The State of Blogger Discourse on Obama and Hillary

Huffington Post writer and political commentator Cliff Schecter and I did a segment today on MSNBC on the heated nature of the discourse in the blogosphere between bloggers supporting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Skippy has an excellent summary and take on it.

Both Cliff and I opined the blogosphere will come together to support whichever Democrat is nominated. It was a very friendly segment. I'm sure the producers were disappointed. They were hoping for fireworks between an "Obama blogger" and a "Hillary blogger" and they got a unified front.


I pointed out it's the commenters more than the bloggers who tend to get overheated when discussing Obama and Hillary. Cliff agreed.

I was asked if I thought the hostilities would be a problem for the Democratic party in November. I said I hope not and I believe we will come together because beating McCain is more important.

I said commenters don't necessarily represent the views of the bloggers whose sites they comment on and it's up to bloggers to reign in their commenters while noting that some might have a problem with that.

The theme of the segment was that it's a primary, things get heated, but Democrats will come together once the nominee is chosen and support the candidate. The important thing is to get a Democrat back in the White House. I believe we will do that.

As an aside, TalkLeft does restrict commenters. It does not allow insults, name-calling or personal attacks. Commenters must stay on topic and they can't try to dominate or hijack the threads. It's how we choose to run this blog. It is not a statement on how other bloggers should run their blogs.

< Granholm Proposes Legislation For MI Revote; FL Says No To Mail Revote | It's Official: No New Primary for Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    i slightly disagree (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    i think many bloggers are too far out on their hillary hatred to be able to bring it back in, should she pull this out.

    Sometimes I think its the other way around (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    lets hope JM is right and we are wrong.

    Yep..... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    The real hardcore Obama and Clinton followers are all off their respective rockers:)

    It would be nice if the dissension were over policy or the issues, that's understandable....but most of it seems to come from offense taken at what the other guy's campaign said, or worrying about what the evil republicans will say...aka bullsh*t.  Very childish, and very telling about the state of political debate in this country.  


    About issues (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:56:53 PM EST
    on the Clinton side.  Complaints about Obama in comments and posts on this and a few other sites are, more often than not, about issues.

    About Obama's right-of-center economics team and generally weak platform on economic issues, about his stated desire to compromise away progressive policy, his campaign's reliance on independents and Republicans, his phony posturing as a non-politician, etc.

    On the anti-Hillary sites (Dailykos, Talkingpointsmemo, story link site Buzzflash) it's the posts by the site's personnel making mainstream media style, unfair, partial fiction, vile assaults on Hillary Clinton.  Much of this stuff reads like it comes from Fox or the editorial page of the WSJ.  I wouldn't be surprised to see posts about Vince Foster, etc.  

    When Olbermann compared her to David Duke a line was crossed but it wasn't far off from posts (as distinguished from comments) I've read on KOS, TPM and others.


    From my view.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    Clinton's economic plans are right of center as well.  If her husband's run as pres was any indication, she will also compromise away progressive ideals.

    I'd characterize complaints about Obama appealing to I's and R's and posturing as anti-political as fluff issues.

    They both support occupation and massive military budgets.

    Both will do not do enough about our incarceration problem, for fear of being labeled "soft on crime".

    The drug war will rage on under both with the accompanying tyranny.

    6 stale donuts in one, half a dozen in the other.


    i agree (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    but only concerning the "I hate Hillary set".  I think most of us would not mind either of them facing off with McCain in the GE.  And the blogosphere is still a small part of the voting public...I don't think TalkLeft is swaying that many non-voters to vote or voters to change their votes, nor is Dailykos, nor HuffPo.

    But there is no doubt blogs are helping to guide the discourse in the media.  Without Dailykos pushing Hillary as a racist I don't think Olbermann gives his one-sided attack comment---his "special comment" was posted on dKos immediately under his byline.  While DailyKos, as a blog, can't sway the average voter, Olbermann--who plays to a much larger audience--can.

    Besides the accusations of racism there isn't a single thing in this campaign that I can pt to and say, "I don't think that belongs in the debate."  Tax records, donors, votes, missing votes, questions of judgment and responsibility...fine I can deal with all of those...but to accuse Hillary of being "no better than a Grand Wizard" or that she promotes race-baiting, or that she is courting the white supremacist vote...well that is over the line.  People that are willing to make unsubstantiated claims and cheer such unsubstantiated claims are the ones that are too far gone...they haven't just tied themselves to Obama they have convinced themselves that Hillary is the most evil person to have ever walked the earth and will not vote for her and will try and convince others not to vote for her should she be the nominee.

    But I applaud both Jeralyn and the guy from HuffPo for not turning the interview into a name-calling scrum as I'm sure the producers were hoping for a more vitriolic exchange.  


    Good points, but... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    "Besides the accusations of racism there isn't a single thing in this campaign that I can pt to..."

    Isn't this kind of like "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?"?


    I should explain (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    I hate racism. Actually, I hate all "isms", but racism and sexism are particularly nasty. I think that "racist" is one of the worst things you can call somebody. I also think that the Obama campaign supporters, and, to a lesser but significant extent, the campaign itself, have been using charges of racism against Clinton to win this primary. This leaves me seriously torn. I have been a Democrat since I registered to vote - about 25 years. I've never voted for a Republican or Independent candidate, and I've never sat out an election. As I've gained financially, I've contributed to the Democratic Party. But I really don't feel as if I can support Obama wihout implicitly endorsing his campaign's use of charges of racism against Clinton in order to win the primary.

    I empathize with you, but (none / 0) (#112)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    given the choice, I'll still vote for "The Democrat".  The stakes are too high right now.

    The real credit (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    in that exchange should go to Jeralyn. The HuffPo guy launched into the hillary said our guy wasn't good enough meme as a cause of the skirmish.

    Jeralyn defused the situation by laying it off to commenters.

    Well played to deny the press a food fight story.


    Yes Jeralyn was pure class. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    .....classier than I would have been. She represented Hillary well.  

    I heard someone say (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    a while back that as she is in a deeply red state and as her vote won't matter, she might find herself out of the country in November.  I'm in Georgia, and my blue vote will get lost in a sea of red as well.

    Maybe we should all plan to meet up in London and watch the results from there.


    Actually, DailyKos did sway my vote (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    I was for Edwards and although he was very popular at DKos, Obama and Hillary supporters were allowed to get into the discussion. Once he dropped out, then Obama supporters nicely asked us to join their  winning group. The nicely did not last long and pretty soon the Obama group took over. I thought the insults over the top and cruel and I do not like cruel people. So I can say because of the Hillary abuse on DKos, I choose her over Obama. Then I looked further and studied the issues, including judgment and experience and health care, and I knew I had made the right choice.  

    Exactly my evolution (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    Though I started looked askance at Obama when Lord Eschaton called him out for putting Social Security in play, it was the combined behavior of the press during NH and the Obama Fan Base that put me in the mode that "I don't want any part of this." If Obama had spoken on the Senate Floor on FISA, I'd probably supporting him now, but sadly, he didn't do that.

    OMG (none / 0) (#115)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    Crooks & Liars has a post up speculating that David Broder suggested in an interview that Hillary and Bill Clinton are going to have Obama bumped off before the convention so she can have the nomination.  I kid you not.  The Obama people believe it and are having a hate fest against Hil.  I had to leave the site.  I can't believe Americans are so nutty.

    okay (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    i love cliff, but he completely mischaracterized hillary's comments about mccain. she never said he'd make a better president than obama. that's the type of distortion we see so often on certain blogs, and it's one of the reasons some of us will never again respect certain bloggers, no matter who wins.

