The Stakes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum writes:

Atrios:

The campaigns and candidates themselves may not get nasty, but I get the sense that supporters of the various candidates are getting angrier at the other camp. Sure a lot of this is just relatively harmless virtual world internet flaming, but it has real world manifestations too.

This has sort of taken me by surprise too. I'm reminded of the old saying that the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the battle. Obama and Clinton are obviously different in some important ways, but overall there just aren't any huge gaps between them, either in ideology or governing theory. . . . I confess that I have a hard time understanding the level of vitriol that the race has produced among supporters on both sides. . . .

Yep. On the flip, I will show you what I mean.

NOTE Comments closed.

Who s the DLC candidate? The DLC President Al From says it is Barack Obama:

What [Obama] has done is he has certainly taken a good part of the strategy we have articulated over the years,” Mr. From said. “Which is to not polarize, but try to unite and build a coalition that understands that a Democratic victory is a coalition.”

Mr. From said Mr. Obama had an intellectual, and not just tactical, connection to the D.L.C. “I mean his chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is our think tank,” he said.

Mr. From said that he would not be so presumptuous as to call Mr. Obama the purest D.L.C. politician out there. But he nevertheless believes Mr. Obama has adopted whole-cloth the approach to winning elections that he and his cohorts had long advocated. He said Mr. Obama belonged to the group that had, despite “all the screaming and yelling and the blogs,” chosen the D.L.C. approach to the more partisan beat-‘em-in-50-states philosophy advocated by Howard Dean.

“There has sort of been a choice in the Democratic Party politics, particularly in the last four or five years,” said Mr. From. “A lot of people think that the way the Democrats ought to operate is to mirror Karl Rove. Go off to the other side and hammer him. Just talk to the Democratic voters because there are more of them out there and they will put you over the top.

See the stakes?

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Rezko Jury Selected: Opening Arguments Tomorrow | FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates: >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Stakes | 216 comments (216 topical)

I dont mean they can wave a magic wand (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:53:06 PM EST

or something. but ultimately, at the end of all this, the losing candidate is going to have to come out hard for the winner and tell their supporters in no uncertain terms that they have to STFU and vote for the democrat. "or you are no supporter of mine"
or words to that effect

This is what happens (5.00 / 21) (#7)
by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST

when a party bases itself on identity politics. At some point the identities clash, and you see how fragile the coalition always was. I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner.

Everytime Obama faces a setback, even a small one, the accusations of racism fly as predictable as clockwork. Kos is in full meltdown over this right now, accusing Hillary of blackening Obama's face. He can't let it go. He has become a total laughingstock, and some of his supporters seem genuinely dangerous.

its the same at americablog (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST

but dipping into the comments it seems that the opinion is not as uniform as it was just a week or so ago.
cracks are forming. I think the nutsie racist stuff is making people uncomfortable.
duh.

[ Parent ]

: Avarosis has lost it (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST

"She said it three more times in the past day. Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee? And what the hell does our party plan to do on stopping this train wreck? She can't win, it's over, she doesn't have the delegates and can't get the delegates."

[ Parent ]

Jim (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:03:33 PM EST

I think you've said more about race than anyone I know outside of Limbaugh. I hardly see it at all on the official Obamablogs.

[ Parent ]

What's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST

Are you calling me a racist? Based on what? Discussing race?

Obviously you feel the need to bring attention to me personally here for some reason, so please follow through with your insinuation.

Be as specific as you feel you need to be and the moderators will let you know if it's appropriate commentary for this site.

[ Parent ]

I don't think you're racist (none / 0) (#47)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST

I do think you're preoccupied with race. You bring up valid points sometimes, but you comment on it more frequently than most.

[ Parent ]

: Stay on topic please (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST

I'm done with getting suckered into race-baiting arguments. That's why I left dKos, I ain't gonna keep making the same mistake here. Good day, sir.

[ Parent ]
: I'd just like to see (none / 0) (#77)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST

more substantive arguements than this. I don't approve of what DK is doing either.

[ Parent ]

Hardly see it at all? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST

If you hardly see anything on race at the offical Obamablogs, then you are definitely not looking. Come on.

