Feingold: Obama Fans Should "Cool It"

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I think I have been clear that I believe Barack Obama will be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. If he is, I hope all Democrats will support him. But I have no doubt now that the biggest obstacle to Obama's being able to unify the Democratic Party is likely to be the behavior of Obama blogs, Obama radio talk show hosts, the Obama network (NBC), Obama supporters and the Obama campaign itself. The contempt shown for Hillary Clinton supporters has been appalling. Russ Feingold has some advice for these folks:

"I'll tell some of the (Barack) Obama supporters here today: Cool it," Feingold, D-Middleton, said Wednesday to a group of about 50 people at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County. "Take it a little easy."

Feingold, like me, is a tepid Obama supporter. His advice is sound. Will Obama fans take it to heart? I doubt it frankly.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Contempt For Clinton Supporters and Clinton Voters | Late Night: You Ain't Going Nowhere >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Feingold says RELAX. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    80s redux.  Couldn't resist a little snark.  Sorry.

    Where was he (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    about 2 months ago?  That's when such advice would have had some weight.

    Now, the proverbial ship has sailed.

    Fans? (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    How about telling the Party leaders to cool it?  I don't know what makes these career politicians think they have the right to choose our presidential candidate.  I'm so sick of the Democratic Party right now I don't know if I can ever support it again.

    Aww. good for my Senator Russ (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:08:12 PM EST
    -- despite Ashcroft and Roberts, I guess I'll donate to him again.  Ever a voice of sanity amid the fools, that's my Senator Feingold.

    Sorry to jump in here,but on this topic, there's (none / 0) (#55)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    a poll over at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847781/ wanting to know if Hillary should drop out and it's over 50% yes and 37% no.  

    I thought you all would want to take a gander at this poll and perhaps make your feelings known.


    It's msnbc.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    ..I'm surprised Hillary even has 37%

    Yeah, but, couldn't we make it 40%? (none / 0) (#78)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    Clintonites don't do MSNBC (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    Well, evidently some do, because she has 37%. (none / 0) (#135)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:20 PM EST
    Traitors (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:26:10 PM EST
    of course (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    she's trailing, most Clinton fans know not to go to MSNBC.

    Well, I know that. i was suggesting that we (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM EST
    make an exception and go vote for her! You don't have to stay and read anything.

    BTW -interesting that Ralph Nadar is telling Hillary to stay in the race.



    It's Democracy (none / 0) (#244)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM EST
    Get used to it.....

    2 months ago? Preoccupied (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:12:05 PM EST
    with his job as a Senator, fighting the wiretap battle.

    I'm disappointed w both Obama and Clinton for playing hookie.


    At least for God's sakes (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    don't get tuckered out before the GE.

    As it's said over and over, Obama will probably win.  Then (as it has been said here) why doesn't he act like a frontrunner?  Why does he go negative?  There are a ton of ways for the Obama camp to handle the fact that Hillary is heavily favored in PA.  I think there must be a way they can both respect the voters of PA and the inevitable continuance of this race (let's face it, it will continue, Hillary isn't going anywhere, so deal) while picking off votes and still competing with her.  The attitude from the Obamacans at this point is pure petulance, as if they need a head start, all the space in the world, and added amenities to take on McCain.  Just freaking do it (and the comments I've heard Obama make recently on McCain have been good - and they make me like him).  But you can attack McCain without ignoring/invalidating the Dem primary voters to come; you can attack him and campaign for votes (showing future voters respect) instead of attacking him and having surrogates invalidate the race and prematurely declare that it's over.

    Obama needs to find a good narrative for losing PA.  A narrative that says "I'm gonna win anyway, neiner neiner" is to me at least incomplete.

    Indeed... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    ...given how dug in voters are at this point, his 'going negative' and launching attacks on Clinton serves no purpose but to piss off Clinton voters and embolden his supporters.

    The ploy is crystal clear; to sway superdelegates.


    Exactly. Obama doesn't act as if he has won it (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    so I figure he hasn't won it.  So I keep hanging in there, and donating, to Clinton.

    Obama needs to work on understanding the theory of self-fulfilling prophecy.


    PN doesn't matter (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:46:00 PM EST
    NC does..... snark

    What (none / 0) (#31)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:01:50 PM EST
    Could someone itemize for me what is the great BHO smear of HRC?  I read a lot, I haven't seen this great BHO attack against HRC.

    For blogs I spend most of my time at myDD, so my experience may not be representative of the world as a whole.


    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:20:47 PM EST
    "She'll say or do anything to win."

    That's one (none / 0) (#126)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    I'd count that as unfair, especially since it was said before the release of schedules and the recent oversees video.  But, it would be fair to say "she'll do or say a whole lot with some reality-flexibility to win."

    Is there anything else BHO has done to smear HRC?


    He has (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    called her a liar more times than I care to count, he has said she has a serious "character gap," he has painted her and Bill Clinton as racists over and over again...just a partial list.

    If you really want to hear it straight from his campaign, just go to thepage.time.com and Mark Halperin has a post of a conference call his campaign did earlier this week where they threw, as Peter Doau roughly described it, the kitchen sink, the pots, the pans, the bowls, spooks, and forks, the garbage disposal, along with the trash can at Hillary.

    But of course that isn't harmful in the general election...no....not at all.


    New definition (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Suma on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    of party unity - "Throw the kitchen sink, the pots, the pans, the bowls, spooks, and forks, the garbage disposal, along with the trash can at Hillary."

    My first comment on this site. Wish I did not have to be so caustic.


    Just a quick clarification or two. (none / 0) (#161)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    Hillary did, in fact, repeat a claim or two about her trip to Tuzla that was factually incorrect.  These claims were used to bolster her CiC credentials.  If debunking factually incorrect statements by candidates isn't "vetting", I don't know what it.

    Also, the Clinton campaign coined the term "kitchen sink" in relation to negative campaigning.  Hillary herself remarked that it was "fun".


    they were calling her a lair, dishonest, sneaky (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    the most secretive etc LONG before that.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07:11 PM EST
    she messed up with Bosnia, I am a passionate Clinton supporter and this doesn't change that, but facts are facts. I see it as a misstatement because given that she was briefed that they were under threat of sniper fire (Gen. Togo West confirms this), I can see how if you tell a story enough times it turns into a different version.

    But I see how Obama supporters may see it as a lie (just as I see his back and forth on Wright as outright lies - he has told more than his fair share of whoppers). She messed up, I have no problem with her being called on that, but to say that she has a "character gap"? And as someone else pointed out, they have been calling her an evil liar long before this happened. Obama has told his fair share of whoppers. And I mean just the tones they were using...you would think they were talking about an evil dictator. It was really weird.


    There's more to it. (none / 0) (#267)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:28:41 PM EST
    The thing about BHO and Wright is that he never lied.  His denials were specifically related to the incendiary YouTube clips, and it has been shown that he wasn't in church on any of those days.  Yes, he acknowledges hearing controversial things, but he didn't hear the incendiary clips until the media brought them to his attention.

    Also during the entire NAFTA/Canada thing he never lied.  He denied the accuracy of the CTV report.  And, it turned out that CTV was wrong on where, when, what side initiated, mode of the meeting (phone v. in person), who was meeting, and what was said.  So obviously BHO was correct.

    Also, if you parse Togo you'll find that his vagueness doesn't support HRC's particular claims.  And, now the pilot is saying that the landing was routine, i.e. no evasive "corkscrew."  And, he says that in the military he has never heard of people sitting on their flak jackets.  He said he only knows about that from the movie Red Dawn.  Mrs. Nixon had been to a war zone, so HRC wasn't the first since Mrs. Roosevelt.  And, HRC wasn't the first high level official to go to Bosnia after the fighting, even WJC had been there two months earlier.  So, even HRC's new story has a few flaws.

    The Bosnia thing is just one example.  What about saying she was "instrumental" to bringing peace to Northern Ireland when even her greatest supporters say she never had anything to do with the negotiations?  And, none of the books about the peace process mention her by name.

    What about SCHIP, FMLA, and NAFTA?



    sure (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:58 PM EST
    First, if she'd really "say or do anything", we'd have seen the wright videos four months ago.

    Second, obama repeated the jeff gerth smear all fall.  (Do a search of daily howler on "obama" and "jeff gerth" - I haven't the energy).


    For starters (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:01:43 PM EST
    he's now referencing the Drudge photo and "as far as I know" as examples of Hillary's dirty campaigning. So he's endorsing Drudge's credibility while at the same time accusing Hillary of willfully spreading the Muslim rumors. That's essentially calling for his supporters to vilify her even more.

    Not to mention the fact that she stepped up to defend him on 60 Minutes, and he spits in her face in response. When his supporters said she should come out to defend him during the Wright uproar, all I could think was "Yeah, she tried that once already."


    I'd count that as 1/3 a smear (none / 0) (#154)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:12 PM EST
    This is a silly road to go down, HRC just met with Scaife.  And WJC met with him many months ago.  He makes Drudge look like a saint.  And, Insight said that they were fed the madrass-lie from an HRC supporter.  They didn't name the HRC person, so there is plausible deniability, but hanging out with Scaife makes the deniability more questionable.  Also, the piece was about a year ago so it was a little early for the wingnuts to be gunning for BHO.

    The other thing is that Drudge is sleazy, but he get's a lot of good scoops.  For some reason he even gets NYT stories really early.

    Did you see sixty minutes?  That was a very strange way to answer the Muslim question.  The new (Pew?) poll says almost a quarter of dems think he is a Muslim.  Which is mind boggling considering that there has been so much coverage of excerpts from Christian pastor.

    What if Power said, "she's not a monster, as far as I know."


    I did see the 60 minutes. Didn't find anything... (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:30:12 PM EST
    ...strange about her answer after she was badgered for the third time to answer a question she had already answered and if Samantha Powers had said "she isn't a monster...as far as I know"....I would have found that far preferable to "she's a monster." But that's just me.

    do you even know how much of northeast (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    media Scaife owns, specifically in PA?  Probably not or you wouldn't be thinking that Clinton's meeting with Scaife or talking to his media empire is so strange.  

    You want press in PA?  You deal with Scaife regardless of personal opinion.  Think Hillary doesn't have to hold her nose when talking to the person most influential in the destruction of the Clinton WH?  But guess what, she's a politician who needs the media if she is to have a chance to stay competitive so she is doing as she must.



    That was the same morning as (none / 0) (#198)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:55:54 PM EST
    the press interviews, wasn't it?

    Drudge may get some scoops (5.00 / 2) (#252)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have an agenda. There is literally nothing to tie the Clinton campaign to that photo other than Drudge's word. He says he "obtained" the photo, not a term you'd use if it was sent to you. He never said who sent it, never said who received it, and never even revealed its entire contents. If he had gone to any reputable newspaper with a story sourced like that, they would have told him to get lost. Instead we have Obama refeencing the story as absolutely true.

