Obama wins big in south seattle caucus

We just got back from the comfortable Democratic confines of the comfortably Democratic precinct caucus in the comfortable confines of our comfortably Democratic Seattle neighborhood in our comfortably Democratic Legislative district.

Held in a elementary school, there were easily over 500 souls + small children in a little  ol' neighborhood precinct accustomed to dozens.

We were happy to see our comfortably Democratic neighbors, ex-KIRO talker, blogger David Goldstein and 710KIRO News and Program Coordinator/PSA Director Stephanie Furer, who assists PD Rod Arquette. (photo left: Stephanie's the one with the hair).
(We tried to sweet talk Ms Furer into giving us a little Eastlake dish, but she turned into a Sphinx, flipped her hair in that funny little way she has, and "accidentally" tromped on our be-Birkenstocked toe sending us yelping over to huddle with a group of environmentalists who'd set up a tent in a corner).

 

Seeing that we were amidst a probably overwhelming sea of Obamanians, we caucused with the hugely minority Hillary Clinton clan in a classroom full of our neighbors.

With one exceptionally female exception, we were a reserved clutch of white men, sticking to the edge of the room looking at our shoes (in our case, sandals) trying to pretend we mattered, but not wanting anyone to think we thought we did.

Turned out: we didn't. We coulda stood in bed. There weren't enough Hillarys to seat a single delegate from our little corner of Seattle heaven.

But from our perspective from so many years as None of The Above voters, we couldn't get too het up over the probable choice of the room... or the precinct, or Seattle.

It's being reported that Obama is sweeping the state. Check here for Goldy's updating postings at Huffington Post.

(photo at right: Curtis, who, with his Mom and his t-shirt, helped whip Hillary Clinton's butt in Seattle today).

It was a win/win race for us and the rest of the Democrats.

We loved that no one in the building was beaten, and robbed of their wallets as has happened in the thuggish Republican caucuses around the nation, today.

(Let's face it Republicans aren't as nice as we are, it's a matter of values).

Comments

[Loozertarian]

I'm not sure the media "liked" Bush more than Gore, but it certainly has been gentler toward Obama than it has toward Hillary. I think it's a mistake, though, to attribute Obama's success thus far to a friendly press dolling him up for the ignorant masses. There are a fair number of folks out there who can think for themselves and don't take their cues from TV news anchors and talking heads.

And yes, if something were to happen to Obama - heaven absolutely forbid - it is alot more likely that it would come from some homegrown white supremacist psycho than from Al Qaeda.

[lukobe]

Joanie, I don't know what we can do about it. Become billionaires and bankroll our own parties? Even in that case (Ross Perot) it doesn't work...

[joanie]

Loozer: I'm not sure...

I am. I watched tons of CSpan after the 2000 election. If you watch it around election times when Congress isn't in session, they have panel after panel of pollsters, media people and other dinners and get-togethers of prominent insiders and media people. The biased coverage was commented on and joked about frequently.

Reporters themselves and analysts who went along for the ride and access were all featured. Bush was the joker - the fun frat guy. Gore was the adult and more irritable serious guy. That the feelings carried forward into the reporting was admitted to by most of them - when joking and drinking together.

That was one of the most interesting holiday seasons I've ever witnessed on CSpan. You don't see as much of those interesting and revealing dinners and panels as you used to. I remember doing some special crafts and baking Christmas cookies well into the night while watching hour after hour over several nights of riveting inside-the-beltway fare featuring the people who were part of the campaigns on both sides talking freely amongst themselves.

I've looked for it since that year because it was so entertaining. It was like being on the inside. Just fascinating.

Never has happened since quite like that one year. I think the insiders are a little more CSpan savvy now.

The first time I ever heard the word "fuck" on TV was on CSpan when Christopher Hitchens said it outside a book party. He said everybody goes to everybody else's book parties so that everyone will come to theirs. Really, why go otherwise, They're so "fucking boring." The CSpan interviewer was stunned silent for a few seconds.

I've reported this event before on this blog but I still find it funny. I'm sorry CSpan grew up and became the adult in the room. I liked it better when it showed everything and people were caught unprepared and responded with some spontaneity.

