Glad to be the first to recommend this!

Bless you, Destor23! Gracious, thoughtful, healing. I am sad, too, about how Hillary has betrayed her own great qualities. I hope that a dignified exit will happen, soon, so she can come back and be a great Senate majority leader!

Drank the whole glass of kool aid didn't you

Obama '08. Resistance is Futile.

Well Destor, I gotta tell you, I was pro-Hillary up through late 2006, though I thought more strongly about Edwards if he could move himself forward. I had thought Obama much an anomaly at the time, not having yet read on his positions, and (me being what you call a freethinker - more bluntly - atheist) I was little distressed by a few things he said about religion early in 2007.

Well Hillary started sounding a tad more grandiose and self-entitled than I was comfortable with, and Edwards was really hammering some of the biggest jerks in the country for their outrageous greed-at-all-costs mentality.

Then I heard some real early Obama speeches among small crowds (on CSpan) and thought - man he is trying to convey real policy, but these groups aren't all that charged up. That was the thing - he was wonkish in the early going. I had heard this 'rockstar' crap before then - we are talking a little more than a year ago. Ok - I thought, he's pretty level overall.

But Edwards sounded like he was more willing to slap a few Louisville Sluggers on the appropriate desks around DC to prompt some change.

Also, Edwards and Kucinich offered the strongest plans to move the country towards real Universal Healthcare. And though he did vote for the war, I thought he would be pretty strong on getting out, too.

Meanwhile Hillary just kept acting like she owned the White House. Edwards faltered and I also thought that Obama might excite after election action, too - which was something Edwards likely would not do as easily.

On the other hand, I thought some early callers for the Obama campaign were not as earnest as they needed to be - a few half-truths, 'he's leading in ALL the polls'. I'm like - Fuck you kid - call me when you want to have the full truth, some polls yes - but were not all stupid out here, some polls he is not the leader, sell me with some meat, not some stupid beat.

As Edwards started to fade badly I opted to throw in my lot with Obama. When Hillary started to pull some of the crap - like changing her mind about Michigan and Florida, I became incensed. She's only looked worse and worse since then.

We need to have a leader that represents the best of America, if at all possible. Sure, Obama is still a bit of a crap-shoot. But already we have Hillary parsing words. Even as she tried to make light of the Bosnia thing on Leno she had to mention 'lots of war zones'. Like come on already - just fess up that you over reached, it had nothing to do with sleep deprivation, and if it did - how would you have handled something like the Missile Crisis which took days, was high pressure and we had not the resources for intel that we have today.

She only made herself look sillier. And as some women on here like Deanie Mills has noted - real strong women know better than to whine.

Destor23 Congratulations.

Your post was thoughtfully laid out and well-articulated.

You are correct Americans do not like being mislead.

Instead of being honest Hillary chose not to. But her recent claims are all so easily refutable that it makes me wonder if she is self-destructing on purpose? She is not a stupid person. She knows better or doesn't she?

Sorry, you're full of shit, destor23, and you know it.

Thanks, Gasket, that was very insightful. I know I'm convinced now.

But on topic, nice post Destor. Though I would have to say that it's tpartier's post that most closely describes my own evolution in thinking on this primary. But either which way, I think it's becoming clear to more and more people who the best choice is.

Cheers destor, it takes a lot of guts to post like that.

On to fighting McCain!

FACT: When anyone wants to do anything there is a reason...when they don’t there’s always an excuse, more delusion and/or another lie.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t any governance be built NOT on ethnicity or gender, but...on truth, credibility and judgment...!?!?

Yipee!

Now, spread the good word. You've been there, you've seen it, you know what it looks like from the other side!

Use your powers for good!

I started familiarizing myself with Obama's positions and the trajectory of his career after his convention speech in 2004. (I admit, he piqued my interest there. ". . . and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states!")

But I wasn't decidedly in his corner in this primary until the night Hillary celebrated a "win" in Florida. That exceeded my tolerance for BS and hypocrisy. And she's done nothing but convince me since then that this was the right decision.

