How Not To Unify The Party

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Our friend Markos approvingly quotes this offensive comment:

It's bizarre, but I don't really consider [Hillary Clinton] a Dem any more.

It is bizarre that any Dem who wants to win in November with a unified Party would quote that approvingly. For the record, would "not a Dem" say this?

Obviously, we are still contesting to determine who will be the nominee. But once that is resolved, I think it is absolutely imperative that our entire party close ranks. That we become unified. I will do everything to make sure that the people who supported me support our nominee. I will go anywhere in the country to make the case. And I know that Barack feels the same way because both of us have spent 15 months traveling our country. I have seen the damage of the Bush years. I've seen the extraordinary pain that people have suffered from because of the failed policies. You know, those who have held my hands who've lost sons or daughters in Iraq. And those who have lost sons or daughters because they didn't have health insurance. And so, regardless of the differences there may be between us, and there are differences, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and Senator McCain. So, we will certainly do whatever is necessary to make sure that a Democrat is in the White House next January.

(Emphasis supplied.) I wonder who the real Dems are. The ones who say they will unify the Party or the ones intent on destroying Hillary Clinton. Some people need to take a real hard look in the mirror. I do not think that the Some people are Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Get a grip, "Creative Class."

Update [2008-4-17 11:49:54 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Unity Schitck last night:

I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas. I think that there are a lot of thoughtful Republicans out there. The problem is, we've been locked in a divided politics for so long that we've stopped listening to each other. And I think that this president, in particular, has fed those divisions. That's something that we've tried to end in this campaign. And I think we're being successful.

No, not exactly a Fighting Dem. But still a Dem.

< Boehlert's Revenge: Part II | Great News For Clinton: Zogby Says PA Tied >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah, and Reagan Republican (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    Markos is a great choice for arbiter of Dem credentials.

    As Colbert might say (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    Kos is Democraty.

    Hillary is on Colbert tonight (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    Democratiness personified? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    Except I don't thinks he sounds Democratty.  Maybe if I adjusted the spelling a little...?

    Thank you who says Markos is a Dem (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    Obama co dependent maybe.

    Who died and made a former GOP (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    voter the arbiter of Democraticness?

    I am left (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    wondering exactly what was checked at the gate.

    Heh, exmilitary Republican voter ;) (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    The Rev Wright served too. (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    I feel I should thank them both for their service - but that's all I'll thank them for.

    I didn't know that about Wright (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    Military service seems to nourish the fanatical in a personality ;)  I say this with much love as my husband can end his lecture now about locking all the doors when the house is empty and I leave one unlocked when I give him the cut off sign.

    Heh... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    I'm constantly leaving my keys in the front door.

    That's funny (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    because I don't really consier Markos a Dem and haven't for a long time....in fact, I'd call him a "fauxgressive".

    Markos, maybe you don't consider her a Dem because you've redefined what a Dem is?  And if she isn't a Dem and you are, Markos, then why is she getting the Dem core voters, the ones who vote Dem consistently, and your candidate is getting the rest?

    i don't agree with the Kos comment.... (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    but I have seen TL posters call Obama again and again "not a dem".  or worse, a republican.  not once have i seen anyone call a poster on that.  

    it seems ironic given the response now.  


    Do you see BTD or Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    say that Obama is not a Dem?
    What occurs in the COMMENTS of Orangistan is far worse, as you well know.

    I call him not a Dem (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    and he deserves it.  Constantly bashes President Clinton and praises Reagan and Bush Sr.  Talks about the war on poverty as excesses.  Puts down the "culture wars", choice, gay rights. To me, he is not a Democrat.  

    interesting... (1.00 / 4) (#76)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    then i wouldn't get bent out of shape re: Kos comment.

    You guys are both ridiculous.  


    Please don't name call N/T (none / 0) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM EST
    i meant (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    being ridiculous.  apology.  

    I am not a premiere league blogger (none / 0) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    I am just who I am.  Mr. Kos, has responsibilities.  

    No he doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    He's just a blogger.

    That's his excuse.

    A wise man once said "In dreams begin responsibilities."

    The Obama movement wants the fulfillment of a dream (and really it's not even a dream, it's just what they're selling), but they don't want any of the responsibility.

    Look at the way they dealt with Lamont losing.

    It will always be someone else's responsibility.

    He's just a guy with a blog.

    It's like Bush saying I'm just a guy clearing brush.


    Well since in another comment you (none / 0) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    say that independents are making him a winner.  Why worry if someone doubts his Democratic credentials?  You worry me sometimes are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.  Question, are you a Democrat or an Independent?

    independent democrat (none / 0) (#98)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:45:54 AM EST

    ah, just like Liebermen then (n/t) (none / 0) (#138)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    My thought exactly. :-) (none / 0) (#152)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    what? (none / 0) (#99)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Talks about the war on poverty as excesses.  Puts down the "culture wars", choice, gay rights

    so he's put down choice and gay rights now... you guys really have to stop pushing this crap or someone might believe it.  



    he's a dangerous dem (none / 0) (#147)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:19:26 AM EST
    to post or not to post...

    i think maybe he's just a dangerous dem:

    social security (2042 seems like tomorrow!)
    clinton so bad (i had economic hope back then)
    flag pin (seriously???)
    SF mayor too close (sorry gays...and people with good hair)
    SF liberal image (when he [snark] takes the backdoor entrance at the getty house and gives the billionaires a good rimming)

    very dangerous dem that wastes political capital on stupid stuff.

    tosses gays under the bus, disses rural folks (holla, appa latch a), and totally screws the pooch on major policy talking points.  



    Gavin Newsom (none / 0) (#179)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    I love the Gav and he has a lot of positive attributes.  But good hair is not one of them.

    Does it? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    Then you are an idiot.

    Have you seen me say Obama is not a Dem?

    I repeat, then you must be an idiot.


    easy BTD (none / 0) (#96)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    I meant the community of posters.  not you.  relax; i really wasnot talking about you/jeralyn.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    Your comment is idiotic. I rebuked Kos. You responded to MY post.

    have you called the other posters (none / 0) (#130)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    idiots (thanks) as they've continually called Obama anything but a dem (even in this thread).  no.

    That is not the point (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    You can call them idiots as far as I am concerned. The point is my POSt is about what Kos did, not what some silly commenter did.

    There are no personal attacks allowed on (none / 0) (#191)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    TalkLeft. You are suspended for the rest of the day. Comment no further.

    I don't think I can avoid (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    personally insulting him for saying that, so I'll avoid comment.

    To be fair... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    I don't consider Markos a Dem anymore. I'm not sure he ever really converted from being a Republican in his heart. He certainly doesn't act like a Dem - he wants to tear down the Democratic Party (Crash the Gates) and put a different party in it's place, as opposed to making minor changes to improve it.

    It's amazing who aren't Dems anymore: (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by magster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    Kos, AmericaBlog, TPM, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olberman, Chris Bowers/Matt Stoller, MoveOn, Blue Majority.

    It's a good thing Charles Gibson stood up for Dem values last night.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    and 70% of Americans supported the Iraq War when it started and it was a media darling too.

    Did that make it the right thing?

    Popularity is not judgment.


    I don't know about the others but, (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    Arianna Huffington is not a Democrat.

    No. No. No. (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    Supporting Obama, or even attacking Clinton, doesn't make people "Not Democrat".  Markos has been doing a lot more than that. He has been promoting a vision of the Demoratic Party that is at odds with the values and beliefs of most Democrats. Sort of a libertarian/Republican hybrid with a few Democratic ideas thrown in. Have you read what he says about Dems? He doesn't like them much.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    Did you tell Kos what you thought?