    As for Scaife, Hillary didn't go on a romantic weekend with him. She met with the editorial board. That's how candidates get endorsements. It's the second largest paper in Pittsburgh. I'm sure it would satisfy Obama supporters to have her turn up her nose at the paper in order to indicate her displeasure, but that would be just stupid. When the right wing rag the Las Vegas Sun endorsed Obama before the Nevada caucuses, I don't recall him turning them away.

    And really, it gets tiring addressing the 60 Minutes story. Hillary's first repsonse was "Of course not. There's no basis for that." She then went on to say he wasn't a Muslim several times. Yet Obama supporters have erased that part of the interview from history. Whenever someone starts flogging that story, I respond with her actual quotes the first time she answered the question. I have literally never had an Obama supporter even acknowledge that those quotes existed. My rebuttals just disappear into thin air.


    And Obama met wtih Scaife's board (none / 0) (#259)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16:15 PM EST
    so I presume that means we can count on you as a Clinton supporter now.  No?  Then what are these attacks for?

    The issue was (5.00 / 0) (#265)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    with a week of "no comments" to Wright questions.  Then a meeting with Scaife, the question was asked and answered.  She did what she had to do.  I thought  Wright's comments were racist and should be denounced, but Sean Hannity and Newsmax are ready to twist them into a race war, which is unfortunate.

    I wish (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by OxyCon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    ...they'd post Feingold's comment over at HuffPo just so I could read the comments:
    "Senator Feingold, I used to really like you, but now I can't stand the sight of you! (insert race card here). Blah blah blah. Hillary Clinton is evil and her supporters are all jerks. We must all vote for Obama because he'll unify the entire country!

    Just as likely... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    ...the spin will be that Feingold is trolling for a cabinet post - the evil sycophant.

    And of course Obama's endorsements come from a pure heart with no vision of any quid pro quo.  They are the purest forms in politics.


    I hear they call them (none / 0) (#33)
    by OxyCon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:03:47 PM EST
    ...Newkinda politics. Something about Hope and Unity and being the ones we wait for.

    It went up at dkos (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:05:31 PM EST
    I read it...ugh (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:38 PM EST
    It's actually quite illuminating.  The basic consensus is that HRC is a Republican racist c*nt who is in bed with the VRWC to destroy poor little humble Obama, so why is Russ telling us to cool it.  It'd be funny if it weren't so sad and debilitating to the Party.

    Seriously, don't they read their own blog over there?  One guy said something like "why is he picking on us?"  How about some cheese with your whine, you don't see the enviroment that you have at DKos?  How many have written GBCW diaries at MyDD?  Are they all just a bunch of 20 year olds or something over there at DKos or what?  I just don't get the vitriol, and I for one and sick and tired of being called a racist every two freakin' seconds in all honesty.  If all they have is "You're a bigot" then we can kiss November goodbye because that is not a winning argument.

    That said, I will gladly vote for Obama or Clinton, but I have had my fill of his supporters and they super-sensitive little egos.

    My first comment here, I'm glad to be aboard.



    Are they under hidden comments? (none / 0) (#258)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:13:51 PM EST
    for people who will not go to Dkos...I just checked on Fri at 9 Pac. and there's not a c** on that page and the only b** was from a Clinton supporter accusing Obama supporters of thinking it.(I can't see the hidden comments so I can't guarantee trolls, is that where you saw the comments Jackson?)  

    The page does have derogatory mentions of Hillary's appearances with Scaife and Foxnews.


    Sorry, a clarification... (none / 0) (#270)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:32 PM EST
    I never saw that actual word, Marcellus, I should have put it in quotes.  I do apologize for that, but that is the general attitude over there, the venom screams that word, even if they don't use it.  I wasn't trying to mislead (and no cracks about lacking sleep please-:)), but I was misleading and I apologize.  AFAIK, no one there has used that word and I apologize to them and Sen. Obama's supporters.  I'm just getting frustrated with all of the venom.  I'm a 51/49 Clinton supporter, I think she has a slight edge in experience and ideas, but Obama is a good man who would make a great President.  I am becoming what I am beholding I guess, and every day I lean more and more for Clinton.

    I forgot, words and their meanings actually matter in our part of the blogosphere (and I mean the whole Left, even the Obama blogs).  I still read the left side of DKos, but the diaries are usually whining dreck.  AMERICA blog was nuked from my faves and will never return, which is a shame because sometimes you could really learn something there.  But once Avairosis claimed he "knew things" and that he'd destroy Clinton.  (And no, for obvious reasons, I can't link to it, it was a couple of weeks ago and I've let that ship sail, I'm never going back to that blog again.  And I'm consistent, if this blog threatened such underhanded garbage I'd be out of here in a second.  I don't like underhanded bullies.

    What do Kos, Abvairosis, and John Cole all have in common?  They are all former Republicans.  Maybe that should clue some people in on things, as I feel their CDS is all just left over flotsam from their time in the wilderness, and they are simply not rational in their hatred of the Clintons.

    I was NEVER a Republican, and I will NEVER be one.  So before we let these former Republicans decide our nominee for us, maybe we should just keep on voting for a bit and see what happens.  But like I said, and I mean it, I will gladly vote for Obama no matter how much his supporters may irritate me.



    Welcome, Jackson, and thanks (none / 0) (#260)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    for scanning DKos for me, so I don't have to do there.  <shudder>

    Ugh, I had to go there (none / 0) (#269)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:32:37 PM EST
    and see you take a shot at Bill Clinton, Ben.  Uh huh.

    good on feingold (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    but will it change the behavior of the obamabots? no. there are plenty of smart, sane, obama supporters, but the obamabots are viral and psychotic.

    Additions (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    If you added KoolAid, cult, and messiah your argument would be even stronger.

    sadly (none / 0) (#77)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:39:03 PM EST
    you're right.

    As are many Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#72)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:36:43 PM EST
    One must go no farther than MyDD to see that.

    You might be surprised (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    that many don't go there.

    Touche (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Traven on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    Spoken like the typically rational Clinton fan, not like one of those rabid, crazed Obama types that BTD has such a problem with....  Yes, gosh, Obama would "steal" the nomination if MI and FL aren't seated, even though Clinton herself agreed with all that when she expected to win by Super Tuesday.  Once again, calm, rational Clinton supporter and crazed, nutty Obamaniac...

    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    with Michigan and Florida not having a voice in the nomination process has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama and everything to do with Michigan and Florida.

    If Clinton had shrieked, before the MI and FL votes, that she would never NEVER stand for Michigan and Florida being seated at the convention, it wouldn't make a whit of difference to this issue.

    If Obama wins the nomination but there is a question as to whether he would have done so had FL and MI had a say, he'll never be seen as the legitimate nominee by a significant number of Clinton voters (and probably many Republicans as well). He will have absolutely NO CHANCE to win MI or FL. And he will likely lose the GE.

    That is the problem with MI and FL, and it is irrelevant for this purpose to even care what Clinton or her supporters may say.


    FL & MI (none / 0) (#66)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    The problem is with the MI and FL leadership that messed with the primary dates.  To a lesser extent the problem is the DNC/Ickes, but they needed act or else the scheduling would be ten times worse.

    Now that this thing is broken there is no way to put it back together.

    The exiting votes can't be used because everyone knew that the election was meaningless.  Even banana republics don't have phony elections, and then turn around and declare that the election was actually for real.  The revote in FL failed because the logistics exploded, this has nothing to do with BHO.  The MI revote failed because the proposal was biased toward HRC.

    If people want to be angry they should look at FL and MI leadership, if someone is still angry you can look at the DNC.


    DNC (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    To a lesser extent the DNC? I don't think so.

    The same legislation that changed the date in Florida for the Dem primary, changed the date in Florida for the Repub primary. Same state leadership. The difference was in the actions of the RNC vs the actions of the DNC.

    The DNC had options in what they could do. The chose poorly without regard to the Democratic voters in Florida. So I'll lay the blame exactly where it belongs - the DNC.


    I'm not interested in blaming (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:14 PM EST
    anyone for MI or FL. I AM interested in fixing it.

    Yes, it could still be fixed. But since Obama thinks it isn't in his interest to fix it, I believe he'll continue to stand in the way of any solution.

    The trouble is (and he may not realize this yet), by blocking a solution, he is actually jeopardizing his own nomination.


    Oh, the concern over Michigan! (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:55 PM EST
    I don't know if it's against policy to cross-post a comment, but I felt this needed to be repeated (and I'm too lazy to tweak and post a "new" comment):

    What really raises my ire over all the fun Michigan hypotheticals are the Obama supporters' finger pointing toward Michigan Democrats to deflect the argument from Obama's mighty shield.
    You really have no clue.  

    Michigan is NOT a Blue State.  It isn't.  We have heavily gerrymandered Congressional districts.  I come from one of Michigan's bluest counties (Ingham), and we have had a Republican congressman for such a long time.  We can't get him out, because we don't have support.

    There's a lot of personal resentment, even amongst liberal MI bloggers, on how the National blogs completely write Michigan off the map.  We weren't a part of that lovely 50-State strategy in 2006, because there wasn't a "fighting chance" in our districts, mine being one.  The money spigot was nice and dry.

    But the one election that did matter for us, the Gubernatorial, was ignored, unless DailyKos cared to deign that our Guv was the "Most Embattled Incumbent" in the nation, and her chances were pretty precarious.  But, oh geez, we had NED LAMONT!!! to consider!  Donate Now!

    But we won.  We did our work on the ground.  And then the netroots cheered about those amazing Democratic wins in the '06 Wave - our Gubernatorial being one.  Thanks so much, John Aravosis and Markos Moulitsas.  But how was that Lamont?

    We fought hard for Stabenow against Spencer Abraham back in the day, and homegirl won by a RAZOR THIN margin.

    We have 2 senators and a "Dem" trend in the Presidential, but we fight like crazy over our State Legislature, insane Constitutional Amendments (you know, we constitutionally BANNED affirmative action by 16 points I think, during the "Great Democratic Wave" of 2006), and trying to balance our spiraling budget.

    And what do Obama supporters want us to do?  They want us to rankle our noses at Jennifer Granholm, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, and Mark Brewer, because these are the evil Clinton Dems that are reaping what they sowed.

    Yeah, we know.  We know they were in Clinton's pocket and are her supporters.  But you know what?  Clinton/Establishment money is ALL that is keeping us from being Republican top-to-bottom.  We don't get Netroots love.  We don't get that Fabulous Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel turing the money spigot into Michigan.  We're "blue!"  Let's go galvanize and prosthelytize Montana, Colorado, and the other lovely Western States.