    But more than that.... (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    ...the aggressive behavior that Obama supporters have shown towards Hillary supporters started WAAAAY before Hillary's CIC remarks.  I should know because I was trollstormed off DailyKos back in January.  And no, Jeralyn, I don't think we will all be together at the end and there will be no hard feelings.  I think there will be plenty of hard feelings.  There is a pervasive sense that the DNC has put their thumb on the scale for Obama and against Hillary and it is alienating not only the states that were disenfranchised but the ones that went overwhelmingly for Clinton.  You can't give big Democratic states and swing states the finger in favor of Idaho without consequences.  And I predict there will be consequences.  Regardless of his pastor's remarks, Obama's negative campaign has been over the top and I don't want to vote for a tofu candidate I know nothing about any more than I want to vote for McCain.  But it's not up to just me.  You have to convince the other voters who feel like they are being screwed.  
    Voting for Obama this fall will be VERY difficult for me.  I will feel as though I was forced into it.  

    as one who is not crazy about either of the two (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    i will vote for whichever gets the nomination. the stakes are too high. i do think the party will heal. i don't think the blogosphere will.

    the blogosphere will (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    maybe eventually.
    but with more scar tissue than Mel Gibson in Man Without a Face.

    I do not think (none / 0) (#134)
    by sas on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:47:03 PM EST
    there is any way that the blogosphere will heal, so I disagree with you.

    I will not forget the ugly words I have read on HuffPo and TPM  toward Hillary.

    And I do not appreciate Obama taking my vote for him for granted (Hillary supporters will vote for me, but mine might not vote for her, and  Michelle Obama "might" support Hillary).

    I also remember the misogyny of the MSM and some of the A Blogger Boyz.

    I'm angry.  And I don't think I'll get over it and play nice.


    As a safe (usually) Blue State (CA) (none / 0) (#117)
    by allimom99 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    inhabitant, I'm following the strategy of HUmboldt County's own David Cobb, the Green candidate from 2004. If Obama is the nominee I will write in or vote 3d party (Cynthia McKinney is running this year!) unless it is necessary for a Dem victory. Rest assured I will be pinching my nose firmly if this happens.

    I am so p***ed at the DNC I could spit. They need to issue a great big "mea culpa" and seat FL. To penalize nearly 2 MILLION Dem voters because of the Repug legislature is appalling. BTW, you don't suppose THEY had an ulterior motive, knowing what the punishment would be ahead of time? Just saying....


    This is good! (none / 0) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:35:53 AM EST
    Those of you in red states won't vote since it won't make any difference, and those in blue states won't vote since it won't make any difference either.

    Florida democrats won't vote, b/c they are mad, and neither would Michigan democrats.

    So which states can we rely on to save the world?  I hope US democratic party doesn't get reduced to voting in MO and NJ.  That would be some kind of 50 (minus 48) states strategy.


    And about more than this fall (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    as let's remember the long-term impact of the horrible '68 Dem convention.  For one, that gave rise four years later to . . . super-delegates.

    The Dem Party has been badly handled by its leadership, the likes of Dean and Brazile, and even if we pull off winning the White House, there still will be battles to win the Dem Party.


    That's a good reminder (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:36:54 PM EST
    For people who scream about Super Delegates and brokered conventions, stealing primaries, etc. Supes were created to SOLVE the issue, one way or the other. They are the Veto, the Alpha and the Omega.

    They're voice is more important.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:42:33 PM EST
    than Joe Blow Democrat's.


    Why can't the nationwide popular vote be the Alpha and Omega?  What is the party scared of it's members?  Too common?  Too unbeholden?


    Nope, we elect many super-delegates (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    as our governors, members of Congress, etc. -- certainly we elect them far more directly than most of our pledged delegates, who are mostly big donors.

    As for whether this process ought to change, any party leader looking at a lot of the so-called progressive or even liberal blogs must be thinking about further reforms -- but to build the wall stronger to prevent a lot of commenters, in their craziness, from crashing the party.


    They're voice.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:06:58 PM EST
    should be equal to yours when it comes time to pick a candidate to represent all of you Cream City.

    I could never join a club where some members are more equal than others.


    Voting is not joining a club (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    and if you think there is no difference between those who just vote and those who are active members of the party, you're not an active member of the party.

    I grew up with it.  And yes, those who give every day to building the party every year, not just a primary every four years, ought to have more say in preventing their work from being destroyed.  They're not running a Constitutional convention, for pity's sake; it's a party convention.  

    You want it different, then work to have your state run the primary instead of the party.  And work within the party to win that.  Of course, if you're in a caucus state, your state does run the caucus because it's too cheap to run a primary.  And so if you're in a caucus state, you have far bigger issues to worry about -- say, one person/one vote -- than how the club runs its conventions.  


    By club..... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST
    I meant the Democratic party....which includes all registered Democrats, right?

    All I'm saying is I could never join a party like that...where the aristocrat "super members" can trump the will of the party members.  That's oligarchy, ain't it?


    Why do you think we have to "register"? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    Do you understand that doesn't exist in a lot of states?  I don't have to register as anything.  We're all in the Independent Club in my state and many others -- except the Dem or GOP activists, who are known by their service (and/or their donations) in the parties.

    Ok... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:35:29 PM EST
    I'm still not sold that potential primary infiltrators in states that don't require party membership justifies having an aristocracy decide the nominee.  

    Take me for example, I would have voted for Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich (despite the respective party-member blogger bias against them:) out of sincere desire to see them on a November ballot if I was allowed to in my state...am I such a risk that you'd let the powerful trump the powerless in deciding the nominee?


    Moving goalposts here (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    so fuggedaboutit, if you're not going to stay on point -- points you make, for pity's sake.

    very good point (none / 0) (#168)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:39:01 AM EST
    Next time Donna makes noise on the role of superdelegate, remind her that she has played a role far more than any superdelegate.  She has singlehandedly disenfranchised two large states.

    It's NOT ok for them, but it's ok for her.  Watch her to throw a hissy fit if the delegates choose to overturn her little nasty, destructive punishment to FL and MI.  Watch Donna scream, "It's not fair".


    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    I hate to correct and I mean no offense, but:

    The Superdelegates were put into the mix after 1980 and not as a result of 1968.  If anything the superdelegates were put in place because of the McGovern nomination in 1972.

    What followed 1968 was the McGovern Commission in 1970 to increase the number of primaries and keep the nomination out of the hands of party bosses.

    Before the McGovern Commission there were only 15 or 16 primaries.  

    Those 15 or so priimaries didn't mean much insofar as getting pledged delegates. The principle use was for a candidate to prove his ability to get votes outside his home turf and/or on potentially hostile turf.  A classic example is the West Virginia primary in 1960 when Catholic JFK proved he could get votes in an overwhelmingly protestant state.

    The system we have now (superdelegates aside) is in some ways more subject to something similar to boss control than the old system. Our results, again superdelegates aside, are not as good as the pre-McGovern system and were in many ways more responsive to the public need than what we have now.


    I was oversimplifying, but causation matters (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    as does context, and nothing comes overnight.

    1968 begat the quota delegates of 1972, which begat the disaster of the McGovern race (much as I worked for him and still love him), which begat the party regulars taking back power with super-delegates.

    All of which still traces back to the '68 debacle -- a debacle, at least, in the minds of the party powers-that-be . . . and that was evidence that the '72 delegate plan had not taken power from the powers-that-be at all, when they reasserted it.

