Good Deeds Do Not Go Unpunished

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Last summer, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson defending Daily Kos:

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight, another view of this. Joining us from Washington, Howard Wolfson, a top advisor to Senator Clinton. On Mrs. Clinton's website stands this statement: "Tell Bill O'Reilly to stop smearing grassroots progressives." That after our reporting on JetBlue sponsoring the Kos convention. So Mr. Wolfson, you want to explain that?

HOWARD WOLFSON, CLINTON COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Bill, I think it's unfortunate that in the last week or so, you have cherry picked some comments on the DailyKos site that you or I or others might find objectionable and have decided to smear an entire community, hundreds of thousands of people who go to the site every day, who talk to one another, who participate vigorously in our democracy, and are urging Democratic presidential candidates to stay away from their yearly conference. And unfortunately, with all due respect for you, the days where you can dictate where Senator Clinton and other Democrats go, who we talk to, are over.

Daily Kos today:

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

< Great News For Clinton: Zogby Says PA Tied | On An Unrelated Note >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, Yes (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    Clinton defended Kos and Obama slammed it. Clinton voted in support of MoveOn and Obama refused to vote. Evidently the way to the hearts and support of both is to put them down.

    Negativity? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    From Obama?

    Remembered negativity (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    if you are the mesach (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    you can do anything.

    Ha! (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    Speaking on Move On: they called yesterday - a robocall ostensibly to get an updated email address for me. I was asked to speak and then spell out my email address.

    I said," No Obama at nom dot com." N-O-O-B-A-M-A, etc.


    I know he loves me (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    because he beats me

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    And Bill wound up apologizing to the poster he attacked.

    Thanks for reminding me (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    Yer welcome... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    Not just that (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    dhonig is pertty much persona non grata over there these days. He supports the wrong candidate, you see.

    Speaking of which (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    An amazing diary, (none / 0) (#124)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    dhonig did a righteous smackdown there. Thanks for linking it :)

    this remark by Markos (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:20:12 AM EST
    is the most insulting thing yet said about Hillary -- not a Democrat? Well, she doesn't wax nostalgic for Bush I & Reagan; she doesn't reprimand pro-choicers for not getting the "wrenching moral issue" of abortion; and she didn't vote for the Bush-Cheney tax bill.  So, I guess I can see where Markos is coming from.

    Nor did she vote for the 2005 energy bill. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    Neither did McCain.  Obama has been implying that they voted for it, when he himself is the only candidate who did.

    This is from Thestreet.com 10/08/07:

    But the plan presents a problem for Obama (D., Ill.) because he voted for the controversial 2005 energy bill. The bill, which gave subsidies to oil firms, was described by Public Citizen as: "The best energy bill the corporations could buy." His support for this legislation -- and funding from energy companies in his campaigns -- calls into question his sincerity.


    Kos is getting dizzy from the height of succes. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    his blog has brought him apparently. He seems to be losing perspective.
    too bad, I used to like it over there. He used to sound crip, and new. Now he's  bordering on silly,an asterisk on the  movement he calls progressive; whose site purports to elect 'good democrats' except these days is sounding more like a dreaded fringe site, weirdly partisan and unDemocrat like, AFAIC. I'm done with them.

    Like the rest of the blogs, they were pissed off with ABC and not Obama, who apparently didn't do too well with the questions posed. The kos community called them soft balls to Sen Clinton. Can this woman win under such barrage of negativity.

    I'm hoping astrology is right about her. She is the better candidate. Would people just listen to her? Please?  Obama just hems and haws his answers and lets the quixotic media fill in the blanks. "He's a grea orator" blah blah blah.


    BTD....memory!! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    I guess having memory is important.  Everything should not be instant or just now.  

    It's bizarre (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Grey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    but I don't really consider [Daily Kos] relevant anymore.

    Not saying this to slam him (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    But after so many years of thinking he knew what he was talking about and being so proud of him, I have come to realize he is a mere mortal just like the rest of the pack. I have lost respect for him because he has championed the mob rule on his site and disregarded anyone elses opinion. And we are all on the same side by being Democrats. He also wrote how he really really liked Hillary but was for Obama. And he wrote that Obama speeches had no substance. In the end, he really is just a guy who has a blog, in his own words.

    it's all about revenue and traffic (none / 0) (#55)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    the same reason the MSM promotes Obama.

    thats because it isn't and possibly never was (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    I don't consider it a democratic blog (none / 0) (#163)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST

    Is it just me? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Susie from Philly on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM EST
    Or have you noticed that so many of the "progressives" who are taking cheap shots at her and telling us she's not "really" a Democrat are... ex-Republicans? Kos, Aravosis, Cenk, Stephanie Miller...

