So now what?

[balantz]

I guess it is required of us to get in line now?

[ClericJohnPreston]

1. Alert

oops...wrong forum..... ;)

[waiting for hope]

3. What happened back there?

I thought we were still allowed to offer constructive criticism....

As usual, we will continue to permit constructive criticism of the Democratic nominee and of other Democratic candidates and officeholders. We will also continue to permit sincere, non-disruptive expressions of ambivalence toward the nominee. But we will not permit politically motivated attacks designed to tear down the Democratic presidential nominee.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/239

I guess it's going to be a matter of interpretation.
:shrug:

[ClericJohnPreston]

29. Shame

about that other thread. Edwards,Edwards....I can see no reason for it being locked, Edwards, Edwards. I thought we were in a haven for us thinking Edawrds people.

Am I in the right forum?

Just checking.

Remember, we have a few helpful former supporters, cough cough, who like to come here to make sure we are conforming lemmings. Edwards, Edwards.

[balantz]

31. Edwards

Edwards Edwards It's sure nice to be able to come here and discuss important issues like free thinking Democrats Edwards Edwards Edwards

[balantz]

32. Edwards

Edwards Edwards Edwards I'm glad we're not expected to fall in line like a bunch of obedient sheeple Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards You know what I mean? Edwards Edwards

[maryf]

33. Edwards not Edwards

Like talking freely about presidential contenders like Edwards but not Edwards and not really at all like Edwards and wishing the not Edwards were more like Edwards but he really doesn't know what he is anyway.

[balantz]

34. Edwards

Edwards Yes, exactly! Edwards Edwards

[maryf]

35. You do mean Edwards Edwards

but we would like to be talking a little bit about not Edwards Edwards, and hope the not Edwards isn't so bad he won't keep us from talking about Edwards anything else for that matter! and maybe restore freedom of speech! but thats dreaming like Kucinich(Edwards Edwards)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[waiting for hope]

2. I refuse to be a lemming -

I will, however, check the Dem ticket box on my ballot in November because McSame is not worth it. There are still six months between now and November - anything could happen.

I just hope they keep this forum up - it's become a haven for me. I would though get in line for ice cream - it's getting hot here!



Yummy!

[netania99]

5. A "lurker" says thank you.

I just wanted to thank all of you for keeping up this little island of sanity. I'm an Edwards supporter who's been shy about posting (as you can see from my low post number) but I just want to let you all know that I've really appreciated the intelligent conversations in this forum and I hope that the conversation continues.

Big hug,
Netania

[Two Americas]

7. hi Netania

Thanks for checking in. Our days may be numbered, we shall see.

[Andrea]

10. Perhaps we'll need to agree on another meeting place in the

event of an emergency evacuation?

[unc70]

15. I post under the same name, so I should be easy to find

While I have been called a racist, a troll, been called out in posts, warned that I was being watched and overdue for a tombstone, and told that they were alerting on me -- I am still here, while some of them are not.

[Two Americas]

49. delete

...

[Andrea]

50. Thanks, Mike

Same here. You have a lot to offer, even if I only agree with about 90% of it. :D

I don't know if we need to do much more, but it seems to me at this point we need a place to discuss things with fewer limitations. If you are still able and willing, which it seems you are, I think we need to start migrating discussion over there, just to make sure free discussion continues to be possible.

[Two Americas]

52. sorry

Meant to send a PM. :silly:

[Andrea]

54. That's okay

It shows people we really are transparant (as opposed to faking it). :toast:

[balantz]

8. Thanks for chiming in Netania.

The more the merrier. Though, as TA points out, us leftists may be shut out soon.

[balantz]

6. Wow!

The decapitations are happening quite rapidly now.

It's just amazing to watch.

[Andrea]

11. Where are you seeing it?

Anyone we know?

[balantz]

20. In saracat's post above there is a link to a thread.

When I got there it was already scrubbed.

[Andrea]

24. Oh, I saw that

I thought you meant people being TSed.

[Critters2]

9. I'll be a good little soldier.

I'm of Prussian descent--it comes easy to me. But I still wish it were John.

[Andrea]

12. I think maybe we didn't talk enough about Edwards in that thread?

That's the only thing I could figure as the locking post said "wrong forum".

[maryf]

17. I said maybe Edwards would be picked as vp

this is rotten. You folks are great. Maybe if we put Edwards name in the subject heading...or use it as a pseudonym for someone else? "Edwards" is just a vain mouthpiece for the status quo??

