The Crying Wolf Syndrome

By Big Tent Democrat

Because the continuing pattern of railing against everything Clinton and defending, excusing and praising everything Obama has been prevalent in the Media and the blogs, I think the point has been reached, as it was during the 90s with rabid Republicans, that most people simply do not pay attention to these shrieks from the usual suspects. Their outrage at everything Clinton and their effusive praise or defense of everything Obama is of course the subject of SNL parody, but consider this wild post by Spencer Ackermann that seems beyond parody:

Samantha Power blurts out something not entirely unreasonable that she meant to be off the record. Now the Clintonites, in yet another cynical burst of manufactured outrage, say Obama has to fire her. How interesting.

It is now considered in some circles "not entirely unreasonable" to call Hillary Clinton "a monster" - words once reserved for the likes of Stalin or Hitler, or at least George W. Bush or Dick Cheney (I kid, never would I condone calling Bush a monster - just an idiot.)

That Ackermann then proceeds to repeat a ridiculous and debunked charge against Clinton tells you all you need. My gawd, some folks have simply gone off the deep end and do not even know it. If they ever have an actual point to make about Clinton, no one will be listening.

< Friday Open Thread | Post Of The Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm home sick today with the tv on, (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by OldCoastie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    and I swear the heads on msnbc seem to be having a contest to see who can say, "Clinton is a MONSTER" (using the most alarming inflection possible). I get this feeling they go off air, run in the back and start giggling.

    But then, I'm running a fever.

    its gettting so I cant watch MSNBC (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    I have actually started watching FOX sometimes because their coverage is more balanced.
    which is just scary.

    i have stopped watching completely. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    countdown will suffer when the election is over. the faithful won't be so faithful anymore. the rest will go back to their usual pursuits.

    I had sort of forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    that Olberman did a show for a couple of years called "white house in crisis" during the clinton years that really made me hate him.
    thats all coming back.

    He's lost many of his regular viewers... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    ...like me, and I don't intend to come back. Whether the newly engaged combative Obama supporters will stick around after the elections is anybody's guess. My feeling is that they won't but what do I know.

    i also have serious doubts they will (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    be faithful blog followers as well.

    when Pat Buchanan (none / 0) (#138)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:40:34 AM EST
    and John McLaughlin make more sense than Keith Olbermann, yes I have crossed into a parallel universe.

    I have a new best friend, we met over late-night pizza in the Castro here in SF tonight. It was crowded and time to share a table. We got to talking. Obama came up. We hit it off. Like I, he had lost friends over the election. I am not speaking to four friends or vice versa. I had to ban all talk of politics in the office. I think one of my employees is so mad at me that he may quit. I run a non-profit that combats global poverty. Politics is in our blood. That I am no longer talking to a friend of 15 years is beyond bizarre. But it could be worse, that son-in-law who stabbed his father-in-law in Pennsylvania two weeks. My new best friend and I will vote for Nader unless it's Hillary, My old best friend is voting for McCain if it's Clinton. I haven't killed anybody . . . yet.

    When did we lose track of who we were?


    Jesus man.... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    you'd think there was a candidate worth voting for with tempers flaring like that.

    You and your friends/co-workers need to remember what is important...and it ain't politics.  Besides, regardless of who wins out of the 3 stooges we'll still be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012, still have the world's leading prison population, still be in a financial mess.  The rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer.

    Remember that stuff and bury the hatchet with your friends man, life's too short to fight over nonsense. Debate is good and can be fun, don't let it get personal.


    Feel (none / 0) (#18)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:09:25 PM EST

    no offense (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    but I WISH that was the reason.

    It's quite depressing (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    that even the brightest bloggers seem to have become unhinged by this primary.  It was never this bad with the Deaniacs.

    Not only is there no excuse for the remark, but I don't understand how anyone can buy into the theory that you can take back an offensive remark just by saying "oh, wait, that was off the record!"  I've even seen some bloggers lambasting the Scotsman for not respecting her "wish."  I'm all in favor of hope, but not if it's going to be surgically implanted where our brains used to be.