    I was of a mind then that the party deserved to die just like all of my friends in Viet Nam.  I don't think it deserves to die now.  However, I am done donating to its survival under its current leadership.  So I'm not a member of the club at all.  


    Thanks for the perspective on the superdelegates (none / 0) (#119)
    by allimom99 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    Your point aboput them being mostly directly elected by "the people" was a cogent one. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but ANY delegate has the ability to change sides, so maybe Obama shouldn't be so complacent about his lead.

    Yep, the "pledge" is only that -- and (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    no penalty attached for changing it (other than the scorn of others who would stick with a candidate who can't win -- powerful as scorn can be).

    It's a pledge that is more powerful than the ones some people make when public tv calls during pledge drives, people trying to get the caller off the phone.  Btw, some of that may be going on now among super-delegates, too, with media calls to come up with the media's delegate counts -- the only delegate counts we have, with none from the party.

    And I saw the cable networks only today beginning to get that the pledge can be changed.  Of course, they still are figuring out that no caucus count is final yet, either, with re-caucusing to come again once in some states and twice in others.

    The media ignorance about processes is appalling, and especially considering they use their seriously flawed numbers to try to pick our president.  And I'm no expert, either, by any means -- but (a) I went to local media websites and other sources to figure all this out, and (b) unlike media, I realize every day from other commenters that I still have a lot to learn. :-)


    No optimism here. I've voted since 1960 (none / 0) (#159)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:23:58 PM EST
    I will opt out and go Independent if that idiotic DNC doesn't fix the Mich/Florida thing just so they can have BAD 'control' over what they feel MIGHT be the future.

    They could just FINE the Dem parties in each state $1 million or more each and have money in the coffers and have MADE their case about penalties.  Instead they go against the entire idea of Democracy and instead penalize the voters.  

      The rigidity of Howard Dean is seen in his inability to move his neck while talking.  Flexibility is foremost in successful politics.  It's missing here.  Besides he's still angry at Carville for trying to get him out, and I was FOR Dean at that time.  Now I see I had no idea how rigid and how non-sensical he could be.

      This is not my Dem party.  Obama has also had 'reservations' against ANYthing that might resolve it unless he got 50% of the votes that resulted.  I won't be voting for him either.

      I would have before all this.  I'm sick of all the race-baiting, and he'd better not do it yet again tomorrow night.  Mr. New Politics is anything but.

      Caucus results disenfranchise so many (already listed in countless posts), relative to primaries (see Texas and Washington State for live examples) and reward the extreme activists, that they are a joke as equal 'wins' when they involve something like 10 to 20% of the entire state's registered voters who would vote in primaries that are easy to get to for everyone and don't require added hours and far fewer voting places that are hard for many to get to.


    disagree (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Patriot Daily on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:51:43 PM EST
    As you know turk, i was still waiting for gore to jump in until few months ago. i think hillary's statements should be viewed objectively.

    Hillary stated when defending her 3 am ad that she and McCain had a lifetime of experience but Obama did not:

    "I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

    Hillary then explained some more of what she meant:

    "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

    Hillary did not expressly state that she and McCain were qualified for the WH but Obama was not, but that is the clear intended implication and meaning of her words.  Politicians don't always state ideas expressly, they go for implications. Just like Bush mostly did not state that iraq was tied to 9/11, the clear import of what he did say conveyed his intended message to America and the world.

    To try to limit politician's statements to only the express words, devoid of context and intentional implications is contrary to politics.

    Moreover, given that most people did interpret her words in this manner, if that interpretation were wrong, most politicians would correct the record. She did not.

    When her campaign was asked how could Obama qualify as her VP when he did not pass the commander in chief threshold, her campaign said, oh, well, there is time between now and the convention.  Really? And what will obama do between now and then besides speeches?


    I think this is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    I support Obama mainly for the reasons BTD has often stated.  I don't like some of the things he has done but many of Clinton's supporters are just as blind to her faults as many of Obama's are to his.  I think that's probably pretty natural, if unfortunate.

    I also think the blogosphere is a very narrow slice of reality and its easy to forget that most people don't have this perception of the contest.


    this is getting off topic (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:54:10 PM EST
    the topic is bloggers here and whether they will come behind the candidate.

    sorry jeralyn (none / 0) (#142)
    by Patriot Daily on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    i was responding to turk's comment. and i think it shows that one reason why there are bots for one side or other (and turk is clearly not a bot) is the lack of objectivity.

    ALSO, the Obama-centered vote in Texas (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    Someone in Texas did an analysis (heard on cable news) that showed that those who voted for Obama -- especially the younger people voting for the first time -- did not vote for ANY issues and checked off only the presidential box.

      In other words, they're enamoured of Obama as a personality and were not interested in the other aspects of politics (issues affecting everyone) or in the party.

      And yet we think those are "brought into the" party?

      As far as which set will drop out (newbies or oldies) and affect the election most, think about the fact that oldies will very often vote the Dem ticket out of agreement with Dem values rather than being there for love of one candidate and voting only for him.  That means everyone running on that ticket in congressional races will have less chance of a vote for them if Obama is at the head.  That's ONE aspect to consider.

      The cult of personality can wreck this party more than help it.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#166)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:31:06 AM EST
    This means a lot coming from you, b/c I remember you even wrote a diary and told people at a certain blog to cool it.  That it was his blog, and he could set rules as he saw fit.  

    I am glad you saw what drove us out.  

    I am NEVER going back to dk. The attitude that kos showed this primary season was reprehensive and deeply offensive.  I don't believe in EVER rewarding such behavior.  

    His reputation is his currency.  Let him repair it.


    I think Kos would be a case in point (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    of a blogger who has really lost it.

    The real problem is that the commenters take their cue from the proprietor of the blog. If the proprietor goes negative to the degree X, then the commenters take it to degree 5X.

    And, since the proprietors know, or should know that, they truly bear responsibility for what takes place on their blogs in the comments.

    Laying blame on anyone is not (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    a productive use of time.  Let's all take a deep breath, ...

    and another, ...

    and walk around the block or the yard (as appropriate), ...

    and remember the objective is to toss the Republicans out on their fat, overstuffed a$$es and fix the mess they've created.


    And replace them with a cypher? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    I'm sorry.  I have to know what and who I am voting for.  Who is behind Obama's candidacy and what are they up to?  What are their interests and goals?  There are too many missing data points and I am not at all happy with being bamboozled and hoodwinked.  
    With Hillary I know what I'm getting and I know she's a real Democrat.  

    Pushing for positions and committments (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    is not the same as trashing and running them down.

    Demand answers - clear, unambiguous answers - and keep demanding them until you get them.  But don't go down the road of trashing either candidate.


    that is my concern. (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    who is behind the campaigns? i haven't seen the dem leadership show that are fighting democrats for us. i have to wonder if we will piddle along with no new way so to speak besides empty promises.

    Behind Obama? The 'establishment' (none / 0) (#161)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:34:56 PM EST
    So far, Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick, Bradley, Pelosi (though she denies it while being quite clear about it in her transparent negative statements about any duo ticket and her giving the reason as the Commander-in-Chief issue) are backing Obama, and it should be clear why.  It's all about power.  They can mold Obama and have great entry into the White House once again, and not since the 60s.

      With Clinton in there they would not be the ones telling the President what to do.  They'd be great trainers though, in how it was done in the 60s.

