my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/scottgiordano/CJhQ
It may not be a home run, but Barack Obama was the strongest player in the Aug. 9th HRC/Logo debate on GLBT issues - with unwavering support for repeal of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and “full civil union” benefits for GLBT couples.
In addition, Obama told those in a private conference call after the debate that he would continue supporting the GLBT community in the general election, speaking to non-gay audiences and Independent and Republican voters, in the same manner he does before gay audiences.
End result: Barack leads the online poll at LOGOonline.org, where you can also view video clips from the debate: He has a strong 42 percent of the vote, followed by Dennis Kucinich with 24 percent, and so-called frontrunner Hillary Clinton lagging behind with only 17 percent of the online vote.
But Obama was the only one of the three major candidates who unequivocally stated he remains fully opposed to DomA - and has been, on record, since he ran for the U.S. Senate.
. . . .
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton stuck to her script of wanting to repeal the portion of DomA (section 3) that allows the federal government and states to prevent civil unions but stopped there - indicating she would continue supporting language from the original DoMA signed by her husband that says states don’t have to recognize “relationships between persons of the same sex.” This is in stark contrast to Sen. Obama, who has called for full repeal of DoMA since he ran for the Senate in 2006.
lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois: Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Barack Obama in the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.
This is the exact same score that Hillary R. Clinton got.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Obama’s GLBT Ad
claytonbarrel.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-glbt-ad.html
This brings tears to my eyes. When do you remember a Presidential candidate who actively sought support from the gays. I’m so excited.
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5209
Houston GLBT Caucus Endorses Obama
by: Houston GLBT Political Caucus
Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 00:16 PM CST
http://www.thecaucus.org
After decades of fighting for equality in the face of discrimination, the LGBT community recognizes, perhaps more profoundly than anyone, the “fierce urgency of now.” We long for transformational change. We deeply desire a united country, where we can share openly and honestly with our neighbors. That is why the Houston GLBT Political Caucus is proud to join the unprecedented, diverse, hope driven coalition that is emerging across this nation to elect Senator Barack Obama President of the United States.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had the humility to answer all of our tough questions, fulfilling the same process that every candidate, from precinct chair to U.S. Senator, had to complete in order to secure our endorsement. After engaging in these historic conversations, the Houston GLBT Political Caucus board has voted to endorse Barack Obama.
bloggernista.com/2008/02/29/lgbt-latinos-for-obama/
LGBT Latinos for Obama
Posted on February 29, 2008 by Michael Crawford
My blogger buddy Andres Duque creator of Blabbeando has tipped me off to something wonderful. A group of prominent Latino GLBT activists have issued an open letter explaining their support for Barack Obama’s candidacy for the presidency. The list of signatories includes actor Wilson Cruz and political powerhouse/blogger Gloria Nieto.
http://www.lesbiatopia.com/2008/04/lesbian-politics-is-lesbians-vote-for.html
In the case of the 2008 Presidential race, Hillary’s supporters look at me and see a woman who doesn’t support womankind as though all people with [lady parts] should think alike.
. . . .
Here are just a few reasons why I am backing Obama:
· Obama wishes to enact a Fair Pay Act, under which women would get equal pay.
· Obama wishes to strengthen federal hate crimes legislation.
· Obama takes no money from federal lobbyists or PACs.
· His health care program would include a National Health Insurance Exchange to act as a watchdog group over the private insurance market.
· His health care program would require employers to help employees with health care costs.
· He would also require health care providers to publicly report their expenses.
· He opposed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (unlike Hillary).
· He is the most conscious of the Democratic Party; he has abided by the DNC rules (unlike Hillary).
· He unequivocally is against torture (unlike Hillary, who posed a “ticking time bomb” scenario in 2006 and then changed her mind in 2007).
· Small donors (<$100) make the majority of his campaign contributions; he would govern for the people, not for the wealthiest corporations or most powerful lobbyists. · He disclosed all his earmarks.
· He provided names of fund raising bundlers at all financial levels.
· He released his income tax returns to the public long before anyone else.
· He opposed the war from the beginning.
· He has pledged to be bipartisan in his cabinet appointments.
· He is a big labor booster in trade agreements.
· He believes in setting standards for trade with China.
