Fuck Obama. He took the strongest stand yet.Says Bush won and got more vot

He is the whore I said he was. Sorry. He went over the top in support of Bush. Follows with voter irregularities .Big Deal.

like hillary clinton...

he's out to make a name for himself, and he'll go moderate to right to accomplish his lofty goals.

don't expect much from him.

This is one of the most self-destructive qualities of liberals. Rigorous litmus tests and no appreciation for smart strategy.

i'm just making the point that obama will no doubt go to the middle in his coming years, as did hillary clinton.

what the party DOESN'T need, is more moderates.

we're not talking strategy here, ap, we're talking what's right.

basing your judgment on.

You have a negative personality and lost hope?

Because you're pushing for some other liberal or other party and don't like the idea of Obama being a leader on the left?

Obama has had a liberal record for a long time and I think he'll stay the same.

But I'll join the chorus in protesting whatever it was he said.

WE MUST EAT OUR OWN!!! If we don't, we might start winning elections.

Did he have to say that? He cut us off at our knees. No amount of explanation will wipe away that soundbite that will be repeated over and over.

Beginning to question his political ear.

There is nothing wrong with being a moderate democrat. A leftist candidate will never win the presidency any time soon. Dems need to go further to the center to have a chance. The left-wing of the party needs to find or create a party more to their liking, like the Socialist Party.

...that the Republican party has been pulling the political spectrum so far to the right, that any shift to the so-called "center" will amount to being a moderate Republican.

Creating a more leftist "third" party would be sacrificing themselves to the gods of the stubbornly exclusive 2-party system we have here, and be shut out from political participation. If our system caught up to the rest of the civilized world, we'd have proportional representation, and there would be a few other parties. This would be great, and would naturally provide some much-needed cohesion. If this were the case, I would personally prefer a more leftist party than the Democratic one myself - but without that option, well, this "big tent" of a Democratic party will swell with members who may well disagree on damn near everything. :shrug:

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please!

He just got there! You haven't give him a chance.

If you were expecting RFK, Maxine Waters, and Paul Wellstone put together you are terribly mistaken.

When he was in the state senate he had to work with those across the aisle, even conservative Republicans.

No wonder we cannot come together. We're too busy tearing each other apart.

He's a politician, and looks to be a pretty articulate one. He's not going to live up to your dreams. Give him a chance and see what he does.

He lost me on that one. Shrub won Ohio but not every vote was counted. They are starting to even think like the freeps.

He said Bush got more votes...because a lot of people who should have voted never got a chance.

she has an axe to grind.

better part of their educational and professional life studying and teaching the U.S. constitution has earned a lot of points in my book.

Who had January 6 as the date that DUers would start turning on Barack Obama? I remember a thread about it some time ago.

What would make you happy? For him to get up there and say that Bush LOST, in spite of the fact that the official count showed him winning by more than 100,000 votes in OH, and almost 3 million nationally?

Yeah. That would certainly go a LONG way to establishing his credibility his 6th day in office. :eyes:

Obama should be commended, as a new Freshman Senator, for taking the floor on this issue. The issue at hand is voting irregularities, and the attempt to get them into the conscience of the TV media -- and from there the national conscience. I give him much more credit on this than I do the other Democrats who wouldn't even address the irregularities.

Just like anyone else. And there's no talking reason, sense, or pragmatism into them.

Sometimes the best things about a speech are the things that are left unsaid. Theres no need to unnecesarily reinforce the talking points of the other side. All Obama did was to provide an easy soundbite to the whore media to drown out our case. WTF??? This is not a career killing move, but a rookie mistake like this shows that he is not ready for a prime slot until a lot more grooming.

Just when I thought all chance of any Voice of Reason had disappeared from this issue.

So many foil hats, so many with plugged ears going LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

But facts are hard to dispute, and Bush did win. He won big enough that the result is not in question. Obama, therefore, simply stated the facts.

Now then:

Should the election process be scrutinized? HELL YES!

