<p>So I’d love to see some ‘bipartisanship’ around the two million Iraqis (including probably 100,000 Christians) who have been “ethnically cleansed” from Iraq, including 600,000 under General Betrayus. Not a peep from Hillary or Obama, and I don’t think McCain even recognizes that they exist.</p>
<p>And deeds, not words, would help.</p>
<p>NYMomof2: Thanks for that. That is what I like about Obama’s style. See both sides of the argument and try to make the other side see both sides as well.</p>
<p>Partisans on both sides prefer win-lose solutions in which their own side wins and the other loses. </p>
<p>The ‘bipartisanship of convenience’ that mini laments is a recipe for lose-lose solutions.</p>
<p>I am looking for bipartisanship that leads to win-win solutions, and maybe, just maybe, Obama can lead us to it.</p>
<p>Right now, both Clinton and Obama’s “bipartisan” health plans puts several TRILLION extra dollars in the pockets of the health insurance companies, and their lobbyists. That’s their starting positions. Where they end up will certainly be worse than that. But that’s what rightwing Democrats do.</p>
<p>I voted for Obama, and would do so against McCain in the general (I will NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances, for reasons already stated) but has nothing to do with either his particular positions or his vaunted bipartisan ethic.</p>
<p>NYMom, would you please explain to me why “democrat debate” is bothersome? I’ve seen it mentioned here before that using the word that way is offensive, but I sincerely don’t know why because I’ve seen/heard democrats use the word that way and am genuinely curious. Thanks!</p>
<p>Mercymom, here’s a different perspective on Obama’s “professionally analyzed” voting record: [Media</a> Matters - What makes a “liberal”? National Journal says: support for 9-11 Commission recommendations, health care for more kids, and stem-cell research funding](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080004?f=s_search]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080004?f=s_search)</p>
<p>zoosermom- wikipedia has an entry on the topic, naturally…:)</p>
<p>When I hear it, I think the person has either made a mistake, doesn’t actually know the name of the party, or knows and doesn’t care enough to say it correctly.
I found the historical references in this article amusing. Rats? lol. I won’t argue! </p>
<p>I had no idea that there was so much history to the term. </p>
<p>[Democrat</a> Party (phrase) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase]Democrat">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase))</p>
<p>“zoosermom- wikipedia has an entry on the topic, naturally…”</p>
<p>No!!! Ya think! I just would never have considered Wikipedia. Thank you so much for answering for NYMom, whose opinion I actually sought. Hopefully she’ll indicate why it bothers her, personally (if it does) because it is so often used by democrats.</p>
<p>Democrat is a noun, not an adjective. That’s why it bothers me. Not NYMom either however. 
I wouldn’t mind if you said the Democrat’s Debate.</p>
<p>zoosermom, the term “Democrat Party” is used almost exclusively by Republicans. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Democrat use it. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz promoted its use by Republican politicians because Luntz had determined that it elicited negative reactions compared to the proper term, Democratic Party. It is usually used deliberately to offend Democrats (although I’m sure some people, like you, use it without realizing this). It is grammatically incorrect and sounds awful. The Democratic Party has a perfectly good name, and the Republicans do not have the right to change it.</p>
<p>"zoosermom, the term “Democrat Party” is used almost exclusively by Republicans. "</p>
<p>I have personally, with my own ears, heard it said by democrats. But I thank you for your courteous response.</p>
<p>I sometimes vote for a Republican…so some would say I belong to the Republican Party. </p>
<p>I sometimes vote for a Democrat…so some would say I belong to the Democrat Party.</p>
<p>What’s the problem?</p>
<p>Browninfall, that was my question because I HAVE heard it said by democrats. I suspect that lay people on both sides use the term sometimes with no offense intended.</p>
<p>You have to admit that it’s rather strange that people take some sort of offense to their Party being called the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>As an Independent where is the offense exactly?</p>
<p>I believe it is the history of the usage, “Democrat Party” by Republicans who wish to be disrespectful and contentious, that raises the ire of many Democrats. </p>
<p>I agree with NYMomof2:
</p>
<p>I would never have realized it but I guess “Democrat party” takes away the idea that it is a democratic party (which given the current superdelegate mess, may not be too far off, BTW). Nor would I have thought of the association with ‘rat’. Silly season indeed.</p>
<p>Interesting analysis of the part of the debate that referred to Farrakhan.
[The</a> Farrakhan Litmus Test](<a href=“Maynard on Dating”>http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/080227_prince/)</p>
<p>I particularly like the kicker:
"Another new black Web site, thedailyvoice.com, linked to a 2005 news story in the New York Amsterdam News, in which a well-known politician praised Farrakhan’s then-planned Millions More Movement, follow-up to the 1995 Million Man March.</p>
<p>The politician? Former president Bill Clinton, husband of the candidate who insisted Obama “reject and denounce.”"</p>
<p>in 1995 Farrakhan was not as controversial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t tell for sure, but I suspect this may be a comment about how I styled the thread as “Democrat Debate.” I did not intend to demean the Democratic party and do not believe I did so. I was not referring to the party at all. I was referring to two Democrats who were debating, as in a debate among Democrats or Democrat Debate. </p>
<p>For years I have heard people of all parties and in the media interchange the phrases Democratic party and Democrat Party. A Democrat Party is a party full of Democrats. A Democratic Party is also a party full of democrats. In my opinion, those who object to the phrase Democrat Party are unnecessarily putting chips of their shoulders.</p>
<p>Re: Farrakhan Litmus Test</p>
<p>First off, there’s a big difference between repudiating Don Imus, a radio personality, and refusing to be on his show, and repudiating Farrakhan, a much larger and more influential figure, and who has just been given a lifetime achievement award by your minister and spiritual advisor of 20 years. By the Imus analogy of this article one could say that Obama should have quit that church a long, long time ago.</p>
<p>Second, if you follow the link to the Clinton article and actually read it, you will see the following:</p>
<p>“Although Clinton objected to Minister Farrakhan’s leadership of the original march, he said (he) supported the march.”</p>
<p>Clinton then goes on to elucidate that he supports the ideas espoused by the march and the concept of the march and what it was trying to inspire in the black community. Nowhere in that article did it appear that Clinton was ever endorsing or supporting Louis Farrakhan.</p>
<p>But Mercymom, Obama has never supported or endorsed Farrakhan either.
His church gave the award last year to Farrakhan for his work with troubled black youth, which is a good cause, but Obama said he disagreed with the church doing so. It sounds like a very similar situation, to me.
I don’t understand why Obama should have “quit that church long ago.”
The award was recent. I don’t see why someone should leave a 20 year relationship with a congregation and minister because they do one thing that you disagree with. </p>
<p>“Although Clinton objected to Minister Farrakhan’s leadership of the original march, he said (he) supported the march.”</p>
<p>And I’m sure that while Obama objected to Minister Farrakhan’s getting the award by the church, I would imagine he would support the deed (of helping black youth in the community) that the award recognized.</p>