Having said all that, I didn't say and don't think Obama's "gentler" coverage was the sole reason for his success. Hillary's coverage has been brutal. I think that has definitely affected her image as a candidate.

Do you watch Bll Moyers? You might consider watching last week's - two week's ago? - Journal online if you didn't see it. She analyzes media coverage pretty well.

The discussion about the deferential treatment for Obama as opposed to Clinton was on Seven Days in America and the panel was comprised of media people: Mark Green, Vanden Heuvel, and Huffington. Of course, these are all people on the left. But, I think you agree that it is biased.

Just as right-wing radio has polarized this nation as never before, all media influences. I would prefer more issues-based reporting but I think it is not in the interests of corporations to do that.

[joanie]

One more thing...you never did really say why you don't like Hillary. Some generalizations about dead men or was it a dead man?

That doesn't cut much slack with me because I don't know what dead men/man have/has to do with her qualifications for being President.

Sounds like a man too easily influenced by media to me.

Care to elucidate?

[joanie]

I'm a night person. Can you tell?

Michael, rereading your post, I do agree that this country is still sexist. Very much so. Even though I think Hilary does have a lot of negative baggage, it doesn't deserve the kind of hate talk that comes from talk radio on the right.

That kind of talk represents a cultish mentality - the kind that serves fundamentalists and Christians who believe a woman's place is pregnant and in the home. Still a lot of people like that in this society. We are very different from Europeans who have left that kind of primitive thinking behind. At least according to people I know who have lived there. Quite of few of my parents over the years have lived for prolonged periods of time internationally and they say we are very behind in the area of respecting women. It is kind of funny because more than a few of them have said that women in Europe seem sexier and more accepting of their sexuality but are, at the same time, more equal and accepted for their contributions politically than they are here.

Just repeating what people say. No matter what it is culturally, I don't understand the hate talk about a woman who has endured so much and still contributed so highly to the public good. What does that say about the people who need to bash her?

[joanie]

And Loozer...working your way through a six-pack? Is that normal for you?

I just thought of that. Oh dear.

[joanie]

I hope this isn't true:

There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office."

[PugetSound]

I disagree with the fact that America isn't ready for a female president. The Repubs would love to have a Margaret Thatcher type run on their side. In this state, you have two female senators and a female governor. Yet, the people here went overwhelmingly for Obama.
What you have here is a generational difference and yes, people wanting to make a major step forward -not solving unfortunately- in race relations. For those older folks who went to the local cacaus didn't you feel a little out of place in terms of age?
What hurts Hillary is the past and the perception of divisiveness. The same things that help her also hurt her. People in the Dem Party are starting to see that they can win without the Clintn Machinery. Don't all of you just cringe a bit every time you see ol Bill out there waving his finger it just brings back unpleasant memories.
Lukobe is correct, the parties are private organizations and can do it as they see fit. It's just that the impact of their actions may cost their candidate if others feel disenfranchised.
The Obama and assassination is a factor that all Presidents go through. Take a look at W, he has been a polarizing figure and their is no shortage of nutjobs who actually think assassination is funny...even on talk radio.
I also agree with Nevets. Perhaps it is our time spent in service to our country. Whomever the choice is to be President, that will be MY President. I am an American. I may not like the policies/etc but that President represents me....
Sparky, thank you for the comment on the DLC/DNC dichotomy. Their is a split between the Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean types. The other thing to is that the Clinton Machine has a huge amount of patronage for those political appointee spots promised out -not just Cabinet level- so you're going to get people who are going to be actively working to get back on the inside. Obama will start working side in time.
Joanie, I also love Cspan (Brian Lamb is my guy!)
if you want to catch the unguarded moments sometimes you'll get em at the end of the show when the participants are thinking the mikes are off and yaking it up. You still get a fair level of informal discourse at times especially in those classroom settings or the book fairs when authors show up to discuss their books. Last year, some fascinating ones between Lincoln biographers went on. Good stuff if you love history.

[wutitiz]

Spot on, PugetSound. I was very proud to have Jennifer Dunn as my rep (am not quite so impressed w/ junior).

Tim Russert just got done talking to Huck in depth re the fried squirrel issue. The gender of candidates is a similar topic--cheap and easy pontification fodder for lazy reporters.

