home

A Difference of Opinion: Not Every Top Blog "Has Had It" With Hillary

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog writes that every top blog "has had it with Clinton". That is patently false, whichever way you slice it.

One example: MyDD, which has more traffic than AmericaBlog.

In fact, out of the top trafficked liberal blogs, only Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and America Blog favor Obama over Clinton. Huffington Post as a news source seems to editorially favor Obama, but its multitude of bloggers can't be pigeonholed so easily.

Most of the top bloggers writing about the elections are not taking sides: Crooks and Liars, Atrios, Firedoglake, Washington Monthly, Digby.

These blogs will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. They have not "had it" with Hillary. Just as TalkLeft, which favors Hillary over Obama, will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Democrats don't give up on each other.

Perhaps John has caught a bit of Obama's sense of hyperbole. Here are the top liberal blogs that write about the elections and weekly page view numbers, from the Liberal Blog Adverstising Network:

[Hat tip to Mad Kane.]

< What McCain Said Compared To What Obama Said | The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The A List has had it with Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:06:10 PM EST
    Actually, I sort of see John's point and I think it is actually a huge problem - for those blogs.

    they have lost credibility with a significant portion of Dem readers.

    BTW, I wonder if Josh Marshall see himself as pro-Obama now? He has denied it steadfastly. It has been a ludicrous denial, but he has denied it.


    Marshall has seriously damaged his rep (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    And I mean damaged it more than he did with Lieberman in '06, which was a large hit with many Dems.

    Josh's gambit is so transparent it is laughable. If people can't see though the games many of these bloggers are playing, then they have not eyes.

    Parent

    speaking of eyes.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:17:04 PM EST
    apparently Obama supporters believe if they just continue mocking and hating Hillary with all the rage they can muster - Obama will WIN!!

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/12/191659/104/77#c77

    Parent

    Notice the tag of the first commenter, (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    about the need to defend Wright, and compare with my comment here

    Parent
    do they all get together over virtual cocktails (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    and decide what the top blog storyline is? It seems to me some folk just want to be the blog version of the liberal stooges in the print and TV media.

    Parent
    That's exactly what they want to be (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:51:15 PM EST
    You think Keith Olbermann isn't checking on what Josh wrote before Marshall shows up on "Countdown?"

    For many of these people -- and Marshall in particular, from what I have seen -- this is a game. The readers are pawns.

    Parent

    Interesting hypothesis (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Virginian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:47:57 PM EST
    and I tend to agree...but I don't think that is where many of these folks started, nor their original intent...

    The MSM co-opted these folks because they (the MSM) were terrified that these folks would hurt their bottom line...

    Many bloggers turned to the nets because they wanted their voice heard, and the little guy doesn't get invited on Larry King to be heard...but how do you maintain your desire to be heard, and the driving momentum to your opining on your blog when you actually DO get invited onto Larry King, and ARE heard -- You don't, you're now one of them that you railed against suppressing your voice and rightness -- this is just cyclical...the Markos and Josh like bloggers will be usurped down the line by some other upstart...who will be co-opted by the big boys (or become a big boy if they are a pioneer)...

    Parent

    When I see them distort the facts about (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:05:03 PM EST
    Dems, I now don't really trust their words about Republicans either.  

    My surfing habits have become more niche, as I learn which blogs have which specialties, whereas I used to spend more time on Kos and TPM.

    Myabe the saddest part is that there are now blogs where I never, repeat never, visit the comments section. Between the nonsense and nastiness it is a waste of time.  Do I really care who was the first to post a comment in a thread? No. Are we still that amazed by technology?

    Parent

    Amen Chorus (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    I used to read FDL religiously, and I still go there every once in a while to read what Jane has to say, or emptywheel (not TBogg, since he seems like an Obamabot, to my limited exposure to him).  

    But the comments at FDL have become a politically correct echochamber which I have come to avoid in the last couple years.  The last time I read a comment by TeddySF it was because the subject was pretty incredible (about some fundy wanting to deport the gays).  Wondering if I might be sent to the Riviera or to Soweto, I read the post which was so silly it was embarrassing to me as a gay man, and I couldn't resist the urge to comment.  My comment was the 65th or so, and I was the first to even hint that it was hysterical nonsense taken completely out of context.  TeddySF responded by calling me a misogynist and homophobe for using the word "hysteria" (and never responded to the substance of my criticism).  And then he had my response to his response deleted (no, there was no profanity or flaming, since I knew I was surrounded by zombies loyal to TeddySF).

    Anyway, it's like that old saying about the Nazis.  First they came for the trolls, and then they came for the "concern trolls"...  And then all that was left was Fitz!  Jane! First! and the amen chorus.

    The sad thing about the liberal resurgence I think we've experienced in the last year or so is that it's mostly made up of the stupid sheep who voted for Bush not long ago, and they are incapable of critical thinking or accepting that their side or their man (or woman) has any serious flaws.

    BTW, although Digby and Kevin Drum have not "had it with Hillary" they have both voted for Obama and declared their support for him.  And I suspect the same of Atrios.

    Parent

    heh... (none / 0) (#93)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    .. you are joking right? The majority of blog readers are young. Young people overwhelmingly support Obama. Hell, if you look at other sites, like social bookmarking sites, hillary is just getting killed all over the internet (c.f. digg or reddit).

    Parent
    What's your point here? n/t (none / 0) (#108)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    Are you saying simply supporting (none / 0) (#117)
    by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    Obama is damaging to one's own credibility? I don't see where there is that much difference between either candidate on the major issues.

    Is being 'pro-Obama' more or less 'pro-Democratic Party' than being 'pro-Clinton'? I don't see why there needs to be a distinction.

    Now, of course if you are talking about ridiculous tin foil attacks that spew forth [mostly against Hillary], I agree this part is damaging to the reputation of those blogs.

    You know where I come from, and to honest I just recently have decided to support Obama, but you also I have fiercely attacked the unfair outrageous stuff against Hillary over at the GOS.

    Parent

    I always appreciated (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    your fairness over there back when I used to visit. Most of the Obama and Clinton supporters I know in real-life are awesome, positive people who see both candidates whole, with all their flaws and strengths :)

    Parent
    I have found it harder and harder to (none / 0) (#182)
    by shpilk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    be neutral, it's hard to view the whole, with the strengths Hillary could offer, when all I see are the flaws.

    Parent
    I am saying denying it when it is true (none / 0) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    and being a leader in false charges against Clinton damages your credibility.

    That is Josh Marshall now.

    Parent

    Marshall (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:41:54 AM EST
    is still vehemently, angrily denying he is an Obama supporter.  Weird.


    Parent
    Fact is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    he is wrong. Top blogs have not "had it" with Clinton.

    Make that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    "not every top blog" which is what he claims.

    Parent
    They perpetually underestimate (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    Clinton's support.


    I'm going to have to raise an objection here (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    MyDD had been solidly behind Clinton until very recently.

    But there has been a change, and one which likely isn't coincidental to blog owner's Jerome Armstrong taking a trip to Israel and other voices, like Jonathan Singer's, taking more center stage.

    I know intimately about this because I was just kicked off of the blog, for what I feel are most dubious reasons.

    I don't expect you, Jeralyn, or anyone else who front posts here to comment on that, for your own sake.

    However, I will tell you this: Someone who was not happy with my banning wrote an email to one of the admins and was told something to the effect that now as it looks like Obama will be the nominee the blog has to support him, etc.

    A premature Kumbaya, then?

    Yeah, I think so.

    I have written about this on my own site, if anyone cares to read about it. That is, what happened with MyDD and me (and others who were recently purged, some of whom have been reinstated). If you want to see it, just Google my name and you'll get the site. Go to the Off-topic section.

    Now, don't get me wrong. I know who and what I am. I am a very passionate and fierce debater, and some don't handle that well. But I always bring accurate facts and won't roll over for anybody. And if someone tries to railroad me, I will let the world know that.

    *

    There are too many blogs which are going through the transformation which has slowly been happening over at MyDD the past 2 months or so. More Obama triumphalists coming in to crow and try to jigger with the recommended lists and get nayasyers banned. Let me tell you, it has not been pretty. I am a striker from Kos and have now been forced to move on from MyDD.

    There are some pro-Clinton sites left, such as TL and Taylor Marsh's site. But the vast majority of the sites, IMO, are pro-Obama. And the tenor of many of the Obama supporters is beyond the pale. They wonder why people like myself attract so much support, but it is they who have made fierce Clinton supporters like Taylor and you, Jeralyn, a more sought-after commodity.