    No you did come to tell us though.


    Did Hillary post here? (none / 0) (#206)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    What do you mean?

    who is or isn't a dem (none / 0) (#200)
    by moll on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    I think there are two Democratic parties - what has been described as the Stevenson and the Truman Democrats.

    And both apparently suddenly getting sick of the other, or at least fighting for control of the party.


    Actually (none / 0) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:09:43 PM EST
    moll is right.  A big part of this is a fratricidal war. A serious fratricidal war with potential devastating consequences.

    I believe that there was a basic overconfidence coming into 2008; that it was our year, a slam dunk. A time when fighting it out for control would be no problem because 2008 would be soooo easy.

    Looking back to early fall or late summer 2007 it should have been apparent that the battle had been joined. Some people saw it.  Many didn't recognize it immediately (myself included) but it's unmistakable now and it's certainly possible that the war will blow the whole thing.

    Right now I'm pissed off at any number of establishment Democrats (Dean, Brazile, Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, et al) and wonder what future the party has if these people prevail.


    Arianna was a Repug (none / 0) (#209)
    by ginamc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    until recently.. I'm confused about her.  Flash back 10 years ago -- she was one of the main anti-Bill surrogates during Monicagate.  Then, she popped up claiming to be a Progressive.  Seriously, when did her transformation to being a Democrat occur?

    I've been a Democrat all of my life, born into a Demo family.  I'm a Hill delegate to my Texas State Convention, and I'm really furious because I'm feeling like my Party is being hijacked by the college kids and the fauxgressives, Independents and Obamacans.


    I'd also mention (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Nasarius on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    That his attitude towards women and feminism is terrible. I wasn't there for the "pie fight", but there were several other incidents. The one that comes to mind right now is Kos expressing utter disdain for a blogger who had received graphic death threats.

    I really don't mean to say that's why he's anti-Hillary or anything. But the notion that he's a liberal or "progressive" is laughable.


    Oh, that. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    It wasn't his fauz pas.  It was his resistance to apologizing for his misstep, despite pretty much the entire community insisting that he did indeed screw up and that an apology was the right and proper thing to do.  Reminds me of Obama.

    [Part X of Fabian's Advice for Newbies - Manners count.  Saying "Please" "Thank you" "Please explain" and "I'm sorry" go a long way towards earning others' goodwill.]


    I tell you (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    clockwork orange gangs, but they use keyboards instead of boots.  

    Trusted party operatives (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    Sitting at their keyboards with talking points being text messaged to them. Each is assigned a blog or series of blogs, and they log on under different names and post the talking points. Last night the point was "the media are attacking Obama unfairly - attack ABC".  It started long before the debate ended and by the time regular people had gone on-line to see what the reaction to the debate was the comments threads were packed with people decrying the unfairness of it all and providing phone numbers to call and complain. It's disgustingly easy to manipulate public opinion. Just plant enough seeds - people tend to go along with the majority.

    Some read the polls, I also read the trolls (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    This astro-trolling is so lame. Bad enough that TeamO has totally dropped all pretense of actively showing what this much hyped "new" politics is.

    The campaign has settled into a pattern of egregiously worse politics than before, wrapped in stitched together phrases from far, far better leader and even resorting to trolling to stop discussions and rote-clutter them to shut down the comments. (To the clutterbucks, what's so d@mn dangerous about people for or against exchanging news and views that aren't all about swooning before their guy?)

    Astro-trolling accomplishes nothing, doesn't fool anyone, and, as far as adding even a few unintended hoots to a thread, falls short of the mark.

    Even the concern trolls who try to blend in fall far short of the mark, though I do admit to a weird enjoyment of seeing what transparently ridiculous ploy is in the works when they attempt to use cunning stealth.

    Since they're not particularly bright, it's like being followed around by rustling rosebushes teetering on human feet wearing black chucks. And when you stop suddenly and whirl around and demand to know if the rosebushes are following you, they all say, "No!" "No way, not me" "Unh-uhhh, no!" except that one rosebush that's singing along with "I don't wanna go to rehab, uh-baby, uh-no no nooooo!"

    I do admit a personal fondness for the concern trolls that show up in a concern gaggle, bearing what are supposed to be confidence-eroding polls so devastating, they're sure to act like kryptonite to sap SuperHill of her superpowers. And zowie, each member of the gaggle is mysteriously armed with, like, a totally different negative poll so it looks totally casual and natural!

    Apparently the refrain for HRC to drop out before PA wasn't going anywhere -- despite logic as bracing as Aw come on. Oh you're mean -- so thankfully that stopped. The "insurmountable lead" baloney is also, thankfully, off the the strategery menu, since it didn't result in HRC doing TeamO a huuuuuge PR favor and dropping out before PA. (In passing, bwaaahahahaha; the gang has to deal with so many issues that would have "solved".)


    This is exactly (5.00 / 14) (#8)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    my problem with Obama.

    He is dangerous to the Democratic brand.

    No praise for Carter. No praise for Clinton. No praise for FDR, LBJ or JFK.

    This is our moment in history, to make our positive case that we are the party of the people. Everyone hates Bush and Republicans.

    America is partisan for a reason. The two parties are fundamentally different and their policies have different effects on the middle and working classes.  

    Instead, Obama is blathering about how everyone hates government in general and how only he, post-partisan Magic Man, can save us from ourselves.

    He is a mind-blowingly bad candidate for the Democratic Party. He absolutely cannot be our nominee.

    He really should (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    run on a third party ticket if he wants his own brand.  I know, I know, third party bad.

    However, I think the only way to get out of this Democratic/Republican mess the country is in is if third parties become truly viable.  At present our two parties aren't really answerable to voters.  When threatened, all they have to do is put up the specter of the other side (e.g. Roe) to whip people in line to continue to vote for them.  Cause where else would they go?

    Third party is the only thing I can think of that would really solve things...but it's a long term solution and most people don't have patience for that.


    He can get in office (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    and then drop his D and become an independent.  That would do a lot for the independent movement.  So I put this on him with no evidence he believes in it or would do it, but it's pretty much the same of any issue associated with me for him.   I am so sick of Dems right now.  If I voted my personal economic interests, I would vote Republican, but some issues are important to me (like health care as a human right).  We will have democratic leadership that doesn't see this as a priority and then we will see the party in control flip... now another 16 years with no health care as a human right.  sad.

    3rd Parties Dilute the Vote (none / 0) (#45)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    Never forget how Nadar's 2000 campaign paved the road to Bush's victory.

    Yes but long-term, (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    I think we must begin to go towards a more multi-party solution in America, as most other democracies have done, and to eventually embrace proportional representation.

    Public financing for elections would make many parties much more viable, and if the extreme left and extreme right were able to form their own parties, they would not be able to hijack the two main parties. We also wouldn't have to worry so much about "electability," because the parties would be clearly delineated and so would their beliefs and platforms.

    Imagine if Raygun didn't allow the religious right wackos into the Republican Party, for example, and we had proportional representation. The wingnuts would make up about 20 percent of Congress, rather than actually ruling as a majority for so many years.


    three party (none / 0) (#201)
    by moll on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    The only way you're going to get three parties in the USA is to change the way votes are counted.

    If the system stayed the same, then a third party would just take the place of one of the two while the newly-replaced party would die. That's how it has always happened. You'd have to change the winner takes all to a proportional system (where if you get 12% of the vote you get 12% representation) before you get a multi-party system. And I understand they have their own problems!

