C'mon, Teresa, somebody needs to teach you how to troll. Essentially, all I heard was this:

Young women can fight for choice by voting for the guy who voted "present" and pretended it was strategery.

This is bullshit. You're posting it suggests either ignorance or dishonesty. Since I'm pretty sure I myself have pointed out the truth on this to you, that leaves us with one option.

Does the fact that you have to lie to yourself to justify your tantrum tell you anything about your own character?

I didn't think so.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Teresa, how did Barack Obama divide the country by race?

Teresa, do you think Kate Michelman, Planned Parenthood of IL, NARAL, and all the other pro-choicers were somehow duped by Obama with his present votes?

I still admire Hillary Clinton, and am glad she's on our team.  I'd never want to have to fight against her.  It's just this election cycle I felt we had a choice that even more captured the dreams, the needs, and the desires of our country at this moment in history than even Hillary Clinton did.

Hmmm, the choice:

Someone with a 100% rating in support of choice rights, but a strategy some may disagree with (Obama was asked to vote present by pro choice groups, when he was intending to vote pro-choice),

or

McCain, someone who outright rejects freedom of choice.

Someone who respects and loves his wife and kids, or a filanderer.

Someone who sees through the fallacy of the Iraq war, or someone who tows the line with Bush.

Someone who ran against Hillary, or someone who would be running against Hillary.

TrollInPa, I've had the "pleasure" of wtaching your posts for too long.  You've been hanging onto hope of an Obama implosion for so long, and now it's just about time that you have to accept that Clinton has lost.

But acceptance seems far away.  Your nasty post is an affront to the Party.  If your utterance above is even coherent enough to be understood.

Regardless, you accuse Obama of dividing the party by race---I almost fell off my chair listening to that crap!  

You're right, not everything is about "choice", sometimes it's about forced decision.  The McSame variety.

Your post and posture is irrational.  Emotional.  Illogical.  Vindictive.  And spiteful of your own interests if in fact you really are a Clinton supporter even.  Shame on you TeresainPa.

How can you say he divided the Party by race, just because he is black? You have some very serious issues with just that one statement sister. Being that you are a devout HRC supporter, and a card carring male hater, you are the one who has divided the party by race and sex. Time for you to take 2 valiums and lie down for a while. Oh, sorry in your neck of the woods just let a bucket fall off the barn roof and hit you in the head so you can take a little rest.

the Democratic party, why are you even here?  To stir the shit?  To run around crying about how you have been wronged?  To try to further divide the party.

How pathetic.

Yeah, right. Excuse it however you like, but head on over to Hillaryis44, then, this site is dedicated to electing, y'know... Democrats?

No problem, though, because when we win, it'll be like that book I was just reading my daughter, where the chicken didn't help make any cookies, and so she didn't get to eat any. Any chance you'd have of making an impact or having your voice heard- zilch, because you decided to sit the process out.

Have fun! Tee hee!

Kindly don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

8 + 4 = 12. That's 12 years of running this country into the ground. If you think of it as ONLY 4 more years, think again. It's 12 years total and very dangerous. I can't, and don't believe you think BO is that bad. He just plain has done nothing to make anyone feel he could possibly be as bad as Bush or McCain. Please at least consider all the smart people, newspapers and organizations who have endorsed him and that maybe he isn't as bad as you think.

this shows the person you are. You are more willing to vote for a supreme court justice that will OVERTURN Roe vs. Wade and give us conservative, anti-labor decisions then accept the fact that Obama is pretty much just like Hillary in policy.

how very "smart" of you.

The rest of us will try to save this country from the GOP and people like you.

Barack Obama is not ready for primetime -

And yet he beat Hillary Clinton.

But she was ready for prime time? Because John McCain was going to go against her with one hand tied behind his back in a vain effort to spare your feelings?

Pathetic.

to the closest recruiting station.