Only a tiny pct. of voters care about either gender or fried squirrel when it's time to fill out their ballot.

[PugetSound]

jennifer dunn and linda smith both represented washington state well politics aside.
one of the best military commanders i worked for was a woman. one of the worst i ever worked for was also a woman.
out in the private sector chances are you will be working for a woman at some point and have had a similar experience.
and how in the heck anyone could play the gender card to explain Obama here in washington state with female senators and a governor is really whiffing at a nonexistent curve ball.

[Concerned voter]

AIPAC has a lot on influence on politicians, especially those whose support they need for future wars in the middle east. Good on Kucinich for throwing them out

[sparky]

Sorry, Puts. I have to disagree about the " I am American, therefore the President is my President."
I can be very patriotic and love my country and still dislike and work to unseat the President. I think it is very dangerous to expect people to lie down and accept whatever he says or whatever happens. Bush has never represented me or my values.

It reminds me of Britney Spears saying ' Well he is the President so we should just go along with whatever he says."

[DT]

Interesting. I seem to remember Sparky once calling someone on this blog an idiot when they said that Christine Gregoire was not their Governor. Does that now mean she thinks of herself as an idiot for saying something similar?

[sparky]

You're right, DT, i did say that, didn't I.

So let me change that.

If you dont feel that Christine is your governor, then that is your right.

And no, i dont think i am an idiot for saying what i think.

[Nevets]

So Sparky, who was your President the last 7 years? Are you so proud to be a liberal that you can't even recognize President Bush as your President for fear you might be ostracized by your friends?

[Nevets]

Or for you should I say "Who was your King for the last 7 years?"

[Nevets]

"still dislike and work to unseat the President"

Would you go so far as to throw away that "Constitution" and revolt against the country to "unseat" him Sparky?

[joanie]

C'mon Steven, aren't you keeping up? Bush has already thrown away the Constitution. Where have you been, anyway.

[Duffman]

joanie and all: Please don't give up on Mrs Clinton. Washington State does not a nominee make! :)

[joanie]

I disagree with the fact that America isn't ready for a female president. The Repubs would love to have a Margaret Thatcher type run on their side. In this state, you have two female senators and a female governor.

You can disagree all you want. Doesn't make your thinking correct.

Interesting, isn't it, that while you talk the talk about Republican women, it is the libs who voted for women at the top in Washington State. And "at the top" in Washington State is hardly reflective of the whole nation. So, I guess your example is a little selective, wouldn't you say?

How does your one little example prove me wrong?

What you have here is a generational difference...

Maybe. What generation? Seems to me there were an awful lot of boomers in the rooms for Obama. If Michael's story and news reports I read are true, must have been an awful lot of people of all ages that went for him. Why generational and not ethnicity? Why either?
What's your proof, Professor?

and yes, people wanting to make a major step forward -not solving unfortunately- in race relations. For those older folks who went to the local cacaus didn't you feel a little out of place in terms of age?

For you, Michael. Did you feel out of place being older? Gosh, you must be ancient.

I'm writing "BS" across that last paragraph, Putsie.

What hurts Hillary is the past and the perception of divisiveness.

Ah, finally some beef. So, tell me, what has she done that's divisive.
Forget "perception" - perception is based on something. What is the "something" she's done to be divisive.

The same things that help her also hurt her.

Still waiting...what are they?

People in the Dem Party are starting to see that they can win without the Clintn Machinery.

Oh, you mean like we did in the forties and the sixties and even the seventies? Most of us remember the eighties, doncha think?

BTW, was it the Clinton machinery that put Bush in the White House or the Bush Machinery that did that? I'd like to know just how much credit I should give the Bush machinery - if any?

Don't all of you just cringe a bit every time you see ol Bill out there waving his finger...

No. Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about? Now, if it were Larry Craig ...

...it just brings back unpleasant memories.

You might want to see a therapist about that. Does waving your finger in the air give you unpleasant memories?

Lukobe is correct,

Wow, Lukobe. You're correct? Your mother will be so proud.

...the parties are private organizations and can do it as they see fit.

Duh.

