Today I'm donating to the DNC for the first time

It's everything I want to see from the DNC and the Obama campaign.  Make all those voters considering casting their lot with McSame think again.  It's hard hitting, it's the truth.  

I've been holding back my $$ because of this whole primary conflict.  I saw Howard Dean on MTP this morning and I recognize the difficult position he is in.  I am impressed so far with the party leaders who have tried to mediate this difficult situation.  So I am donating today to help fund this ad.  I want it to be seen by everyone possible.  If the DNC upholds it's own rules, then Barack Obama will be the nominee, and Howard Dean and company will get more of my dollars.  

It's time to take on McBush.  His despicable tactic of aligning Obama with Hamas make me sick.  He is going to play dirty politics and his disingenuous claim to be a clean character is now proven a lie.  I can't wait until Osama releases a tape imploring us to elect McBush so his recruiting numbers can skyrocket.  It's a dangerous game to take your campaign talking points from terrorist.  

If you like this ad, send Howard Dean and company some cash.  I think they deserve it today  Thanks Chairman Dean!

•  Tips/Recs

  Thanks Howard Dean.  Now kick some supers into gear so Obama can win Indiana!

  by Hope08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM PDT

  •  That's the spirit, Hope08

    Howard Dean has been the one consistently going on TV and pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisies in McCain's statements and behavior. He hasn't been afraid to call him a liar either.

    by anastasia p on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:25:25 AM PDT

•  I've been holding back donating, too...

  I like their last add.  

  I still will wait until Obama is the nominee.  Sorry, that pressure is still needed, in my opinion.

  by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM PDT

  •  My response

    I have been getting calls from the DNC and DCCC and the Missouri state party.

    I have refused to give money for the same reason: we don't have a nominee yet.

    However, this ad is making me think it is time to give some money to the DNC.

    by MoDem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM PDT

•  I disagree, but completely respect your decision

  I get the constant barrage of emails from the DNC like most do. I just can't bring myself to give them anything and this is what I've told them:

  Any extra money I have is going to Barack Obama and will probably continue for at least another month because the DNC has not been able to demonstrate any leadership in bringing this ridiculous race to a quick conclusion. In fact, the DNC is one of the main reasons why it has been allowed to continue.

  If you look at the current superdelegate endorsement watch list, Obama is only 20 endorsements behind Clinton. More governors have endorsed Obama. More Senators have endorsed Obama, and roughly the same number of congressmen have endorsed each candidate. So why is he behind?

  Answer:  

  Distinguished Pary Leaders: 10(C) 3(O)
  DNC Members: 143(C)  115(O)

  The DNC is comprised of its members. And, these numbers tell me their members are out of touch with the Democratic electorate. They have decided to vote their own interests than the interests of the Democratic electorate.  I cannot support them for that reason, but will do so after their "awakening".

  I fully realize that my actions could potentially hurt Democratic candidates across the country. So, when I've been able to, I've chosen to send $'s directly to the candidates myself or through Act Blue or MoveOn.org.  

  I'm a huge fan of Howard Dean. But, in my view, the DNC is simply not stepping up and doing what it needs to do. In fact, they are responsible for the situation we are now in and is actually hurting us.

  by fcvaguy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM PDT

  •  Every time they send me a message asking for $...

    I say, "not a dime before Obama is nominated."

    Sincerely,

    xxx

    by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM PDT

  •  Didn't a lot of them endorse Hillary

    back before the primaries started when it was just assumed she'd be the candidate? Given that, their choice is not surprising since we've seen how bullying and vindictive the Clintons can be. And given THAT, it's no surprise that they don't want to stick their necks out quite yet and announce they've changed their mind, if indeed some of them have. Should the Clintons somehow pull this out (and I am stunned at the people who still think this is not only possibly but LIKELY), those people would be at the top of the list to have their careers destroyed.

    by anastasia p on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM PDT

  •  I have felt the same way

    BUT!!!  It is clear to me that the Obama campaign has a plan regarding superdelegates.  If the Obama campaign was upset about the DNCs handling of this contest they would have held back on the agreement that was announced on Friday.  They know that if the DNC and superdelegates jump onboard before the contests are over, Hillary only gets another talking point about being bullied out of the race.  Let her win her states and he'll win his states and in the end, they jump on the bandwagon of the person with the most pledged delegates.  I am pretty confident that this will happen.  So it's time to start the fight against McSame.

    by Hope08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM PDT

•  Out of context

  After all our demanding that the mainstream media add context to quotes and to reverend wright's history blah blah blah it seems to me that we are taking this 100 year comment out of context.

  He said "That's fine with me as long as American troops aren't being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

  Clearly he was talking about permanent bases, which I think is a bad idea but there is no doubt he doesn't want a "100 year war".

  This ad doesn't quite accuse him of wanting war for 100 years but it says "100 years in Iraq" and then shows a bunch of fighting and bombs exploding -- so it's close to misleading.

  We just have to be careful.  We should hold ourselves to the highest standard possible.  We ARE better than that other party and we've got to prove it in this election.

  by jordans11 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

  •  no, he assumes the killings will stop

    and then we'll stay for 10000 years.  He's also mentioned a million years.  The Iraqis will not stop killing our troops as long as they are there.  McCain wants to stay until they stop and then stay 100 years.  There is no lack of context here.  He doesn't admit they will not stop fighting and that you can't win an occupation.

    by unterhausen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM PDT

  •  No what McCain is saying is out of context

    He says he wants to have them in Iraq only if there are limited casualties.  So will he pull the troops out if there are more casualties?  No.  So McCain is advocating for an unlimited prescence in Iraq with no endgame.  

    by Hope08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM PDT

    •  You are probably right

      but the quote -- the actual quote -- what he actually said in that instance is being taken out of context.  He was talking about permanent bases.

      He's wrong about permanent bases.  He's wrong to assume that the violence is going to end.

      But he is not advocating a 100 year war in that quote.  That's my point.

      by jordans11 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:17:22 AM PDT

  •  If we hold ourselves

    to this impossible, hair-splitting standard, we are screwed. Period. We have no ammo. Nothing. Facf is, McCain definitely did suggest that we could be in Iraq forever and ever with the exact circumstances and conditions incredible vauge. He has even thrown out time periods up to "ten million years." This is not only fair game, it's esential. McCain is one more guy who says we're staying until "victory" and as with his crony Bush, he's completely failed to define what "victory" is, how we might get there and how we would recognize it.

    Stop being so damned dainty, OK?

    by anastasia p on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM PDT

    •  Me dad,

      who is a staunch independent, is probably going to vote for Obama.  He got so mad the other day when he saw Obama using the 100 years thing in a speech.  He said

      "It would have been sooooo refreshing to see Obama get up there and attack McCain on substance instead of dropping the 100 year tagline.  McCain didn't say he's going to continue the war for 100 years and Obama knows that. It just seems misleading and like more of the same."

      I'm just sayin -- it's completely fair game to TEAR McCain's Iraq position TO SHREDS.  But when you start taking quotes out of context then you are playing a whole different game and you just give the republicans ammo to fire back.

      by jordans11 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:21:32 AM PDT