By victor mickunas

May 16, 2008 4:51 AM | Link to this

Gee Whiz Pete, are the Obama grapes that sour?! If the Republicans can hold on to the White House in November I’m sure that the Dems will blame the usual suspects: Karl Rove, Ralph Nader, Rush Limbaugh, Lyndon LaRouche, L. Ron Hubbard, the Swift Boaters, Ohio, Diebold, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, G. Gordon Liddy, Howard Dean, Howard Hughes, E. Howard Hunt…let’s see? Who am I forgetting here? Oh yeah, but of course; Obama’s minister.

By prose

May 15, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

Obama appears to have won by an overwhelming margin. Probably at least 200 delegates! Just one question. After all the vitriolic crap spilled in this blog, who are you going to blame if McCain wins? Bitter middle class people who go to church, or own guns, or the uneducated electorate, or HRC? Just asking. It’s OVER…can’t you just let it go? We need to come together and stop this madness.

By victor mickunas

May 15, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Keep telling yourself that Hillary will get the nomination. Then, be sure to vote in November. Maybe she will actually be on the ballot?

By prose

May 14, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this

Swing states that win elections, big states that win elections? No big deal? Nevada, yeah that will beat McCain. Give it a rest.

By victor mickunas

May 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Link to this

West Virginia? (yawn)

By prose

May 12, 2008 7:52 PM | Link to this

Still stomping on HRC eh? Well, since you can’t let the process play out, I’ll chime in one more time. If Barack blows it,all you Obamatons will probably blame HRC, right? Forget that the guy wants to start barnstorming the country with McCain. If she stopped you would still call her a weak quitter. You better be ready for the Rove “final solution” stormtroopers people. She was. I’ll campaign for this guy just as hard as I would for her. I know if the roles were reversed you wouldn’t. That’s what disappoints me, your pouty, arrogant attitude. HRC will not slither back to NY. She will be a powerful voice for the “change” you guys seek. Go ahead and call me depressed (the Cubs are in 1st place as I write this Blow..er, I mean Vick). I am, but not for the reasons you think. I’m worried, as is Mary, that your Messiah won’t get the job done. And, while everyone is still name calling, McCain is courting the “Reagan D’s” we need to beat him. We’re awash in waste, corruption, fraud, pestilence, illegal wars, and all you morons want to do is bash the first woman who had a chance to win the presidency. None of your hatred and boasting will mean anything if we don’t beat the R’s. Stick your “I like Ike pin” in your hat and bite it. I don’t care about you fiddling while this country burns. Get on with the fight that really matters.

By Alice

May 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Mary: I also don’t own any Obama buttons, but your passionate support of HRC has made you blind to the facts: Obama was not the only one who wasn’t on the ballot in MI; Clinton and Dodd were the ONLY dems on the ballot, all others pulled. Also, Obama opposed seating the FL & MI delegates “as is” and rightfuly so. Obama did not oppose a revote in FL; FL dem leaders did. I have always argued that there was no reason for HRC to drop out of the race, and I look forward to supporting the dems regardless of which is the nominee (I will enjoy voting for Obama a little more), your skewed arguments only strengthen the concern that HRC’s campaign has taken on the win-at-all-costs attitude. Her campaign has made me realize in recent months that establishment dems only despise Rove tactics when it’s a Repub using them. When a dem uses fear-based campaigning and starts pandering to the most ignorant of society, that’s just fighting tough. I am sure Obama has his share of blind supporters, but I have to ask at this point in the campaign, who’s drinking the kool-aid now? (Note: I am sorry, I really tried to avoid the usual kool-aid or “thrown under the bus” references…

By victor mickunas

May 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Mary, I don’t have any Obama buttons. I do have some political buttons but they are mostly antiques. I have a lovely Nixon/Lodge pin from 1960 with a reflective surface that switches from Nixon to Lodge. I have an I LIKE IKE button. Just yesterday I obtained an Alf Landon sunflower medallion. I think my most prized button has to be the one that says VOTES FOR WOMEN. Call me old fashioned.