    Obama's campaign doesn't think so either (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    I got a fund raising letter yesterday from Barack himself!  He said McCain claimed that he was "out of touch".  He said that he expected it from a Republican(!!!) but not from his Democratic colleague!!!!

    I sent a response...  Whaaaaaaaaa

    I got a very nice email this morning from his campaign:

    "Thank you for contacting Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America.

    Barack is gratified by the overwhelming response to his candidacy, and we appreciate hearing from you."

    I contacted them once (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    to ask them to stop contacting me. They responded with even more mail. Brats.

    I can't resist (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nasarius on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    That sounds like self-gratification to me.

    Obama Fumbles On A Level Playing Field (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by JoeCHI on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    It's unfortunate that Kos is attacking Clinton in response to Obama's shockingly poor debate performance.

    It's Obama's own fault that he was so unprepared and unable to compete on a level playing field.

    NO NO NO!!! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    Do not forget the concealer for Obama's flaws:

    IACF! (It's all Clinton's fault!)

    Apply directly and often.



    Okay so Kos gets to decide who is or isn't a... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    ..Democrat anymore? If Hillary isn't then I guess neither am I. Is it now time for me to stop donating to the Democratic Party.

    Back...away...from....ledge.... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    Repeat after me....DK is NOT the democratic party.....he just likes to pretend he is....



    sorry Kos, some of us are Democrats in the FDR (none / 0) (#101)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    still, not the Gen X.

    I have thought for awhile that Kos (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    is just running a game, and not even a very deep-cover one.

    His positions are so blatantly inconsistent, i.e. supports Webb & Tester but calls HRC a Republican, that he seems to be deliberately fomenting chaos. His painfully obvious irrationality gives rise to any number of conspiracy theories which I'm loathe to go into here since they would be off-topic.

    The only other explanation is simple misogyny, which is probably closer to the truth, Occam's Razor being what it is.


    I think the misogyny analysis (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    is right on target.  

    or marketing (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM EST
    he had a public half edwards half obama.  Edwards dropped off.

    Obama was the only way to go.


    Conspiracy theories -- (none / 0) (#57)
    by MessyMarcy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    Not so much conspiracy theories as just a prime example of power corrupting.

    True. (none / 0) (#142)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    Markos is impressed by the virility and vigor of both Webb and Tester.  He wants to be them.  Similarly, Chris Matthews has a crush on Obama.  He wants so badly to be him.  

    On the other hand, Hillary Clinton reminds them of their mother or their first wife.  They can't forgive that.

    I guess emotion is behind 80% of political choices.  


    Clinton reminds them of the girl in class (none / 0) (#165)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    who was always smarter and harder working than they were.  She was class president and they had to settle for recording secretary of the student council.

    Yep, Kos banned me last night (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Universal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    after I wrote a diary praising ABC under the name I use there, "Universal."

    It is ridiculous. And, Kos posted ABC's phone number so people would flood them with calls to attempt to bully them.

    I also called ABC last night and let them know what Kos had done, and why they were getting all the calls they were ripping them. The woman I spoke with was very thankful, to say the least.

    Daily Pravda-bama is in full meltdown mode today, as are TPM and other, similar sites.

    Great job ABC, great job Hillary.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:35:28 AM EST
    ABC was TERRIBLE last night. The bias against Obama was almost as bad as what NBC does to Hillary.

    It is ridiculous to praise bias that favors your candidate while insisting that others criticize when your candidate is catching the hell.

    Your position is no better than that of the rabid Obama partisian.

    You will get no plaudits from me for your attitude.


    But was it a banning offense? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    That is the (rhetorical) question at hand here.

    Universal had his own opinion about the matter, and maybe it's not so outrageous to think that as terrible as it was, it was payback for how terrible the media has been -- this whole election season -- to the other candidate.

    It's really hard to be angry about the bias, when it's been tacitly condoned the whole season by Obama and his supporters.  They thought it was okay before to attack Democrats.  Why don't they think so now?

    As Digby said, the narrative should have been "media bias toward Democrats should always be fought".  However, that wasn't the case.  It's only fought when against Obama.

    Therefore, as bad as ABC was, I condone their behavior, because it created a balance we certainly didn't have before.

    Karma is a B**ch, as they say.


    I'm saying ABC's behavior was terrible (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    not that Universal's opinion was terrible.

    I am very much for people expressing opinions.  Mob rule with tar, feathers, and pitchforks, I'm not for, though.


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    Obama has had an easy ride on the debates, and he employs the Bush technique very well. The technique is to start with a word or two from the question, and then ramble and take it to amorphous, general theme (uniter, not divider; we are too cynical; hope and change..., you get the idea).  I even think the rambling of both may be intentional.  So you don't know what they were saying, but that they mentioned 'hope' or 'unitifying the country'.  

