After watching some of the heated exchanges at today’s Democratic Party meeting in Washington DC, I sincerely hope the party can unify behind one candidate. Passions are running very high for both Obama and Clinton. To be honest, I haven’t really followed THIS process all that much. But one thing stands out, each side (Obama and Clinton) have supporters who are willing to take this thing to the convention in Denver.

But as a Clinton supporter, I think it would be in the best interest of the party and the country to support Obama and move hard and fast against McCain and the Republican’s. We can’t let party disunity on this matter drag on for months. We need to coalesce around one candidate and wage the campaign of a generation, much like the Republican’s did in 1980. This will be a defining campaign, no doubt about it. There are countless problems in this country that need to be addressed, and soon.

"There are countless problems in this country that need to be addressed, and soon."

So, we're going to send a boy to do a man's job?

Says Deane: "So, we're going to send a boy to do a man's job"?

Deane, I don’t think you gave much thought to your racially insensitive remark.

Sounds like something straight out of the mouth of Bull Connor.

LOL!!!

Well, the men have hosed it good. No need to give them another shot.

Obama would kick any of their asses cold in a fight too.

Deane_johnson:

So, we're going to send a boy to do a man's job?


Yeah, see what you mean. It hasn't worked worth the damn for the last eight years.

"Deane, I don’t think you gave much thought to your racially insensitive remark."

What is this obsession with racism. You lefties get downright sickening. The phrase is an old one describing a young inexperience person being chosen to do a job they aren't ready for yet rather than an older experienced person. Do you need to be told how to tie your shoes also? Grow up and get a life.

Deane-
Well on planet Nebraska it seems your communication systems are pretty weak.

At this very moment boys and girls are being asked to fight a war in Iraq that deceptive men contrived.

My father was a 19 year old "boy" when Uncle Sam had him join the party in Europe.

Many "boys" have probably saved your ass more than once and you probably didn't even realize it.

You old man's dramatic cliches' aren't working anymore.

Chris, there are a lot of jobs that young people do and do well because they are young. Being leader of the free world may not be one of them.

And if we leave it the hands of the "old" men nothing will change.

But I guess you don't mind leaving a legacy that my children, and their children and possibly their children will be cleaning up and paying for years to come.

Maybe that younger person who is wise beyond their years can actually make things happen because not only are they smart, they are young and come with great energy.

BTW- It's time to wake McCain from his congressional nap.

"wise beyond their years"

Are you hoping that applies to Obama, or do you have some evidence that it indicates it to be so?

Jesus Christ was 33 when He saved us from eternal damnation. I'm sure Barack Obama can find the intestinal fortitude to lead this country out of its current morass at age 47.

Careful Talpdx, Deane likes to put the "Messiah Complex" label on Obama.

But a point well put.

"Jesus Christ was 33 when He saved us from eternal damnation."

So now you're comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. And I thought comparing him to JFK was going a bit off the reservation. There seems to be something that gets in the air about this time of night. Smell it?

What I smell is the sweet scent of victory for Senator Barack Obama on November 4th, 2008. Happy days will be here very shortly, with not only the United States rejoicing but the world as a whole. Done will be the days of despot George W. Bush.

Theodore Roosevelt: 42 years old when he became president. John F. Kennedy: 43 years old when elected president. Bill Clinton: 46 years old when elected president. Franklin D. Roosevelt: 51 years old when elected president. Senator Obama will be in very good company.

By the time Franklin Roosevelt was John McCain's age, he was dead.

Martin Luther King Jr. lived to be 39.

If this is just a bylaws and convention rules meeting, I was a bit perplexed why the Clinton vs. Obama issue would cause controversy at this early stage. According to a story that just came on KGO, apparently, the work of convention rules committee can impact the seating and credentialing of delegates, thus potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential cadidate selection.

So, we're going to send a boy to do a man's job?

Or someone that's been social security for the last 35 years????

Alfredo, the issue really comes down to Clinton securing enough delegates to prevent Obama from being declared the outright nominee.