· He would repeal Bush’s tax cuts (unlike Hillary).
· He would give a $4,000 tax credit to college students in exchange for 100 hours of public service.
· He wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
The guy is also a civil rights attorney who taught law at Harvard; I believe the person with the strongest knowledge of the Constitution will do the most for the LGBT community. Check out his recent interview with The Advocate.
As lesbians, we all do our part to promote womankind, whatever that is, because we promote love of ladies by being ourselves. No vote for Hillary can touch that.
That’s the thing about Obama . . . the more people get to know him, the more they like him.
Hillary?
Ehhh, not so much. Kind of the other way around actually . . .
Not my take there Capn.
The more I learn of Obama. The more I see him.
The more I dislike him.
And this blog KNOWS I was not originally a supporter of Hillary Clinton. But the more I see her the more I like her. She’s a fighter. Not a goofball.
I’ve had it as bad or worse than anyone. But I don’t hoard guns or retreat to religion for comfort as Obama asserts.
Obama has, for lack of a better term, “made it”. He is acceptable to others who have “made it”.
The folks left behind? Well….I guess Obama would agree with the right to win their favor that those left behind are themselves to blame.
“Obama has, for lack of a better term, “made it”.”
And Hillary and Bill have made over $100 million in the last seven years.
Hillary Clinton has never known a day of poverty or hardship in her life.
Hillary Clinton was raised in privilege and has lived that way her whole life.
After law school, Barack Obama declined the high dollar corporate lawyer life and returned to Chicago to help his fellow man.
Hillary Clinton took a position on the Board of Directors of Wal - Mart.
“Twenty-two members of the Edwards campaign’s original 59-person gay and lesbian committee”
NOT EVEN HALF
A real movement there.
I could post links to all the lgbt sites that DO NOT support obama. But why?
The koolaide has already taken its effect.
Remember, you cant win without us. And I see every day you do more to drive Clinton supporters away from obama.
Win without us.
So captain posts a few obscure bloggers and thinks it’s a gay movement? Hehehehehehehehehehhehe.
Yeah, um, ’cause he’s so in touch with the gay community and all. You forget that at least 25% of the gay vote in 2004 went to bush.
I think Hillary voters will have the last laugh here. You can shout “hope and change” from the rooftops, but it wont get the nearly fifty percent of democrats who support her to go to the polls, now will it?
From DU. The HOME of Hillary Hatred. Oh yeah, and the guy who wrote this is an obama supporter.
“He’s kickin her ass!!!!! He’s whoopin her! Hillary sucks! Obama blows her away!
So dramatic, but so not ground in reality.
No, with all that Obama is, with all the hype, with all the mystique, with all the momentum, with all the electricity and charisma, he hasn’t come close to kicking her ass.
He’s ahead by less than 5% in delegates. He’s ahead by only a little over 1% in nationwide PV. Sorry, that ain’t close to an ass kickin. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Fact is, even with all that was on his side in the 2nd half of the primary season, with all the momentum, charisma, electricity, excitement, magnetism, hyped up words, and with all the slander his supporters throw around at Hillary as if she’s the worst candidate ever, he will be winning the nomination not by an ass kicking, but rather by the skin of his teeth. After all that, after it’s all said and done, that’s the reality. By the skin of his teeth.
So please, all this “he’s kickin her ass! Hillary’s a loser!” hogwash crap just makes ya look a bit silly if you’re repeatin it.”
My prediction?
Obama will NOT win Kansas.
Obama will NOT win the popular vote among whites. OF all economic classes.
He will not win the “evangelical” vote.
He will not win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas.
He will not win the White House.
You can bet your sweet bippy I’m going to be here the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday to discuss the obama defeat.
Will captain?
1. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He got the most votes, and he got the most elected delegates. The super-delegates are not going to usurp the will of the majority.
Far from it, they are already coming over to Obama’s camp. He now leads in SD’s too.
The only way Clinton could win the nomination is to sunder the party so badly that she couldn’t possibly win in the fall.
2. She may have already done that with her talk of “Obama can’t beat McCain” and “McCain has experience, Obama has speeches.”