    The one reform I think would do the most to fix the problem is to revive the idea of defined and enforced fairness in the media. If the voters had access to good information, instead of having the information and the advertising mixed up so you can't tell what was what, that would be a great help.


    I'm tired of that rationale (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    Nadar didn't cost Gore the election -- Gore should have gotten more votes and I mean that to apply to FL in that it should not have been that close for W & the USSC to "steal" it.  People have every right to vote for a 3rd party candidate without being dismissed as "diluting the vote."  If the Dems want to win (which I am beginning to doubt since Gore, Kerry and now Obama) then they have to earn the votes to do it -- not blame the "low information voters" or the rubes or the Nadars.  Earn the votes, dangit -- and that includes fighting back when the GOP start their hit job.  Remember how Kerry didn't think the swiftboat lies deserved a response? Poor Dems, always bring a knife to a gun fight.

    It's Not A Rational (none / 0) (#188)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    It's what happened.

    This is the very argument that Somerby (none / 0) (#208)
    by gish720 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    rails against...the idea that Gore ran a bad campaign or that the right wing snuffed Gore out.  While the Republicans did have talking points, these talking points were channeled by the MSN all through Gore's White House run and in effect the The New York Times and the Washington Post chose our President for us. Kit Seele and Ceci Connolly two of the worst perps had narritives that were false and painted Gore as a liar which was rich considering the fact that THEY were the ones who were constantly lying.  It's a travesty Chris Matthews still plays this game against Clinton to this day as well as Keith Oblermann who's relatively new to the game.

    So what happens when a person sees (none / 0) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    no difference between both candidates in the GE?

    One gets a thorough checkup... (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    ...vision, hearing, neurological, IQ test/retest...

    Well, maybe (none / 0) (#180)
    by alsace on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    not "no difference," but perhaps a similar measure of undesirability, in different areas.  

    True third parties (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31:21 AM EST
    wouldn't dilute the vote but would themselves have a chance of winning.  WEAK third parties (spoilers) dilute the vote.

    Hating Government (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    Is a Republican value.

    Of course during his administration he will teach us all to love the government.


    He will "transcend" our hatred!!1111!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    Edgar 08 #32 (none / 0) (#167)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    Can you explain to me when it became all right for a Democratic candidate to insult, dismiss, and debase previous Democratic Administrations? I thought that was a big no-no. It's not as if we have much to celebrate over the past 40 years so I wonder why any Democrat would want to demean a popular former Democratic President.

    If Bill's campaigning for Hillary bothers them, wouldn't it have been better, and smarter, to just laugh it off by saying something like "of course Bill thinks Hillary is the better candidate, show me a husband brave enough to say otherwise", or some such nonsense. Or am I being hopelessly naïve?


    It became alright when (none / 0) (#193)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    Hillary had the "audacity" to hope she still had a chance for the nomination, and therefore refused to crawl under a rock and die.

    And all those new voters (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    that he's "bringing in to the party-"-what are they taking away from all this? How are they learning to talk about Democratic candidates and Democratic ideals? His constant putdowns of Dems and praise of R's is telling them:

    -Democrats are bad,

    -Republicans are better,

    -Vote for the Democrat who's most like a Republican.

    How anyone can see that as party-building is beyond me.


    The younger voters (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    are not reacting to his message, they're reacting to his marketing.


    They don't even realize what they're nodding their heads to.


    There's a unity (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Lahdee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    statement if I ever saw one. I guess those who support Senator Clinton are not Democrats also?

    re: (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Double Standard on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    That thread is pathetic.  It baffles my mind to understand how people can be so bias and so blind to the actual truth.  I understand some bias is natural and there will be a natural inclination to defend one's candidate, but COME ON!!!

    Luckily, those people are the extreme left and they are not close to representative of Democrats as a whole.

    sorry...not extreme left (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    The extreme left has no interest in Obama or these Kos people.  These guys are Nouveau Dems.  Libertarians, who hate the war and have no political party and have glommed on to the Democratic party.  

    You know what Stellaaaa (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    I can't call them Libertarians.  I have an extremely large Libertarian streak that according to Kos comes out of the West.  He wrote that once and the shoe fit and I agreed with him mucho on that.  Libertarians though don't care for all this religious and faith stuff that comes glued to Obama.  We are all about to each his own but don't be shoving your own in my face.  I disagree with them on so many things I can't attribute this Obama thing to Libertarian streaks.

    Stand corrected (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    there is this streak of laissez fairism, about "other people" that I call libertarian as an easy marker, maybe it's wrong.  

    Actually they are not the extreme left. (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:01:08 AM EST
    The real extreme left would not back a candidate that praises Reagan and dumps on Carter.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#194)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    a candidate who wants "universal" health care that allows healthy young people to opt out of the system and therefore keep premiums higher.

    They aren' t the extreme left though (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    to reply to you and the others above... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Double Standard on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    I actually was going to take extreme left out and replace it with something like extreme Obama partisans, but got lazy and left it as is...they're extreme something, but democrats they are not.

    That I heartily agree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    Extremely something that I can't quite define.

    Xtreme Politics! (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    Coming soon to a pundit near you!

    Obama on past presidents (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:58:14 AM EST
    Gee, only George Bush.  Wow, first how ungracious second what a coward to not bring up Carter.  Heh, what about Gore, he was VP.  

    Yes, and isn't it amusing (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:59:20 AM EST
    that people say that we have to vote for him if he's the nominee because he would uphold Democratic principles!

    Hey what about President Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    I almost broke my TV when he skipped over the DEMOCRATIC president.



    First thing I read this morning (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:58:55 AM EST
    What a total load of the worst sort of bull.  He might as well throw a women's studies comment on top of it.  I'm so sick of his crud anymore.  That boy's cheese (and I say boy because he is acting extremely immature) has slipped off his cracker!

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    Orangistan has really jumped the shark now.

    You say that now.... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    but just wait.  I'm sure there are more sharks in their future.

    far from just Kos (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST

    the good news is according to alexa TL got almost twice as many page views as americablog last night.
    (if I read it correctly)

    The data you're looking at (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    is from April 11.  Alexa is usually about a week behind.  It will be interesting to see how page views changed last night, though.

    I refuse to go to the Blog That Must (none / 0) (#195)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Not Be Named, because I think it jumped the shark a long time ago.  

    By now, though, the theme from Jaws must start playing every time someone clicks to the front page.

    DA dum....DA dum...DA dum DA dum DAdumDadumDadum....


    Fighting Dems (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    Gee, at what point yesterday did Obama defend or stand by the Democratic brand?  

    Obama Has Never Ran On The Democratic Brand (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    during the primary cycle. He has ran on the Obama brand. IMO he has done more to shore up the Republican party than strengthen the Democratic brand.

    Republicans the party of ideas rather than the a party whose ideas have been proven to be a failure.

    Reagan a transformation presidential and Clinton a failed president who hurt the country and the  party.

    Saying that  he will adopt a foreign policy like Reagan and Bush I and that he will put Republicans in the positions of Sec. of Defense and State, IMO reinforces the message that Republicans are better at foreign policy than Democrats.

    Claiming that the Democrats in DC are almost as much to blame for the gridlock  really helps convince the public that the Dems would be better for America.  

    Also, what kind of Democrat puts Social Security on the table and runs Harry and Louise ads against health care.

    Obama is the candidate that I have a hard time believing is a Dem.    


    I finally squinted my eyes (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    and went and visited the link at Orange State.

    The headline of this teeny diary KOS felt he needed to create to present this drivel:

    Clinton's license to do harm

    Personally, I think that's what KOS domain registration has become: A license to do harm (to Democrats).