It's just that the impact of their actions may cost their candidate if others feel disenfranchised.

Golly gee. I guess we Dems have a lot to learn from you. Please, pontificate some more.

The Obama and assassination is a factor that all Presidents go through.

So his being black won't change that equation? Hmm. Every President probably has an equal chance of being assassinated. No mitigating factors...

I'm no mathematician so you might be right. As I recall, there was a higher probability that a black would be lynched below the Mason-Dixon line at one time. Have the haters all disappeared? I hope so.

Take a look at W,...

We have been for seven long years...

he has been a polarizing figure

Ditto "duh"

and their is no shortage of nutjobs who actually think assassination is funny...even on talk radio.

Oh. Maybe you should change stations.

That's what I do when Malloy's hate talk gets too energized.

no shortage - why do you listen to it? I'm surprised that you do. Tell me, where do I find it? Who are the nutjobs that extol assassination?

I also agree with Nevets.
Perhaps it is our time spent in service to our country. Whomever the choice is to be President, that will be MY President.

Yes, we are all stuck with Bush and we'll all be stuck with whomever gets elected in 2008, like it or not.

So, what's the big deal?

I am an American.

Did someone say you weren't?

I may not like the policies/etc but that President represents me....

So everything he does is okay by you? My, aren't you a good soldier. Now why does that remind me of being a good German...Oh well, I forget. Not important anyway.

Nice of you to sign off on torture, putsie. The President aka The Decider will be pleased to know he has so many good soldiers out here in the field. I wonder if you'd be a good water boarder...

More pontificating? Did you just find that out? You're a little late to the game, puts.

The other thing to is that the Clinton Machine has a huge amount of patronage for those political appointee spots promised out-not just Cabinet level- so you're going to get people who are going to be actively working to get back on the inside.

Proof please.

This the first time you've suspected "political patronage" lurking around?

Have you heard the word "cronies" before?

And if she does bring back Clinton people, were Robert Reich and Bob Rubin big problems for you?

How do you know who Hillary has in mind for those positions?

We libs love specifics!

BTW, is all this "opinion" generalized from your experience with the Bush years and all the political patronage the Bush Machine put into office? Just curious...

I always wondered about the recent graduate who helped on Bush's reelection committee and was later put in charge of the stock market in Iraq. Now, based on your excellent information, I'm suspecting it was the Bush Machine and it's called political patronage.

Obama will start working side in time.

Hmm. More crystal ball... Where can I get one? BTW, WTF does this last sentence mean?

Joanie, I also love Cspan (Brian Lamb is my guy!)

My guy...talkin' 'bout my guy... My Guy.

No, putsie, he's my guy. And Randi's. He's not your guy.

if you want to catch the unguarded moments sometimes you'll get em at the end of the show when the participants are thinking the mikes are off and yaking it up.

Oh, I'll try that.

You still get a fair level of informal discourse at times especially in those classroom settings or the book fairs when authors show up to discuss their books.

You mean like on the 48 hours of book TV?

I was actually talking about the political consultants and media types who do polling, analyzing and prognosticating. They are making history - working on and in the current campaigns - rather than just reporting it.

Last year, some fascinating ones between Lincoln biographers went on. Good stuff if you love history.

Was the Lincoln series the only one you saw? Or the only one you liked?

What's up:
Tim Russert just got done talking to Huck in depth re the fried squirrel issue. The gender of candidates is a similar topic--cheap and easy pontification fodder for lazy reporters.

Well, he's pitching it to his listeners. Apparently, you're one of them.

Only a tiny pct. of voters care about either gender or fried squirrel when it's time to fill out their ballot.

Tell me, what do you care about?

[PugetSound]

Sparky
Here is my 2 cents. It is about the office, not the individual. Otherwise, if it is about the individual you have a cult. You can work to unseat, express words of contempt, et al the person in the office. But, as much as you dislike W, he holds the office of the Presidency for the next few months. As such, he is the President.
My friends on the right use to say things like, 'President Clinton is not MY President.' Which was weird and I would always ask them,
What if someone tried to kill Bill Clinton?' Now, they all had a hearty dislike for Bill Clinton but each and everyone responded as an American and an attack upon the President is an attack upon America. So what do you do when the people elect someone you don't care for?
You work within the process. Don't like the President, do like the Dems did in 06 and get a majority in the House/Senate to stall out his ideas.