    So stop pointing your fingers at MY Democrats and saying "For SHAME!  Democrats... be angry!"  We fought like hell to "increase revenue" in this State after Republicans blew a $2 BILLION dollar hole into our budget by trying to tax cut us into being at Mississippi levels.  Our Democrats here directly impact our quality of life, and I won't have you - or any Obama supporter - wanting us to tie them at the stake and burn them because you want to keep up His holy glow.

    And you better believe that trying to ignore a re-vote based on rules isn't going to play well anywhere in this State.  Michigan does love to split their tickets.  14-point win for a Democratic Governor, and yet a 16-point win for a Constitutional Amendment banning affirmative action (even when she campaigned hard against it).  

    Stop trying to obiterate the MI-Dem party for Obama.


    Haha (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    Honestly, I don't care that Obama is (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    "mean", although I think it's politically unwise of him to be so nasty to Clinton when he seems to have the nomination in hand.
    I don't like some of Obama's politics, which is a problem, but it's still not enough to keep me from voting for him.
    No, it's because I think he is seriously underqualified that I am angry. I know that is how many other Hillary supporters feel.

    I became a HIllary supporter because of (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    her qualifications and substantive campaign and Obama's lack of them.

    I've since then become a flat-out Obama opponent because of his hideous and divisive tactics-- while holding himself out as the great Uniter.


    Hate to say this -- (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    I've always been a good Democrat - I voted for Kerry last election, though I was incredibly disappointed because I wanted Wes Clark to win -- but I've become so disenchanted with the Democratic party, and its pre-chosen nominee that I do believe I'm going to sit out this election too.

    As a woman, I'm deeply disappointed at Obama's failure to treat sexism as seriously as he's treated racism. And now I almost want to pound my head against a wall when I see that anti-choice Casey is campaigning for Obama. That and Obama's post-partisanship horrify me. Some are even touting an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Well, that'd mark the first time the Democratic ticket would feature 2 people who aren't too familiar with the Democratic party's tenets.

    It's crazy because I was never a huge Clinton fan to start with. She wasn't my first choice. Obama didn't have to do much to win me over, but his surrogates and supporters (and media supporters) have been so arrogant and vile, I can't even imagine standing on the same side of the fence as they are.

    You should never sit out an election (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by stevenb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:05:37 PM EST
    If you do not want to support Obama, or McCain, then you can -- depending on your local voting rules -- write in Clinton or choose Nader or any of the other listed candidate.



    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Better to register a vote FOR someone, even if it's not the Democrat. Though I couldn't vote for Nader either, not after 2000.

    And my Democratic (and feminist) identity is deeply ingrained enough that it is 100% impossible that I would ever vote for McCain. I suppose I would just write in Clinton, if it comes to that.


    Is that best? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    Since you're concerned about women's rights wouldn't it be ironic if you helped to put McCain in the White House where he can choose Justices?

    Perhaps you could think of something you would like to see happen in return for which you would vote for BHO when he is running against McCain.  Saying you will under no circumstances support him makes your issues irrelevant.

    This is why Repubs win elections even though their policies hurt most people, too few people vote.


    For now (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    I continue to give $$$, write letters, and work to support Clinton.

    And I continue to think that she'll pull this off and that I won't ever get to that situation where I'll have to write her in on the ballot.

    It's an uphill battle against the media, 98% of the bloggers, powerful Obama surrogates, and the Democratic party "elite".... but I still think she can do it because she appeals to the meat-and-potatoes voters in a way that Obama just cannot.


    I am also still with Clinton- (none / 0) (#108)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    the media (led by NBC) has been trying to convince the public "it's over" for weeks. Ths way they affect the voting in the upcoming states. Voters in Penn, NC,KY,Ind,W.Va, ect- do not listen to the media jerks!!!

    You are not aware of what the Casey (3.66 / 3) (#116)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    endorsement today means, clearly, to those of us actually in the know about women's reproductive rights.  Casey is anti-choice.  And Obama welcomes his endorsement.  That together with so many other concerns about Obama from women who know his record in Illinois is cause for serious concern.

    Until today, I kept telling myself the argument that voting Dem matters because of the Supreme Court.

    As of today, with Casey's endorsment, I have to look longer and harder to see how Obama differs from McCain on that crucial issue for me.  And your lack of awareness of the background on this issue is not reassuring at all.  Instead, it concerns me more that Obama supporters are uninformed on this, so that reinforces that your candidate -- who was going to vote for Roberts until the last minute -- is uninformed, too.

    Or maybe Obama is just uncaring.  Either way, I'm still looking to see why I ought to believe that he would behave differently from McCain on SCOTUS appointments.  I think my time, money, and vote is better spent on stronger Dems in the Senate.  (And that means not Pelosi, Dodd, Leahy, etc., etc.)


    I say shore up our support in congress (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    We need it to give Hillary more support (wouldn't that be sweet) and so we have some leverage in case Obama goes too Unity on us. Dude doesn't seem big on showing his Dem credentials.

    Oh come on (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:15:19 PM EST
    what do you know about John Murtha?

    The endorsements from people you disagree with show up on both sides, and don't tell you much of anything about the candidates.


    THat is so dishonest... (none / 0) (#162)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    Obama's voting record is better on pro-choice than Hillary's.  Independant sources confirm it.  You are consistently making statements that twist, distort, and ignore the truth about Obama in order to smear him.  

    From NARAL... (none / 0) (#177)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    Pro-Choice watchdog site.

    Barack Obama (D)
    U.S. Senate
    Pro-Choice Score: 100%


    And what evidence do you have (none / 0) (#62)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:27:48 PM EST
    that Obama would be any better on this subject.  His christian values?

    Both Dem Candidates (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    Are religious. HRC is a devout Methodist and a member of the Family weekly prayer meetings. Those people are against abortion and would stack the court with evangelicals if they could. BHO's church seems to the left.

    In any case both HRC and BHO firmly believe in the separation of Church and State, so I would not worry about either of them asserting their religious beliefs on you or me.


    My problem is that Obama was (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    leaning for Roberts till his staff reminded him of the "political" damage that would do.  Also his willingness to talk about how we have to listen to the other side and this and that from a man who is so willing to compromise on issues?  Sorry, I just don't buy his commitment to choice.  I get the feeling that if he had been in Republican party he would be anti-choice.  That is my feeling based basically that the more I listen to him and the more that I study his career he comes across as very hypocritical.  Mind you I will probably will still be voting for him if he is the nominee but that is because I want a democratic administration.

    He Voted No (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    And if you think that he is courting right wing Republicans he should have voted yes. Besides, the fact that he changed his mind based on his advisors shows he has good advisors. I wish Dodd, Feingold, Leahy et al had as good advisors. Do you think that they are secret republicans because they voted for Roberts?

    And believe you me the Family is dead set against abortion. HRC is one of the very few democrats who have been taken into their fold. NOW of Illinois gave Obama all high ratings.

    Neither will put a reactionary on the SC. McCain will certainly fill the court with more like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.


    Now you are saying untruths about NOW (4.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    to say that it gave Obama high ratings.  Illinois NOW has done the exact opposite, and quite outspokenly and in detail about his Illinois record.

    I have thought you were trustworthy, if I disagreed with your opinions at times.  But this tells me that the rest of what you write must be wrong, too.


    Well Is This Incorrect (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:09 PM EST
    Not where I originally read it but this is close enough:
    When Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous other state senators voted "present" on these bills in order to protest the politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women.
    [snip] As a matter of fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote "no" on these bills. But, he stood with his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled the Illinois Senate at the time.
    Illinois NOW endorsed Barack Obama in his elections in 1998 and 2002 AFTER he voted "present" on several bills. As Illinois NOW officials have stated, they were aware of the "present" vote strategy, and they still endorsed him. They also endorsed several other prominent Illinois politicians who voted the same way.

    Steve Trombley HuffPo


    And (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    Steve Trombley is the head of Planned Parenthood in Chicago.

    More from St Petersburg Times

    Clearly BHO is pro choice and the fact that NOW changed their opinion about him in 2004 and the present, is by far the exception and not the rule regarding pro choice groups.  


    He is not clearly pro choice if (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:46 PM EST
    he voted present.  That shows a lack of conviction or a lack of guts in not wanting to get his heavily religious constituents against him.  Now backed him in Ill. elections as the less of two evils not because they were happy with his record.  Another thing is that although I am not going to be looking through my files right now to get them, there are many examples of his sloppy if not outright eerie voting record in Illinois.

    Oh Really? (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    Do you understand the system for voting present in Illinois? I am not so clear on it but according to the two links I have provided, it does not in any indicate what you are saying.

    Present is a no vote. All the democrats voted present on the measures of late term abortion, and lost to the majority of Republicans who voted for the ban. I was not there and have no reason to believe that he secretly wanted to vote yes with the Republicans.

    Considering that BHO has 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others I will go with the notion that NOW's break in ranks with Obama had to do with politics.


    He "says" a lot of things (none / 0) (#234)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:51 PM EST
    but doesn't have a voting record to back it up.

    This is ironic... (none / 0) (#179)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:39:17 PM EST
    since you continue to troll with that Casey line.  NARAL and NOW agree - Obama is solid on the pro-choice issue.

    All it tells me is that he makes (none / 0) (#140)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    his decisions based on political expediency.  And yes I do tend to disagree with the democratic leadership in the Senate most of the time.

    Would that it were so... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:03:39 PM EST
    You may not worry about Obama asserting his religious beliefs on you - but I worry.

    Read this quote from Obama:

    "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    Nobody, apparently, feels their rights threatened by this statement, but I do.
    Supposing a candidate had said, "My religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a white man and a white woman." That might at least raise a few eyebrows.

    As the poem goes, they came for the gays and I said nothing....then they came for me - and it was too late.


    I have a problem with the sanctified part too. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    I've been married for over a quarter of a century but I don't consider that I needed my marriage to be sanctified, just legalized.

    I do NOT trust Obama on Judges. n/t (none / 0) (#215)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:32 PM EST
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:45:12 PM EST
    The Obama supporters should not be allowed to post on this blog.

    Do you want this to be a fan club? Before all the HRC refugees came over here we used to have GOPers provide us with the latest swill. As awful as it was sometimes it did spice things up and provide for some good discussion.

    I am sure that there are support groups out there that you can join if you want total homogeneity.

    Wow... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by DudeE on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    ...I certainly don't agree with getting rid of the Obama supporters but I do object to equivocating HRC supporters with GOP 'swill'...

    ...you'd be more persuasive if you didn't reinforce the Obama-bully stereotype.


    Take It Easy On The Kool Aid (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:02:05 PM EST
    And calm down. The analogy was that TL progressives battled GOPers, and that was not such a bad thing, although annoying, therefore HRC supporters should also be able to tolerate BHO  supporters.