By Mary

May 11, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this

Victor,where do you pin your Obama button when you are “on the air”?

By Mary

May 10, 2008 10:00 PM | Link to this

Victor, it would be more interesting to have everyone guess where the media pundits have been pinning their Obama buttons while they are on the air.

By victor mickunas

May 10, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this

Would anyone care to make a prediction on when Hillary Clinton decides to fold up her tent and start campaigning for Obama? The VP slot must be looking more tempting now that she has failed to overcome his surge?

By Mary

May 9, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

Blowfly, disenfranchising the voters in Florida and Michigan is not fair or democratic. If the Obama campaign was interested in fair and square and democracy, they would have supported a revote. Seems they did not think they could really win fair and square. Nader and Perot were right all along. The two party system has derailed democracy.

By TRS

May 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

Lets see - undergrad from Yale, MBA from Harvard - not the credentials of an “idiot”. Using your criteria then the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, Center for American Progress and Media Matters would be the Democratic Hate Machine. I guess “hate” is in the eyes of the beholder, eh?

By Blowfly

May 9, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Ok, I�m not going to apologize for calling the president an idiot. He is an idiot, all you have to do is listen to him talk for 5 minutes. It�s painful. Most 4th graders can conjugate a verb, why can�t he? And, whether that is hateful or not has nothing to do with whether there is a right wing hate machine. Do you really need to argue that fact? Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O�Reilly, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, turning the Justice Dept. into a voter roll purging operation, I mean really? I know the left has its lunatic fringe, but that doesn�t make Rush Limbaugh go away (I wish it did). Arguing about whether there is a right wing hate machine, is like arguing about whether the government faked the moon landings, or was behind 9/11. Those are not rational beliefs, so there�s no point in even trying to construct a rational response. As for the Michigan ballot, we were both wrong. You can look at it online. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and O�bama withdrew their names from the ballot. So, Hillary was matched with democratic primary titans Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd. Who was on the ballot is really not my central theme. The point is that Hillary came into this process as the overwhelming favorite. The nomination was hers to lose and that�s exactly what she did. She lost fair and square. All her whining, complaining, and rationalizations don�t change the facts that democrats studied the candidates and picked someone else. So, pick up the pieces and move on toward what has always been the goal - taking the White House. It�s time to stop putting personal vindictiveness ahead of the greater good. O�bama bum bia! O�bama bum bia! O�bama bum bia! O�bama bum bia! O�bama bum bia!

By TRS

May 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Link to this

Lets see - Blowfly says the Republicans hate; yet, he calls the President an idiot and indicates Hillary should commit suicide. Seems kind of hateful don’t you think? When you come across that ol “hate machine”, let me know where it is. My guess is you won’t find it because it is an imaginary cliche found only in the recesses of one’s mind who is to lazy to be civil and rational. I find it difficult to understand how saying Senator Obama being a liberal is hateful. Since when is truth defined as hate?

By Mary

May 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this

Blowfly, I think there are a lot of errors in various comments on this blog, but yours about the Michigan ballot I think for sure needs to be addressed. From a news segment that showed the Michigan ballot, it appeared all the other candidates (except for Obama) were on the Michigan ballot. It was his choice not to include his name on the ballot. That would explain Hillary’s 40% if about 8 other democrats were still on the ballot.

By Mark from St Paul

May 8, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

There’s nothing harder in politics than losing. Surrender too easily, and party activists will think you too weak a candidate to stand up to the thuggish Republicans with their bourgeois riots and in the bag judges. Refuse to quit, and everyone thinks you’re spiteful and willing to throw the election to the other side rather than giving up when you’re obviously beaten. I’m sure that after some time has passed Mary will come to realize that her bitterness has little to do with Obama, and everything to do with the way that Clinton chose to run her scorched earth campaign. If you can’t win a primary without trying to destroy your opponent, you shouldn’t run at all. Clinton will now slink back to New York where she’s been doing an outstanding job of representing the Wall Street predators who’ve looted our economy and run up a massive trade deficit with communist China (Red China, home of Mao tse-Tung, occupiers of Tibet, supporters of Kim Jong Il, etc.).