[ Parent ]

What this misses about identity politics (5.00 / 9) (#60)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST

is that we always have had only one identity from which to select: a white, male identity. Seriously. I do not bring this up to start another long series of bashing or joshing. I bring this up to suggest that there are issues in this campaign that must not fit within BTD's frame of "ideology or governing theory." But they are within some voters' frames, the governing ideologies of race and gender in this country that have had immense impact on their lives. It may be more about the voters' experiences than about either candidate's experience. Maybe it always is. But it ought not be dismissed or ignored -- or if so, only at our peril. We are the party that has put forward, for the first time, serious candidates who differ from all other serious candidates for the presidency for more than two centuries. Did we think it was going to be easy, did we really think that Dems had solved race and gender issues in this country or even in our party? If so, Dems weren't listening then . . . and if they continue to not listen now, we may lose. Or we may win, but at what cost? Is that what Dems do, talk big about race and gender not mattering, when they clearly do? Or do we, as SNL says, learn to "deal with it"? For a start, we talk about rather than pretend that our candidates are not perceived by some voters as quite different for these reasons.

[ Parent ]

I accept your point (5.00 / 4) (#89)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST

MY point is that on the issues - other than mandates, there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.

As for who is more capable, that is subjective.

Almost all of my critiques of the candidates have to do with their political style, an issue reasonable people can disagree about.

My vitriol is directed at the Media mostly, and the blogs, for abandoning their principles re: Fighting Dems.

[ Parent ]

Thanks, but I think I still must need (5.00 / 6) (#128)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:41:19 PM EST

to make this more clear:

Race and gender ARE issues, and central issues, to many voters. And there are differences between the two Dem candidates on these issues. And they are differences that, forgive me for saying so but I do so with the best intent in furthering this discourse . . . they are differences that may seem only stylistic to some observers but are issues resonating as substantive to many voters.

And this may be one of the big "misses" by many blogs that were supposed to be so progressive on these issues, among others. So this actually may be supporting your argument about Dem principles.

But then, it was clear to me and many others some time ago that some major Dem bloggers were throwing some of those Dem principles under the bus. And among those were principles, for example, relating to civil rights and reproductive rights. And those also were dismissed as, in so many words, identity politics.

And that is a dangerous thing to do, dismissing voter's self-definitions as just dumb. Winning candidates and parties connect with voters' self-definitions.

[ Parent ]

So You Support (none / 0) (#131)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST

[white] Men voting for men because of gender? Isn't that type of identity politics what has kept us in the dark ages, so to speak.

I always get confused when an oppressed person gets power and acts just like the oppressor. You would think being the underdog would make a person bigger.

[ Parent ]

Gosh, how did I miss that -- you're so right (5.00 / 2) (#205)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST

that it's white men who have the choice this time, at long last, to not vote for a white man. Really, do read what I said and think about it before replying this time. And btw, white men who want to vote for someone that looks like them, if they vote that way as they say, will have McCain. Think about that, too. It always has been about identity politics; that is not a new term -- but it has been about the identities of the voters by race, gender, religion, and more. Remember "soccer moms"? Remember how will Jews vote regarding our stance on Israel? Remember the "black bloc" that was credited with winning it for JFK? It's just that this time, it's about the race and gender of the candidates, too.

[ Parent ]

: Wow (1.00 / 0) (#232)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST

Really, do read what I said and think about it before replying this time
Sorry to get your knickers in a twist, but I did read what you wrote and have been thinking about the issue for the last 30 years or more.
You are free to pride yourself on voting along gender lines for the sake of identity politics. It seems regressive to justify your position on the fact that other's have been doing it forever.
It is also not news to me that a woman could overturn Roe just as easily as a man. And an AA could turn back the clock on civil rights just as easily as a white.
And yes this year is historic. We have two candidates who represent the other, so to speak. I think that is great and welcome the change. But if either of them were typical GOPers Bushlicjers I would not even give them the time of day.
Sounds like you would though, based on identity politics.

[ Parent ]

Except for mandates is like saying except for Iraq (none / 0) (#215)
by desert dawg on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST

As universal health care is the lynchpin of a progressive reclamation of the New Deal values that Reagan/Bush have just about killed, that's a big, big difference.

And how about his voting for the tort "reform's" class action bill--which she didn't vote for?

[ Parent ]

We are so set up for (5.00 / 3) (#96)
by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST

the winner-loser metric in this country; we start kids off in sports as soon as they can walk, parents compete to get their kids into the best pre-schools, school is all about being at the top of the pile. There's competition for slots in the best colleges, there's professional sports, and American Idol and America's Next Top Model, and all the rest of the drivel on TV. Now we have the added elements of race and gender, which have stirred up some very positive things, but have also tapped into people's history and the country's history, and it's all been dumped into the contest that decides who the next president will be - along with all the emotion and whatever other baggage we have.