    And to what end, they are not helping Obama they (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    are pushing people away with this foaming mouth rabid militant behavior role as Obama Wing Nuts, maybe its that tingle up the leg thing the rest of us don't have or maybe they fought against GWB and Cheney so long they cant stop the hate, who knows personally I'm really not caring I have no respect for that group anymore and I find them offensive and lacking.  They seemed to come totally unhinged once Edwards was knocked out remember when KOS was preaching never to say anything bad about any of the Dem candidates ever as to no weaponize the RNC for the GE, too funny.

    they have really convince themselves (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    that Clinton is on the level of Stalin and Hitler.
    that sounds like hyperbole but if you read certain websites it is clear that is is not.
    it is the echo chamber effect in full bloom.

    i.e. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    just a couple of comments grabbed at random.
    it took about 2 seconds:

    Gary Hart is right.

    She is in it for herself and herself alone.

    She is no Democrat. She is no patriotic American,

    She is a power hungy MONSTER!
    May she rot in hell along with her hillbots.


    "May she rot in hell along with her hillbots."

    LOL. Right on!! We can win the White House without those losers.


    This was probably an (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by mg7505 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:52:02 PM EST
    innocent mistake, but her book was not a "novel" -- horrific as the events she recounted were, they were sadly non-fiction. I still respect Samantha Power, but my respect for Obama has only gone down. Given all the Hillary-hating, if Samantha Power is saying stuff like this, I wonder what his less controlled surrogates say about Hillary. Some of these folks just fly off the hinge. That rabid anger (which may be propelling Obama to victory right now) will be nowhere to be found against John McCain, even if Obama gets the nod -- it's all against Hillary. No wonder we liberals can't get stuff done politically.

    yes! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Nasarius on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed a dramatic shift in tone after Edwards dropped out. I left DKos for about a week, came back to find all hell had broken loose. Remember when "we have three great candidates" was the mantra? That was nice.

    Back then there was a lot of Obama (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    bashing. I used to defend him. Seriously, I could have gone either way with Obama or Clinton or Edwards because I believed they were all excellent. But boy did I get left behind after the Rapture.

    the clintons survived the 90s and (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    the repubs' endless campaign. obama, not even a match. sorry!

    Which ones are the brightest bloggers? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    YOU are the brightest....but cannot be included (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    in the group referenced.  

    Without a doubt (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    I am curious who Steve is referencing besides me.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    I could make a list, but basically I was just expressing disappointment in Spencer.  His blogging on Iraq used to be world-class, now he just writes anti-Hillary posts no more cogent than the average DKos diary.

    I will put you in the "bright" category but not the "bright yet unhinged" category.  Sorry, you're going to have to work harder at that one.


    Josh for starters. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:04:27 PM EST
    I like Josh Friedman ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    but he doesn't blog that much.  And it isn't about politics.  It's about screenwriting.

    But the writing quality of that blog is very high.


    Digby (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by desert dawg on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    is far and away the most insightful, and the best esssayist bar none.  tristero ain't bad, considering it's not his day job. And I just discovered Jay Cost over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/ .For sheer pol geekiness he's right up there.  I also think Greenwald is very articulate, tho I haven't dared check lately to see if he's gone over to the dark side.   Jamison Foser at Media Matters has a good way of synthesizing the zeitgeist.  And nobody can use words for rapiers like James Wolcott.

    Why dignify this trash (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:42:39 PM EST
    by calling them bright?

    I guess Ackerman is lost on the concept (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    of an expert on genocide calling a former First Lady, sitting US Senator and candidate for the nomination of the Democratic party a "monster."

    I looked at a blog today that I used to frequent, and the owner's take is that Power is such a brilliant person with such solid work on this important area that she should perhaps have been given a break.  I mean, she apologized, so what's the big deal?  The author, who writes for a living, even suggested that her request for her comment to be off the record should have been honored.

    The commenters are beyond help; everything from Power was right, to Hillary's an a**hole to this might make Obama's character shine to hoping Power will be back in the Obama WH.

    The commenters I could handle - well, except that all the pro-Obama people chased off everyone else, so now it's non-stop rhetorical Hillary hatred and Obama flattery - but the post itself was just the saddest thing to see.  I could only conclude that (1) the blogger is playing to his audience, and (2) using them in some strange way to support his own opinions.

    Sad.  Really sad.  To the point where I no longer have any interest in reading anything he writes, on any subject; he just lost all credibility for me.