    I have never been more ashamed to be a Dem than during this contest. The tactics that have been used by Obama's camp are beyond ridiculous. And the MSM and many good Dems have fallen for them.

    Sad stuff.

    But it's not even close to being over yet.

    - Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

    And Here I Thought (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by The Maven on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    that one of the distinguishing features as between progressives and right-wingers was that there wasn't supposed to be an expectation that everyone would fall in line in unquestioned support of the leadership.  Certainly that wasn't the case in 2004-07, when everyone felt free to criticize our candidates and/or members of Congress whenever they did something we felt was worthy of calling them out.

    The only times I can recall when banning was routinely raised was when a site user/commenter would repeatedly make remarks suggesting that all Dems were bad or that there was no point in supporting Democrats over Republicans.  But the stifling of reasoned criticism is not only unhealthy for the party (do we really want to model ourselves along Eleventh Commandment or Rovian lines?) but also fundamentally anti-democratic.

    Where, exactly, do these folks want to lead us?

    Parent

    That's a great question (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    Where are we being led, indeed?

    I can tell you where many of the purported "A List" bloggers are leading us:

    To their own next books and media gigs.

    I've worked in media before and have a brother who was a national host for a ZDTV (now I think it's called G4 TV or something; it's a tech network) show called "Gamespot TV." You see this all the time, especially with things like elections:

    Everyone loves the frontrunner, especially if the frontrunner is relatively new to the scene and might think you helped him achieve his position.

    This is what I wrote about as regards my banning and Jonathan Singer (who I absolutely am sure was behind the banning). Singer's been pushing Obama as hard as he can. Well if Obama gets nominated and then elected, guess who might get himself and MyDD some choice access?

    This is all transparent to me. Now, does that mean that no one that is backing Obama in the media/blogs doesn't believe in him? No, it doesn't. I'm sure some do believe in him and want him genuinely. But there are many other agendas going on as well, not the least of which is career advancement for many bloggers looking for their ticket up the media ladder.

    *

    Also, what we are seeing from many (certainly not all) Obama backers is what happened in Stalinist Russia. I know that will strike some as overkill, but it is not. In the same way that America was heading towards fascism in the aftermath of 9/11 and with the Bush Admin. at the helm, that is what we are seeing from many of what I think of as David Axelrod's internet astroturfers. They don't want ANY dissent. I have seen more vile things go on this election season than I want to remember. I'm talking career and death threats, really disgusting stuff. And most of it has come from the side with the Chicago machine behind it.

    Parent

    That attitude is a mistake (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Not every progressive is going to support Obama, but it's a mistake to write somebody off merely for that purpose. Personally, I won't try to get in Obama's way - but I'm d**n well going to support downticket candidates. We're going to need every Dem we can get in the House when McCain is President. I may even try to set aside my absolute phobia about "cold-calling" and do some door to door for Charlie Brown, who has a reasonable chance of taking Doolittle's abandoned seat. My husband and I have already discussed contributing to his campaign again this year.

    Obama isn't the only Democrat who matters.

    Parent

    Couldn't agree more, Diane (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    And honestly, I'm tired of being force-fed him.

    Parent
    I think we may find that (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Virginian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    after this general election, progressivism will be sorely set-back...Obama will not advance progressivism for the sake of advancing progressivism (that is both a vice and a virtue for him depending on which side of the lens you stand). And to be sure McCain is no progressive...so either option that we seem to presented with is not a victory for progressivism

    I think when the dust of Nov '08 settles, we'll see a splintered progressive movement...one branch focused on maintaining a semblance of power (or access to it) much like a political party, and another branch that is issues based and is focussed on pushing agendas and issues (or a slate of issues), much like an interest group...

    Parent

    Let's be honest about this (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    Bloggers find news stories and respond to them with their opinions.  Very rarely do bloggers "break" news.  They can use their power to stir up existing news, but it is not often that they break the actual stories and do the actual gumshoe-ing.  (With respect to citizen journalism, of course)  Blogs don't hire people whose sole job it is to do investigative journalism, but then again, neither do many of the TV news channels lately.  The only faction consistently doing investigative journalism is...that quaint and dying beast, the newspaper.

    That being said, what we are looking at in some of these blogs is opinion backed up by more opinion, with no accountability and no room for dissent.  Posters are mostly anonymous.  There are no repercussions for bad reporting.  Where the only stop-gap against total tyranny is the ethical standards of the person controlling the blog...you get what you pay for.

    Parent

    Also known as... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST
    ...an echo chamber. Daily Kos worked fairly well as a communication spot as long as people felt free to speak their minds. I really learned a lot about progressive politics and the views of my fellow citizens, and I got into some fascinating discussions that helped me hone my views (and even change them on occasion). But when the blogs become a place where dissenting views are mocked and even banned, then they fail as a communication tool. They become echo chambers with no purpose whatsoever except as a social club.

    Parent
    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#107)
    by Virginian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    And I do think the netroots will absolutely mirror what I am predicting in the netroots.

    I think you're right

    Parent

    Supposed to read (none / 0) (#174)
    by Virginian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    And I do think the netroots will absolutely mirror what I am predicting in the progressive movement.

    Parent
    please don't break your arm (none / 0) (#175)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    patting yourself on the back.  

    Parent
    heh... (none / 0) (#181)
    by kayla on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    "It ain't just rural America that's bitter. "

    Exactly!

    "I know I see people motivated and excited this year like I've never seen before in my life. The country is ripe for an Obama candidacy we're ready for change and we're sick and tired of being sick and tired."

    This is one of the things I dislike about some Obama supporters.  They say things like that.  Last time I checked Obama had 49% of voters so far and Hillary has 47% in the Dem race, the rest mostly went to Edwards I suppose.  Obama and his supporters DO NOT speak for the entire country.  The country is NOT "ripe" for an Obama candidacy, only some of it is.  Okay?  Yes, Obama gets thousands of his supporters stuffed into high school gymnasiums chanting his name, women faint at his presence, Oprah, Robert DeNiro and some Kennedys adore him, and he even has his own news network, but please realize that there are people out there - lots of them - who do not understand what in the world the fuss is about.  I have nothing against Obama supporters, but please understand, they do not speak for all of us.  Thank you.

    This also may surprise you - I LIKE Hillary Clinton!


    Parent

    Mydd (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:42:02 PM EST
    What seems to have happened over there is some folks came over from Daily Kos to tilt the balance.

    There are a few folks on there that I've seen consistently making over 100 comments per day.  They try to dominate every thread that comes down the pike.

    Maybe they are getting paid by the Obama Campaign???

    I don't enjoy reading blogs that are dominated by a few very outspoken people.

    Parent

    I see the change at MyDD (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    It started about two weeks ago. Now whenever anyone posts something pro-Hillary, they are immediately blogswarmed and ridiculed by Obama's Hope & Unity crowd. Derisive posts mocking Hillary supporters are prominently displayed with a tough chit attitude by DailyKook members.

    As for Avarosis and Moulitsas, those two were former devoted Repubs who still have their giant authoritarian streaks running through them.

    Parent

    it started when (none / 0) (#115)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    Jerome went on dKos and recommended Alegre's diary for a dKos strike.

    Parent
    Your observation is dead-on, Dave (none / 0) (#43)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    Once Obama had his sweep month in February, the exodus from Daily Kos to MyDD began in earnest.

    The site is now in transition but is rapidly heading towards Obama-ville, or Daily Kos West. With Jerome taking a trip, HRC supporters being purged and Obama supporters and their multiple accounts to tilt the rec diary list and troll ratings, we are heading down the same slope which engulfed Daily Kos.

    Jerome does his best to keep things in check, and I'm sure he'll clean things up when he gets back (not sure when that is). But if you go over there and see that Bob Johnson is at the top of the rec list, you can be fairly certain that the assimilation is in full swing.

    :)

    Parent

    i too have been wondering whatever (none / 0) (#176)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    happened to all the bush trolls who used to inhabit progressive blogs.  seems to me they all just disappeared into the ether about the same time obama burst upon the scene, with his own amen chorus of ardent online supporters.  strange days indeed.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:14:20 PM EST
    pro-Hillary blogs are in the minority. And yes, I'm not familiar with changes at MyDD but I do know Jerome supports Hillary.

    To say every single top blog has "had it" with Hillary is just not true. Between the top blogs not taking sides and ones like TL and TM, it's just a false claim.

    Washington Monthly/Kevin Drum (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by katiebird on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    Is an interesting case.  He voted for Obama (he said) and from that day to this his comments section has become unbearable.

