The Blogs And Obama

I have stated here that I think that Senate Dems should keep Lieberman in the caucus in exchange for a no filibuster pledge from him. So I am not upset nor surprised by this:

President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

What I find hypocritical is Markos' slam of Bill Clinton while he remains silent on the stance of the President-Elect. This is, in a word, ridiculous. Rip them both if you like. But to just rip President Clinton while saying nothing about President-Elect Obama demonstrates one of two things - a blind hatred for Clinton or blind devotion for Obama. Either is counterproductive.

Update - Markos writes about Obama - "I've also heard from a Senate staffer that Obama has sent word that he wants Lieberman in the caucus. . . . The logic is pretty obvious -- it allows Obama to look like he's not vindictive." Well, as long as there is logic, I guess that excludes you from being a "battered spouse." Meanwhile, that was Obama Lieberman was ripping this election, not Clinton. Sheesh.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< ACLU Launches Close Gitmo Campaign | The GOP "Night of The Long Knives" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    slamming the clintons (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by sancho on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    makes you a kewl kid! and an insider! and a Very Serious Person!!!!

    And a clueless snob? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:02:54 PM EST
    kewl kids slam the DLC, too (none / 0) (#95)
    by kempis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:05:09 AM EST
    An ex-friend of mine joined the herd at Kos during the primaries. Soon, he started railing against the DLC. He was a smart, sane guy--and a MODERATE. In fact, I knew that he essentially agreed with some of the aims of the DLC. But he didn't know much about the organization until he started hanging out at DK, and there he learned that they are an evil organization on par with the Trilateral Commission, Opus Dei, and/or the Masons.

    I mocked him and he stopped. I think he did some research and found, to his horror, that he agreed with this evil organization more than he disagreed. So he shut up about it. I'm betting he's glad he did now that it's apparent that Obama is not as hostile to the dreaded DLC as pure progressives would like him to be.



    Cult Mentality (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    I think we're going to continue to see many of the left blogs turn a blind eye to any of Obama's missteps. They did the same thing with the FISA bill.

    What bothers me with this is it's the same mentality that the right used with Bush and look where it got us.

    All politicians have to be held accountable. The last thing this country needs is another 4 yrs of blind faith.

    Good Luck (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    with the accountability thing. After the elections, there really is no system of accountability in US politics and the politicians know that. That, along with a 5 minute attention span among many of the electorate and the politicians have carte blanche.

    Supporting Obama = Lapse in Intellectual (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Exeter on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 08:07:00 AM EST
    honesty. We saw it in the primaries, continue strong in the general, and now its starting in his presidency.

    Actually it is both of the blinds (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    Both statements are right. The blind hatred of one and the blind devotion of the other.

    How does Marcos like the new chief of staff?

    [I was going to use (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:16:53 AM EST
    a biblical quote here, but it could be misconstrued.  (The __ of the ___ washes away all sins.)  So I'll paraphrase.]

    Anyone previously associated with the Clintons may be redeemed by service to Obama.


    Why are you even surprised... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    ...that the media, new and old alike, are ripping Clinton while giving Obama a pass.


    Markos is an Obamacan ... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    we all know that.

    If Obama abandons every policy Markos claims to support, he will still be with him, manning the battlements for Obama until the last metaphoric shell is fired.

    And the Lieberman issue was always going to be resolved this way.  Any smart political observer knows that.  It was always a tempest in microscopic teapot.

    So I spent no more time worrying about than I do worrying about the sunset.  It was pointless.  There are more important things to devote our energies to.

    Didn't Obama's FISA (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:01:04 PM EST
    vote show us the limits of DK power?  

    What power? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:19:38 AM EST
    Someone at DK said that No On 8 should have used the tactics if the Obama campaign.  I said (paraphrased) "Bring on the donors!".

    The blogs are useful, but I doubt if they are powerful.


    wow. what a cesspool of freeperdom over there (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kempis on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    Seriously, it seems that 80% of the people who post over there do so to hate a Democrat they disagree with.

    And this is supposed to be helpful to the party?

    Daily Kos and other "progressive" blogs will ultimately be as helpful to the Democratic party as Free Republic and Little Green Footballs and other "movement conservative" snakepits have been to the GOP. Not very. Not in the long run.

    If they gain influence, the party leaders become hamstrung by their ideology. If they don't gain influence, they gnaw it to pieces.