      That Obama lost in Massachusetts, when Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick, Caroline stood up for him is indicative of some disillusionment around the similar campaign of Patrick.  But while Obama rails against Washington Insiders, quite obviously he is here because of them, starting with Kerry's choosing him to make that speech at the convention (which I taped) and peaking in the Ted Kennedy endorsement.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#66)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:35:06 PM EST
    In respect! :)

    Kos is not a Hillary Hater (none / 0) (#125)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    Kos is fighting against the DCCC. He absolutely hates these people and he is crashing the gate. On the night of the Ohio win for Hillary, he pointed out a Latino in Texas who he disliked who was helping Hillary. He made the comment that he really liked Hillary but hated the people who surround her.  That particular night, the big picture on CNN was Hillary holding hands with Governor Strickland and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Just freaky as I know he does not hates these two people. Sometimes I think people just get caught up in the moment and are upset when their candidate did not win. In this case he felt the DCCC had won that round and he was not amused. The problem is that many of the commenters there do not understand what is behind his view and assume he is for Obama because he thinks Hillary is bad. In this case, I believe he would get behind Hillary if she is the winner because even the DCCC is better than Republicans and McCain.

    What we have to do is, after coming (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    together behind the nominee, we should have a program to undo the clusterf*ck of an economy the Republicans have crapped on our heads.

    As many have noted - though elsewhere - there should be little doubt that the developments we have been seeing in the economy are not a bug, they are a feature.  It's yet another example of the Shock Doctrine in action and, if the progressives don't have a good set of ideas handy, the ideas the Repugs have left laying around are the ones which will be picked up and put to use.

    So, people, let's all get it together and start working up a program we can all get behind and push.  After all, there isn't that much difference between the programs Obama and HRC are positing.


    Horse hockeys (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:33:05 PM EST
    If there wasn't that much of a difference between them, then why is it that Obama supporters started off so hostile to Clinton?  I hear this crap all the time, "There's no differnce really".  Ok, then go over to DailyKos and tell them that.  Write a diary that says, "Hey, guys!  I don't think there's any real difference between them.  It's really ok and cool to vote for Clinton.  Honest.  She'd make a pretty good candidate and there's no reason to trash her."
    Go ahead, I dare ya'.  I'm sure they can't wait for a message like that.  
    Riiiighht.  You would be so dead within minutes.  But you seem to think it's cool to talk us into  voting for a candidate we know virtually nothing about.  I don't vote on faith.  I vote based on evidence.  

    I understand why they are hostile.... (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    towards Clinton...my question is why aren't they equally as hostile towards Obama?

    No disrespect...they're drinking cherry kool-aid and you're drinking grape.  I'm telling all of yas to put the cup down and vote for anybody except the 3 occupation supporting, fiscal doom delivering, tyranny-lite stooges....Hillary "Moe" Clinton, Barak "Larry" Obama, and John "Curley" McCain.


    Remember, in college (none / 0) (#126)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    Barrack went by the name Berry. Wonder why he changed it back to Barrack.

    Excellent advice scribe... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    for any Democrat.  I don't see much difference between their programs either...which is why I can vote for neither, but I'm a broken record.

    Unfortunately, we appear to be dealing with a citizenry who is stuck in "I'm taking my ball and going home" mode.

    Though for selfish reasons, I'd welcome whatever half of the Democratic loses to bring their ball and play with me in the "none of the above" game:)


    Talking to a lot of the more enthusiastic (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    (spelled "r-a-b-i-d") supporters is like talking sense to your drunk friend who's set on driving home.

    If the law allowed it, the only appropriate response would be to clock that friend in the jaw to shut him up, then take the keys until he sobers up.

    I just hope both sides sober up, soon.


    Good analogy.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    though I would take it a step further....it's like talking to that same drunk friend, and he's taking all the reefer home with his drunk arse as well:)

    Nice job, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Chimster on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    This is exactly the kind of interview the Republicans don't want to see--an extremely cordial one. I noticed the HuffingtonPost writer couldn't help himself but take a free jab at Hillary.

    Yes, thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#130)
    by nashville on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM EST
    you are definitely the very calm voice in the midst of rough times on-line.  Plus you really took the high road the whole time in the interview of what I saw.

    I can't say thanks enough to you and everyone else who regularly partidcipates in this site. Checking out what's going on here is my first stop after coffee and the paper. It's nice to find someplace where there are people who have similar questions and concerns even if coming from different directions.  

    It's usually fairly easy to determine who someone supports, but it can be very enlightening to understand a different perspective. I'm getting more and more worried each day about the healing though on both sides.  

    Please pardon me if I over reacted today on a different thread to what I perceived as attacks, not to me initially but to others.

    Thanks again.  Although I wanted to express my thanks I think I'll return to just lurking (and rating) because maybe I am just "too thin-skinned"  :)  


    Click on the Sitemeter doohickey at dKos (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dave Latchaw on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    Look at the 12 month stats. Traffic has gone way up since the place became Obabma Central. It's just not in his interest to rein stuff in.

    traffic has gone way up here (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    since I've leaned towards Hillary. And I rein stuff in.

    all about what (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    you are looking for in a blog.

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    nice to see you on the MSM circuit.
    havent seen you for a while.
    but I am not a rabid viewer of the MSM.

    Believe it or not... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:41:56 PM EST
    ...when I started posting here it wasn't because I felt the blog leaned toward Hilary, it was because you didn't allow people to attack her. I welcome intelligent discussion with Obama supporters. But a lot of Obama supporters don't seem to want discussion, they seem to want Clinton supporters to just give up and agree with them. I'm looking, hard, for a reason to support Obama. I expect him to be the Democratic nominee, and I'm trying to get over serious reservations I have in voting for and otherwise supporting him. I appreciate that you are for Clinton - but I appreciate even more that you aren't "against" either Clinton or Obama.

    agree 100% (none / 0) (#169)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51:46 AM EST
    Here, the discussions are civil and respectful.  On dk, you could post a totally polite diary supporting Hillary, and withing seconds, a whole group would show up and like Sheep at the Animal Farm would drive the noise through the roof.  They intentionally would repeat the same, old talking points that had nothing with the topic of the diary.  

    It was very difficult to keep a conversation.  

    Markos' attitude, of course, has been "wink, wink, nudge, nudge".

    He claims now that he is angry at Hillary since she is not quitting.  Hello?  Markos wrote an op-ed for Washingtonpost in May2006 on why Hillary is not electable, and detailed her problems.  All of his points were rehashed right wing points BTW.  I think the AUMF and "she should apologize" came after Edwards wrote his op-ed (so convenient how netroots operate, isn't it?)

    That was the first signal from him, and I got a few more.  Believe me, I really can tell the difference when a guy has an agenda, or when (in the case of Jeralyn) someone just tries to have a good blog.  Markos has a big agenda, long clumsily hidden and now out in the open).  


    thanks, but remember I do have an (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    agenda. It's criminal defense and constitutional rights for the accused. Unfortunately, it's not a big issue this year and the two Democratic candidates don't significantly differ on the issues. For me, it's a matter of the devil you know vs. the devil you don't and not wanting to buy a pig in a poke.

    I was surprised (none / 0) (#31)
    by jes on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    you were introduced as a Hillary supporter.

    Since Edwards dropped out (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    I have been, although I've never officially made an endorsement. Until then I always said Hillary and Edwards were my favorite candidates.

    You did great, very articulate -- and (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    also handling the camera well when you were not speaking but still were on the screen; so many (including the other guest) forget about that.