Florida and Michigan violated primary rules, making their elections questionable. Clinton is using this ambiguity to continue being in the race. Essentially, she's not losing! This committee does not have the power to completely resolve matters in a way that would prevent Clinton from doing what she is doing.

Additionally, the super delegates do not want to take the nomination from her, thus dividing the party. Clinton claims that Obama has not won and she has not lost and that she is the stronger one for the general election.

By the rules we have for this process, Obama has the momentum and the math. Clinton wants a floor fight where all of that comes down to a debate on the floor and a lot of emotion and probably a mess that will put McCain in the running solid.

Ugh.

I suspect the committee will rule to the best of it's authority, followed by Democratic party leadership having to shut Clinton down as she simply will not yield.

(and they say Women are not strong --she has broken that myth)

It will be over by Wednesday. Obama will finally cinch what we've known for a while now.

Agreed.

There is a magic number now that has some teeth. Clinton can still appeal to Denver, but I think the likelihood of her actually doing that will go down considerably after the last of the races are officially over, leaving her behind in delegates.

...meaning this is now Obama's Democratic party!

Rock on, and take the fight to their house!

Hillary as much as I like her, her and her people need to BACK off and support the winner. Don't take this to the convention otherwise we'll be saying President McCain and go backward in this country yet some more.

I completely agree with Aok's previous statement. For the sake of victory in November, party unity is paramount. My only concern is that according to a poll cited on today’s “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert, many Hillary voters have a negative view of Senator Obama. I can’t help but worry about this trend. Hopefully, unity will win the day.

Wait until the General Election campaign starts and they ask Obama the hard questions.

Yeah, like there are not much harder ones for McCain.

Remember the end game.

The Republican John McCain is the same as the Republican George W. Bush. The two of them had to cancel a fund raiser in UTAH, because they could not meet the event quota. A secondary venue was chosen, closed doors, no reporters.

It's just gotta suck to be running and not really want to be seen with the man that has defined your party.

Cancelled in UTAH? Shocking.

That's a very, very bad sign.

(Maybe there's a secret LDS Write-in campaign for Mitt...)

One of the reddest states in the Union and George W. Bush is as popular as a bastard at a family reunion. I do feel a bit sorry for McCain, running for president on a brand that would make your most hardened public relations executive cringe.

Then you have Barack Obama, where his people have to find venues large enough to accommodate his overflowing crowds.

A juxtaposition of two worlds.

I'm about to break my "no Deane response rule".

Deane, really; you are just so sad. You just can't accept reality at all. It's sad because, I believe that deep down, you are, or maybe more accurately, were, a fairly intelligent person. You've just gone downhill, to become that old grumpy guy in the corner that is against anything new and different. I wish for you some, any, enlightenment. I hope you can open your mind, just a little, in the coming years.

Oh you know there absolutely has gotta be some support for Mitt, "Democrats for Mitt, because the GOP deserves the very worst!" in Utah.

Warner, I hope so too.

IMHO, perhaps it's one of those gotta see it to believe it things. Over time, I've noted that my view on the potential outlook of things can and does change. Perspective is often colored by the company one keeps, news they consume and other things.

Swallow too much propaganda and dogma whole, and it kind of sits there for a while, sometimes needing a pretty serious event to shake it loose.

(this being true for all of us)

9/11 was one of those things that opened the works up. Lots of people just accepted some stuff, wanting to feel safe. Decoupling that is gonna take time.

"you are, or maybe more accurately, were, a fairly intelligent person. You've just gone downhill, to become that old grumpy guy . . ."

Let me repeat a key word here: "were".

Something has happened. Perhaps medically. For whatever reason, his posts are Save-Your-Breath flagged.

"become that old grumpy guy in the corner that is against anything new and different."

Radial liberalism and inexperience are new and different! Here, let me write that down in my book so I won't forget again.

What's gonna happen that's so bad. Or maybe put it this way, what's going to happen that's significantly worse than what is happening right now?

