I've been staying away from this thread - thinking about what's happened in this campaign isn't good for either my blood pressure or my sanity - but I just had this revelation that I had to share.  I think I've figured it out!

Here's the reason why the leaders in the Democratic party are supporting Obama: IT'S REVENGE!  They are so p****d with the Republicans (the party and the voters) for giving the country an unqualified leader for 8 years that they've decided the best revenge is to do the same thing.  It's not enough to get a Democrat into the White House - if it's a qualified Democrat (i.e. Clinton) who turns out to be a good President and a respected world leader, where's the revenge in that?   No, the more satisfying plan is to nominate and then elect a completely unqualified candidate, someone just like Bush (except a Democrat, of course).   If they can get Obama elected, they will have the joy of knowing that the Republicans are suffering through the same frustrations and global humiliations that Democrats have been going through since Bush was elected.   In a really perverse way, this makes sense (if you ignore the obvious problems with the strategy)!

Okay, any other theories?

blue16,

I agree that a different approach is warranted, but I worry that Obama is dangerously naive.  His comments on the campaign trail show that he has a frightening lack of knowledge of history.  If you don't know the history, you can't learn from it.  (See this article for some examples of Obama's misinterpreting history:  http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2008/05/27/krau27.ART_ART_05-27-08_A9_65A9O1F.html?sid=101 )

Personally I don't think it makes sense for the U.S. to refuse to sit down with the leaders of any country.  I think the Bush policy is wrong.  However, there should be a well-defined process for this.  A series of meetings, starting at lower levels with diplomats, with preconditions which must be met at each level of discussion.  The president should not go into these types of meetings without understanding in advance where there are opportunties to make inroads and without knowing what he or she wants to get out of the meeting.  Without having those prior meetings, without the process, the opportunity for failure is huge.  Clinton and McCain understand this; what I described is their policy.  Obama does not understand this.

As for why I think Obama is dishonest.... it's because he lies.  He lies about not taking campaign contributions from special interests (it's just not done directly).  He lies about running a clean campaign with no smear tactics (he just doesn't do it personally - he has his flunkies do the dirty work for him).  He lies about his positions and what he's said in the past (he's "always been against the war" - not true; he's "always been concerned about NAFTA" - not true; he's "always said that Iran is a threat" - not true.....).  He lies about what he knew about Rev. Wright's speeches (well, I hope he lies on this one.  If not, then he's a complete airhead, sitting in the pews for 20 years and not knowing how his reverend, his "spiritual advisor" / "mentor" really feels).  I also worry about Obama because, when criticized (or when caught in his lies), he shows himself to be very thin-skinned - this is not a quality that works well for a president.  One thing that Clinton is not is thin-skinned.

As for war not being the answer, well, sometimes it's not but sometimes it is.  I don't think that the Iraq war was started properly and if more due diligence had been done, perhaps it could have been avoided, although perhaps not - we'll never know.  If the process with the UN and the allies had been followed, maybe there would have been no war, or maybe there would have been a war with the support and participation of all the allies (not just the small group that joined the U.S.).  And then there's WWII.  Perhaps if war had been started earlier, perhaps if the U.S. had joined earlier, millions and millions of lives would have been saved.  In that case, war definitely was the answer, it just came too late for millions of murder victims.  What the world needs is a U.S. president who has the knowledge and wisdom to assess each situation and make whatever decision is necessary.  From everything I've seen, I don't believe that Obama has the knowledge or the wisdom.  When I see Obama, I see someone who is as scary to me as Bush was.  He will be the Democratic nominee, and he may be the president, so I sure hope I'm wrong.

The republicans seem to be so against Obama because of his lack of experience............how can that be when Bush was elected and served for 8 years in the White House as inexperienced as a president could get.......you would think that after the first 4 years he would have learned something.