    Even though some of the HRC and BHO supporters here act like GOP idiots and use similar tactics, that was not my point.


    C'mon. She's talking about TROLLS. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:11:17 PM EST
    For Some (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:15:32 PM EST
    All Obama supporters are trolls, and I am sure it works the other way. Not so different than the fine distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters.

    No Offense Taken (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    Just different taste or whatever, I do not find fan clubs interesting.

    And you should know that some HRC supporters here have acted just as poorly as some BHO supporters and have had their comments deleted, myself included.


    True Arrogance from Obama Supporters (5.00 / 13) (#22)
    by stevenb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:45:20 PM EST
    I actually think that most Obama supporters -- whether online Obamamaniacs or offline "folks" -- believe Obama can win the Presidency without the backing of Clinton supporters. That, BTW, is impossible. Why, you ask?  Republicans are 80% behind McCain, the Dems. are 50/50 split between Clinton and Obama.  Percentage wise, that means the Repubs. will win because of, dare I say it, more actual, real votes from actual, real voters.

    Since I'm on the topic, I believe this arrogance on the part of Obama supporters is because Obama has shown no leadership in calming down his own constituency.  The Obama/Axelrod brain trust is surely keeping quiet with the bloggers and online voices because they want to have this negativity.

    Look, all it would take is for Obama to make one of historical speeches, directed to his constituency, to say "be gracious, be kind, do not smear and vilify Senator Clinton, because we need her constituencies support to win the Presidency."  But, he doesn't say this, although he often refers to walking the "high road" in this campaign.

    If anyone can show me that Obama is trying to manage his constituency or show him equally supporting a unified Dem. party (a la Clinton many, many times), I'll shut up.

    PS - Also, if Obama wasn't worried about losing this nomination, why is he trying soooooo hard to smear and tear up Clinton...shouldn't he just be sitting pretty? Hmm?

    You are (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by sas on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    exactly right.

    Thursday, Hillary said the party should be unified in November.  No one should seriously consider McCain.  I have heard her say this several times.

    I have never heard him say anything remotely like that (until after she said it yesterday).

    I don't even really think he is a democrat sometimes.  I think he uses the party as a means to an end.

    Anyway, his supporters on some blogs are so vile toward Hillary, that I have been completely turned off to him.  He could stop it if he wanted.

    So, what will I do in November?  I think I will probably sit out.  


    he can't (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM EST
    because his wife is on record saying that if Hillary won the nomination their support would be "maybe."  Hard to throw your wife under the bus if you wouldn't throw your mentor under the bus.

    Don't sit out (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:57:22 PM EST
    write in  ;)

    you're asking too much (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by djork on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    Obama can't even speak up to his minister about inflammatory things said in his own church. Why should we expect any more from him in leading the Democratic party?

    As an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:58 PM EST
    what I hear sounds different.

    Standard line from Obama about Clinton (from Mar 21):

    "Senator Clinton is smart, she is capable, she is tenacious, she would be a vast improvement over the status quo, all right? there's no doubt that.  and you're right the differences on issues are not immense."

    Standard line from Clinton about Obama (from Mar 6):

    "Look I have said that Sen. McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002....since we know now Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican party, national security will be front-and-center in this election, we all know that.  I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate that we can cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold...I believe I've done that, Sen. McCain has done that, and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy."

    Her comments this week were a welcome change.


    Going negative may drive down turnout? (none / 0) (#84)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:42:05 PM EST
    I know Obama has to pay lip service to his get out the new vote schtick, but it is in his interest to drive down turnout now. Going negative usually does that. Even if Hillary wins by 25% margins in the rest of the states, if the turnout is down, she will not over take him in the 48 state popular vote. If turnout stays at historic proportions she can get there without massive victories.

    I am a long time democrat and 63 yrs old (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    Have never voted for a republican in my life before....Hope I don't this time...Probably will sit it out...but there is one thing I definately wont give away...and that is my vote...I refuse to have the twisted media and the more twisted pundits cram one candidate down my throat...Particularly if two states have been disinfranchiced...if you are afraid of the revote than how on earth will you deal with November...

    I live in solid blue state.... (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:54 PM EST
    so I can cast a protest vote. If it gets close enough in my state for my vote to make a difference the race is lost anyways.

    Me too. (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:35 PM EST
    I'm writing in. Not a protest. (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:54:46 PM EST
    Just my vote  ;)

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    a boomer, too. Also a lifelong Dem.  People ask how can we think about voting for McCain or sitting it out, but I'll tell you what, I'm sick of having a demagogue in the White House, sick of holding my nose and voting for some loser like Kerry because that's all the Party can come up with.  I'm not going to help foist another loser on the American People.  At some point, a person has to fall back on their principles.

    well... (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:12:22 PM EST
    Assuming your comments weren't rhetorical I'll point out that BHO was in favor of a fair revote in MI, and the FL revote fell apart because of feasibility problems that have nothing to do with BHO.

    you are sadly misinformed about both (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    revotes and if you go back in the history of this blogger, BTD, you will see why it is so...Obama was totally at the base of blocking both states...Sad but true...

    Speaking Of BTD (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:21:18 PM EST
    He is not a twisted pundit, at least he has not been while supporting BHO. Doesn't his opinion supporting Obama count for anything in your book?

    squeaky.. (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by Rainsong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:19:53 PM EST
    BTD has been consistent in his support and opinion.

    Just my take, is that BTD believes Obama is the more electable in the GE because of his media status, and also supports what I call the "math theory":  ie the math alone will enable BHO to take the nomination with sufficient 'legitimacy' to soothe the Clinton voters. Thats why he is arguing against continued demonising of Clinton, so as not to alienate Clinton voters any more than they already are.  

    But that said, some of us disagree with BTD and hold different opinions. I personally don't see those differences as a sin, or a crime, and one of the reasons I like coming to this site. Only time will tell who's guesses, views, opinions etc were closest to the mark.

    FWIW - I dont think the "math theory" will hold a lot with Clinton supporters. Some will see it as just Party spin.

    As for the media status - quite a significant minority (especially Clinton voters) aren't buying the media spin now, so I don't see that media success as evidence that it will be so incredibly successful in the GE even if it does continue, and outweighs the Republican campaign machine. But I could be wrong, huh?

    However, I do agree with BTD on the Clinton-demonisation, its not doing Obama much good and will damage him in the GE in loss of support, not just in votes but in campaign ground-troops as well, and possibly down-ticket for other Dems as well.


    I personally love BTD and love his posts... (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    but his support of Obama, is tepid at best, and I also disagree that Obama will get the more favored press...Sadly cannot prove it until it is too late tho...I really don't think of BTD as an Obama supporter as much as I think of him as an extremely honest man..rare to find...

    He Is A Democrat Supporter First (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    And an Obama supporter second. That is a good example, imo. At least in these times, given what we have to work with.  

    Yep (none / 0) (#91)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    Here is the official word on FL:


    The MI proposal needed to exclude the BHO supporters who originally went for their second choice or to be strategic in the Repub race.  Remember everyone (including HRC) knew that the D election wouldn't count, and BHO wasn't on the ballot.

    Aside: How do I imbed a URL so I don't go over the margins?


    Didn't he run an 'uncommitted' campaign there? (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:03:44 PM EST
    anyone who voted Dem should be eligible in a revote. if you voted Repub, too bad. It's a DEM primary they are trying to win.

    TPM Central (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    is not a valid source of anything but Obama-centric propaganda.

    Dem Doc (none / 0) (#158)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:22:59 PM EST
    It's a Dem document reprinted.

    It can be found many places.

    So what about the content of my comment?


    use the link button at the top (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:59:51 PM EST
    of your comment box. First type your text, then hightlight it and click the link button and paste in the url. It's very simple.

    What? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    A FAIR revote?

    A fair revote in Michigan is a Primary.  Not a caucus.  I vote absentee.  I could never attend a caucus.  Neither could my 82 year old Grandmother (who, surprisingly, supports OBAMA) as she has bone marrow cancer, and also votes absentee.  And she is very political.

    As far as those "Republican" voters, aka those who switched Party Affiliation?  Screw them.  I thought the Obamasphere's rallying cry to "VOTE MITT AND MESS WITH REPUBLICANS!" was bad then, and I have no sympathy.  Stay home and tell the leadership you're upset over the Primary fracas, or go and try and "screw" with the other side.

    Karma is Karma.

    A primary election re-vote is fair for Michigan.  What else is "fair?"

    50/50 delegate split is absolutely unfair.  That's not even a vote.  It's just saying "Michigan counts, but not really, as no one actually wins!"  

    Give me a break.


    Wow. Athyrio. I am a long time Democrat and 63 (none / 0) (#63)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    years old too. What you said.

    LOL at least we agree on the issues so far (none / 0) (#67)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    I just wish I could see a way out of it...I don't....

    Derridog it would be fun to exchange (none / 0) (#68)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST
    email addys and chat privately and see how much we agree...How do we do that....

    I don't know. Is there a way? I'd like to do that. (none / 0) (#80)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:40:08 PM EST
    me too.....I am on yahoo messenger are you?? (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    put your email addresses in your (none / 0) (#98)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    personal info for this site

    But can everyone contact you then? (none / 0) (#101)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:11 PM EST
    That could be a problem for me. I get 45 emails a day already.

    Pop it in (none / 0) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    real quick so you can exchange.  Then remove.  We won't look.

    what the heck do this one as I rarely use it (none / 0) (#153)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:18:46 PM EST

    Okay. Got it. I just emailed you. Cream City? (none / 0) (#172)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    The problem with doing that is it displays my addy (none / 0) (#111)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    for all the world to see...Not good with some of these rabid Obamabots...

    Suggestion (none / 0) (#122)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:03:05 PM EST
    Either just put your email address up for just a couple of minutes. Or quickly sign up for a yahoo email then just use that one to exchange email address.

    Why don't you e-mail J or BTD (none / 0) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    and have them forward?

    That's a good idea, if they wouldn't mind. I'm not (none / 0) (#143)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    sure. Maybe if they say yes on this thread? or they might tell us to keep on topic.

    Hi, I have a university email address. I'm not (none / 0) (#124)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:03:12 PM EST
    comfortable with publishing it online.  I'm racking my brains to see how we could do this but I'm coming up blank.  I'd be happy to speak with Cream City too.  We all sound like we have a lot in common.

    I'll email you with (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    each other's address since you both want to do it.

    I'm just a kid in first grade (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:51:59 PM EST
    when you were in fifth -- but I so appreciate reading both of you and others here, too.  "Women of a certain age" are we, and your retelling of your experience resonates so much with me.  Thanks.