It's a deep hole we are in, and that was pretty radical Right and, from all accounts, plenty of experience.

Didn't work out well for us at all.

That's the burden for even considering McCain, if he does not tip over between now and then.

Author: Deane_johnson
Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 3:06 pm


"So, we're going to send a boy to do a man's job?"


No, just a middle aged dude to clean up the spittle and used depends left by the old geezer's!

>>Jesus Christ was 33 when He saved us from eternal damnation

if you put your trust in Him, turn/repent from your sin life and give your life for His service/purpose. Yes that was Christ's age when He died on a cross but rose again so that all of us could have eternal life when He was GOD-man on this earth. Far better to put your trust in that man/politicians.

Careful you don't fall off, you might twist your ankle!
http://homeschooljourney.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/soap-box.jpg

Good uses for used boxes!

Watch your step! Actually to be on topic I see last weeks meeting to change very little outcome of the Demo front-runners.

Deane, I don't think any reasonable person, either left or right, would describe Obama's proposals as "radically liberal."

Note I said reasonable person.

It's a leftist donnybrook!

With Mrs. Clinton in the mix, it was bound to be anything but a liberal love-fest.

Herb

"Deane, I don't think any reasonable person, either left or right, would describe Obama's proposals as "radically liberal." "


Try voting record, both in his Illinois statehouse days and in the House of Representatives. You are obviously one of those who are sucked into political garbage during campaigns.

I'm well aware that because I am not sucked into the frenzy of rhetoric over the coming of the Messiah, I am considered unreasonable, unintelligent, an asshole, you name it. You join the lemmings, I'll sit it out.

Oh, and republican lemmings are any better???

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/Wuerker/art_images/283LT_lr.jpg

Deane's correct...I'm now seeing that while Mr. Obama seems in some ways a decent enough chap, he's also very radical in ways that are particularly unsavoury.

While few people are scarier than Mrs. Clinton....anyone with a 100% rating from naral is also no friend of little innocent babies:

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007

Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.

2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

In the words of Vice President Cheney:

So?

So he's radical in defending partial birth abortion.

Herb

There is nothing radical about Obama. He's a middle of the road guy. It's YOU that's radical.

No.

Anyone who supports putting scissors in a child halfway out of the womb is radical.

You leftists have problems with school prayer, yet are fine with murdering a baby being born?

Let's see...democrats have alliances with the aclu, naral, the virulent racist Margaret Sanger and euthanasia...that doesn't even include nambla, either.

A national party no more, indeed. To you blind leftists, a dog has more rights than a baby. For shame.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bash.jpg

Herb

"There is nothing radical about Obama. He's a middle of the road guy."


If he's a middle of the road guy, why is his voting record the most liberal in the Senate and why was it the most liberal in the Illinois statehouse?

Everything's relative isn't it?

Herb...love the political/moral cartoon...a good one...better link...


http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bash.jpg

Obama is about as radical an anti-second amendment politician as they come. And Clinton is no better.

As a candidate for reelection to the Illinois Senate his "common sense" standard on gun control was to pledge support of banning the sale or transfer of ALL forms of semi-automatic weapons. This includes the semi-automatic shotguns that hunter’s use, the Ruger 10-22 .22 caliber rifles, ALL semi-automatic handguns and the list goes on.

As an Illinois senator he was aggressively supportive of all manner of new gun controls.

He voted FOR creating mug-shot files and finger print files for law abiding gun owners.

He voted AGAINST legislation giving homeowners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars.

However, the true test of his anti-Second Amendment stance is his service on the 10 member board of directors of the radical anti-gun money machine, the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce foundation has given more than $50 million to anti-Second amendment groups like the far left gun ban group Violence Policy Center, Handgun Free America and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The IACP recently, under a Joyce Foundation grant, called for the warrantless seizure and destruction of firearms by police agencies.

Obama considered becoming the CEO of the Joyce Foundation after being defeated in his race for Congress in 2000.

Obama, as a US senator voted AGAINST ending punitive lawsuits that are designed to bankrupt lawful firearms manufactures.