The good news-bad news about the length of the contest, which no one imagined would still be going at this point, is that on the one hand we are getting a lot of time to know these candidates and what their strengths and weaknesses are, but on the other hand, we are getting very invested in the one we have chosen to support. It's hard to let go of that desire for "our" candidate to win, so that we can see the real finish line that awaits the nominee.

As a former Edwards supporter who never in a million years imagined voting for Hillary in a primary, I have notice in myself a hardening of my reasons why I now support her and not Obama, and I see that and hear it from others, too.

I absolutely agree that it will, in some measure, be up to the person who does not get the nomination to take an immediate role as the chief cheerleader for the one who does: that's where the healing will start. In the meantime, there really ought to be someone making a concerted and organized effort to keep people's eyes and minds on where we want to be the morning after the election - if the DNC had not already made a mess of what they are supposed to be doing, I would see this as their responsibility, but I almost would like them to stay the hell out of it before it gets any worse.

[ Parent ]

I just saw the same thing at (5.00 / 6) (#65)
by kenosharick on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST

americablog. They are going nuts!!! They are claiming Hillary is "endorsing" mccain and the people there believe it. It is so ludicrous. Imagine if he loses the nom- some of these people scare me.

[ Parent ]

They are going nuts!!! (5.00 / 4) (#74)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST

I would say that would be affirmative.
he has been in a steep downward spiral the last couple of weeks.

[ Parent ]

: If I was a candidate, (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:32:59 PM EST

..I'd have to think twice about posting diaries there anymore.

[ Parent ]

Jim J, I agree with you, but (5.00 / 3) (#164)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST

I disagree with the premise of the editorial, about there being an equivalent "level of vitriol...among supporters on both sides".

It's abundantly clear that the media has been far more vitriolic toward Hillary (as documented by Media Matters and others).

That higher level of vitriol is also reflected within the ranks of Obama supporters.

I posted on it downstream...

[ Parent ]

Should Netroots Nation up its (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST

security?

[ Parent ]

: what do you mean? (none / 0) (#222)
by Klio on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST

why do you ask this?

[ Parent ]

This is a parochial response (none / 0) (#54)
by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST

It may reflect what's on some blogs -- don't know, don't read 'em -- but it does not reflect what's going on in the campaign at large. Neither the Obama campaign nor the media has raised the issue of race since South Carolina.

[ Parent ]

: media and the issue of race (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:57 PM EST

I don't think that's true. Nearly every political analyst will speak of the likelyhood of an Obama win by stating the % of blacks in the total electorate. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. They also bring up the % of women in the electorate, and the % of voters over 60.
Or do you mean where they attribute some statement made to a charge of racism?

[ Parent ]

I think it's precisely (5.00 / 8) (#11)
by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST

because they're so similar, honestly. It leaves very little actual substance to argue over, so everybody gets into this parsing of the tiniest, weirdest crap.

Personally, I'm fine with either candidate -- neither is exactly my cup of tea, but I think either one will be perfectly acceptable. But the supporters are so worked up at this point that they're IMO looking for reasons to be horribly, horribly offended.

Kos's front page post today on the charge of Obama being "Blackened" in an ad is a new low for him, and plays right into that "looking for offense" problem. I've had a lot of problems with him in the past -- I remember the original pie war, and the dirty hippie war, and plenty of others -- but I didn't think even he would delve into that pile of BS for the sake of riling the masses. That's a very dangerous game, IMO, a thing people won't calm from easily, and I hope it doesn't bite us all in the behind later.

I don't think it's the candidates (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:22 PM EST

Obama could hardly have run a softer campaign and Hillary's attacks have been mostly within bounds.

I think it's a combination of (1) cultural, generational, and demographic splits, (2) the low standards of courtesy and respect taht exist on the Internet (present company excepted), and(3) justified rage at the Republicans being misdirected toward Democrats.

I believe it also (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST

has to do with the fact that many Obama supporters have never been involved in a political race before.
they dont have a clue what happens in one.

[ Parent ]

: And its the flip side (none / 0) (#144)
by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST

of their idealism and devotion. I swear its almost like a football game to some of them. Win!!!! Lose!!!! Score!!! Kill.

[ Parent ]
: Uhhh (none / 0) (#151)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST

Wasn't atrios talking about candidates supporters on both sides?
Guess so..

[ Parent ]
: Hmm...what I find actuall more unsettling (none / 0) (#202)
by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST

is those that HAVE been through this before but are acting as if its the first time. The young folks have an excuse...and frankly their excitement is understandable, a young dreamer who makes them feel empowered...thats understandable. The hate-spewing from the 24+ers is revolting, and completely without any sort of excuse or reason...(both sides, one side more often however)

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST

the candidates themselves have mostly been very good, IMO, at least so far. A few low blows, but nothing terrible -- much nicer than most of the close contests I've seen.