    The abuse doesn't come from him -- his posts are OK-ish.  But his commenters are as bad as anything at dKos.

    Political Animal used to me one of my regular stops.  But the lack of rigorous moderation has made it an unfriendly place.

    Parent

    Lots of so called liberal blogs piss me off (none / 0) (#41)
    by jerry on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    Often times because of the crappy behavior of the commenters, if not for creepy authoritarian posts from the bloggers themselves, bloggers that insist on government mandated injections into kids, or insist on speech codes, or insist on making sexist and racist comments "in the name of progress", or insist on defending processes that encourage false allegations.  Non-reality based bloggers.

    With all due respect to Jeralyn's commenting policy here, the cure for those other blogs is to learn the joy of being an anonymous piss in their punch bowl always speaking truth troll.

    Last week, just by commenting in a normal tone of voice, and asking questions, and questioning assumptions, I "won" a thread at a very popular, very divisive, authoritarian nutcase "liberal" blog.  That wasn't my judgment, that was the judgment of some of the regulars there who admitted I had run rings around the blogger and the commenters.

    And there's always a moral victory if you can make reasonable comments and get quickly banned.

    Truly, some of the better blogs are the ones with the best trolls combating the regular commenters.  One of Kevin Drum's problems has always been his trolls are really stupid, almost botlike.

    So, for good blogs, there are comments.  For other blogs, there is trolling.

    In the meantime, I think the lesson of the past six months are that the rightwing has a point when they say there is no hate like liberal hate, that we on the left who claim to be able to see nuance, often act like complete a*h*les when it comes to demonizing people we disagree with.

    There are a lot of righty bloggers out there that *do make sense on many issues.  And there are a lot of lefty bloggers out there that are not reality based and if put into power would be every bit as authoritarian and empire building and vengeful as our current administration.  I myself have also learned to really despise identity politics groups.  And we should throw away the terms troll and concern troll.  Most often what the label means is the person who uses the label has very little to add and just wants to shut down a conversation.

    Parent

    *Apparently* putting stars around words bolds em (none / 0) (#42)
    by jerry on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    But they can't be content (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    with just bashing Clinton--they have to bash the Clinton blogs, too.  I know that you, Jeralyn, have said that you've gotten some nasty emails.  Taylor Marsh posts some of hers and they are just awful.  These are attacks from fellow dems who are FURIOUS at Clinton supporters.  The anger is palpable.  They can't just "win," they have to completely destroy all things Clinton.  There is such hatred at the center, such anti-woman vehemence, that it's sickening.  I haven't seen that kind of thing since I picketed against rabid anti-choice a-holes in front of the Atlanta Feminist Women's Center back in the eighties.  They spit on us.  One man tried to urinate on us.  They seethed with hatred.

    Did y'all see that No Quarter had a really mysterious problem with their server the other day and had to change?  I mean, what is up with that?  These are not the types of dems I want to associate myself with.  These guys (and they are mostly guys) are fame-seeking fascists.

    They are just one of the many reasons I will not vote Obama if he gets the nom (which to me looks unlikely as the days grow long).  As others have said, I'll support down-ticket dems, but not Obama.

    Parent

    That's just irresponsible (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    I don't like Obama for his crappy health care plan and his generally unprogressive Liebermanesque "bipartisanship".  And I really don't like his supporters and their smug, sanctimonious attitudes towards those of us who see Clinton as the lesser of two DLC evils.  

    But John McCain is as dangerous and stupid or more so than Bush.  Try to remember it's not about you, or me, personally and our insulted intelligences and motives.  This country is in a major economic slow motion trainwreck and I think Obama is a political lightweight who is almost as inexperienced and untested as Bush was, and as smart as he is, he is completely unprepared for the mess he's about to step into.  But a McCain presidency is just absolutely unthinkable.  Suck it up and vote straight Dem if you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama outright.  But vote Dem, please.

    Parent

    See the problem (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:23:10 AM EST
    is that I actually think Obama is worse than McCain. I think he'd be a terrible President and would destroy the Party with his incompetence.  I truly believe that. I believe he will be ineffective. And we'll hand the Republicans all three branches in 2012. Not that I think he'd even win the General.

    Parent
    I'm with you rooge04 (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Rainsong on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:00:38 AM EST

    I think Obama is worse than McCain, or at best, no different, as he doesn't stand for any thing.

    In his campaign to date, he barely even mentions the Party in passing. He has run his whole campaign for more than a year as an Independent - an Indie that maybe, or maybe not, "leans" Democrat.

    I'm not even convinced he "leans", he is too far to the right for me. I know many people keep saying he is solid centrist, but I dont see the evidence of that - the evidence of his public record that I see, thin as it is - is into the right-wing, or at best lazy and never makes a decision on his own. A puppet, and I have no way of knowing for sure who'll be pulling his strings.

    And if Obama does represent "new" Party politics, then the Democratic Party is no longer a Party I wish to support, as it will no longer represent my interests.

    I dont care if he is more electable because the MSM adores him. I'm not voting for a lazy right-winger, who can't even convince me that he genuinely represents the Party, who just walks into the Presidency, because the MSM gets tingles up its legs.

    If, as Dem partisans and activists we then end up having to work at WH damage control from within Congress, then I'd rather be working to block a Repub, than a fake Dem.

    Parent

    I'll agree (none / 0) (#151)
    by jussumbody on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:18 AM EST
    that I think he'll be ineffective and his first year or two will suck.  But he's smart, so he might catch on like Clinton did in his first term.  And most likely there will be a Dem Congress next year that could (theoretically) stop Obama from really screwing things up too bad.

    But you should really start reading more about McCain before you make statements like that.  Elect McCain and there might not be much of a economy, or military, or constitution left by 2012.

    Parent

    And another thing... (none / 0) (#154)
    by jussumbody on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:55:00 AM EST
    If the Dems CAN'T win the White House for a 3rd time in a row, against a clown like McCain, there won't be a Democratic party left to speak of in 2012.

    Parent
    Small sad story (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    My neighbor was at a starbucks and had on a Hillary t-shirt.  A man walked up to her and called her a freak.  When they went outside, the man spit on her car..... when he drove off, she dumped her coffee in the back of his truck. :)

    Parent
    Was the attacker (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    A right wing nut?
    Or an Obama nut?
    Hard to tell these days.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Blue Jean on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
    Sometimes I wonder whether all these vehemently anti-Hillary left blog commentators are really pro-Obama--or they're just Freeper trolls disguising themselves as pro-Obama Dems.

    Parent
    She wasted a perfectly mediocre (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    cup of coffee on him!  The horror!

    (Sorry, out here in bland, vanilla Columbus we have a very good roaster which easily outclasses Starbucks.  I find Starbucks coffee to be inferior.  I admit to being a coffee snob.)

    Parent

    depends upon... (none / 0) (#72)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    what you consider wasted...

    If someone had spit on my car for my political beliefs, I wouldn't think that I wasted a coffee by tossing it on their truck, but hey, that's me.

    Seems as though here was another Obama supporter with a strange notion of party unity.

    Parent

    Just coffee, be a waste--need cream & sugar (none / 0) (#76)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    to make it harder to clean up!

    Joke, ok?

    Parent

    I can get really upset (none / 0) (#92)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:06:38 PM EST
    over a spilled cup of coffee.  Hot coffee, brewed to perfection, fresh and steaming one minute and the next, wasted!  And me without my coffee fix.

    Plus Starbucks is over priced.

    I wouldn't have bothered.  I've learned that for people who truly are jerks, any time spent on them is time better used for something else.

    The internet taught me that.  I'll get all PO'd about some comment and then....realize that the poster will not listen to a thing I say in reply.  

    Parent

    While the Boiz at the big blogs (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM EST
    might think they are "winning," all they have done is drive some of their best talent into new venues.

    There are several new blogs, and others are growing.

    Parent

    Does anyone know if TalkLeft (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    hits have increased in the past few months? I never even knew about it until I got so discouraged with Kos that I looked around for other more reasonable blogs. I'm wondering if Kos has lost people or if all the crazies in the universe go there now and keep the numbers up.

    Parent
    his numbers are down (none / 0) (#120)
    by bigbay on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    TalkLeft's traffic (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:34 AM EST
    has doubled since January when I went to Iowa for the caucuses and BTD and I have been writing so much on the primaries. But it also had dropped since the 2006 election, and is the same now as it was during the 2004 elections. So all in all, we've rebounded.

    Parent
    Fair enough, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#10)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    You're correct. I think my mistake was allowing myself to be fooled by what constitutes "the top blogs."