    Cream City if you like send me an email (none / 0) (#235)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    at the below posted email addy and I will share it with derridog...thanks and would love chatting with u....



    I respect Feingold a great deal (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    and his advice is sound.  I've never been particularly impressed by Obama as a candidate, but I would have been more inclined to vote for him if not for the nasty behavior of his supporters on the Internet.  

    After months of Clinton-bashing, at this point my reaction is, "You hate my candidate? Well, fine! I hate yours, too, and I won't vote for him in the GE!"  

    Infantile?  Perhaps.  There is more to my reluctance to vote for Obama than sheer spite, but I've gotta admit, that's a factor.  I resent the way he's taken the Dem base for granted and assumed that Hillary supporters will just fall in line.

    I guess I'm like an Italian (a/k/a garlic-nose) with Alzheimer's.  As the joke goes, they forget everything but their grudges.

    Again (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by sas on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:50 PM EST
    you are right.

    Why would I want to support someone who has tacitly allowed this vileness go on?  When they say awful things about Hillary I take it personally.

    I have never voted for any Republican presidential candidate, and I never saw this coming.

    But I feel he is so unright for the job.  What to do?  


    Yes. I think that it is very important that he (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:36:43 PM EST
    does not tell his supporters to stop. But even more important is that he arouses this kind of emotional viciousness in the first place. Anyone who can conjure up this kind of non-thinking mob mentality in his supporters is not someone I can support. This is too much like Hitler.   I know he sounds so sweetly reasonable, but the Democratic party is split now because of him. We have lost the coalition of blacks with hispanics and progressive whites that has held us together.  He doesn't care about that either. He's been actively creating that situation by calling the Clinton's racists in a blatant attempt to take the black vote away from her.  He's also a fraud.  He copies words, phrases, pauses, inflections from others. He takes on a Martin Luther King religious tone when he speaks.  He is a fabulous actor who reads lines as though he means them.

    He scares me.


    mob mentality, charisma and fanaticism (5.00 / 3) (#236)
    by noholib on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM EST
    What's the difference between inspiration by a worthy leader, rock-star celebrity appeal, and a charismatic leader who can turn large numbers of people into vicious unthinking mobs?  I don't have the answers but I wonder about this.  And I too really get nervous when charisma carries the day rather than rational argument and analysis of policies.  I always applaud the attempt to be clear-headed and sceptical, not to be dragged along by others' enthusiasms.  One has to try to think for oneself.
    I am not moved by Senator Obama's calls for post-partisanship; they sound suspiciously like the "triangulation" that was decried only a short while ago by so many supposed liberals or progressives--or giving away the Democratic store, to put it more colloquially.  I am dismayed by his personal attacks on Senator Clinton's character.  I see someone with the gifts of intelligence, good looks, charm and a silver tongue, but with little solid experience and with  considerable arrogance. His judgment was good about the war, but it has been poor in many other areas, e.g. voting for Cheney's energy bill; wanting to vote for John Roberts as Chief Justice; his long-term association with Rezsko and not telling the truth about it--five billable hours became a two-decade long relationship and hundred of thousands of dollars; his not being able to stick to his story about Rev. Wright: did he or did he not hear his full-throated comments?; his willingness to keep private contractors in Iraq; his referring in the last couple of days to the length of this primary campaign with an analogy to the Bataan death march -- really, this flippant remark betrays such a lack of historical judgment and moral perspective that it's callous and almost obscene.

    He has encouraged adulation by his supporters and an aura of religious conversion.  Not used to being criticized or called to account, he has at times become very prickly and ornery.  Oh yes, it's too much for the press to ask a candidate to answer more than eight questions in one session!

    He and his surrogates are quick to fling charges of racism at others, but he has tacitly condoned several objectionable remarks about race, women, and sexual orientation made by others in his orbit or by those who support him (e.g. McClurkin, MSNBC, Wright).  

    Yes, I'd be much happier with less charisma, more reason, more policy analysis (see for example Krugman's columns in NY Times, or eriposte on leftcoaster), and more commitment to long-term  core Democratic values such as universal health care.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Obama like Hitler????? You sound scary.

    I'm not saying he's out goose-stepping. I'm (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    saying he doesn't appear to mind arousing hatred in his supporters.  I first noticed this on Kos, when all the Edwards suporters (I being one) were innocently cheering on our candidate  and the Hillary people were able to speak to one another without their conversations being hijacked and without being told that Hillary was a lot of words I can't say on this blog.

    At first I thought Kos would do something or say something to stop this and then it got more and more abusive. I finally left.  Then the MSNBC boyz club started in and some of the girls who wanted to be in the boyz club were also piling on Hillary.   Now, its what Riverdaughter calls a Haka -- men wearing masks and sticking out their tongues and trying to frighten and intimidate their opponent into submission.

    Obama never says a thing to stop it.  His advisors stir it up. His wife enters into the fray, saying she wouldn't necessarily support Hillary in the general if she won. His chosen superdelegates engage in WWTSBQ!

    Maybe you have missed this behavior?  What planet could you be on?


    The Nuremberg Rallies; (none / 0) (#113)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:14 PM EST
    You've never seen them?

    Godwin's Law (none / 0) (#123)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:03:08 PM EST
    You lose.

    George Burns said it well. (none / 0) (#144)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    The secret to being a good actor is sincerity.

    If you can fake that, you've got it made.


    Hitler? (none / 0) (#232)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    I dunno (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    I'm in a quandary.  If all Obama supporters were like BTD, it would be much easier for me to make peace.  And I do believe the attitude comes from the top down.  Obama has done nothing to quell the viciousness of his supporters, so I have to believe that he tacitly approves.  To paraphrase Barbara Bush, it's working out very well for him.

    Even my mom is not immune!  She just turned 82 yesterday and is very into politics (God bless her) but she is a total Obamaniac (she was a Deaniac in 2004).  She's coming to visit next week I don't know if I'm willing to let her use my laptop to visit her favorite sites (Huffpo, DKos and America Blog).  I think I'll try to turn her on to TL.

    I don't think I could bring myself to vote for McCain but I live in NY, which is solidly blue, so  my vote doesn't matter that much.  OTOH, I feel like a hypocrite not voting b/c I'm always exhorting my kids to vote, vote, vote!  


    You need to vote downticket. If we have McCain, (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    which I personally believe is a given, if Obama is our candidate, we NEED to have a Democratic Congress with a fillibuster proof majority to stop the 100 year war, the tax cuts that will make the economic situation worse, more Alitos on the Supreme Court, and the privitization of Social Security.  

    If we have that majority, maybe we can weather four years of McCain. He doesn't look like he could last longer than that.


    Maybe Here (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM EST
    You should take a trip down to Mississippi. The Obama supporters there seem to be quite reasonable.

    Heh, let's hope we're solidly blue. n/t (none / 0) (#210)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    Agreed. (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    Heck, this has even torn me and my best friend - my mom - apart.

    I campaigned for Obama for Senate when I was a student here in Illinois.  And 4 years later, I was galvanized for the primary as a "Road to the Presidency."

    But since then, the focus has turned all into "The Road to the Presidency," as if trouncing Clinton is all Obama needs to do to walk the Yellow Brick Road.

    My dislike for Obama started with McClurkin (I'm gay).  It really hardened over Jesse Jackson Jr. shilling on Hillary's tears after New Hampshire, and how she didn't cry for Katrina victims.  A not-so-subtle attempt to inject race into the dialogue before South Carolina.

    And now it has become outright animosity.

    My mother, the Catholic breadwinner of my parents' household and a vociferous Democrat backs Obama.  She didn't vote in the Michigan Primary (I did) and we have had so many battles over Obama (and I'm a 23 year old gay liberal.  Chew on that, statistical trends!).  I finally threatened after her nagging that I will either not vote or vote McCain just because I'm so tired of the prosthelytizing for Obama.  I don't buy the hype, and I won't.

    I don't like the attempt to assassinate Michigan Superdelegates (aka our DEMOCRATIC LEADERS) over this PRIMARY.  I don't like the injection of race.  And I certainly don't think it was "brave" of Obama to mention "us gays" in a "church" after using Rev. McClurkin in South Carolina.

    It's bitter and ridiculous, but every time I log onto DailyKos or another "big blog" that has turned into a Clinton bash-fest, I hardline more against Obama.  I kept my Michigan residency for a reason.  My "swing" vote might not matter much right now thanks to Obama, but it sure will come November.

    And no, I am not, and never ever will be, a Log Cabin.  I tried dating one once.  Biggest mistake of my life, aside from taking student loans from that evil whore "Sallie Mae."


    I'll take the bait... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Alec82 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    ...because your status as a gay man is irrelevant in supporting HRC or BHO.  I'm gay and I think President Clinton tossed us under the bus.  For that matter, Senator Clinton has yet to really push for pro-LGBT legilsation in the senate.  So at best a wash.  Any concern I had about Senator Obama over the McClurkin affair was overcome by Senator Clinton's promise A) not to repeal DOMA in its entirety, B) stating that both DOMA and DADT were "progressive," and C) her reluctant condemnation of the idea that homosexuality is "immoral."  Senator Obama has many weak points, but you cannot legitimately criticize him on these points, at least not against his main competitor.  

    I feel what you are hearing from the Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    supporters is Hurt...Pure unadulterated hurt..Hurt by the democratic party...Hurt by Obama campaign and supporters....for taking us all for granted...nothing a woman likes less than being taken for granted....Why? because it happens to us in our everyday lives as well...We are sick of it and sick of sitting on the sidelines and being expected to applaud whomever is deemed worthy of winning....when we clearly have the more qualified candidate...But that doesnt seem to matter...

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    That is exactly right. It is hurt and anger over watching a good woman be smeared in the worst and most stereotypical ways possible, hurt and anger over watching a former beloved president be dragged through the mud and called a racist, it is hurt and anger over the hatred and unfairness in the media, hurt and anger over the disgusting rants against our candidate on the blogs and in real life, and hurt and anger over being called racist uneducated archie bunker types for not supporting Barack...

    I feel taken for granted by the democratic party. If independent voters are so much more important, then fine, I will cease to be part of this party and vote for any candidate I want with no guilt.

    At this point, it will be VERY hard for Barack to get my vote. I won't give it to McCain, but I will not hesitate to write in the only candidate who has actually earned my vote and addressed my concerns.


    Someone here in the comments today (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    said she had to work twice as hard as Obama for the nom. (pretty sure it was here) I think that's another part that ticks me off. Been there done that against inexperienced male co-workers/bosses. One of them had the 'audacity' to tell me I made a fine salary FOR A WOMAN. And this was NOT 30yrs ago . . .

    Guess someone should clue Wright in that yes, she does have to work twice as hard.