    In such cases as these, it is absolutely important that there would be followup questions, that the moderators insist on specifics.  That part, Gibson and Steph did.  

    While I think the flag pin question was over the top, I believe the other questions were mostly valid.  First of all, he is running for POTUS and his associations are important. Second, as someone said below, Obama himself has made this a really fuzzy campaign about character, and has encouraged and benefitted hugely from bashing of Hillary Clinton.

    Last, I really agree with Universal's action on calling ABC and telling them it's just a mob calling them.  If this were Last October, I would be outraged.  But almost all ABC questions were those which were never been asked.  That's fair.

    It's not that ABC was harsh to Obama to make it up to Clinton.  It's that every inconsistency of Clinton, every character flaw had been dwelled on every day in the media, and had been asked ad nausum in the debates.

    ABC asked the questions which had not been already asked.  For anyone who has followed this campaign, it shouldn't be a surprise that most of them would be tough questions to Obama.  


    Tad bit harsh bro. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    Has not Obama himself made character a central theme of his candidacy, or at least Hillary's lack of character? It seems to me  Obama got hoisted on his own petard last night. I do agree it would be nice if the primary had been about issues and solutions to those issues but it hasn't been so far, at least from the Obama side, as I see it. After all, it has always been to Hillary's benefit to have an issue based campaign; as opposed to beauty contest, considering the vast amount of non-sense printed about her. So while we may believe what happened last night was deplorable, it was not with out merit, considering the conduct of Obama and his supporters. Justice is not always pretty, it's just just.  

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    read dhonigs diary (1.00 / 0) (#166)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    they treated him better than the treated Clinton when she was a front runner.  They had a lot of ground to make up in even coming close to being even and a lot has happened in the news concerning Obama that no one else was covering.
    Had the chosen to go any softer on Obama, that would have been terrible.

    i prefer the cold facts (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST
    Obama's media star days are over.

    All the dirt will be addressed by any outlet in the press.

    The results will capsize SS Obama.


    from your lips to God's ears (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by angie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    I'm still having my doubts the msm will capitalize on the bounty of opportunities given this a.m.'s headlines.

    they won't be doing to make Clinton (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00:22 PM EST
    more likely to win.

    They are sowing the seeds.  

    Clinton must have been internally wirtten off if they were confident enough to cross examine Obama.


    Cross-exam Obama now (none / 0) (#159)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    We need to cross-exam him now.
    So many people were afraid to do it before because Obama had set up his campaign where any critique was considered racist.  But now, with so many white voting for him, Barry (Barak) can't hide behind that racism mask anymore.  

    The Republicans will NOT care if they are called racist.  O'Reilly, Hannity and company will flip it on him and make Obama look like the inexperienced junior senator he really is.  

    If Obama can't handle that jousting in a Democratic Primary, he can't handle the General Election.  He's tired, you can see it in his face.  He's wearing down... that's why the Obama camp and their followers have been trying to press for Hillary's departure by saying she can't win (yes, she can), that she doesn't have the will of the people (neither does Obama because all the people didn't vote yet) and she doesn't have enough delegates to beat him (neither does Obama, which they conveniently forget).  

    Last night, Obama proved to me what I knew all along- an empty suit.  Great words, little substance.  The mask is slipping.


    What's good for the gander (none / 0) (#61)
    by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    is just as good for the goose.

    perhaps... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    But banning seems a bit extreme.

    Banning is extreme (none / 0) (#160)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    But that's because Obama really disappointed alot of his followers last night.  He didn't handle himself they way they thought he should and his weaknesses were showing.  Many of the pro-Obama blogs are in panic mode, trying to spin as hard as they can, but can't help to think that maybe their "messiah" is not the powerful prophet they thought.

    Hillary, on the other hand, was sharper than ever.  IMO, she's showing people how she IS the better candidate and would make the better president.

    We need a doer, not a talker.  Obama would have been good after the Clinton Administration, but we need someone strong after the Bush debacle.  Hillary is THE ONE.

    I did look at some of the articles on Huffington Post.  It is so sad when women are hating on women.  I guess feminism has failed. I can't even look at that cyber-rag anymore.  Thank God for TalkLeft.  At least there's one site still trying to be professional.

    ~thumps up~


    I disagree BTD (none / 0) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    ABC is awful to both candidates, but HRC is used to those kind of questions and performs better. That's what you saw last night.

    I don't think this is about ABC (none / 0) (#79)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    I think it is about DK and printing the phone number and encouraging phone calls and spam because they were not happy. YOU know that you have not done that when all the other networks were dumping on Hillary. Jeralyn never did it. You never called for a spam because you saw an injustice. You wrote about it and stated the unfairness.