By Blowfly

May 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

The truth is that there is very little difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues, especially when compared to McCain. So the argument that Obama is too liberal does not work on me. The right wing hate machine is going to paint either one of them with the same liberal brush. You can rationalize Hillary’s situation any way you want, but the bottom line is that she lost this race despite having more advantages then just about any candidate in history: the wife of a two time president; all the money in the world; sitting 2 term US senator; endorsements galore; and a click and drag political machine at her beck and call. I don’t like her argument that only the big states count, seems to me that all the states count, plus Obama has the ability to carry some states that Hillary can’t (does anyone think that the dems are not going to win the states they always win if Obama is nominated?). Hillary faces just as many if not more problems than Obama in the general. The right wingers HATE her, even more than they hate McCain. That’s why the reps have been baiting her into running since the day that idiot George Bush was re-elected. I mean how good of a candidate can she be if 40% of the voters in Michigan didn’t vote for her. She was the only one on the ballot?

By Mike

May 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Many of Mary’s points are worthy of debate. But there are some things which are not debatable. The fact is that everyone, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign, knew the rules of the Democratic primary process going in. It is not a winner take all like the Republicans. It was about winning delegates. When the media had painted this aura of inevitability around her and she was basking in the glow, this was a fine arrangement for her. She had no problems with it. Then, when Obama decided to focus on actually winning delegates, running a campaign styled around the rules for the nomination and not just those “big states” that Clinton focused on, things became more dicey for her. She made her decision early on and it was to run a classic DLC style campaign, focusing on swing states which the DLC typically deems important. By the way, that strategy has not been particularly effective for the Democrats in recent elections. She then began to maintain, as Obama rolled up the delegate numbers, that delegates now weren’t the benchmark for the nominee. It now became about “electability”. Now you can argue electability till the cows come home, but if that was the standard then we should just take a national poll and pick the nominee based on the results of the poll. But the Democratic rules say the nominee is chosen by the delegate count. Also, Mary, to make a statement that you would rather vote for someone like a Nader than for Obama if he is the nominee, makes me question just how seriously you take your Democratic principles. After everything this country has gone through as a result of the current administration’s policies, to say you would not vote for the Democrat is basically saying you endorse a continuation of the Bush administration’s policies. Because that is what John McCain is promising. I certainly hope that if you are a Democrat, that you would not be so bitter and vengeful as to do anything to enable that outcome. As to the difference in money available, that is a direct result of the groundswell of grassroots support which Obama has enjoyed. The money has flowed to his campaign because he has energized a very large swath of previously uninvolved voters who have felt his efforts worthy enough to support with their hard earned contributions. If there was ever an organization who has proven the ability to raise absolutely huge sums of money, it is the Clinton machine. Could the reason that she has lagged in this regard be that her message is just not resonating with Democratic voters? You might be right in your contention that Obama will lose the general in November. I have no way of knowing. There is still a lot of ground to be covered before then. But one thing is for sure. Obama’s campaign has been run to the letter of the Democratic rules and it appears that he will prevail. Clinton’s attempts to constantly redefine what is “winning” is only creating conflict, confusion and acrimony in the party. She needs to decide what is more important, unifying the party or continuing her futile self promotion.

By TRS

May 7, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this

I would agree that Hillary is toast. From my perspective thats a good thing. A contest between a true liberal vs a somewhat conservative one seems to be shaping up. History shows this country, by in large, is center right. Bill Clinton won running center left, but Mr Obama is way left of that. In my lifetime I have seen one liberal win - Jimmy Carter and that was because Ford pardoned Nixon. His adminstration was a the worst in my lifetime. Folks like McGovern, Mondale. Dukakas, Gore - all liberals have not faired well. McCain is conservative enough that most conservatives will begrudgingly vote for him. He is independent enough that independents may be more comfortable with him than Obama. Neither party has a majority so it is those swing voters and Reagan Democrats who will most likely carry the day - should be interesting.

