home

Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat

This is what we do NOT need

Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.

Update (TL): More than 300 comments, this thread is closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Jury Duty and Open Thread | Just Win, Baby >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    And remember, Big Bad Mean Bill has been saying all this time that "we have no bad choices" in the primaries, and that "he will work hard" for the nominee.

    Someone has more class than the other person here. Can you decide which?


    here is another one (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    Who is surprised by this??? (none / 0) (#180)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    Who here did not think this would be the attitude of the Obama camp??? I mean seriously!! Barack has already said in news conferences that "I am confident I could win her supporters, but I can't say the same this about my supporters."

    I know I have said that I would not support Obama if he is the nominee and this is part of the reason. His supporters are hateful.

    Women have been expected to pull together for the common good, but you know what? We have gained nothing by doing it. Even if this idiot has a women on the ticket as VP (and he would not offer it to Hillary), the party would abandon that women in 8 years when Obama is done for another man.

    Parent

    See my comment below (none / 0) (#233)
    by edgery on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    This video is by a user who just opened his/her/its YouTube account today, is clipped to omit the rest of what Mrs. Obama said.  I don't have a dog in the hunt between Obama and Clinton; I'm still voting for Edwards on 2/12. I just don't want to see this continued rending of the fabric of the party.

    Right after that Michelle said this in the interview:

    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that."

    ABC News

    Parent

    The Unity Candidate? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    Have we have gone from supporting the Democratic Party to supporting a third party? The Party of Obama.

    I see that it is part of ABC news but what does GMA stand for? Is this a small subset that will get no traction or something that could get more attention?

    Good Morning America (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    It's so weird to have this kind of crap spewing from a campaign built on unity.  Unity for everyone but Democrats seems like a weird message in a democratic primary.  

    Parent
    It is a big audience (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    and only a Media and a blogosphere intent on adulating Obama would ignore it.

    I do not know if this has been covered, but failing to is inexcusable by any Left blog.

    Parent

    Expected (none / 0) (#92)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    If Hillary wins, it is clear that Obama must be her VP. Otherwise, this kind of talk is expected and inherent in the Obama phenomenon. I expect major difficulties with the Obamaheads staying away from the polls in the general elections otherwise.

    All we have to do is look at the right wing mirror image to understand how bad the situation really is. This seems like Atwater's revenge.

    Parent

    What makes you think (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    Obama would do this. He and his wife seem to think they are entitled to the presidency. According to Newsweek she has been introducing him to African American audiences by saying it is "our turn". I'm afraid that they will be very angry if Barack is not the nominee and will probably not want to support Hillary, let alone run with her. After all, when the party leaders wanted him to sit with her at the SOTU address as a show of party unity she agreed but he refused. He used the lame excuse that she had not asked him.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/96026
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/29/the-snub-before-the-snub/

    Parent
    Thanks, I said it's a third party (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    from the start -- but "Obamacrats" are more dishonest, taking and benefiting from pretending to be within the Dem party.  

    And look what Nader wrought.  But at least he was more honest about it.

    Parent

    Bad for Primary, Bad for General (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    This come on the heels of an NPR poll that shows, much as a recent LA Times poll, that Obama has trouble uniting the Democratic base againt McCain.  Hillary wins Dems against McCain 88-9, Obama wins them 77-18.  Now it's true that Obama does a couple of points better than Clinton do to independents and Republicans and he loses to McCain by one point, whereas Clinton loses by three (although both results are within the margin of error).  

    It seems to me, however, that no Democrat can win next year without uniting the Democratic base.  First, there are more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans.  So a united Democratic base gives an advantage going in.  Second, independents and Republicans can be a fickle bunch, especially after what is sure to be a very brutal, negative general campaign.  A lot of independents preferred Kerry for the nomination, too, but then abandoned him in the GE.

    What's more, I don't understand why Michelle Obama would say this the day before Super Tuesday.  Is it a dogwhistle to the Hillary haters to cross over?  Is she politically tone deaf?  She certainly isn't stupid.

    She's had a sharp tone from the start (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    and was the first to raise race, even before the first caucus:  "Ain't no black people in Iowa!"

    McClatchy newspapers today, finally, are starting a focus on what the other of the two Obamas has been saying, below the radar.  It is not good -- for Dems, anyway.  It seems to have been good for the two Obamas.

    Parent

    do you have a link to any articles (none / 0) (#78)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    in those newspapers??

    Parent
    I just got it as a cut-and-paste on email today (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    so no URL, but it was a story on Saturday, 2/2 by a Margaret Talev; headline was, I think, "Spouse vs. spouse" -- if that helps to get it via google.

    Several quotes there also give pause.  And the reporter writes this:  The other "Obama has gotten an easier ride" with little attention paid, especially, to what she says before AA and especially AA women's groups.  "But some of Obama's edgier comments could have exploded into controversy if she'd rolled them out before different audiences, say, during a general election campaign aimed at attracting swing voters."


    Parent

    i beg to differ. so called smart people do and say (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    very stupid things. witness the comments obama makes. we don't need any more arrogance in the white house.

    Parent
    It's inexperience (none / 0) (#107)
    by djork on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    This is the first truly tough election Obama has faced. They do not yet know what it feels like to take a punch, hence are reacting this way to getting knocked around a bit by a tough opponent.

    It's why Hillary and Ted K. are friendly to each other after he ripped her in his Obama endorsement speech. They understand that it's politics and at the end of the day, Dems are on the same side. Obama still has to learn that.

    Parent

    obama has plenty of time to learn it. (none / 0) (#273)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    he just refuses to do so.

    Parent
    And it is because of things like this that... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    ...this lifetime Democrat will have to think long and hard if Michelle Obama's husband is the nominee.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    Not acceptable to me. Every Dem must vote for the Dem nominee.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    No, everyone US Citizen should vote for whomever they think will be the best leader for our country at the best time.

    Parent
    So you support (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    Michelle Obama on this.

    I do not.

    Parent

    Absolutely..... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    anybody who votes for a candidate for no other  reason than the letter after their name is a sheep.

    Why even bother having candidates?  We can all just vote D or R every 2 years and then pick a party member out of a hat to fill the office.

    Parent

    the point being (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    that if this fake gets the nomination, the party is dead.  that's the way i see it.

    Parent
    The party has been dead to me.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    for some time now.  

    Parent
    Foolish (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    Look you want respect for this foolish view?

    I will not give it.

    Parent

    I don't want respect.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    I want my country to stop occupying foreign countries and to end drug prohibition.

    The Democrats will do neither.

    Parent

    For no other reason? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    Do you think there is no difference between the candidaters and that the D and/or R are not indicative of those differences?

    Foolish.


    Parent

    That is fine (none / 0) (#129)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    but you should be an independent, not a Republican or Democrat.

    Parent
    Party before country...... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    Seriously bro....if the Dems happen to nominate a candidate who you believe in your heart of hearts would be bad for America...you'd vote for that candidate anyway?

    Even nutjobs like Coulter and Mark Levin have more integrity than that...or so they claim in regards to McCain.

    Parent

    Voting for my party is (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    voting for the country.

    I suppose you are voting for McCain and his policies.

    That makes you a Republican.

    Parent

    I'm voting for..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    Nader, Kubby, or whoever is on the ballot that isn't a D or an R.

    Cuz that's what is good for the country:)  

    Parent

    Did it help the country in 2000? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    Do what you feel, but I know what to think of your silly gesture.

    Parent
    I guess not in 2000..... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    But not for lack of trying.

    Here's to tryin' again in '08, '12, '16....as long as it takes.

    Parent

    Dem Policies (none / 0) (#40)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    are what we are voting for.... no way can I vote for Repub policies.

    Parent
    No.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    you are voting for a person who you hope will support policies you support.

    Good luck cuz all I can find are Nader, Paul, or Kubby.  All with their flaws to be sure, but all light years ahead of Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney.

    Parent

    No I'm not (none / 0) (#210)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    you are voting for a person who you hope will support policies you support

    Once the primary is completed...I vote Dem. Back when they had straight tickets it was much easier. Now I just go through and pick the Dems.

    I beleive that the person I'm voting for will remain true to the core values of the party because they were the person that won the primary.

    You say...

    Good luck cuz all I can find are Nader, Paul, or Kubby.  All with their flaws to be sure, but all light years ahead of Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney.

    AS IF IT were FACT... that is an opinion that I do not agree with. You vote your way and I'll vote my way.. it is my right to vote the way I believe is best.

    Faithful core Dems will always vote Dem.

    Parent

    That's mildly hypocritical. n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    No, it's just how devisive the Obama's have become (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    I am not comfortable with a President or First Lady who is so tone deaf and clueless as to appear on GMA and say this kind of thing.  It reminds me of her husband's plan to "just call up the leader of Iran and have a talk."

    Parent
    It would be helpful to see (none / 0) (#79)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    the entire context of her remarks.  