    I have e-mailed MSNBC about their unfairness in the past but it was not because You suggested or encouraged it. Marcos crossed that line and as a Blog leader, he choose not to encourage the same treatment when Hillary was getting beaten up. It sounds as if you are not for Obama, then you are no longer a Democrat in his eyes. IMHO.


    Aren't Hillary Supporters In A Bind Here? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Decal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    Yes the debate questions were both horrible and slanted against Obama. But what should a Hillary supporter do?  If they join the blogswarm against ABC then, assuming it even has an effect, what are the results? Does ABC (and the other big media) respond by doing a better job in the future?  Or do they perceive the lesson as to just lay off Obama and go back to bashing Hillary 24/7?  I'd think the second was more likely.

    Boehlert was right.  I used to occasionally post comments on Daily Kos.  A few months ago I suggested that, a la Bob Somerby, no matter if you supported Clinton or Obama we needed a united front against the media bias against all our candidates.  I forget which controversy du jour against Hillary prompted my comment but I got called a Freeper for my troubles.  The ship's sailed now and it seems to me that, as sad as it is, it's now a legitimate strategy for Clinton supporters to praise a horrible media performance when it's in favor of Clinton and hurts Obama.


    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#106)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    I think they asked tough question, it was just he had more things that were not covered, and he stumbled worse. I for one thought it was at least closer to a real enlightening debate than previous ones. What it showed is how either would handle tough pointed questions.

    I mean come on, how long did it take for anyone in the press to actually ask the question: so what did you hear that made you dis-invite Rev Wright? This would have been first question out of a real journalists mouth.

    Why do you consider it biased? They went after both candidates.


    The "bias" against Obama? (none / 0) (#111)
    by MaxUS on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    In order to be comparable to the MSNBC/CNN debates, there would have to have been a "fawning" over Clinton. Is it your opinion that they coddled Clinton?

    I didn't watch the debate, but from the reports it sounds like ABC was tough on both candidates but that Clinton was better able to handle the pressure. Not surprising because she has much experience, as she's been wont to point out.

    Isn't it your theory that Obama is more electable because he's a Media Darling? If things remain as they are (which I doubt they will if Hillary is not in the picture), then it looks like Fox/ABC will be in the tank for McCain vs. CNN/MSNBC for Obama.

    Hmm...won't that be an interesting debate with the moderators fawning over McCain and giving Obama the treatment he got last night. Ouch.


    BTD, I didn't think they were terrible. (none / 0) (#154)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    Their questions were no different from the ones everyone else routinely throws at Clinton in every debate and every minute of the day. The only difference was that Obama was on the receiving end for a change.

    I think it was good that they threw those questions at Obama. They or the Republicans are going to throw them at him the minute he gets the nomination, not to mention all the stuff coming out in the Rezko trial which is going on now as we speak.  

    He needs to get these questions now.  They aren't going to go away. I know it shoots down your theory that he will be more electable, but, of course, I don't agree with that for a minute. I give the Rethugs a month to shoot him out of the water, maybe less.  If the Media would focus on these things now, while Hillary is still in the race, we can see if it's going to shoot him down or not while we still have an alternative.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:36:39 AM EST
    They are the monster they have criticized, aren't they?  But even worse.

    Please make sure and inform us when you post on your site.  I've enjoyed reading your writings.


    You got banned for good cause (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    in my opinion. Praising ABC's performance can not be characterized as anything other than trolling. Sorry, guy.

    I don't think so... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Universal's been a regular poster over there for quite a while.

    Banning is an extreme form of meta punishment usually meted out re: real trolls, CTers, and copyright infringers.


    We'll have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#91)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM EST
    The obvious conclusion for Kos to reach when unUniversal began to praise ABC's efforts is that Universal was interested only in trolling.

    I don't see the obvious... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    It seems to me that kos went overboard with a kneejerk assumption.

    It wouldn't be the first time for him to lash out without thinking it through.


    Did you read the diary? (none / 0) (#131)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    but not a Troll diary in the traditional sense.

    A bit before I wandered off, there'd become a habit of TR wars...so much so that folks were having their TR abilities taken away and then the TR button had to be turned into a HC button (apparently that idea didn't stick).

    What I see is Universal's acknowledgment of the situation (I'm gonna get TRd because some of you aren't going to like what I'm saying)...and that MF used that acknowledgment of reality as a rationale for banning.

    And frankly, the fact that instead of engaging in conversation, the first reaction is "Where's the TJ so I can TR it and you for expressing your opinion?" is part of the reason I wandered off. I was feeling myself shut down politically speaking...

    There's no dialogue or debate...there's only TRing someone out of existence because he or she doesn't agree with you.