Support McCain and I expect you to sign up.

thanks to Alito and Roberts.  Have you noticed that Republican nominees to the supreme court tend to be in their mid 50's and in great health?  

In the next 4 years, we'll likely have two retirements (Stevens, Ginsberg), and as many as four (Scalia and Kennedy are 72).  With McCain at the helm, you'll be shaping the supreme court majority for the next 30 years.  Think about it.

What do you believe makes Barack Obama not ready for prime-time?  The guy has received more pledged delegates and superdelegates than a candidate whose spouse was President for eight years.  Do you believe the voters, the caucus-goers, and the superdelegates -- many who worked with the Clinton administration -- were somehow duped?

As for the experience question, my answer is that question isn't whether a candidate has sufficient experience -- it's whether the candidate's experiences match the needs of our time.

I myself began supporting Hillary, someone who I still very much admire and believe is a remarkable woman, because of the experience factor, but then fell in love with Obama's inspiration and his ability to look at the big picture rather than a bunch of data points.  On the day of my state's primary, I did not know for whom I would vote, and reluctantly cast my vote for Obama.  Now I am thankful that it was for the better.  I really look forward to seeing you come around for our primary winner this fall.

4 years of McCain, but about surviving 40 YEARS of a radical right wing Supreme Court majority --can you live with that ???

"Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

By that logic, it made much more sense to support the incumbent president rather than his challenger.

That's true, it is much smarter to vote for someone who is on the record supporting the continuation of the Bush policies in Iraq and on the economy, and who vowed to appoint Scalia-like judges to the Supreme Court than someone who has, basically, the same policy positions as Hillary but with less experience.

"John McCain is scary - we will all agree to that.  But this nation survived 8 years with the dumbest individual possible as POTUS, we can survive 4 years of John McCain.  Not so sure about 4 years of BO."

So you think Bush was less dangerous than Obama would be? What planet are you living on?

How is it arrogant? It's been part of every political process since electioneering began. Everyone always tells everyone else how to vote. Plus,  there's a lot not to like about McCain (not only abortion) - to repeat:

1.Left his first wife for a younger prettier girl WHILE he was still married

2. He called his second wife a cunt

3. He cheated on his second wife with a lobbyist

4. Laughed at someone calling Hillary a bitch in a townhall meeting

5. Doesn't support abortion rights.

If somebody ran on mandatory vasectomies or some other pervasive issue that affected my sex but not the other, not in the same direct way, you can be damned sure I'd care about it.

But no, we're not telling you how to vote.  We're simply reminding you that you are free to vote against self interest, it just doesn't make any damned sense.

I have similar conversation with gay Republican friends.  I  never tell them they can't vote the way that they do.  I simply tell them that I think they're out of their minds.

I don't think Clinton supporters are being told how to vote so much as people find it kind of childish to see people write about how they are not, under any circumstances going to vote for "That Guy" Obama. Like the proverbial kid taking his ball and going home because he is losing.

Aside form that, I believe it is important to keep pointing out that attitudes that preclude participating in electing Democrats, up and down ticket, run a very serious risk of perpetuating one of the most egregious, flawed foreign policies in the history of our country.

Inaction could very well win McCain the presidency. That means that all those men and women in Iraq will continue to suffer. Sitting on our hands is as good as sentencing more Americans to death. For the love of life, couldn't you please bring yourself to elect someone who will work to save thsoe lives? Hillary and Obama will do that. John McCain will not.

I implore all Democrats to think about the consequences of inaction no matter who wins the nomination.

So you're more interested in the candidate than in the issues and causes she supports?

We call that a cult of personality, don't we?

I don't agree with it, but tossed on mojo.

Sheesh, I can't stand the mojo-wars BS.

The jackass just voted against equal pay!

Thank you, Fuzzy,
The rage is real, because the sexism is real.  As a man who supports Hillary, I await BHO's speech on sexism in the US...seriously.  I pray he does the right thing.