Middle of the road? NOT.

Shooting. The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.

The D.C. Gun Ban works - just ask James Brady.

When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away…

Guns are smart enough. We need smarter politicians.

Nah, the problem is the people that carry the guns aren't smart enough. They need to be regulated. The less idiots with guns the better.

Please explain how imposing new laws and regulations on LAW ABIDING gun owners will solve anything.

I agree. Idiots should not have guns.

If all gun owners were LAW ABIDING, we wouldn't have a gun problem, would we?

Scary.

Another Anti-Second Amendment leftist in our midst.

Herb

Sorry, I'm not anti-second amendment, I just don't believe in a free-for-all when it comes to guns. Unlike you, I know that guns in the hands of the wrong people is a bad recipe. Try as you might to frame things as "for" or "against" but once again you are wrong.

....Unlike you, I know that guns in the hands of the wrong people is a bad recipe.....

There are PLENTY of laws on the books to prosecute bad people who do bad things with guns.

The problem is that the liberal judges DON'T enforce them.

If all gun owners were LAW ABIDING, we wouldn't have a gun problem, would we?

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever heard in response to the gun issue.

Do you think ANY member of the Bloods and Crips or any other gang for that matter that has a gun will ever be law abiding?????

Here's a thought; "Blaming a gun for crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie O’Donnell being FAT!"

If you are free to be a liberal, then thank a man with a gun!

For the most part, I don’t have an issue with people owning guns, but with reasonable limits.

With regard to Senator Obama, I think that he takes positions on gun control matters because of the proliferation of gun violence in his home state of Illinois, more specifically Chicago. It’s a problem that needs to be taken very seriously. If I lived in a community riddled with gun violence on a daily basis, I’d be screaming bloody murder too. To have reasonable limits would seem to make sense. Maybe to Wayne LaPierre Senator Obama’s positions are intolerable. But I’m sure most Americas would find Senator Obama’s positions tolerable.

But again, Senator Obama may take positions, principled I might add, on this and other matters that some find difficult to stomach. But in the end, he’ll probably be president on January 20, 2009. And that will be in the best interest of all Americans, gun owners or not. I mean really, we’ve lived with the most addle minded president in generations. Senator Obama will be a huge breath of fresh air for not only the United States, but the world as well.

It's worth noting that Obama will have a congress and will actually respect and utilize the branches of government.

I think sometimes that people fear liberalsm because of what this conservative administration did. They just hammered stuff through.

We are not going to see that with Obama, meaning the solutions and changes we see are highly likely to be reasoned and deliberated things we can live with, and we might even enjoy.

It's true that some stuff is going to get changed that will piss every one of us off. Taken as a whole, the outlook is good.

"will actually respect and utilize the branches of government"

"meaning the solutions and changes we see are highly likely to be reasoned and deliberated things we can live with"


The worst part is that you actually believe this stuff.

Folks, it's impossible to argue with single issue types. All things are viewed through one narrow prism.

Yep.

Welcome to the 23 percent club Deane.

I'll take believing in Barack Obama over George W. Bush any day of the week. After eight years of one lie after another, it’s time for true and honest leadership – something that has evaded Republican conduct for years.

"Welcome to the 23 percent club..."

Oh, you mean the club whose membership includes both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, who each supported partial birth abortion?

There's your real fringe minority.

Herb

Oh no. That's not the 23 percent club. The 23 percent club consists of all the axe grinders, loyal to the Republican party until the bloody end.

The rest of us are looking for a better deal.

"...bloody end..."

Exactly. Thanks to leftists, it doesn't get any bloodier for little ones.

Herb

And that cuts both ways, with our kids being killed for OIL and power, or starving, or dying for lack of health care, shelter and all those other things the little ones need.

Heck, the big ones need them too.

See how that all works?

The emotional argument isn't all that powerful when you don't have the high ground in the matter.

Besides, if you really, really think it's that bloody, and that nothing else matters, then it's worth working together to radically reduce the problem.