    If you mean Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    I totally despise him.

    Lieberman isn't (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    a Democrat.

    spit spit spit


    who doesn't? (despise Lieberman) (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kempis on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    I'm talking about the overall tone and quality of posts at DK. Too much doody-flinging and too little substance....Have the comments always been like that or is it getting worse?

    There was always (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:44 AM EST
    an element of rabble rousing there, BUT there once was a core group of critical thinkers.

    That has definitely changed.  One of the best diarists posted a diary about new research on statins and the comments were less than encouraging.  I'm always trying to get people to think of medicine more critically and more carefully.  Yelling "Big pharma is a greedy fraud!" instead of examining risks and benefits isn't useful.  


    LOL (none / 0) (#64)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    I consider markos on about (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by kenosharick on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    the same level as olberman if that tells you anything. I am curious how long the Obama/media love affair will last.

    so funny (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    the only thing I go over there for is to read the diaries...specifically the unrecommended diaries.

    Well the (none / 0) (#69)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    Fox News / Bush love affair lasted 8 years, so I doubt the faux "liberal" media love affair with Obama will end anytime in the forseeable future.

    Keep him in the caucus, but (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by s5 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    Don't let him keep Homeland Security or Government Affairs. Put everything else aside - Lieberman is just plain crappy at the job he wants to keep. He never opened any investigations of the Bush administration, he never investigated the government's failure to respond to Katrina, what has he done? And now after campaigning against Obama, Lieberman wants to retain the right to pursue a witch hunt against him? No thanks.

    Let him stay in the caucus, but give him some committee that he'd better suited to.

    Honestly I don't understand the mystical hold Liberman has over pundits and Senators. Voters either don't know him or don't like him. And if he leaves the caucus and starts voting with Republicans, he'll absolutely lose his seat in 2010. He's unpopular, has no leverage, yet some Democrats are even entertaining the possibility of leaving him right where he is? It just makes no sense. Why do I care about this guy? What's he done for me lately?

    exactly. put him on (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    environment or women's issues.

    the "battered spouse" imagery (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST
    really pisses my off.

    More sexism from Markos.

    Yup ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    and it's pretty sad really.

    Progressive policies are both pragmatic and fairly high minded.  But Markos, and his ilk, just seem obsessed with make it all about scapegoating and vindictiveness.

    There's temptation to play armchair psychologist on behavior of this sort.  But I'll resist, label it as "sad" and leave it at that.


    I think that's best. (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    He and a few posters, including Hunter, seem blind to their own sexism. I guess they think progressive ideals give them free reign to ignore their own shortcomings (and even wallow in them)

    Why the use of an anonymous source by TPM? (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST
    Two quick points:  First, neither the original story in the Huffington Post nor the later follow-ups elsewhere was sourced to a specific person speaking on Obama's behalf.  How do we know this is actually what Obama thinks or wants? Admittedly, the Huffington Post is a sort of semi-official part of the Obama campaign but still we are simply left with somebody saying what Obama wants.  I did not support him in the primaries but I think we should let Obama speak for himself.

    Second, regarding the allegation that Bill Clinton has been making phone calls urging that Liberman be permitted to keep his chairmanship:  All of the links are pointing to the same story on TPM.    This story is sourced only to "a high-level senate Democratic" source and there is apparently no confirmation by a second source.   On the other hand, as noted above by another commentator , the Huffington Post story on Obama's support for Liberman has this update: "Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo writes that Bill Clinton has also been `making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf,' something that the Huffington Post later heard from another Hill source.  But Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president, vehemently denies the report. "It's completely false, he says."  (Emphasis added). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-wants-lieberman-to_n_142731.html

    It seems to me that if Josh Marshall is planning on running a journalistic enterprise, he needs to either rely on named sources or else he should have more than a single anonymous source for something like this.  Also, he needs to be proven right about this or print a retraction.

    Plus, I see no reason for the quote to be anonymous. Many newspapers print their rationale for granting anonymity, but there was no such explanation provided by Josh Marshall. Why did he give the source anonymity?  If blogs want to have the same credibility as the traditional media, they need to have much higher standards, especially when a spokesperson has denied the accusation.  This is the sort of crappy thing Drudge would do.  I expected better from TPM.