[joanie]

Darn, I screwed up the italics toward the end.

Sorry for the bandwidth, Michael. I had to do it. Just wish I'd kept the italics going correctly.

[PugetSound]

Joanie
You're whirling away, making distinctions without differences.
The example of WA State was fairly telling ie a state with voters that had elected three powerful female figures yet going for Obama.
You can't grasp or even concede the fact that Hillary is a divisive political figure?
Wow.

[PugetSound]

Joanie
It didn't matter, it was fairly incomprehensible anyway.

[joanie]

Ah, too much reading matter? Most of it was yours.

What does that tell you?

[cowpotpi3]

You get your wish, Joanie. There are too many infantile arguments from our resident right wingers to really comment on in this thread, so a general theme may be in order. How can you guys claim to love America but hate Americans? If Sparky says unseating the President is a goal...clearly this is within the context of the impeachment process (you know that infernal Constitution that you guys hate so much).

Sparky et al, who disagree with Bush, have a right to do so and say so. Indeed, if you would read your history (again I apologize for bringing up facts) you would note that Jefferson was quite adamant that it is the duty of every American to stand up to their government when and if they believe it is no longer just. Sparky made a clear statement opposing the President within legal, ethical and moral means. You twits twisted it into some ridiculous left-wing conspiracy.

Be honest when you debate someone for once.

Oh and hi Steve, good to see you're still the bitter old troll who lacks the ability to compete within the realm of ideas and debate. Please continue to attempt to insult people because you keep losing debates on the internet. I guess that's what being a "real American" means to you.

[joanie]

Less challenging to your comprehension...

putsie: What hurts Hillary is the past and the perception of divisiveness.

So, tell me, what has she done that's divisive. Forget "perception" - perception is based on something. What is the "something" she's done to be divisive.

The same things that help her also hurt her.

What are they?

[joanie]

Welcome back, cowpot. We'd like to hear from you more often.

Hope your new family is doing well.

[johnny]

My only comment is why was Goldie hanging out with the management that just fired him??

[sparky]

Im familiar with the argument that the office of President deserves respect. I get that part. What if the President himself does not act in a way that deserves respect? A lot of people on both sides of the aisle believed that Bill Clinton was not deserving of respect. The "office", yes. The person, no way.
I just dont buy into the idea that because someone is president, that I have to support him. Obviously, people on the right feel that way about our governor, and as you see by my reply to DT, I acknowledged that and admitted that my comment was hypocritical. But as Joanie said, supporting Bush means , at least tacitly, thatI agree with his policies regarding torture, the very rich, etc.

I don't. Never will.

And it does not make me less of a patriotic American.

The New York times today has a great opinion piece on how the GOP is falling into the trap that a lot of Dems fall into..wanting the pure candidate. I try to look at the bigger picture, and if there are more positives than negatives, then I try to go with it. I strongly disagree with Obama's views on education, but I think he is the only one who will work in a way that will get people talking again instead of name calling.

Joanie, there is no better example of Hillary pissing off her party as when Congress was in the heat of debate over Iraq, and she was off introducing an amendment to ban the burning of the flag. It was self serving and a very very obvious attempt to build a base of conservatives who would possibly support her run for the Presidency. She comes with baggage, some not of her own making, some she has deliberately caused. Like I said before, use her smarts in a high profile position in the Cabinet. But with her as our nominee, I think we would be doomed to 4 more years, at least, of the hell we live in now.

[sparky]

uhoh....Hillary just fired her campaign manager....

[joanie]

Mostly well said, Sparky. I agree.

Except for the Hillary part. You just said that no one is pure. That's the part I especially believe in. Kucinich is the purest I know and even he has some stuff with which I'm not on board. There is no one candidate that is pure enough for everyone.

Right now, I don't think it is just the Dems. Doesn't it seem like the Republicans want some sort of purity, too? Thus the issues with McCain. So, this isn't a "Hillary" thing.

I understand disagreements on issues. I don't understand the "hate" unless it can be explained by so much unspecified hate talk and name calling on rightwing radio. We're not talking issues; we're talking unspecified hate here.