I think Obama is going to be the nominee because Limbo told them to change their party and vote democrat in the state primaries so Obama would be the nominee instead of Clinton. LOL Seriously, I think many repubs think that if Obama is the nominee, McCain is a shoe-in, and if Clinton were the nominee, McCain would lose. Perhaps that's why there is the continuing of Obama "gaffes," and the over and over comments about his pastor, etc. When will people see that to put McCain in the White House will just continue the Bush policies for another 4 years. The economy has not been worse than it is now. The deficit is beyond any ever experienced before during even any Republican term in office. It will take years and years to recover from the damage that Bush has done in our country, in other countries in the Middle East, and our reputation in the eyes of other countries has been destroyed. He has wielded the "power" this country has in such a way that we are now seen as the war monger country and have committed acts of terrorism on another country, not to mention thumbing his nose at the Geneva Convention as we have tortured those arrested and held in Guantanomo prison (and others). He and Cheney should have been impeached and sentenced long before now. Maybe McClellan will shed more light on what much of the country felt was happening the past 8 years. These to men have run rampant without any regard to what the public opinion has been. Even an approval rating of less than 30% has not changed how they continue to "operate." I feel they have no regard for anyone and absolutely no respect for the American people. In return I find it absolutely impossible to have any respect for these two men. So, to vote McCain in the White House, means the continuation of Republican regime--policies that support and award big $$$ to corporations and business, and forget about the little people---those of us working our a$$es off to try to keep our heads above water and not sink into the mire of poverty. The question is how low (money-wise) can each of us afford to go? I can't keep on going with the same old same old, so I will vote for whomever is the demo nominee. 

Time magazine reports that: Recessions--like the one in 2001 and the one we might be in now--always reduce incomes. The problem since 2000 is that even when the economy was growing, the fruits of that growth landed almost exclusively in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans. According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez, 75% of all income gains from 2002 to '06 went to the tope 1%--households making more than $382,600 a year.

The gap between high and low earners has been growing since the late 1970s, and until recently, economists attributed virtually all of it to technological and demographic changes that increased the premium paid to those with advanced skills and education. If that were true, the only answer would lie along the arduous path of improving the education and skill levels of American workers. And you certainly wouldn't want to discouage people from getting an education by heavily taxing the rewards for it.

But according to Piketty and Saez, the really dramatic developments have all been at the very, ver top--not the tope 1% but the top 0.01%, who now control 5.46% of all income, the highest share on record. (The data go back to 1913.) Most of these people are well educated, but it's awfully hard to portray their riches purely as rewards for education or skill.

Many economists now believe at least two other factors have contributed to the growth in inequality: globalization and Reagan's big cuts in taxes on the rich. Even as it rewards those at the top of their fields worldwide with spectacular paydays, globalization holds down earnings for milions of Americans who compete with workers overseas--not only lower-skilled factory and phone-center workers but also engineers, lawyers and doctors."

Time goes on to report: "There are similar concerns about using the tax code to address inequlity, although Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels demonstrates in his new book, 'Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age,' that the redisributive policies of Democratic administrations since WWII succeeded in delivering better income growth to low-income and middle-income Americans than Republican administrations did." 

Time goes on to report that McCain's answer to this issue is create better job-training programs for those displaced by globalization. WTH?

What kind of jobs does he want to train these displaced workers to do? Be a CEO of a corporation so they can get part of that 1% of the highest income with the best task breaks? If all the jobs are slowly going overseas, it seems to me that there isn't any use training these displaced workers with a better job training program, if there aren't any jobs available in this country where they can go to work because the big corporations are sending all the jobs overseas--and the economy continues to tank!! Seems we need to do something with the infrastructure first, and get these corporations to keep their jobs in the good old USA so with this so-called better training McCain is proposing won't be another waste of federal $$ and add to the deficit. This is where McCain's inexperience with the economy in the US and around the world is going to "bite him in the butt" during the campaign. He needs some serious education before he gets elected.

Looks like Obama (whom some have said needs education in international issues) and McCain (needing serious economic education) should be studying like heck right now! Perhaps McCain should have Trump as one of his advisors if he gets elected. LOL

The full article is in the Time issue of May 26, 2008, pages 38-41. 