By victor mickunas

May 7, 2008 8:23 PM | Link to this

Finally, we have heard from a defender of Hillary…they are suddenly as scarce as people who will admit they voted for Dick Nixon it would seem? And Nixon, like Bill Clinton won two presidential elections. The second Nixon win was by a landslide over George McGovern in 1972. Today McGovern, a former Hillary supporter suggested that it is time for her to drop out of the race.

By Mary

May 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Link to this

Well, just like the rest of the media, this book nook web site appears to be a shadow organization for the Obama campaign. Unfortunately, all these comments remind me of how the democrats always manage to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”. The party has too many pea brained bleeding heart liberals who fail to also engage their brains or learn from experience. Let me guess, is North Carolina a red state or a blue state? So what if Obama won in North Carolina’s primary. It is even more likely the democrats will lose the state in November in a winner take all electoral system. Also, one third of the democrats voting in North Carolina were African American. Meanwhile, as Clinton points out in a winner take all primary like the Republicans have, she would be 300 delegates ahead of Obama. As James Carville pointed out, how many Utahs equal a California or a Pennsylvania or an Ohio. Gee, who has a better record for nominating and getting their candidates elected - Republicans or Democrats? Your purely emotional comments need to morph into some sort of mathematical and political analysis and overlay the voting patterns into what is likely to happen in the general election. Obama might win the battle but the democrats are likely to lose the war. Thanks a lot you non-thinkers. Just what I want as another former independent and now a Hillary supporter - another republican administration. I will likely vote for Nader if Obama is the nominee. I agree with Romney’s comments - the presidency is not an internship. Grow up. Obama has had more money to throw around -outspending Hillary as much as four or five to one in states Hillary won anyway. He is a good liberal alright and likely to lose in the general.

By Blowfly

May 7, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Pete, Hillary, Cubs, and the Reds. Didn’t I see that the Twin’s were in first place? That can’t be right, can it? Carlos Gomez - MVP

By victor mickunas

May 7, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

I think that Pete is a little depressed today, Doctor Blowfly. Hillary is fading and his beloved Cubbies got thrashed by the Reds this afternoon. The Cubbies were shut out and shelled for 7 home runs. Double ouch!

By Blowfly

May 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

Yeah, where’s Pete when you need him? Of all the claims that Hillary has made the one that is the most outrageous is that O�bama is an �elitist.� Who is the one that vacations at Martha’s Vineyard with all the swells, made 109 million in 7 years, whose husband charges 450 thousand for one speech to raise 1.5 million for a charity, and hob knobs with wealthiest people on the planet. To be fair, one has to remember how she risked her life in Bosnia dodging sniper fire when she was there gaining foreign policy experience. And, she still made time to kill Vincent Foster. My kind of girl.

By victor mickunas

May 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Call me mystified…where are all of Hillary’s supporters? One must suppose that even though Hillary doesn’t seem to know when it is time to throw in the towel that at least her backers now understand that it is OVER.

By Nori

May 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Perhaps in some misguided way she is hoping we will equate her tenaciousness w/ how hard she will “fight for us” if elected, just as she probably hoped her war vote would paint her as a potential commander-in-chief. I have no sympathy with either delusion, but I feel the need to understand this bulldog behavior, while the Republicans slowly and surely benefit from this protracted contest. Get out, Hillary, and if you praise Obama while you do so, we might not lynch you on your way home.

By Mark from St Paul

May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I think a lot of HRC supporters woke up this morning with a bad taste in their mouth. As a Baby Boomer, I think our time has passed. I’d love to see every Boomer in Congress retired by 2012. The next generation CANNOT do a worse job of running things than we have.