[unc70]

13. I will continue to factcheck RW attack points and their implications

Before Iowa, Edwards often polled better against Repubs than did Clinton or Obama. So they quit including him in the GE matchups.

All through 2007, every real or imagined negative on Edwards, no matter how small or how truthful, was quickly picked up by AP and reported in nearly ever outlet nationally, and discussed non-stop.

Contrast that with how AP and others have covered Obama. For example, take the April 27 Los Angeles Times article about Obama filing misleading IL disclosure forms which listed every client of his entire law firm to disguise that he was receiving $8000/month from a single backer and contributor who happened to have business before the state. This "retainer" from Robert Blackwell was Obama's only source of income for over a year, except for his part-time salary as a state senator. I was surprised that, except for brief mentions at TPM, Harpers, and a few others, there was absolutely no further coverage by the MSM. Various RW sites picked up on it and showed up with Google, although the same search now returns only a fraction of the number from a couple of weeks ago. News.Google finds almost no references -- try "robert blackwell" Obama.

Is some group keeping the lid on negative stories on Obama now so they can be used against him in the GE? Is there some other explanation? Since this tactic worked well in 2000 and 2004, I expect to see it again this year and fear it might work again.

[Andrea]

14. It's really shocking how this has been allowed to go on.

I had not heard anything about the financial disclosure statements.

You're right about JRE - every possible negative, even if untrue, was carried everywhere. Remember the $400 haircut? He paid the guy that much because he had kept him waiting (candidates are always behind schedule) and the guy had missed other clients and therefore lost money.

You are also correct that he polled the best against the Rs. He was the only one that consistently beat all the Republican candidates in head to heads. I think we will probably see a lot of these negative stories on Obama come out now - or perhaps as Balantz speculated elsewhere, they will wait until after the convention when we are stuck.

[unc70]

16. Agree completely, fear the attacks coming when it is too late

Check my posts and journal for some examples of what is already in the whisper campaign. Too many of these have at-least some basis and will define him to voters some like:

Obama hides who he really is; Red and Black, not the Red, White, and Blue.

[iris5426]

18. I worry that you're right

Where the negatives were covered until people were hearing them in their sleep for Edwards, they are squelched and/or nonexistent for Obama...they're going to have to come out at some point I think, I just wonder when...

[balantz]

19. All I can figure is

he is either going to be torn apart before the GE, or he is the PTB selection to either be POTUS and allow their agenda to be carried out, or to be made politically innefective later down the road.

There's three options I can see.

Of course there is a fourth option I see, which many seem to believe, that he is truly a progressive and is running a more conservative platform just to get elected POTUS. I don't buy it.

[Andrea]

25. That fourth option doesn't hold water in my opinion

Generally, you run to the left in the primaries and to the center in the general. If anything, he's likely to be even more conservative. There is another option: the PTB don't intend to allow an election to be held at all. I don't say I believe that, but it's possible.

[balantz]

28. Oh yeah. How could I forget that one?! n/t

[maryf]

30. Executive orders August 2007

In the event of a natural or man made catastrophe the president can declare marshall law (without congress) nobody paid attention.

[Andrea]

36. "man made catastrophe"

And I think we all know which man it will be who will make the disaster.

[maryf]

37. Maybe more than one man

and they'll be "Iranians" with a nuclear warhead they made last week...although box-cutters have been proven to be pretty damn effective!

[Andrea]

38. Yep, box cutters work

More than one man, maybe Iranians, but the brains behind the operation will not be Iranian.

[maryf]

39. And not really Iranians at all

and if Congress would go for accountability like they are constitutionally bound to do, we would kill the precedence that would allow someone who is not EDWARDS continue along the same lines, not that not EDWARDS is part of that same paradigm.

[Andrea]

41. Exactly

And that is the most important thing that could be done - protect the Constitution. So far, they have made no moves to protect it. I desperately hope that starting on 01/21/09, defending the Constitution will once again be not only acceptaqble, but priority #1.

[maryf]

61. me too.

[balantz]

21. It's just amazing

watching this thing go down.

[Greylyn58]

22. It truly is.

I may have to stay away until this is over because now there is a huge banner congratulating Obama as the nominee and I just don't know if I can take any more.

It will be interesting to see how all the 'Bots react if he is indeed elected and begins to turn his back on them.

[balantz]

23. I have a feeling that things will get weirder and weirder now. n/t

[Andrea]

26. Me, too n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Yeah I will vote for him, I will vote a straight Dem ticket like I always do, but I don't like him!