But not just because of the way she's conducted herself during the campaign, although that's definitely been a factor. But also because the contrast drawn between the two more and more reminded me of the web of associations in which the Clintons had entangled themselves during and since Bill's time in office. In fact, to this day my distaste for the way Hillary has run this campaign is tempered by a suspicion that the outlandish desperation and destructive obstinance we're seeing is powered by a force beyond her control, that she has mortgaged herself so severely to the special interests and allegiances behind her campaign that this kamikaze mission is at least somewhat outside her personal control.

And, finally, before Obama vs. Clinton I'd almost forgotten that options existed when it comes to the direction of the Democratic Party, that maybe it wasn't a foregone conclusion that it must remain synonymous with the DLC to be viable, that centrist appeal and progressive politics might not forevermore be mutually exclusive (crossing my fingers), and that the fate of my party and politics maybe didn't have to remain entirely at the mercy of the demographics and voting habits of Florida or Ohio.

Anyway, this looked like it was becoming a conversion-narrative thread!

I wondered if I had just misread your past posts compared to those made more recently.
Even if you didn't support Obama I would be glad that you aren't just acting like the various bullshit she has pulled never happened.

I hope you know this means you are no longer regular people. You sir, no longer count.

As a former Hillary, now Obama supporter too, I salute you for your discernment. Now, what's stopping the superdelegates?

We all live in this world and we all know that racism exist. Maybe you have had the cool black friend or the cool white buddy, that does not hide the fact the racism exist. Obama comes from a world of both and how anyone could tie him into being racist is beyond me. Like so many thousand of biracials he was too black to pass which is why he embrace the black community. Time and time again he tells you his story. His mother was white he father was black, his father left when he was 2, he moved to Indonesia when he was 7, and his grandparents assisted in his child rearing. He went to Columbia in New York graduated and later was offered a job in Chicago to help stabilize the steel workers who had just lost the jobs. Once in Chicago he ran into all types of problems and defeats. A couple of years later he went to law school(Harvard) because he was determined to learn the law so he could better help those in need. He was actually President of Harvard's Law Review(first Black man to hold this position). This meant Obama could do almost anything he wanted to do but he didn't he loaded up and headed back to Chicago thinking he could make a difference. Broke, holes in his shoes, and a car that should have been dead a long time ago but he had a dream. Maybe, he was political driven, but how do you make a change unless in the political world.
Maybe I am to big of a Obama fan to be bias but I tell you that he is the one. He is the one to unite not just the United States but the World.
In 2000, I work for the census, the Hispanic had a choice to be Black or White because there was no box for Hispanic about 98% choose White. Several years ago, I would talk to the Iranians in the store in the community and several told me they felt that Blacks were hated in America worse than they were. Something is wrong when nobody wants to be apart of the Black community and it is called racism. Something that is being practice every day. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the list goes on and on but these are popular programs that divide the United States and yet they have sponsors that kept them on the air. What a shame that in 2008 America keeps this feud going. When Reverend Wright says God dam America what is Rush and Sean doing. They are worse, they are sending their sheep on a mission and nothing is being done. The mainstream media is joking about it. People died to have the right to vote, yet these people are making a joke of it. Dan Abrams is the only person who I heard condemn the practice and Keith Olbermann. Yet, everyone condemns what someone says but not what they do. I bet if Rush and Sean were Black men they would have been fired along time ago because every a black person says something he is a racist(what a joke).

Wow. Thanks for the great post! I agree with you that the Clintons should be better than this. But... there you go. For years, many of us have been saying "there should be a MAJOR shift in how the gov't works." It saddens me that so many people, when given a chance at real change, recoil and cling to the familiar anyway.

Here's to change. And growth.

Very brave post. I wish I could convince the last few in my family.

Welcome to the fold, Destor. You now rank up there with DF, in my book.