IMHO, that crosses the line from “tough campaigning” to “assassinating your own party,” so I couldn’t possibly support Clinton at this point. In fact, if she is challenged in the primary for her Senate seat, I and many others will support her challenger, with cash.
Obama hasn’t done anything close to what she has done to him, questioning his very ability to win and to govern.
If the CONs want swift-boat ads against Obama, all they have to do is re-run Hillary sound-bites.
3. Whether a person votes for Obama has to do with whether they like Obama or not. It shouldn’t have anything to do with his former pastor, who headlined for his rally in a must-win state, or what his supporters say.
I’m not basing my dislike of Clinton on what you say or do. I’m basing it on what she says and does.
I think that I am like any other person in this regard, and the idea that we Obama supporters should kiss Clinton ass so that we can win in November is disingenuous.
If you don’t like Obama and you would rather that McCain wins, then don’t vote for Obama.
But if you’re asking me to apologize for speaking what I see as the truth, you got the wrong guy . . . that ain’t me, heh.
Oh, indeed, obama will be the democratic nominee.
Just like Dukakis.
Just like Gore.
Just like Kerry.
You make the fatal mistake of thinking that what plays INSIDE the democratic party also plays outside it.
You can win without my vote.
But you cant win without the majority of Hillary supporters. And that ISNT one superdelegate at a time.
Enjoy your victory inside the democratic party.
And enjoy four more years of bush. Obama cant even unite democrats, and you think he’s gonna win in November?
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh…..
Remember, republicans and “independents” generally dont MIND being called racist or homophobic. You can guilt the democrats into nominating obama. You cant guilt the rest of the country into electing him.
“The only way Clinton could win the nomination is to sunder the party so badly that she couldn’t possibly win in the fall.”
Heh. There ya have the obama camp. Blame everyone for his problems EXCEPT st. obama. If he loses, it will be Hillary’s fault.
Yeah. That’s a winning attitude.
And I guess obama has NO PART in tearing the party apart? It is ALL Hillary’s fault. His hands are clean?
Jesus wept. You sound like a republican…
I cant wait to get into the archives and post your greatests hits from caucus day. Not one damn thing you said has been true.
But keep repeating “hope and change” like some magic mantra. I bet mcsame is really losing sleep over it.
“Whether a person votes for Obama has to do with whether they like Obama or not. ”
That’s right.
And I DON’T like him. I like him less every day.
I have this issue with selling out my friends to work with the scum of the Earth.
Just not endowed with the pander gene I guess.
Heh. I actually know Paul Begala from his Austin days. I dont really care for the guy, but he was right when he said you cant win the white house with just egg heads and African Americans.
Look around this blog. Who supports obama?
The intelligencia and those of African American heritage.
Yep. THAT’s a real landslide in the making.
I guess if I were you I’d also be writing off the Clinton supporters, I mean, since with that coalition, you are so sure to win the white house.
“Kansas’ historic GOP streak”
Kinda says it all when one watches this state as the butt of jokes on late night tele.
“Jesus wept. You sound like a republican…”
I agree kfg. And this sounding like Republicans is a trait I find in many, maybe even most Obama supporters.
We can win together or we can lose together. If it is lose together so be it.
After what bush has done, I can’t imagine why anyone wants the job anyway.
““Whether a person votes for Obama has to do with whether they like Obama or not. ”
That’s right.
And I DON’T like him. I like him less every day.”
Me too JR. I dont like HIM. And when I try to like him? I read what his supporters write. And I like him less every time.
Oh but of course, you and I are just not SMART enough, like captain and monkey and all. We just arent smart enough to see what they see, believe what they believe, etc. I know, they feel so sorry for us for not BEING as smart as they are. Good thing dumb people’s votes count as much as the egg heads.
I guess we’ll just keep our dumb asses at home in November. And all the dumb asses like us should just stay home.
Which would be about half the democratic party!
Oh but I’m sure all those republican crossovers, like germie, will elect obama….
He doesnt need us when he’s got them!
“. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.”
We have other posters claiming this power unto themselves. My own spoiled brother too. How very presumptuous.
Sorry. It doesn’t work that way.
We have a process. And Senator Clinton is entitled to pursue that process.
Hehehehe Walker. And STILL not one kdp democrat here posting in support of slattery?