    He's not my (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST

    Now let me get this straight ... (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Inky on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is NOT a Democrat, but Arnold Schwarzeneggar is.

    Got it. Thanks, Kos!

    Yuppers! Ahnold is the Governator (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    of Kos' fair state.

    Oh, snap! (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    That pretty much sums it up: HRC is not Republican enough to be a Democrat.

    At the beginning of this campaign I (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    thought that all those blogs had been invaded by trolls.  Now I realize that they must have been populated by them all along and only needed an incentive to show their true colors.  The Anti-clinton anti-carter (the only Democratic Presidents since 1968) in these blogs is to intensive to be casual.  These people IMO must have a deep seated resentment of Democratic presidents.  Heck they blame them for everything except the plague and maybe even that.

    It's all about comment moderation (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    and the views at the top.
    Markos never was much of a thinker, and when he decided to hitch his horse to Obama, he stopped having any standards at all, IMO.

    his standards are $$$$ (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    same with Josh Marshall, etal and the MSM - all manipulating public opinion to favor the "new and improving" Obama - the new American Idol.
    But the whining and outrage from Obama supporters today make him appear weak - like he couldn't take the hits during the general unless the media continued their red carpet treatment of him.
    Very elitist.

    Another point that worries me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:25:23 AM EST
    and this might be OT.  Why are so many leaders of the Democratic Party going along with this Anti-Clinton Anti-Carter therefore IMO Anti-Democrat propaganda?

    Carter and Clinton were outsiders (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    who blew past the presumed Dem candidates and actually managed to win the general election. And the party leadership made them pay and pay for it and hung them out to dry when the Republicans attacked them. In 92, Clinton especially was depicted as being white trash, laughed at, and cartooned as attending the inauguration in a pickup truck with a dog in the back. My first vote in an election was for him, and I was appalled at the way his own party sneered and derided his win.

    Yup. Class warfare... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    now full out divil war within the Democratic Party.

    That was the whole point of drafting Obama as point man to destroy the Clintons.

    Could it be more ironic, more despicable, than to do it with the race card?

    If this flys, the Democratic brand is over for the forseeable future.

    As a lifelong Dem, I'd say it's pretty likely that we're doomed.  This generation will search and destroy it.  The next generation, if they figure it out, can rebuild...


    Carter and Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by OldCoastie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    are considered a couple of hillbillies by some in the Obama camp and therefore were never really entitled to sit in the White House...

    it really is a class issue...


    The funny thing about Markos (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    and the others (yes, I'm looking at you Josh Marshall), is that, like Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't it be BETTER for them for Hillary to win?  Then they can have more daily rants.  If Obama actually wins the election, what are they going to rail against? Are they going to blame him when things go wrong?

    Of course Obama will blame Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    for the nation's problems, if elected.
    Following in Bush's footsteps, he will take us further and further from that long nightmare of peace and prosperity.

    Yeah, they will (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    just as they blame all the non-progressive candidates they support.  They get behind them, root for them, and when they win and are just like they obviously promised to be, KOS is outraged.

    And he will be outraged at Obama.


    give kookos the boot (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:27:39 AM EST
    a) who gives a rats-a*s what kookos thinks.

    b) he's hardly the arbiter of what a dem is.

    c) my vote is that kookos is voted off Democratic Isle for divisiveness, arrogance, self-absorption, being anti-democratic and anti-inclusive, elitism, abuse of power, and most of all for practicing wingnuttery, full-time.

    Much of Obama's Online Support (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    comes from children.  In real life, they seem much better.

    But then these are the same people who defended Obama's SF comments as being right, which turns out to be, well, wrong:

    Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters' positions on gun control and gay marriage.

    Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.

    It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.

    So it's not my people who are voting wedge issues, creative class, it's yours.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM EST
     I keep trying to find the lessons to be learned from this turd of a primary.(Perhaps akin to shoveling for the pony, I admit.) The link provides some very good counterbalance to the idea that "Obama was only telling the truth" in his "bitter-cling" comment.  

      Best as I can summarize now, one of the major lessons here is how prevalent all sorts of stereotypes and prejudices exist in people that don't consider themselves to be at all prejudicial.


    Judgement (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM EST
     Since I personally never read or go to KOS before you all stopped going there, I proclaim that I have the upper hand in judgement and leadership.  So there.  

    SO? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    Is Hillary a Dem or not?

    Duh...yah... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    oops..did not qualify my <snark>  Yeah, she will stoop to being a Democrat.  

    Hey Stellaaa (none / 0) (#170)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    Dint she pretty much stoop to being a Democrat for the better part of her life? I think I read that somewhere. :)

    I think it's disturbing how contorted (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    the logic has to be these days for people like Markos, and those who follow along like sheep in his herd, to be able to keep Obama in the superior position.

    I don't know how anyone who heard Hillary's passionate declarations for the party and for party unity - regardless of who was the Democratic nominee - could believe that she is not a real Democrat.  I guess I am wavering between wondering if the Orange Crowd truly believes Obama has redefined what a Democrat is, and on that basis, Clinton does not fit the mold, or they so badly want Obama to be the nominee that it's the only way they can mentally cut Clinton out of the picture.  Either way, the news I have for Markos is that those Democrats who have been voting for Hillary know what a "real" Democrat is.

    I did not hear anything from Obama last night - other than a gratutitous word or two forced from him by the moderators - that reflected his pride in being a Democrat; she had to include him in the declaration that the party would come together, because she knew he would not.  

    I know the Orange Ones and the Marshall crowd were angry that their candidate was on the receiving end of unfair questions, but their lack of outrage at the unfair questioning and coverage that has been going on for months now leaves me feeling no sympathy at all.  I mean, they have been part and parcel of that, and I don't see them being capable of self-directed outrage, so now they are in a position of looking like spoiled and petulant children...I've seen that same attitude in Obama, so maybe there is an affinity there that we just don't understand.

    Come on, Tuesday - the suspense is killing me!

    I think what Markos ought to ask himself... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    ... is are voters who agree with Hillary really Democrats? Or does he not want their votes anymore?

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:44:18 AM EST
    Markos is the one who isn't a real DEM.
    He keeps going farther and farther left to the point where he is resembling the crazy, third world Leftists that cause countries all over the world grief. Especially the South American ones.

    There has never been a President in this country that was even close to being as far left as Markos and his gang.

    All he is doing is destroying the Democratic party by dragging it out of the mainstream with his slash and burn tactics against all the moderate Dems.

    America is a moderate country. It isn't far right and it isn't far left.

    Markos hit his high point and is now at the beginning of his downward slid into irrelevancy because he is a far left radical.

    You know what, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    I'm very far to the left of either Dem, and I'm voting for HRC.

    I don't think we should smear the far lefties by including Kos in their number.

    IMHO, he is a right-leaning ex-Republican who is now an Independent. No way, no how, is he to the left of anyone in the Democratic Party.


    So left that (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    I remember to be called red was left and not the color some network chose to tell you who won which state.  Still offended that red signifies right states.  

    Heh. (none / 0) (#118)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    Commie pinko! ;-)

    Thanks...I needed that. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    [Hug] (none / 0) (#124)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    Solidarity, sister! :-)

    far left? (none / 0) (#192)
    by jackyt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    I think you're confusing "demagogue" and "democrat"

    Reject and Renounce (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    I am afraid I will have to Reject and Renounce these comments by Kos (not that he cares what I think).

    Some people in this thread have made similar remarks about Obama. I Reject and Renounce those too.

    I salute TL and BTD for not making those kinds of remarks nor encouraging posters to do so. I shouldn't have to, this should be SOP.  