    Btw, you look exactly as I pictured you.  Weird, that.  I'm often wrong on such things.  (I ought to add, of course, that I pictured you as gorgeous.:-)


    I pictured her as the blonde (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:52:22 PM EST
    whistleblower in the ad on the page.  Don't ask how BTD came out (a lot like Al Gore and the guy in the cowboy hat from last week)

    I agree with Cream.  You are so articulate and pretty, and you did an excellent job getting your point across.  That being said, I hope I never need you as a lawyer because it would mean that I am in a bit of trouble.


    Her picture is on her name (none / 0) (#133)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    Look at her bio as Creator and Principal Author.

    Well, that makes you a better person (none / 0) (#67)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    You know, integrity and all that.  

    Yes, you took in us lost souls who like Hillary (none / 0) (#131)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    And I like this format more. Not only is there control, but you can actually get to read every comment and every diary. You were very professional in your MSNBC appearance. I applaud you.

    Traffic being up here (none / 0) (#162)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    is definitely because of the strong moderation.  I support that...even when I get off topic! Great job Jeralyn on your interview.  Class all the way!

    traffic's up everywhere (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:11:20 PM EST
    during primary season.

    interestingly, (none / 0) (#170)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:57:03 AM EST
    I check traffics a bit too much (on Alexa, for whatever that's worth), and talkleft has had a great run this primary season.  I think the professionalism has a lot to do with it.  

    Anyhow, it's a very high quality blog. I appreciate Jeralyn and BTD taking the time to moderate comments.  Here, there is really discussion, like you sit in a group and take turns and speak.  On places that shall not be named, well kids compete to see who can shout loudest.


    I suspect Jeralyn is right... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    Assuming things don't get any uglier than they already are. There's still plenty of time to bury hatchets and learn to hate McCain together. Heck, look at the strides McCain is making with his own party...just a few months ago conservative bloggers were threatening to stay home if McCain was the nominee, and now they're laughing it up as they begin to think that Republicans might actually win this time around.

    If it gets too much worse, or if it really does go all the way to the convention floor, then we might have a real problem on our hands. Hillary needs Obama supporters to win, and vice versa. If the atmosphere gets too poisonous, and/or we don't give ourselves enough healing time before November, then we'd all better practice saying 'President McCain.'

    Of course, there's still the old joint ticket idea. (Pelosi aside) Last I checked, that was still BTD's ticket.

    I was thinking today (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    how nice a Hillary-Edwards ticket would be (if he would agree to it.)

    I doubt he would want another run (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:10:46 PM EST
    at VP.
    maybe, but I doubt it.
    better as AG, IMHO.

    I agree with you on the "nice" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    but the part of being VP candidate he never quite got - was that he's too nice to be the VP candidate.

    Unfortunately, that job has devolved to being the attack dog on the opposition, and the stirrer-up of the party faithful.  Edwards, for all his many virtues, comes across as entirely too nice to be the attack dog.

    At least as far as I am concerned.  And I've been a supporter of his since before the '04 race.

    I think he might well make a stellar AG.  He knows how to bring and win cases, and there will be a lot of cases to bring and win as part of cleaning up the mess.


    I think it's a great idea. He's young, 54, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    I believe.  So 8 years in the VP then the presidency at 62 would be nice.  

    Edwards is a lot tougher now (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    I think he knows how to deliver a punch on the campaign circuit the same way he did in the courtroom.  It's not easy to translate one set of skills to another arena like that, and it took some practice.

    That being said, I would LOVE a Clinton/Edwards ticket.  Talk about healing.  Maybe I've spent too much time at No Quarter, but I don't think of O as viable anymore.  And, yes, I'll be the first to admit this might be wishful thinking.


    He IS a lot tougher now (none / 0) (#138)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:58:56 PM EST
    I believe he and Kerry had difference even in the primary like Big Brother, little brother. I don't even think he was Kerry's choice and Kerry kept trying to keep up with the youthful appearance of Edwards. I was embarrassed over the tanning orange that reporters spotted and laughed about and suggestions of Botox.  Edwards and Hillary get along better and as you said, John Edwards is tougher now and ready to step into the #1 spot if ever needed. Yes, that would be my dream ticket. Then the MSM would have two to ignore unfortunately.Heh. Actually now that people are seeing that for themselves, it might make a difference in the GE. Thank you Tina Fey who will be on this Saturday SNL as Host.

    This is my dream as well! (none / 0) (#123)
    by allimom99 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    I was a very big Edwards supporter, and it really broke my heart when he suspended his campaign. I'd like to see him come out and endorse her before PA or NC, at the very least, and I have communicated as much.

    I hope for this -- he was my 1st choice (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:35:21 PM EST
    for a long time, when I figured that my country still was incapable of electing a woman.  (I still think so often, of course, with the behavior I see from some of my fellow citizens . . . and I do mean mostly fellows, especially those in the media.:-)

    I really thought that he could make a great match with Clinton, for many reasons, and including that he could lead the health care battle this time.  And he could speak truth to power if she gets too close to helping corporate interests (almost a guarantee with any president, unfortunately).

    So I also have been very happy to think of him as AG or in another role in her administration.


    I think Jeralyn did a good job ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    especially not jumping at the somewhat snarky subtext of Cliff's comments. And it did seem the host was looking for a Dem Blog death match.  Smart of Jeralyn not to jump at that bait either.

    He always claims not to think that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    it's his "aw shucks" routine.

    But sticking to the topic of the post, I think he really does have a bit more influence than he claims to, and not was much as others think he does. The bottom line is that he has a non-zero influence on Democratic politics.

    I doubt I will be very enthused (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    for either.

    They both eschew being Fighting Dems for the most part.

    Jeebus, BTD... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    They've both raised record amounts of money. They've both demonstrated strong appeal to core demographics. They've both shown that they're willing to fight right up to the convention floor, and use any and all means at their disposal to win.

    How much more of a fighter could you ask either of them to be?


    I'm guessing BTD would like them to (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    fight for something other then their own skins.

    They'll fight like hell... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    on the convention floor for the nom, but are silent as lambs on the senate floor.

    The bloggers set the tone for their sites. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:45:42 PM EST

    I think a Hillary Clinton/John Edwards ticket (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM EST
    would be totally awesome!!!!! From your mouth to God's ears....

    First Post Greetings (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by bslev22 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:44:50 PM EST

    This is my first post here, so hey. I've been a regular poster at TPM Cafe, but I've been reading your posts and those by your colleague Big Tent for the last several weeks.  I've come to appreciate the commentary here, in part because I'm a very loyal supporter of Senator Clinton (though I have 3 voting age kids who are huge Obama supporters and I have committed to supporting Senator Obama if he is the nominee), but principally because of the quality of the posts and the manner in which you have chosen to regulate the site.

    I look forward to posting here and I thank you for providing such a welcome forum.


    Welcome, Bruce (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:52:37 PM EST
    We always like to hear new voices here.

    And thanks to Kathy, Cream City and others for the compliments.


    Blogger discourse on Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by dnew on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    I read blogs regularly but very rarely comment (I think this is the second time).  I did want to say, though, that I have stopped reading Daily Kos and TPM because of their anti-Hillary bias.  I think that some bloggers will be surprised to learn how fickle their readers are.  Kos, in particular, seems to have become pretty full of himself.  On the other hand, Talk Left has come from nowhere to now be my #2 blog (with a bullet!) (after Kevin Drum).  Thank you, Jeralyn and BTD.  

    On bloggers coming together (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    I think they won't have any choice. It won't be easy to let go of the vitriol that has been spewed this season, but any blogger who continues to pout that their guy or gal did not get the nomination will end up looking like they are pulling for McCain. That's not something I can accept. And as an original Edwards supporter, I pledged about a thousand times I'll vote for the nominee, no matter who it is. That still stands.

