Daily Kos

View Story | 555 comments

  •  Very reminiscent of Bush I (3.00 / 3)

    Like Bush I, Kerry probably makes sure to have the kind of people who will know to do the dirty stuff.  Its an elitist mentality that entitles him to win whatever it takes.  

    Bush I didn't tell Atwater to set up "independent" groups to run the Willie Horton ad.  He didn't have to.  Atwater knew that was what he was there to do.

    •  in-fighting. (4.00 / 3)

      g*dd*mn.

      i can't believe the naderite like pissing and moaning by dean supporters i see here on atrios etc... as a very far left leaning minnesota wellstone (bless his sole) democrat (old enough to have helped elect him the first time) ... i would love to see a president dean. that said ... we have got to support the candidate that has a chance at beating bush (current polls give kerry the edge over bush) and has been picked by voters (who although you may not believe it ... are every bit as smart and as you are). after careful deliberation in their respective states. don't you think operatives within the right wing would be above turning deans supporters against kerry? or that at some point - dirty tricks within the kerry campaign would eventually be leaked by someone? a long time ago i learned from an old crook - the only way to keep a secret is to keep it to yourself.

      enough conspiracy theorizing that only helps elect one man: bush. get behind the dem nominee whomever he is ... or the entire world will suffer for forseeable future, and your butterfly wings flapping will have helped create that hurricane.

      first posted on pandagon

      •  can't eat enough to vomit enough (none / 0)

        What a load of crap.  

        get behind the dem nominee whomever he is

        After carefully deliberating a Newsweek poll, what? In any event, that sentence--which isn't the word I want, but I'm tired--made me mad: "[G]et behind the dem nominee[,] WHOEVER he is," not "WHOMEVER." Why on earth would it be "whom"?

        •  Don't make yourself look even stupider, please (none / 1)

          WHy on earth would it be "whom"?

          Whom is the object form of the defenite pronoun who.

          Nominative form is who.

          You are getting confused because it could be a sentence itself, but although it is an independent clause it is still the anteceedent of nominee. And any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object.  

          Objective
          Get behind whom?
          Get behind him?

          Nominative:
          Get behind who?
          Get behind he?

          See how little sense it makes whenever you use the nominative forms?

          Pull your head out of your ass

          •  Um... (none / 0)

            A bit dramatic for someone who forgot to spellcheck. Moving right along...
          •  Might want to remove your own head first (none / 0)

            "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

            One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

            More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

            Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

            So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

            How does this sound to you?

              I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

            Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

            The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

            Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

            There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

            So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

          •  Might want to remove your own head first (none / 0)

            "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

            One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

            More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

            Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

            So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

            How does this sound to you?

              I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

            Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

            The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

            Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

            There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

            So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

          •  Of course it is NOT 'whom' (none / 0)

            My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

            The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

            It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

            Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

            Last example...

            "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

            Get it?

          •  Of course it is NOT 'whom' (none / 0)

            My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

            The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

            It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

            Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

            Last example...

            "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

            Get it?

      •  Sorry (none / 0)

        But - and I am keeping an open mind here, because the source of these calls is still undetermined - there is no way in hell I could vote for a Democrat who would pull a stunt like this against a fellow Dem.

        I don't care who it is. Stunts like this are beyond the pale . . . unless used against the Goopers, of course.

        "I'm sorry, Biff, but I just can't relate to you. You see, I'm a penguin, and you're a moron." - TMW

        by Senor Biggles on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, I'll vote for Kerry in the GE (none / 0)

        but until then I'll pull no punches.

        Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

        by Doug in SF on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:15:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  bullsh!t (4.00 / 2)

        we have got to support the candidate that has a chance at beating bush (current polls give kerry the edge over bush)

        The relentless "unelectable" smear against Dean has turned into a clear case of a self-fullfilling prophecy. It originates from the DLC and is parroted by his opponents and the media. The public has been fooled, and so now this baseless charge has come true.

        miasmo.com If you're not a liberal, you're a dick.

        by miasmo on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 04:33:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 555 comments