    It was pretty well established (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by pluege on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    during the primaries that markos is a useless tool with nothing whatsoever intrinsically valuable to say. If one feels compelled to read him, do so for entertainment value only.

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    who lobbies to keep him.

    He should be told that the caucus is happy to have him.  Numerically, that's the move.  However, he really has no leverage.  He can stay, and lose his chairmanship, or leave.

    If he leaves, he's going to have the credibility that all quislings have when they cross over; essentially, they have none.  

    So, if Joe wants to be part of something effective, he can decide to stay, but he needs to accept the punishment that is rightly coming to him.  

    Err. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    he's put a blog up about Obama a few minutes after the Clinton blog.

    His argument is that Reid runs the Senate and if he doesn't get rid of Lieberman (by giving him a different committee and forcing Lieberman to make good on his threat) then Reid himself must be turfed out of the Senate at the next election.

    Difference in tone though: (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    I've also heard from a Senate staffer that Obama has sent word that he wants Lieberman in the caucus. Now to be clear, the word isn't "let Lieberman chair Homeland Security", it's "keep him around".


    "Battered spouses."  Not exactly same dif.


    I saw the post (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    Missed the part where he rips Obama.

    So err yourself. BTW, the Obama news broke first.

    And let's face it, do you really see Bill clinton's making calls as comparable to Obama saying he want Joe in the caucus?

    Or are you just adding the "I am a stupid contrarian" thing today.


    You're right. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    he doesn't rip Obama.  I wonder if he considers him a "battered spouse"?  (Not sure why, but that particular characterization irks me when applied to Clinton).

    He does contort himself, however, to try to pretend that the "No on Joe" campaign (with the silly widget) is somehow not contrary to Obama's expressed wish to keep Lieberman in the caucus.  I wonder how long we're going to see that widget around for?

    And the "brilliant contrarian" thing is Tuesdays and Thursday only.


    The contrarians thing is there (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    The brilliant not so much.

    Look, my point is a simple one -
    I can respect ripping everybody, including people like me, who say keep Lieberman in the caucus at a price ( I name my price). What I can not accept is calling Bill Clinton a battered spouse when he takes the exact same effing position that Barack Obama does.

    there is something completely and extremely effed up about that.


    You need to learn to be more (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:14:02 PM EST
    charitable to Markos.  Like, you know, me.

    All kidding aside, we're in complete agreement on this.  The whole Lieberman "thing" is out of control in the left-o-sphere.  And I say this as someone who's been proudly against Lieberman since 1988, when I supported his Republican opponent (the fine and more liberal Lowell Weicker).  As someone wrote over "there" earlier today "Time to Grow Up".

    Furthermore, Markos has since semi-retracted his claim about Clinton (which, of course, was based on an anonymous source).  

    The whole story is a bit suspicious -- why would Bill Clinton be calling Senators on this issue?  He's not in the Senate, I very much doubt anyone, including himself, believes anyone in the Senate would care about his opinion on a matter like this, he's probably not all that popular there anyway.  And it seems kind of beneath him at this point.

    I can't really see how they can keep Lieberman in that important chairmanship after his active campaigning against Obama.  But kicking him out of the caucus is certainly not among the top, say, 500 priorities the incoming President and Congress have to deal with.


    Semi-retracted and kind of slammed (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    Obama at the same time.

    Larry, do you know if Markos ever broke down and did the Obama donation? He said he wouldn't after the FISA vote and I'm just wondering if he ever changed his mind (or admitted to it).


    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    Considering that his site (and hence, he) derive whatever cachet they have within the Democratic establishment from the fact that Daily Kos is probably the biggest money bundler on the left, it would be ironic indeed if he hadn't contributed to the campaign that (supposedly) showed the power of popular giving over corporate interests.

    I know he didn't for a long time, anyway. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    He took a lot of grief from the readers for it. I kind of respected him for taking a stand there and sticking to it. I'm just curious to know if he ever gave in.

    PS. (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    My Err. . . was in reference to your statement that he "remained silent" about Obama.  He didn't.

    did "the Clintons" (none / 0) (#38)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    do something bad to Howard Dean that Markos didn't like? Where is all this vitriol coming from?