    When looking at it from a different perspective and your list of the page hits, it is true that many top blogs have not given up on Hillary.

    Another blog of note is Hillaryis44.org, which might not get tons of traffic (don't honestly know) but which is watched by insiders from both Democratic campaigns and many in the media as well.

    :)

    Parent

    Hillary IS44 is awful (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    imo. It is precisely what I criticize from the Obama blogs.

    Parent
    That view is shared by many, BTD (none / 0) (#23)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    But it is probably the one spot where many die-hard HRC supporters speak the freest, and many there seem to have some fairly deep pockets (donations-wise) and longstanding ties as political activists and/or operatives.

    Not everyone, to be sure. But some. I think the reason it is valued is that many see it as an arm of the campaign, although it is not from everything I have gleamed from articles written about it.

    If you want a good reflection of what those who are really emotionally attached to the campaign and who will freely talk about possible strategies they're aware of to come (not to mention air out Donna Brazile emails), it is a useful site. It is definitely kept an eye on by some in the media, if not many.

    The person who runs it gets good info, too. The admin posts some stuff that I haven't seen in other spots. So, that's useful.

    A lot of regrettable things get said there, that I will concede. But with the spread of the "Obama Internet Empire" only growing, I think that places like TL, TM and yes, Hillaryis44 become all the more popular, as I was saying to Jeralyn earlier.

    We have to remember that more Dems have voted for HRC than BHO. That's a large group of people who feel that their concerns aren't being heard, even though some of them don't have or frequently use the internet.

    Parent

    I was plagiarized on (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    Hillaryis44.

    It was awesome.

    Parent

    If you know them can you ask them (none / 0) (#14)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    to take me out of commenting exile?

    I'm actually very happy here, but I wish that I had the option of commenting there too.  I still read that blog several times a day, even though I don't get to participate.

    And, for the record I was never nasty over there, I was occasionally sarcastic, but now I've even learned to temper that.  Further in my defense, I have made plenty of contrite comments over there, right up to the point they cut me off without warning or explanation.

    Parent

    They ban for sarcasm? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    I wouldn't last a week.

    Parent
    go look at my old comments (none / 0) (#31)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:44:37 PM EST
    same name: 1jpb

    I don't think anything I did was that bad, in fact my sarcastic tones were often reflected as a response to sarcasm.  But, even so I wasn't that bad.

    I'll admit that my signature line was crude,  but I have abandoned that here, and I can't change it over there unless they let me fully log in.

    Parent

    Your comments seem pretty mild compared (none / 0) (#55)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    to many I have read there, from both sides. Maybe something is messed up with your log on? You should write an email and ask what happened.

    I'm a Clinton supporter and unless Jeralyn or BTD are deleting some of your comments, it makes no sense to me that you were banned. I don't agree with you much, but I don't find you offensive at all, at least what I've read.

    Parent

    I have no complaints about talkleft (none / 0) (#61)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    I've never had an on-topic comment deleted here.

    And, I've only had commenting suspended for a very short time on my first day.  That was when I was trying to cause trouble, because I randomly stumbled on this site, and I didn't realize that this was a blog full of informed people, where I would want to participate.

    It was myDD that cut me off, you can see a link to my old comments above.

    Parent

    I know. I read the first page of your comment (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    link to MyDD. I didn' see anything that you said that warranted banning. I didn't check your ratings but I haven't seen you abuse that here. I would write them if I were you.

    Parent
    I'm confused by the threading of... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    ...comments. Which one banned you?

    Parent
    Someone at myDD, Jerome? n/t (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    I thought I recognized those initials. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    As I recall, you could be a bit sharp. Though there are far worse there right now. Seems MYDD has been swarmed with the haters so I don't go there as much as I used to.

    Parent
    But, I'm reformed now (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    it's a lot harder to be sloppy here.  Y'all are a lot better at picking apart comments for technical glitches.  And, throwing verbal bombs is frowned on here.  

    So, hopefully my reformed self will be welcomed back.  First order of business would be to change my signature.

    Parent

    Good idea! LOL (none / 0) (#49)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    I haven't given up on Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    But I still won't support Obama. Partly because he has offended me with what I clearly see as race-baiting and sexist comments. But, when I think of it, mostly because I don't think he can win and I won't put myself through what I went through with Kerry. Gore wasn't so bad. It was a disappointment, but I figured that Bush Sr. had not been horrible and thought "How much damage can W do in 4 years?". Then I found out how much damage he could do, and fought hard for Kerry. But when Kerry lost I was devastated. I won't tie my emotions that strongly to a candidate I don't think can win. And I have never thought Obama could win. He has too many negatives and too few positive. If he'd waited and seasoned himself first, he could have been great, but was catapulted into the spotlight when he wasn't ready, and that is a disaster for a politician.

    I'm not voting for Obama if he's nominated (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    The Jesse Jackson, Jr., Amaya Smith SC Memo, 'fairy tale,' Doug Wilder stuff pushed me to the edge, and what has happened with MI and FL sealed the deal.

    I will probably write-in Hillary if she is not nominated. The actions of Obama's camp and many of his supporters should not be rewarded, lest a very bad example be advanced in our party.

    That a Harvard Law grad's campaign is resorting to these tactics makes them even more absurd and offensive.

    Parent

    Hillary wouldn't want you to write her name in: (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:43:24 PM EST
    she'd want you to support the Democratic candidate. Yet another reason why she is the better Democratic candidate.

    It's an awful paradox: she wants her supporters to support the candidate, which is such a wonderfully loyal trait that it makes you want her to be the President even more. So you want to write her name in, if she doesn't get the nomination. Even though this goes against her own position.

    It would be an awful place to find yourself in when it comes time to vote in November. But I may be sharing it with you.

    Parent

    It's a good point (none / 0) (#51)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    If I had my druthers, Hillary would run as an Independent if she's not nominated.

    She won't, of course. And she shouldn't, politically. But I would personally love for that to happen.

    As I've said in other forums, I have two options left if I don't write Hillary's name in:

    • Vote McCain
    • Vote McCain and actively help McCain to win

    One or both of these is likely to happen. My distaste at what has happened to the Clintons is very real and very justified. I honestly believe that if we go down the road with Obama, there is going to be lasting damage to the party. And MORE damage could be done if he were elected. That's not something I want to see happen.

    Do I think he can be elected? There's a chance, although I certainly wouldn't bet on it. But if what has happened is allowed to stand, our party could split. This is why the "will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated" numbers are as large as they are when Clinton supporters are polled.

    Parent

    Just don't give up on Dems (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    The party is not bad. When I spent a lot of time on Daily Kos, I started to see Democrats as the problem, not the solution. A lot of people, especially the most regularly recommended diarists, spent more time criticizing Democrats than Republicans. I left because I needed perspective. I was actually hoping to find somewhere  that people could convince me to like Obama, but every pro-Obama site I checked out was so full of hate and bile that I didn't even post. I still don't like Obama, but I'm not going to let my feelings turn me against the party. It's a good party, even if it's not perfect. I'm not giving up on the net, just Daily Kos, and I'm not giving up on the Party, just one person in it. There is a lot worth fighting for.

    Parent
    I'm not going to lie to you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    Thoughts of leaving the party have entered my mind.

    For the first time I could actually imagine not being a Democrat. That's how bad this has been. It has been an out and out embarrassment, from Obama's camp to the MSM. I now understand how conservatives feel about the "liberal media." I'll tell you, it has been an eye-opening experience, and one that I know a lot of HRC supporters have shared in. Many of us now look to Fox News and people like Hannity and Limbaugh to provide perspective. That is how bad it has been.

    Parent

    Same Thing Here Universal (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cplummer on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:59 AM EST
    I feel like the Democratic party has left me.  After weeks of debating myself, yesterday, I filled out a voter's registration card and mailed it in changing my affiliation from Democrat to unaffiliated.  Even tonight, I get a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes because I've been a lifelong Democratic activitist for decades.  Every four years, I forget EVERYTHING else--my kids, my housework, my hobbies--to work on getting a Democrat in the White House.

    Not this year...if Hillary is not the nominee, I will not work for Sen. Obama.  He has been disrespectful to me and has taken this middle-aged woman's vote for granted.  He hasn't earned my vote, and if he is the Democratic nominee, I will NOT just give it to him.

    The latest INDY convert...TRDMF  (tears rolling down my face).