    BTD's update (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    And I think that this president, in particular, has fed those divisions. That's something that we've tried to end in this campaign. And I think we're being successful.

    That was one of the most laughable statements of BHO's whole performance last night, IMHO. I actually yelled "HA!" at my TV.

    Obama has divided the Democrats like no other candidate has with his campaign tactics.

    But you don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    Obama's way is the right way.  If you disagree with his approach, you are divisive



    and uncreative (none / 0) (#186)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    not to mention uncool, unpopular, stoopid, washed up, and wrong.

    Not to say that people have to rally around (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    her...but I think that the candidate who stood up to Bill O' on Dkos and Yearly Kos really deserves to not be told by kos himself that she's not a Dem.

    That's just crazy talk...

    BTW...Obama was absent on the defending of Dkos re: Bill's made-up facts.

    Great point (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    This campaign has been a lesson (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    in mass psychology -- the ugliest aspects of mob and group think. But of course, the Obama campaign has had a direct strategy of associating the Clintons with the Republicans, the Bush administration, Republican racial politics, etc.  Two major themes of his campaign -- tying Bush adminstration failures to the Clinton administration and convincing his supporters that the Clintons are no different politically than Bush.

    It is of course nonsense. Sane people should be able to support Obama without falling for such nonsense. That's why it is amazing to me that so many supposed "Democrats" have so easily embraced it.

    Anyone have any theories as to why?

    My theory (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Nadai on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:34:36 PM EST
    I'll caveat up front - there are good reasons to support Obama over Clinton, and most Obama supporters are rational people (though his online supporters often leave a lot to be desired).  That said...

    I think there are two factors.  One is that he is presenting himself in a religious way.  Hope and unity are common religious themes; his oratorical style is standard Christian preacher, albeit of higher than usual quality; and his version of his life story is messianic/heroic - unusual parentage, childhood of poverty in an alien land, work with the downtrodden, rise to glory.  All of this fulfills a need for community and connection to a greater purpose, a need commonly met by religion, but not necessarily so.  I find the "cult" label painfully apt for more than a few of Obama's supporters (though obviously not all; see caveat above).

    The other factor is enraged masculinity.  The Democrats have long be associated with women - we're the Mommy Party, advocating a Nanny State.  Our male candidates are derided as effete, overly concerned with their expensive haircuts and picking over their arugula like a woman on a diet.  A lot of Democrats, male and female, have been chafing over this at least since Bush got elected and the misogynist/homophobic rhetoric from the Republicans took a decided leap up.  The thought of actually electing a woman - cementing the role of the Democrats as the Mommy Party - horrifies them.  I don't think it's an accident that castration metaphors follow Clinton wherever she goes.

    Both of these impulses, the religious and the misogynist, rely on unexamined emotion and group identification.  Both routinely cast people into Us and Them categories, and both routinely require absurd levels of loyalty to other group members and to a particular worldview.  And both, finally, give the imprimatur to the oh-so-pleasant feeling of self-righteous superiority.  For Democrats especially, after years of losing elections and being derided as traitors, that's a very heady brew.


    Theories abound (none / 0) (#141)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    but I haven't read any that strike me as gospel.
    As I said in another thread, I visited orange last
    What frightened me there (Yes I said frightened me)
    was the rage .
    Post debate, some were actually talking about riots in Denver should Clinton win.
    Not to mention the F ABC remarks, etc. etc. etc.
    They didn't sound like confident Obama supporters to me.

    Oh great (none / 0) (#196)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    Maybe they'll disinter Mayor Daley (Senior) so that they can have his re-animated corpse order the Denver police to beat the pro-Obama rioters.  Then they can tie Clinton to the dead Mayor Daley so she can lose like Hubert Humphrey.

    In the end, I expect Obama to be the nominee, because I do not think the superdelegates have the nerve to back Clinton even if she closes with strong wins in the Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc. primaries. And I will vote for him if he is the nominee, because I will not act -- nor will I fail to act -- in a manner that results in the election of John McShame. But I will do so with much trepidation and holding of breath. I liked Obama much more three months ago than I do now.


    I don't think the Clinton hatred ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    has anyting to do with the Bush administration or Republicans. It's something else entirely. Over at Kos and the like I'm seeing less and less from commenters about Bush; that is, unless he's being called a Hillary puppet.

    I have always wondered what happens (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    to the Obama campaign when there is no longer a Clinton in the picture? Will it simply deflate? Will a large chunk of his supporters simply lose interest? Will he be abandoned by most of the media (who may be more intent on keeping "the Clintons" out of the White House than see Obama in it? And what, of substance, does he run on when he is no longer running against the Clintons?

    There's a curious part of me that almost wants to see him get the nomination just so I can see how this dynamic plays out. It's fascinating in a sort of horrible way.


    What I see happening ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    if he gets the nomination is an intra-candidacy civil war between Obama supporters that are going to try (and, in many cases, without success) to win the Clinton supporters back, and the hardcore who think that the Clinton people, any who even consider talking with them, and (it's beginning to look like) anyone not in the Obama campaign before this year, are all trolls. Obama's going to have to Sista Souljah his hardcore if he expects to win the election; and I don't see him doing that.

    What happens at the convention (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    with the Clinton's and the Clinton administration rejected and smeared and basically run out of the party? Turned out as corrupt, "Republican lite" "monsters" who share equal responsibility with the Bush administration for all the failures of the Bush administration and the current state of the nation?

    What Democratic history will be highlighted? Will we re-live the grand moments of the Kerry campaign? Celebrate years of compromise by Daschle and Gephart? Highlight a parade of Chicago pols? Borrow some glory from Gore's post-political career? Will Kennedy dodder out to once again glorify men who, unfortunately, have been dead for half a century?


    Balloonheads (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    I think what's happening here is that the prog-blogger boiz "too much too late" ability to influence immediate events has gone to their heads.

    After literally years of stomping, yelling, waving, fact-checking, emailing, phoning, faxing, wheedling, begging for long pants media and elected people to notice -- to little avail -- we've gone from ombudscarcass Deb "Lovey" Howell telling blog swarms to FOAD to "netroots" elected candidates, many of whom just dropped by to spin their yarn and collect jack only to turn out to be wrenches in the creaking Dems uber alles machinery, to a bona fide presidential candidate (Obama) who's making use of the connections, pulling the big lever and setting off a cascade lower down.

    The disruption to this newfound sense of power is why (IMO) the Hillary Derangement Syndrome is so insane and so intense.

    After many years of drilling for anticipated Fitzmases and other celebrations that squeaked out very little reward other than to prove, all too late, that the truth squadding was correct and no thanks to the blogs for documenting the Worst Admin Ever, they hit a gusher.

    It's the Obama campaign meets prominent bloggers meets the gadgeteers, overly connected iPhone and palmbook owners logged on but with little direction, who now have something beyond flashmobs ("Okay so now what? I dunno, everyone go home I guess.") to disrupt the transmission of daily boring events ("meetcha at the burger place we always meet 4:00pm. We can text each other there. Ack disgusting dog turd on sidewalk. Here's a jpg of it.")

    Except the "masses" lowest down are being used as pests to game, eg, caucuses, online polls, etc. (When the campaign targets little kids and adolescents too young to vote to do little more than hector their parents, it p!sses me off. I'd love it if the energy was directed at giving out age related, issue related information, but what TeamO is doing is no different than hawkers of toys or junk food programming kids with desperate phrases and behaviors to manipulate their parents to buy something.)

    Obviously Obama has sincere supporters who genuinely hear a message and are engaging in the process and I totally applaud that.