    Markos was a Republican (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    before he saw the "light" or whatever. So he spent 10 years hating Bill just like they all did and just the same way their Republicans parents raised them.  Today they call themselves progressives....but old habits die hard. And one of the hardest things to beat these days is CDS.  CDS usually infects every cell in the body and prevents the body from recognizing the last twice-elected Dem President and his wife.  To those that suffer from CDS, symptoms may include:
    knee-jerk attacks on Hillary Clinton's gender,
    calling both Clintons ambitious and evil and only out for power,
    calling either or both Clintons racist at any time depending on the situation,
    thinking up conspiracy theories as to what the Clintons are up to now in their vile scheme for power--is it Senate majority leader? A post on SCOTUS?  OR MAYBE EVEN SHE IS GOING TO RUN IN 2012 and kill us all!!!!

    CDS! Ask your commenters if you suffer from it.  Chances are, they've already been infected.


    cute. but not credible in the least. (none / 0) (#63)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    theory (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    the clintons sabotaged Kerry and gore in order to make things easy for hillary just a theory mind you...

    Lieberman said (none / 0) (#10)
    by WS on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    nice things about him in his RNC speech even if Lieberman said not so nice things about Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.  

    This is how Clinton works.  He's not vindictive and he works to be your friend.  I see Obama is working like this too but with a let's get together glow.



    Apparently, a Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by WS on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:13:50 PM EST
    spokesman said the Lieberman calls were not true.  

    Oh, goodie! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM EST
    Another purge of a Democratic senator!  

    This whole Lieberman mess might have been avoided entirely if the blogosphere had not been so hell-bent on ousting Lieberman in '06.   Here we were, in the minority, with 5 whole senate seats to win, and the blogosphere was more jacked up about ousting Lieberman than about getting rid of Republicans.

    Had we spent as much time and money working on getting rid of Kyl in Arizona, for example, we might have gained that seat which was very much in play at the end.  Instead we ended up depending on a pouting, petty Lieberman to make up our precarious majority and he's been making the Democrats pay for it ever since.

    Now it seems that Markos is serving notice on Harry Reid.  I just don't get it.


    I completely diagree with you (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    And the fact is that campaign in 2006 worked. Lieberman is no longer speaking for Democrats.

    He is irrelevant - as long as we keep hiom so. This crazy campaign to get him ousted from the caucus no matter what is insane.

    Let's forward our issues - not our vengeance.


    He may not be speaking (none / 0) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    for Democrats, but he sure as hell has them running in circles.  If he had been kept in the fold and not targeted for a primary,  I doubt that the party would still be wringing its hands over him.

    I agree with you that ousting him from the caucus is not a good idea.  It would reflect badly on Obama and his ability to work in a bipartisan way.   Joe deserves to be ousted, but I think it is better for Obama to appear inclusive and magnanimous.


    It doesn't reflect on Obama one way or the other.. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ellis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:23:53 AM EST
    I agree with you that ousting him from the caucus is not a good idea.  It would reflect badly on Obama and his ability to work in a bipartisan way.  

    Lieberman is none of Obama's business. He's Senate business and Obama will soon be an ex-senator. Thus, he has, and should have, no say in the matter. I think he should have kept his mouth shut on this matter.

    If the Senate Democrats decide to oust Lieberman, they would be perfectly justified in doing so and it shouldn't and wouldn't reflect on Obama at all.

    The Democrats would be much better off to recognize reality -- Lieberman is not a Democrat any longer and his word and loyalty mean nothing. There were plenty of Republicans who dealt more honestly and fairly with Obama during the campaign.

    I don't believe in purges and vindictiveness, but recognizing reality is not being vindictive. Joe claims to be a man of principle and integrity. Therefore, his votes will be the same whether he is in or out of the Democratic caucus. If he's not a man of principle and integrity, then I see no reason, given his behavior, to keep him. If he is, then his votes will be the same no matter where he sits.

    Joe should go.


    You make my point (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    it seems to me.

    I agree, plus (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    I think Lieberman's days are numbered in that he will not win relection as a DEM in 2012.

    In addition, if Dems win any of the as yet undecided Senate races, why risk chipping away at possibiilty of stopping filibusters?


    BTD I completely disagree here (none / 0) (#22)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    Look, I'm all for keeping Joe in the caucus but I will be damned if he keeps his chairmanship.  We can no longer trust Joe Lieberman and for what he hasn't done as Homeland Security chair(see Katrina) is enough to strip him of his gavel alone.