    Parent
    Will the context improve it? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    I suggest those who want to play "What Michell Obama Meant" retreat to the Obama Cave at daily kos.

    Parent
    How about the very next two sentences: (none / 0) (#154)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

    She committed an oopsie, and then backtracked quickly.  

    Parent

    Nooooo (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    It is much worse than an ooopsie and indeed the back track ("everybody") is completely insufficient.

    She needed to say SHE is going to work hard for Hillary Clinton is Clinton is the nominee.

    She should say so NOW. Immediately. Loudly.

    This is unacceptable. And you know it.

    Parent

    How hard did Howard Dean's wife (none / 0) (#183)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    work for Kerry?

    She's a mother of two small children.  Is she going to go all out on the campaign trail for someone else?  Of course not.  

    Similarly, Elizabeth Edwards and Jackie Dodd and Barbara Richardson aren't going to be out on the campaign trail for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

    Different rules apply to candidates' spouses.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    So when she said "I'd have to think about her policies, her approach, her tone" what she really MEANT was "I have two small kids, I'm not going to have time to actively campaign for anyone else."

    Thank you for taking this opportunity to explain what Michelle Obama really meant.  It's all much clearer now.

    Parent

    Sure. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    She doesn't have unlimited time at her disposal.  She is not a politician.  She is a politician's spouse.  Different standards apply, and she has every right to condition her active support on the nominee's tone, approach, and policies.

    Parent
    You are just digging the hole deeper (none / 0) (#214)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    I suggest you stop.

    Parent
    Because I don't buy into (none / 0) (#218)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    the cw of this blog?  Whatev.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#222)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    Because AT THIS BLOG, you have been better than this.

    We do not accept cultlike behavior from Obamaniacs OR Clintonistas.

    Parent

    And you wonder why this blog (none / 0) (#231)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    doesn't have more Obama supporters here.  Disagreement = cult behavior.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#243)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    Reflexive, dishonest spin = cult behavior.

    Parent
    If dishonest nonsense (none / 0) (#247)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    is what Obama supporters are going to provide then who needs them?

    This is not disagreement. this is disgenuity from the word go.

    Can any of you at least express REGRET that MO said this?

    Parent

    sure... (none / 0) (#256)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    ... I regret that Michelle said it.

    I have no problem saying that.  I still think the meaning changes a bit in the larger context, but she absolutely needs to be smarter than that.

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#260)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    As I emailed you, (none / 0) (#280)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST
    I wasn't too happy with the first part--the part you posted

    I also characterized it as an 'oopsie'--in other words a mistake.

    She said something she realized she shouldn't have said.  She then backtracked and essentially retracted it.

    She is not a pol, and this makes her both more refreshing while also more prone to this kind of gaffe.  

    Parent

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#219)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    Judy Dean NEVER said she would have to think about it.

    Parent
    An Ooopsie? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    Somehow if Bill had said that he would have to think about working to support Obama in the GE and then backtracked, I don't think that you personally would have described it as an "oopsie." In fact, I would be willing to bet that this "oopie" would be all over DKos and other Obama supporting blogs as proof of the Clinton's disloyalty to the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    An Ooopsie? (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    Somehow I doubt if Bill had said that he would have to think about working to support Obama in the GE and then backtracked, that you personally would have described it as an "oopsie." In fact, I would be willing to bet that this "oopie" would be all over DKos and other Obama supporting blogs as proof of the Clinton's disloyalty to the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Sorry For The Double Post (none / 0) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    I kept getting messages that the comment wasn't going through.

    Parent
    Bill is a former President and party official. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    He's a super-delegate and the most powerful figure inside the party.

    Parent
    i already thought about it. i can't support (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:48:06 PM EST
    obama. what will i do? i don't know.

    Parent
    shhh (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Plutonium Page on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    don't post anything negative about godheads!

    I think I am the only one (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    not genuflecting yet.

    One would think that the blogs where Nader is a dirty word might be interested in this.

    Parent

    Most people have their fingers in the wind (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    It's pretty disappointing, actually.

    Parent
    it's easier to keep your head up your butt (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    when your finger is in the wind

    Parent
    Out of context (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    Whoa.  I saw this interview.  This is out of context.  She said she would support the nominee of the democratic party.  When asked specifically about whether should would campaign for Clinton - and work to help her - she said she would have to think about it.  Watch the entire interview and it's clear she would support the nominee but would have to think about whether she'd campaign for them.  Two very different things.

    Parsing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    You always campaign for the nominee and you don't do the qualifiers she did. Amateurs or wonderful manipulators. She got her jibes out, all personal.

    Parent
    EXACTLY. (none / 0) (#62)
    by mad clamor on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    I watched the video clip alone and I could tell that her comments were limited to the question of whether or not she would actively work to promote Hillary, if she got the nomination.  This characterization is absurd, and senselessly divisive.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    Rediculous? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    BTD - the title of your post includes a quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama.  You say Michelle Obama said: "I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee"  

    She did NOT say this at all in the interview.  If I am wrong, please post that section of the interview.  

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    I really am sick and tired of this type of behavior from Obama supporters.

    "GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination?

    MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone."

    Pleaqse stop the cultlike behavior. You look like a blind fool.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#95)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    That exchange occurred after she said she would support the nominee.  Then she was asked if she would campaign for her.

    You may be tired of Obama supporters, I'm tired of you mis-representing.

    Please provide a link to the quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama in the title of your post.

    Parent

    How else would she support Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    By voting?
    If you a prominent person in the Democratic party are really serious about supporting the party, you work to support its candidates. This is what is expected and what those who lose do. For her to say this shows that her loyalty is not to the rest of us.

    Parent
    You cannot twist this. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    By not campaigning and by qualifying with the " positions, tone" qualifiers, she is putting doubt, She is smearing. She has gone beyond any of the Bill comments. Heaven help us.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    She was asked if wshe would work to support the nominee.

    The questioner was right, Michelle Obama said it was "not a given."

    We do not play "What Michelle Obama Meant" here.

    Here is a test for you, what would you say if Clinton said the same thing?

    Stop this nonsense PLEASE.

    Parent

    Please support your quote. (none / 0) (#112)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    BTD - I am not the one twisting words to find new meaning to them.  I am accurately portraying the interview.  You can say all you want, yet you still refuse to provide a link that supports the quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama?  Why?

    I don't think it exists.  You have a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong if you are indeed correct, yet you don't.  This only leads me to believe I am correct (especially since I watched the whole interview) and that you MISQUOTED Michelle Obama in the title of your post.

    Can you please either confirm you mis-quoted MO or provide a link that supports your quote.

    Parent

    what words did I twist? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Are you DENYING the quote I provided you?

    Stop this cultlike behavior.

    And do not accuse me of distorting when I provided the video.

    If you continue in this fashion, I will ask you to leave the site for the day.

    Parent

    And stop making ridiculous demands (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    when you want to play cult member.

    I will not play your game.

    Parent

    The question was: (none / 0) (#134)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    "Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?

    Answer: "I would have to think about that. I would have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.."
    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that,"


    Parent

    Michelle never said: (none / 0) (#137)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she is the nominee."

    Parent
    She said (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    in answer to the question

    "GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination?"

    This

    "MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone. "

    My quote is quite accurate.

    Parent

    This quote is accurate. Yes, (none / 0) (#155)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    The quote above the story thread is not.

    Parent
    What does "work for supporitng" mean? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    No, the question is: (none / 0) (#186)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    What do quotation marks around a statement attributed to a person mean.

    Parent
    That the person made a statement (none / 0) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    IF I had made a blockquote with brackets, it would be perfectly proper.

    But if I understand you people correctly, you are not disputing the characterization, just the use of the quotatin marks.

    I have removed them.

    Now what?

    Parent

    My question is: what do quotation marks (none / 0) (#202)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    mean when attributing a statement made by someone?

    Isn't it supposed to be the direct speech of someone? It's not a paraphrase nor what you think someone meant.

    Debate, interpret whatever you wish to what she said, but to place quotation marks around words a person never said, is incorrect.

    Parent

    I'm an editor with a journalism degree. (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    What quotes indicate is that what is inside the quotes is exactly what was said, verbatim.

    We do not edit direct quotes, they are sacred.

    BTD did the right thing by taking the quotes off.

    That does not change what she actually said, and what she said was that she "would have to think about" supporting Clinton.

    We have spoken.

    Parent

    I absolutely agree with your direct quote (none / 0) (#275)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    explanation. That's why I objected. I think BTD did the right thing in removing the quotation marks and I thank him.

    I disagree with your intepretation. I agree she meant she has to think about working to support Clinton. I do not intepret that to mean that she wouldn't support Clinton's candidacy.

    And having said this, I shall end my comments on this subject.

