Not in the least. The beating of Rodney King was inexcusable and racial in nature. The riots that followed were every bit as inexcusable.

If Clinton were to steal the election her motivation would be power rather than racial. If there were a riot then it wouldn’t just be liberal blacks rioting, but other liberals as well. To hope that this doesn’t happen isn’t racist, but rather a very good understanding of liberal behavior. And yes, we do believe that a large percentage of your group is immature, cultist, and irrational.

Flat screens are going down in price. If you work for a living you should be able to buy one.

Cassandra

A protest is just a riot waiting to happen. It’s basically foreplay before the real mayhem starts.

It seems as if a larger percentage of each generation simply does not care. For all the “get out the vote”, or “rock the vote” campaigns the eventual voter turnout for young people is still very low.

Young people who start out as liberals grow up, move out of their parents homes, get jobs, start paying bills and taxes, get married, and have children. As their idealized view of the world is brutally shattered by cold, hard reality they become more and more conservative. A few never grow up and become bitter, angry old liberals. As they get older they start voting more.

A peaceful protest is an exception rather than the rule. Very, very few stay peaceful for long and a peaceful anti-war protest is an oxymoron.

Cassandra

The first thing would be to offer up a worthy and qualified candidate. That hasn’t happened for the Democrats since Truman.

Cassandra

of late. As of May the race has now twice been prematurely declared finished by the mass media and by rabid Obamacrats. Each time this happens, Obamacrats gleefully stomp all over the sensibilities of HR Clinton supporters, leading with their essentially misogynist attitudes towards Hillary.

The Obama supporters themselves remind me of arguing politics with fervid G.W. Bush supporters back in 2004. Remember how charming that was? Recall how they had nothing sane to argue about but instead resorted to Swiftboating tactics against John Kerry?

Arguing with the average Obama supporter on these fray boards is essentially the same except with them it results in having to wade through years worth of blindly repeated GOP hate propaganda flung at Hillary and dealing with their outright personal hatred against successful women.

I understand that vast numbers of them, however, were, until recently, republicans who have since turned on their own party. I guess that explains a lot, from their preference for GOP talking hate points against Hillary, to their blatant misogyny, to their inability to think outside political bullet point formatting.

I begin to wonder if I care to associate with these people and share a political party. I am tired of their animalistic and childish natures. For every one or two sane Obama posters you have about a hundred that are simply foaming-at-the-brain-pan Hillary-hating fanatics.

I find myself musing over the fact that as evil as it has been for this nation to endure three quarters of a decade of republican rule, we have in fact survived so far, even though it has led to an unnecessary and ongoing war and wrecked our economy. Thinking about the brainless, howling Obama supporters I find myself asking 'how much worse can four more fears worth of republicanism be?'

I mean living under the nightmare years that was the G.W. Bush presidency was really nothing more than most of us actually expected from an iron-fisted quasi-fascist conservative-republican regime anyway, and after all, aside from being a warmonger it is generally conceded that McCain is not as bad as GW Bush.

True, true, John McCain has announced that he is going to continue to try and stack the Supreme Court with even more red-neck conservative judges and that's very, very bad indeed. We do need to take that into consideration.

I'm wondering,though, if since more than fifty percent of the Democratic Party is composed of Centrist thinking mainstream democrats, perhaps it is time that we just opted out and let the ultra extremists have the Party once and for all, just as the Right's ultra extremists took over the Republican Party more than a decade ago.

The corrupt DNC and ultra-liberal fanatics can have their Obama and we can either stay home on election day or plan ahead, switch our registrations, and vote for McCain; thus letting the wounded and critically lame Democratic Party finally die and be laid to rest.

This lays out the general feeling of many mainstream democrats at this point and our short list of choices.

Now what it does not take into account is that there is nothing terribly wrong with Obama himself. Let's face facts here. What is really making us so angry is the fact that Obamacrats are brainless fanatics on the whole and such people make our skin crawl. Then, too, we KNOW that the national press deliberately promoted Obama at the expense of Hillary Clinton . . . and . . . so . . . too . . . has . . . our . . . own . . . corrupt . . . DNC . . . officials.

We know that Hillary would have easily slipped into the presidential office on a tidal wave of loyal Democratic support, but that now between the biased news media and the corrupt DNC and these childlike Obama supporters its essentially ruined.

But still there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Obama himself, is there? Oh, he's a babe in the woods compared to Hillary and he is definitely going to screw up in office where she would have kicked ass, taken names, and gotten the bloody damn job done. But still, he IS a democrat and he is a likable fellow and he won't try stacking the Supreme Court with even more red neck conservative judges.

So there you have it fellow mainstream democrats. Are you MORE angry at the biased press and the DNC and revolting Obama supporters than you are in love with your own nation? Is your hurt and anger worth dooming this nation to four more years worth of essentially EVIL republican policies and actions?

On the face of it the answer should be that we [you and I] shall swallow our bitterness and rage over the way Hillary has been treated by the national press and her own Party and just do the right thing for our country. But then again, why do WE always have to be the responsible ones in this crippled Party of ours?

I shall have to think about this and so shall the rest of you mainstream democrats.

That was a very astute summation of my feelings, Gatewood.

Thank you!

Unfortunately there are no good options for Hillary supporters. I mean if she steps aside and pleads with us to vote for Obama then we can hold our noses and align ourselves with utterly hateful, cretinous, Obama supporters for the good of our nation, while knowing that in reality Obama was pre-selected by our national press and our corrupt DNC.