I agree with your list, too, but would add two things -- one, a visceral hatred in parts of the left of all things Clinton (I watched this develop in the late 90's, and while I agree with much of the criticism, the degree of the hatred is out of proportion IMO), and two, a general anti-establishment feeling on the left blogs that has, fairly or no, been translated almost entirely on to Clinton's campaign (even though frankly I find both candidates to come from roughly the same school of thought, politically).

[ Parent ]

On the blogs vs. not on the blogs. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST

Many, many of my friends and colleagues voted for Obama but none of them read or comment on blogs. They are firm in their choice, but accept mine. Big difference from reading some of the blogs, unfortunately.

[ Parent ]

: it is true (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST

blogs are, without a doubt, the cookoos nest

[ Parent ]

It's all about the damned (none / 0) (#19)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST

DLC and who's going to hold power over the Dem Party for the next 8 years.

[ Parent ]

I will amplify (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST

This is about where the money will get funnelled.

I know this isn't about an issue (say, Mercenaries), because they have abandonned all that. We know that for sure.

[ Parent ]

Didn't Bill create the DLC? (none / 0) (#50)
by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:47 PM EST

He was the DLC candidate....

[ Parent ]

Bill and the DLC (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST

Bill did not create the DLC. He's a member, but he wasn't their favorite candidate back in 1992, as he is slightly to the left on a number of issues. The 1992 DLC's favorite-sons were, say, Sam Nunn, and the other centrist Democrats who undercut Clinton's more liberal tendencies and forced him to accept half-measures like DADT. Clinton would have gone for full integration of the military without folks like Nunn undercutting him. Ugh. That's why I always get a chuckle when some anti-DLCer on dailykos touts Sam Nunn as a good running mate for Obama.

[ Parent ]

Sure was (none / 0) (#56)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST

Yes. That is true.

[ Parent ]

Not just Bill (none / 0) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST

Al Gore too.

[ Parent ]

: Howard Dean was on the DLC too (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Obama supporters (5.00 / 11) (#14)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST

Started it. And you know what? I'm serious.

I still believe the campaign kicked off with Geffen calling the Clintons liars, and Obama shrugging his shoulders smiling saying "Who me?"

I can't say it wouldn't have gotten like this with or without that.

That's just my first memory of this campaign. That was when I started in, dug in, and learned how to hate myself.

I agree with that (5.00 / 9) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST

The anti-Clinton fervor was clearly first.

[ Parent ]

Anti-Clinton movement (none / 0) (#36)
by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST

predates Obama.

[ Parent ]

Sort of my point (5.00 / 4) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST

But its existence in the firmaments of the Dem Party is of fairly recent vintage, brought by Obama supporters.

It has led to Obama hate among Dems. Not as prevalent but now a real phenomenon.

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#145)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST

...there was anti-Clinton sentiment among progressives and liberals throughout the 1990s. Not something brought in by Obama supporters, so much as something re-invigorated by the contest.

[ Parent ]

: Fits me. (none / 0) (#191)
by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But he and his supporters (5.00 / 4) (#53)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST

Have embraced it. And what's more, more than one of them has admitted to me that they knew they would have never had a chance without embracing it.

Which is, in effect, selling their candidate short.

He has built a movement. He does have an awesome ground game.

Not sure he needed this.

[ Parent ]

He is a pol (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST

trying to win. It is not his job to make people act like grownups about him.

[ Parent ]

Whew (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST

Sure. Whatever.

I find that to be a lame excuse, even if it is true.

Why do I get the feeling it would be thought of as Clinton's job to make people act like grownups about her?

I do know the Clinton campaign has let some people go on this issue. Fired them.

Right before Geffen made his comments some Clinton supporters from South Carolina or somewhere made some asinine comments about Obama's electability and she had them apologize. They apologized.

I have never heard one apology from the Obama camp.

So I must conclude they've been perfect.

Of course.

[ Parent ]

Not by me (none / 0) (#94)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST

Pols are pols. Their interests are NOT yours.

Pols are there to be pressured.

[ Parent ]

At no point does a politician ever do something (none / 0) (#108)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST

Cause it's right??

[ Parent ]

DeLay left (none / 0) (#118)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:34:15 PM EST

but that was because everyone else thought it was right.

[ Parent ]

If the hypothesis (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST

Is that the only thing different about our politicians and DeLay is that our politicians get pressure from different groups of people, I hope I can disagree.

