This is the state of Daily KOS for me, by the way:

Nonie’s post:
The anger is coming from the racial tactics used (3+ / 0-)

I’m never voting for her, because if I did, I will become complicit in setting the blueprint for how to take out any future Black Politician with aspirations higher than a gerrymandered Congressional Seat. I won’t be a party to that.

versus kbman’s post

BTW – baratunde, I hope you realize (7+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Zain, cosette, Civil Defense, kayfromsouth, BoiseBlue, jandress, JustJennifer

And if you’re somehow under the illusion that you’re anonymous online, think again. You’ll be forced to when you get that knock on your door.

Instead of offering a solution to what he feels is an unacceptable option, kbman just offers ‘you’re going to be investigated’. well, what is the solution? a lot of daily kosers are talking about ‘medication’ and ‘chill pills’ and ‘don’t quit your day job’ and THIS weird ass post from just jennifer

Personally.. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Civil Defense

I think people using “black anger” as a way to scare people are using reverse racism. You know – us white Americans need to be real scared of black people when they get angry. They riot! Geesh WFE this stuff is disturbing to say the least!

i’m not on the same wavelength as her, because when i read her post, all i saw was a discussion last week at a well known white supremacist site where the participants were afraid of Obama and were actually discussing having someone shoot him because they were afraid of blacks being organized. for all the talk about how blacks are lower than dogs and uneducated and low iq’d and sexually promiscuous and horrible fathers and mothers….. the thought that blacks educating themselves and becoming responsible wasn’t greeted with ‘about time’ but with ‘we must stop them from doing so’.

justjennifer took the post the wrong way if she thought that baratunde was trying to threaten white people into voting for barack — particularly since baratunde wasn’t talking about forcing peopel to vote for barack but was talking about barack ‘winning’ by the system, winning by the rules, and yet having that win snatched away from him by backhand means.

why would Jennifer see Baratunde’s post as a threat towards white people, instead of an impassioned if misguided indictment of the system?

That’s the state of Daily Kos, to me. Few are offering solutions beyond ‘don’t say that’. Sure, ‘don’t say that in that way’.. but what SHOULD be done? what can be done? should anything be done? They could have started with nonie’s post, and nonie’s reasoning, but they didn’t.

So it’s the back of the bus for us, otherwise we’re threatening the Way Things Are by not sitting back there even when having earned a place at the front.

Not only will Democrats need to earn the black vote after all this, but blacks are going to need to prove their worth earning it.

“All this do-over nonsense?” You do realise that only one other person was on the ballot in MI right? And that the voters were so unhappy with that, that 40% of them made a stand against Hillary by voting for ‘undecided’?

So you think that a one-candidate ballot is a-ok and that if the Obama supporters have issue with that, tough luck? Where is this – Cuba? Zimbabwe? Hell, even in Zimbabwe, the opposition gets on the fricking ballot sheet BEFORE the thiefing is done! You want to lower the standards of your democracy below that of Zimbabwe? Really, really?

*head hurting*

Looka…you gine mek me sin my soul this morning…and I would have to tell you two bad words – so I gone.

STFU!

@craig hickman, yeah it is. i just worry about the flipside, that people have to be ‘forced’ in walking a walk. actual elections are not caucuses. still, i’d rather a clean election than what Hillary is doing.

Split them 50/50? What’s the point of that? Makes the votes that *were* cast completely meaningless.

Clinton’s probably right on this one. The MI and FL delegates should be seated w/o all this do-over nonsense. If Obama supporters have a problem w/ that tough luck. They can file a grievance with the DNC sometime in 2009.

This would allow the DNC to make the arguement that; 1) the primaries are proportional so both candidates were accomodated without effecting the outcome.
2) All the candidates signed a pledge and the democratic process needs to move forward.

If Clinton or the voters have a problem w/ that tough luck. The voters can voice there displeasure in November, and HRC can file a grievance with the DNC.

::

I’ve been saying that forever. That’s why she can’t win caucuses with any regularity.

Exactly!

With a standard election, there are many ways to cheat, and I bet in states where Hillary had the local party machinery on her side, like OH, that there was voter fraud going on in her favor.

But a caucus is different. That may be one reason why Hillary hates the caucus system.

Also, I am tired of the media acting as if Hillary gets to decide everything.