    Obama has said nothing about the chairmanship except for him staying in the caucus.  I don't see anything wrong with that because now it's on Lieberman to accept Reid's more than generous offer of another chairmanship or whine and leave the caucus while Obama looks good.

    As for Clinton, why on earth is he getting involved? Maybe you don't remember but Lieberman was the one who spoke out AGAINST Bill during the Lewinsky scandal.  It's all very fishy if you ask me that Bill is so concerned about the well being of a man who stabbed him and other dems in the back and would continue to do so if given a chance.

    Lieberman is all about himself. He would have allowed the dems to lose a seat if McCain would have won.

    Sorry, no sympathy from me.

    And he didn't stab Obama in the back? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    Good grief. Maybe that's really fishy. If you read the comments there, some think it's a conspiracy.

    Bill wants Lieberman there to ruin things so badly that Hillary can run in 2012. Is that the kind of fishy you mean?


    Ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    this is what we should be focussing our attention on now.



    encouraging (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:38:11 PM EST
    the democrats to infighting is exactly what the GOP would like about now

    Markos is so disturbing with his (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    cleanse the party kick. Best not to allow that man too much power.

    The Democrats... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ellis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:27:09 AM EST
    ...shouldn't be airing this in public at all. They should simply decide what they're going to do and do it. All the melodrama is ridiculous.

    I think Joe should go, but if the Dems decide to keep him, they should just do it. Blah, blah, blah.

    It's obvious why the Senate Democrats are so worthless.


    BTW, I agree with your first and last (none / 0) (#27)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:13:06 PM EST

    Omigod (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    Is that the theory over there???

    Just some of them, I hope. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:42:06 PM EST
    I didn't read long enough to see how many agreed with that. I just tell myself that some of these people are involved with their first campaign and just don't understand primaries. They sure did forgive Biden awfully fast for his criticisms of Obama.

    some...led by the TPM memo (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    and kos.

    Appears so. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    They are getting a bit Nixonian in their paranoia.

    Bill Clinton not supporting Joe (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    A spokesperson for Bill Clinton's office has stated that this story that Bill is making calls for Lieberman is false.

    Clinton spokesperson denies story (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    Clinton is not making calls for Joe. From HuffPost

           "  PDATE: Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo writes that Bill   Clinton has also been "making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf," something that the Huffington Post later heard from another Hill source.

    But Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president, vehemently denies the report."

    "It's completely false," he says.

    I guess neither Markos nor Josh can be bothered to actually get the facts. But why should they start now? The lies have served them so well.


    I don't think that is quite fair (none / 0) (#30)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    People deny things all the time. Why would this be different?

    I would have been surprised if Bill made phone calls for Holy Joe but my respect and trust for Bill Clinton has decreased significantly over the past year.


    For daring to campaign for his wife or (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    against Obama? You should be thanking him for the speeches he gave that convinced a lot of Hillary supporters to vote for Obama.

    Believe Josh Marshall if you want to, but his track record during the primary was pretty pitiful.


    As a black (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    I was quite offended by Bill Clinton's actions. Seriously offended and I'm not alone. My mother an ardent and maxed out Clinton supporter in both of his campaigns, burned her book that Bill Clinton personally signed for her at a private gathering.

    Bill has a lot of bridges to rebuild within the black community.


    What "actions" were offensive to (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ding7777 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    you as a black?

    (please don't list the Obama-campaign-generated-only-to-be-debunked-claims)


    Oh, I can play this game (4.57 / 7) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    As a baby boomer lesbian without a college degree I was quite offended by Barack Obama's actions, and I am not alone. I didn't burn any books, but, then, i don't think book-burning is ever a good idea.

    Barack has a lot of bridges to rebuild within my community.


    book burning is well creepy (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:40:32 PM EST
    even if it's something by barbara Cartland

    Blue Gal (3.50 / 2) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    I see you have rated me a " 1 " on this and another comment. Do you not know the rules of this site? As I understand them, " 1 " ratings are not to be given just because you don't like a comment.

    So, why did you rate my two comments with 1s? Nothing I said is inaccurate. And in my second comment I was answering a request of yours. So, what gives?


    Why? (none / 0) (#56)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    What offensive thing did Barack say to gays and lesbians? Please explain.

    caseyOR answered your question (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:50:35 AM EST
    on why Obama was offensive to the LGBT community. How about you tell us what Bill Clinton did to offend you?