Destor, I'm new here and I'm probably overstepping my bounds, but I want to warn you that you are just at the beginning of a journey of discovery. It is rather like the process of divorce: years from now, you will still be discovering the flaws in these people, finding out that they were never who you thought they were. You will also find out why it is that so many people dwell on Clinton's faults and flaws, greatly irritating those who still support her. There is a fascination with the now-apparent failures of both Clintons because it is a part of how we examine our own failures of judgment, a necessary step for each of us to counter and overturn our earlier perspectives.

Right now, you still believe it is the Clintons who have changed. You still cling to the belief they were superior beings, only recently seduced by the lure of power. Trust me, eventually you will realize that the faith you placed in them was never warranted. They created a public relations myth and so many of us bought into it. But think back, what was the basis of this faith other than their own word? Clinton caved on important issues as soon as he became president, and continued compromising principles and letting us down throughout his presidency. Are these two people really so far above normal intelligence, enough so that each partner should have the opportunity, the destiny to lead this country? I almost bought that, until the first time I saw one of them in a non-pr event (and all presidential appearances are pr events), watching Hillary at a Senate hearing soon after she was elected and realizing that she was as mundane as any other politician and that she did. not. know. what she was talking about. Does Hillary really care about healthcare issues and child welfare, or is that just her hook? It sure seems to me that her vaunted healthcare plan does quite a lot to underwrite private industry, rather than providing a path to a real national system.

It's taken me years, but I'm finally asking myself, "Who are they really? What do I know about them that wasn't 'sold' to me?" I'm embarrassed by what now seems the obvious answer. Clinton's presidency was a relatively successful period; it wasn't a golden age. But even when I was willing to believe his wife was equally qualified, I never embraced the concept of having a royal family. They were over and done with for me before Hillary's campaign began.

I can accept and even expect that Obama will let us down in many ways, both as a candidate and as president. For now, I'm impressed by his intelligence, glad that he seems to be willing to recognize his own faults, probably foolishly hopeful in thinking his advisors are a better quality than those selected by Hillary. I know there will be disappointments, and I will be criticizing him too; I can live with that. Who knows, he might not let me down - I still like Jimmy Carter. And I can always take solace in knowing that no matter how duped I have been by a former hero, I will never have to feel the level of shame and (ir)responsibility felt by those who supported our current president.

Destor as long as it had rum in it who could complain? Go forth and multiply.

Destor,
I don't think it's fair to say that you were previously wrong. I was a fence sitter before I decided to support Obama, in part because I thought there was a lot to admire in Hillary Clinton. When she ran for senator and campaigned in every county in New York State, I thought that showed respect for the people of NY, and a conviction that everyone in the state mattered, not just the wealthy urbanites.

Unfortunately, Hillary has shown herself to be unworthy of that admiration. I can cite her insistence that numerous states "don't matter" (unless of course it turns out that they do matter), her utter lack of integrity with respect to matters of truth, and numerous other failings, but I only have one lifetime, and don't want to spend all of it talking about Hillary.

What I do think is noteworthy is that had Hillary not been up against an incredible candidate like Barack Obama, many of us would never have known what she was really like until (perhaps) the general election. I'm certainly not claiming that Obama is perfect, but I do believe that he's our best chance in our quest to reclaim our country.

Welcome to the light side!

Plenty of room on the bandwagon. You know you're thinkin' about it L'Ville! Come on, all the cool kids are doing it...

Supporting Obama? Good choice.
But an Obamanoid?

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Welcome to the club. Toyota will be dropping off a brand new Prius this afternoon.

"Like Sting after he left The Police and started singing about Desert Roses, Hillary is somebody who once inspired me and who once spoke to me, but who doesn't make sense to me any more"

As someone who was a huge Police fan in high school, then heard Sting's adult contemporary stuff the moment I graduated, this resonates strongly with me.

Welcome to the club. And we know you're not joining because all the cool kids are doing it, you're joining because you realize that Clinton is as cool as Sting.

Destor,

Again you are wise indeed to look at the facts with a critical eye. I am wondering just how Clinton supporters can fall for the "I want the all the votes counted" line, then hear her stance on pledged delegates. It boggles the mind. Hillary treats her supporters as morons who won't notice.

Please, Hillary supporters, explain this one to me: From Hillary's own lips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xiiwWQSy8Q

What did the youtube thing say? I can't view it from here.....

Destor:

I remain a loyal and committed Clinton supporter, but I have stated on here over and over again that I will support Senator Obama with vigor if he is the nominee. As I think you know, I have spent my professional career representing labor unions, and I know first hand the difference between the GOP and Democratic Party when it comes to the labor movement. I hardly need "enthusiastic" Obama supporters at the TPM Cafe to explain to me the real and substantive differences between Democrats and Republicans.

I respect your decision and I surely respect you, but one thing I will not do is announce, if it comes to that, my support for Senator Obama at the TPM Cafe. My brothers and sisters on here in the progressive movement have, at least temporarily, wounded me and wounded me hard. I am no saint, far from it (on my second marriage, etc.), but I have always been proud of the decisions I have made professionally and I have passed up a far better standard of living to work on this side of the fence, for the benefit of American working people. And I wouldn't trade what I have done for anything.

Like you, I have been a regular at the Cafe for quite awhile now, but unlike you apparently, I feel completely alienated by my brothers and sisters at this site. Personally I would sooner apologize to Foxnews junkies for my support for Senator Clinton than I would to the great swath of posters ub this community. (And that would only be if I was sorry for my support, which I'm not; I am committed to Hillary Clinton through the convention under current circumstances.)

For awhile, I tried to blame the new system and the newcomers for the venom levied at Hillary Clinton. But yesterday I was put over the edge, when I read Dan K's comments on MJ's thread, in which he called Hillary a bitch and an Amazon and something akin to being a warmonger. Dan K, a respected long-time poster, gets barely a slap on the wrist for such swine-like sexist trash (from tlees2 to his or her credit).

In the same thread, DanK exclaims, without challenge, that Hillary is where she is because of her "uterus", and in doing so in my genuine progressive view of the world, is no different than Geraldine Ferraro at her worst. The only difference between the two is that Geraldine Ferraro has a multi-decade record of supporting civil rights for African Americans and women.

So, destor, I respect you for your decision, but I would be lying if I told you that the way you have come out for Obama does not bother me. I don't think that most posters here deserve your apologies for supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't put folks like Genghis in this category, but there are too many folks on here whom I don't respect because of the hatred they have tossed at the Clintons.

I have nothing against supporting Obama. I will repeat again, because this is my nickel, that I am so proud of my three voting age children for their support of and enthusiasm for Obama. My 18-year old has volunteered his time and is mobilizing his peers to help elect the good Senator from Illinois. His article about why he supports Senator Obama has been written and will be featured in the school paper. But my kids and the supporters of Obama in my real world existence would never challenge my bona fides as a progressive because I support Hillary Clinton. In the real world, life is not so linear.

I realize Hillary is a politician, but the difference I have with so many people on here is that I don't believe that Obama is anything other than a politician too. I don't believe he is different than Hillary in this respect, and and but I don't hold it against him. I do question challenge those who claim he is something other than a politician. Even on Iraq, which seems to have put you over to his column, he is nothing but political. Remember, he promises that all troops are out in 16 months, but last week, with nary a peep from the MSM, and nothing from Clinton-ridiculer Josh Marshall, about Obama's advisor who predicted that Obama will have more than 50 thousand combat troops in Iraq through 2010. Again, I don't care, except to the extent I am told by folks, and now including you, that somehow Senator Obama is different than Hillary Clinton. I don't buy it, but again I promise not to hold it against him.

In any event, there are good people supporting Senator Obama destor, and are now one of them. Please don't forget that you were the same person, a good one, when you supported HRC.

In solidarity,

Bruce

No Birkenstocks! I'm still a jet flyin' limo ridin' wheelin' dealing kiss stealin' designer shoe wearin' son of a gun!