Clinton has been under enormous to make some sort of apology about her AUMF vote. There is no known pressure group anyone can name saying she shouldn't. Yet. She has decided not to.

I'm going to make the self-serving statement that firing some of her staff (for spreading crap about Obama) or making some of her supporters apologize was also something that she did cause she thought it was right.

Now everyone can call that self-serving.

But I'll stick to it.

[ Parent ]

I'll top you (5.00 / 2) (#160)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:45 PM EST

Clinton took off from campaigning two days before the most important primary of her life, ditched the press corps and attended the funeral of the officer who was killed while working her motorcade.

[ Parent ]

: One of the main reasons I support Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST

is because I think she will do what she thinks is right, in the face of opposition. Thats character.

[ Parent ]
: Pressure Exists (none / 0) (#163)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST

It's reductive to think it's the only thing that exists.

[ Parent ]

If a qualification for being successful (none / 0) (#97)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST

as a politician were that you had to get people to be nice about you, we'd be in a Dick Lugar administration.

[ Parent ]

: Oh boy (none / 0) (#119)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:35:24 PM EST

There are limits.
If my point is just something that's going to be caricatured as such, I should probably just bow out now before exiling myself from yet one more blog.
There's no absolutes here. Yes. Pressure exists.

[ Parent ]

This is one of the more prescient things (none / 0) (#86)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST

I've seen written about politics.

[ Parent ]

Just a d*mn minute. What happened (none / 0) (#204)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST

to the campaign responsible for words of surrogate stuff?

[ Parent ]

Do you mean that you (none / 0) (#135)
by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:49:47 PM EST

yourself now hate or that you hate your own self?

If people are mad at Hillary or Obama because some of their supporters are immature or ignorant, I'd suggest taking a deep, cleansing breath.

Anonymous internet posting encourages over-the-top responses. Most of this type of posting is intended to upset people rather than to discuss an issue.

Of course, we'll always argue that the other side started it.

Advocate for your candidate; don't get drawn into arguments from vitriolic posters, call others on weak arguments and make sure your own arguments are well sourced.

Ignore the idiots.

[ Parent ]

: I hope you're right (5.00 / 3) (#146)
by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST

But I fear that the hatred is far more widespread than just on these internet sites. This morning, I listened to call-in radio in Chicago and the callers were all filled with Hillary hate -- calling for her to drop out, making wild accusations of racism, and consistently saying that black voters will not vote for her in the fall now period. Then there is the stuff you hear on TV as well.
This is a truly disheartening democratic primary. I deplore that it has become so racially divisive among democrats especially. This is why I'm so upset with Kos today - he is whipping this up even more and that just can't be good for us.

[ Parent ]
: No (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST

There should have been a comma before myself.
And it's not what Geffen saying what he said, it's Obama rendering himself powerless to say anything about it.
So note that I am making a judgment about Obama based on Obama's action here, not on Geffen's action here.

[ Parent ]

I get it.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST

I said it once I'll say it again. Politics is no better than the WWF. If you like Hulk Hogan, you have to hate Big John Stud...it's in the rulebook.

: LOL (none / 0) (#81)
by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Minor correction (none / 0) (#171)
by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST

The WWF is the World Wildlife Fund.
The funny guys in spandex are the WWE.

[ Parent ]

I actually don't think (5.00 / 6) (#21)
by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST

that the majority of primary voters are like this. Don't we see poll after poll saying that 70% (or maybe even more) of democratic primary voters have positive views of both candidates? My bet is that the vitriol really is restricted pretty much to the partisans whose views are magnified by the blogosphere.

I guess the only problem I have with the Atrios/Drum view is that it takes on a bit of high-broderist "pox on both your houses" attitude. Is it really so? The Clinton crowd seems to be saying that as long as the race is pretty much 50/50, and there are elections in front of us, the race should continue. The Obama crowd seems to be saying that since the race is essentially 50/50, one side (and by coincidence, this always seems to be the Clinton side) should stand down. Are these two positions really equal?

According to Huff Post, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST

exit polls showed people are dissatisfied with both Dem. candidates. Lesser of two evils, I gather.

[ Parent ]

: That's not what I saw in exits (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:04 PM EST

I'll go look at them again, but that seems exactly opposite what I thought I saw in exits. It looked to me like most people were satisfied with both.