    But now that it looks like the fun of actually having a powerful role in a party -- like the right wing dork blogs have had a role -- that might actually have a substantial win is fizzling, everyone's getting testy.

    Good. I'm not here to buy a brand, parrot a phrase, help in the process of overwrought filigreed framing and reframing and polishing the BS. I like Democracy Classic. I want a real party and a real Constitution back. I don't want a Dem version of the Rethuggernaut merrily steamrolling its way to power with Dem versions of the a$$holes we have squatting in the Republican Palace.

    And I really don't like the balloon headed kingmaker wannabees like Kos strutting forth to be at the forefront of the crush to the trough.

    I mean, they're falling all over themselves with the idiocy that HRC is 'like' McCain, but what I see in this crush to annoint Obama is a surefire win for McCain.

    (It won't be as bad as the Bush era, and maybe the best case scenario if we strengthen Congress with enough people to restore rule of law and lost constitutional rights -- which Obama by every measure so far will DEFINITELY NOT do.)

    If TeamO and their minions can't handle a debate that had less fawning than usual, they're not ready for prime time.


    I must confess (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    That when I think of unity I wonder how I could or would want to be unified. I'm afraid I have begun to combine Obama with all the Obamablogs, and Obamamedia, the Obamacable Network and the Obama supporters into one big maelstrom in my head. And I don't like any of them.

    In fact I most distinctly find myself disliking them. Finding  unity will be very, very difficult for me. Maybe part of it is that while I don't particularly care for McCain and wouldn't vote for him no matter what, I don't loathe him the way I did Bush. In spite of the "McSame" name-tag being pasted on him by those busy little "framers" I just can't work up a decent amount of hate. But I'll keep trying. It was so easy with Bush/Cheney.

    You should hate him as much as Bush (none / 0) (#197)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST
    Well, let me amend that. You should honor him for his military service and his willingness to stay in the Hanoi Hilton with his men rather than get an early release because he was an admiral's son.

    Beyond that, however, he is just as bad is Bush on almost every issue that matters. He is anti-choice, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-market regulation, pro-Iraq war AND pro-Iran war, and anti-Congressional oversight.  He will embrace the theory of the Imperial Unitary Executive Presidency. He believes that the Commander in Chief can take military action without Congressional declaration or the authority of the War Powers Act as long as he "briefs" a few select Congressional leaders.  He will appoint Scalias and Thomases and Alitos to the bench.  And just like Bush, he wraps himself in faux moral superiority and campaigns on personality rather than substance.  He panders to the press, who buy his maverick image hook, line and sinker.  He's also started pandering to the religious right, which he claimed not to do in 2000. The MSM repeatedly refers to him as a "moderate" when he is anything but a moderate.  Okay, so he doesn't believe global warming is a Communist plot like John "F**** Stupidest Guy in the Senate" Cornyn.  Big frakkin' deal.  His support for campaign finance reform was a totally cynical attempt to expiate his Keating Five sins. He's in bed with lobbyists, regardless of whether he slept with that Cindy-lookalike whose name now escapes me.

    Hate him, and fear him, because the MSM loves him and wants him to be President.


    Wrong: (none / 0) (#203)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    Okay, so he doesn't believe global warming is a Communist plot

    He is not any different on global warming votes than any other Republican. This is just talk.

    Last year there were 3 attempts to get climate change legislation out.

    Boxer/Sanders: "The Gold Standard" per Union of Concerned Scientists: matched Henry Waxman Safe Climate Act so easy to reconcile.

    Kerry/Snowe: timid and toothless

    McCain/Lieberman: too little/too late - even more toothless in terms of effective CO2 reduction policy: like business as usual but with more nukes.

    The final Energy Bill had 3 parts: only 1 part passed (with CAFE mpg standards). The other 2 did not make it past the cloture vote because John McCain wouldn't drive over there and vote, despite being in Washington, so they failed, at 59 votes.

    We would be well on the way to (start) catching up with Europe if all 3 had passed.

    His biggest problem is the veto pen.

    He is just not willing to work with people if he can't get his way. There were some aspects of his bill in the 2 parts that failed, but because it got strengthened by the Democrats, he dug his heels in.

    My way or the highway.


    I agree (none / 0) (#207)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    I didn't mean to suggest that McCain has a real policy on global warming.  I just meant that he is at least willing to acknowledge that it exists; on that distinction, many in the MSM -- and elsewhere -- have based their view of McShame as a "maverick" and a "moderate."  

    For example, last night Jon Stewart had a guest on who purports to be an expert on global climate change who claimed that he didn't think there was any difference between McCain, Obama and Clinton on climate change. I found this assertion, especially from an "expert," stunning.


    Have we failed? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    Are we failing as Democrats for by having walked away from Daily Kos? For not hanging around and defending Hillary and Democratic ideals? We have left all those fools to say and do anything they wish, unchecked.

    I walked away long before this campaign (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    THIS POST (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    is a rebuke of Kos' embrace of a toxic divisive statement. He should be ashamed of having featured it.

    I agree withy you 100% (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    It wasn't so much the nastiness of the Obama supporters that caused me to walk away.  It was Kos himself.  I thought some of the stuff he and his front pagers posted up was repulsive.  They decided around the time Clinton announced that right wing attacks against a Democrat were A-OK.  I have to admit that I was to some extent guilty while Edwards was still in the race and I was supporting him.  But once he was gone, i took a hard look at the candidates.  I realized that especially on health care that Clinton was a much better fit for me than Obama.  The attacks on Clinton started to look a lot different to me, and I'm ashamed of the attitude I had.

    I don't know what your reasons for walking away from Daily Kos were.  I enjoyed reading your stuff in the early days of the Clark Campaign, I forget what those open treads were called back before CCN.  When you went to front page at Kos, I read everything you wrote with great interest.  When you left DK, I had no idea you had popped up over here.  I stumbled across this site after I walked away from DK was out looking for something to satisfy my fix for discussing politics.  I used to be a TU at Kos, but no longer.  If I was posting there today, I'm sure I would get troll rated off the site, regardless of having a user id of 10100.  I would no longer be considered a Democrat.  Actually I am an Independent who has voted Democrat unfailingly.


    I still am, somehow, a TU. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    Today I used my awesome powers to see who got smacked down for daring to question the rationale for attacking ABC.  I found some, sure enough.  It's not wise to provoke a surly mob.  (Is "mob" okay?)  

    People are so predictable.  The more they think alike, the more predictable they are.  


    I'll have to look (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    to see if I can find your username over there.  I'll throw you some recs so you can hold on to your TU status.

    Before I left, I had people TRing me for up rating comments that didn't deserve TR's.  They were simply TRing because they didn't disagreed.  I imagine there is plenty of that going on.


    dk is down temporarily (none / 0) (#154)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    If you search on my comments look for dhonig's diary today.

    He did a beautiful job of illustrating the crap Clinton was subjected to on previous debates.  Worth a read.

    Thanks for the kind thoughts!


    Thanks for pointing me to that Diary (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM EST

    Looks like it never made the rec. list.

    If anyone wants to go rec it up, here is a link. I know ya hate to give Kos hits, but this was a GOOD diary!

    Oh stop whining about ABC

    I am so torn (none / 0) (#204)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:07 AM EST
    I take a gleefull joy now in seeing all the 0 - 4 comment diaries twisting in the wind...like you I have dispersed to here and to the confluence and correntewire...

    yet dhonig is a good writer,and the site is ample and comfortable with its hotlists and  my diary page, so it still feels like the home it was for years...