    Not only hurt, outraged (2.00 / 1) (#264)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    how no one is showing any rationality nor decency, not BHO, not his followers, nor the press, has everyone gone mad?
    It doesn't escape me that the disrespect, "unabashedly" bashing, but most of all the HATE that BHO has demonstrated against Senator Clinton follows exactly the same pattern of his 'uncle' Jeremiah in spreading the vile venom of racism, divisionism, and anti-Americanism. They are one and the same, these two. Remember the devil changes appearances to lure their prey into everlasting hell!!

    I think this hurt is real. (none / 0) (#149)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    I think it is also important to acknowledge the worry many people who found inspiration in Obama (kids, kool-aid drinkers, and cultists alike) who feel that they are winning by the rules but may lose due to the intervention of superdelegates.

    It will be important, in the last couple of months of the race, that we try (and sometimes it is difficult) to be respectful of each other and our strong feelings for our respective candidates.  


    Umm.... the rules allow the superdelegates to (none / 0) (#187)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    vote for whomever they please. The whole purpose of having the superdelegates in the first place was to keep people like George McGovern, who was crucified by Nixon in the 1972 election, from gaining the nomination because of riding high in the primaries without being vetted.  I'm not saying that's a good thing. I"m saying those are the rules and that is why they were put in place.

    If you are going to support the rules, you have to support ALL of the rules, not just the rules that favor your candidate.


    The rules are the rules. (none / 0) (#199)
    by clapclappointpoint on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST
    I'm just trying to respect the feelings of Hillary supporters and asking Hillary supporters to respect the feelings of Obama supporters.  Hillary supporters are not alone in having an emotional investment in their candidate or feeling disenfranchised if their candidate loses.

    Oh, I can understand their widdle feelings (none / 0) (#216)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    because every since I started voting my widdle feelings have been routinely crushed.

    I hope the young voters have a lot of resilience, whether this time around they get their way, or not.


    What (none / 0) (#229)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:29 PM EST
    I'm really angry about is the way the Party has treated us and the Clintons.  Talk about eating your own.  I don't like it and i"m suspicious why the Democratic leadership is lockstep behind Obama.  Smells to high heaven.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#239)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST
    who is expecting you to applaud (or even vote for) Obama? Personally, I respect Clinton a lot which is why I think she might still win when all the odds are stacked against her.  If you think Clinton is the better candidate, you should support her.  Once the nomination is decided, both sides can choose whether the winner will better than McCain (Of course.)

    Clueless in Seattle (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ProfessorMantelish on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:13:42 PM EST
    I am confused by the acrimony between supporters of Obama and Clinton. I don't see the point of it. Policy-wise, both are almost indistinguishable. Few could enumerate substantive differences between them on issues. The differences between them and McCain on the issues are profound. McCain is the one to worry about, the one to criticize.

    Furthermore, it makes little sense to talk about races being done and over, and lamenting the disenfranchisement of FL and MI until the last state primary is over; otherwise you're effectively disenfranchising those states whose primaries haven't happened yet. The fact that they've been effectively disenfranchised under the modern primary system in the past but may not be this year is all to the good, I believe.

    I believe the FL and MI delegates will be seated. I don't believe there will be a floor fight, and I believe that in the current state of the campaign Obama is going to be the nominee. I can hypothesize a number of quite reasonable scenarios under which this would happen. I would be equally happy were Hillary the nominee, however.

    The important thing is to field a viable progressive against a war-mongerer who believes in voodoo economics. That's the ultimate goal, and one noone should be losing sight of. It's mystifying to me why people are talking of sitting the election out in the face of "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

    (not really from Seattle)

    the difference is (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST
    Hillary is willing and able to talk about policy, Obama refuses.  Hillary claims that Obama has been and still is parroting her platform, IMO she is right.  Because the platform is hers she knows the issues, knows her goals, knows how to explain going about achieving them.  Obama has the platform but not the specifics...and that is why every speech he gives is about unity and hope and race...he can't talk about the issues.  Look at NAFTA, the one time he tried to adopt an issue he bungled it because he can't hide his vote for continuing NAFTA, couldn't hide from surrogates letting NAFTA supporters know that he wasn't actually against NAFTA.

    So how else do you separate yourself?  You divide to conquer.  Make Hillary and her supporters look like they are holding fast to a sinking ship.  Make the process about "trying to make me the black candidate"; about "throwing the kitchen sink"; about "she will say and do anything"...

    But he is the one doing the dividing and I think the conservative pundits are right..."It'll take us about two weeks to tear Obama down."

    It won't come as a surprise to Hillary's supporters but it will to Obama's supporters.  And the GOP attacks may re-galvanize the democrats to unify..but unity isn't exactly our strong suit which is why Bush got 8 years in the WH.  All they have to do is turn enough voters off in FL, OH, IA, MO etc to eek out wins and they can hold the WH.  They know they don't have to expand the map, just hold the states they won in 2000 and 2004.  The more Obama/supporters alienate Hillary's supporters the easier it gets for McCain...it isn't that we are going to run out and vote for McCain..but staying home or voting third party has the same effect.


    Then I could not post here either (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST

    Might be (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Sunshine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:21:28 PM EST
    The Obama people are considering that there is a possibly that Obama could implode and wouldn't it be nice if Hillary had dropped out so it wouldn't matter....

    Agreed (none / 0) (#231)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:34:44 PM EST
    100 %  I said the same thing to my husband after I read Leahy's shameful statement.  It seems obvious to me the Dem Dinosaurs see that Obama may be having a Guiliani moment and they are trying to do a very stinky thing to rob Hillary of the nomination by kicking her out now.  We need new party leadership.

    I think you're right (1.00 / 1) (#251)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:03:11 PM EST
    and I still don't get it. If there are more skeletons lurking in Obama's closet (and I think there are), then why is so much of the Democratic establishment still committed to the Titanic?

    Wishful thinking on Feingold's part (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:21:28 PM EST
    Where does he get the idea that Obama will have it all sown up and won't need the superdelegates to put him over the finish line? -- only if Clinton pulls out, and signs are not looking like she's going to do that. Obama will need the SD's as much as she will. Maybe Russ needs new batteries in his calculator.

    I also wonder if he was speaking only to Obama's  citizen-voters. It's possible he's not liking that some of his political colleagues (eg. Leahy) are adding to the negative atmosphere.

    Feingold misses the point (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Coldblue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:42 PM EST
    that many of us are well past the point of reconciliation.

    BTD gets the outrage.

    Not all Obama followers are Trolls (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    but I find it suspicious that so many of them are so fond of the republican talking points.

    Republican talking points? (none / 0) (#248)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
    Some of us defended the Clintons vigorously against the Arkansas project.  We're very hurt that Hillary would now choose to go to Scaife to make her case.

    I actually came to support Hillary (5.00 / 12) (#75)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    in large part because of Obama supporters. While I was still neutral I found myself defending her more and more at places like HuffPo and TPM (I've never been a Kos fan) because I was really stunned at the kinds of things they were saying about her, and that's back when it was mild stuff like "neocon with blood on her hands." After her emotional moment in New Hampshire, I started looking at her a little differently, and examining where my attitudes about her had come from. I had this vague  image of a conniving,unprincipled schemer who would do anything to get ahead. But I realized I had actually never seen her do anything to support that, it was just the result of being exposed to years of right wing hate. And now I was seeing these supposed progressives parroting that hate. And seeing Obama paint the Clintons as racists put me over the edge. I understand not everyone likes them, but they've done way too much for the party to deserve that treatment.

    I also has a real problem with Obama dissing my generation (I'm 56) and talking as though all of the battles many of us had fought so hard in for years were just a bunch of people who didhn't know how to get along. I also think that if his oratory doesn't move or inspire you, there's not a lot else there to get behind. I guess you either get him or you don't.

    To my mind, the poisonous atmosphere of the last 10 years or so has been largely the fault of the Repoublicans, starting with impeachment. I really don't care if Obama can make us all get along, and I have yet to hear exactly how he's going to do that. Reagan got a lot of Dems to vote for him, but I would hardly say he unified the nation. I think Hillary will be much better at using the White House to advance the Demopcratic agenda, and if the Republicans don't want to go along, too bad for them.

    The reason Hillary has so much blue collar support is because Obama's supporters (speaking in general terms) are genrally well off enough that they can worry about the "tone" in Washington. Hillary's supporters are focused more on questions like "where's my health care?"

    There's no question Hillary has done stuff to disappoint me. The threshold remark was unecessary, and the Bosnia thing is just embarrassing. But I don't support or not support a candidate based on one incident, or one vote, or one speech in a park. And I must say I wrack my brain to think of a single thing I have ever heard an Obama supporter take him to task for, other than not hitting back at Hillary hard enough. The willingness to excuse and forgive literally everything he does is mind blowing.

    I'll still vote for Obama in the GE, both because I'm a loyal Dem and because I'm not fooled at all as to who McCain is what agenda he will advance. But I must admit that when I think about Obama getting the nomination, the prospect of seeing the crowing and breast beating from many of his supporters makes my skin crawl.

    I do think it's interesting to hear so many Obama supporters talk about Hillary's dirty campaign, yet I can't think of when I've seen comments from Hillary supporters that come close to the level of poison directed at her. Hearing Obama supporters push the "both sides do it" meme makes it clear to me that these people have no idea how much bridge building will be required to mend the rift in the party.

    VERY well said (none / 0) (#174)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    I liked both candidates fairly well early on (I would have most liked Al Gore to be next president).  But the Obama cheerleaders made me look more and more closely at both candidates and I liked Clinton more and Obama less, the more I looked at THEM.  And meanwhile many of the Obama people in various online communities have completely lost their manners.  

    Brilliantly said, ChrisO (none / 0) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:41:47 PM EST
    I agree with literally every sentence.  You've articulated my own attitude perfectly.  Thank you.

    Me too (none / 0) (#221)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:24:36 PM EST
    Thanks for this, Chris.

    I agree with Everything You Said (none / 0) (#243)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:04 PM EST
    I was an Edwards supporter (once it became clear Gore was chickening out - still mad at him for that)

    I always found the Hillary Clinton hating to be obscene - such a bright, energetic, caring woman (even if I don't agree with her politics) - hating her makes no sense except for pure unadulterated misogyny.

    I don't favor Hillary Clinton's politics, but the Obama supporters with their smarmyness, their irrationality, their arrogance, and their smugness have continually driven me toward supporting Clinton ever since Edwards dropped out. Obama supporters continually remind me of winguts.


    When you (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by sas on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    read the vitriol toward Clinton over at HuffPo and TPM, you will understand why some Hillary voters will never vote for Obama.

    Also, he was content to drag his feet and try to stall when it came to re-votes in Michigan and Florida.  A real leader would have allowed the chips to fall where they may, and do what is right.