    That is an excellent observation. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:09:03 PM EST
    yup, down the road some of these folks (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    will realize they threw away their credability, followers, and self respect in order to push someone at us 24/7. it isn't their job to sell or cajole us into voting for obama. that is his job. i think the campaign is very cynical by using the dog whistles they do. what is even sadder is to see who answers.

    I wish... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    Not holding my breath.

    sigh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:01:21 PM EST
    It's so unfounded the "darkening" kerfuffle (to borrow a MSOC term). The Clintons are not racist....even if Bill made a stupid remark in So Carolina, it does not negate the rest of his history.

    The blinders are on and people will believe anything about Hilary at this point. Judgment is out the window. I am really hoping for a dual ticket. It will teach a great many people a valuable lesson.

    And that "racist remark" ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:31 PM EST
    was only racist by a series of tortured implications.

    The statement itself was a fact which could be found in any encyclopedia.

    The Obama campaign did an excellent job of dumbing racism down which the press bought into.

    Strangely, I say with heavy sarcasm, the Obama campaign has not been that strident in speaking out for the rights of racial and ethnic minorities.


    good point (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    and I'll say it again....people who are not racist can make stupid statements that can be construed as racist. You have to look at the whole person.

    Well said. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    It's just stupid to claim the Clintons have made racist remarks, we know they are not racist.

    That's what sets me off about Hillary's Iraq vote, too.  I KNOW she's not war monger, I don't have a clue what Obama's stand is, except he did recommend bombing Pakistan at one point.


    I do hold her accountable for that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    that is an action, not words. It may not be warmongering, but it is enabling. And yes, I hold Kerry and others accountable as well.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:52:54 PM EST
    But its so hard for some people to accept that we can hold her accountable for her vote and still support her. But I crossed that threshold when I voted for John Kerry.

    The other thing is (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:27 PM EST
    it's traditional for congress to grant the president the muscle to back any negotiations.

    It's also traditional for the president NOT to invade if the adversary gives in. Bush did not follow this tradition (remember that Saddam Hussein actually capitulated).

    I was against the authorization because I had read Molly Ivins' "Shrub" and knew what a bozo W was.

    However, I do understand the vote, even if I don't agree with it.


    How do you know? (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    Serious question...can you point me to some hard evidence that she is not a war monger?  From what I've seen of her, and Obama for that matter, is a war monger imperialist in a dove costume.  

    I'm looking for an anti-war candidate, I'd love to see some evidence.


    Mike Gravel (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    If you really want an anti-war candidate, he rocks...literally.

    And honestly? He seems like a real genuine character :)


    Do you have evidence that either of them have (none / 0) (#127)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    "mongered" for war?

    think about that term "war monger" what does it actually mean?

    It means looking for a fight.

    Neither of them has done that.

    Bush has.....he looked for someone weaker than him to fight when he was certain that he could not easily get bin Laden.

    No Democrat would have done that in office. No Democrat would have pulled troops from Afghanistan to enter a non-manditory war.


    What are their plans for the defense budget? (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    Neither is talking drastic cuts if I'm not mistaken...neither has proposed any in the Senate right?

    With a defense budget like ours, with all our hardware and toys of death, we're always looking for a fight.  

    Has either called for a withdrawal of our troops from the 100-odd countries were in?  That's looking for a fight too, no?


    it is a portion of the group who (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    already did. what they don't get is that when you give in to race or gender cards, hatred, and media manipulation, these same people will back with another deal you can't refuse. it is hard work to think critically but well worth it.

    I've quit discussing politics with anyone outside (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    my immediate family because Hillary Hatred has gone way too far.

    One thing I have learned in this life:  When you hate people it is usually about you and not the other person.

    no one will be listening (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    my impression is that this is not a problem for them.
    it is now all about the echo chamber.

    Little shot across the bow (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    from the New York mag on MonsterGate


    Former State Dept. official James Rubin: In Obama campaign "it's amateur hour on making foreign policy."...

    Can I get another post about how Obama will stay a media darling?

    The link to NY Mag Article.. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    I enjoyed the article that was linked to in the New York magazine except for the use of the word "Canucks". Then I made the mistake of reading the comments that followed, ye gods!  They were some of the nastiest comments I've seen EXCEPT when I made the same mistake of reading the comments after an article linked to by BTD in the Politico the other day.  The comments in the NY magazine article where by and large nasty comments by Clinton supporters which disappointed me a lot.  I haven't read too many of those.  Please! It's best to not hate the one you don't prefer.  I prefer Clinton, but I don't by any stretch hate Obama.  I do on the other hand aborr the press and their coverage of the campaigns.