I'm right here, perfectly willing to do that. In fact, I am doing that, will continue to do that, and encourage others to help me do that.

You are like the little kid, who would let the world burn, because you are not getting what you want, when you want it.

I saw a little one profiled on KATU this noon -- a little Iraqi boy blinded by warring factions in his home country of Iraq. But that doesn't bother old Herb; collateral damage in Bush's honorable war fighting those non-Christian heathens is justified, even if it involves blinding a “little one” for life.

it’s time for true and honest leadership

It will NEVER, EVER happen as long as there are politicians.

Maybe so.

But it's not a binary thing. We can get everything REALLY dishonest and self-serving politicians, to people who look a lot like Statesmen.

It's foolish to just say, well they are all corrupt, and do essentially nothing.

My theory is NEVER re-elect ANYONE. That way the morons only have 4 or 6 years to screw things up then OUT they go.

We NEED term limits. The term and position of "Career Politician" should never exist.

And on that, they will just work to seat their buddies for the next round. Also, not being re-elected, they will work to setup sufficient reputation to get the office, then exploit it with few worries.

There is no cut-n-dried dynamic that works here.

That is why we call it civic duty. Each of us needs to spend a bit of time watching and talking about the government we must live under.

No free lunch.

If we don't do this, then others will, and if it happens enough we get over exploited and that sucks.

Kind of like right now.

If we do it enough, then we still will get exploited, because that is the way of things, but we are highly likely to not be impacted so much by it, and or have opportunities enough to counter the effects of it.

On an emotional level, I think term limits make sense. To have the same people (or families) serving in political office would create a bottleneck of ideas. It’s essentially the same thing over and over. But like most things, we are creatures of habit and change can be an uncomfortable proposition. Often, we want the rascals voted out, but we our own rascal re-elected.

Intellectually, having the same faces in place makes sense. Not total sense, but sense enough to re-elect them. Most politicians that accumulate power do a reasonable job of throwing a bone or two to their constituents. They seem to know just want the doctor has ordered in terms of ample patronage for their elective region. They work the system well and with the help of a good staff, they get things accomplished. It would take a senator with a few years of seniority less time to get something accomplished than their freshman counterpart.

But I worry that if not amply pressed by themselves or others around them, politicians who languish in elective office will simply take up space while better qualified individuals are denied the benefit of serving. Creativity should be a hallmark of the system. Maybe having new staff members join a legislative team every so often might keep the creative juices flowing. A reasonable degree of rotation is a good thing.

Term limits are as un-American as anything out there. Why should term limits determine the will of the people?

I don't agree with term limits. Romney has shown that a truckload of money doesn't pay. Bush has shown that deception leaves party members scrambling for the exits.

All in all, I'd say our political system has a niffy check and balance feature in place, even though it sometimes takes two straight election cycles to ferret out idiots.

"Term limits are as un-American as anything out there. Why should term limits determine the will of the people?

I have to agree. We had a State Senator in the Nebraska Legislature, a black fellow named Ernie Chambers. He represented the black dominate area of town and did an outstanding job of it. He was mister fire and brimstone, and nothing got past him. Our new term limit law took him out this last time around and now his former constituents don't have good representation. The people have not been served.

I'm there too, but do have one counter point.

The will of the people can be marginalized. We have all seen and bitched about that here, from time to time. That's money in politics, and when it's out of control, I believe term limits might be a good thing.

Ideally, I would like to see reform on both.

I find it interesting that our founders had a perception of there being too much of a good thing, that it could lead to stagnant civics and that leads to not serving us for the greater good.

Theirs was honorary, kind of an unspoken agreement, a decency where you took your shot, worked on making an impact, then stepped down for the next person to have a go of it.

I don't know how to sort out the differences between then and now to put that into context. I think it's important to do so, mostly because they felt it was important and I think that matters.

It matters because that combination of people and the times made for circumstances where the American vision was possible. It's something to look at closely and learn from. Maybe not follow always, but not to be ignored.