    That would have been admirable.  But then again, he is no leader.

    He didn't just drag his feet. He had his lawyers (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
    working to stop the revotes.

    Too late! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jere on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    The dye has been cast.  

    To sit it out or not to sit it out (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Sunshine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:57:34 PM EST
    Hillary should not drop out, the women are already so mad at the way they have been treated and there is not a blog that will allow them to talk about it, if she was forced out, we would be even madder yet.....   Here in Texas there is not a chance that I am going to cast the deciding vote in Nov but I have voted once for Hillary in the primary and once in the caucus and I go back tomorrow to vote one more time for Hillary in the caucus... And if she is forced out it will be hard to vote for the ones that forced her out...

    You're caucusing tomorrow in Texas? (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    Good for you, and I appreciate you hanging in there for the rest of us!  Really.  I'm not in a caucus state and would find the process so wearing -- and especially difficult against the vociferous Obamans, from what I read about caucuses there and elsewhere.

    I will be thinking of you tomorrow, giving yet more hours to Clinton and the caucus system.  Thanks!  And please report back about how it goes. . . .


    I'm very confused (none / 0) (#250)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    There's another Texas caucus?

    How many does that state get?


    Write her in ;) (none / 0) (#225)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    That's my choice, at least I will be voting for.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    If the folks here saying "too late" are any indication of a larger group of people, then, yes, what's done is done.

    Count me with the "it's too late" folks.

    The Obama movement was never sincere any way.  The people who used to be skeptical of post-partsanship and rip Obama cause of his snake oil are now suddenly believers??

    Yeah.  Right.

    HE HAD BETTER NOT BE THE NOMINEE (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by scorbs on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32:40 PM EST


    And Obama should cool it with the Bataan comments. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by SunnyLC on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:54:47 PM EST
    What an inexcusable faux pas over the Bataan Death March by Obama! The timing couldn't have been better (sarcasm) as the Bataan Memorial Death March is this Sunday in Las Cruces, NM! Last year, over 4,000 people participated!

    Stop by my post which gives some of the history of Bataan and how New Mexico was affected.

    You can bet this won't be going over real big here in NM!

    Shame on Obama! Is he as good at saying stupid, insensitive things as George Bush is??  Perhaps...

    Bill Richardson Should Have Told Obama About the Bataan Death March
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/bill-richardson-should-have-told-obama-about-the-b ataan-death-march/

    Bataan death march analogy - awful (none / 0) (#256)
    by noholib on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:49 PM EST
    I couldn't believe it when I read Senator Obama's analogy.  So flip and callous, a travesty of historical thinking and morality.  I guess it's just really difficult, oppressive, brutal, and murderous to be involved such a l-o-n-g primary campaign.  

    Honorless rubes have taken over the party. (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by WillBFair on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    They still haven't noticed that Obama's only serious policies were adopted from the Clinton's. For the rest, he recites vague fanatsies that don't have a snowballs chance in hell. But the deep voice and feel good rhetoric relieve them of having to think about any issues at all. His arrogant attitude and smarmy attacks set another tone. And his foillowers alternate between an imaginary world of 'change and unity, and a state of seething hatred. The strong emotions are a drug high, and the high is all that matters to them now.
    I read about mob mentality years ago. But it's horrible to actually see a brainless mob in action, and in the democratic party of all places.
    I have no choice but to vote democratic, but the media and Obama have driven democratic values and educated discourse right out of the party, and remade it into something too creepy for words.

    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 2) (#262)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:20:11 PM EST
    I never like seeing "Obamabots." I also don't like "Rethuglicans" or any of the other variants. While most people's beliefs are pretty set in stone at this point, I do consider this a board where respect is encouraged. And I like posting here because it's one of the few boards where one can post in favor of Hillary and not get a deluge of hatred in response. But when we use terms like "Obamabots" it's like sayting "I'm about to scold you and I don't even care if you listen to me." That's just my opinion.

    The thing that pisses me off (5.00 / 0) (#272)
    by The Realist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:52:40 AM EST
    the most is the idea that Hillary started all of this crap.


    Obama was the first to come out and say that he could get Hillary supporters but doubted she could get his.

    They keep reporting that Obama has won Texas and yet i am getting ready to go to my county convention to officially cast my delegate vote for Hillary. Texas stopped counting caucus votes 3 weeks ago because it was too cumbersome. So how has he won? the delegates have not been counted yet.

    This race ain't over. Pledged as well as Supers can change and the more that comes out about Obama, the more likely that could happen. better now than in the general.

    Stay in Hillary.

    Unfortunately (4.80 / 5) (#18)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    the people who really need to listen to Feingold won't.  Every so often I feel masochistic enough to wander over to one of the Obama blogs.  I always come out vowing I wouldn't vote for Obama if Satan himself were the alternative.  It takes me hours every time to talk myself out of that position.

    Not likely. (3.66 / 3) (#96)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    Obama supporters will not be civil or rational about Hillary Clinton.
    They are in lock step with the right wing. It gives them a sense of power. They like it. It also grants them the license to express their deep seated contempt for women. They're not about to give that up.

    Correction: Their deep seated contempt for.... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
    ...older women. They have no use for us.

    Um, I think they have a point (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by piniella on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:24:53 PM EST
    From my point of view, Hillary should gracefully withdraw because she cannot overcome Obama's lead in voters & elected delegates.  I also think her praise of McWAR is far over the line.

    SAuppose you believe that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    It does not make it smart to behave as they do. IF you can not act in the best interest of your preferred candidate, what kind of supporter are you really?

    What I find ironic... (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by sander60tx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:37:33 PM EST
    and more than a little dishearening, is that Obama is campaigning as a "unifier" and yet many of his supporters acting in a way that is highly inconsistant with that ideal.  And then some of them blame THAT on Clinton!

    I'm not defending the nasty attacks on Hillary... (none / 0) (#69)
    by piniella on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:34:57 PM EST
    I just think we'd all be better off if she classily dropped out sooner rather than later.

    Looking at the delegate numbers... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    I see no reason to demand that she drop out the race at this point in time.

    It's not like she's running on empty and stubbornly staying in the race regardless of not having any delegates. She's got quite a big chunk of the delegates.


    That didn't sound like a demand. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    More of a request.

    There've been demands elsewhere... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    Personally...I'm still in Gravel's corner. But there have been both demands and requests...and sometimes those demands come cloaked in the guise of a demand.

    errr...the guise of a reuest... (none / 0) (#212)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM EST

    You know Mike left the Dem race yesterday (none / 0) (#217)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST
    joined the Libertarian Party, and threw his hat in that ring? There's a chance he'll be offered VP, but not the Prez nominination.

    Best threads on that are at Reason's Hit and Run.


    darn it... (none / 0) (#218)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    he's the fun one.

    piniella (none / 0) (#190)
    by Commander Vimes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    Where are you from? Or In what galaxy do you reside?  Hillary Clinton is NOT the one to drop out, rather the 'divider'(Oboma)should drop out.  HE is the one that is segueing this election!  I swear I will vote for the only one who will beat the repugs!

    I don't think Obama is a divider... (none / 0) (#224)
    by piniella on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    and on top of that, I think his economic polcies are better than Hillary's.

    So Obama is too weak to stand up to (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:28:33 PM EST
    questions that he might not be up to leading the military?! And you say you have confidence in your candidate??

    But you don't think (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    A campaign to depict her a liar was over the top?

    Probably not.

    So.  Yeah.  I think McCain has more experience than Obama.  That DOES NOT mean I think he'll be a better president.  That was a LIE that you and your ilk manufactured so you don't feel as foolish feigning such outrage.

    She never said McCain would be a better president.

    And she has gone on record to say that she would ask any of her supporters who would defect to McCain to reconsider that choice because too much was at stake.

    Obama HAS NEVER made a similiar statement.

    So take Obama's advice.  Cool it.


    Edit (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    Take Feingold's advice.

    Cool it.


    She came pretty close... (none / 0) (#228)
    by piniella on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    She never said McCain would be a better president.

    2nd time: "[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

    3rd time: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

    4th time: "Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."


    So what (none / 0) (#237)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:04 PM EST
    Clinton attacks his lack of experience.  Says McCain has more.  McCain does have more.

    Do you think Obama has more experience than McCain?

    The same amount?



    Then (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:45:25 PM EST
    again, who cares what you think?

    Feingold Schmeingold (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    Hillary sucks!


    Nice! (none / 0) (#145)
    by jere on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    Keep it up.  You do not help your candidate with this kind of contemptuous BS.  You are part of the problem, not the solution.  What grade are you in anyway, kindergarten?

    Grace In Victory? (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    Or are Obamamaniacs somehow qualitatively different from Clintoncultists?

    I doubt it.

    Probably not (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    I must say my perception of Obama supporters has been incredibly negative from the beginning on 2007. I have found them obnoxious and ignorant. At least the online ones.

    I am sure that is not true for most.

    Never before have I seen such an inability to accept criticism of their preferred candidate. It is not nice to say, but it has been cult like behavior.


    In Any Case (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    As always, it is nice to see the big boys catch up and provide leadership. Too bad kos, et al, has been so far behind the curve on this.

    LOL, I remember defending Obama on DKos... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    ...against charges of Leibermanisn way back when.

    BTD- I so agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    they are almost scary an chased me off of my ex-fav blog (americablog) I was sick of being called vicious names including "troll" "republican" and worse simply for supporting a Democrat other than St.B

    You and Obamamama (none / 0) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:50:05 PM EST
    need to go get a room.

    Go ahead.. delete me. I don't care.  There are a few extremists on board.

    Obamamama and Nobama are of the same ilk while for different candidates.

    Coolin' it (none / 0) (#48)
    by rebrane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:19:54 PM EST
    I think this assessment is absolutely correct. I think it's a shame how so many Hillary supporters have hurt feelings. I wish the reconciliation would
    begin already.

    Just to dig a little, though, one thing that chafes is when people assume bad faith:
    Will Obama fans take it to heart? I doubt it frankly.
    A lot of "Obama fans" already feel that way, thank you very much. I'm certain that many won't, but it's really unnecessary to continue to pin that offense to the candidate. If you want a reminder that Hillary fans can be caustic too, just go read the paeans to McCain over at TaylorMarsh.com.

    You (none / 0) (#61)
    by sas on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:27:37 PM EST
    make sense.

    Yes, we should rise above all of that.....but you know what?

    How can we?

    Groupthink is so healthy (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    C'mon.  Saddle up!

    Humanity Counting on Americans to Vote (none / 0) (#70)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    Many Obama supporters are truly awful, some Clinton supporters too;

    Neither Obama nor Clinton are prizes (all the prizes dropped out already or never started);

    The DNC has screwed things royally;

    But this is the very nature of American politics. It is organized like this on purpose: all the fractions fighting with each other in a winner take all free-for-all. It is unavoidable that many, if not most people will get angry and be upset.