    Parent

    sorry for the double post, my computer is (none / 0) (#204)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    acting up

    Parent
    She was answering the question (none / 0) (#211)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    in a title I could hardly put in brackets and the like.

    My characterization was QUITE fair.

    But I have removed the quotatin marks to make the Obama CULT deal with the reality of what is wrong here.

    No more distractions from the Obama Cult please.

    Parent

    Thank you for removing the quotation marks. (none / 0) (#217)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    Give it a rest (none / 0) (#188)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    It's a paraphrase...same thing!

    Parent
    Give it a rest (none / 0) (#190)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    It's a paraphrase...same thing!

    Parent
    No, It's not. (none / 0) (#205)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    This is false (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    The question and answer are ONLY what is before your ellipse.

    Parent
    No. It's not. (none / 0) (#152)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    After the ellipse, the reporter interjects this question: "So that's not a given?"
    Michelle answers "You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that,"
    The dialogue before the ellipse is accurate. I transcribed it after listening to it. I just watched it again and added the reporter's additional question asked after the ellipse.
    BTD, she never made the quote you attributed to her.

    Parent
    If a sentence by Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    without context gets headlines across the country. . . .  Well, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

    Parent
    I reject your defense (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    The context does not save this statement AT ALL.

    Parent
    I'm actually entirely agreeing with you (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    that the larger context argued here for the Michelle Obama quote does not matter to me -- or to us.

    Every sentence has to be able to stand alone.  Every word has to be weighed when running for office -- or speaking as a surrogate for a spouse.

    Every sentence or word certainly would be so weighed if the spouse ends up in the White House -- and could be weighed against the entire country, not just another candidate.

    (I also have no problem with your header on this post, btw.  Paraphrasing for headlines is commonplace and acceptable practice, so long as the full quote is provided, too -- as you did.)

    Parent

    What larger context is that? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    See that is what I reject. There is no help from the larger context.

    Parent
    Again, that is what I agree about (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    in this inane debate with the cultists who keep arguing to listen to what she said in the longer clip, their larger context -- after the awful quote that is your focus, and correctly so.

    MO probably said a dozen more things after the anti-unity, anti-Hillary quote in that interview.  MO undoubtedly has said a thousand things since.  I don't care about all that larger context, either -- what she said about Clinton's "policies, approach, tone" is a sentence sufficient to cause the concern you raise.

    That's all.  Again, I am agreeing with you -- but this thread has gotten so long now that it apparently isn't clear.  So it goes.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    You just admitted there was another question.

    My statement is correct. Your comment was false.

    The quote is what I provided.

    Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that "What Michelle Obama Meant" TM was NOT that she was unsure whether she would support Hillary Clinton?

    That the point of her statement is she was unsure whether she would "WORK for supporting" (whatever that means)Hillary Clinton?

    Help me out here? "What Did Michell Obama Mean?"

    And riddle me this, if Bill Clinton had said it, would you be playing "What Bill Clinton Meant?"

    This is now a cult joke punchline.

    Parent

    what she really meant was? oh please! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    The Obama's or Obamacans, (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    are beginning to sound like Joe Lieberman.

    Wasn't Obama "mentored" (none / 0) (#139)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    by Holy Joe in the Senate?

    Parent
    michelle, you are as full of yourself as (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    your husband. guess what, lady, hillary doesn't need your vote. and frankly, we don't need a first lady or second lady with a mouth like that.

    speakiing of things (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    that the media doesnt show you, look at all of these empty seats at the Oprah/Obama event....


    i went to site and the photo isn't there. hmmm! (none / 0) (#274)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    photo definitely scrubbed.... (none / 0) (#290)
    by neilario on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    Unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    Every Democrat needs to actively work for the nominee after he/she is picked.  To even hesitate about this question, coming from a candidate's spouse is unbelievable.
    I didn't vote for Kerry in the 2004 primary, but I worked my butt off for him in the fall including a month long stay in Florida going door-to-door having conversations with voters about the issues.
    I simply cannot believe she made this statement.  It is extremely ugly.

    Not ready for prime time. (none / 0) (#287)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    Exactly the phrase that came to mind (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    for me, too!  Harmonic convergence again, oldpro.:-)

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    when asked if he would campaign for Obama said he wouldnt hesitate, and also when asked about Oprah, he said that when the time came if Hillary gets the nomination, he hoped that she would support her....big difference in attitude...

    Obvioulsy (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    He is a much better pol than MO.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    Why can we not cuss? Just one time....

    Lol! (none / 0) (#151)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Actually we can cuss all we want-- just don't hit the post button=)

    Parent
    last time (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    you found a way of saying something highly offensive with out cussing.  Pavlovian relationship BTD has with you.

    Parent
    Get over it.... (none / 0) (#312)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    It's not just about her (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    When MO says stuff like this, when BO says it's unclear whether his supporters would show up for Hillary as the nominee, we're not just talking about their individual opinions.  They're also sending a clear signal to their supporters, a very irresponsible one, that it's OK not to support Hillary if you don't want to.

    If you expect all the resources of the Democratic Party to be deployed for you if you win the nomination, you need to show a little more commitment than this to the party as an institution.  I support the Democratic Party, not the Party of Obama.

    Very true (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    and very divisive.

    Parent
    Isn't it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    how in the netroots, we usually deplore politicians who take the Democratic base for granted?

    The cost of unfailing loyalty, I suppose, is that no one feels compelled to assuage your concerns.  You and I are both going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what, so why should Obama bother running the type of campaign we partisan Democrats want him to run?

    I don't think Obama would be anywhere with the netroots audience if his opponent were anyone other than the hated Hillary Clinton.  If a Democrat in Congress ran on this sort of schtick, we'd all be looking for a primary opponent.

    Parent

    Sold their souls (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    There is no netroots anymore.

    Parent
    Maybe they will learn (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    The netroots' persistent obsession with purity, IMO, creates an institutional bias towards supporting whatever candidate hasn't managed to disappoint us just yet.  I mean, these are people who talk about a primary against Russ Feingold if he casts a bad vote.

    I personally don't want to watch this electoral opportunity go by the wayside just so they can learn their lesson.

    Parent

    i think it points to his misunderstanding (none / 0) (#292)
    by neilario on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    of the ramifications of what he says... just as you indicate. like using the right wing attack points   or harry loiuse ads... he does not understand that he has a special responsibility for what he says....

    Parent
    The Snub, Part 2 (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    "I think I can get her supporters. I'm not sure she can get mine." Didn't Obama say that the other day? I guess he meant his wife.

    This is inexcusable. More hypocrisy coming from the Obama campaign. They really seem to have absorbed all of this adulation in the most juvenile way. It's quite clear that they and their supporters despise Hillary. Do they really think there will be no consequences for this type of talk?

    I remember Ronald Reagan said (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    "thou shalt not speak evil about a fellow republican"...MO needs to learn that...

    Michelle Obama's comment (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    I  watched  the  entire  GMA  video.  

    This  is  DEEPLY  offensive.  And  ARROGANT.  

    And Barak  himself  has  said  he could  easily  get  Hillary's  votes,  but  he's  not  sure  Hillary  could  get  his.

    They're  not  interested in   "unity."  

    They're  interested  in  THEMSELVES.  

    I'm   DONE  listening  to anything  they  say.  

    There May Be (5.00 / 0) (#250)
    by bob h on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    a touch of immaturity about both Barack and his wife.

    how can anyone defend this? (5.00 / 0) (#270)
    by cdo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    I mean seriously? It was a pretty simple question. Her answer is why so many ppl here defected from Kos, and every other site that has adopted a "my candidate" instead of "my party" attitude".
    And I will not believe she isn't aware of that attitude. I'm disgusted.

    i'd wager (none / 0) (#276)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    their paying to have it spread on the internet.  i mean there's a lot of ways to spend $32mil.

    Parent
    Finally the TRUTH! (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by MarkieBee on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    Was the first poster actually suggesting that Bill Clinton has more class than Michelle Obama? That could be the funniest thing I've read in along, long time. Michelle Obama has more class in her pinky finger than Bill Clinton has in his entire body. My God, she tells the unvarnished truth and you Hillary sock puppets look right past that and are incredulous that she didn't give the straight-up Kumbaya message. See, why the Clintons have been playing politics with every news cycle, whining about coverage, etc. It's been Barack and Michelle Obama who have been busy building a grassroots movement that is on even footing with the machine...and the Clintons and their sock puppets just can't stand it. They actually may lose this thing. man, what a wonderful thing that would be. We can finally get rid of the class-less and insincere former president and his inexperienced, no-judgment wife.