By Mike

May 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Vick asks, “Where are all the Hillary defenders now??”………….Hopefully, not running down to get their McCain bumper stickers. Despite all the acrimony, false assertions, right wing narratives and Rovian tactics used during this primary; we still need a united Democratic Party in the fall. At this point all Democrats need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and remember what’s really important here. After what we have gone through for the last eight years, do we want a President in November whose stated goal is to continue the policies, doctrines and practices which have led to massive death and destruction of innocent lives, the bankrupting of the American middle class while further enriching the top echelons of corporate America. Do we want someone who will continue to sacrifice the environment and look the other way while our drinking water is poisoned by carcinogens? Do we want to elect someone who enthusiastically supports the continued expansion of our military presence in other countries and who believes we should preemptively strike and occupy other countries who have done us no harm simply because we suspect they might hold views contrary to our own? Do we want a President who agrees that the Office of President has supreme power to dismiss oversight and the checks and balances written into the Constitution and disregard legislation with signing statements, simply because he wishes to avoid the inconvenience of Congressional oversight? Democrats have to find a way to bridge the differences that have been exposed in this primary and come together to make sure we have a chance to try and reverse the catastrophic consequences which have been and will continue to be unleashed should we allow a continuation of the status quo. This isn’t just about politics or settling scores. This is about doing something which might well determine the long term viability of our republic. If the Democrats would rather continue to argue the consequences of the primary, gloat over victories or settle their personal grudges than work to defeat what is essentially a third Bush term, then they will get what they deserve. A defeat in November.

By victor mickunas

May 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Where are all the Hillary defenders now??

By Alice

May 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

What a relief I felt last night after feeling the need to throw up for the last month. Watching this primary has been excruciating as of late and the way the distaste finally left my mouth last night was almost magical. I expect there will be a few more bitter bites to swallow in the next month or so, but it was definitely a turning point and it is always simpler when both sides (McCain & Obama) have been clearly drawn.

By Blowfly

May 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

I don’t think it’s enough that she just withdraw. She needs to atone for her sins. That’s not enough either. She needs to commit suicide. That would do it, and it might actually help her in the polls. Seriously, it’s time. There’s no reason for her to stay in the race at this point other than vindictiveness. She has no interest in the VP, or being a part of an O’bama administration. So, it’s pointless to continue. She can’t win and can only hurt O’bama, which is a victory for McCain. I heard her on the radio this morning trying to spin last night as a victory. Reminds me of when the PLO was kicked out of Jordan they claimed victory from their new home in Lebanon, when they were kicked out of Lebanon they claimed victory from their new home in Tripoli, one of their members said another victory like this we will be celebrating in Fiji. I’ve said before (so, I’ll say it again). Hillary – we can’t miss you if you don’t leave!

By Mike

May 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Well, after yesterday it appears that the mainstream media might have finally come to a moment of reckoning that was mathematically obvious since March; that the race is over. They have tried and tried and tried to construct the narrative they really wanted to play out here; that there was still some way that the horse race could swing Clinton’s way. They played Rev. Wright sound bites round the clock, thinking that so much was going to swing on that. It fell flat. They fanned the “bitter” flames and panned Obama for preferring orange juice over coffee with his breakfast, thinking people would see this as some indication that Obama was an “elitist”. That didn’t fly. They mercilessly flogged the “flag pin on the lapel” in an effort to plant seeds of doubt about patriotism. Again, this “important issue” to the punditry was ignored by the voters. In spite of the media’s best efforts, the voters looked past all of that vapid, trite and irrelevant minutiae that the media embraced, and voted based on actual issues which are important to themselves. We certainly can expect no mea culpa from the corporate media, but once again they have been proven disastrously wrong and uninformed about the issues which matter to our citizenry. This has been a brutal primary in so many ways, but I do believe that when it is all said and done, that the Democrats will be united come November. McCain is setting himself up as the overseer of the continuation of Bush’s failed policies. He ran uncontested yesterday and still over 20% of Republican voters preferred someone other than him. Newt Gingrich is ringing alarm bells and warning Republicans of possible disaster in the fall if they don’t chart a new course of “real change”. But their candidate has already locked himself into the perpetuation of policies which have made Bush the most unpopular President in 70 years. Not exactly the kind of train to which one would hook their caboose if they hoped to succeed in November. Democrats know this and I don’t believe that they will allow the cuts and bruises that have been experienced during the primary to detract from the importance that this election holds for the future of the country.