    It is designed so you will never be able to vote for someone you are really comfortable with and enthusiastic about - if you think you found that candidate then you don't really know your candidate. It is required to be sleazy in order to advance and to get anything done.

    It will always be that you have to pick the least worst. If you don't like it and can't participate under those rules you might as well leave the country. You certainly have no business having a hissy fit that things are so rotten, because it is the system.

    To not vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination by hook or by crook would be ridiculous. Either one, as disgusting as their supporters or even they get, they are light years better than mccain. NOTHING COULD BE WORSE than another republican in the White House. To let anger at one of the candidate's or their obnoxious supporters distract you from the one important objective is truly unforgivable and irresponsible.

    There are legions of currently living and unborn, perhaps the survival of humanity counting on Americans not putting another republican in the White House.

    You are absolutely right (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:13 PM EST
    I would say to people threatening not to vote for Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) to think not about choice or even the Supreme Court but Iraq.

    Think about our soldiers over there who deserve to come home and live.  And then think about the Iraqis the U.S. is killing and maiming and torturing.  Think about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

    I really don't think there's a rat's chance Obama would nominate an anti-choice Supreme Court Justice, so how lukewarm he is or isn't on the question isn't really all that critical.  Gay marriage won't be universal until more states step up to the plate and make it legal one by one, which will happen, but it will be long after President Obama joins President Lil Georgie in the history books.

    But a great many more Americans and Iraqis will die, be maimed or tortured if there's a President McCain.

    End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.  Nothing will keep me from voting for McCain's opposition.


    What if you think (none / 0) (#202)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:59:16 PM EST
    Obama will screw up, be a one term president and then Republicans will take residence in the White House again for another 8 years in 2012?

    And your choice is between that and 4 years of McCain and then a chance for a better Democrat to take office and turn it around?


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#226)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    that is a completely false choice. There is so much that can happen and that is unknown about the next 4 hours. Holding your breath and stamping your feet now because you don't get your way and thinking that somehow you'll get your way in 4 years is complete nonsense. mccain MUST NOT win the presidency. PERIOD

    You didn't respond (none / 0) (#238)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:55 PM EST
    To the point I made.

    Yes I Did (none / 0) (#253)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05:15 PM EST
    First of all, "4 hours" should have been "4 years"

    Other than that: Your false choice is to not support an Obama candidacy (which is the same as supporting mccain) with the idea that somehow you'll get a do-over in 2012.

    Supporting 4 years of more republican lawlessness and unnecessary death and destruction because you think you'll get a do over in 4 years is nonsense.


    No (none / 0) (#255)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    That's not the choice.

    Incumbents, even bad ones, run for a second term, so Cinton is done after this year anyway.

    She'll be too old in 2016.

    This is about having a competent Dem in office because an incompetent dem will only last 4 years and then we'll have to deal with 12 years of folks thinking Dems can't handle the white house.


    This makes me think (none / 0) (#85)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:42:41 PM EST
    about the overzealous, obnoxious folks at the antiwar rallies in early 2003, they were always for A.N.S.W.E.R. and typically had dreds, signs with lots of profanity (meaning they wouldn't ever get television coverage), and a seething rage that seemingly had nothing to do with the upcoming war. Anarchy is the way, dood.

    I imagine the same crowds were in the WTO riots as well. These are the people who think that Clinton is part of a vast global conspiracy, including the Vatican, the Illuminati and the Bush family too. My guess is their candidate isn't Hillary.

    Anarchists and the neostalinsts w ANSWER (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    get along less famously than Hillbots and Obamabots.

    I got called a part of a cult.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    for supporting Obama and Hillary played that meme up.  But I'm not super upset about it.  I think Clinton supporters need to just take a deep breath.

    Many of us had multiple reasons (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    not to vote vote Obama. Arrogance and supporters were the last straw for many.

    Deep Breath (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:13:26 PM EST
    Long exhale.


    You're wrong.


    Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#165)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    weren't called mindless cultists?  Clinton didn't personally play up the Messiah Obama meme to insult him and us?  WHat am I wrong on.  We've all taken hits in this primary.  Everyone needs to just keep rolling and do their best to be tough, critically minded, and as charitable as we can be.

    Oh well (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:37 PM EST

    Good luck in November.


    Feingold SHould Just Shutup (none / 0) (#100)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    feingold already helped sink the best candidate when we had 3 choices with his screeds against Edwards.

    Then he waded into the Obamarama smearfestival against HRC.

    Now that he was instrumental in creating the mess he thinks people should listen to him and chill out.

    feingold should just shut up. He already messed things up pretty good.

    I've got a strong hunch (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    Russ will be revising extending his remarks in a post at dkos in the next few days. Wouldn't be the first time he's guaged reaction to something he's said at a listening session, and finetuned it for print.

    Russ Feingold (none / 0) (#241)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    also posts on HuffPo sometimes.  I forgot about that.

    Do we really want Obama supporters (none / 0) (#257)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:56 PM EST
    pandering to us?!  :P

    I know he lurks on kos a lot. (none / 0) (#263)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM EST
    When i see him at events here in WI, he's several times responded to posts I'd made there.

    Obama & The View (none / 0) (#114)
    by yourkidding on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    Second time I've seen him in conversation & once gagin I find him Kerryesque - pendantic & paternal.
    As for the supporters, it's not Hilary's folks who not-so-subtly imply that there will be chaos if the Dems don't go with the big O. Very childish.

    What did you think of him saying that.... (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    ...Michelle would not be attending cabinet meetings because she feels her top priority is raising their daughters. Considering that she has a pretty important high paying job up to this point and still finds time to raise her daughters, I thought that was pretty patronizing. And then I thought, well he is probably just pandering to viewers of the View, which he probably thinks are all housewives. And then I thought again, no it is probably a dig at Hillary for attending cabinet meetings while she should have been too busy raising Chelsea.

    I saw that. I have a daughter Chelsea's age (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:18:01 PM EST
    and I am proud of both of these fine young women -- and appalled at questions asked of Chelsea, as my daughter also had to go through some hard times with her folks who did not stay together through their own tough times.:-)

    I know how hard it was to raise a daughter to be so strong against the tide of the conservative revolution and some personal tought times, too.  I look at Chelsea Clinton and am in awe of how well her parents did amid all they faced in those years.

    We who are parents are judged most and best by how well we raise our children.  That jury is still out on the Obamas, and I wish them well in that.  But Hillary and Bill Clinton, with all that they done, have Chelsea Clinton as their most amazing accomplishment, so poised and so proud of her parents.  May all our children be as proud of us.


    Or just generally a dig at women (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:24 PM EST
    who should "know their place".

    Holy cow (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM EST
    That epithet might be more extreme on another blog, but I'm trying to stay within the rules.

    He actually said that? That Michelle wouldn't attend cabinet meetings because her top priority is raising the kids?

    Heck, I don't care that she wouldn't attend cabinet meetings, but... the reason just seems to spring at you from circa 1950.

    Maybe he's trying to get the sexist Republicans back on board with that quote.


    He said that Michelle didn't want to... (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    ...attend cabinet meetings because her top priority was raising their kids. He was very careful to make it seem like it was her choice. But given that Michelle is not a stay-at-home mom, this seems very strange to me. Also, would she also opt out of doing all the other things that first ladies traditionally do because she's too busy raising the kids? I shouldn't be surprised that nobody has made a big deal of this because it is Obama after all, but it didn't sit right with me.

    That's at least five steps (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by jpete on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:24 PM EST

    cabinet meetings ... raising daughters (none / 0) (#249)
    by noholib on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:14 PM EST
    Oh yes, glad to know that Michelle Obama is just a typical stay-at-home mom with old-time values. I heard that he interviewed a prospective employer of hers before she would take the job.  Anyone know anything about that?  More paternal or marital patronizing?  

    MSNBC countdown is done with asking Hillary to qui (none / 0) (#155)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    quit... today they were discussing what WILL be her EXIT strategy !

    I was such a MSNBC fan (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
    I would watch it every night and now, I don't turn it on. I don't even look at DK. The last comment I wrote questioning a front pager,I got a "Who are You and where did you come from." They did not like my observation. And my #is 33k. I am sickened by this whole manipulation by some Senators. I am saddened that a woman can not be President. Just not allowed.  I am being told that no matter what the vote is, she will not be the final candidate. The fix is in. So a shoo in Democratic President is no longer. I will do one of two things in November and it will not be to vote GOP. After the crowning,I don't want a Robert Marley British Airways commercial saying "Come home America, all is forgiven" because all will not be forgiven.

    is this a new low.. or have they already crossed (none / 0) (#166)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    all limits ..

    How appropriate because we know.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:31 PM EST
    ...how seriously she takes their generous and sincere advice. <snark>

    Speaking for myself I am not posting in anger. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    Many of us Hillary supporters are deeply hurt and offended. I NEVER bashed Obama until very, very recently because I do not like the hypocrisy and the bashing of the Clintons that is coming from his campaign. It's not just from the blogs or MSM. The thing that I don't see anywhere in any of this is the validation of our feelings. Rather than telling us to be more polite, perhaps we would feel more generous if anyone other than BTD who happens to support Obama would have at least the decency to say, "we're sorry, we got a little carried away."

    This is what it's come to (none / 0) (#193)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:52:21 PM EST
    A lot of us seem to feel the damage is done at this point so it doesn't matter what anyone says going forward.

    Yeah.  Some of us have learned how to be meanie bloggers too!

    first Eau Claire, now Wausau (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    Interesting how Russ is making his plays in the Prez campaign not from DC, or even Madison, but from Wisconsin's smaller media markets.

    Language (none / 0) (#207)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07:41 PM EST
    go check out the rules to avoid being deleted.

    It's my experience (none / 0) (#245)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    when people start talking about how "no one's hands are clean" (one of Obama's favorite scolds for his audiences) they are really the culprits guilty of what they are scolding in others.

    "No one's hands are clean?"  It's not a murder mystery, this is a political blog.

    Independent (none / 0) (#254)
    by Radix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    I wonder if she could switch to Independent? Or perhaps if she loses the nomination we could just right her in? Wouldn't it be funny if everyone who voted for HRC in the primaries wrote her in on election day. Dean and his cronies sphincters would contract so fast they'd be spitting up their shorts.

    I'm getting pretty darn close (1.00 / 1) (#266)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:24 PM EST
    to starting a write-in back up campaign for her.

    I don't see Obama winning. I see her fighting to the finish (Nov that is)

    She's too much of a Dem though to break from the party. But maybe will accept the write in after he starts getting swifted by the GOP.