    So ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    did the guy who threatened physical violence against dhonig, in the diary link above, get banned?

    There are lots of links... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    floating around. Not sure which one you're referring to...or which poster you're talking about.

    It was good for Barrack (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    ABC's debate showed how he can handle difficult questions. If Hillary is subjected to this type questioning, so should Barrack (and John McCain). It's character building for them.

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    that it showed he can take a punch. it showed the opposite in my opinion. He cannot take a punch. he just keep digging his heels in and trying to make everyone see things his way. it is a fundamental flaw in his character.

    He needs to learn humility and the ability to say, "I was wrong."


    You're right. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    The debate showed how he handles tough questions--In a rambling, unconfident way. Peel away the layers of hope and discover the real politician.

    BTW, he did fib about the Gun Banning law. Hopefully, that will be HIS sniper fire story.


    It wouldn't be. (none / 0) (#146)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    I think he intentionally rambles to confuse the point.  There wouldn't be a nice sound bite for the media, even if they wanted to try.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Chimster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    I think I can see a future Youtube video popping up such as "Obama:Unscripted" which showcases his memorable scripted moments in contrast to his unscripted ramblings. It's great he can give a good speech, which is an important part of being president, but the person I want in the White house can deal quite well with stress and emergency situations (not to mention the upcoming Repiblican attack machine).

    don't saorry if you don't mean it (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    It's slimey

    You got banned? (none / 0) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    That almost never happens. What the heck?

    From Hamlet: (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    Horatio:  I came to see your father's funeral.
    Hamlet:  You came to see my mother's wedding.
    Horatio:  Indeed, my lord, it followed hard upon.

    I had already stopped going to Kos (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    by that time and I was unaware of what had happened.

    Thanks for the heads-up and the info.

    I am so, so saddened by what Kos has revealed himself to be.

    KOS, TPM, Obamablogs, my neighbor, my nephew etc. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    Obama will get the nomination 100%.  If you are against Obama, you are not a Democrat.  Therefore Hillary and her supporters are not Democrats.  Obama does not like the Clintons, therefore Clintons not Democrats.  

    Post modernist deconstructionist kinda politics.  Post partisan, post feminist, post racial.  The whole thing is making me postal.  (not meant to show disrespect to postal workers who I greatly admire)

    You forgot (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST

    Who are we then? (none / 0) (#89)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    If BHO wins the primary, then pretty soon the GOP will come courting us as the Hillary Democrats. Ha. They will not get my vote but by then, the Obama people will be back and playing nice. Just might be too late though. I feel like the dog who is getting beaten by my master and then I am suppose to lick their hand. Once respect is lost it is gone forever. Anything from here on might get me to play nice, but the respect is lost.

    Trained in deconstruction, I can easily say (none / 0) (#152)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    this isn't deconstructionism.

    It's just absurdity.


    There should be equal disgust (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    for Obama taking queues from the Gingrich Congress on Lewinsky, Whitewater, etc.  

    And Obama has had plenty of Karl Rove moments himself.

    "Don't drink the water" (none / 0) (#92)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:08:05 PM EST
    is what I tell myself when absurd/insulting comments are hurled at me or someone I agree with.  It is kinda cryptic which can only be understood this story I heard a long time ago:

    There was a very tiny kingdom, so tiny they only had one well where everyone drew their water.  It was ruled by a good king; loved by all his subjects save the One and only witch who spent his entire time crafting to destroy the king.  Finally, he concocted a potion that made anyone who drank of it, crazy.  So this witch poured the potion into the well. And one morning, the king was awakened by a great murmuring just below his bedroom windown.  All the subjects were gathered there and when he listened closely, he heard that they were all saying, "the king has gone mad. He must be replaced." The king woke up late as usual and had not drank of the water yet.  He figured out that it must have something to do with the water. So he had water fetched and he drank it.  Then all his subjects rejoiced because they said, "the king has regained his sanity!"

    So I mutter to myself, "don't drink the water."


    Rove style of campaign (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM EST
    Not policies, not solutions.  Narrative about a heroic character.  What was Obama campaign?  A narrative of a life.  He poopoos ten point policy plans, the people not interested.  So, lets be honest on Rovian tactics.  What did Obama do, attack the Clinton strength: African American voters.  Do I need to describe more.  

    Obama and his flying monkeys spread the smears and then sit back and act like they are above it all.  C'mon.

    This is a recurrant theme (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    Once someone becomes and Obama supporter, it's almost a given that they then must stab the Clintons in the back.

    This is where the rancor of HRC supporters (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    comes from.

    Can't you just be proud of and support your candidate, without pretending HRC is the devil too?

    Most Obamans are unable to manage this.