    Ask John Kerry about the Clintons' support (5.00 / 1) (#305)
    by MarkieBee on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    Big Tent says that Bill has mentioned that they'll support whomever the nominee is. Yup, thanks for the pitch-perfect script work there Bill. But when you had a chance to really work hard for Kerry in 2004 you made a few cursory appearances and then went AWOL. You had a perfect chance to be the lightning rod for media attention you have been for your wife this election cycle. You could have been the one pointing out that Bush was AWOL while Kerry was getting shot at. But you wussied out Bill, knowing full well that if Hillary had a chance in 2008 Kerry had to go down. Your silence was deafening and your brand of politics will soon be muted as well.

    uhm (none / 0) (#307)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM EST
    I believe he went AWOL because he had a freakin' heart attack

    The blame for Kerry not winning lays squarely on Kerry for not reaching out to the core dems, who did not automatically appreciate his intellectual, eastern-elite, chosen-one status.  And so they chose to stay at work instead of giving up the $14 they would have lost at work for taking off two hours to wait in line and vote.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#309)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:59:19 PM EST
    Too freaking funny.

    Parent
    Now we're getting somewhere... (4.00 / 1) (#291)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    ....revealing the truth about the Obama campaign.  It always was a draft to find a cnadidate by the Dem establishment to 'take out the Clintons.'  They didn't favor Edwards, either, and didn't think he could beat Hillary, so they went shopping and found a more-than-willing, ambitious and talented pol with a wonderful story and a lot of chutzpah.

    Wonder how they plan to heal the divisions they are creating in the Democratic Party...much less in the country and (heh) with Republicans?

    This is worse than Kennedy/Carter.  Worse than Humphrey/McCarthy/Kennedy.  And this time It's deliberate.  Unforgiveable, in my book.

    Ok, (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    No comment. It's all about them. Remember when she worked for the Hospital, before Obama was elected Senator she made in the 150,000 range then it went to 350,000. You think she has credibility?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    You are dissing her because she made money working?  I bet Bill Clinton has made a lot more lately.  

    Parent
    No (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    Because its a lie. It's not a coincidance that he gives away the store when it comes to healthcare. Payback.

    Parent
    So he is not (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    socialized enough on health care for you because Mrs. Barack Obama made good money working in the health care field at one time?  

    Parent
    Look post #38 with link (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    Its simple I don't trust them. They are corporatist. They do not have one iota concern for the Democratic agenda. They want power at any cost, they want the idolatry before anything else. I do not want the aristocracy and the plutocracy running my country. Just go off now and leave me alone cause they disgust me.

    Parent
    Hate to break it to you.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    but the same could be said for Clinton.  She's a corporatist who wants power at any cost too.

    If you're looking for an anti-corporatist, you need to look outside the two party duopoly.

    Parent

    I know what she is (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    and I know what she is not.  I am not voting for someone who is not what he says he is and all the evidence I find, shows me he is not what he says he is.  And further more, someone who is willing to risk my party's agenda and win.  I have no delusions about Hillary, but I also respect her and trust her.  Yet, I do not respect or trust Obama.  

    Parent
    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    Agree to disagree....I don't trust Obama or Clinton one iota.

    Parent
    hahaha... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    ... so Obama is a "corporatist" but Clinton is not?

    Parent
    You need to... (none / 0) (#175)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    ... learn about Obama's health care plan.  

    On any issues related to the health industry (i.e. the hospital that MO worked at), Clinton and Obama are almost identical.

    The only significant difference is on the lack of mandates, which do not help the hospitals.

    Parent

    You need to... (none / 0) (#182)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    ... learn about Obama's health care plan.  

    On any issues related to the health industry (i.e. the hospital that MO worked at), Clinton and Obama are almost identical.

    The only significant difference is on the lack of mandates, which do not help the hospitals.

    Parent

    I vote for liberals (3.00 / 0) (#253)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    However, I really have to wonder if Obama is a Liebercrat.  My points:

    1.  I agree with Krugman, you know, Krugman, the voice of reason who is now being fed to the wolves.  Obama has thrown my most important issue (universal healthcare -- HUGE, HUGE!) under the bus for the sake of winning an election.  I firmly believe a D wouldn't do that.

    2.  Watering down nuclear legislation and then lying about passing even the watered down version. The man is a proven liar about issues people care about. Now tell me that's not worse than lying about a blow job.

    3.  The extraordinary petulance.  All he'd need is the big floppy ears and I'd think he was Bush.

    4.  The *Unity*(tm).  They have in no way shown that they want to even unite the D's.  Maybe they actually want to destroy them?

    5. And I'll say it: He doesn't scream "competence".  An incompetent D erases any gains Bill Clinton's competency might have brought.  The media won't be as kind to a D as they were to Bush.

    I've said before, I really believe that several of the Republican converts turned "liberal" bloggers really haven't left their Republican roots.  They're so infected with their Clinton hatred from losing to them in the 90's that it colors their judgment to a point where rational reason and balance about candidates is lost.

    And the fact is....the majority of the so-called "Net Roots" candidates have turned out to be Bluedogs.  I honestly don't believe that's a coincidence anymore.

    And the whole notion of an "evangelical candidate" really brings the bile up in the back of my throat, makes me truly wary.  A God does no wrong.

    I saw someone refer to the "Mainstream Blogosphere" as the "Jonestown Blogosphere".  I wonder how many of the Obamamaniacs understand that reference....

    Should the policy really be to elect Democrats even if they throw the party platform under the bus? Is it smart to reward that? Or is is smarter to think further ahead.  I truly wonder if Obama should be elected this time if he wins the nom.  Maybe in the interest of universal healthcare, we should fight to get greater majorities of GOOD Democrats in Congress, let McCain seethe in his own war for awhile longer, and then in 2012, bring in a Democrat that TRULY cares about OUR issues, and not just their urgent need to feed their own ego.

    Let's look at the whole statement she made. (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by WisconsinJessica on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    First of all why didn't you include this part of what Michelle said in your clip?

    MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

    ROBERTS: That's not a given?

    MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.  
    www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith

    Second of all the question really was would you work to support Senator Clinton.  There is a big difference between supporting someone and working to support someone.

    I did not make the clip (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    Nor does your defense make any sense.

    If she has to think about "working to support Hillary Clinton" how then can it be that "EVERYBODY will work hard to support the nominee."

    MO obliterated the distinction you are trying to make.

    In fact, it makes no sense and MO apparently can not bring herself to say SHE will work hard for Hillary Clinton if Clinton is the nominee.

    I ask again, if Bill Clinton had said this, I am positive you would have been outraged. The difference between you and me is I am outraged if EITHER say this.

    Parent

    What you are missing (none / 0) (#235)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    (and what a lot of Obama supporters seem to be missing) is that MO, in this interview, casts into doubt her allegiance to the Democratic party and her willingness to support its nominee. You can't diss the other candidate, imply that you won't support her, and then come back and give an ambivalent statement about working hard for the nominee.

    This is especially bad (in the eyes of non-Obama supporters) in light of the fact that Obama has already stated that his supporters may not vote for HRC.They both sound politically immature, quite frankly.

    Which party are they members of, anyway? If they're independents, shouldn't they be running as independents, not Democrats?

    Parent

    ahhh context (none / 0) (#293)
    by neilario on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    i know this is wrong but i am happy if mo got caught in the soundbite trap. they do it so much to clintons... ex - 'fairytale' from Bill ... i saw the this week segment and hrc did not say garnish wages... except in a complex answer to a gotcha question. the full context does not support the huffpost and other media blurbs about hillary will garnis your wages... so.... bo has been largely exept... and this is only getting play on a small number of blog sites...  now if it was from bill  it would be top of the hour news.

    Parent
    Cultish alegiance (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by soonest mended on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM EST
    I understand that there's some consternation about the quasi-religious zeal for the Obama candidacy; but it might be worth considering whether a cultish alegiance to the democratic party (and a two party system) is really more pernicious.

    The two party system is a recipe for polarization and frustrating levels of compromise. For example, everyone seems convinced that Hillary is some sort of "fighting dem" when she and her husband actually have a long record of craven capitulation (caved on health care, caved on gays in the military, caved on Lani Guenier, ended of welfare, ended "big govt,"  and let's not forget the defense of marriage act).  In fact, the only real battle they ever fought was to protect themselves from perjury and impeachment.

    The capitulation (or triangulation, whatever) is a result of a flawed and polarizing system that doesn't allow different parties to form a consensus around mutually advatageous issues.  

    Look at the fragmentation of the Republican party.  Wouldn't everyone be better off if we had a "social Conservative Party" a "Libertatian Party" a "Fiscal Conservative Party" a "Green Party" a "Liberal Party" etc.  If parties have to work together to get anything done, if candidates have to form a multi-party consensus to get elected, there's a far greater chance of issues crossing parties.  As it stands now, Republicans don't believe in global warming because it's a democrative party platform.  But what if you can attract social conservatives with the idea that we need to protect god's creation, etc?