Destor, Excellent post, as always. I was once a Hillary supporter, and this time last year, I was looking forward to casting a vote for the first woman president. I have always been opposed to the war, though, and my support for her was always with reservations. It seems like it would have been so easy for her to have claimed the high ground if she would have simply addressed her war vote. A lot of senators and congressmen based their vote on their faith in intelligence that turned out to be faulty. I've never understood, once that faulty intelligence was debunked, why Hillary and others didn't stand up and completely denounce Bush and the war, and take the lead in the issue. But she, like others, failed to claim the high ground, failed to make a stand on principles and judgement. I would still vote for her over McCain any day, but I'm glad I have the option of voting for someone who stood up for what was right from the beginning.

destor,

I don't know if you'll read this far down, but I just wanted to add my own kudos--not for supporting "my candidate," but for having the integrity and courage of keeping an open mind and being willing to change it. It's admirable.

No Birkenstocks! I'm still a jet flyin' limo ridin' wheelin' dealing kiss stealin' designer shoe wearin' son of a gun!

O baby! My kind of liberal.

:)

Are you sure you are ready to change sides? All of the reputable radio psychics are predicting Hillary is going to win the presidency........

I just have to wonder, destor23, if, after reading all of this smug and condescending back patting over your "conversion," you really feel better about fitting into the echo chamber. This is the first time I've realized I actually might be dealing with a cult.

Well put destor.

I had to re-make my choice when Edwards dropped out. I decided narrowly to support Obama simply becase I thought he would be less beholden to entrenched power in Washington. That usually translates into lack of ability to get things done, a la Carter. In Obama's case I think he's a good enough communicator that if elected he'll be able to make his case directly to the people.

A lot of the things that Clinton has said and done over the last two months have cemented my view. I wish she had made it tougher on me.

Bruce, you know I respect you and will continue to do so long after this campaign is over.

This Dem in no way *wants* to see Florida and Michigan Democrats not represented at the convention. Why would any Democrat want that to result? I think the situation as it has unfolded is terrible and have been among the many who has wanted to see a way found to seat delegates from both states, preferably through a do-over where both candidates operate under the same understanding of the rules and campaign there.

But one of the major reasons why seating delegations from MI and FL would strike me as wrong is that the candidates did not campaign there. They operated under the quite reasonable expectation that the DNC's position on this would hold. And so there really was no Michigan-specific or Florida-specific campaign. What do the results in either state tell us about what Democrats in those states want?

You seek to analogize Florida and Michigan to New Hampshire. But would you say that the candidates did not campaign in New Hampshire? Is there any good reason to doubt that the returns there reflect the preferences of the New Hampshirites who showed up at the polls?

A friend of mine from Florida tells me the situation there is that the Republicans, who control the legislature as well as the Governor's office, for partisan political reasons deliberately set the primary date such that it would create the very kind of issue it seems to be creating. He says that the legislature has the sole power to set the primary date so there was nothing the state Democratic party could have done to prevent that from happening.

If that is an accurate account--and I've not so far sought to verify it--I am more than a little sympathetic.

However, as I told him, the worst outcome of the Florida primary process would be to let the Republicans succeed in what they are trying to do, which is divide our party.

Trying to put myself in his place, I told him that if the Republicans pulled that in my state of Virginia, I'd be raising hell with my state reps and the governor and trying to get the media to do their f'ing jobs and call out the Republicans for their scumbag tactics that should cause even some of their more ethically challenged supporters to blush. This is supposed to be the democratic process, after all, and if one political party is using the setting of primary dates for transparent partisan political reasons they should be blasted in the media. Does anyone doubt if the Dems tried to pull such a stunt that Fox would be 24/7 all over this?

Of course we all want to participate and make our voices heard. If and where partisan politics is allowed to interfere with what should be a nonpartisan vote administration matter, a fix has to be found. But as I told my friend, in the event there turns out to be no short-term fix for this problem this time around, the last freakin' thing I would do is direct my anger at either of the two campaigns on our side instead of where it properly belongs. I mean, just how dumb and counterproductive would that be?