Not to worry. I bet st. obama’s coattails will be so long and strong that he gets slattery elected and turns Kansas blue. After all, that was one of the things posted repeatedly after caucus day.
Cant wait to get into those archives…
Obamma might not be preferrable over Hillary, but I wouldn’t want to have helping Mccain win be on my conscience for four yrs.
Oh he will be the nominee JR. I dont like it but that’s the truth.
More of the DNC death wish. You can see the pattern. Nominate the person who panders the most.
Then watch them lose in November.
Take heart farmgrrl.
This aint over.
Polls continue to show that MOST Democrats WANT the process to continue.
It is only the Obamaniacs trying to call this thing.
We see even among many of the bloggers here a desire to have a fence to ride.
Obama does all this talk about building coalitions.
Well I can talk about building a castle in the air. But if I have no help from people I can rely on?
Obama has dissed all the people he NEEDS and continues to reach out to people who won’t vote for him anyway. Witness his long stubborness to embrace political reality as regards Florida and Michigan.
Who’s helping mcsame here?
We are, according to captain, just speaking the truth.
And remember what I have said before. In my life? The difference between a mcsame presidency and an obama presidency?
not much. I may pay a few more dollars in taxes to support his war of choice, but that’s not a big deal.
Other than that? Why should I vote for obama? What is he going to do for me? Overturn the state hate amendments? I dont think so. Overturn DADT? I dont think so. His black church supporters will have a fit. Help small farmers? Enact a national water policy? Havent heard anything about that. And I’m not planning on having an abortion any time soon. So Roe v. Wade being overturned will be a bad thing, but it wont affect me. Neither will the war, except for my income tax bill. And BOTH parties will spend that money anyway.
Nope. MY life will not change if mcsame is elected. Or obama. As they say in Texas, I no longer have a dog in this fight.
And as for the rest of America? Or Kansas?
When over seventy percent of voters put hate in the constitution, why would I give a rat’s patoot about what happens to them?
JR, it does no good to deny reality. Yes, most sane folks want the process to play out. But he will be the nominee. And his supporters are just whistling past the graveyard if they think non-republicans are just going to swoon over the “hope and change” mantra and then like magic they will flock to the polls.
He’s going to have to reach out. And I dont think he’s a big enough person to do that.
He hasnt yet, and it’s getting down to the nut cutting.
Don’t you do that Phantom.
Don’t you vote out of fear.
Actually, in Kansas, none of our votes matters that much anyway.
But nationwide? Folks who feel like Phantom. There are too many of them.
So much for “hope” and “change”.
It’s come down to fear. Obama HAS to be the nominee! We can’t risk ticking off his supporters!
Well I don’t vote base on fear. No one should.
Well we better HOPE it aint over kfg.
Obama is SO clueless as to politics.
Comes word NOW that mama Michelle Obama would not allow a dream ticket. Even if Senator Clinton wanted it!
Because SHE doesn’t like Senator Clinton.
Now Obama has problems enough. But if he gives Senator Clinton the back of his hand?
He loses in a landslide.
You Obamaniacs should be GRATEFUL Senator Clinton sticks a fight.
Otherwise, Barack would lose West Virginia today against a candidate not in the race. Not the best thing to have on your already short resume’.
Here a little while back, Obama hit a pretty big snag.
And the most zealous of his supporters were ready to roll over and cry “racism!”. Even Obama himself was pretty hang dog about it.
Well the cons don’t play with kid gloves. Obama better keep some people around him who know how to do more than faint.
J R sings…
No one can take away your right to fight, to never surrender. To never surrender!
“BlueJay” offers –
“Obama is SO clueless as to politics.”
Uh-huh. So clueless he’s out-politicked the vaunted Clinton Machine. Poor guy knows nothing. Uh-huh.
“Comes word NOW that mama Michelle Obama would not allow a dream ticket. Even if Senator Clinton wanted it!
Because SHE doesn’t like Senator Clinton.
Now Obama has problems enough. But if he gives Senator Clinton the back of his hand?
He loses in a landslide.”
And your evidence that Senator Clinton would give up Senate Leadership to be second-fiddle to Obama’s presidency is…?
And it’s all Michelle Obama’s fault?!