    However, as grown-up as I'm trying to be about it, I don't think I will ever really be able to forgive Josh Marshall for his nasty (and often fact-challenged) attacks on Clinton. I never cared for Kos, so he's a moot point for me. But I blogged a lot last year on the U.S. attorneys scandal and used TPM as a jumping off point, because they had done such tremendous digging on the story.

    Now I feel a sour taste in my mouth when I think of TPM.

    Although we rarely ban anyone where I blog, really foul language and threatening comments are deleted. I do wish some of the A-list bloggers would be as attentive as Jeralyn and BTD on the tone of the comments. There is one frequent pro-Obama commenter who visits many top blogs and has stated, unequivocally, that if Clinton "steals" the nomination then he and his pals are "going to burn Denver to the ground."

    I can't see how that sort of thing could possibly be considered helpful to any blog owner, pro-Obama or not.

    Taylor Marsh has an audio clip (none / 0) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    up on her site of a conversation between Marsh and Matt Yglesias. Not surprisingly, Marsh and Yglesias disagreed as to which candidate's supporters were responsible.  

    But its NOT just the commenters who get overheated when discussing Obama and Clinton. To wit:

    It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

    To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.

    That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.

    Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

    People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.

    Kos's frontpager is full of other inaccuracies, including the false statement that Clinton voted to authorize Bush to invade Iran.

    It's one of those occasions (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    when kos is just a guy with a blog. At least, that will be his excuse if he turns out to be 100% wrong.

    more and more (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:10:44 PM EST
    he will find he is right. as i keep saying, i can handle partisanship, but i can't handle dishonest smears. credibility lost is not easily regained.

    If The Information Is Not Credible, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    I might just as well watch Faux News. There are enough real issues you could go after Hillary on. but don't just make stuff up or drastically distort it to agree with a predetermined outcome.

    There are several blogs I will not visit again even after the nomination has been determined.


    exactly, once i learn not to trust someone (none / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:08:49 PM EST
    or something, the dance is over.

    he also said (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    same post,

    Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president

    Yes, he's said that before, as well (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    But now it gets lost in the midst of the screed against screeching paranoid hold-out whiners.

    Look, I know that if Obama gets the nomination, the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters will fall in behind him and work to get him elected -- even goldberry, I suspect, even though she has a better reason to be angry at Obamaphiles than most of us, given her far more brutal experience at DK. The alternative -- much more of the McSame -- is too awful to contemplate.

    I wonder, though, about some of the Obama hardliners, and whether they will accept a Clinton nomination.  They've already framed a Clinton win based on popular vote totals and superdelegates as illegitimate. Many oppose, or at least are not encouraging, re-votes in MI and FLA, because they'd rather see the voters in those states bear the punishment for the actions of state party leaders than see Clinton rack up a few more delegates.

    I hope we all, on both sides, remember when the primaries are over that we face a common enemy, and it's name is McSame. In the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need."


    That's very "faint praise"... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:45:50 PM EST
    ...and it doesn't begin to balance the accusations that Clinton is willing to destroy the Democratic Party's chances in the general election to feed her own ego.

    Likeable enough. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    Man is that thing overwrought (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    Somebody takes themselves a wee bit too seriously.  "Civil war"?  "Shrieking band of paranoid holdouts"?  Get a grip.

    How many times (none / 0) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST
    can he say CIVIL WAR.  I have never been to the site before.  Is he always such a drama queen?  It was one of those 'the angst of it all' moments.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#62)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    I don't go there myself.  Many people here do (or did).

    A few years back (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    I remember one time when he got mad at United Air Lines. They had screwed up ticket reservations for his wife or she could not get her flight or something. He wrote a diary that had me going, whoa. I was surprised that he used his political blog to castrate a airlines because of a personal vendetta.  So, I think he sometimes reacts, as all of us can do from time to time, but he really really does not want the DCCC to win. That is the main motive and what he fiercely cares about. Oh, and a Dem for the next President. Some wounds might not heal but many will cautiously get there. I find it interesting that Obama has not posted there since 2005 when he attempted to explain the Roberts vote. No one wanted to hear it. He never went back and yet he is going to be posting at Huff and another blog from what I understand.    

    Wolcott (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    I imagine Wolcott would find the Kos piece suitable fodder, but why go there again.

    And if this is a civil war (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    kos just went nuclear.

    Frankly I think this is also an example of him just figuring it out as he goes along, consequences be damned.


    I agree with the general point (none / 0) (#8)
    by vj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    That the vast majority of democrats will come together to support the nominee. Until then, there will continue to be tensions. I don't really think it is more than usual, it is just going on longer because the contest is close.

    Oops (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    I'm once again in the situation of trying to figure out if I forgot to post my comment or if I got deleted for some unknown reason.

    i think you got deleted (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:15:08 PM EST
    try again, the preview button is your friend and your place to change an attack phrase into to a mellower expression without compromising on your meaning.

    Oh Jeralyn (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    I cannot even imagine what I said that was naughty!  I must be losing it.

    Of Course Kos (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    Will fight for whoever the nominee is, even HRC. What do you think that Dkos will become a home shopping, cooking or pron site?  

    I'm gonna go with home shopping. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    Kudos to Jeralyn for keeping it civil.

    He's going to look really foolish if it (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    comes to that. Have you read some of the stuff he has written, accused and even made up about her?

    I misunderstood. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:41:20 PM EST
    I thought kos was all about giving the grassroots and netroots a megaphone so we could be heard.

    I didn't realize that it was about His agenda, not Ours.  I am now enlightened.

    I was appalled by the whole "scorched earth" "divisive campaign" and "destroying the party" memes that were running rampant over at dk.  I was really disappointed when teacherken and others I had formerly looked up to bought into them.

    And then kos posts that front page....rant, which is as respectful as I am inclined to be.

    It's ridiculous.  I don't see how it is helpful.  There are Obama supporters over at dk who want to take the high road and are doing their best to do so.  I wonder how they feel now.


    No (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST
    I used to read the FP, but have not gone over there for a while, I go if there is an link posted that seems interesting. My experience of him is pre-nomination, and so I have missed all the bad stuff he has said about HRC.

    As Jeralyn pointed out he also said:

    Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president

    SInce this is has boiled down to comparisons almost in total, I expect the transition will be trouble free, as it will just be another comparison between McCain and XYZ.


    You mean like how (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    He supported the Harold Ford and Tim Kaine campaigns.

    Drat.  We're off topic.

    But I think you're wrong.


    Great Segment! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cheryl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    I'm on! Thanks for your patience with me Jeralyn.

    Although in the end, we will all probably pull together for the Democratic nominee since the alternative is unthinkable, I am still going through the "denial phase" and thinking I can never vote for Obama. I just can't get past Rev. Wright, the Alinsky method of campaigning (gleaned from his community organizer days), Rezko, and the general lack of substance.


    BUT it was very important for you to present a unified front to keep the MSM from fanning the flames of a controlled fire in hopes of straying from more important topics.

    I appreciate all the great work here!

    I don't think I can (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:21:16 PM EST
    I've tried to set down some conditions by which I will consider myself still involved in the Democratic party.

    More importantly than some of things I've said about Florida, I've done all the soul searching I can on this.

    If it comes down to a choice between the future of the party and the Clinton legacy, the choice will, in the end, not be a difficult one for me.

    If Obama and his supporters could have found a way to do all this without forcing this sort of choice on the rest of the party, I would have been very enthusiastic about voting for him in November.

