itsmeeeeeee

just in case you posted that for obama supporters, here - let's clarify WHICH campaign HE directed it at, and which candidate and surrogates have been doing it - the clinton campaign. you haven't heard a fraction of the kind of shit HER campaign is spewing from obama's campaign. so let's be CRYSTAL clear about that.

there is NO question that the clinton campaign has engaged in NOTHING BUT a VICIOUS smear and fear against obama, and that it's clearly taking it's toll in the polls - HOPEFULLY - just for now. if hillary's fatally damaged obama, there will be HELL to pay, so she better start praying to god that it's NOT already too late!

at the same time she's STILL smearing him, yesterday clinton stated that she would "shout to the mountains campaigning for the party's nominee". (big fucking whoop - after what she's done!) if that isn't a signal that she KNOWS she's going down, and that she's been "getting" the message that she BETTER fix this damage that she created, i don't know what IS!

she's done such a fantastic job smearing our nominee, in her self-absorbed and destructive excuse for a campaign that one can't help but wonder how she thinks she's going to just suddenly turn her supporters around.

fucking bitch. obama can't say it, but i sure as hell will!

__________________

itsmeeeeeee

UPDATE: Democratic Netroots Effort Raises $20K in 24 Hours in Support of Rep. Chandler
By bdh - May 1, 2008, 12:09PM

Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo | UPDATE: Democratic Netroots Effort Raises $20K in 24 Hours in Support of Rep. Chandler

I posted last night about an effort through Kos and ActBlue to push back against critics of Kentucky Rep. Ben Chandler for his support of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid. This morning the drive achieved the goal of $20,000 in 24 hours.

Daily Kos: [UPDATE - Done! 20K Raised!!] Call to Action: Kentucky SD Attacked for Supporting Obama

Ben Smith at Politico, who originally reported on the heat Rep. Chandler was taking, also has a post on the netroots effort:

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

This could send a valuable message to other uncommitted superdelegates. Kudos to everyone who was able to contribute.

__________________

winthrop

I "directed" it at anyone who might find it interesting. I found it interesting because I believe he is saying it is not necessary to vitriolically hate one candidate (for whatever reason) in order to support another. Of course there is nothing stopping anyone from hating or criticizing or anything else, it is just not a prerequisite, and some of us prefer not to engage in it.
Again, that is not to say you or anyone else so moved should not engage in it, only that others find it not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. If Ms. Clinton is in fact the toast she appears to be, then this will take care of itself, and if she has burned the bridges of which you speak she will be unable to cross them again. The party need not be destroyed, the cause need not be lost. It is up to the voters to decide, ultimately and hopefully, if enough of them come out and prevent another close election, close enough to steal.
If they are inclined to be swayed by distractions and irrelevancies they will be swayed regardless of who is presenting them, if they are ready to truly change the direction of not only our politics but our country and perhaps even the world, they will act accordingly. But a majority of all voters have to make this decision, not just camps of individual candidates. Is a majority mature and adult enough to see past political games as usual? They were not in 1988, they were in 1992, they were not in 2000 or 2004. They are certainly due this time.

__________________
Countdown to The Great Bush-Out...
Meanwhile, panem et circenses!

Veronica

With this theory then we should not expose the wrongdoings of the Bush Admin. THey will just take care of themselves. I do think it is the responsibility of the public to point out the wrong doing of Mrs. Clinton. As the media seems to have taken a break. I don't recall them showing:

1. Clinton purposely darkening Obama's image in her ad
2. That a Clinton surrogate was behind Wright appearance at the Press Club
3. Her spiritual mentor Doug Coe and "The Family"

And many more examples of the free pass she has received. Sorry but if these things are not discussed and pointed out they get swept under the carpet. People should have the facts in their face front and center when they are choosing Clinton over Obama.

Fire away Itsmeeee, we need more info!!

CosmicRocker

I suppose Clinton told Wright what to say also.
Winthrop is correct, it's almost certain that Obama will be the nominee
(almost - but we gotta finish the primary's).
But the slash and burn efforts of the Obama supporters are enough to make all but the most loyal Dem's whom are supporters of Hillary just say F... it and stay home.

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

Veronica

She didn't have to tell Wright what to say. They knew he would say something that could be parsed out as a blunder. Pointing out how She is throwing crap at him and her underhanded tactics is now slash and burn??? I guess all her tricks are suppose to go unchallenged???

No one is trying to jam anything down your throat. Just don't want nonsense to be overlooked.

CosmicRocker

enough of this bullcrap. PARSED OUT??? Wright was not parsed, he laid it all out clearly
the lady was a part of the Press Club committee, it wasn't her sole decision to invite Wright.

To blame Clinton for Wright's remarks is just fantasy, not based on reality whatsoever

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

Veronica

I am not blaming Clinton for what Wright said, just for underhanded politics. Everyone knows Wright speaking in any capacity was bad for Obama.

itsmeeeeeee

you know, i fully understand the point you are attempting to make. lord knows, i've heard it from you repeatedly and in a perfect world and another situation, it might carry a little weight. but as you so correctly point out - the electorate isn't very refined.

so please also notice that you STILL refuse to concede the point i was making, and that andrew was clearly making - as to which candidate's official campaign reeked to high heaven... which candidate's official campaign used every negative, dirty trick in the book. let's NOT pretend there was no CLEAR difference between the two. i get the impression now, that now that things are finally coming to a head and this nomination process will be coming to a close, that you expect folks to just "be happy" - because that's pretending that there's been no lasting damage to repair, or that it will be easy to do that. because even when hillary concedes, the party will be very very damaged. and if you think all these hilllary supporters who are harassing super delegates now, are just going to turn around and hug obama, you're being downright silly. and if you think that there hasn't been lasting damage to race relations that have set this country back a great deal, you're in denial. AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO POINT YOUR FINGER AT THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED HER ON THESE THINGS AND SAY WE'RE ALSO RESPONSIBLE... but i don't buy that. no one put a gun to hillary's head and forced her to take the low road. and if she hadn't - no one would have had anything to be critical OF!

i'm sorry, but you're refusal to acknowledge THOSE facts simply undermine all of your criticism of those who have been extremely critical of her dirty campaign of lies, distraction, racism and innuendo, and it will do little to heal the tremendous damage that's been inflicted. that's like saying, "gee, it's okay you beat me to a bloody pulp with a hammer! let's have lunch!" there's a time and place for pollyanna attitudes, but this isn't one of them.

because no matter HOW you try to reframe the reality, calling a spade a spade is NOT negative, it's honesty.

exposing the lies and contradictions of a person is NOT negative - it's revealing truth.

basing an entire campaign and winning elections via appealing to the voter's lowest base qualities is NOT admirable, or defensible, it's reprehensible.

but, go ahead, knock yourself out continuing to take the supposed "high road".


but let's not try to make me (or anyone) feel BAD about VIGOROUSLY REJECTING someone who's demonstrated NO principles or moral compass.

__________________

CosmicRocker

well that's on Wright, so don't blame the Press CLub, or the Clinton committee member.

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison