You can't get all the democrats in congress to reject a nominee simply because they are anti-abortion.  On what grounds do you argue that the nominee is not suited for the job?

Which is why it is much more important to get a president in place who won't put a nominate a judge who is anti-abortion.  Roe v Wade is just hanging on by a thread and it is clear McCain's intention is to overturn it.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/19 mccain-now-supports-the-immediate-overt urn-of-roe-v-wade

McCain now supports the immediate overturn of Roe v. Wade

I'm sorry but your logic is confusing.  I'm having a hard time understanding that since ALL dems in congress won't oppose ALL anti-abortion candidates. It is reasonable to put ANOTHER president in place that would nominate MORE anti-abortion judges.

I also notice you didn't touch the part of my post about McCain starting war with Iran or ruining the economy more.  I could also have gone on about how McCain doesn't have a health care plan but I figured those first three were reason enough to join Obama.

So, basically: nobody ever said he doesn't need you. You're merely offended that he's letting you make your own decision about the best course for America (McCain presidency or Obama presidency) instead of aggressively "wooing" you when you're still grieving.

Treating you like adults isn't a declaration he doesn't need you. It's merely the belief that you're still Democrats and you'll make the wise choice.

you come here if not because you ENJOY participating in the political discourse which I choose to share? Or am I expected to enter and join an echo chamber? Why is it taboo to discuss or point to your candidate's or the party's weaknesses? You have to lighten up, otherwise you are in for a lot of mental pain for the next 5 months, especially if you choose to parse every written word that does not meet with your approval or cause you irritation! Can we please have a discussion without twisting the words of your dissenter simply because you do not approve of her choice of words at that moment or because they irk you? try ignoring them like water on the backs of ducks instead of lashing out, it's better for your blood pressure!

I'll repeat again, the wackjobs presently on the Supreme Court are there because democrats helped to confirm them.  Scalia's votes to confirm, unanimous, 98-0, including KENNEDY AND GORE while they were the majority in congress - please explain that one to me before accusing me of finding it amusing! In case you didn't know, Thomas = 11 democratic votes, Roberts = 22 democratic votes, Alito = 4 democratic votes!

About giving McCain power to bomb Iran, look no further than the Pelosi democratic held congress which already has done so. please read the following:

www.counterpunch.com/leupp05122008.html

Here's a sample:

The Congress has passed near-unanimous resolutions against Iran, endorsing the administration's unprecedented designation of a component of a nation's military as a "terrorist organization." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be on board the program. Recall how after the Democratic victory two years ago she capitulated to AIPAC by stripping from a military spending bill the requirement that Bush seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran. (That was after she'd pointedly declared that Bush-Cheney impeachment hearings were "off the table." And after Rep. John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee and sometimes maverick, bitterly disappointed those pinning their hopes on him by going along with the Democratic leadership's line. And after the Democrats had made it clear they weren't serious about ending the war they'd been elected to end---showing us how very well the democratic system works in this country.)

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton (all of whom agree that an attack on Iran is "on the table") will publicly approve. The media will call upon the same "military analysts"/military industry consultants who have been disseminating Pentagon propaganda for pay since 2002 to explain why the attack is justified and necessary. The main talking-point has been decided: "Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq." Public opinion polls will show the public divided, but a majority in support of the action because, regardless of their feelings about the war in Iraq, they want to "support our troops" and after all, Iran was asking for it by interfering in Iraq and attacking us.

here's another for your perusal:

www.counterpunch.com/mcquade05222008.htm l

Read and weep:

Economic neoliberalism is only one facet of the bipartisan consensus Obama dutifully upholds. He embraces underlining assumptions of the "War on Terror," and the entrenched structures of militarism that underlie it.

He opposed Senator Russ Feingols move to censure the Bush Administration for illegal wiretaps; he distanced himself from fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin when Durbin attacked the torture and indefinite detention taking place Guantanamo Bay; he even lent his support to the Joe Liberman, when Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate, challenged the saber-rattling Senator in the primaries leading up to 2006 elections.

Obama is itching to have his turn as an Imperial President: he's already claimed the executive privilege to order a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran and covert operations in Pakistan.

Altogether, Obama is more likely to please those at the Council on Foreign Relations than the World Social Forum.

What I've learned from 40 years of experience and disappointments being a democrat is that I have to read everything because not a single one of them can be trusted regardless of party affiliations.

you would not come to that conclusion. The joke from all my friends, be democrats or republicans in Texas or elsewhere, has always been: "look up the word liberal, and you will see her face"! There was never a doubt about what my politics stood for. The party always came first, because I was a true believer in their credo: one man, one vote! It was a great argument to use against republicans, which is now lost!

Do you know how brave it was for me to argue with my rabid republican dentist that Obama was not a muslim while he's drilling my tooth without local anesthesia? snark. I'm very tired, I haven't slept deeply for weeks so I'm obviously not making my point accurately, but will give it a second try!

I admit, I don't care for either candidate + pitiful McCain, even though my heart does tug for him because I remember the day, when he came home from Viet Nam in 1973, and seeing him and the other POWs being paraded down Market Street to Union Square in San Francisco and a man next to me remarking out loud: "poor guys, today a parade, tomorrow they will all be forgotten!"  

My preference and I do mean "preference", if we are going to parse words today, for Clinton solidified as a result of the cruel racism attacks directed at them both. I hate hypocrisy and how could I not turn against Obama when he passes himself as someone who advocates for an age of new politics while using Lee Atwater's type of attacks?

I will concede to you that my preference for Clinton is purely selfish. I wanted some kind of relief from my $22,200 yearly health care premiums, which I can only get through my state high risk pool. Obama refuses to commit to health care for adults, which left me no choice. I lose it every time I hear him say that women should vote for him because he'll give us health care which is a bold face lie and accounts for my disdain towards him. His hypocrisy and mendacity are unpalpable! How can I ever trust him when he lies so easily?

My main grief is with the overt corruption of the party. It absolutely is! I would still be disgusted, frustrated, extremely disappointed and furious at that absurb spectacle, trying to pass as democracy, had Obama been in her position. How can anyone who witnessed 2000 and the overt disenfranchisement of voters and the silent acceptance from our party, after the verdict from the supreme court, in order to give the presidency to Bush, not react negatively to the party you've always loved, using the same tactics to give the nomination to the candidate who rakes in the most money? Everything always revolves around money, never about the purety of goodwill and we all know that money corrupts.

What is wrong with chaos? I think it would have been great if, as a result of it, Iowa had been dethroned along with their undemocratic caucuses. Because of them, we lost Dean in 2004 when that Quebec tape surfaced, in which he described Iowa caucuses as places where only the extremes of the parties come out and are not a good representation of the overall voting population.

I never understood why we gave preference to 2 states which, for the most part, always vote republican! Where does this entitlement come from?
Because of Iowa and the pandering to their good people, we are stuck with these obscene subsidies for Ethanol!

I've given up, after 40yrs, trying to reform the party from the inside out. Doesn't work, the only thing that might, is massive defection from the party or a loss in a democratic year. It would be worth it, if it meant reforming it for the better - I'm willing to take the chance! You obviously don't, so good luck, it's your party now that your candidate owns it! Hopefully, we'll meet one day on some blog where you can prove me wrong, I would truly relish that day, if I knew it was possible, unfortunately experience has taught me differntly!