    Let's see (4.57 / 7) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM EST

    1. campaigning with Donnie McClurkin

    2. campaigning with Doug Kmiec

    3. his insistence that marriage is between a man and a woman

    4. his puny statements on Prop 8

    5. his statements that he wasn't going to expend political capital on               LGBT issues

    How's that?

    If Bill cares to build bridges (4.55 / 9) (#48)
    by ChrisO on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    to the black community, that's his choice. But he owes nothing to the people that vilified him as a racist. Every word that came out of his mouth was called racist, to the point that people didn't even have to process what he said, they just knew it was racist.

    Your knee jerk reaction is a perfect example. The entire original story said Bill was making calls on Joe's behalf. So you and the rest of the Clinton haters immediately assume that he's lobbying for Joe to keep his chairmanship. Tell me, when you say "Obama has said nothing about the chairmanship except for him staying in the caucus.  I don't see anything wrong with that..." why can't you cut Clinton the same slack? There is absolutely no evidence that Obama restricted himself to talking about the caucus, or even that Obama and Clinton didn't say the exact same thing.

    Despite the efforts of you and your ilk, Bill Clinton is still a major figure in the Democratic Party. Why do you assume that Bill is trying to help his friend Joe, while Obama is simply trying to manage the political scene? Why can't Bill be weighing in on the need to keep Lieberman caucusing with the Dems? Oh, right, because Obama can do no wrong and Bill can do no right. Please.


    Baloney!! (4.55 / 9) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    African Americans could have done the right thing and said," Look, we're blessed to have two fantastic candidates this year, but you can understand why we must support Barack Obama this time, "and everyone would have understood. But Obama, the Chicago Politician" knew that hating is better insurance than understanding. And so, the scurrilous and unforgiveable, "the Clintons are racists" campaign was launched.

    You could have done the honest and honorable thing, but justifying your wholesale abandonment of true friends was made easier with a phony, Axlerod inspired, smear.

    You did what you did....Fine.
    Your guy won. I don't need you preaching that stale crap now.


    NYShooter (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM EST
    I don't know why you're conflating Obama campaign strategy with the AA community and the developments in it.  They are not one and the same.

    It would be impossible for the AA community to step out monolithically with the statement you lead off with here.  Many people (from what I have read) decided between two good candidates.  The majority of people in the Dem coalition still like Bill Clinton more than not.  Some people are hurt by him.  You seem to assume you know exactly why.  Do you know exactly why?

    People need to stop being so defensive about the Clintons.  We're never going to be able to have an actual conversation about the primary if people attack each other constantly.  If somebody's truly p*ssed at Bill, they have the right to air that.  And if you think you have theories and facts to defend him, then go ahead.  My two cents towards civility.


    Please don't make this (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 02:21:28 AM EST
    More complicated than it has to be. I don't even understand what your question, or premise, is. Why was it impossible to express "monolithically" that their almost universal prior support for the Clintons had to be subordinated this time for obvious and understandable reasons? They didn't find it impossible to "monolithically" vote for Obama.

    Yes, I am quite sensitive to unfounded, and unsupported, attacks on Bill Clinton. I live in NY where I witnessed, up close and personal, the same pattern replicated with Hillary's runs for the Senate.

    Bill Clinton, during his two terms, improved the lives of more people in our country, and worldwide, than any other President in my lifetime. He did it while enduring the most vicious, partisan, and un-American assault imaginable. Even his fellow "democrats" seemed to be suffering extreme penis-envy, and only paid lip service with their timid and tepid support.

    He basically did it alone, and he did it with good cheer and boundless optimism. The conditions he endured, and governed under, were the basis for Toni Morrison's famous description of him as "America's first black President."
    The AA community supported him because he supported THEM. By every measurable parameter, he did more for the less fortunate than anyone else I can think of.

    I have no problem with the "monolithic" support Obama got from the AA's.
    He would have gotten their support regardless, and that's right and understandable.

    There was no need to attempt to destroy the reputations of these fine two people, Bill and Hillary Clinton, with the blood libel Obama's campaign planned, engineered, and implemented.  


    Done the right thing? (1.00 / 3) (#58)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    Yessa massa?

    Sorry are you black? Telling me to do the "right thing" is unacceptable.

    Bill messed up and badly.


    How is telling President Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by ding7777 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:11:28 PM EST
    he "has a lot of bridges to rebuild within the black community" acceptable but saying "doing the right thing" unacceptable?