    Anyway, I'm an Obama supporter and I decided a while ago that it was him or a 3rd party.  What more evidence do I need that the party is a mess than that you need to have the same name as a former president to get elected?  This nonsense can't continue.  And I won't get in line just to further the agenda of a party that doesn't have an agenda other than getting in power and staying in power and fighting with the other party, regardless of how malignant they or their policies are.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#208)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    You do not disagree with my characterization that Michelle Obama shares your view on this.

    Parent
    So Obama is the manchurian candidate (none / 0) (#212)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    for the democratic party in your opinion. I wonder if you are right. But then why should those loyal to the Democratic Party vote for him? We will destroy ourselves. Doesn't sound like a good way to get a Democratic Party agenda done in my opinion.
       Besides it's unrealistic for now-- we got what we got.

    Parent
    we got what we got (none / 0) (#224)
    by soonest mended on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    "we got what we got" is exactly the kind of craven compromising talk that I'm annoyed with.  Don't you think it might be easier to get a single payer health care system without a two party system?  without the ridiculous animosities and alegiances built into this system?  And how excatly are we supposed to have somthing other than "what we got" unless people decide to do something different?

    "we got what we got" is no way for any professed liberal to talk.

    Parent

    I was speaking for the present election (none / 0) (#232)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    And no I don't think it would be easier with (conscious exaggeration) 1000 parties. There still would be compromise. In fact it would in my opinion likely increase the "capitulating" compromises.
       Also, I thought "Liberal" was a part of "the reality based community" in which your proposal clearly does not participate. When reality becomes "craven" you haved a problem.

    Parent
    i agree (none / 0) (#240)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST
     i totally agree on this.  if you push these people to explain themselves they actually give you a manchurian candidate argument.  this is totally true.  

    i think if we forcefully tell them that hillary will fight this faker all the way to the convention if she has to, they will dry up and blow away, like the fake empty suit their guy really is.

    but the fact is i predict very shortly that young barry is going to be taught a hard lesson in electoral politics by the undisputed master, hillary clinton.  

    remember, barry was against the war before he was for it.  hillary is going to take him to school, although she'd rather not have to.  the longer she keeps her powder dry the better she'll be in the general.

    this ain't checkers, remember that.  

    Parent

    cultish followers of Obama (none / 0) (#230)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    As we used to say in the SDS, Stick it in your ear.

    Parent
    You misquoted Michelle Obama.... (1.00 / 1) (#216)
    by misquote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    Michelle Obama was asked about "active campaigning" on Clinton's behalf, should she win the nomination. Your title of this entry, Ben Smith, is inaccurate. For those here or elsewhere who think the Obamas are only in it for themselves and not the good of their party - consider this: Hillary Clinton's staff has been telling DC people that her Administration will ban ANYONE who worked for the Obama campaign. That means talented people from organizations like Human Rights Watch had to choose between working for their preferred candidate (Obama), but risk getting shut out of a possible Clinton II Administration. Now, really, that is clear evidence the Clinton team doesn't care about the good of the Dem Party, or indeed the good of the country. They're in it to win it for THEMSELVES. Voters are delusional if they think Hillary would ever include Obama at #2. The truth is even worse - only loyal Clintonistas in the next Adminstration, should she take the nomination. What in this campaign has led any of you to expect something better and more public-minded from the Clintons?

    AndrewW (none / 0) (#221)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    I told you to stop commenting today.

    If you persist, I will ask for you to be baqnned.

    Parent

    misquote's comment (2.00 / 1) (#228)
    by misquote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    Are you suggesting this Andrew person is posting under other names?  I'm a new commenter who was irritated by the distorted blog coverage of the Michelle Obama interview.  I'm not sure who is the administrator for TalkLeft, but surely they can figure out a different commenter is posting.  

    Not to mention choose whom to ban.  Some policy for a blog entitled "Talk Left."  Ban critics.  

    And all this promoted by someone called Big Tent Demcrat?  Oh, the ironies abound.

    The real point is that the Clinton hardball tactics have been UNDERreported.  I'd love to catch her live responding to the claim that she's endorsed BANNING all Obama's advisors should she take office. That's such a selfish policy, which completely disregards the Party's and the nation's best interests.  

    Parent

    Splitter! (none / 0) (#236)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#239)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    I am suggesting you are AndrewW.

    Indeed, you are just as willing to violate the site rules as AndrewW which provides more evidence to my surmise.

    Perhaps this is not the site for you.

    Parent

    ip... (none / 0) (#257)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:39:23 PM EST
    ... can't you look up their ip addresses and verify it?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#259)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM EST
    Only Jeralyn can do that.

    Parent
    please (none / 0) (#261)
    by misquote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    If you're the administrator, then you should be able to see that I registered a unique, non-anonymous email account.  If you're not the administrator, then they can check and inform you.  

    It does strike me as a little irrational and paranoid to accuse anyone critical of your argument here of being the same person.  As if two separate people couldn't find your approach to this entry on MO to be misleading.  

    It's also essential to stress importance of open discussion on blogs like this.  Not all criticism is automatically uncivil or a violation of blog rules.  You'll just have to live with some sharp criticism, if you choose to share your views in a semi-open forum such as this. In any case, to find such a position asserted by a writer called Big Tent Democrat on a blog called Talk Left is amazing.   Why are you so insistent that posters who criticize your posts should "leave this blog" and conclude that "perhaps it's not for them"?      

    Parent

    If you please (none / 0) (#268)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    review the commenting rules and do not presume to tell us what we must live with at this blog.

    Jeralyn determines what we must live with not you.

    So far, your every comment has been violative of site rules.

    Please review them before commenting again.

    Parent

    to be fair... (none / 0) (#269)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    ... as I read your first comment, I suspected that it may be andrew.  and i, at lead kinda', agree with him/you.

    Parent
    Democrats' Death Wish (1.00 / 1) (#308)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:59:04 PM EST
    Isn't it a fact that a lot of independents are going to support McCain over Hillary?  Don't a lot of independents support Obama too?  The Conservatives seem to have figured out that their only chance to win in 2008 is to pick someone who has broad appeal rather than "energizing the base".  Historically, the winning candidate in every race is THE MORE LIKABLE ONE, with the possible exception of 1976 (and Ford came really close despite Watergate).  


    The question is (3.66 / 3) (#313)
    by rebecca on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    why do you think Obama will still be the likable candidate after the Repubs and our "liberal" media get through with him?  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry were all turned into caricatures of themselves.  Why do you think Obama will be different?  

    All I see is someone who hasn't had to face the sustained attacks that Hillary has received just in this primary season.  He's a risk I'm not willing to take.  I'll take the woman who has faced this for years and hasn't let it deter her get my support rather than a man who has had media favor and overwhelming establishment support carry him to this point.  

    Likability is ephemeral.  We'll see how likable he is after he survives the right wing/media gauntlet if he gets the candidacy.  If he survives it with half the grace the Clintons have he'll have shown he might survive the coming years in the White House.  

    Parent

    I would have to think about it too... (none / 0) (#2)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    I'm not a Democrat so I don't lockstep support anybody.

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    But you're not the spouse of a Democratic presidential candidate.


    Parent
    Key phrase (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    "I am not a Democrat."

    Perhaps Michelle Obama is not either.

    Parent

    OK BTD I'm Confused (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    You have a video clip of Mrs. Obama clearly saying one thing, but here is what GMA has in their article on the interview.

    GMA
    She said that if Hillary Clinton bests her husband for the Democratic nomination, she'd support the nominee.
    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that," she said.

    I can't find any reference in that article that corresponds with the video.


    Parent

    So you gonna believe ABC or (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    your lying eyes?

    Parent
    I Tend To Believe My Lying Eyes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    I would just like to know where the disconnect is from what I'm seeing to what I'm reading.

    BTW, this is not meant as a reflection on you or your post. I tend to like explanations anytime the there is this much disparity on any given subject.

    Parent

    The media loves Obama (none / 0) (#135)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    so I would guess they put the best spin on what Michelle said.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#35)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    I know this is off subject. But Salon has an acticle about Hillary "tearing up" again.

    Parent
    Nonstory for me (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    The tears story (none / 0) (#168)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    will trump the MO story. Too bad... but by tonight MO story will be a distant memory.. And Hillary's tears will be blasted by the media. Bias media will not let the MO be front page.

    Parent
    Of course not because (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    MSM will slant the interview in her favor....

    Parent
    Whole clip wasn't shown (none / 0) (#158)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    What ABC has referenced appears right after the clib BTD made available.

    So, ABC pulled out the I would support the nominee pice - BTD pulled out the I would have the think about it section.

    Find the whole interview and then believe your eyes.  Believing BTD's clip as the whole truth is only looking through the proverbial key hole through with he wants you to see.

    Parent

    wow andrew (none / 0) (#169)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    you are still posting after being after several times not to...Not smart...

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#174)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    I get kicked off Talk Left for telling the truth I can live with that.

    BTD has posted this thread with a Quote attributed to Michelle Obama that does not exist.  

    I truly enjoy Talk Left but if I get kicked off for pointing out that a quote BTD attributed to Michelle Obama doesn't exist and that she never said, then, as mentioned, I can live with that.

    Parent

    Someone who stands up for his principles. (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    Gotta respect that.

    Parent
    ABC Is Only Reporting What Is Favorable To Obama (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    I listened to the entire clip and I still find what Michelle Obama said objectionable.

    Parent
    If that's how she feels..... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    would you rather she lie?

    If her husband loses, and she rather support Nader or whoever, what's wrong with that?

    If that is how she feels (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    then she is not a Democrat imo.

    Parent
    They are both Democrats of convenience, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    Dems (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    must march in lockstep at all times.  Dis ist der rules.

    Parent
    In a GE (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    Voting for the Democrat is required of all Democrats.

    Yes indeed.

    Parent

    Her Statement (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    Was less definite than several Clinton supporters here who stated that they would never vote for Obama if he won.

    Her statement is an appeal to the fence sitters who see the two as equal, but under no circumstances want another Republican POTUS. IOW if you vote Clinton you will lose many democratic voters.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    Are you equating Michelle Obama to some anonymous posters here?

    Parent
    Incredulous (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    How everything can be twisted to be favorable. That mind set scares me. Where is Ted now? He just passed the torch and the guy he gave it to was not our team.

    Parent
    Favorable? (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    You are high.

    Parent
    High? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    NO I am angry. Yes, apparently it's not ok to be angry. Pro obama people will twist this to be favorable, that she is thoughtful. They are right here.

    Parent
    I Am (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    Not Pro Obama. And I did not twist anything.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    Just pointing out that for MO it is rhetoric IMO, but for some here it is fact.

    Parent
    So You Think It Is OK For Her To Say That? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    To me there is no excuse for her to use rhetoric like that when her husband is a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    More Of The Same (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    As far as I am concerned. I do not believe her, she is working it. If HRC gets the nomination her tune will change IMO, irrespective of whether or not Obama is chosen as VP.

    It bothers me more those that some would unequivocally state that they will not vote democratic if their candidate loses the primary. IOW, HRC wins it is racism, BHO wins its sexism.

    Parent

    Still not following you (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    To a fence sitter: If MO's statement represents average Obama supporter's sentiment , and HRCs supporters will vote Dem no matter what,

    then given that both BO and HRC are equal, better to vote Obama rather than lose dem voters and run the risk of another Repub POTUS.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    Saw the video. I have to agree with the Obama supporters here, and I am pulling the lever for Clinton.

    The question was in effect would you campaign for HRC, not would you vote for her.

    Parent

    What are you agreeing with? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    This (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:44:24 PM EST
     
    She said she would support the nominee of the democratic party.  When asked specifically about whether should would campaign for Clinton - and work to help her - she said she would have to think about it.

    link

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    You have the sequence BACKWARDS.

    She said she was not sure if she would work to support Clinton.

    She THEN said "EVERYBODY" (she did not say she specifically would) support the nominee.

    These of course are contradictory statements.

    The totality is devastatingly bad.

    What you are agreeing with is a distortion.

    Parent

    You Are Right (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    She is not clear, it could be implied that she is not everyone. Clearly a mistake on her part. And yes if HRC said that everyone would be all over it. In that context it is not fair that MO gets a freebie on the statement. In the context of normal her comment was no biggie, in that she sort of corrected it.

    In the end, I think that it is more about OHB solidarity rhetoric than how she will actually behave if OHB loses.

    Parent

    I'm A Little Confused (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    I'm not a Obama supporter and I do not think that all candidates are equal. I do not think that Obama has a better chance of winning the GE than Clinton. In fact, I think just the opposite.

    My vote is just that and I'm not going to change it because a particular candidate and his spouse are trying to put forth the premise that either they or their supporters will not work or vote for anyone other than Obama. In fact, that type of tactic just ensures that Obama will not get my primary vote.

    I personally think that there will be independent voters and a small percentage of Dems that won't vote for Hillary. I also think that there will be independent voters and a small percentage of Dems won't vote for Obama.  

    Parent

    Pew poll today finds more Dems (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    say they will not vote for Obama than say they will not vote for Clinton.  

    Show them this video, and the split will be even wider -- among real Dems, not "Dems for a day" (yet another of the Obama campaign tactics. . . .).

    Parent

    I gotta say... (none / 0) (#170)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    ... you sound like Markos on this one.

    Winning and partisanship over all else.

    Parent

    Don't get me wrong... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    ... I will absolutely vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.  

    And I think that Michelle Obama will too.  

    But saying that Dems must vote for Dems, all the time, without question is going WAY overboard.

    Parent

    Nobody said that. (none / 0) (#283)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    But this year it's an IQ test.

    Parent
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#288)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    ... I exaggerated a little, but this is what was said:
    In a GE... Voting for the Democrat is required of all Democrats.

    And I call BS on that.  

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned any "Democrat" who believes that John McCain will be better on the economy, the war, judicial appointments, healhcare, reproductive rights, civil rights, etc., is someone so out of step with Democratic values that he or she cannot fairly say they are a democrat.  They may be registered as a democrat, but they do not hold the same core values the democratic party is trying to advance.  

    Parent
    There are (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    more parties than these two monsters.  

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    Her husband is running in the Democratic Party.

    Being a gadlfy is one thing, being a foolish gadfly is pretty ridiculous.

    Parent

    doesn't this also fall in line with (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    Obama's statement about how his supporters might not support Hillary but hers will support him...same line of thinking....

    Parent
    as i stated elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    i am pretty sure hillary and her supporters will fight this punk empty suit all the way to the convention but he will not be the nominee.

    Parent
    In truth (none / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    as you posted yesterday, the Clinton Dems will not vote for him, he may get some indies but loses the base. Another lie that they have perpetuated. If the lie is big enough people will believe it

    Parent
    Done. (none / 0) (#55)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    I can clearly see that this is not the forum for me.  My willingness to consider voting for a non-Democrat in the event of an Obama nomination say everything about his inexperience and nothing about my party loyalty which, I will NOT have questioned.

    Parent
    Leaving blogs (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    I  certainly  respect  that.  

    Many of  us  have  felt  the  same  about  DKos  and  HuffingtonPost,  given  their  exclusive  support  for  BO   and  their posters'  bashing  of   anyone  who  disagrees.    

    Find  a  blog  you  like and  go there.   Just  like  we  had  to,  when  disagreement  with  the  so-called  Obamacans  made  US  outsiders.  

    This  quote  by  Michelle  Obama,  however,  is   UNFORGIVEABLE.    No  questions  asked.  

    Parent

    I know exactly how you feel (none / 0) (#61)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    because I feel the same way but havent decided what to do ....I would NEVER vote for a republican...thats for sure....but could I vote for this man....I honestly don't know if I could or not...I am a lifelong democrat as well...would be easier if they would just combine the ticket...

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#94)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    However consider the consequences if large numbers don't vote for this man if he wins the primary. We have an undefined, Unitary dictator presidency that renders (or tries too) congress toothless and useless, free for the taking; a supreme court at risk; a loss of respect for the law, etc.

    What I don't know is what are the consequences voting for this man? This by MO is not reassuring. I don't want a Joe Momentum as president, especially right now. Oi!! This is a pain. . .

    Parent

    BTD is funny today (none / 0) (#225)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    The only people we hate more than the Romans are the *@ing Judean People's Front.
     Splitters!

    Parent
    And the Judean Popular People's Front. (none / 0) (#237)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    To be entirely honest (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by spit on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    yes, I would rather she lie.

    Parent
    Me. too (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    That's part of politics.  No matter how you feel personally, you support the nominee.  I'm sure a loss will be a bitter pill for either the Obamas or the Clintons to swallow, but that's part of being one of the leaders in the party.  Presumably, Obama wants to be one of those since he's running for the party's nomination.  If you want to be a party bomb-thrower, that's fine, but then you're Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich.  That's not the path Obama seems to want.

    Also, there are so few policy differences between Clinton and Obama and such large differences between the Republicans and Democrats, that such sentiments coming from Michelle Obama seem driven by the personal and petty.  

    And these sentiments, which have been hinted at by both Obamas, also start to sound like blackmail - if you don't support Barack, we're going to take our supporters and go home in the GE.  Not good for a guy who has had trouble with registered Democrats.

    Parent

    Feingold? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    He has never said anything like this ever.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    that is why he is a mensch. (sp) So BTD still tepid? I am livid.

    Parent
    My prediction: the scales will fall (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    from BTD's eyes.  But, will that happen soon enough?

    Parent
    The only 3d Party candidate Russ's backed (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    was the 2002 Dane County Sheriff race, when he supported the Green Party's Adam Benedetto vs a Republican incumbent, with no Dem running.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    this story doesn't seem to have picked up, which is yet another example of BO media darling status.  This, coupled with BO's statements that his supporters won't (necessarily) support HRC has created a pattern that completely contradicts his whole unity appeal.  People should know about this hypocrisy!

    Of course, HRC getting emotional when a mentor, who knew her back in 1972 at the Yale Child Study Center, chokes up while stating he's so proud of her is already all over the place...

    I'm not too sure how this will play out considering what happened in NH, but it also, once again, illustrates that she's been working on important issues 35 years ago!
     

    This is all Kos's fault, as yesterday (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    he endorsed a future ticket:  Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards.  Who says he has a problem with a woman President?

    What???? (none / 0) (#284)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    Perhaps he only has a problem with reality!

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Full quote (none / 0) (#87)
    by irishkorean on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    That makes it no better (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    Please do not clutter this thread by playing "What Michelle Obama Meant" here.

    That is for daily kos, not here. We take statements at face value here.

    Parent

    The Michelle rules? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    how is this clutter (none / 0) (#100)
    by irishkorean on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    it's a 30 second clip.

    Parent
    The intent is to clutter (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    by playing the "What Michelle Obama Meant" game.

    Parent
    the intent (none / 0) (#116)
    by irishkorean on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    was to give to give access to what she said in full.

    You're having a discussion about it.  Why not have access to the full quote?

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    the post is about what she said about not being sure she would support Hillary Clinton.

    I consider your comment an exercise in trying to play "What Michelle Obama Meant."

    I call that out EVERY time, and in whatever form it comes.

    Parent

    dude (none / 0) (#143)
    by irishkorean on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    does my clip change your argument? NO

    Should we take people out of context? NO

    Parent

    There you go again (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    The implication is that I took MO out of context.

    As I said, I slap down any attempts at "What Obama Meant" in whatever form. Yours is just a different variation.

    Parent

    my thought was (none / 0) (#184)
    by irishkorean on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    "hey BTD probably doesn't have access to the full quote I should probably make it available"

    So I made one.

    I am implying that you're taking MO out of context.  I didn't think you were doing that earlier. I thought the problem was one of access to video.

    Now it is clear that taking MO out of context is your intent.  Not just a problem of access to a full clip.

    If I had an argument to make I would have made it in my original post.

    If you want to make this argument, one that is made with a clip that cuts someone off mid sentence, that's up to you. But, why would you want to hamper that argument unnecessarily?

    In your original reply to me, had you just said "this changes nothing".  You would have been right. This conversation would have been over.  

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    Cuts someone off at midsentence?

    Now, you just accused me of deliberately taking MO's comment out of context.

    You falsely state she was cut off in midsentence. She was not.

    A followup question was asked and in her answer MO makes a statement that is irreoncilable with her previous SEPARATE statement.

    It changes nothing in her prior statement and I find it hilarious the contortions we see when we are playing "What Obama Meant."

    Yet again, I ask if Bill Clinton had said this, how many of you would be bleating (scorn intended) about "context?" None of you is the truthful answer.

    Would I have written THIS post if Bill Clinton had said this?

    You are DAMN RIGHT I would have.

    Parent

    IT DOESN"T EXIST (1.00 / 2) (#122)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    We are all having a conversation on a thread with a False Quote in it.  And those of us who dare question BTD are being told we are ridiculous because we want to frame the conversation properly.

    This entire thread is a sham and a shame.

    Parent

    Leave this site for the rest of the day (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    Your comments will be deleted if you continue them.

    Parent
    Come on... (none / 0) (#181)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    ... you are going to ban someone because they disagree with you?

    Parent
    No (3.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    I am telling them to leave the site for the day because they falsely accused me of being deliberately misleading.

    This site has a civility standard that precludes me from attacking when I am attacked.

    As a result, I must do this because it is not fair that people can impugn my integruty and I have to take it.

    Many people have ridiculously played "What Michell Obama Meant" in this thread.

    Only one commenter impugned my integrity. That commenter was asked to stop doing so. He persisted. He was wanred thast f he continued he would be asked to leave for the day.

    He persisted. He was asked to leave for the day.

    This is very simple and very fair.

    I aexpect you will now apologize to me for mischaracterizing what just occurred.

    Parent

    Well... (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    ... I am not going to apologize for mischaracterizing anything.  Because I still think that it is valid to ask a couple of things:
    1 - To not "quote" someone saying something they didn't say (which your headline does)
    2 - To give the full context of what you are attacking

    But I understand that you feel that your integrity is being attacked.  I am not doing that, and am not trying to say that you are posting a "sham."

    I will step out of the argument between you two.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    You clearly DID mischaracterize what occurred with AndrewW. Do you deny that?

    As for the rest of your argument, I have addressed it before and I believe my quote is a very fair reporesentation of what Michelle Obama said. I put in the question that she was asked.

    But to make this simple, I wll remove the quotatin marks. Buty I will NOT take out the statement.


    Parent

    WTF? (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    BTD, I think that you have gotten allergic to Obamamaniacs and are losing your head here.  

    in the clip MO goes on to say that everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.

    Parent

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    What DID she say about supporting Hillary Clinton?

    I ask you what I ask Obamaniacs, what if Bill Clinton had said this? What would the reaction be?

    Parent

    If Bill (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    Said it there would be a media firestorm condemning him for being a traitor to the party.

    MO is not WJC tho. Less rope around her neck.

    I get your point. But if the media is unfair to Clintons should they also be unfair to MO?

    BTW- Doesn't this kind of thing represent why you tepidly support BHO? That the press is very supportive as opposed to hostile?

    Parent

    It would be perfectly fair to rip (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    Bill Clinton if he said this.

    I would be the first one doing it.

    Parent

    Fair Enough (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    Given how you would react to WJC saying the same thing, you are quite fair. But, he would never say that.

    Isn't this an example of the press love for Obama, in that is is not being reported at all.

    Seems to me that the lack of negative press the Obamas get compared to the Clintons is why you favor Obama over HRC

    Press love for POTUS means more dem voters, more dems in congress.  It that your thinking?

    Parent

    A problem there (5.00 / 2) (#264)
    by rebecca on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    This type of divisive and destructive comments from both the Obamas makes it less likely that we will come together after the primary season is over.  They are giving a pass to their supporters to just sit out the GE or even vote for another party.  They are also giving no reason for Clinton supporters to support them since they have clearly told them that his own supporters are free to not vote for her.  It's a disasterous tactic.  It's extremely divisive.  But then that's the type of politics he seems to like.  A passive aggressive approach of playing the victim and crying foul.  

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#127)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    You're asking Obama supporters to disprove a negative.  You framed the whole discussion in a quote that MO didn't even give.

    Parent
    I told you to leave the site for the day (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    AndrewW. I am serious. Do not comment here anymore today.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Everyone, but not her because she will have to think about it.

    Parent
    Thanks! "I'd have to think about . . . (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    her policies, her approach, her tone. . . ."

    Now I really have an understanding of what the other of the two Obamas said.  And it's even worse -- as bad as the comments by her husband on this topic.

    Bill Clinton NEVER would say this.  Never.  But he is the problem spouse?  That spin may have worked for a week, but the Obama honeymoon is about over.

    Parent

    "Little Joe" (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    Perhaps we should nickname Obama "little Joe" if this keeps up. He sounds more and more like Lieberman-- especially in reaction to Ned.

    Parent
    How come you are still (none / 0) (#172)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    posting andrew...

    Spitter! (none / 0) (#238)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    Ha! Splitter (none / 0) (#242)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    not a good typist

    Parent
    Stop with these OT lame comments (none / 0) (#245)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    See the rules on "chattering" as well.

    Parent
    tsk tsk tsk (none / 0) (#223)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee I will seriously have think about voting for him.

    I am so angry about the way the Obamas have been playing dirty trick about dirty trick that I seriously could care less is McCain wins.

    We got over Reagan, we'll get over bush and McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    This is just plain nasty from MO! And I was ready to support him after the debate in Los Angeles.

    Wait, (1.00 / 1) (#246)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    now you're splitting.  Splitter!

    Parent
    Enough (none / 0) (#251)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    michelle (none / 0) (#226)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    Now, now. We all know Obama is the candidate of UNITY, he's just tearing the Democratic Party apart. My fav is SLATE speaking out and finally saying that Obama's speeches are FACIST. This, from SLATE MAGAZINE.

    Linky-poo, please? nt (none / 0) (#255)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    The video is clipped (none / 0) (#229)
    by edgery on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    1. I'm an Edwards supporter and not an apologist for anyone.
    2. This video was put up by someone who set up their user account at YouTube today so we have no background on who this is.
    3. The video is clipped to omit what Mrs. Obama said in full:

    Right after that Michelle said this in the interview:

    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that."