    Parent

    Me, too (none / 0) (#69)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    Although it hasn't gotten bad enough that I have turned to Fox.  I did get so disillusioned with fellow Dems and the party in general that I considered re-registering as an independent. But ... I'm a Democrat. I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean that I like every Dem, or vote for every Dem, or agree with every Dem (although until now I've voted straight ticker for 25 years). I'm not going to let some loud-mouthed idiots convince me to give up on the party. Heck, I suspect that a lot of the rabble-rousers on Daily Kos and MyDD and all of the unmoderated blogs are actually young Republicans creating dissent. Look at how much damage was done here a few days ago by ONE troll who registered under several names. Jeralyn was able to sort that out - but unmoderated and larger blogs don't have that ability.

    Parent
    In a sense, I'm lucky (none / 0) (#82)
    by rghojai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    I live in California, assume that the Dem nominee will win with ease. Assuming that's how it shapes up and Obama is the nominee, I'll vote third-party for Pres). If it looks closer, it will likely be big-time hold my nose and... .

    Parent
    I stopped going to Carpetbagger, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    because the comments had been taken over by Clinton-haters, fed, in large part, by the bias of Steve Benen's posts on the race.  During my time there, Steve made no outright declaration for Obama, but his posts were hardly neutral.

    In fact, my support for Hillary developed there, as I found myself objecting to the nonsense being posted in the comments, and felt compelled to at least put the right information out there.  When Edwards dropped out, I was bummed, but found that I could make the transition to Hillary because of what I had learned in defending her for so long.

    I haven't been back in weeks, and don't miss it.

    I would put it the other way around (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    Clinton supporters have "had it" with many top blogs.

    Not only Clinton supporters have had it (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by peachkfc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    but I'm sure I'm not the only fairly neutral Democrat (I was for Richardson, then Dodd, then Edwards, then just threw up my hands and decided to support whoever gets nominated) who can't stand the incessant Clinton-bashing at Americablog and TPM.  (Josh saying he is not pro-Obama, or, at least, anti-Clinton, is simply ludicrous.)  Daily Kos jumped the shark long ago about a lot of things, including its Clinton-bashing, but I was a big fan of John Aravosis until he allowed his Clinton-hatred to destoy his blog and his reputation; Marshall is well on his way to the same fate.  I'm not particularly thrilled with either Obama or Clinton, but I simply can't understand the vitriol I've seen coming from both sides' supporters toward the others' candidate and supporters, especially from the Obama extremists like Aravosis.  The worst of it, though, are the outright lies and distortions that formerly reputable journalists like Aravosis, Marshall, and some others have been printing for months, along with their own nasty commentary.  It's that far more than the comments, which you can always just not bother with, that have driven me away.  

    And, by the way, if we're talking about top blogs, I think influence should be considered as well as traffic and ad rates.  In that light, I would say the the majority of the most influential liberal blogs (Digby, Firedoglake, C&L, My DD, Atrios, and I'd add Glenn Greenwald to the list) have remained admirably neutral.

    Parent

    ditto (none / 0) (#168)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:52:42 AM EST
    Like I said in an earlier thread (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    CDS is the gift that keeps on giving

    Arivosis speaks for no one but himself.

    The fact is that the bloggers who are all out Obama supporters are killing their credibility with many main stream Democrats who won't return to their sites after the nomination is decided.

    I was just at americablog (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    and they are going off the deepend. They are bashing tweety(who has been a staunch Barack backer) for a slight criticism over coffee versus OJ. I love Hillary and KNOW she would make a great president, but those people are bordering on scary/fanatical.

    They're very thin-skinned (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST
    some of these Obama supporters. I know one who is mad at CNN for some perceived slight to her candidate - unbelievable, considering the bashing Hillary has taken from the MSM.

    Makes you wonder how they'd deal if Obama is the Dem candidate in the GE.

    Parent

    thin skinned (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:00 PM EST
    I think there are real differences between the two camps.

    They are more 'other directed' - they can be influenced by what others think. They have been brainwashed by the years of Clintonbashing, and are really surprised when the media turns on Obama.

    We are more the fine print voters. Show me the details. Explain your plan. Not into gotcha moments. (We went through that with Carter's sweater, Gores sigh etc)

    But since they were toppled by gotcha moments they keep 'sticking a fork in' Hillary thinking that that will (somehow...!) endear us to switching to Obama.

    Sadly its having the opposite effect: it is splitting the party.


    Parent

    I wouldn't be bragging about ... (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    "having had it" with a candidate that essentially half of the democratic constituency support, many very strongly. Its just more arrogance reminiscent of wingnuts from the self-infatuated "top liberal bloggers".

    the so-called top liberal bloggers have disgraced themselves beyond recognition during the Democratic primary, and they've served "progress" very poorly, even negatively.

    A-Blogs will Split Dems for Good (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    Great post and follow up comments. Like many here, I barely visit mydd anymore. Certain bloggers will run front page articles on suspect pro-Obama polls without any analysis. I also don't remember seeing anything on his remarks trashing small towns.

    Those sites banning policies are particularly offensive when compared to this site's suspension policies. Here the moderators recognize that folks can get caught up in the heat of post and need a time out. It's annoying but those are the rules of any business establishment. However, I distinguish permanent bans as something far more insidious because I recognize how quickly political movements can turn totalitarian.

    That's why I foresee a party split after this election. In the past, folks like Reagan Dems and/or Greens -- most regular members as opposed to activists -- just left the party but it continued. Now we see not only activists choosing sides over lack of due process but the whole mess in the party is getting well-publicized to non-activists. The A-List bloggers bans have spun off new aggressive bloggers who are capturing folks hungry for alternative news source since NBC and others went into the tank.

    I used to - and still do - fight with the Greens over leaving. But now I really get it. Even the party's staunch liberals (Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy) have proven themselves too insulated from voter accountability.

    If it happens, the party can thank certain A-List bloggers and their media friends for helping to drive the train off the tracks. But in the long run we may all end up thanking them. Any party that can screw up an election against Mr. 23 -- not to mention the veto losses -- probably deserves to lose and needs to reconfigure.

     

    Splinter may yes, maybe no (none / 0) (#170)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:03:33 AM EST
    political parties are an amalgam of factions. Extremists within the parties are always subject to splintering off to form there own group. They don't get far in the US system because of the winner take all formulation. They are are much influential working within one of the established parties than separating - the Greens are a perfect example of splintering and becoming marginalized. The republican extremists on the hand - neocons, plutocrats, and religious fanatics, instead of splintering, have taken over the party with an uneasy alliance that is fraying.

    Currently, the republican party is shrinking because of the extremism of bush, the neocons, and the religious fanatics. Those former republicans are going somewhere. Many, maybe most are becoming independents. Some no doubt are becoming Democrat or will be voting Democrat putting pressure on the democratic party to move more to the right.

    Parent

    It is a delicious (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    irony that it was the Huffington Post that broke Obama's "bitter Pennsylvanians" comments. Had it been any other blog would they have gotten picked up the MSM?

    I watched Lou Dobbs programme and this was all they covered so I am not sure if this will go away any time soon. If this keeps Obama off message for the better part of next week, then that can't be good for his prospects.

    It isn't so much what he said per se but rather to whom he said this and that and the tone. Most of it flies in the face of what he is actually campaigning on.

    The point I think is that he will make more of this off-hand remarks that reflect his true thinking. From arugula in Iowa last July to these comments in San Francisco of all places, Obama just comes off as out of touch.  

    Obama said the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:35:27 PM EST
    about PA voters that Power said to the Scotsman about Ohio voters: they are scared and uneducated that is the only reason they voted for Clinton.

    Parent
    Yep; I would not be at all surpised (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    to see more past statements emerge, from him, his staff, etc., that might match what we've seen from his supporters on blogs.  They get it from somewhere.

    Parent
    The problem with John's assessment (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    is that they'd "had it with Clinton" since about December.  When they decided they were so pro-Obama, they suddenly "HAD IT WITH CLINTON".  Aravosis went from hating Obama because of the McClurkin(sp) incident to justifying the McClurkin incident.  I thought it was very odd when I saw it, but shrugged it off until he started becoming rabidly anti-Clinton.

    The "had it-ness" had nothing to do with anything she did.  It had more to do with who they became.

    The HAd it ness syndrome is Cognitive Dissonance (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:48:56 PM EST
    Great post at The Left Coaster - Machiaevali described Cognitive Dissonance
    When you do anything that harms someone else -- get them in trouble, verbally abuse them, or punch them out -- a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did.

    Take a boy who goes along with a group of his fellow seventh graders who are taunting and bullying a weaker kid who did them no harm. The boy likes being part of the gang but his heart really isn't in the bullying. later, he feels some dissonance about what he did.