We can't afford 4 more years of Bush, but Barack can't win without truly coming to the half of the party who vigorously support Hillary, whom he and his accolites (surrogates and the media) have trashed.

I think you make good points. The only qualm I have is with the whole "under qualified" argument. Does everyone realize that Abe Lincoln had the less political experience before he was elected prez than any other president in history and yet he is considered by many to be the greatest president in US history? And Cheney has the perfect resume, yet he's been a complete disaster as VP. Experience isn't everything, judgement is what counts. And people seem to think Obama has better judgment than Hillary (as evidenced by his opposition to Iraq while she fell hook-line-and-sinker for Bush's compelling argument).

wah, wah, wah. I hate all men!!

That is all I got from your post.
Why don't you find a website better fitting to your cause. This is a site dedicated to getting Dems elected.

a sexist I believe. Someone who will never vote for a male because he's male. Yup. That would be it.

I can't even begin to exhort all the fail in that reply, but do me a favor and tell everyone you can about all the sexism Obama engaged in and how you refuse to be a part of the process now, after eight years of Bush. I'm sure you'll convince lots of people. And it will in no way benefit Obama whatsoever to see that kind of bitterness coming from your opposition of him. Trust me.

That's about as dumb as refusing to vote for a white candidate because he's white.

Congratulations!  In your battle against sexism, you've become a sexist.

Because, when you really get down to it, it's easier to hate all of us men then just the bad ones.  Much less work.

Remarks like yours make it very hard for a man, like myself, who is aghast at how women are treated by some people, to keep a clear head.  I want women to have the same opportunities as men.

One of those opportunities is to have your head handed to you for doing something poorly, or not as well as somebody else.  She botched her campaign by not properly preparing for the caucus states when nobody had better personal experience of them than her and her husband.

But please, blame the men.  There's fewer of them by far voting in these primaries, but please blame the men.

It was obviously the men who made Hillary not spend time or much money in about ten states or so.

Our bad.

For all the reasons cited here.

I TR open advocacy of discrimination in the US. That's the 1940s conservative hogwash we fight against.

Pro-discrimination advocacy has no place here.

You're probably right that he can offset any defections or stay-at-home in November types, but you do realize that even suggesting that he can will be taken to mean that we're saying that we don't want their votes.

We want your votes.  But if you're not going to be adult about this, then we're going to have to win without you.  Don't blame us for your own choices.  Don't blame us for adapting.

While I don't like the way you just wrote off single women, there is a good point here.

When progressives started leaving the party for the greens or for the non-voting policy that the likes of Noam Chomsky advocated (on the grounds that voting legitimized the system) the triangulation and the great political migration to the right began.

Now that progressives are motivated to take back their party from within, we see the most progressive election cycle in years and the candidate who triangulated on the war and economic issues lost.

IF women just stay home, we'll see the party triangulate on issues women care about.

Perhaps like a green party, we'll get a women's party. I think that would be very bad for women.

You are manifestly correct.

By not nominating the first woman to be a credible candidate, we are obviously "taking advantage" of women.

How dare we prefer the other candidate?  Such nerve!  How dare we nominate the candidate from another historically mistreated demographic!

Your pain is worse, obviously......huh?

Do we even have to spend time debating who's had it worse?  Can't we agree that the Democratic Party exists, in large measure, to defend women and African Americans?

Get over yourself.  Almost every woman I know in the party thinks that this has been fair.

if McCain wins because her supporters stayed home. Every woman I know will cut her out of their lives if she works against the nominee.

I will not support her. I will work to see her recalled from the Senate and replaced with...another woman.

That is right.  I won't be complicit in this from the party I have voted for, believe in and gave money to for 20 years.  I won't ....

Forcing him on you?  He has all but won the nomination, not through a coup of the party leadership but by winning more votes in more delegate selection contests and by winning more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton!  This is not a fiat by the party leadership, it is a grassroots movement from within the party, just as strong and apparently a little stronger than Clinton's own movement.