    Every single A list blogger (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:34:54 PM EST
    is rabidly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.  I sometimes ask myself, can I really be this wrong?

    And then I realize that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of primary voters voted for her, she's ahead in national polling (Rasmussen, Gallup) and then I realize I'm just a member of the rest-of-the-world, not the "creative class".

    If I'm a member .... (none / 0) (#89)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    ... of the "creative class," does that mean I get health care under Obama's plan? Just asking.

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
    Because members of the creative class don't want no stinkin' mandates.

    Whoops, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    that's Hillary's plan.  Sometimes even we lowly Southern baptist working poor (LOL) get confused.

    Us poor over the hill racist Latinos do too. nt (none / 0) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    Isn't Creative Class Latin for (none / 0) (#129)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:47:06 PM EST
    over-educated white boys?  At least that's my crass take on it, a way for young white men to stay a vital part of a liberal coalition that seems destined to become more and more reliant on women, hispanics, and African American (in fact, for all the talk of how much more liberal the younger folks are that's almost entirely the result of demographic shifts that lessen the number of white men, who remain more conservative overall).  Notice how fast they are to dismiss hispanics, the largest growing political block in the United States.  Now, I welcome liberal white men to that coalition, but I think the focus on how critical it is to gaining a democratic majority is almost entirely driven by a need to remain relevant.

    And since over-educated white boys are not likely to need health insurance, why should they help you buy it, lambert?  Why choose democratic values or, heck, just doing what's right when you have a coalition to build with you as one of the key parts?  


    A question (none / 0) (#132)
    by sara seattle on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
    how much of the media's and some bloggers fawning over Obama has to do with trying to get the all important demographics "young people 18-35" to their shows, their cable , their blogs - their papers --

    because that is where the money is for meda and  for bloggers trying to get money from advertisers.

    so how much is adolation - and how much is greed??

    Just asking


    I agree with that...greed, at least some of it (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    Dehumanized (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's humanity is being questioned by Obama supporters.

    This has gone so far, so fast and Obama himself, seems to not want to do anything about this. I believe he has a responsibility on this score. Does his campaign not see it?

    Something terribly bad is happening right now.

    We just moved into a new office (county Democratic party) and a neighbor came over to say hello. As soon as I let him know (when he asked) that I was a Clinton supporter he gave me the evil eye.

    It was disturbing.


    Um (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    how does not getting rid of Power equate to not doing anything about it?

    That's a start, I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    But really, somebody should be trying to tamp down the visceral hostility in other places.

    I think it's gone way too far.

    If your opponent in a political campaign has become a monster in your eyes (not you, specifically) than something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.



    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:48 PM EST
    was on CNN a few minutes back. She said that Samantha Power should not have made that "monster" comment, but then said immediately that there have been a lot of negative statements and attacks in recent days. She also added that the Obama campaign has been trying very hard not to be involved in negative attacks. (Off topic: She also misspoke that Puerto Rico is trying to change its primary to a caucus on June 1. Wolf Blitzer did not correct her).
    Donnna Brazile  clearly comes off a supporter of Senator Obama. That is fine. But I wish CNN should start stating that she is a Obama supporter as they point out that Paul Begala and Jim Carville are Clinton supporter. Be objective about it.

    I agree, but she's not fooling anybody. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:57:00 PM EST
    you know i visited here, taylor marsh, and kos (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    within the past 24 hours. the only place where i saw hatred and meaness was on kos sorry to say.

    hillary needs partisan support considering (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    the hatred, meaness and lies being put out about her.

    "Hate the sin, not the sinner" (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    has been the battle cry of Evangelicals for decades.

    The problem is (and has always been), once you teach someone to hate, it's only a matter of time before he branches out on his own and chooses what to hate, whom to hate, and why to hate, while always adopting the end justifying the means as his salvation.

    So, here we see too many bloggers who have been taught to hate, targeting two people who have the courage, the stamina, the determination, the intelligence, and the wherewithal to run for President of the United States.

    How many of you -- I'm wondering -- have ever run for office?