Also in Time, an exerpt from the same article about housing crisis that ties to globalization:

"The mess has also caused some economists to question why we subsidize housing so heavily in the first place. The tax deduction for home-mortgage interest alone costs the government about $80 billion a year, and most of that benefit flows to the wealthiest 16% of taxpayers, according to the Tax Foundation. It also means we're subsidizing bigger houses and home-equity loans, possibly at the expense of other investments that might deliver a bigger economic bang. Money spent on a factory, a piece of equipment or a software program can pay off in higher growth and productivity. A house just sits there." 

What would the outcry be if this benefit was eliminated? Oh, I can just imagine!! Perhaps the lower and middle classes should retain this benefit, just eliminate it for the rich? Would that mean a scaling back of the McMansions being built across the country? Would that mean that entertainers and entrepeneurs would stop building places that cost $50 million, or cause them to sell some of their many, many properties? Or would they leave and move to the Cayman Islands, and take their wealth with them? Would that mean that "these immigrants" would stop wanting to immigrate (or enter the US illegally) to attain the American Dream? Would there no longer be any American Dream to attain? 

"Ever since Reagan took office, the approach has been to get out of the way and let financial markets work their magic. Now that it's clear just how much of this is black magic........."

It seems Reagan wasn't the god most repubs profess him to be. His hands off approach has ruined more than our economy. It has created a huge problem with the mentally ill receiving proper care and treatment--leaving them to fend for themselves on the streets. The closing of facilities caused the loss of jobs for thousands of workers. Although I'm sure those "in charge" of the facilities found another job and are still benefitting from the economic riches of the top moneymakers in this country. Reagan also opposed Medicare and believed that government had no place in healthcare. He believed that Americans should have freedom to fail or succeed on their own economically. That's a nice idea, if the jobs and educational training are there. That's a nice idea, if the corporations keep their facilities open in this country to employ Americans, instead of going overseas and opening facilities that pay workers a few cents per hour to make what is then sold to us in big box stores, and that we buy and then boo-hoo because we are fighting financially to keep a roof over our heads and enough food on the table to feed our children. We are very happy to get the best deal in town on something, even if it was made overseas in a workshop where children as young as 12 (maybe even younger) slave for 12 or more hours per day; or even have parents that "sell" them to a factory owner because the parents can't afford to feed them anymore, and we don't think twice about how this was made and whom we walked over to purchase the item. And don't get me wrong, I would like to be able to buy things at a reasonable price also, and I love getting a "deal." But I also have to assum some responsibility for my purchases. I have to be realistic and decide if I can afford the guilt I will carry with me. I have on many occasions put the item I think I so desperately need, back on the shelf and leave without it, because it was made in _______ fill in the blank. It really doesn't matter if I don't buy it. If it sits on the shelf and doesn't sell, the corporation will get to write it off anyway. My decision isn't going to cause the economy to tank. No, the decision that the corporation made to go overseas will cause the economy to tank on a much larger scale than my individual non-purchase. I don't have the answers, but I also think neither does McCain or any republican running for office. So, I'll stick with the Democrats who have long been better at improving our economy than any Republican administration!!

Okay, someone please take the soapbox and....................

Well, Shokk,

We have to rely on the Democrats to "fix" what's wrong--I have no faith in the republican party if McCain is the best they can come up with. And I don't think the Repubs and/or McCain are going to help the little guys/gals in FL & MI that seem to have the DNC very confused about what is right to do--the Repubs would probably make it worse--like they did when dear brother Jeb was the governor--and all those people lost the right to vote even though they were registered and the chads. Oh the truth of that fiasco will eventually be told, and we will learn that Bush "bought" his position in the White House. Luckily he will only be planted there for a few more months. I just hate the idea that he's so young we are going to pay for him to live on and on and on, plus the secret service to protect him and the free postage. Gosh, it just ain't fair!!