    Amongst Clinton supporters a demarcation line might be forming between those who feel the way Jeralyn feels and those who feel the way Goldberry (see above) feel about all this.

    The world of short-term memory (none / 0) (#58)
    by Chimster on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    Once a nominee has been chosen, it will be ugly for about two-three weeks before the party becomes more stable. The supporters who backed the winning nominee will need to be supportive and non-vindictive towards the backers of the loser. If this happens (and it should because we're all in the same party), there will be a slow wave of support from all Dems for the new democratic nominee. The people who claim they won't back the other nominee are saying that now because of their pride. This too shall pass.

    that stat... (none / 0) (#70)
    by smott on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    ...is absolutely a mystery to me. Given that BO gets a good bit of his support from Indies and even GOP crossovers, and HRC's tend to be died-wool Dems....how does it follow that his supporters would be more willing to vote for her than vice versa?

    Plus we know people give up their racism more easily than their misogyny!


    that stat (none / 0) (#78)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    Is your question to me?

    to anybody.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:51:49 PM EST
    ...just seemed illogical to me...

    I am LIVID about Florida... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Universal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    ...how can we screw stuff like this up? Does ANYONE remember 2000?


    Ok, I just came by to give an update on what is going on on YouTube in the wake of the whole PastorGate imbroglio.

    I have just posted a new diary at MyDD with 3 new YouTube `ads' against Obama, including the Ayers one mentioned in the previous post's comments section:


    The Obamabots are going insane, trying to get the diary deleted, etc.

    They are a joke, just like their candidate. They are in fantasy land.

    I can tell you this: There is no way that BHO is getting elected this year, probably never. These ads -- and they're the work of amateurs -- are devastating. He is
    toast, even if our leaders are STUPID enough to nominate him.

    Hope everyone's having a nice day.

    PS: Nice work on MSNBC, counselor! Not sure Cliff is going to want to be facing off with you again.

    new post is up on Florida (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    please comment on it there. Thanks!

    Speaking of jokes..... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    need I go on?

    I know these candidates would eat their young to get elected, I'm starting to wonder if some of their followers would as well, just to get their horse in the winners circle.  You'd think Obama's and Clinton's internet brigades were promised cabinet positions or govt. contracts or something.

    This primary has been sleazier than most general elections...and that's saying something.


    Not to start a fight, but over at maha (none / 0) (#88)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    it was claimed there was at least one commenter banned from TL due pro-Obama postings.  This would be within your policies, but I would be surprised if it were true, since I don't recall any mention of people flagrantly violating rules, or being warned, ....  But, to the extent it's either my business (which it's not) or to the extent you want to clarify the situation, ....  Did you?  (If you examine the thread an anonymous commenter stuck up for you, but maha was having none of that.)

    From what I've encountered, the problem is equally spread between commenters and bloggers.  Some very respected bloggers are posting what I consider to be fact free ad hominem, and taking any issue and escalating it with absurd references: Ferraro was wrong about Obama, and then Spencer Ackerman points to a Human Rights Watch report on  Incarceration rates in America suggesting Ferraro's ignorance, ignoring that Ms. Ferraro was our UN Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission.

    Lots of pro-Obama commenters (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    have been banned here, but not because they are pro-Obama. People get banned because they engage in name-calling or personal attacks or use profanity (none allowed here.) Or they post demonstrably false information, chatter with an intent to dominate or hijack the thread and keep doing it after they are warned or limited.

    All but the most egregious violators are warned first and given an opportunity to express their views in a manner consistent with site policy before they are banned.

    All points of view are welcome at TalkLeft. Commenters are not free to express those views in a manner that lowers the level of discourse, violates the site policy or inhibits others through attacks from joining the conversation.


    Thanks, that has certainly been my experience (none / 0) (#104)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:33:39 PM EST
    All but the most egregious violators are warned first and given an opportunity to express their views in a manner consistent with site policy before they are banned.

    It's definitely my experience you give warnings, and in fact announce when and why you have deleted posts.


    And its a shame that so many (none / 0) (#140)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    Obama supporters can not show their support for him without the

    name-calling or personal attacks or use profanity (none allowed here.) Or they post demonstrably false information, chatter with an intent to dominate or hijack the thread

    Oh THAT's Jeralyn (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    said my DH.  Then we both agreed you were great, and that you need to do more TV.

    It occurred to me that when this primary is over, I'm moving on to quilting lists ;-)....maybe I should start today.

    Thanks for appearing.

    DH? Designated Husband? Designated Hitter? (none / 0) (#107)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    Domestic Half?

    Hope it's not Darling Honeybuns :-) (nt) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#100)
    by Burned on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    When Cliff came out with his McCain nonsense, I started whispering "Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it."
    And you didn't.
    There is a time and place for that and this wasn't it.
    Loved it. Thank you.

    There are some math scenarios that do work. (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    It's possible she gets the popular vote.  It isn't the easiest task in the world but it's possible.  It's a big prize.  Why would she give up now?  

    Why are you so intent on making Hillary the enemy?  It is NOT true that it's the only thing she can do now is damage the party.  Her out there campaigning at the same time as Obama gives us 2 Dems spreading the word 24/7 while McCain feeds beef jerky to cable news reporters in AZ.  And that's fine with me.

    She would be a great attack dog VP if she doesn't get the nod.  

    I had my comment deleted last night. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    I didn't have a problem with that (although it was on topic) and was in reference to your comment "he swept it under the rug". Either way, your call.


    I had a spelling error made fun of by BTD?

    I commented at NoQuarterUSA that I enjoy coming to TalkLeft because it is so "moderate".  I have to say that deleting a comment because it is taken as a personal attack and then having a moderator make one seems out of character for TalkLeft.

    I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything.  Just stating how I took your post.

    I have a blog and let anyone say whatever they feel because generally the "trolls" just prove my points. That's me and I don't expect anyone to follow my lead.  I certainly never make fun of commenter's spelling. I never delete comments even if they are attacks on me.

    Without commenters, Bloggers are that tree falling in the woods that nobody hears. Don't be too hard on the commenters because they are also the readers of your posts.  Not always. But generally.

     Many commenters are simply searching for common ground in a very confusing time in our country.

    I really do enjoy your writing and have never had a bad thought or word to say about anyone here.  I really felt the childish remark about a spelling boo boo was uncalled for.

    I have a tag line across my blog page.  

    It says:


    I'm just looking for the truth.  Not trying to be clever and certainly not trying to win the spelling bee in the middle of the night. I'm also not looking to be made fun of when I take the time to read posts and then spend more time commenting. Just me.

    Apologies (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    I didn't criticize anyone for a spelling error. If BTD did, maybe he'll explain.

    I want everyone to feel welcome here, and for the comments to read like a conversation about the topic of the post. I could care less about spelling, I type so fast I make plenty of mistakes myself.


    I criticzied the attacking insult (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    on Obama. you deleted the comment.

    so you didn't attack the spelling (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:34:02 PM EST
    or was that part of the comment? I probably did delete the comment if it had an attack, just not related to spelling.

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#141)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    you get (inadvertently) deleted if your post is the middle of a group that is being deleted - it happened to me on the Duke Hoax posts

    Some True, Some Not (none / 0) (#118)
    by pluege on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    Both Cliff and I opined the blogosphere will come together to support whichever Democrat is nominated.

    I hope you're right

    I pointed out it's the commenters more than the bloggers who tend to get overheated when discussing Obama and Hillary. Cliff agreed.

    maybe good political TV theater, but just not true. Many bloggers, e.g., kos have incited and fanned the flames of the feuding, dragging it out and distracting from the real goal of beating the republican.