[ Parent ]
: Here we go (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST

from the CNN exit of TX, just for example:
Would you be satisfied...
Only if Clinton wins 28%
Only if Obama wins 24%
If either wins 42%
Dissat. with both 4%
That's pretty consistent with what I've seen in exits all along. The hardcore supporters are worked up, but Democratic primary voters in general seem happy with the candidates, and few are as dissatisfied with both as I am (actually, I would have answered this question "either", I'm not that dissatisfied, really).

[ Parent ]
: If that's true (none / 0) (#39)
by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST

it flies in the face of most other polls I've seen. Of course, it also depends on how the question is asked.

[ Parent ]
: Dissatisfaction (none / 0) (#61)
by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST

Also Fox News (yes, it's sad) had a poll on last night that said the dissatisfaction had taken a large jump with the latest exit polls.

[ Parent ]

No, they are not (5.00 / 5) (#45)
by annabelly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST

You rarely see a Clinton supporter threaten to boycott a Dem campaign in November, and you certainly don't see any of her supporters making paranoid accusations like kos made today about race. There are a few ardent HRC supporters, but there are a million Obamatons online trashing HRC every chance they get, the GE be damned. I know it's because a bunch of them are new and inexperienced, but they're barking is getting old, and I'd like to see the Obama campaign slap a muzzle on some of them.

[ Parent ]

: I said almost the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST

the other day and was quicly corrected by Obama haters.

[ Parent ]

Ah, back to agreeing with BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by sweetthings on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST

Much nicer.

This trend of supporters demonizing the competition is disturbing, and I fear it may play a very negative role on Democratic chances in November if allowed to continue all the way to the convention. We're all Democrats and hatchets will be buried in due course, but 3 months might not be long enough. Especially with the ghosts of FL and MI hanging over our heads.

A unity ticket is a possible escape path, but even that is going to be very tricky. Clinton won bragging rights yesterday, but the delegate count barely budged. Barring some kind of massive surprise, it seems likely that Obama will go into Denver with a significant (if not decisive) delegate lead. That would suggest an Obama/Clinton ticket. But would that satisfy Clinton supporters, to say nothing of Hillary herself? The Clinton/Obama ticket would presumably be more satisfying to those parties, but how do you convince the man with the delegate lead to play second fiddle?

We have a narrow bridge to cross.

Emotional Appeal (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST

This is what happens when emotions become the main appeal.... same thing happens with religious zealots.

Anytime overly emotional feelings get involved... logic goes out the window.

Balance between the emotions and logic would help.

it is true (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST

that the Obama "campaign" always seemed more like a religious movement than a political one to me.

[ Parent ]

: Today on NPR's Day to Day, a (none / 0) (#79)
by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST

female in Philadelphia who was technically undecided stated maybe she would be for Obama if she attended a rally and was moved by him.

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't necessarily characterize (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST

emotions as you've done. But this is a pet peeve of mine, because emotions have gotten such a bad rap throughout history.

I agree emotions can lead us astray, but then so can logic. I think emotions have been unjustly described as irrational and the intellect as rational. As the philosopher Robert Nozick said, "Maybe dispassion is needed in science, but empathic emotion serves best in ethics."

The fact is, emotions make us care about morality and ethics. Think about it: you FEEL badly for suffering; you FEEL loyalty to friends; you FEEL guilty over wrongdoings.

Emotions are always working on us. Studies show that most of our politic decisions, for example, are based on emotions. Whether those decisions are good is another question, and we should definitely understand how emotions work on us--but emotions give us motivation and goals. Fear tactics work because they play on our worries and fears; but something like universal healthcare plays on our empathy for people who cannot afford decent care.

My support for Hillary, while being based in many ways on policies and issues, is definitely fueled and energized because of emotions. Not because intellectually I've reasoned her to be the best. The fact that I CARE about whether she wins is because I'm emotionally invested in her.

And I don't think that's a bad thing.

That being said, though, fanaticism can be a terrible thing if it's not in the service of something good. And, I think the fanatical energy of some Obama supporters (and maybe Hillary supports too) would be better used if refocused elsewhere (like on specific issues rather than on persons).

[ Parent ]

Thank you. Emotional is not the same (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM EST

as irrational. It is entirely possible to be both rationally in favor of a candidate -- or a cause, or a potential employee or what have you -- and emotionally moved by a candidate. Actually, I think what may have hurt us in 2004 is that we had a candidate who clearly was the rational choice but, well, he just didn't have a lot of emotional appeal. With these candidates, we've got both. So arguments about them arc from rational to emotional to rational again . . . but if we want to lose those arguments, we will just go ahead and dismiss the emotional ones as typical of, well, a particular racial group or gender. It's like trying to argue against the white guys last time who voted for Bush in part because they liked him. Why not? He seemed likeable -- and in no small part because he was like them, and they could emotionally connect with him, and then they could listen to him. And then they liked what they heard. (Okay, it turned out to be lies, but that's a different point.:-)

[ Parent ]

Emotions make us (none / 0) (#180)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:28 PM EST

Irrational..... Actually

However, it has increasingly become recognized that humans often act irrationally, as a consequence of biasing influences.