On the other hand we can pick up our marbles and chalk and just shut it down now and let the nation endure four more years worth of republican mismanagement AND see yet more red neck conservative Supreme Court judges enter office and see the war continue to drag on and on and on while we slide into an economic depression.

The thing is that this is not our Party any more. We are the mainstream members of it, yes, but it has been taken over by ultra-liberals with essentially pie-in-the-sky agendas.

What will President Obama do once he gets into office -- if Hillary steps aside? Based on the only other pie-in-the-sky democratic president we have had [Jimmy Carter] he is going to make an utter pig's ear of his presidency and inspire the Republican Party to ram their rendition of President Attila the Hun down our throats in 2012.

It's becoming increasingly tempting to just walk away from this broken and corrupt and ever more insane Party, but I still haven't made up my mind.

don't leave us just yet Gate and Merc, and especially not as part of a vendetta against some silly Obamaniacs. I think 8 years of media gripping about GOP rule was more of an effect on some peoples' attitudes towards our candidates than the two recent middle-of-the-game victory pronouncements. There are just too many people who want to see something very different about government, and Obama allows that, so please empathize with their position. They don't want the same ol' government. And that's what, fairly or unfairly, Clinton represents. Clinton's previous ace became her biggest problem.

And that's why, no matter what issues you discuss, or reasoning you put forth, you're still pulling your points from a box marked "Old government" and they're fixated on the box at the other side of the room labelled "New government." When you're gone, they root around in there too, amazed by the possibilities. The important thing is: we're both dems and we got this nice room for our boxes.

How far over the line is too far? What volume of semi-conscious slime is digestible before the gag response kicks in?

Gatewood you've said exactly what I've been thinking. I resent the MSM and the DNC leadership deciding for me who is best for the job. Obama seems like a nice enough man but he doesn't have enough of a voting record for me. His "I'm an outsider to Wahington politics" just reminds me of Carter. We do not need stagflation, the ecconomy is bad enough.

I want a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Any suggestions?

of a strong third party presence we are stuck with the clowns presented to us every four years by the two rival parties.

I can say this, Obama is less wildly liberal and fiscally irresponsible than his background suggests and McCain is more liberal and less fiscally conservative that his Party's conservatives can readily stomach.

Some sweet choices, eh?

I rather think that Hillary Clinton is smack in the middle of both men regarding her social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. The thing is that she already understands precisely how, where, when, and why her husband's ideas did and did not work and so she is actually more experienced than either McCain or Obama.

But if Hillary is being forced out of the race by the mass media and the corrupt DNC then Obama and McCain are your two choices. When neither remaining candidate is any sort of a prize then you start narrowing them down by what you can and cannot tolerate if they were to enter the office.

McCain is a maverick in the Party and so it's unlikely that many of the outright dissasterous G.W. Bush policies with be continued; but he does consider himself a conservative republican and so his inner nature will compel him to retain some of them. Which ones? What will be the consequences? No one knows.

Speaking of the unfathomable, Obama is a total unknown and it's anyone's guess as to what he actually will or won't do once he's sitting in the president's chair. He's made a ton of promises, but how he intends to pay for them or force or coax an essentially Centrist and Moderate legislative branch to go along with him is any one's guess. We can take it as a given that his ready smile and golden oratory will be as effective as water added to gasoline when used against our cynical and experienced legislative branch.

Obama's not going to intentionally mess-up -- but then we can assume that G.W. Bush did not intentionally mess up either, nor Jimmy Carter for that matter -- but we KNOW that Obama's just guessing as to what he, himself, will do. He is, on the other hand, an entirely new roll of the dice and we can be certain that his presidency will be 180 degrees opposite from G.W. Bush. Of course, full reverse is 180 degrees opposite and that seldom works out well when you are pointing towards the steerage of an entire nation, much less a super power. It's ALL theory with Obama.

So look inside yourself and decide if social liberalism [Obama] or fiscal conservatism [probably McCain] is more important to you and then hold your nose on election day and then pick one of these two [assuming Hillary IS forced from the race] while, no doubt, someone is playing on their ipod, 'Send in the Clowns'.

You got it sister!

KH,

Give me a break. You accused Clinton of running an illegal campaign and rationalized away the sexist tenor of the criticism against her. You're one of the worst offenders here--please do not call yourself a Democrat--you are the silly Obamaniac.

Don't try to make nice now just because you're afraid of losing--especially by rehashing one of Obama's silliest rhetorical strategies "old government" versus "new government."

I am not, nor will ever be, a silly Obamaniac. He better change his ridiculously false rhetorical strategy and start focusing on reality.

eom,
Are you seriously going back 6 months? Get a life. And sorry, I still think Clinton was a better choice for exactly the same reasons he's being criticized now--he's abandoning his idea of change in the name of "bi-partisanship," and it turns out the Republicans actually DIDN'T just roll over and play dead, and he's weakening his ability to enact change by over-estimating his own ability to bring politicians together. Clinton is tougher and she's already divisive, she would have told the Republicans to go suck an egg and our stimulus plan would have been 47% more effective.

In terms of what *actually* happens in American foreign policy, we'll see...but North Korea isn't exactly rolling out the red-carpet for the new administration.

advantage of it being May of 2009 I can point out that one of the consequence of having elected President Obama is that we now HAVE to borrow fifty cents from a foreign power for every one dollar we spend in order to pay for Obama's insane spending programs.

How do you like that? It would have seemed impossible to put a worse president than G.W. Bush into office and yet stupid people being self-indulgent in their politics managed to do just that with the election of Obama. He is running this nation into the ground so fast from an economic standpoint that the future is bleak indeed.

If you have to borrow fifty cents for every dollar you spend people then you are essentially bankrupt.