    I know. That is what is weird. They were doing (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    it to Edwards too before he dropped. "Why won't Edwards drop out NOW and give his support to Obama!!!!! What is wrong with him? He knows he CANT win!" and so on and so forth.

    Those people are a frenzied mob. It's good they don't have any rope.  They are frightening. I won't vote for Obama  no matter what happens because I can't support anyone who can arouse that kind of hatred in his followers and especially one who will not speak up to stop it.


    Conveniently ignoring (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    the fact that Kos and the other Obama boys have been Rove-ing Hillary for months, and that Kos has lost a huge chunk of readership by disgusting them with his fanboy bias.

    Gotcha...questionaire and handwriting (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    Gun registration writing on questionaire...so is he lying?  

    that seemed like on that might bite him (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    on the butt later.
    I just have to say I have not enjoyed reading the leftie blogs as much as today in a long long time.
    such outrage.  such indignation. such a fuss.
    I LOVE it.

    Of course he is. (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    He lies about so much that I can't even keep track. I was absolutely, meanly, thrilled that the "moderators" FINALLY called Obama on the fact that he knew Wright was controversial prior to starting his campaign, despite having said that he didn't realize it was and didn't know about Wright's inflammatory beliefs.

    These lies, while some are insignificant IMHO, will be absolutely deadly in the GE.


    Why is Ayers a Hannity only issue? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Terry M on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    I learned about Ayers in January and posted several letters to the WaPo about it then.  This is not new.

    Ayers/Wright/Rezko's Iraq connection/no flag pin/MO's thesis/MO' "I've never been proud of America comment"/MO's America is "mean" comment/BO's bitter & clinging comment . . .  all this adds up to a real string of a problem and the R's will kill us in the fall with it if Dems don't get in front of it now.  

    Democrats can only win the GE only if the Reagan Dems, social security moms, soccer moms, et al, come back to the party.  These chinks in BO's armor mean something to them. He looks weak and he looks like a "blame America first type."  Such a persona does not win the GE. I wish the powers that be would figure that out.  I am sick of losing the presidency!

    No (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    Appalachians all along the spine of the old 13 colonies.

    That's the demographic you need to either convince or supress.


    Lefty blogs (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    First, they were fringe. Then, people started noticing them, and they had a chance to make a difference. So what do they do? Make themselves irrelevant by jumping on the hyperpartisan anti-Clinton bandwagon. Making exactly the same mistakes that the traditional media has made for years.

    Therefore, a lot of lefty blogs are now thoroughly discredited, because they have proven themselves no better, and probably worse, than the traditional media.

    Bleh. Kos. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by decih on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    I'm a regular poster at Daily Kos. That having been said, let me say that some of us don't think too highly of Kos himself. He's divisive, patronizing and at times damaging to his own cause.

    For those who didn't check his blog, the quote "It's bizarre, but I don't really consider [Hillary Clinton] a Dem any more." isn't actually a Kos quote, but one he quoted another poster, Theran, on his front page and added, "Yup".

    Deplorable, really. I've been an Obama supporter starting a bit after Edwards dropped out, but to assert that Clinton isn't a Democrat anymore is just arrogant and wrong.

    He quotes it approvingly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    Your comment is misleading.

    It wasn't even a "some people say." (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    How? (none / 0) (#114)
    by decih on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    How is my post misleading? Putting the anti-Clinton quote on the front page and then adding "Yup" right after sounds pretty much like Kos approved of it to me.

    You mislead imo (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    by implying there was something misleading in my post.

    Oh. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by decih on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    Well, I did raise an eyebrow how you didn't attribute that quote, suggesting to me that a reader would look at that and think it's a direct quote from Kos himself. I thought that bit was a tad misleading, though I don't suggest it was done intentionally. The intended message of your post was spot-on. Thus, I posted my note making darn clear that Kos himself didn't say that, but he sure as hell put it on his front page and agreed with it! Just as bad. Perhaps worse if he was somehow trying to dodge making a direct quote.

    Perhaps in over the top fashion? (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    How about Obama taking his Rovian cues on Clinton "saying or doing anything?"

    The willful blindness I see from some Obama supporters really is deplorable.

    That you are incapable of simply condemning Kos' endorsement of the "not a Dem" remarks tells all.

    SEXISM... Nothing Else You Can Call It... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    In addition for going Joe McCarthey on her and accusing of her not being a democrat, the front page at DKos right now is also repeating the "just quit" mantra they have been chanting for the last two months.

    This is sexism and it needs to be dealt with head on.  There has never been another candidate in the modern era that has been so venomously attacked for their audicity to actually stay in the race until the front runner clinched the nomination. When this candidate is actually in a better position than previous "second place" candidates, but also happens to be the first serious female candidate, you have to call this clear double standard what is: plain 'ol sexism.