    Principles? Who needs'em? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:36:32 AM EST
    Righteous anger trumps principles any day!

    (Time for confession and penance...)


    The same way (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM EST
    the use of the word "fairy-tale" connected with Obama is racist.

    Did we do anything wrong? (1.00 / 3) (#74)
    by bluegal on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:16:07 PM EST
    NO did black people do anything wrong? Bill Clinton did some deplorable things what did blacks do? We voted so I guess by massa's views since we didn't vote for the RIGHT candidate we are in the wrong.

    Ridiculous. Boy this election sure did bring out the dixicrats


    2nd request - please list the (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:42:38 PM EST
    "deplorable things" Bill Clinton did?

    Why do you think it is acceptable to imply that I'm a dixicrat?


    Deplorable Bill (3.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Ellis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:40:14 AM EST
    If you don't already know the deplorable things Bill did, it won't help for anyone to point them out to you. Bluegal is entitled to her opinion -- one I happen to agree with -- but instead of her doing a bunch of work to fill in for your laziness or inability to see the obvious, why don't you spend some time re-reading some of the descriptions of Bill's campaign misdeeds.

    You don't need Bluegal. You can google all by yourself.


    Cop out (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 08:02:50 AM EST
    Every time there's no answer "google it, we're not going to do the work for you."

    Thanks, you answered my question.


    This is just plain stupid. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by ChrisO on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    BlueGal makes a charge against Bill Clinton, and it's our responsibility to do the research to support her case? That is beyond weak.

    And I'm sure many of us here have a good idea of some of the allegations she's talking about. Is it too much to ask that she specify exactly which things she's talking about, so we can debunk her wrongheaded arguments?


    Stop with the insults (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by ChrisO on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM EST
    Referring to people on this board as "massa" and "Dixiecrats" is essentially calling them racists. Cut it out or back up what you say. You are the worst kind of commenter. You won't respond to direct questions that people ask you, but you will take the time to give 1s to answers you don't care for. I notice you didn't have any problem asking what Obama said to offend gays. Why didn't you just Google it?

    I'll add my voice to those who are demanding that you give examples to back up what you say.

    You add absolutely nothing to this board.


    Please let go (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by WS on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    of your CDS.  

    How did Clinton mess up? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 08:00:06 AM EST

    You are the perfect example (4.42 / 7) (#80)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:14:57 PM EST
    of someone targeted with the propaganda that "the Clintons are racists" who fell for it hook, line and sinker.  That was the plan.  See how well it worked?

    No one with a brain or a clue thinks that Bill Clinton has a single racist bone in his body...never has, never will.  No evidence whatsoever.  None.  Zero. Zip.

    And anyone who believes that crap is a damn fool.


    Nonsense (3.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ellis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:47:47 AM EST
    I doubt if Bluegal thinks the Clintons are racists. It isn't necessary to be a racist to use race in a deplorable way in a campaign. Look at all the wonderful things people say about John McCain's character and what a scumbag he was during the campaign. I've heard lots of people say McCain is no racist, but there he was in S.C. in 2000 using the flag issue to his advantage and there he was in 2008 making all kinds of coded implications about Obama.

    I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists, but I think they did deplorable things in the primary campaign that involved race. Hillary's statement about white working class Americans was exactly the kind of coded language that Republicans have used for decades. If you don't have a problem with it, that's up to you. But others did and you can't change that by claiming that someone has fallen for propaganda.


    Do you mean (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 08:05:05 AM EST
    the "white working class" voting for her? I agree, she ignored the other races, but including the black working class would have been ridiculous and she'd have been vilified as a liar seeing that the african american vote was overwhelmingly (over 95%) for Obama.

    If you want to read race into it, fine.


    Exactly right about one thing: (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:14:26 AM EST
    "It isn't necessary to be a racist to use race in a deploorable way in a campaign."

    Race was used in a deporable way in the primary campaign and the people who did it were not racists.  They were worse...political opportunists who would do/say anything to win.    They used it to defame and slander another Democratic candidate and an ex-Democratic President in order to deprive that candidate of AA votes and win an election.  When that wasn't enough to win, they used it to muscle superdelegates (including AAs) into changing their publicly-stated votes and threatened to 'primary them' if they didn't get in line.