    "How can a decent kid like me," he wonders, "have done such a cruel thing to a nice, innocent little kid like him?"

    To reduce dissonance, he will try to convince himself that the victim is neither nice nor innocent: "He is such a nerd and cry-baby.



    Parent
    I'm surprised that Digby's blog (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    has relatively few hits compared to some of the others.   I consider Digby  to be the best writer around.

    As for Aravosis, I don't know what hit him in the head.  He hasn't been himself since he caught the Obama bug.  

    I love Digby (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    but honestly I don't hit there as much since she herself does not do as much of the posting.  

    Parent
    She's too verbose (none / 0) (#110)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Digby is one of my favorites, but the reason she is not more popular is her posts are soooo long.  It took me a long time to warm up to her (for about a year or so I thought she was a he based on the name Digby) because I would get part way thru a post and decide I just didn't have the time or patience.  I'm glad I persisted and am up to her marathon posts now, but I think that's the exception, not the rule.  

    Parent
    digby and (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by isaac on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    greenwald are our finest writers, i am pleased they havent followed josh, john, et al over the cliff.  at least i can still read atrios who, though i believe is an obama supporter, has not lost his freaking mind

    I started out at Lord Eschaton's and yes... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    ... he has remained sane.

    Avedon Carol is another sane figure.

    http://sideshow.me.uk/

    What causes me tremendous pain is the loss of the media critique. A whole lot of us, not just the A list, but the B list, the C list, thousands of people, and most for nothing, out of commitment to the cause, developed a media critique that really did eat away at the roots of the Bush administration's support.

    And now it's all pissed away because the Boiz all want to be David Broder.

    [Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?]

    Parent

    Atrios for insight -just ask Digby & GG (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    Digby and Greenwald are superb, but Atrios remains the Grand Wizard Blogz.

    Parent
    And it seems to be contagious. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:28:06 PM EST
    When teacherken wrote his spiel about Hillary going too far(Wolcott covered it) that's when I took a good hard look around dk.  Teacherken was someone who appeared to look at all sides of an issue before making a decision and yet it seemed that he had accepted all the wild anti-Hillary accusations as fact.

    It was amazing how fast the pendulum swung too.  When Edwards was still in, it was the pseudo Obama supporters who demanded he drop out.  Then when Edwards suspended his campaign, it waffled for a week or two and then rapidly went anti-Hillary.  All the Hillary bashing did was to make me increasingly uncomfortable.  I thought every one else saw through the over the top rhetoric too.  And then they began to repeat it and the narratives began be accepted as fact.

    Two weeks prior to the OH vote, I knew I was probably going to leave.  Oh, I kept saying I wouldn't, I kept looking for sanity, but it was never there.  So I moved on...almost.  I still visit but always regret it when I read campaign stuff.

    HuffPost - disagree (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by LCaution on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM EST
    Huff was the first site I dropped.  It is dripping, almost non-stop, vicious slime about Hillary from, I'm guessing, 95% of its bloggers and about 99.99% of its commenters.  Just glancing at its headlines is enough to make a thoughtful person sick.

    MyDD - I also dropped some time back for the same reason.

    TNR - which incorrectly identifies itself as a liberal mag has also been down there in the muck for months.

    Jeralyn, you're being way too generous.

    I'm a huffpo refugee too. (none / 0) (#169)
    by MMW on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:57:19 AM EST
    Jeralyn's being way too generous.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    She was referring to the people like her that are columnists there. Not sure if you have heard about Obama's recent gaffe where he called people in PA bitter, but that came out of HuffPo.

    Parent
    It's over, so get over it (1.00 / 2) (#121)
    by oxpecker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:35:01 PM EST
    "Just as TalkLeft, which favors Hillary over Obama, will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Democrats don't give up on each other.

    You apparently haven't been reading the comments on your own blog. When my choice John Edwards dropped out, I took the position either Hillary or Obama would be good presidents and I would happily vote for which one won the primary. By winning, I mean the one who gets the most votes.

    What I've seen from Hillary and her supporters is well beyond sour grapes. It's scorched earth politicking to not only destroy Obama's chance of winning but destruction of the Democratic party. Hillary lost because she thought the nomination was hers and didn't plan to compete after super Tuesday, plain and simple. I hope you folks are happy.

    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:52:19 PM EST
    we're collectively stupid, divisive and engaging in everything possible to ensure Obama's loss in November and with it, the destruction of the Democratic party.

    Do you suppose you can save us from our evil selves or have things gotten beyond all hope?

    Parent

    Actually this response (none / 0) (#129)
    by oxpecker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I made no such derogatory comments about your support for Hillary. I think you are deeply disappointed your candidate is coming up short on votes and unfortunately lost all perspective as to why.

    Parent
    Yes, actually, you were derogatory to us (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    because we're about sour grapes, destroying the party, etc.  So you said.  Your words.  This is what I see too often on other blogs -- people don't even realize, apparently, what they wrote.  Odd.

    Parent
    For an Obaman (none / 0) (#165)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    That's called "telling the truth".

    Dear Obamans,

    I hope Obama tells a lot more truths to a lot more voters.  I hope he lets them know what he really thinks about them.  They'll be ever so grateful.

    Parent

    Your quote: (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    What I've seen from Hillary and her supporters is well beyond sour grapes. It's scorched earth politicking to not only destroy Obama's chance of winning but destruction of the Democratic party.

    Clue for you. The above is considered a derogatory comment in the real world.

    Parent

    I was referring to the (none / 0) (#142)
    by oxpecker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:10 AM EST
    "evil selves" remark.
    Clue for you. The above is considered a derogatory comment in the real world.

    If you consider criticism derogatory, then I guess your right. I tend to think derogatory is a little stronger but that's likely because I don't reside in the real world like you.

    Parent

    Clue for you... (none / 0) (#172)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    'Evil selves' was a reference to the movie Kill Bill

    I suppose it was too much for you to recognize the cultural reference.

    Parent

    irony much? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
    It's not over yet.  If it was over, Obama and his minions wouldn't be dissing us like they are.

    If Hilary "lost" because she thought the nomination was hers, it might be time to tape up Obama's glass house.  That rock is being returned to sender.

    Parent

    sorry, too busy cleaning my gun (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:58:53 PM EST
    and reading the bible to read your garbage.

    Parent
    How many Obama backer's (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:59:48 AM EST
    coming here telling us that we're idiots and need to get behind Obama right this second, does this make?

    Scorched earth politicking?  Sounds like what a campaign would do to make a Former President and current Senator with a history of black voter support appear as racists/race-baiters.  Sounds like what a campaign would do in order to silence the voices of a few million democrat voters in two swing states.  Sounds like what a campaign that wanted to silence the remaining primary states by pressuring superdelegates to force their opponent out of the race prematurely.  Sounds like a campaign that would say "my opponent will do and say anything to win" without a shred of relevant evidence that anything untoward is being done.

    It is always all about you.  You Clinton supporters are ruining my guys chance in the general.  My pal Obama is the light and you dumb Clinton supporters just don't get it.

    But it isn't about you.  It isn't about hating Obama.  It is about getting the right person nominated.  If Obama wins the nomination he won't lose because Hillary stayed in too long...It will be because Obama is a candidate who claims to be for unity as he divides the party..it will be because Obama's powers of unity are only apparent to fifty percent of primary voters and won't be that large in a general.  

    Per another of your gems:  If Hillary wins she didn't steal anything...try learning the rules of the game before you cry foul.

    I know of a few blogs where you can be a welcome parrot.  Go there.  You aren't trying to make a rational argument for Obama, you are trying to pick a fight, trying to justify to yourself that we aren't for Clinton as much as we hate Obama.  95% of the people on this blog, had you read this blog long enough to get a feel for it, have said they will vote for Obama.  Most of those will vote for Obama happily.  Some won't be happy but they will vote for Obama.  Those of us who won't vote for Obama have made our reasons perfectly clear.  

    I am the king of pessimism.  Most of my friends and family can't stand the depths of my pessimism.  But unlike you I am pessimistic only after I know the facts.  You are pessimistic out of spite.  If McCain wins he will not be like Bush or worse than Bush.  I know this because he has been a moderate politician his entire life--by his votes.  If McCain wins it isn't the end of the democrat party.  I know this because I'm not an irrational moron grasping at straws.

    If Dems lose in Nov you blame the right people--the DNC, Howard Dean, MSNBC, Jeremiah Wright, and all the GOP spinners.

    But on the bright side...If Hillary wins the nomination the Dems will win in Nov.  