You've read me over and over say she's not my candidate - too Republican. But I don't hate her.

The fools on this blog echo the hate words over and over and never ever come up with a single thing she's done to deserve hateful name calling.

I can't speak for Michael, but that speaks to an anti-woman thing for me. We can have women in all sorts of intermediary offices. But, Commander in Chief? President of the United States? Puts conveniently forgets it now, but Gregoire went through the same thing and barely won a squeaker in a very blue state. His argument has no credibility with me.

The right still has issues with women. Oh, they've got the anecdotes about working with us. But, the top job . . . not if they can help it.

That's what I think is at the bottom of all the right-wing hate talk which people like puts now think explains itself. putsie's explanation succinctly put: she's divisive because she's hated; she's hated because she's divisive." What an idiot.

I won't fall for it. I haven't heard or seen one word that explains the hatred and name-calling right-wing talk radio has used against this woman.

She is one assertive woman. Woe to her. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Obama isn't nearly as brash or assertive. His humility is working to his advantage.

Bush was brash and the righties and lots of lefties loved it. But women need to know their place. If Obama acted like Bush in the 2000 race, he'd be called cocky and acting out of his station. I'd bet my last dollar on it.

You fools ask me why I hate Bush and I've got a laundry list for you. I've been asking for a short list - from some of you, just one reason that deserves hate. Not one of you has provided even one item.

[joanie]

Sparky, for putsie's benefit, let me simplify that:

I think you said you don't like Hillary's stance on issues. Does that mean you hate her?

[Loozertarian]

Sorry I am late responding to your questions, Joanie; I glanced at the clock and was appalled at how late it was so I called it a day. (You apparently had a few more hours worth of energy in you, though. I envy you that, being the old-timer I am.)

Rather than take up a bunch of space here tediously reciting my views about Hillary Clinton, per your request - and providing dull reading for everyone else, not to mention probably annoying our fearless Head Blatherwatcher - I would be happy to give you my thoughts in a private email.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by my having referenced "dead men" in the course of my Hillary posts, but I'm not going to ask you for clarification.

However, I will say that your toss-off remark, "Sounds like a man too easily influenced by media to me", is as presumptuous as it is needlessly catty. It suggests that the only way I (or anyone else?) could form a dislike for Hillary is if I were a gullible victim of a propagandistic anti-Hillary press. I am given no credit at all for forming my views on my own, based on fifteen years of observation.

Tell me, how do YOU take it when a person who hardly knows you at all dismisses you as a brainwashed sheep because you dare to hold an opinion different from theirs? Might you feel just a bit insulted when that happens?

Frankly, you employ a very off-putting posting style in your communications with me. I have tried to maintain a high level of civility with you, and I don't recall having made a point of disparaging you. I also try to keep things reasonably light as much as I can. I don't know; you're a bit too intense for me.

I don't come here to get into arguments, and indeed I am not one who regards a lively argument as a form of entertainment (as so many Internet warriors I have met over the years do). Perhaps you and I ought not to interact anymore.

P.S.: No, I don't drink to excess either. I drank exactly two beers last night. My crack about the six-pack was a joke, meant to lighten things up a bit and poke fun at myself.

[Loozertarian]

P.S. Number Two: I don't appreciate being called a fool, especially when that insult is based on one difference of opinion. Have I called you a fool? Have I insulted you at all? You and I agree on a great many issues - probably alot more than you realize - yet you seem to relish obsessing about one small area where we disagree. What's with you anyway?

[cowpotpi3]

vis a vis the Hillary "divisiveness" issue... It seems that PS and the like seem to have this idea that she is universally reviled. However I bet this is an indictment of his political orientation (anti-anything he perceives as left as he claims to be a middle-of-the-roader).

I wonder how PS feels about this polling data MSNBC released a few days ago:

Poll of likely Dem Voters

Interesting that 84% of Dem voters would accept either candidate if they got the party nod. So this begs the question, who really hates Hillary and considers her too divisive? Apparently not Democrats.

[KS]

"It reminds me of Britney Spears saying ' Well he is the President so we should just go along with whatever he says."