So, we had Bush for 8 years, and a prospect of McCain for another four, well any Democrat is looking real good right now. 

You might be happier if you just got rid of the grass altogether, then you wouldn't have to deal with the crabby grass!! LOL

What's coming out for happy hour? Beer, wine, martini, cosmo.............

I'll join you with a "salud," to the winner goes the spoils.......or here's to a better economy--lower gas prices, a better housing market, health care for all, gay marriages legalized in 50 states, geez..........what else should I include.........are you still with me..........or am I drinking alone?

Happy Friday, and Happy Weekend to all, Repubs and Demos alike!!

I'm having breakfast with my dh, dd, and dgd tomorrow. My favorite way to spend a Saturday morning, unless it's in the local warm water pool with my dgd!!

See you all next week........can't wait to see what's posted between now and then.

I'm relinquishing the soapbox as a free for all........go for it........you know you want to!! 

These are not the words of a warmonger---so go ahead Blue- spin and tar away!

Even the Obama campaign knew that was way below the belt and walked away from that one--and the American people know too.

McCain

“I detest war…. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war….the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone….mutual respect and trust….America must be a model citizen….good stewards of our planet…. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament…. Our goal must be to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the vast majority of moderate Muslims….scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs…. For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability…. It was a toxic and explosive mixture…. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people…. I run because I believe, as strongly as I ever have, that it is within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited.”

Can't you find something positive to say about your candidate Obama, rather than hurling insults and innuendos?--------Gosh, I believe I'm channeling Amy--LOL

Grace-- I feel McCain may have been self-deprecating on his knowledge

of Economics---after all he has been in Congress many years and on many committees but, I grant you it foreign policy is his niche.

I would like to see his ticket balance by someone with a strength in that field.  But to emphasize Shokk and Shirley point its hard for conservatives

to swallow McCain------Now I think someone like Bloomberg would be a great compliment to the ticket and would address those economic issues.

But it will happen when pigs fly.  He needs the party base. Now Romney-- Well aside from not being conservative enough there is the creepiness issue.  Maybe you can help us with some suggestions.  LOL

Personally, I figure we can get McCain for four years and either he has a wonderful VP who we all fall in love with---or, we get to have Hillary a

shoo in for President in 2012 and not 2016.  Needless to say McCain's VP pick will loom large.

I dont get to come here much.  Working more and less computer time.  So when I have a chance to read, I enjoy all of your posts.  Learn a few things too cause I dont get to hear everything that is one the news.

Shokk:  Ah yes, Father Pfleiger.  I live in the Chicago area and he has been an embarrassment for years.  My husband and I call him the new Jim Jones.  I watching the news and people here in Chicago are asking he be removed as Pastor of his Church.  He is a real creepy guy.  Makes me not want to admit Im Catholic.

Shirley:  Yes, oil went down $4.00/barrel.  Yet here in Chicago it went up to $4.25/gallon for regular!  Now whats all that about?

I dont like McCain or Obama.  So I dont know what Im gonna do when it comes to voting.  If Obama had Edwards run as vice president I would probably vote for him.  Ooops!  I guess I just admitted that I must be a liberal.

Nicki

Hey Nickster I'm waving at you ..........remember you can be democrat and not liberal........and you can be republican and not conservative..........but I don't care how you classify yourself............I will just put you over in the corner with  Cherryl............that girl knows how to party like any true blooded liberal does..........ok now Grace has gone and said "gay marriage".......I am going to have to get up and limp around the living room (use to be able to pace before Taxol) ringing my hands and figure out what kind of stiff drink that Grace is going to fix (Texas for make) me........before my head explodes........need something that kills pain...........need to go and wash my eyeballs out......the only problem even when they are closed I can still see those words!........ughhhhhhhhhh.......Shokk

If you feel like getting a gander at the DNC Meeting about Fla and Michigan it is being carried live on C-span today.----But then again you may be sickened.