I'd love for Hillary to devote her life to service the way Bill has, to run Children's Defense Fund or something similar.

I'd love for Hillary to stay in the Senate. Sure, she could do a lot of good running an NGO, but nowhere near what she can do in the federal legislature. On many issues, I think she's done well there. She's intelligent, capable, and usually informed. Yes, her ambition has clouded her judgement and fatally damaged her presidential campaign. But continuing to serve in this capacity is an opportunity to learn from those mistakes and redeem herself. And also for her egregious failures in voting to authorize force, and to pass the Patriot Act.

Hey, I'm Catholic, I'm supposed to believe in redemption.

You have the metaphor backwards.

"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser--period."

The source is Stewie Ungar, three time world champion of poker and a notoriously bad loser, someone with not a single redeeming quality and a waster of his talents who died shooting coke laced cut with something poisonous (I think).

Hey,

If any American product was even remotely designed as well and/or even remotely performed as well as a Prius, I would've bought it six months ago when I got my Prius, but alas...

Show me an American made car that delivers 46 miles per gallon (yes, really 46 mpg combined city and highway); and that carries as much stuff as most SUVs; and that cruises effortlessly at 85 mph (just ask Al Gore jr. at 110 mph) and I would've diverted my $30K elsewhere.

American auto manufacturers wasted the last ten years building muscle cars and oversized SUVs when the writing was ALL OVER THE WALL. Blame Bush for his assinine tax credits for them, but mostly blame the US auto industry, now crumbling before our eyes, with nothing equivalent to sell.

destor23,
Thank you for freely exercising your freedom of expression. Then, now & tomorrow.
Every vote & state is precious. Welcome aboard!

Deservedly the most popular post since I have been around this site. Thank you for it.

"I've been saying, over and over, that you have to remember how easy the first Gulf War was and how people like Al Gore, who opposed it because they feared a quagmire, had to explain themselves later, and how they were politically hobbled by their opposition..."

I hope Destor has learned not to make such vague and utterly inappropriate analogies as they inevitably lead to ill informed decisions and choices. While I'm glad Destor is finally coming around, this is also evidence of what I see as Destor's chronically uninformed and muddied thought process. Whether he'll remain behind the curve, or whether he now has incentive to think through issue more clearly, in the first place, when there's still a timely oppurtunity to do so, is another question.

Why any equivalence between the GWI and the 2003 Iraqi Occupation are utterly false:

The first Gulf War was explicitly a conventional seek and detroy military mission against Iraqi armor and occupation forces in Kuwait, which totally different from the invasion and occupation of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein which would invariably lead to us becoming the occupying power, asymmetric warfare, and civil war.

GWI's major air campaign lasted only a few weeks. The US major armored invasion force, Operation Desert Storm, occupied much of Kuwait and Iraq in about a week.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/DesertStormMap_v2.svg

Our superior airpower utterly demolished Iraq's armor and infantry deployment into Kuwait. Literally, we were launching missiles and artillery designed to destroy tanks, troop carriers, radar installations, etc. Our superior helicopters, tanks, etc easilly won the few firefights that occurred. The coalition deployed 540,000 troops. Total coalition casualties were about 200 dead includign from the UK, France, and Arab countries.

Our vastly superior hardware and numbers simply overwhelmed Iraq's outdated hardware and dispirited troops.

However, HW Bush explicitly stopped, and did NOT invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. To do so would inevitably spark civil war, require US occupation, pit our forces against various factions in Iraq including many civilians, and invite asymmetrical warfare. Which largely negates our hardware advantage, and would predictably create a quagmire like Vietnam. That is what we presently find ourselves in.

To equate opposition to GWI as similar to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, politically, militarily, or otherwise, is just plain ignorant and false.

There is no reasonable equivalence between GWI, a conventional war with support of a broad coalition of allies, and the 2003 occupation of Iraq, an asymmetric war without much support of allies pitting us against and insurgency and in the midst of a civil war.