    In 2004, Edwards stayed in the race until after he was swept in Super Tuesday.

    In 2000, Bradley never won a single contest, but labored on and didn't drop out until he lost his 19th state.

    In 1992, Clinton did not put Brown away until April and even then the former California governor took his fight all the way to the convention.

    In 1988, Jesse Jackson was briefly considered by many to be the front runner midway through the primaries, but eventually lost to Dukakis. Nevertheless, Jesse Jackson took his fight to the convention.

    In 1984, the Hart's fight did not end until just before the convention, when Mondale picked up enough super delegates to secure the nomination.

    In 1980, Kennedy took his fight all the way to the convention.

    In 1976, the ABC (Anybody But Carter) coalition of many high profile dems fought Carter all the way to the convention.

    So, as you can see, in the modern history, candidates fighting until the convention is the norm. But, all of sudden, when the first serious female candidate comes along, she gets branded as being "no longer a Democrat."

    It is absolutely disgusting that history will likely record that the first serious female candidate was driven out of the race this way.

    Excellent post! (none / 0) (#162)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    If you can, please post it on DailyKos and anywhere else to remind people how a democratic primary works.

    I feel a panic in the air from Obama followers.  I read a couple of diaries where Obama  followers canvassing PA found that many PA voters were not interested in Obama and were going to support Hillary regardless of the bad press she gets. (read it on MyDD.com)

    Those canvassers were very frustrated and you can hear the frustration from the Obama camp and their followers all through the blogosphere.  That's why DailyKos is trying to push the "Hillary-Drop-Out" mantra again, of course a Rovian trick of repetition.  The Obama camp can't put Hillary down, she's too strong for them and they can't handle it.

    Like most men who can't handle strong women.  Reminds them too much of their mothers or their bossy girlfriends or some woman who they couldn't handle.  

    GREAT POST!  ~thumbs up~


    Thanks -- I posted something similar in (none / 0) (#168)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    response to DHinMI "just drop out!" diary today... his response: "ZZZZZZZZZZZZ" which I pretty much expected; )

    its a stupid comment by Kos (1.66 / 6) (#2)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    who cares?  are you now looking to bash other bloggers?  

    I think we have to move on - it's like last night's debate has moved us even farther away from the issues.  

    I am moving on (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    to what I want to discuss. You need to move on, preferably to another web site. But that is your choice.

    oh, snap (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    like shooting fish in a barrel some days, isn't it?

    More like gawking at a wreck. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    I should stop doing that, reallllllly I should!

    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    It is a stupid, yet powerfully revealing comment by kos.

    DarkSyde wrote about becoming a Front Pager.  Nervous, he asked for advice.  He said Kos told him one thing "If you write it, you own it." IIRC (Sorry, dk is down right now - my search is bombing.)

    Kos wrote it, he owns it.  


    I care. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    Kos is not an insignificant player in the netroots.  Plus, his influence extends now to a major news magazine (Newsweek).
    His opinions are fair game for scrutiny and criticism.

    Kos is going to be on Bill Maher (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    this Friday.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    Those two have a lot in common.  

    The issue back then (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    was a bit of a bigger deal. We had one poster who made a comment that BillO' took way out of context and used it as a battering ram to hit at Dem candidates who were scheduled to attend and address Yearly Kos. It was Bill's way to try and discredit bloggers as well as the candidates who were seen as "pandering" to us by going to the convention.

    The problem? He messed with the wrong commenter.

    HRC's crew saw it for what it was...an assault on Dems and acted accordingly. As BTD notes, the campaign defended Dkos.

    And Bill wound up apologizing when he found himself face to face with potential lawsuits for slander re: the kossack.


    And as noted above, (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    that commenter was dhonig, who has been threatened over there and will, I expect, get banned soon.

    I hope he doesn't get banned... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    If so, then that suggests that the purge being discussed a while back will be an active one.

    And that? That's depressing.


    you sound like Obama - (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    always wanting to "move on" and "turn the page" to avoid answering questions.
    Until last night, I didn't realize how weak Obama would be in the general.
    And so - Hillary must be mocked and faulted for not defending Obama last night.

    All this whining today by Obama supporters makes him appear very weak - as if he'd require red carpet media treatment all through the general.
    Very elitist.


    Obama Roolz - rivals must cast him in a good light (3.66 / 3) (#128)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    And so - Hillary must be mocked and faulted for not defending Obama last night.

    This requisite Noo Rool from the Obama brigade really stretches credulity. Since when, in politics, ever, was a rival required actually to enhance an opponent?

    What we're seeing here isn't just a call for EVERYONE to play nice, or the idea of supporting the party while presenting one's own campaign with positive spin while pointing out the weaknesses in the other, but actually spending half one's own resources and time fluffing the rival.