    Parent

    Have your read the comments at Kos and (none / 0) (#122)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:45:47 PM EST
    TPM? They are much worse. And Talkleft will support Obama. Holding the media accountable is not being anti-Obama except on the Obama blogs.

    Parent
    I'm sorry but (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oxpecker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57:13 PM EST
    Obama didn't start this. Most of the people at Kos or TPM, I suspect are like me-willing to support either as the nominee. The triangulating with the GOP by Hillary and others to attack Obama is what is enraging to so many progressives. It is unforgivable
    and utterly destructive to our chances of winning in November. Like I said, Hillary lost this from poor planning and a sense of entitlement to the Presidency. Whining about the media won't change that fact.

    Parent
    you should tell Obama to drop out (none / 0) (#127)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    now before he makes himself even more unelectable.

    Parent
    WTF? (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:31:25 AM EST
    Obama didn't start this.
    That is nuts. He made the gaffe, and it is wholly his responsibility for what comes of it.

    To suggest that it is Clintons fault is deluded.  

    Parent

    I was speaking of the general (none / 0) (#149)
    by oxpecker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:46:04 AM EST
    war between the Obama and Clinton camps. Of course Obama is responsible for what he says. Having HC parrot wingnut talking points on his remarks is another matter though.

    Parent
    Gee (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:45:33 AM EST
    did you protest this much when Obama used right wing talking points reminiscent of the Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s to attack Clinon's health care plan? I'll bet you didn't! Did you protest this much when Obama used right wing talking points suggesting that Hillary was sooo polarizing, sooo divisive (only she obviously isn't so bad given that he cannot seem to put her away even with the media bashing her on a daily basis on his behalf)? Did you protest this much when Obama praised Reagan and when he continually takes shot at DEMOCRATIC president Bill Clinton?

    If not, please, stop with the hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Well I did. (none / 0) (#183)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
    I'm an avid Paul Krugman reader, and Obama's attacks on Hillary's health care were, together with his disconcerting habit of throwing the left wing under the bus to prove his unity bonafides, were enough to persuade me to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, despite her vote on the AUMF. Hillary Clinton's tactics since then have been enough to push me back.

    Parent
    sorry ot Hillary on Live (none / 0) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:23:28 PM EST
    CNN, she's talking real life and making funny, people are laughing....

    She was imitating Jack Nicholson...

    She is funny! (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    Hillary Impersonates Jack Nicholson in Indiana

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=AP5qH2T7Ses

    Parent

    Check out this one (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:53:54 AM EST
    on Obama, all hat, no cattle, just words. It's pretty good.

    Parent
    Just words! nuff said n/t (none / 0) (#161)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:03:06 AM EST
    That was funny! (none / 0) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    I don't know what is the matter with people that they can't appreciate that.  She was responding to the guy in the crowd... (I thought he said Real men vote Hillary, but did he say 'I love you?)... he had the sign and she responded with the story. Not staged, just a funny moment.

    Parent
    snark snark (1.00 / 2) (#106)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:15:51 PM EST
    damn snark snark, in context, she just said any man was no real snarking man if they vote for Obama. That snarks me.  You like that game?? Both sides can play it.

    Parent
    yah (none / 0) (#27)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    that was a terrible impression and the 'real men vote for Clinton' line was somewhat condescending to any men who are thinking of voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Yeah the laughter (none / 0) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    was very unfortunate.  snark That guy that yelled out 'Real men vote for Clinton' you know that guy that was waving the sign that said 'Real men vote for Clinton'  yeah him... I'm sure he felt very condescended to when Clinton shared the story of Nicholson calling in to the radio and saying 'Real men vote for Clinton.'  I don't know how Clinton could have been to bring that story up in response to a man yelling 'Real man vote for Clinton.' snark  She's so out of touch. snark

    I'm sure all of the laughter was real discouraging to the crowd.  snark All that laughter must have been a real downer. snark Real bummer. snark

    Parent

    HA (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    -snark- yup you know, talking about marginalizing and condescending segments of the population is alright as long as you only do it to the snark white man, snark, yup that makes it ok, snark yup, focus snark groups say we can dissemble anything snark to make it all ok, why cuz snark, why? cuz we dont have any excuse for it other than injecting snark snark snark in to the conversation, yet pot and snark kettle mean nothing snark snark snark MI FL snark....LOL thank for the laugh no snark....

    Parent
    Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    said "Yeah, I'm pretty much at the same place. There are already an awful lot of reasons for me not to bother defending Hillary even tepidly, and I hardly need another one. She's been voted off the island. It's time for her to go."

    For me, that means he "has had it with Clinton" too.

    Mr. Drum (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    Is effectively voting her supporters off the island too.


    Parent
    Think that was a moment of pique n/t (none / 0) (#33)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    I dunno (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    I call it my "Do the (W)right thing" credo: I don't stay on blogs that are overwhelmed by nasty Obama supporters (or I should say Obama supporters who are nasty).

    I hate to say it, but--I'm too old for that crap.

    Parent

    I know exactly what you mean, but (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    I prefer to think that thee and me, Kathy, are too . . . um . . . mature for that manure. :-)

    Parent
    Pique, yes (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:28:45 AM EST
    He's walked that back. Kevin is still rational and will still listen to a good argument.  My sense is he's genuinely conflicted still.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#24)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:40:52 PM EST
    glad you're going to vote for whomever wins the nomination, unfortunately it seems a lot of your readers say they wont...unless Clinton takes it...

    I don't know if I would vote for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    but he certainly can't take my vote for granted.  I'm taking Michelle's advice and considering his "tone".  So far, I'm underwhelmed.

    Parent
    Painting us as bitter losers isn't that helpful. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    This isn't about Hillary. It's about perceived faults in Obama. I can understand why some people would be opposed to voting for him. No politician is perfect, but he has done some highly dubious, nasty and ignorant things during this campaign season that will leave impressions in the electorate.

    I didn't realize that voting your conscience was such an awful thing.

    Parent

    Tell me what he's done to win me (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    as a woman and typical white person and Midwesterner.  I don't have guns, but I do go to church.  And I only was bitter about the 2000 election and Bush . . . until now and Obama.

    I am a woman for detail, and he hasn't reached me yet with any of his promises.  So tell me what I'm missing that he has done to win me, when all he and his supporters do is diss me?

    Parent

    He's not asking for your vote (none / 0) (#100)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:51:42 PM EST
    because he doesn't think it needs it.

    Parent
    if you read (none / 0) (#105)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    BTD it doesn't matter, its about a democrat beating the rebub...regardless of your nomination fetish.

    Parent
    Read him, don't agree with him (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
    because of the reason he backs Obama -- again, politics rather than policies.  

    Not how I pick my presidents.  So I want to know why I ought to vote for Obama.  I watch, I read -- a lot -- but still just keep finding points upon which we disagree.  I have been voting Dem for decades, often not for my first pick, but never had this much of a difference before with a Dem candidate.  (So I also have to wonder how much of a Dem candidate he is.)

    Parent

    Wow. Is that number (none / 0) (#48)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    the amount of money they make with one ad running?
    Is that a month? or by hits?

    Take care, all! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    I'm out for now. Thanks for the excellent discussion on the state of progressive blogs vis-a-vis Clinton 'tolerance.'

    Great work, Jeralyn.

    :)

    Shout Out For A Blog (none / 0) (#57)
    by gabbyone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    I may have missed a reference to this as I
    read through the comments but in case anyone
    hasn't found it http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
    really does a great job defending Hillary.
    Their articles are well researched and I am
    convinced they work 24/7 because there always seems to be something new.  I actually found this site because it was mentioned on that site.

    I enjoy No Quarter (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:33:06 PM EST
    in a preaching to the choir kind of way.  Same with Taylor Marsh.  It's nice to go somewhere and be completely validated.  I watch the news and read the papers and I think, "holy crap, I'm the only Clinton supporter in the world!"  And then I go to those places--and TL (probably more than TL would like!)--and I feel like I am sane again.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    When I get down with BTD and Jeralyn's reality checks, I go there for boosterism.  But you have to sort of watch what the sources etc are.  it's more like an injection.  

    Parent
    I go to (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:13:00 AM EST
    No Quarter when I get so angry that I know my comments here would be banned. Here I have to act like the mature and sensible woman I pretend to be. (AKA one very pyst-off old lady)

    Over there I can rant to my heart's content and vent the outrage I can no longer contain.

    I have deleted so many blogs that were once daily reading that it really makes me sad. I once thought these people were progressive and believed in all the things that are important to me. Unfortunately I learned that they do not.