Several have been done ...... here is oneStudy Link

Have you ever played poker? If so, you know that some people get become very emotion when they are about to lose all their chip while other keep their cool. I've sat at many poker games where the low chip person is pushed by another player with the "bias outlook" to make an irrational play.

Of course there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule.

Sen Obama presents his HOPE and CHANGE message to appeal to peoples emotions.

Mr Benedetto de Martino, of the UCL Institute of Neurology, says: "It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased. For example, saying an operation carries an 80 per cent survival rate may trigger a different response compared to saying that an operation has a 20 per cent chance of dying from it, even though they offer exactly the same degree of risk.

In fact, both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton ARE presenting the same platform... the presentation is the big difference.

An operation that has 40 per cent probability of success seems more appealing than one that has a 60 per cent chance of failure.

[ Parent ]

: I could agree (none / 0) (#223)
by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:06:43 PM EST

that emotions make us irrational.
But I would qualify that by saying this:
Rationality is a series of arbitrary agreed-upon concepts designed to create and condition norms, so that everyone acts in similar and "acceptable" manner. Irrationality disrupts those concepts, allowing for new models of thought, behavior and ethics to appear.
As such, my original point that emotions are not only helpful, they're absolutely necessary, still stands.

[ Parent ]

The main difference is in the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by hue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST

Hillary has ran a GE campaign in the primaries, focusing on big blue states and swing states. Obama went after all of the little red states, the ones in the upper Midwest that he likely is not going to win in November.

If Hillary carries the same states in the GE, including Florida and Michigan, she would have 263 EVs right now. Penn will put her over the top.

With Obama's 25 states, and if you give him Michigan and Florida, he would only have 227 EVs right now.

Who is more likely to win the same states in the GE?

There may be something to this (5.00 / 3) (#84)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:22:01 PM EST

as it sounds like the endless discussion I have with some pretty smart Dems about this damnable delegate count at essentially a tie and needing to be decided by super-d's. It generally gets down to me saying but I want to win the White House, and so we need them to use their political experience to select the best nominee that they can see, after more votes to test them in big states and more vetting.

And to that and just about any other point, the inevitable answer seems to be "but, but, but Obama has won more states." And then we circle back through the rather obvious point, I think, of which states. . . .

[ Parent ]

a little disingenuous.... (none / 0) (#52)
by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST

...since neither candidate is likely to lose California, New York or Massachusetts.

Also, Colorado and Missouri, among others, are crucial swing states, which Obama won.

[ Parent ]

: Obama came in second in the big true, blue states (none / 0) (#90)
by hue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST

and wracked up a string of victories in little states that he won't win in November. Plus he lost big in Ohio.
If we flipped your argument, then she can also win
Colo., and Mo., when she only lost 48-49, in the GE.

[ Parent ]
: Ohio and Florida (none / 0) (#101)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST

are more important, and he can't win in either.

[ Parent ]
: Missouri (none / 0) (#198)
by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST

The map of Clinton/Obama wins in Missouri looks alot like the map of Clinton/Obama wins in Ohio. He wins the few urban areas and Clinton wins the rest of the state. Missouri does not look good for Obama if Ohio does not look good for him.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget NJ (none / 0) (#182)
by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST

Three days ago, Rasmussen reported Clinton 50 McCain 39, and McCain 45 Obama 43 in NJ.

As seen on pollster.com

NJ could be just as pivotal as Ohio or Florida this time around.

[ Parent ]

And you know (5.00 / 8) (#43)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST

The big guys, the "A-list bloggers" really have a special responsibility that the little guys don't.

When they shirk this responsibilitY? Well, they're everything they've always hated about the media.

And the A list bloggers are pretty much all on the Obama side of things, so it's bad for Obama's name. No wonder people like us dislike Obama because of his supporters. They, at places like KOS, are thugs.

Of course, what I'm saying doesn't add anything new to the conversation, just gives me the opportunity to vent ;-).

And once again, I'l say, thank Gawl for the thugs in the A-list blogosphere. Without their thuggery, I would never have found a whole host of new blogs I enjoy a whole lot more than I ever did theirs.

markos (5.00 / 3) (#66)
by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST

is all in, now. hillary wins, and daily kos is finished.