I never will!

[AndyA]

40. The best reason to vote for Obama is to keep McSame out of the White House.

And Barack did say he would have his AG look into the activities of the Bush Administration, and if anything illegal happened, he would go after them because no one is above the law.

That's good enough for me. But no, I don't think he's the best person for President.

Hopefully, there will be room for John Edwards - he would make a great AG, and since John endorsed him, it would seem they've come to some sort of an agreement on their differences.

Elizabeth Edwards has been quiet lately. I know she liked Hillary's health plan best, but she specifically stated that it wasn't an endorsement, she just thought Hill had the best health plan. It will be interesting to see what Elizabeth has to say, if anything, because I value her opinion and have a lot of respect and admiration for her.

If Barack surrounds himself with top notch people, it might not be so bad as long as he listens to them and doesn't go off half cocked and arrogant like Bush has.

John Edwards could easily fit in several spots in the next Dem administration, I just hope others recognize this as well. John is a huge asset for the Democrats, they need to utilize him.

[Andrea]

42. Whoever becomes the next AG, I hope s/he has a free hand.

I was shocked when Obama said Bush's activities didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

[balantz]

43. Now we know why he is allowed to be where he is.

I remember something about him saying that. Do you have a source I can read? I'd like to pass that one to a few friends.

[Andrea]

44. I think I can find it, but it might take a little while.

Here's something else strange.

This is a quote from Wikipedia's article on David Axlerod (Obama's campaign manager):

"In 2004, Axelrod worked for the presidential campaign of John Edwards. During the campaign, he lost responsibility for making ads, but continued as the campaign's spokesman. Commenting on Edwards' failed 2004 presidential campaign, Axelrod has commented "I have a whole lot of respect for John, but at some point the candidate has to close the deal and — I can’t tell you why — that never happened with John."<6> <7>

Who else has Axelrod worked with that essentially failed to "close the deal"? Hmm...it was really recent. Guy kept saying he'd won when he hadn't yet, started with an O, who was it again? Not Edwards.

Actually the whole Axelrod article is interesting. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod_%28political_consultant%29

[balantz]

45. Thanks Andrea.

I don't trust any of them anymore. Politics is really a nasty business. I look at the world and see all of these politicians and corporations in bed together and sigh. How will we all survive?

[Andrea]

57. Here are a couple links

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm?csp=34

These are basically the same article in two different places. It came from the AP.

[balantz]

58. Thanks Andrea n/t

[waiting for hope]

46. I don't think John could be

really effective as AG since he has become such a high profile persona. That being said, I would love for him to go the way of Gore - just think of what he could accomplished if his hands were not tied by politics. I think the system has wronged him terribly because his campaign was about challenging the system.

[Two Americas]

47. check out the language

Look at the language some people are using - "will no longer be tolerated" and "lockdown" and "will not be permitted" - and those are the mildest ones.

[balantz]

48. That's what gets me.

It is very disturbing, especially in the wake of this current administration.

[Andrea]

51. Yes, yes, yes

to this and what TA says just above you. People should be sensitive about using such language in this country - especially now.

[Two Americas]

53. wondering about the significance of that

How is it that so many "liberals" are morphing into authoritarians? Is there some sort of undercurrent that has nothing to do with McCain versus Obama?

[Andrea]

55. I'm not sure

Could it be a kind of mal-formed rebellion against the last eight years?

[balantz]

56. Perhaps that and other things.

It is an important phenomenon to investigate.

[Two Americas]

59. here is the thing

In Germany in the 30's, almost half of the population was socialist or communist. While the Nazi party did kill off some of them, most were not killed or imprisoned. What happened to them? They embraced fascism, that is what happened to them. what about the "ideology" and "beliefs" and such that all of those people held? They were not what mattered, after all. What I see happening now is the supposed opposition is being gradually co-opted into the authoritarian and tyrannical movement. The "differences" are all a matter of style and rhetoric - like dry leaves tossed on a raging ocean of authoritarianism. We can call some of those leaves "Republican" and some of them "Democratic," but they have no effect on the tide that will sweep over the country.

[Andrea]

60. Very well expressed.

This is a huge concern of mine. You've expressed it most cogently elsewhere as well. If our loyalty is not to principles, if we don't require leaders to earn our support through their own loyalty to those principles, what does our association mean?

[Two Americas]

62. kick

Kicked and saved.