Will it mean Kerry suddenly now wins? HELL NO!

That's why Sen. Chickenman wrote his email yesterday, saying since he wouldn't win anyway, he won't have anything to do with the demands for a look at the process.

But THANK GOD there are a few Democrats on the Hill today who do indeed have backbones! We need to reform our election system, and perhaps federalize major aspects of it to provide more uniformity.

At least someone in here is making sense.

Showing courage makes him a sell-out? Get in touch with reality people!

Can I add that I am anxiously awaiting SEN. JOHN KERRY'S speech about the vote irregularities!

Ooooops! Pardon me, I forgot! Kerry sees he can't win, so he won't be making a speech...or even joining the effort.

But don't worry, these kinds of matters don't show anything fundamentally wrong with our party, our candidates or our candidate selection processes.

Let's all plug our ears now! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!

ROFLMAO

Let's criticize one of the few who spoke out because we didn't like some of his remarks. How wrong.

No matter what!

He stood up for the right reason.

Go back to that site that starts with an F. Tired of serial trouble-makers.

I'm watching in the House and almost every speaker said Bush won and this wasn't about overturning the election. Even Boxer says that.
Why hold a doulbe standard for Obama?

Because if you don't create suspicion of Obama from both sides -- from the right and from the lefty-left -- he could become a true force for progress.

Boxer? I didnt hear that. It must have been couched, because I didnt hear her say that like a point of emphasis. Can you explain why it was so important to say that?? Im all ears.

But that the problems should be investigated and an obvious problem should be addressed. Whether you think she emphasized it or not, Obama is certainly not the only one to say it.

Our only leverage with the public and the media was the shoddy Ohio voting process and the cloudy results that it yielded. As a rhetorical strategy, it was suidical to concede a point that was not fully and undeniably decided.

Here will be the typical news story about todays actions:

Several Democrats took to the floor of the Senate today to challenge the approval of Ohios 20 electoral votes. Led by Senator Barbara Boxer, all speakers decried voting irregularities in that decisive swing state. However, despite the challenge, the votes for President Bush were accepted by the House of Representatives. Because, in the words of one of the Senators, Barack Obama, "President Bush won the most votes in Ohio". (paraphrased) Candy Crowley, CNN News, Washington.


---

Now, after that, try getting people fired up about Ohio irregularities.

If you make this about defeating Bush you won't get a single Republican vote. Is this about making a noise over a lost cause or getting something done?

We can't make Kerry President now, but we can fix the electoral process. This protest is about laying the groundwork for that effort and saying that Bush lost only hurts that effort.

Making nice with GOP is a funny way of fighting our battle. The way that a minority gets a few things done is to embarrass the majority in front of the public. Making our central argument a moot point is a hell of a way to conduct what amounts to a publicity campaign. The whole issue is now put to rest in the minds of the public, with the help of some our most prominent politicians. On top of that, it deflates the activist wing. A twofer. J H Christ.

The central point isn't about one election. Did you really think the objection would change the results?

Minority parties can achieve an objective when the irritant is so bad that the aim overcomes lack of numbers. But remove that burr under the saddle and attention leaks elsewhere.

Campaigns for change require a critical mass to keep going. After today, how easy is it going to be for activists to raise money for the clean vote process after it has been stupidly conceded that Bush won in Ohio? Criminy. Why not say something like: for the second straight election, the outcome of the presidential race is uncertain, due to shoddy voting practices. The oldest democracy in the world should not have the legitimacy of its highest officials in doubt for reasons that are eminently fixable.

Instead, it was: George Bush definitely won enough votes to win anyway. Nevermind.

things get done by finding common areas of agreement with the majority party. At least that is how things have typically happened for the last 200 years or so.

OK, we might get McCain and the NE women Senators. But if anyone thinks that the House (which sees nothing wrong with Texas gerrymandering) is going to vote for their own suicide, I thing theyre kidding themselves.

We got the 9-11 commission because such a big stink was made, and the Pugs were put on the defensive. We werent appealing to their best instincts which dont exist.


Announcing that Bush definitely won Ohio is a step backwards strategically. It POed a lot of our most diligent and effective activists, as one can tell by the 45 threads that are going. Theres no way of sugarcoating a retreat and a tactical blunder. Watch those same grovelling pols try to sweet talk us in the next few weeks after they have been clued in to the discontent.

screw everything else

...believing that it's true?

in fact many who attack other democrats seem to have a history of just doing that. far less or NO posts on criticisms of republicans.

....left in addition to attacking from the right.

One of the ways to ensure progress is to play like a team and appreciate that people who are going to help you get where you want to go aren't always going to do exactly what you want them to do every time.

Or so I hear......

the NDOL/NDN/DLC people are looking out for him, it seems.....


...by their friends shall ye know them.

Obama is much more in line with the House Progressive Caucus than the DLC. His talent is that he can reach a broad range of voters and demographics by remaining true to his principles, not by pandering to them with more "centrist" positions.

If you're thinking that Barack Obama is a DLCer, then you obviously know next to nothing about Barack Obama.

hmm. Well, some other DUer told me that on other threads that the people who were defending Obama were people who were supporting the DLC during the primary and who were also had NDOL/NDN graphics in their sigs.

Just an interesting observation, that's all.

Now, I am not speaking of anyone on this thread. THis all happened a longtime ago. Probably, those Obama defenders who also had NDOL/NDN sigs are not even reading DU anymore.

He said he would not accept membership with them. So yes, if we use your standard then we know he isn't DLC.

Obama has a long progressive record. I worked for Kucinich in the primary and I also supported Obama, the progressive option, in the Illinois primary. Get a clue.

You are completely full of shit. This is a man with a record. He was very progressive in the Illinois Senate and he was a community activist in Chicago. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to slander someone you could at least back it up with some kind of argument.

Sounds like DLC to me. By their words shall ye know them....

Fair Trade is not protectionism. You're grasping at straws. Do you have any real complaints?

do you watch the presidential debates? I did.....

and you or someone else made this bogus claim before and never provided a link or backed it up. I bet you can't this time either.

..saying that he was a member.

By expelling the imperfect such as Senator Obama, the Democratic Party may maintain the purity of its bodily fluids.

Sorry, but you can't simply re-write the laws of mathematics to suit your own political fantasies. Like others who voted for Kerry, I wish the election had turned out differently. But the fact is, millions more voted for Bush than for Kerry, and roughly 100,000 more Ohio voters voted for Bush than for Kerry.

That's the truth. And yes, you can point out that if there had been more voting machines in heavily Democratic precincts, the lines would have been shorter and fewer people would have given up and gone home, and the end result would have been more votes for Kerry. But that fact does not constitute election fraud, and it certainly doesn't change the outcome of the election.

I guess the left just isn't ready to grow up. It certainly wasn't grown up in 1968 when it destroyed the LBJ administration. It certainly wasn't grown up in 1972, when it hi-jacked the Democratic Party and handed Nixon a huge landslide victory. I guess some things never change.

no it's the right who continue to steal elections, they started this in 1968

But it doesn't mean there was enough fraud to overturn the results. That is why none of the people raising the challenge are suggesting that this will overturn the results. They are simply trying to push the issue that needs to be addressed this year. Obama is saying the same thing as all the others.

Fraud requires intentional wrongdoing. The decisions relating to allocation of election resources were made by bipartisan committees. Incompetence is not the same as election fraud.

Intent is difficult to prove in these cases. Most intentional voter suppression is never prosecuted for that reason. Its hard for me to read all the allegations and chalk it up to incompetence. Your opinion doesn't make mine wrong.

Sorry, but in the absence of any real facts, your "opinion" that there was widespread election fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of the election is, from a legal standpoint, meaningless.

Again, I need to remind you that Bush's margin of victory was over 100,000 votes. Kerry's own campaign lawyers looked at the same allegations you have, and concluded, quite reasonably, that even if there was merit, the probably weren't sufficiently widespread to affect the outcome of the election. Of course it's unfortunate if ANYONE was intentionally denied the right to vote. But that alone is not a sufficient basis for challenging the slate of electors from Ohio.

if you believe the machines were straight up and honest.

There's way too many stories going around to think that they didn't use the machines to shave votes. Not only in Ohio, but it looks like stuff was happening in New Mexico and Florida as well.

And until you can actually produce facts, all these cries of election fraud amount to little more than partisan storytelling.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it's a duck.

Boys and girls?

Me thinks you need to get a grip on your rhetoric!

The exit poll data was incomplete and the methodolgy was questionable. And even the best designed exit polls have a margin of error. The exit poll data I saw showed Kerry with a very narrow lead in Ohio and was based on the morning returns.

And in case you weren't aware, elections in the United States are decided based on the votes actually cast and counted, not on exit polls.

the reigns of our government to the repukes.

Ih had to be fraud. Kerry won by a ton.

The exit polls I saw showed Kerry either with a narrow lead or tied with Bush in Ohio and Florida, and as has been widely reported (and just as widely ignored by deluded left) were based on samples taken earlier in the day. So while it's certainly possible that Kerry was leading earlier in the day, the election didn't end at noon. Bush's margin of victory came from the afternoon vote.

You just keep telling yourself that. It is surely the path to future political success.

what do you base your opinion? if he is a whore then dick Durban is a whore-and the classy man ever to represent Illinois in many years ,Paul Simon,are you calling him a whore also because he endorsed Barak before he died. it will be interesting to see your response.

The world is being destroyed and all these F*cks do is act like good ole' chums.

I will never "get" the concept of valuing political expedience above integrity.

This is about what the goal is. The goal today was NEVER to overturn an election. Sorry, if you felt it was. It was to begin the hard, hard work towards meaningful electoral reform. This will take perseverence and patience to get done. All good legislation does. I am disappointed that so many people apparently have no idea what the political process is about, and instead want some kind of magical solution straight out of stupid Hollywood action movies.

People seem to want a Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment. (Or, failing that, the Mel Gibson remake from the Simpsons)

info being hits the nail on the head for ME.

That's how Nancy Pelosi began her speech to the House. Their point is that they are not contesting the election. That's not what this is about. It's about the disenfranchisement of Americans, especially in Ohio, who were denied the right to vote because of long lines, not enough machines, broken machines, failure to receive absentee ballots, intimidation, the list goes on. They are using this one chance to fix a broken system. But the Republicans, to a man, aren't listening, and are repeatedly saying that the Democrats are refusing to concede. They are right on message and aren't listening to a word that's being said or what this objection is all about!

I thought Obama was quite eloquent in his first speech. He talked about the 101-year-old black woman from Louisiana who wanted to have her picture taken with him. He reminded everyone what she had gone through, in her life, to get the right to vote. And he explained that every American's vote is equally important.

yourself on C-Span2. If you did, and you are only posting what you said above, you are as bad as Candy Crowley for taking it way out of context. That's what the Repugs do. Shame on you.

All the other Dems that let us down WAY before Obama got elected?

I think that's why the powers-that-be are pushing him so much, so soon. He's "safe." I don not think of him as a Dem at all. He's more of a Remocrat.

:cry:

Anyone that doesn't do exactly what you want exactly when you want must be a whore, right?

I mean, its just inconceivable that Obama might, just might, know what he's doing, right? He's only spent the majority of his adult life working his ass off to improve government, so what the hell does he know?

Come on, fight the people that need fighting, not the guy that scares the bejeesus out of right wing Republicans.

Whatever is cathartic for YOU must be the right thing to do, no matter what the long term consequenses or how it effects other people.

When did the goal of politics become instant gratification? That's the way little kids think, and if our politicians think like that, we'll keep getting our asses kicked by Republicans for a long time.

a**" reputation is well deserved.

But thanks, it was real right wing of you to feel a need to launch such cheap personal shots. ;)

Calling me right-wing for scolding you. I'm not apologizing, however, because your earlier sentiment *is* an example of the short-sighted thinking that puts a premium on short-term feeling at the expense of real accomplishment.

Tell my your demands for instant gratification from Obama are anything other than short-sighted, and I might have a little more respect for your position. As it is, you simply call Obama names and don't back them up with a shred of reasoning. That's what I have a problem with.

...would appear just a few days ago.

...and will probably be here after you're gone.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(you know I'm kidding, right?)

There are people here who post such tripe and mean it!

My fault for any confusion.

Rock on, my man. Rock on.

That you have been here longer than ElectroPrincess when you hide your profile?
:shrug:

JetCityLiberal

He loudly declared GWB as the official winner in Ohio. He is our McCain, a respectable, useful tool for dousing fires that singe the establishment. The seal of approval is tattooed on his bum.

Obama speaking. He is going be nothing but a great disappointment. I've always believed that people were too optimistic about this man. I doubt that he will have anymore backbone than some of the other Democrats. I was so disgusted listening to him.

secondly, it was his first speech and perhaps his first vote in the Senate. Give the guy a break. Why should he stick his neck out when Kerry didn't even turn up for the vote?

who have a problem with Obama.

I don't know what they're problem is, but they were bashing him long before he was sworn in, or had cast a vote. There were some long angry threads devoted to trying to smear this man.

And at the time, I posted how unfair it was, that we needed to give the guy a chance.

He stood up today & put himself on the line. Maybe some of you don't like what he said, but he stood up & was counted.

John Kerry wasn't there, & has not made public statements about voter fraud & election reform.

Therefore, it's pretty ludicrous to hold Obama to a higher standard that Kerry.

Search the archives. The disappointment is because of the previous high hopes we had for the new guy. Instead, we got was what was called on Seinfeld "shrinkage". OK? Get it?

But there are some here who have an irrational problem with Obama, because they were on his back long before today.

So if my post doesn't apply to you, ignore it.

OK? Get it?

Sorry.

But, do you honestly feel comfortable about what he said so prominently about Ohio being Bush's?

& yes, there was fraud, & suppression, but not enough to change the outcome.

I think Obama came on the scene, & excited a lot of people, & hopes were set ridiculously high.

As a result, he's being held to a higher standard, which doesn't seem fair.

Honestly, I don't know how he will turn out...maybe great, maybe a disappointment, or maybe just average.

I say let's give him chance, that's all. Today was his first speech & vote on the Senate floor.

And if you're disappointed about today, I understand. My post was to the people who have had their knives out for him.

One more thing: don't ever fall in love with a politician...they always break your heart.

It's his first week on the job for heaven's sake. He was one of only five who spoke in the Senate. No one can live up to the kind of hopes people are projecting on this guy. He's not Jesus Christ. He's a politician. Let's just wait and see what he does over time.

While there are a lot of great blacks, there are some pretty lousy ones - like Thomas.

I think that's an absolutely ridiculous statement. I've seen many threads on DU about Barack Obama and not one was about how his finest quality was "being black".

completely irrelevant. I suggest the poster examine his heart on the issue. No hostility intended here but instead a suggestion.

How is that even an issue here. Kerry is white and didn't even bother to be in DC today. Man! :wtf:

They were nice, but didn't veer too far from where they were standing. Just kept agreeing with my tirade. I think that's called NOT TAKING A STAND. I asked Why, but they said he was just elected. I couldn't argue much with it, but I said, Well... he's still a SENATOR. Maybe he'll get his "legs" and will eventually prove his worth. Don't know though. I still say more "blacks" stand up for our rights than the "whites!" And I'm White!

In Search of the Real Barack Obama: Can a Black Senate candidate resist the DLC?


At an antiwar meeting last October Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community:
"I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ... to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression."