You’re getting really desperate, “BlueJay.”
I dont think Hillary should settle for vp.
Let obama and the democrats boil in their own oil. Why should she save them? She doesnt have to work against obama. She can just not work. Period.
I mean, the way the obama folks have been talking smack, they cant possibly want or need her help anyway!
I have a feeling Rhonda’s gonna be dragging out the faiting counch for all the obama folks when they hit the reality wall.
Well like I said, the Hillary folks are holding aces now. Obama cant win without them, and he’s got nothing to entice them to support him.
Other than he’s “not republican”.
Hey monkey, how did that “not bush” strategy work for Al Gore and John Kerry?
What are you offering the Hillary supporters?
“ksfarmgrrl” proclaims –
“…the way the obama folks have been talking smack, they cant possibly want or need her help anyway!”
Just a reminder, “ksfarmgrrl.” You were gonna show me up and reveal all the (how’d you call it? ) “talking ’smack’” against Senator Clinton?
Oh yeah. Neither you nor “BlueJay” nor any other Clintonistas are able to come up with any specific examples.
Remember the philosopher who said, “Pick your enemies carefully…?”
I still don’t consider Clintonistas as “enemies,” but good lord, you’re beginning to resemble the 27% of Americans who still support the policies and the presidency of George WMD Bush. It’s getting more and more difficult to take you guys seriously.
I already told you when my computer will be back monkey. Not that I expect you actually READ my posts. I will be reposting your greatest hits.
And… if I dont support st. obama, I am an 18%er? WTF?
Geez, now THAT sounds like bush. You are either with us or against us? And WE are the ones not taken seriously?
No monkey, with all your bleating of hope and change, YOU are the ones who are not being taken seriously. By HALF the democratic party.
Go ahead. Win without us. We sure arent stopping you. If we are, you are gonna suck eggs in November, because the repukes are NOT gonna use kid gloves, no matter how plaintively you bleat.
…plaintive bleating…the will of the Sheeple?
(chortles)
“ksfarmgrrl” asks –
“What are you offering the Hillary supporters?”
Above all, first and foremost, we’re offering a non-Republic Party presidency.
Even if you can’t get beyond an early primary campaign event (back when Obama was barely on the radar) that included an appearance (not with the candidate) who doesn’t agree with your political priorities… even accepting that there’s nothing I can object to that position… do you really think your issues are likely to get a better hearing from a John Sidney McCain the Third presidency?! Do you really believe that?
Show me how you imagine that would work out.
I am persuadable. I really am. But no one has shown me any evidence that there are enough people who (as I do) support your GLBT agenda who might tip the balance of all the other issues toward Senator Clinton’s nomination. I just don’t see the numbers.
And, what’s more. I don’t see any sign in the universe a John Sidney McCain the Third presidency comes anywhere near advancing the issues that concern you most.
All of your contempt, “ksfarmgrrl,” for Obama specifically and the Democrats in general point back to a level of arrogance that seems to refuse the realization that, yes, every politician eventually “sells out” to one interest group or another.
This can take place by endorsing some group’s agenda, as the Republic Party depends on embracing dogmatic anti-tax, anti-choice, anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research…. et al. Sometimes the sell out is simply not stressing issues that may be inflammatory in today’s right-wing-dominated-Mainstream-Media.
Why go out of your way to lean into a left hook?
And this gets back to the Hillary campaign. I’m willing to acknowledge she might be the best qualified candidate left for the presidency. Might. But I’m faced with overwhelming evidence she doesn’t have what it takes to win the election in November.
Adlai Stevenson would have been the better selection for President in 1952. He just couldn’t get elected. Michael Dukakis was a better (albeit marginally) choice over George HW Bush in 1988. We’d've been better off with President Mondale instead of Ronald Ray-Guns. And if they hadn’t killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, we’d probably be a better nation.
I suspect Stevenson, RFK, Mondale, Dukakis, … nor even President Clinton would or could have delivered your specific and personal political agenda into public policy.
“Hu-Bird” Humphrey would have been a better choice for president than Richard Nixon in 1968, don’tcha think?
“All of your contempt, “ksfarmgrrl,” for Obama specifically and the Democrats in general point back to a level of arrogance that seems to refuse the realization that, yes, every politician eventually “sells out” to one interest group or another.”
OMG!!!!!!!!
I guess “every politician eventually sells out to one interest group or another” is YOUR version of…
hope and change?
heheheheheheh> Thanks for admiting your guy is no better than any other politician> And I’ve been saying all along, that is his fatal weakness. He’s sold himself as something he is not. Different.
And when it comes to light that he is NOT different, that he is, in your own words, like every other politician, WTF will he run on?
’cause “hope and change” is gonna be a little lame after that, dont ya think?
And as for this?
” do you really think your issues are likely to get a better hearing from a John Sidney McCain the Third presidency?! Do you really believe that?”
Uh no, and I didnt ever SAY that. I said it would be NO DIFFERENT for me under obama than under mcsame.
Remember?
“And remember what I have said before. In my life? The difference between a mcsame presidency and an obama presidency?
not much. I may pay a few more dollars in taxes to support his war of choice, but that’s not a big deal.
Other than that? Why should I vote for obama? What is he going to do for me? Overturn the state hate amendments? I dont think so. Overturn DADT? I dont think so. His black church supporters will have a fit. Help small farmers? Enact a national water policy? Havent heard anything about that. And I’m not planning on having an abortion any time soon. So Roe v. Wade being overturned will be a bad thing, but it wont affect me. Neither will the war, except for my income tax bill. And BOTH parties will spend that money anyway.
Nope. MY life will not change if mcsame is elected. Or obama. As they say in Texas, I no longer have a dog in this fight.
And as for the rest of America? Or Kansas?
When over seventy percent of voters put hate in the constitution, why would I give a rat’s patoot about what happens to them?”
And this?
““What are you offering the Hillary supporters?”
Above all, first and foremost, we’re offering a non-Republic Party presidency.”
Geez Monkey, thanks for confirming that obama is really running on two things.
I’m not Hillary.
I’m not republican.
Your post confirms this.
I’m not defending or promoting Hillary anymore. Pearls before swine and all. I’m not trying to “persuade” you to vote for Hillary. You clearly have your mind made up and YOUR vote has already been cast for obama. So why bring up Hillary except that obama cant stand on his own?
So.. when you dont have Hillary to push against,
What will obama run on? “I’m not republican”?
I already said I see how that worked for John Kerry. YOU even gave more examples of how that has worked for democrats in the past.
Heheheheheheeheheheheh.
Still laughing at monkey.
So… it’s ARROGANT to hold politicians to a standard that requires them to NOT sell out one group for another?
Geez. I thought that was AMERICAN.
And monkey calling someone else arrogant?
Heh. Heheheh. HEHEHEHEH. HEEE HEE HEE HEE. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Good one!
Please continue to defend “selling out” as a virtue. I mean, everyone does it, right?
First off, “ksfarmgrrl” –
There’s a difference between selling out and setting political priorities.
You’re convinced your personal political agenda will get the same audience from the next President regardless of if it’s Obama or McBush.
I don’t do the “hee-hee-hee” thing, but it’s probably due.
And you’ve run away from anything Senator Clinton has proposed regarding your personal political agenda because… there’s no there there.
You’re on the intellectual creep of posters such as “MaxGrobnik” who thinks anyone who isn’t a Republic Party candidate is targeting his house to steal his guns.
I asked for any evidence that Senator Clinton actually supports issues you’ve divined that Senator Obama is against. Hey, all it takes is a bit of evidence.
And you respond with “HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE,” which really is beneath you. It’s beneath your intellect, beneath your passionate political views, it’s beneath your dignity.
I remember not so long ago.
I lamented that I did not like when the Democrat candidates fought.
Somebody told me back then that they thought that was good for the process.
That would be Monkeyhawk said that. And not so long ago.
You argue that Senator Clinton’s negatives outweigh those of Obama.
I put it to you that Obama’s unknowns and late revealed truths, his arrogance and disconnect with political reality, among other things, make him unelectable.
People can deal with negatives. With unknowns they kinda let their imagination run.
And I sense you MH are one of those folks who is secretly GLAD that there is still a fence to sit on. I just think you don’t want to say so. Stay there. Stay outta the stampede.
There’s been enough of that.