Britney has been diagnosed as bipolar - judging her by her previous antics (OMG- I'm being judgmental), she exercised poor judgment - as bipolars often do and is clueless here.

"I think you said you don't like Hillary's stance on issues. Does that mean you hate her?"

I dislike her virtues, based on what I have witnessed and read about her. I like Obama better,
and understand why they cut him more slack. He is a dynamic speaker and may have some good ideas and also may be pretty good at thinking outside of the box. However, his ideology is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's - he is rated as the most liberal senator in the US Senate. That is not a good omen at this time, with a $3 Trillion dollar budget - thanks to a fiscal liberal and irresponsible and a socially conservative President who is disliked by the liberals and many centrists throughout the world.

Obama (if he is the Dem nominee) will need to earn votes by demonstrating why he is the best person to have in a time of increasing economic tension and a dangerous world with radical Islam - a threat that is not perceived well yet because of the self-absorbed mindset and ignorance of the world outside of the USA of the average voter. People will ultimately get who they deserve.

[cowpotpi3]

Hey Ltarrian, would you consider yourself a likely Dem voter or a likely Republican voter? How have your views of Hillary been influenced/or not by the media sources you consume? Would they be considered mainstream or right wing?

Don't feel the need to answer the questions, they are a bit rhetorical, I ask because I see literally every single right wing voice on this blog and others as stridently anti-Hillary. From Dems I just don't see it much if ever.

[sparky]

Mirror Pond is too expensive to drink all at once, anyway.

Nope I don't like Hillary, but I don't hate her. But maybe she represents what is good about the women's movement-- We finally have the right to dislike her decisions and ideas because of what they are, not because she is a woman. For those who are stuck with the Neanderthals who see nothing but an uppity woman who doesn't know her place, well, that breed will just have to die out before that changes.
(Psst..steven, this is where you come in to accuse me of wanting Hillary to die!)

[joanie]

"dead men" - wasn't it you who referenced something about her being surrounded by "dead" men? Took that from memory so it may not have been you but one of your equally generalizing fellow bloggers.

I'm sorry you're unable to be specific about your Hillary views. That would be helpful.

"Presumptuous" - probably the result of not having specifics. "Catty" - interesting choice of words. Rather genderized, isn't it. I don't know what it means. Sorry.

Insulted? (laughing here) I've been insulted many times on this blog. So has Sparky. So have all of us. Does that bother you?

"brainwashed sheep?" - again, lack of specifics I guess. Unsupported statements don't earn much respect.

"six-pack" joke - yes, well, I was poking fun back but I guess you missed it.

As for interacting, that's a lost cause for you. I like nothing better that spearing platitudinous fools who spew unsupported hate talk and meaningless generalities. Is that you?

Finally, intense? You better believe it. I am one of those who does not let people off the hook when torture is at hand, the Constitution is being shredded, and kids are dying for oil.

I've lived a longer life than you have, my dear. And I've still got the energy to energetically fight simple, hate-filled and undemocratic BS the best way I can.

Now, if you're lonely and looking for friends, might I suggest a friendship club. If you have access to the Stranger, there are many opportunities out there.

If you prefer to remain here, then you have to take what you get. This blog does not follow the Bush model: no pledges are needed to join; there's not a dress code; t-shirts are welcome no matter what they say; and Michael generally (I think) does not indulge in censorship.

Funny, you don't sound like a lib. You seem to be trying to go for "paternal. Am I wrong about that?

[PugetSound]

Sparky, spot on. Like or dislike her on an objective basis ie policies and not something like gender.

KS "Obama (if he is the Dem nominee) will need to earn votes by demonstrating why he is the best person to have in a time of increasing economic tension and a dangerous world with radical Islam - a threat that is not perceived well yet because of the self-absorbed mindset and ignorance of the world outside of the USA of the average voter. People will ultimately get who they deserve."

I agree with you on that. Lets see how he runs his campaign from here on out, if nominated, lets see who he picks for a running mate, cabinet, etc. KS, it will be very interesting -if elected- when he starts to become responsible for the safety of America how he will react when he starts to get those daily security briefings on the threats that face us.

Cubesteak aka Cowpot3, great to see you come back. Don't be a stranger. I know you have other responsibilities but during an election year it will be good to have you weigh in.

[cowpotpi3]

Hi there KS, how about a little reality to inject into your "Obama is the most liberal Senator" talking point?

You are, of course, referring to the National Review's Claims ...you know the unabashedly Conservative National Review? Are you seriously going to not reference this when you make a claim like that? First and foremost it is clearly a conflict of interest.

But let's look at their methodology, shall we? They simply took all the votes a Senator cast and then ascribed a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to the yea or nea. Since we all know Obama has been out on the campaign trail for most of the year, he has only returned to vote for the issues that are truly important to his party...tends to skew the numbers a bit don't you think? I mean are you seriously thinking that Feingold is LESS liberal than Obama? If so you either are immune to reality or you're just looking for data to support your pre-determined intellectual outcome. Next.

Let's think about this...who is more qualified to call someone a liberal...a conservative mag who clearly wants the Democrat to fail or ... hey how about a progressive analysis?

Progressive Punch's Analysis

Boy...43rd most liberal Senator, he sure is a lefty!

[joanie]

For the record, Sparky, I don't dislike her either.

I feel sorry for her. She's not my candidate but I don't dislike her. I admire her.

[Carlos]

Joannie, I don't always like you. But you have a way of hitting nails right on their freakin' heads.

[PugetSound]

Cowpot3
"vis a vis the Hillary "divisiveness" issue... It seems that PS and the like seem to have this idea that she is universally reviled. However I bet this is an indictment of his political orientation (anti-anything he perceives as left as he claims to be a middle-of-the-roader).

I wonder how PS feels about this polling data MSNBC released a few days ago:

Poll of likely Dem Voters

Interesting that 84% of Dem voters would accept either candidate if they got the party nod. So this begs the question, who really hates Hillary and considers her too divisive? Apparently not Democrats."

I am not talking about the hardcore Dem voters most of whom are likely Dem voters already.
I am talking about those they want to capture in the middle -Reagan Democrats - who may go Repub or Dem depending upon the issues/candidates. I am not making it up that Hillary is a divisive candidate. If you don't want to believe it, that is your own look out my friend.
Moreover, I would submit that depending upon how the Superdelegate issue is handled -assuming that they come in and vote in Hillary over Obama- it could leave a bitter taste among the Obama supporters. Many of these voters are coming into this political season due to Obama. If they feel like they got jobbed then it will be interesting how motivated they will be to turn out in November. Or they may do a protest vote. (The Repubs have the same issue of repub support going on with McCain and the hard right).
Look, the issue will become moot if either Hillary or Obama have an overwhelming lead going into the convention. If not, should make for interesting watching albeit you are a conser or a liber or a zebra for that matter.

[joanie]

:)

Now I'm leaving...have at me without impediment. Or don't.

Thanks for a dose of sanity, Cowpot.

[joanie]

Can't help it:

Putsie puts up another rehash of his rehash . . .

My god, puts, once was enough. You won't understand cowpot's response either - if he responds at all. You're incapable.

[cowpotpi3]

PS I think you kind of cruised by my point...that poll was not of registered Democrates, but "likely Dem voters." Don't you think that some of those people are the middle of the road types?

In any case, I didn't make the case that Hillary was not divisive...I just don't believe she is anywhere near as divisive as right wing media tends to portray her.

[KS]

"Boy...43rd most liberal Senator, he sure is a lefty!"

Alright. I place equal weight on National Review's analysis as I do on Progressive Punch. The truth probably lies in between. If that methodology is applied, he is slightly less liberal or progressive than Hillary. As I said before I like him better than her, but not only for political reasons.

[joanie]

I wish you'd expound on that a bit, cowpot. I date her "divisive" charicature back to her taking on the role of fixing health care and the rightwing totally brandishing her with every negative they could come up with.

Because I think that was totally a product of rightwingers, I don't consider her divisive. I just won't label her that way.

Do you see an inherent divisive quality in her? Or is it the product of so much hate talk on the right?

I have found no record of any divisiveness before that event - the healthcare thing. But, I'm no scholar on Hillary!

I may not agree with you but I respect your opinion.