[ Parent ]

He still thinks (5.00 / 3) (#91)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:37 PM EST

he's "just a guy with a blog," and every time he embraces non-credible BS, he comes closer to being just that.

[ Parent ]

: he is, now (5.00 / 3) (#106)
by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST

his credibility is shot.

[ Parent ]

Actually. . . (none / 0) (#142)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST

I thought Markos's commentary improved somewhat over Texas. That's still not a high bar, but. . .

[ Parent ]

the posts today (5.00 / 2) (#156)
by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:28 PM EST

were inexcusable. and they tacitly give the green light to every possible smear against clinton. reality-based community, no longer.

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
by NecSorteNecFato on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST

There is also a big discrepancy going on over there between their trashing of Hillary's supposed insults of such and such a state doesn't matter and the vitriol directed at Ohio today. Stupid, racist, hick, un-educated, etc....I live in OH and watched the precinct maps on CNN map closely, and I was surprised how Clinton managed to carry plenty of the vote in urban areas and places where voters would be considered generally middle to upper class and highly educated. Those must be the racists I guess. Funny, because most people I talked to about this election seemed to be pretty caught up in the issues as their reason for one over the other...

[ Parent ]

Haven't read today. . . (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST

I was thinking of last night's posts.

[ Parent ]

: his post today (5.00 / 3) (#189)
by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM EST

was the worst i've ever seen on the front page of a supposedly liberal blog.

[ Parent ]

kos - a new low today (5.00 / 9) (#59)
by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST

Not only was that post some puerile, evidence-free crap, it is possibly the most irresponsible thing I've seen him do thus far. I mean, really, he is just inciting people to more and more hatred with this stuff.

You say it is evidence-free yet (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST

he has posted what many would consider evidence at his site.

HAve you watched both videos?

The Clinton campaign denied having that ad on there website, yet when you visit the website, the ad is there.

I've watched them both. You can argue that the difference unintentional or accidental, but you cannot argue that there is no difference between the source material and the ad.

Why is it that Kos is being irresponsible? If this were a McCain ad, people could rightfully draw the same inference - that the ad maker made Obama's skin color darker.

[ Parent ]

crazy, race-baiting paranoia (5.00 / 4) (#139)
by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:53:32 PM EST

What he's presented is evidence of a slight saturation hue difference between a debate video and a video of a Clinton ad. So what? The entire video of the Clinton ad has the same hue and, knowing a little about this stuff, it's probably for clarity because it is juxtaposed with the black and white text to the left.

What he has not presented is evidence that Clinton has made an ad intentionally designed to make Obama look blacker with a wider nose as he claims.

The racism paranoia is really over the top here. What good does this possibly serve? The only purpose for this is hatemongering.

[ Parent ]

: you need to clean up your language (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST

and attitude. that may work at kos, but this site doesn't accept that.

[ Parent ]

Oh dear lord (5.00 / 2) (#140)
by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST

They de-saturated his image, its like video tricks 101 to make the other side look less appealing. Notice how she is shown in full rich brown and reds? This is standard stuff.

Do you have any proof they intended this to be anything else? To accuse others of something based on the thinnest argument, then keep screaming it over and over remind me of....well.....republicans.

Is this part of reaching across the aisle I hear so much about, adopting their tactics? Unity through lying?

Geesh.

[ Parent ]

that is such horse crap (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST

Different monitors show shades and colors differently. This is an accepted and proven fact. Case in point, my Macbook Air shows the TL blue darker than my iMac does. If I am outside or the sun is shining in the window, that changes it again.

There are true display monitors (Apple makes the best) that are calibrated according to SWOP which you can supplement or verify with something like a Spyder or a PMS Huey to exact color and grayscale, but unless you are using one of these systems, then what you see when you pull up that film clip can look very different from what I see: darker/lighter; richer/softer. Ambient light also makes a huge difference. LCDs vs plasma vs crt adds to the variance.

What you are charging (to use the pun) is beyond the pale.

[ Parent ]

Correct -- I often watch two tv's at a time (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST

or a tv screen and a videostream on my computer screen, and the difference can be striking. Just last night, flipping channels from CNN to MSNBC for the same event and on the same tv, the Clinton acceptance speech, the differences were striking in the color of her suit, her hair, and her skin, too.

[ Parent ]

Kathy, the tech info is a great reality check. (none / 0) (#173)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST

: I am a geek. What can I say? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But it's the ad (none / 0) (#209)
by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM EST
<

The Stakes

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats