Eppster ---- it is a secret ballot - you know in your heart you're right with Sen McCain. You don't have to tell us or rat yourself out - just pull that level and feel good about America :) I am selling tickets for the Codington County Lincoln Day Dinner - do you want me to put you on the list?

Judicial Nominations is why I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, rather than not voting at all. No, there are other reasons also. I shudder to think what our nation (and maybe even our world) will be like if the ultra-liberal Mancrush or Queen Pantsuit are elected.

"if working people, those who are discriminated against, and those who love the Bill of Rights want any chance at all in the nation’s federal courts, we can’t have another four years of Republican judicial nominations."

Sad... you really believe that.

If we elect someone other than Skippy's pick the sky will fall.

Lee:
Unless pheasant under glass that you shot and prepared yourself is on the menu, I'll take a pass. Plus, if I went and told everyone there I was your friend you'd have not shot of getting the GOP nomination for governor. I'll do you a favor and stay in Harrisburg. But thanks for the offer.

Alter:
Yes, I really do believe it. Come practice law in my shoes for a week and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Todd

Gee, Todd.

Man Crush and Pantsuit. Who's not to be offended? Maybe when we get out of junior high we grow up and go to law school or something... .

Hmm, what's that new group, Equality Now SD or something? Where do we sign up? Or not.

Nose-holding all around, I guess.

And the "Sure, its like two centuries over due for a woman but gee, just not THAT one" gets old and disingenuous after, well, two centuries.

<http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/>

If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

[.... .]
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

[... .]

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Laura:
Tell me that you really like Hillary. I bet you don't. No one does. People "like" her because of the power she has or may someday hold, not because she has any natural leadership skills or charisma. There are plenty of women politicians that I like and support; she just doesn't happen to be one of them.
I'm just sayin.
Todd

Laura, and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. If the rules had been different, the Obama team would have designed the campaign strategy differently.

I'm ok with either Barack or Hillary, but I have lost a lot of respect for the Clinton team in this primary. Not enough to vote for McCain, but enough to solidify my early mild support for Obama.

He's just better at this than she is.

And I'm just sayin', regardless of who anyone is for, that there are deep issues in this hot political cycle to take on, for one, and none of them seem to rise to a level beyond ManCrushes and Pantsuits in the blogosphere, and, two, which apparently went over your heads, there's a deep irony in the director of a nonprofit seeking Equality and using blogspace for ManCrushes and Pantsuits.

Bill, I think there's many, many stories and strategies behind the media most are getting and, as I've said before, the nastiest of what goes on isn't what you pick up in the headlines (especially as blogs make up their own for stories that don't fit the headlines one whit) but in the deeper machinations of campaigns and political parties. In that department I truly don't believe Obama's campaign has anything angelic above the Clinton camp.

Believe it or not I've not thrown in my chips for either but I do know Clinton is far and above John McCain. How any Democrat could cast a knee-jerk vote, just throw it away, after the last 8 years we've been through just makes me a bit frustrated and sad.

Lastly, this one's for you, Todd. Equality Now.

<http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2008/04/hillary_makes_an_important_sta.php>

WHEN YOU GOING TO TAKE ME OUT TO LUNCH MR EPP THE COMMANDER WANTS TO GO TO.JUST LEAVE DUSTY AND THE PUC HOME I DON'T THIMK I COULD TAKE BEING AROUND THEM AS ALWAYS MIKE.

"I truly don't believe Obama's campaign has anything angelic..."

Laura, of course he does. Omama is clear headed, single minded, less jaded, and more idealistic.

Inspired, actually.

Remember when that happened to you the first time?

I say let's elect someone like that for a change.

However he has managed it, let's not pass it up. He's brought a significant offering to the table. We don't get to vote for such a clearly visioned future very often.

So when get the chance, why not go for it?

I'm just sayin'

Laura:

You know you want to leave the Pantsuit for the Man Crush. All the cool kids have already done so. You'll feel much better about yourself and much less crabby.

I'm just sayin'.

Todd

The problem with Hillary is that she could tell you the sky is blue and you'd have to stick your head outside to check. She's just not trustworthy and I think she feels she's entitled to the Presidency and not really sincere in her motives.

Sorry, but I like McCain. Obama would be okay, too, but not the Pantsuit.

"I can’t remember anyone bashing other candidates like I’ve heard in this election among fellow Democrats....frankly, I blame Hillary Clinton for most of this. She has made crippling attacks on Sen. Barack Obama that Sen. John McCain can use verbatim in the fall. She has had a snobby attitude of entitlement. And many of us think she might well try and steal the nomination from Obama. Plus, she’s just plain unlikeable."

I think it's interesting that you (as an Obama supporter) have written many, many posts attacking Clinton (with the constant pantsuit references, among other things), and then blame Clinton for all this "divisiveness."

I think that posts like this one are equally to blame for this "divisiveness" (a perception I think is much more an invention of CNN and FOX than reflective of actual trends among Democrats), nevermind what the candidates say about Obama.

I also think it's interesting that you think that Clinton has been attacking the apparently poor, defenseless Obama (who, in your apparent opinion, has not done any attacking at all), giving the Republicans fodder in the fall. This sort of assumes that the Republicans wouldn't think to come up with these arguments on their own. If there's one thing you can say about Republicans, it's that they don't need any help coming up with attacks on Dems. It's not like they wouldn't have thought of such things themselves. They've still got Karl Rove, for cryin' out loud.

I actually don't think that having a contested nomination is a bad thing, as long as we keep in mind the importance of getting behind whichever Democrat gets (read: not steals) the nomination. Threatening to vote for McCain is, in my mind, petty and potentially harmful to electing a Democrat into the White House.

I think it's hard for most Americans to say they "like" any candidate, unless they know them personally. I can say that there are many, many people I know who are passionately *for* Hillary, because they like her as a candidate. Over half of the board of National Stonewall Democrats has joined Clinton's LGBT steering committee (LGBT Americans for Hillary). Voting against a candidate (which you seem to be doing) because he or she is "unlikable" is no better than voting for a candidate because "he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy I could have a beer with."

Clearly, that got us into a great place with Bush.

I don't personally know you but in reading a post like this, I completely took from it that you are sexist. It's actually pretty funny and I would like to believe that you are not, especially considering that the majority of the Democratic Party are women. Why would you hate or have a disdain for most of the people in your political party along with a significant chunk of your party's platform? Logically, you wouldn't. Unfortunately, we're not talking about logic when we address these Democratic candidates. In discussions such as in this post, we're not looking to the objective merits of each candidate or considering the issues at hand. We're basing this on emotion and "gut feelings." You don't like Senator Clinton, just as you don't like pantsuits. "We each try to top the other with funny comments about the Pantsuit." If I had read that quote by itself, I would have guessed you are not going to vote for a woman. When you make fun of a woman for cutting her hair short and wearing clothing to advance herself in a "man's world," you are backing those who would not support women with her right to choose or her right to advance in education or industry. Though your casual jeers were probably unintentional, it is still harmful.

In this election, we are talking about a white woman who has never been held back for the color of her skin and an African-American man who was never expected to stay at home with the children. Yes, in the past we were less emotional when it was two white male candidates who were roughly the same age vying for the same position. I expect we would give real attention to real issues then. However, we are faced with an unprecedented case that draws out our hidden ugly fears and prejudices.

Fortunately, this unprecedented case gives us more. What we have is the true message of Hope. It's in the vision of the young and in the dreams our elders recall. There is hope that resonates from our Democratic candidates. It buds in the black child who sits on his father's shoulders at a rally and thinks, "I can do it too." It flows from the woman being picked up from the rest home to be taken to vote who dresses in her finest and shakes every person's hand as she leaves saying, "I'm going to vote for the first woman president before I die."

When we finally decide our Democratic nominee, some of us are going to be disappointed. In truth, we should be elated. We are the party who currently pushes fairness, equality and justice and with this election, we prove it. We will show every person in the world that America can aspire to something better. We will elect a Democratic president.

I'll say it.

I like Hillary Clinton. And I think she is a FABULOUS candidate for president.

Paul:

If we nominate Hillary Clinton, we will have four more years of McBush. She is one of the most divisive politicians of this or any age. We have the chance to elect a once in a generation candidate in Obama. Hopefully, we Democrats won't screw it up.

Epp

In precisely what ways will Hillary Clinton be just like Bush? How will Obama be different? How is Obama a "once in a generation" candidate?

Bush (or McBush) was not a divisive candidate when he was first elected. He became divisive with bad policy (on a whole lot of issues).

I really don't think we're as divided as a country as Obama and the MSM want us to think we are. Look at the 06 election: we as a nation pretty much said the same thing, that we're sick of the failed policy of the Bush administration...and then we put the Dems in charge of Congress.

As a nation, I do think we want "change," but I think Hillary represents just as much change as Obama does. They have almost identical policies on major issues, including Iraq and health care. Obama's implications (and his supporters' outright assertions) that Hillary is "more of Bush" is complete bullshit. Perhaps Bush has some secret plan he's sitting on to implement universal health care and begin a serious withdrawl from Iraq?

Why doesn't Hillary and her supporters seem to have a sense of humor? Everything seems to give them great offense. First, that anyone dared to seek the nomination against her. Then, that anyone would dare to question the brilliance that comes from her mouth.

Hillaryites, lighten up. Please. Otherwise you're going to be very, very sad when Obama goes on to win the nomination from Mrs. 3 a.m. Unless of course the Sniper Fire Dodger doesn't steal the nomination from the Man Crush.

I'm just sayin'.

I'm only asking you to defend the statements you're making with actual proof.