    I have. Twice.

    Small town. Whisper campaigns against me touting the vilest things. Late night breathers on the telephone. Scratches and dings in my car. Complaints against my cat who was too old to leave my porch let alone my yard.

    Just before the election, beneath each of the candidates photographs in a local paper was listed their marital status. Each had "married" or "single" except mine. Mine said, "never married."

    But I don't regret, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. I begrudge the smear throwers nothing.

    Because I am who I am. They are who they are. And I'd rather be me.

    I am very proud of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

    We should all be.

    As for those who think they have the right to pass judment through hatemongering, consider this: Until you show the courage of your convictions by signing your name to your words, you don't really understand freedom of speech. Indeed, the anger of your words hidden by anonimity personifies and exemplifies the politics of fear.

    Eventually, your hate of Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, or both boils down to a character flaw that will chew you up and spit you out.

    Yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton. But no, I did not vote against Barak Obama.

    I voted against George W. Bush.


    Just a thought.


    I'm with you Marguerite. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST
    I read Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Grandmother on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:43:25 PM EST
    and she makes no secret of her support for Hillary Clinton.  She also routinely reminds her bloggers to be polite.  She wrote about it a couple of days ago right after Tuesday's elections.  And she frequently writes that she did not start out being a partisan for Hillary Clinton but began to see the hate and distortions of her from many A list bloggers.  Many of her readers, including myself, started out rather neutral and became disgusted with what we were reading on Kos, TPM, Huffington Post and others.  

    Since I'm an attorney I make a living looking at issues from many perspectives and I enjoy the back and forth of different positions on the same person, topic or event.  However, when I started reading that the most evil person in the world was Hillary Clinton, that she was a murderer, a whore, a pimp, a lesbian, she alone was responsible for the Iraq War, that there was not one aspect of her personality that had any value, I tuned out and turned away.  

    My reasons for not supporting Obama are simple:  I don't think he has enough experience in life, not just as a politician, to be president. I don't think he realizes the power of the Republican machine and how it can slice you up and spit out before you realize what is happening.  I have no personal animosity towards him and I do believe he is a bright, smart, talented man, I just don't think he is anything or anybody special.  I was certainly turned off by the Oprah Winfrey tour and the fact that she anointed him as the "one."  

    I am disturbed by the fact that from my perspective I see something of the "old time religion" tent revivals at his rallies.  And I'm one of those "old" baby boomers who has heard enough politicians say they are going to change Washington D.C. and change the way America does business, and represent "the people" and not special interest groups (since some of them represent my interests I'm not so sure I'm totally against them) and do away with lobbyists and bring fresh air to the putrid air of D.C.  

    So forgive me if I can't buy into all the hype over Senator Obama because really, after all, he is after all human.

    Excatly how I feel, very well put... (none / 0) (#143)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    Thread Cleaned (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    of insults to other specific bloggers. This site tries hard not to engage in name-calling and personal insults to others, be they candidates, commenters, the authors here or other bloggers.

    There are ways to say you disagree with people's positions without insulting them. The easiest way when replying to a comment by Jack is to say, "Jack, I disagree." If you say, "Jack, you're a jerk" your comment is going to be deleted.

    Calling a progressive blogger "unhinged" or crazy is not cool. Mentioning that you think another blog is overly partisan is fine.

    To some it's a matter of semantics. To me, it's not but rather, a reflection of the tenor of the site and level of discourse. And, since it is my site, I get to make the rules.

    So, I'm sorry that many comments were deleted from this thread. And I welcome new readers. This is a partisan site. Why else have a blog if not to express your opinion? But, I want everyone to feel comfortable expressing their opinion and no one should fear being ridiculed or be concerned that their name will show up on Google with an attack in it. Many readers here are professionals and no one needs that.  Remember, the Internet has no eraser. Think before you post and the preview button is your friend.

    Oy, I'm about to hang it up (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:02:53 PM EST
    as far as campaigns go over at Kos.

    Right before elections and caucuses, things seem to be relatively civil and then after the results are in, the pot boils right over.   When I hear about the latest outrage, I don't understand what it is about.  If I read comments or diaries, I just get even more confused because it's obvious that parts of the story are missing.

    What ever happened to stating the facts first and then discussing the story?  Nowadays, what I see is the narrative laid out and then the facts are made to fit through cherry picking or other means.