    ABC News


    Hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#241)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Typical MSM reporting, they love Obama. In the text part of the report they left the odiuos quote out. This is how they report it:
    She said that if Hillary Clinton bests her husband for the Democratic nomination, she'd support the nominee.
    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that," she said.


    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#244)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    Can you harmonize MO's statements to two separate question for me then?

    Why does she have to think about what
    "everybody" is going to do?

    Parent

    Exactly. Question was what she would do (none / 0) (#271)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    and the answer to that is the problem.

    The interviewer did not ask what Dems are going to do -- nor the Obamas' "Dems for a day" aka GOP crossover, nor Indies, passersby, etc.  That is a pablum question that got the pablum answer that the Obamas' apologists keep pushing here.  So what?

    The answer to the question asked was not the answer that a prominent spokesperson for the party would give.  Not now, especially, but not ever.  And the other Obama is now a prominent spokesperson for the party.  That comes with running for First Lady.

    Parent

    I just watched the 30 second clip (none / 0) (#234)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    I'm with Big Tent on this. She said she'd have to think about whether she could "work to support" Hillary Clinton if nominated, and listed her reasons as "policy, her agenda and her tone."

    That's unacceptable for someone in her position, who is actively campaigning for her husband across the country, giving speeches and appearing with endorsers. It was explicit disapproval of Hillary -- the "tone" part gives it away. Also, Obama and Hillary's agendas and policy positions are so similar.

    Yesterday she appeared with Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah. She's not a passive spouse in this election.

    They both owe it to the Democratic party to actively support the nominee whoever it is. There is no acceptable "I'd have to think about that"

    Big Tent doesn't want to get into her intent, but I'll just say it seemed to me she blurted this out as it was how she truly feels.

    frankly, i have a problem with mo's tone! (5.00 / 0) (#277)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    ... you aren't voting for MO.  She isn't on the ballot.

    Parent
    The two Obamas are on the ballot (none / 0) (#282)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    too.  Candidates always are measured by the company they keep -- supporters, too, but certainly spouses.

    Or perhaps you missed all the "two Clintons" talk?  That is not new; they faced it not only in '96 and '92 but even earlier in Arkansas. . . .

    Parent

    Okay.. (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    ... so do you think it is okay to vote (or not vote) for Hillary based on Bill and what he has said and done?

    Parent
    yeah, well two peas in a pod in my view. (none / 0) (#285)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    if this what we can expect from her in the wh, my answer is no thanks.

    Parent
    Yep. Then backpedaled . . . too late (nt) (none / 0) (#272)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#248)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    I hope aren't offended by my posts making fun of this, but I really think this is an overreaction.  If you are sincerely upset over this, you by all means have the right to feel what you feel.

    I am upset about MO's comments (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    yours are merely annoying and a violation of site rules.

    Parent
    Hence the appy poly loggies... (none / 0) (#258)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    Excuse the o/t (none / 0) (#249)
    by jen on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:34:34 PM EST
    but can anyone tell me how to get the comments to expand? It just started today that all the comments are collapsed and I don't see an option to expand. Thanks for any help.

    Over 200 (none / 0) (#252)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    I am not sure you can.

    but J would know better

    Parent

    Go up to the top of the thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    and change your display setting to "nested."

    Parent
    Thanks SUO (none / 0) (#267)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    Never knew how to fix that. Much better.  

    Parent
    And you can make (none / 0) (#263)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    your display changes permanent via "your preferences" way up on the top right of TL's front page...

    Parent
    Context is useless here (none / 0) (#279)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    Does anybody understand that if someone can put this together and put it on youtube, and have it be so easily misunderstood (if it is at that), then something is wrong with the statement. At its core it is a bad statement, and it encourages the wrong kind of thinking at a time when 'Unity' is necessary.

    I'm sorry that Michelle Obama is so into the cult that she's willing to throw away our chances of taking this country back from the brink, but it's pretty telling that she apparently doesn't seem to see the danger in doing so.

    Wow (none / 0) (#281)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    You guys don't even pretend to be objective anymore.  

    I find the hysteria of (none / 0) (#289)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:22 PM EST
    Obama supporters absolutely amazing....wow in the GE if he wins the nomination, they will be foaming at the mouth....lol....

    Fired up, ready to go! (none / 0) (#294)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    You're right, we will be foaming at the mouth and nigh unstopable.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#295)
    by tjproudamerican on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's remarks after SC went back to Jesse Jackson in 1988, 20 years earlier, not to John Edwards in 2004. Jackson and Edwards each won SC and lost the Democratic Party nod.

    Obama is wrong and his wife is wrong, but this was an example of the Clinton's being too smart by half.

    Maybe Bill forgot Edwards or thought Jesse Jackson was white. Maybe like the Alito-Scalia-Roberts Court, Bill Clinton is colorblind.

    The Obama's did not think so and his wife is angry. The Clinton's reap what they sow so infrequently that progressives, and I am one, give them 1001 breaks and chances.

    Michelle Obama is not ready for American politics because she is still a human and not a Focus-Group approved Brand.

    P.S. I am not an Obamanaut. I resent the way people assume if you are tired of the Clinton's, you are not progressive (remember Welfare "Reform" and Iraq Vote? I DO). And I am tired of the new model that if Hilary's careful timid centrism makes you puke, you are a member of Spanky's Wimmin' Haters Club.

    I am not. Bill and Hillary Clinton are deeply flawed. McCain and all Republican candidates are crazy and represent the worst of all choices, but that does not mean Hillary is good.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#298)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:40:51 PM EST
    Did you read MY post ripping Bill clinton for that?

    What is wrong with you people?

    Parent

    they are (none / 0) (#301)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    Oblind.

    Parent
    I use to love Talk Left (none / 0) (#296)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    You need to warn posters in BOLD LETTERS,  if they support Obama, don't come on this site. Its the fair thing to do.

    I am campaigning for Obama in the VA. primaries. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her, but I haven't thought about whether I will  campaign on her behalf.  

    Comments made about Obama supporters has alot to do with it. If we are a cult, what are Clinton supporters. The beauty of all of this is, people in this country can choose who they prefer.  

    The fact that MO said she will vote for Clinton, should be enough.  Whether she wants to campaign for her is a big to do about nothing. Her words were taken out of context by those looking for something to "b" about. Sounds just like kids in a play ground argument. (imo)

    There are voters that want vote for Hilary if Obama looses. Same can be said about Hilary supporters. Some of them want vote for Obama. Thats a fact.

    I guess am the next one to be told to leave the board for the day. I will go back to reading, and not posting.

    The sensitivity of Obama supporters (none / 0) (#297)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    is something to behold. Are you at all embarrassed that  you find it impossible to deal with a critique of your candidate or his spouse?

    Parent
    Nice try (none / 0) (#306)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    But the sensitivity on this board is high when it comes down to Hilary Clinton.  A day doesn't go by in which you don't whine about whats being said on other blogs and in the news about her.  
    Today you kept count on how many diss Hilary compared to Obama.  Keeping count comes across as being sensitive(imo)

    You get into a frenzy and tell posters to leave when they don't agree with you.  I think the Dems have two very good candidates.  Dissing supporters for either candidate only causes division.
     This is the USA. Citizens  are free to support who they prefer and shouldn't be labeled as a cult. Its meant to be demeaning.  Leave those kinda remarks for the  Republicans to make. .

     BOTTOM LINE: when its all said and done, we are DEMOCRATS. You are doing a good job of running those who would support Hilary away.

    Parent

    I guess Michelle is staying (5.00 / 0) (#310)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:00:41 PM EST
    given the uncertainty of her support for Hillary.

    Parent
    C'mon (none / 0) (#311)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:17:39 PM EST
    Can't we have a small corner that we dominate?

    Parent
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#299)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    There  ARE  no  excuses  for  what   Michelle  said.   NONE.  

    It   was  classless,  graceless,  and  tacky.  

    If  Barak  can't  control   his  wife's  poor   manners,   he  can't  control  the  country.

    Or  so Michelle  said,  about  Bill.  

    No  excuses,  Michelle.   Not  this  time.

    I guess this means my (none / 0) (#300)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    Dream Ticket of Hillary Clinton and VP Michelle Ombama is not going to happen.

    So, in sum, now we have WOORM (none / 0) (#303)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    as well:  What the Other Obama Really Meant.

    It's getting really hard to keep translating all of these linguistic switches, these turns of phrase.  

    Maybe there's a Magic Decoder Ring for the So-Called Dem Candidate -- maybe it comes not in a cereal box but with a packet of koolaid, available in whatever flavor of the day that "Dems for a Day" desire? :-)

    Michelle (none / 0) (#314)
    by GeorgeBushIsNot A Texan but a Jackass on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    gave the correct answer. Since Hillary lost the nomination, will you vote for Obama? Or will you have to THINK ABOUT IT? .....that is exactly what I thought! You're gonna have to think about it!