Not So Fast DNC

--------------------------

From Mark Halperin tonight:

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee votes to fully seat Florida and Michigan’s delegations, with each delegate getting a half vote.

Gives Clinton 24 additional delegates over Obama. “Magic number” is now 2,118.

Clinton campaign objects to the Michigan decision:

“This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our party… We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.”

Beesie--I know you were kidding, giving forth your theory, but I'm not with mine.  I absolutely believe that the Democrats will nominate Obama  because of gender bias.  I am beyond angry at this point, as I am taking this personally.  As far as I'm concenred, it's directed at me and I won't get over it, as so many of the Obama supporters are suggesting: "all those silly women will come back to the fold." No way, and I can speak for all my very left leaning friends who feel exactly as I do.  It's the last straw.

I'll never vote again for a Democrat, which may mean that if there's no left-leaning third party candidate running, that I'll never vote again.  And I've never missed a presidential election, not even when I was living out of the country, and I rarely missed a local yearly election.  If women accept this absolute insult, we deserve what happens to us from here on in.  

Anyone want to join me in my protest this year.  I plan to get as many women as possible, through an email campaign, to vote for Ralph.  If enough of us vote for him, it will be obvious it was a protest vote against Obama, not a vote for McCain.  

Sorry, all my fellow threaders on the left, but this is about gender.  And I'm not waiting, complacently, another fifty years (the time it took for women to get the vote after black men were enfranchised 1870 to 1920) to see a woman treated with respect.  I'm fighting mad! 

Shokk, I am laughing so hard at your reaction to "gay marriage".  Oops, you may need another drink, I said it again.

Anneshirley,  I understand exactly how you feel.  In fact I started to take this personally quite a while ago.  While certainly Clinton made mistakes in her campaign, as I see it, the main reasons for her loss to Obama are race and gender. 

Race has been a factor from the standpoint that there are some (maybe even many) within the Democratic party who are supporting Obama not because they think he is the better candidate, but because they think it would be good for the party to nominate an African American.  I've had people (yes, real live voting Americans) explain it to me in two different ways: Some feel that by selecting (and hopefully then electing) an African American, this will put the racism issue to bed once and for all (how naive is that?).  Others feel that it is important as a show of support for African Americans (i.e. Obama is a reasonable enough candidate and this is owed to the African American community for all that's been done to them in the past - just another form of affirmative action, I suppose).  Race has also played a big role when we consider how the media and Obama's opponents have tiptoed around the concerns about him.  Sure, he's gotten some heat lately, but relatively speaking, he's still being treated with kid gloves.  I think that many are worried that the "racist" tag will be put on them if they say anything too negative about Obama.  He knows this, and he and his campaign have played it up as best they can.

As for gender, the horrible personal attacks on Clinton (her appearance, her clothes, her voice, etc. etc.), the downplaying of her experience, the frequent and early attempts to push her out of the race, and the expectation that she should simply graciously step aside for a less qualified male, are all examples of how women are regularly treated in society and business.  Those of us 'of a certain age' have seen it throughout our careers and most of us have probably been subjected to it.  But even today, this type of treatment of women is common enough that as it's being done to Clinton, virtually nobody notices.  That's how women are treated. 

Race and gender play into this in another way too.  With the two candidates having virtually equal levels of support (Obama won early but Clinton has been dominating of late), the Democratic party clearly fear alientating their African American supporters.  They worry that these supporters will abandon the party should the nomination be "stolen" from Obama.  But the Democratic party clearly does not have the same fear about their female supporters.  Although more people have voted for Clinton than Obama, no one suggests that the nomination has been stolen from her.  Instead, the party has treated Clinton horribly, completely disrespectfully, and yet they fully expect all the women to come in line and support Obama.  Because that's what women do, right?  We fall in line and do what's expected of us.  We do the right thing. 

Anneshirley, if I had the opportunity to vote, I would certainly join you in your protest.  Actually, if I could vote, I think that I would do what Jaybird suggested - write in Clinton's name.  I hope that millions of women do.