    I'm glad talkleft is here.  I read the posts and comments here and remember what it is like to actually hear more than one side of a story.

    re: Obama blacker ad (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by tarheel74 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:16:31 PM EST
    I am glad that Armando said that it was debunked but at the same time I am a little sad that when this story first surfaced and then resurfaced and again re-resurfaced and pushed ad nauseum on DailyKos by Markos himself I thought some other sensible blogger will at criticize him for smearing Senator Clinton as a racist outrageously and long after it was debunked by FactCheck. Again all this was done without the expert analysis of a videographer but by amateurs with photoshop or some generic imaging software that works with still images. Although I am not an expert by dabbling with images is my hobby and I am pretty cognizant of the compression rates required for the different file formats like mpeg, mov, div, wmv etc. Again no of this was analyzed. Disgusted myself and another diarist called "dhonig" led the charge against this shameless and evidently baseless smearing with facts. I researched on the internet and posted analysis left not only by FactCheck but other independent video editors and analysts who were incidentally Obama supporters but found this charge way over the top and completely baseless. Again instead of an apology or a retraction, Markos reposted some other nonsensical post left by a commenter as proof and even cited some other blogger who basically said that the FactCheck analysis was wrong because their video was lighter than the Clinton video. Yet what he did not mention and I think he did not even know that the FactCheck video was a wmv (windows media) the Clinton website downloadable version is a hi-def .mov (apple quicktime) and I am not quite sure what the format is for the one embedded in the Clinton website or the one uploaded on youtube. Needless to say different formats have different bitrates, and conversion from one format to another results in significant byte loss. Even though wmv is supposed to be lossless it is not so. Hell anyone can tell you that when you play a regular dvd on a hi-def tv the pictures are darker and drabber and you have to adjust the contrast and color, the entire hi-def dvd and blu-ray industry was built around this. Either way I was disappointed at Markos (who has lost all credibility as an objective blogger) and I was more disappointed that other progressive bloggers did not take him to task for spreading this baseless and extremely incendiary allegation.

    Thank you for trying (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:30:59 PM EST
    but that site is so far gone. Many otherwise thoughtful bloggers there will basically believe anything about Clinton at this point. That's why I left there.

    Pretty much did me in too. (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:21 PM EST
    I am a video producer and offered any number of reasons that would account for the difference based on my couple of decades of experience, but he didn't want to hear it.

    The reality is that the only way that anyone could even claim that the image was indeed altered by the Clinton team would be to review the source image they used in its original format and then to look at the master tape on either the edit system on which it was created or on some professional grade tape like digibeta or beta.  Other than that, there is no there there.  There is no way to say that the image was intentionally altered by the Clinton production team at all.  None of those people charging forward with their accusations of malicious racit intent could show anything to prove intent and they didn't even have the video equivalent of the "negative" to compare the other iterations of the image that they claimed were "different" from something they never saw in the first place.  Not to mention the fact that everything they were posting was from internet video sources which are notoriously bad.  Also - genius of video that Markos is - concluded that the screen shot of the ad was altered (or fake or something) because it was fuzzy.  Actually because video is an interlaced image system when you take a screen shot you don't get all of the information and therefore your image isn't as clear.  Try taking a screen shot from your home video camera - it will always appear a bit fuzzier.

    I don't know why I keep writing about this, but it is really irritating me that people who don't have the first clue about video production are thinking they know exactly what when on based on two video clips that aren't even the original sources.  I guess it also really upsets me to see people's character slandered in this irresponsible way.  I would be heart broken if someone accused me of something like that and it is clear that that angry mob would never ever respond to any kind of reasonable explaination for the effect.


    All true they have become what they hated RUSH, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    --Kevin Drum 2 has more THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.... at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

    On another blog, a couple of people were (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    suggesting that perhaps she could come back and be Obama's Secretary of State or National security advisor. Over Richard Lugar's dead body.

    Remember the days (none / 0) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    in which WHITE people were asking the ridiculous question, "Is Obama black enough?"

    I have a pretty high irony threshold, but sometimes even my capacity is exceeded.

    Big difference IMHO (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST

    Remember when things were different (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST

    You're right of course as far as things are concerned right now.  Everyone's dug in about as far as they can get.