    No new stripes (none / 0) (#72)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    there is nothing surprising about Marshall's, markos', or other lefty wingnut's actions. They are self-absorbed - not about issues or making things better or considering different viewpoints, but just about 'hey looky me'. Sure its been amplified by the primaries as they've morphed into shrieking harpies over HRC, but the egocentric-based analysis and arrogance was always there.

    But the great thing about internet communication is that there are other places to go.  


    HRC's supporters never had a chance (none / 0) (#57)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    Most of HRC's don't do the internet thing.  The Obamalovers simply run over the HRC's supporters.

    I partially disagree. (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    I think you are falling into the "older voter" stereotyping that Obama constantly pushes.

    One type of voter is on the Internet - the female voter. And we are many.

    I agree that we never had a chance at some of the big boy blogs, but that's because most of us simply don't want to hear our candidate, and ourselves, called horrible names.

    HRC may never have been called a n***er, as Rev. Wright would say, but she and her supporters have been called a lot worse. And I personally will not sit around and listen to that BS.


    I am one of those (none / 0) (#172)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    "older female voters" and I spend a lot more time on my computer than I should. Things don't get done. But if dust bunnies gather under the beds and cobwebs abound, that's just too bad. Exercising my mind and being well informed is of primary importance to me.

    I just log off about the time most of you log on and log back on when you're still asleep. Makes some of my comments seem more than a little deranged. I've started adding a name and comment number so you don't all think I've lost my marbles.



    I wonder about that too, (none / 0) (#71)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    but every time I try to go back the viciousness washes away my hope that some people can ever be reached. The fair Obama supporters don't seem to post much anymore, so it's wildly unbalanced. I've never seen this amount of hatred aimed at any candidate before, not even George W Bush in 04. They've posted plenty of kind words for Huckabee and Romney, but Hillary is unclean, unclean and must be cast out into the darkness.

    Even posters who I thought were (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:42:45 AM EST
    fair and rational seem to believe the narratives over there.  When teacherken was assimilated, I was dismayed.  

    Yeah, teacherken's (none / 0) (#126)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    conversion was shocking to me.  

    yet now he gets 30 comment diaries that don't (none / 0) (#205)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    make it to the rec list.

    Thats different.


    Seemed inevitable to me... (none / 0) (#161)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    needy posters need approval and crave the crowd...

    Once a week (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    I'll post something there just to see if they care.

    The don't.


    I am NOT the Mommy of the blogosphere! (none / 0) (#104)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    Just because others act like children does not mean that anyone else is obligated to step in and play the Responsible Adults.

    That's Kos' blog.  That's Kos' responsibility.  It may be a problem for the Party, but it's not their responsibility.  And it's not my responsibility either, nor yours.


    Well there ya go! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    That. Is. A. Fact.

    Preaching to a Singing Choir (none / 0) (#160)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    It's hard to be heard over a choir that is singing praises to Obama as loud as it can.  It's not your failure or my failure.  It's Kos' failure.

    I lost any respect for him when he played the race card with that stupid photo argument.  


    Markos should start his own political party (none / 0) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST

    markos should start his own party (none / 0) (#210)
    by ginamc on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    ... I told him so just last week -- go Independent with BO, and leave our Party alone!

    I agree the Dem part (none / 0) (#55)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    is silly.  I consider her one and, if she won (she can't), I would vote for her.


    the point, which gets blurred here sometimes, is that Hillary has distinctly said that she is bringing up these silly questions/stories/trash because the republicans will.  is that the strategy now?  we hiding behind that veil?  i don't expect people here to agree w/ me given TL, but it is objectively one of the silliest justifications for her campaign strategy over the last several weeks.   "oh, i'm going to push wright, farakhan now (???), bitter, etc. because the republicans will push this crap too."  

    seems troubling.  

    It's a primary (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    You don't think Obama's associations or how he misspeaks about Americans are relevant.  I don't think the candidate I support is untrustworthy.

    Obama can't win the General Election.


    And what is behind Obama's reasons (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    for blaming Bill Clinton for all that ails us?

    Repeatedly. (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    When was the last time Obama spontaneously, of his own accord, complimented Hillary or Bill Clinton?

    Now I don't expect him to woo Hillary with roses, but I do expect him to at least superficially respect the last Democratic President.  Not link him to the failure GWB over and over and over again.  Why doesn't he give Kerry and Gore a few kicks for not defeating GWB while he's at it?


    that would all end if (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    hillary, or a reporter asked Obama:  who did you vote for in 1992 and 1996?  Why did you vote for them?  Are you a democrat?  Do you hate balanced budgets?  Why do you hate a two-term president from your own party?

    Hillary and only Hillary does this? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    She may participate, but she's not the only one.  Since the blogosphere is largely TeamObama, the other likely culprit is the media.

    The Media is the real Third Party.  They are not to be trusted.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST
    They are completely in the tank for McCain. They are holding their breaths and praying that the SD's will be stupid enough to nominate a man who is so clearly unprepared for their oncoming assaults.

    So what? (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:39:20 AM EST
    When Obama said "Hillary will say and do anything" were you complaining then?

    I criticized Clinton for attacking Obama on character.

    Never ONCE have I seen a Creative Class type criticize Obama for attacking Clinton on character. How could they? They are worse than Right Wing bloggers at it.

    the real question is is there even a Progressive blogosphere anymore? The Creative Class ain't it I assure you.


    is that the same thing? (none / 0) (#105)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:49:48 AM EST
    "Hillary will say and do anything"

    i disagree.  and i'm glad you attacked Clinton for a character smear (where is your criticism for the Farakhan irrelevant statment?).

    and let go of this "creative class" thing.  obama supporters don't all fall under a silly umbrella.


    Where is it? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    In the FREAKING Live blog of the that debate.

    But you are actually saying that is NOT a character attack? then you are stupid or a cult member. Itis the very definition of a character attack.

    What do you think honest and trustworthy is supposed to mean?

    I have to ask, why do you comment at this blog? I will abuse stupidity when I see it and you are providing that.

    Will you not be more comfortable at dkos? They love illogic and ignorance in that community.


    relax on the stupid and cult comments. (none / 0) (#135)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    totally unnecessary... thanks.

    given TL... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    Agree to Disagree... I do read your posts to get views from an Obama supporter. But very often, you keep throwing "i don't expect people here to agree w/ me given TL," type swipes at Talk Left. You really don't need to keep adding these passive agressive swipes towards this blog. Stick to the facts and don't shoot the messenger.

    A to the D (none / 0) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    is a scolder.  She wants to put us all in our place.  I have no idea where that place is.  But I hope she spends equal time at unmonitored blogs cleaning up the language and tactics.  

    Indeed (none / 0) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    It is unnecessary to point it out.

    They don't? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    That's what the media keeps telling us.  It's the highly educated high income folks supporting Obama.  It's the low paid and uneducated that support Clinton.  What a nice way to deride the folks who the Democrats have professed to represent all these decades.

    There must be something wrong with me.  I have a master in electrical engineering and pull in over $100k/year.  And I support Clinton.  Maybe it was the influence of my blue collar parents, grandparents, and aunts & uncles.


    Oops (none / 0) (#199)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    I'm a highly educated high income earner. I'd better ask the Clinton campaign for my money back and start donating to Obama.

    that's such a good question. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Klio on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    Maybe there never was a progressive blogosphere.

    For months I've been moaning about the behaviors, attitudes and opinions of my erstwhile fellow progressives.  I think we we weren't ever allies but I just couldn't see it.  

    And  now we learn we don't even share common interests.