Somebody else's brand of politics appears to have intruded on Obama's campaign. For a while the whole speech could be found on Obama's campaign web site, a key statement of principle for a serious US Senate candidate in an election season when the President's party threatens the world with permanent war and pre-emptive invasion, and cows US citizens with fear mongering, color coded alerts, secret detentions and the abrogation of constitutional liberties. Although Obama may have appeared at meetings of other citizens opposed to the war or let them use his name, no further public statements from the candidate on these important issues have appeared.

Then, a few weeks ago, Barack Obama's heartfelt statement of principled opposition to lawless militarism and the rule of fear was stricken without explanation from his campaign web site, and replaced with mild expressions of "anxiety":

"But I think all astonished, I think, in many quarters, about, for example, the recent Bush budget and the prospect that, for example, veterans benefits might be cut. And so there's discussion about that, I think, among both supporters and those who are opposed to the war. What kind of world are we building? And I think that's - the anxiety is about the international prospects and how we potentially reconstruct Iraq. And the costs there, then, tie in very directly with concerns about how we're handling our problems at home."

His passion evaporated, a leading black candidate for the US Senate mouths bland generalities on war, peace and the US role in the world. Barack Obama, professor of constitutional law, is mum on the Patriot Act, silent about increased surveillance of US citizens, secret searches, and detentions without trial. His campaign literature and speeches ignore Patriot Act 2, which would detain US citizens without trial, strip them of their nationality and deport them to - wherever, citizens of no nation.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/45/45_dixon.html

Excerpt:

I read with interest, and some amusement, Bruce Dixon's recent article regarding my campaign, and his suggestion that perhaps my positions on critical issues facing this country are somehow being corrupted by the influence of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).  Given that Bruce worked together back in 1992 to empower communities through organizingand the ballot box, I wish he'd taken the time to give me a call and check out his facts.

To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC since I began this campaign a year ago.  I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list beyond filling out a three line questionnaire asking me to describe my current political office, my proudest accomplishment, and my cardinal rules of politics.  Since my mother taught me not to reject a compliment when it's offered, I didn't object to the DLC's inclusion of my name on their list. I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.

As for Bruce's larger point -- that I've begun to water down my criticisms of the Bush administration during this early phase of my campaign -- I'd invite him to join me on the campaign trail here in Chicago for a couple of days.  I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so).  That opposition hasn't changed, and I continue to make it a central part of each and every one of my political speeches.  Likewise, I spend much of my time with audiences trying to educate them on the dangers of both the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, and the rest of John Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution.  The only reason that my original anti-war speech was removed from my website was a judgment that the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips. The "bland" statement that Bruce offers up as an example of my loss of passion wasn't an official statement or speech at all, but a 30 second response to a specific question by Aaron Brown on CNN about the mood of Illinois voters a few days after the war started.

In sum, Bruce's article makes nice copy, but it doesn't reflect the reality of my campaign.  Nor does it reflect my track record as a legislator.  In the last three months alone, I passed and sent to Illinois governor's desk 25 pieces of major progressive legislation, including groundbreaking laws mandating the videotaping of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases; racial profiling legislation; a new law designed to ease the burden on ex-offenders seeking employment; and a state earned income tax credit that will put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Illinois' working poor.

More at this link:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html

...I didn't see his response. But his reply doesn't reflect his recent comments and actions in refusing to defend free and fair elections.

Have you considered you may be mistaking a "loss of passion" for something else?

The two quotes you posted attributed to Obama are from different times. When I read them it seemed more that Obama was fitting his comments to the political realities of two different times. A time before or shortly after the war, and a time when we are, like or not, deeply intrenched in a foreign land after an election that (valid or not) lent credibility to the policies of the other side.

Changing tone or emphasis does not mean changing principles.

It's the dude's first day in class.

There will be many, many, many, many and did I say many votes that can and will be myopically scrutinized, ventiously deplored due to cross-eyed misunderstanding of how government works and all sorts of distortion and other factors of being a senator that will satisfy all the armchair warriors on the sidelines od ignorance.

Give it a rest.

You guys are all crazy.

Here's a guy who has just become a U.S. Senator, from relative nowheresville of the Illinois statehouse, and you want him to stick his neck out in his first week?

I suppose you don't care if he has a future at all, if that's what you wanted him to do.

Duh.

He could have 30 years in the Senate or at least 4 years in the White House in front of him.

But you want him to toss it away in his first week to become known forever as the Senator Who Tried to Overturn the Electoral College.

If he had done what you wanted, would it have made any difference in the actual outcome? Nope.

But you're mad at him because he didn't provide a "symbol."

Get real.

He betrayed us?

Wrong. Those who don't understand political realities have long since betrayed him.

the likes of KKKarl Rove. NO slack ... NO more abuse ... I won't allow the DLC crones to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining ... I'm calling all the "corporate welfare" democrats ... we all should. :P

Then count on many more years of losing elections.

If I were DNC Chair my first memo would say that from this day forward, NO ONE is to speak the phrase "Bush Won"

If they used the phrase anywhere, they would be heftily fined.

This phrase is realy what offends Dems everywhere and is not necessary to get your point across.

My choice of words if it were me? :"At the end of the day, He's the one walking into the White House on January 20th.(This acknowledges that he'll have a chance at his four years, but does NOT concede that he actually WON the White House) But the process of examinating what happened in this election MUST continue, and if it is found that election officials took it upon themselves to suppress or intimdate voters or violate clear election law, out of a sense of partisanship, they WILL be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail for poisoning our Democracy."


See? You are putting people like Kenneth Blackwell on notice that "just because he's certified doesn't mean YOUR problems are over buddy. They are just beginning. You see, we have decided that you Repub SOS's need to be taught a very hard lesson and we have decided to use YOU to do it."

Are you talking in code?
Hell yes!
You're telling Dems "Damn straight that asshole didn't win"
Repubs do it ALL the time.
But you are also saying the "expected" thing, without sacrificing the feelings of your base.
You will see less griping then.
Des

You seem to seek out any opportunity to nail him to the wall...He was one of literally only a handful of Senators who were willing to support the CBC in bringing a debate forward on the election. Why are you more pissed at him than the all of Democratic Senators who couldn't even be bothered to support talking about the election alone vote to object?

across as that squeaky clean - man, woman or any ethnic group what so ever. Look at how the gutless white democrats in the senate are shivering in their boots lest they be accused of racism by the right wing noise machine.

I guess, in a way I feel betrayed as a woman when I found out Brazille is buddies with the immoral Rove. I hurt bad to realize that she's willfully ignorant.

It seriously pisses me off that BushCo. can get away with nominating a woman or a person of color and our cowardly democratic leaders will not challenge them BECAUSE of those traits. That's just sick.

Twelve General Officers and Retired Admirals stood up "against the odds" and forwarded a letter to the Hill on Monday, 3 Jan 2005.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/statements/gonz_military_010405.pdf

Dammit, we should expect nothing less from OUR REPRESENTATIVES.

be right?

Democratic Party through our present pink tutu democratic leaders. They are shameful ... I resent THEM more than the republicans who play them. Why? Because they're pansies. Sure the odds are against them, but they will NOT fight for our Democracy. They shame us and do NOT represent their constituents but the "major corporations" of the world, i.e., not even necessarily the USA. :(

They tried to claim him, as a matter of fact, and he had to put that matter to rest in short order.

But that doesn't matter anymore anyway. The leaders of the DLC don't matter much anymore.

EP, you do know what today's actions were about, don't you? They weren't about trying to overturn the election. They were about principle and democracy. In effect, Boxer forced her dem colleagues to address voting irregularities and fraud. I thought it was wonderful.

Kerry did not win the election. That's just the way it went. There were shenanigans, there was fraud, etc., but Kerry didn't win, even with what was factored in.

Obama was honest, and that took a lot of guts.

Reason :

Flamebait