    Oh, and I hear even Markos has said Clinton is tremendously likable when you meet her in person.

    He's right.

    Everyone says that (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    Then again, they say the same thing about Clarence Thomas...

    Let's not (none / 0) (#51)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    Let's not act like the pundits, who attribute their personal opinions to "most people" without any evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence. :)

    BTD, Wes Clark (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    says Obama cannot be CINC:

    Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments "disturbing," and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war.

    While Wes Clark would know better than I (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    that's a stretch but this is no stretch.

    'Jamie Rubin, a former State Department spokesman, compared Obama's foreign policy approach to "amateur hour."'

    Isn't James Rubin another one of "those" Obama supporters here?  Seems an odd thing to say about your own candidate.


    Jamie Rubin is a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#144)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:47:36 PM EST
    did you know (none / 0) (#76)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    that hillary clinton was responsible for the "black death" in 14th century europe? i have it from the drudge report, who "received" an email from someone, telling about someone else who saw sen. clinton releasing diseased rats off of merchant ships in the various british and continental harbors.

    it's true!

    x (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mary Mary on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    Seems Spencer edited. Here is the current Samantha Power sentence:

    "Samantha Power used a word carelessly in what she thought was an off-the-record setting."

    yet another reason she (none / 0) (#110)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    shouldn't be allowed out in public by herself; anyone in that position, chatting with reporters, who actually believes any of it will be "off the record" is either a total buffoon, or just stupid.

    you can't fix either.


    I don't know what in the world Ms. Powers was (none / 0) (#145)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    thinking when she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" and it does make you wonder if perhaps this is systemic to the Obama campaign, but I have seen her on CSPAN before and she seemed a decent and intelligent person...goes to show how far a person can descend when the mouth engages before the brain.  I was very surprised when I heard about this incident.  Sad really.  Still, no one should get away with this sort of thing and she has paid a fair price. What is worrying to me is that the Obama people have vilified Clinton with apparent ease as well as glee from the MSM and the progressive bloggers.

    Even the occasional bad writer, (none / 0) (#98)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    like myself!

    To me the issue is the combination of uncritical acceptance with convoluted and frequently unfounded accusation, all the while claiming intellecual and moral superiority.  

    Samantha Power (none / 0) (#120)
    by cygnus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    is simply one of the cool kids in the beltway "creative class".  She represents all that is enlightened, and her honor must be defended by shining knights like Spencer Ackerman.

    It's pretty much over. (none / 0) (#133)
    by WillBFair on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:08:28 PM EST
    The media campaign has been totally successful this time. That Obama's supporters use the same type of sneers shows that they've been completely manipulated.
    And the red States will be voting now, where so many people don't know the difference between empty smears and factual reasoning, and don't bother with silly rules about bearing false witness.
    While educated adults find the media's insults disgusting, Obama's people only turn more irrational. They respond to the contempt because that is what's in their hearts.
    It's tragic to see this in the democratic party.

    Consider the source (none / 0) (#135)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:29:00 AM EST
    Can the kid vote? I am sure he is in his 20s. Mr. Ackerman is hardly anything to get excited about though he is part of the problem, that subset of Obama's supporter for whom reason has the left the building. He looks like a nice kid otherwise.

    I was more offended by

    That well-educated "bourgeois black" as he calls himself wants to burn Denver if Hillary gets the nomination. Among the commentators to his blog post is a Georgetown University professor who want to "fight the power." File that under how win friends and influence people.

    link did not go through (none / 0) (#136)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:29:48 AM EST
    okay (none / 0) (#137)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:31:51 AM EST
    the link is jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com

    the title of the post is "If Hillary Gets To Claim Michigan And Florida, Denver Will Burn"

    When do we alert the FBI?


    What bothers me is the utter nonsense and mind (none / 0) (#146)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    reading the press does when they claim they "know" why Clinton won Texas.  Supposedly it's because she ran the phone ad, this was the reason, in the last three days before the primary the undecideds went for Clinton.  The thing is, the same thing occurred in California.  In the last three days before the California primary the undecideds broke for Clinton.  There was no red phone ad...so why then is that the only reason she won?  The press talking points  are that she went negative is all a bunch of mind reading when viewed with the fact that the same thing happened in CA. MSBNC takes the proverbial cake on this deal.