    Plenty of Progressive bloggers still (none / 0) (#183)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    I think there is distinction that needs to be made between political bloggers and progressive bloggers. Clearly there are still progressive bloggers including TL and not to mention Eschaton, Hullabaloo, Glen Greenwald, and Think Progress that cover a wide range of issues, just one of which being politics. For a progressive blogger, politics is a means to ends.

    But political bloggers hailing from the left are not first and foremost progressives - they are focused on winning elections, which is to say that like their right wingnut brethren, they are about power, not ideals. For self-identified lefty political bloggers, politics is the ends and, as we've seen from the "top librul bloggers", any means, including wingnut means goes in achieving their ends.


    HRC is doing a good job (none / 0) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    to do what the Republicans will do with BO.  Better to do it now, in April, than when the Dems lose in November.  Right now he loses to another Democrat.

    he can't lose silly (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    numbers are stubborn.  people don't get that here.

    I find certain posters (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    attitude extremely condescending.  

    Certain types come here and refer to the people posting here as irrational, desperate, grabbing, swimming in rough seas, people here are willing to bring down the party (this from a self-proclaimed independent), lowering the quality of discussion, care more about their Captain than the team itself (again, from the same self-proclaimed independent), join the other team (repubs), silly...

    Even more.....you guys are losing it, 'don't do this to yourself', 'move on to a better argument', again with the desperate/irrational comments, Clinton supporters have decided personal destruction is the only path, 'if you're falling, bring everyone down with you', talkleft bloggers are talkright, 'you guuuuyyysss keep amazing me', desperate, it's over (yet this someone remains here), petty, that people here have problems with language, get your money from school back, blind, irrational, so it goes with posters here, pathetic....

    A certain poster has been here for what? 6 days, made over 200 comments (chatters), has been rated 1 over 29 times (multiple 1s on several occasions) and even when not being rated one, continues to make comments dripping with ridicule and condescension.  har. har. fun stuff.

    Again, I question why certain posters who claim to have 'won' are so miserable and petulant.


    Numbers and Math (none / 0) (#116)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    Numbers are constant, check this out

    If we are so all-fired (none / 0) (#173)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    stupid that we just can't see what you see, why do you continue to bother with us?  Or should I say bother to condescend to us. How can we miss you if you won't go away?

    he can't lose silly (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST

    numbers are stubborn.  people don't get that here.

    Clinton is our hope (none / 0) (#58)
    by awang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. The extreme righwing nuts of the Republican party took control of the party and they gave us George W. Bush. The democratic party is in danger of repeating the same mistake---not electing the most capable person into the white house. Our country needs Clinton NOW. There is no time for the empty "hope" talks. In Wednesday debate, it was obvious that while Hillary has provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing this country's problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems. Obama, I am afraid, is quite hollow in terms of his plan to lead this country to a better future. We need to alarm the democratic party that many independent voters could turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I think this scenario is quite real and it has not been talked about enough in the main stream media. Take a look. http://ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com/

    Whatever Obama is ... (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    he's not the "extreme left wing". I haven't seen him propose any policies or solutions that are even "moderate left wing".

    Depends on what "left wing" is (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing

    kos, JMM, Open Left, Olbermann, and other assorted HRC haters DO NOT represent the left wing. Left wing, i.e, liberal/progressive stands for equality, community, humanity, tolerance, non-violence. No way, shape, or form could you attach any of those attributes to the "the top librul bloggers" and ONN broadcasters masquerading as progressive voices.


    far left? (none / 0) (#67)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:32:22 AM EST
    Obama, our nominee, is trouncing Clinton w/ independents and has been throughout.  ?

    So independents will decide the Democratic (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    nominee.  Interesting I guess this means that it will be the Independent candidate running in Nov. and therefore Democrats should be under no obligation to vote for him?

    AtoD is self-proclaimed (none / 0) (#169)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    independent.  Not a democrat.  

    You mean (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    with "Dems for a day".

    Olbermann and Kos share (none / 0) (#102)
    by jpete on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 10:48:35 AM EST
    a strategy:  put  all your eggs in one basket and try to destroy anything others have.  Not exactly the sort of model one wants for our country.

    What's their payoff?  What deals have been made?  Has Obama made it knoown that he wants a certain big organization to go after  Clinton?

    For someone who is supposed to be an astute critic, Kos's insight has interesting timing.

    KO as blovenator (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    Olbermann is following the bill o'leilly, rush limbaugh model where if he carries water for a winner, he gets personal interviews with the POTUS. If not, well he gets to have fun acting out his misogyny for a national audience.

    The HRC supporters must have love (none / 0) (#134)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    for BO since he didn't return the fire that HRC was unloading.  He did sneak in a couple minor shots: HRC's cookie comment, and he referenced WJC and the Weather folks (while not touching 1. FALN commutations that HRC originally approved of, or 2. HRC working to help Black Panthers accused of torture and murder.)  But even these were responses to HRC charges, and he gave her cover on Bosnia and the cookie thing.

    Don't misunderstand: HRC is very vulnerable, even if BO didn't play the attack dog, others can.

    the cookie comment was (none / 0) (#142)
    by Klio on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    1. NOT salient, and
    2. a disgraceful cheap shot.

    Perhaps you haven't noticed (none / 0) (#144)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    but HRC has been under fire
    from the beginning of her campaign.

    As an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#163)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    that (Markos )comment is immature.  Hillary and Bill have endured so much hate from the right-wing slime machine they don't need the same from those in their own party.  I really think that some people are so invested in their candidates, they are acting like 7 year olds throwing a temper tantrum if things don't go their way.  There have been moments (usually when reading comments in this site) when I've wanted to say "I'll never vote for her." But I check myself.  And, after a few moments I regain my reason. Of course I'll vote for her.  I'll volunteer for her too if she is the candidate.  I want a Dem to win even if it isn't my first choice.  Why can't others do the same?  

    Markos as GOP mole (none / 0) (#171)
    by lily15 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    Perhaps Markos is a deep mole.  He clearly was once a Republican.  Perhaps he made a deal with the devil.  After all, he is now on Newsweek, with the other Clinton haters...so he has risen to prime pundit real estate.  He has appeared on TV as a pundit (though he is terrible and unappealing)and now takes his job seriously.  We just don't know for sure who's side he is on.  He could be a deep mole for the Republicans.  And he has bitten the bait of the Newsweek column  with Karl Rove.  And he has undermined Democrats.  Looks like a good case to me based on circumstantial evidence. Markos wants to hurt the Democratic party by fracturing it for the Fall.  Markos obviously prefers McCain in the hidden contours of his mind.

    Sounds like I need to (none / 0) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    buy you a roll of Reynolds Wrap so you can fashion yourself a hat ;-).



    Exactly so, BTD. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    As you know, I am an Obama supporter. I was saddened to see Markos cite that comment approvingly.  He has bought into the hysteria emanating from his community.

    Kudos to you for calling out ABC on its bias even as many in the community here argued that the moderation was objective. And I agree with your criticisms of the NBC debates, particularly as they relate to Timmeh.

    Unity is so easy (none / 0) (#187)
    by zyx on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    if you can just get everyone to see how right you are.  I've been trying that for years, I guess.  I never got a following like Kos (or Obama), so I never got too much of a messiah complex.  

    I read Kos for years... (none / 0) (#189)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    ...and I can honestly say that site, along with a few others, kept me sane during this abyssmal period.  But when kos, Marshall, et al went negative on a fellow democrat, I was completely turned off.  These comments don't surprise me one bit.  I rarely check in there anymore and I can see I'm not missing anything.