    And I suspect they did more than that by suggesting that the nomination wouldn't be worth having if an honest rollcall vote was taken at the convention which somehow resulted in A Hillary nomination, for the meme would be that it was 'stolen' from Obama...undermining the coalition of AAs with the Democratic Party.

    You want to talk about what's dishonorable re race in a campaign?  The worst thing is to knowingly and falsely accuse another Democrat of racism.  Unforgiveable.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#106)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Hillary made a mistake in saying, and repeating, the concept that the white, working class will vote for her.  Maybe she was trying to make the valid point that Obama would face outright racism in the electorate, with the Bradley effect resulting in fewer GE votes from Dems, Repubs & Independents.  But that's not how she put it.  

    Whether or not she is racist, her repeated use of that expression ("white working class") was taken by many to be more than just a statement of reality, but also a code expression encouraging racists to vote for her over Obama on the basis of race.  There's no way to tiptoe around race issues, and Hillary's mistake in the words she chose is a hard lesson.


    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by SM on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    Maybe she was trying to make the valid point that Obama would face outright racism in the electorate, with the Bradley effect resulting in fewer GE votes from Dems, Repubs & Independents.  But that's not how she put it.  

    I think her point was that her base was the working class and since it was a given that Obama was going to get nearly all the black vote (which wasn't hard to predict given the 95%+ african american vote he was getting) that would leave her with what remained - the white working class. True, she didn't mention the other races, and that was her mistake. But it was hardly a racist dog-whistle.

    But of course, with the Obama campaign going gung-ho on the accusations of racism, every phrase, no matter how factual was termed racist.


    Try the kneejerk (4.20 / 5) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    sensitivity on someone who cares.

    You don't know who, or what, I am. If you did, you wouldn't be talking your canned crap.

    "Do the right thing" is now offensive?


    I find your treachery somewhat more offensive.


    You keep saying he messed up. (none / 0) (#96)
    by starsandstripes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 07:49:08 AM EST
    But you don't tell us how. If you can't come up with a concrete example, I'll take it it was just mass hysteria with you.

    book burning my life? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    What a mental

    Good things he's retired then. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 05:33:24 AM EST
    It's amazing how much pseudo-importance he has as a convenient punching bag.

    responsible bloggers would note that a Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by kempis on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:46:58 PM EST
    spokesman said that Clinton has NOT been lobbying for Lieberman. That's what responsible bloggers would do.

    Then there are rabble-rousers who are the progressive version of Rush Limbaugh. No inconvenient truths dare get in the way of a good mudslingfest.


    OK, I have to give Kos credit (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kempis on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:38:56 PM EST
    I just saw that he did report that a Clinton spokesperson said Clinton has not lobbied on ol' Joe's behalf. So props for that.

    And as for Lieberman, what a weasel. After all his flipping and flopping, I can't imagine that the voters of Connecticut are going to be enthusiastic about sending him back to the Senate when he's up for re-election.


    But Rachel Maddow just repeated what (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:58:57 PM EST
    kos said on her show....with glee I might add.  But then Rachel has not found a Clinton trash she did not enjoy.

    Now it will be resaid and reiterated and soon be urban myth that the media, cable and MSM, will use over and over.


    Did she begin with (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kempis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 06:58:28 AM EST
    "Racist former president Bill Clinton..."?

    Or is that unnecessary now since MSNBC and the Obama-blogs did such a good job of tattooing "Racist" on the Clintons through the primaries. Now it sort of goes without saying to their faithful audience that Clinton is a racist. And generally evil.


    Did you read the part (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    where Bill is actually not making the calls? Read that part ok?

    false on big dawg, perhaps? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 01:59:15 AM EST
    Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president, vehemently denies the report. "It's completely false, he says."

    Just curious (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ellis on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 04:07:14 AM EST
    The opportunistic Mr. Moulitas -- who's a former Republican, no less -- has no business whatsoever defining for the rest of us who is and who isn't a "good Democrat."

    I agree that no one can define who is and isn't a good Democrat for you, but does your statement mean that you define Lieberman as a "good Democrat."

    If so, I'd say your definition probably is loose enough to include half the people on the planet. Why Sarah Palin might even qualify.

    Hey, let's be fair to Kos! (none / 0) (#108)
    by lambert on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    Just because Kos has a page at the Cato Institute doesn't mean he's "opportunistic!" Let's be reasonable, here, people.