    In my world a Fauxgressive, is no better than a Republican. They just claim to be.

    And sorry but if blogs lie and spin about another Democrat why on earth should I care what they say about McCain? A liar and a spinner has no credibility. Not to me anyway.

    Parent

    i go to noquarter (none / 0) (#177)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    to read both of your comments there, too!

    Parent
    what exactly is he (none / 0) (#81)
    by isaac on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    saying, that because these top bloggers have 'had it' with hillary, their readers have too?  sounds like arrogance isnt limited to obama.  they have become the thing they set out to destroy.  sad

    A more interesting question (none / 0) (#83)
    by faux facsimile on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    "Just as TalkLeft, which favors Hillary over Obama, will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Democrats don't give up on each other."

    This would make a great poll question for the readership here (well, and elsewhere too obviously).  Concerning online partisans I suspect there's plenty of hate to go around.

    Meh. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    I wish that Obama would get a few clue-by-fours if he's going to be the Dem candidate.  Right now he seems to believe his own publicity and rhetoric which is not a good thing.

    A good stiff dose of reality is a wonderful thing or else we may end up with Barack "Stay the Course" Obama.

    Parent

    Anti Hillary blogs!!! (none / 0) (#84)
    by SoCalDem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    I was reading at No Quarter and just wanted to see how the other blogs were talking about Obama's blunder. So I went to democratic underground to see what their thoughts might be about the subject. God Lord who would have imagined that Obama was speaking truth to power. Who are these people?? What truth?? I'm still trying to figure out what they think he said. Could someone W.O.R.M. for me so I can see the light?

    they think he said (none / 0) (#119)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM EST
    people in PA, OH, MI, and all other working class voters who seem to favor Hillary are STUPID...and they agree because they too are highly educated and know what is best for their working class neighbors.

    Parent
    Left Bogosphere turned into Irony (none / 0) (#111)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM EST
    its the height of irony that the so-called "top liberal bloggers" think of themselves as serious journalists and rail against actual paid journalists for their personal biases and trivializing of news and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Tuens out the "top liberal bloggers" are a freak show and a joke.

    So you are for Hillary , Oxpecker? (none / 0) (#128)
    by tdraicer on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    >By winning, I mean the one who gets the most votes.

    There is a very good chance that will be Hillary.
    Welcome aboard.

    Sure, I'll vote for Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by oxpecker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    if she winds up with the most votes. But I suspect you mean super delegates over turning the actual votes. In which case, I wouldn't vote for a thief.

    Parent
    The most popular votes? Neither will get (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:18:11 PM EST
    enough delegates without the supers.

    Parent
    If the Super's (none / 0) (#138)
    by oxpecker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:48:47 PM EST
    were to overturn (and they won't) the will of the voters, then the Democratic party will be permanently divided and MCcain will win the election and the dems may well lose the congress too. Is that what you want?

    Parent
    What if they overturn the popular vote if (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:15:17 AM EST
    Hillary goes ahead? That wouldn't sit too well with many either. If Obama has the delegate lead and the popular vote, I think they will vote for him.

    As far as down ticket...look at Obama supporters in Texas. Many and I mean many, of them voted for Obama and left the rest of the ballot blank. Clinton voters didn't. He needs to want people to vote for the Democratic party as well as for him.

    Parent

    Speaking from experience (none / 0) (#148)
    by jussumbody on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:25 AM EST
    in my extremely Republican precints, most of those Obama voters at the caucuses were Republicans who only voted for Obama because they are Faux News watching Clinton Derangement Syndrome sufferers.  Of course they had no interest in the down ballot races.

    I suspect Oxpecker is just such a person.  But maybe he really is just an Obamabot who thinks the same way.  I don't know how Obama losing will permanently divide the Democratic party.  Maybe that's what he and the Republicans are hoping for.  They don't seem too concerned about Hillary supporters feeling "permanently" alienated from the party in the event of an Obama victory.  We should just be good sports and throw in the towel when there is still time on the clock, otherwise it's just "sour grapes".

    I don't know which candidate the Republicans think is more beatable (I don't think McCain can beat either one).  But I definitely think they know they can hamstring Obama a lot more easily than Clinton once they lose the WH.  Obama will magnanimously pardon all the implacable repulbicans out of his spirit of bipartisanship, and they will reward him with a special prosecutor within 6 months.  He's already offered a plan for health care reform that will do nothing, and he offered to "reform" social security so the Republicans wouldn't have to revived that hot potato issue themselves.

    I'll probably have to vote for him, but I just want to go on the record now, cuz I can feel a fit of "I told you so"'s coming on already.

    Parent

    it's not just the super delegates (none / 0) (#141)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM EST
    but the voters of PA, KY, WV, IN, SD, MT, PR will certainly have a say.

    But your sense of reality and mine don't comport to anything similar so what is your point here?

    Again I ask...are you here because in all your wisdom, you are trying to save us from our evil selves?

    Parent

    I could care less (none / 0) (#144)
    by oxpecker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    about you. I am concerned about the election and the democratic party. The hatred, hysteria and detachment from realty is sad to say the least. Maybe you should do the party a favor and just leave and start your own. You could call yourself Hillocrats and caucus with your new wingnut BFF's . Now that is derogatory.

    Parent
    Does this include (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    superdelegates who vote for Obama even though their states' Dem. voters voted for Clinton, like, say, Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson?

    Just askin'.


    Parent

    Overturning? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:19:36 PM EST
    Read the DNC roolz.  That's not what super-d's do.

    Parent
    Will you call Obama a "thief" (none / 0) (#132)
    by jussumbody on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    if he wins by superdelegates?  What then?  Will you vote for McCain?

    Parent
    i'm not worried about it, (none / 0) (#158)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:07:00 AM EST
    Will you call Obama a "thief" if he wins by superdelegates?  What then?  Will you vote for McCain?

    because sen. obama is getting ready to get his cleats cleaned by sen. clinton in the remaining primaries, all of them. it won't be an issue.

    trend lines show he's on a downward spiral, quickly reaching terminal velocity. by this time next month, it'll be "obama who?".

    he's peaked and it's basically all over for him but the shouting.

    I wish that were the case (none / 0) (#171)
    by jussumbody on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    I think the trend is toward Hill right now, but I'm not confident she can make up all that ground.  That said, I'm tired of the little gotcha's on Obama's gaffes and his a**hole preacher.  I couldn't care less, although I know the R's and the MSM will make hay with it once he's sealed the nomination.  That's a nice game for the Republicans to play, and we should be mindful of his weaknesses on that front, but Obama is weaker on many more substantive policy areas, and it would be nice if the national discussion actually became serious for a few days a month.

    Both Hillary and Obama are timid fence sitters.  I guess it was too much to hope they would show some sort of leadership while they were in the primary campaigns.  I'm just praying that after the last primary they both come out fighting Bush, McCain and the Bushdog surrendermonkey Dems to actually show us they intend to hold the criminals accountable and uphold the constitution come January.

    Parent

    The best revenge is living well. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talktruth on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    As Obama's campaign swirls clockwise (or is it counterclockwise?), his followers will need help with their transition.  Here are some guidelines from www.helium.com:

    MEMBERS WHO LEAVE MAY FEEL

    LOST. Cults provide a sense of purpose which former members may find difficult to replace. However, the search for new meaning can be exciting and rewarding. It may help to get back in touch with pre-cult interests.

    LONELY. Cults provide instant fellowship, which fades away just as quickly. Former members may need to lower expectations from new relationships, and learn to exercise a measure of trust.

    INSECURE. Cults may undermine a member's self-esteem in order to promote emotional dependence. Former members need assurance of their intrinsic self-worth, in a realistic perspective.

    GUILTY. Ex-members may have developed a guilt complex while in the cult, or later blame themselves for joining. They will need to find a balance between self-foregiveness and taking responsibility for actions.

    ANGRY. Anger at the cult is a normal reaction, but it should not be allowed to result in loss of self-control or pointless revenge. Instead, anger can be channeled into a desire to recover. The best revenge is living well.

    ANXIOUS. Ex-members will have concerns about rebuilding their lives, and some may fear reprisals from the cult. A change of address may help with security concerns. Rebuilding is a gradual process, making a to-do' list and ticking off each accomplishment helps to give a sense of progress.

    DEPRESSED. Depression is often the result of unresolved feelings such as those above. Identifying and tackling the causes will aid long-term recovery. In the short-term, a proper diet, adequate sleep, regular exercise, and opportunities to talk to someone all help.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/585ok2