    PLEASE DON'T GIVE FODDER TO KOS.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    Some of the bloggers abused their power.. and I feel cheated by these bloggers and anchor men.. I may become a soft Republican thanks to these bloggers... if I cannot vote for Hillary... and the other reason is I see the democrats like Kerry, Edwards Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Pelosi, Bill Richardson, Dean and feel a big let down ... with bloggers justifying their roles... and doing the dirty coverup for Obama's .. I just cannot think I can support these guys ever ...

    McCain better than Obama narrative (none / 0) (#135)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST
    I wish Jeralyn had corrected Schecter on the story that Hillary said McCain is better than Obama.  To continue to mislead by the Obama people is unacceptable and it's what makes me angry.  It's what makes me not want to vote for Obama.  I watched the video that started the narrative. There is a chasm between being ready to act and saying that McCain is better.  The fact is, and HRC has said that McCain would be disastrous for our foreign policies.  Though ready, his actions would be bad.

    Prabhata, good point. (none / 0) (#151)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    The truth of Hillary's actual comment about McCain needs to be restated as many times as it takes for the bogus version to go away. Personally, I was a bit taken aback that Schecter laid it on so very thick - considering that the subject was whether  bloggers would unite after the nomination is finalized. To my mind, that was quite a low blow.

    I would be happy if some one posts the state of (none / 0) (#136)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    TV anchors like Chris Mathews - Hardball against Hillary, Keith Oblerman - Countdown to Obama presidency..

    I have stopped tuning to it and you may find it funny but I do find Fox a more informed/LESS BIASED these days than MSNBC.. WHAT'S HAPPENING TO ME!!!!

    There is a rumor that Keith will be offered a prestigious position in white house.. not sure if that is what keeps him so much hooked into this !!!

    I am sorry (none / 0) (#147)
    by sas on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:22:26 PM EST
    to say that Fox news has had by far, the most fair and balanced election coverage, after NPR.  MSNBC and CNN have been absolutely awful.

    good job, jeralyn! (none / 0) (#139)
    by skippybkroo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:59:32 PM EST
    thought you & cliff did an excellent job showing the rest of us how to disagree w/o being childish and churlish.

    thx for the link to my piece!

    I do (none / 0) (#146)
    by sas on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    believe Hillary will win the popular vote, whether she comes in first or not in the delegate count.

    Congrats (none / 0) (#148)
    by clapclappointpoint on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:23:23 PM EST
    on getting the TV face time.

    Coming together? sort of (none / 0) (#149)
    by LCaution on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    1. I am a Hillary supporter.
    2. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him.

    But, 5 or 6 months ago, I would have felt a sense of pride in the nominaton; I would have looked forward to his inauguration.  That is no longer true today because, as far as I am concerned, it has not been a fairly fought campaign.  And if he gets the nomination without Florida and Michigan, I will consider his nomination to be as illegitimate as Bush's 2000 win.

    Finally, the vicious cesspool of attacks on Hillary comes from too many A-list political bloggers, as well as the commenters, to be ignored.  

    I have written off Kos, Huff, TPM and others for good.  They are, as far as I am concerned, no different than the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Scaifes.

    Jeralyn, is there any insider buzz (none / 0) (#150)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    about the prospects of a Clinton/Edwards ticket? What about the recent rumor that Edwards is moving toward endorsing Hillary?

    BTW, you looked F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S on the teevee and projected great warmth, sincerity and smarts.

    Too bad, old Clif couldn't resist attacking Hillary. You kept your cool, didn't slam Obama and brought the subject back to party unity. That, in a nutshell, is the difference I perceive between Obama and Clinton and their respective supporters in the blogosphere and elsewhere.

    Kudos to you for bringing Clif around to saying Democratic bloggers will unite behind the eventual nominee. He didn't say flat out that he'd support Hillary if she's the nominee, but it was implied.

    Does Obama still express doubt that his supporters will get behind Clinton if she's the nominee? Has he said anything lately about his certainty that he'll still get her votes if he's the nominee?

    Tempering that rhetoric would be good for Democratic party unity - if that is indeed Obama's ultimate objective.


    I also hope you're right. (none / 0) (#152)
    by WillBFair on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:56:14 PM EST
    But it makes me sad how the party has changed in this primary, from educated discourse to cheap rhetorical tricks. And to think, our nominee may be chosen by red State Clinton haters and college grads taught that rhetoric is the same as logic. It's a crazy world indeed.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#154)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    To begin with, the Dem base will pull for her. Many of the new voters are only there for Obama, but I truly believe she can win with the Dem base and stealing some GOP women. Case in Point. 2 Very very GOP women co-workers are voting for her. They even went to the St. Pat's Parade on Saturday and one got to shake hands with Hillary and was thrilled. I think she can pull it off over McCain.

    Over at CorrenteWire (none / 0) (#163)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:28:49 PM EST
    yesterday they had this video of this young kid, early 20s, an Obama supporter who chose youtube to make some rather provocative comments. Though by his own admission he had worked in Nevada as precinct captain despite living in Los Angeles (is that legal?) and thus biased, he railed against Ohio for thinking themselves too self-important that they could determine the nominee. Why weren't they on board? Weren't they "Democrats?" His whole 2 or 3 minute piece was an angry diatribe. Evil she was, she had slept her way to the top just like her husband Bill (how does a man sleep his way to the top?), corrupted, stop at nothing, didn't care about any but herself, she had fabricated the Canadian NAFTA story entirely. Mostly he rehashed a series of right-wing talking points. In that sense, the kid is a victim of the right wing smear campaign against the Clinton but don't worry kid that won't happen to Obama. But that wasn't even the most outlandish part. He could never quite get his quips right nor his sources straight. I heard this on Time or was it Newsweek. But the kicker was the question why doesn't someone just kill the b***h for the good of the country before realizing what he was saying might be too much, he added that no that might wrong and Amnesty International might get upset. Then there's JackandJill.blogspot.com who threaten to "burn Denver." If Hillary wins then "flames might be necessary." And I won't vote for Obama come what may in the Fall and I know plenty of sane people who will not either. So I think the we will all play nice come September is unlikely. The feelings run too deep and will be forever raw. I will not ever forget nor forgive Obama for some of his comments.

    I saw that but didn't write about it (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:13:07 AM EST
    because it seemed to me to either be a hoax or one sick puppy. And there was no verification that he was associated with Obama's campaign.

    Jon Swift (none / 0) (#164)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    had a truly excellent post that begins with the issue of the 'strike' at DK but really comes down to discussing what's going on in liberal blogs...which isn't exactly what he is.

    When I think of the devotion and starry-eyed idealism of Obama supporters I wonder if I could really pull the lever for Hillary Clinton, even if I do believe that it would be best thing for the country to destroy it. I wonder if I could look at myself in the mirror and still love myself. Because, after all, feeling good about myself is what elections should be about. In the end it all comes down to me.

    In my (none / 0) (#175)
    by sas on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    state my vote makes a difference.  

    To put what I'm going to say in context, remember that my state is the second or third oldest after Florida.  Many voters do not buy the "change" mantra, since they have heard it all their lives, every election.

    Further, they do not believe Obama has the experience or wisdom needed for President.  That leaves Hillary or John McCain.

    I have asked many Hillary supporters to sit out the election instead of voting for McCain, because they will not vote for Obama.

    This state is going to McCain if Obama is the nominee.