    Here's boston.com's version of the same bizarre notion.

    Despite press coverage about how historic a campaign this is, Clinton said, "the history doesn't amount to a hill of beans. All that matters is the future. Who will make the best future for you." ... Hillary Clinton, he said, would be a "servant leader," and voters had to decide whether that was more important than electing a "symbolic leader." "You gotta decide," he said, as if he had laid out even arguments for each. (Bill Clinton: Older voters too savvy to fall for Obama, by Scott Helman, boston.com, April 15, 2008)

    Uh, yeah -- cause fmr. President Clinton is supposed to devote equal time to stumping for Obama. I've seen this refrain in other Obama-coddling stories.

    I wonder if the same would ever be demanded of Obama or his campaign, which seriously used, as a personal "positive", the brag that HRC is "divisive" because they hate her and oh yeah, she's a monster. (That's not negative Old Slimy Politics because, like, she totally is.)

    This bizarre expectation of a playing field so unlevel it goes beyond even naivete has been evident not only in the predictable histrionics when he's questioned about his own actions and words, but the weird notion in complaints about HRC even when Obama missteps all on his own, that HRC mysteriously had a hand in it, whether the coverage or in causing him to put his foot in his mouth.


    Ooops (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    Sorry rated your comment a 5 by mistake.  Of course he should hold them accountable.  

    BTD how can I change my rating....eeeks.  


    Does not matter (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    Ratings mean nothing  in terms of moderation here.

    Is 5 bad? I thought 5 was good and 1 was bad. (none / 0) (#156)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST

    You Can Change Ratings (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    THe same way you rate, that is of course, you can only change your own ratings.

    Gotcha Journalism (none / 0) (#7)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    breeds gotcha blogging? This is beneath you, BTD.

    What did you think of Kos' post? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    I know that was beneath me. Was it beneath Kos?

    BTW, you do not get to insult me personally. You knows why? Because I do not get to insult you. There is already one commenter trying my patience. Do not become number 2.


    Kos's comment wasn't beneath him (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    by definition, because he made it. That being said, it was one of the stupidest, least insightful things I've ever seen him publish. I found it laughably ignorant of the realities of political campaigning and the distinction between gampaigning and governing.

    Let him know (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    He really neds to stop dividing us when unifying the Party will be the key to winning in November.

    He is the leading blogger - other take their cues from him. This should stop. I hope he stops doing this divisive stuff.


    I will let him know when the site (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM EST
    comes back up. Just not as "digdugboy" though. I'm sure you know why.  "Brains . . . "

    My last comment. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    BTD - why would kos do that?

    I think one of the reasons that people are chanting "Hillary drop out!" is because the whole Obama Drama is getting out of hand AND it's hurting people's reputations and their bottom lines.

    But they are riding the tiger - and they can't get off without getting mauled by the tiger.  Their only hope is that the tiger gets tired or bored and they can part ways without getting attacked.

    Best of luck to them!


    Excellent insight and I'd love to give you extra (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    ... for Obama Drama!

    It has been kind of dizzying watching the prominent pro Obama blogs lose all former sensibility -- and, sadly, in the case some like the formerly, scrupulously temperate Talking Points Memo -- burn up accumulated cred for meticulous journalism.

    (The sputtering emails JMM "has" to publish only because they contain nothing but a gratuitous slam of HRC that's devoid of substance, insight, with or, well, anything but We Hate Her is just cringe-making.)

    You'd think there was a contest and race on to see who could eat one's own face off first.


    Kos (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    took it too far for me when he pushed the story that the Clinton campaign was darkening Obama in her ad.  Those were serious charges with the potential to increase racial tensions amongst Dems while the evidence to support the charges was weak.  It was divisive enough for me to decide that I had had enough.      

    He pushed it too far for me when he told Michigan (none / 0) (#157)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    Democratic voters to cross the line and vote for Romney. I thought that was unethical and the kind of thing we would have been outraged at the Rethugs for doing to us.

    Then he pushed it too far by not stopping the vicious gang mentality and misogyny in the comments and even in some of the posts.

    I started going there when he had fewer than 10,000 hits a day. Now I never go there at all. I don't want him to get any money from my hits.


    it was not beneath kos, btd (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    it's who he now is.

    Perhaps always has been? nt (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    Why beneath him? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    This is the topic of the post. And why is Kos above reproach? Please advise.

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    GOTCHA!!!! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    Yes, as Wolfson says, (none / 0) (#8)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    the power of Bill O is over, now ABC is getting debate questions from Hannity.  If Democrats insist on having one of those two dictating the debate in our country, I'd rather see Bill O put back in power.

    Just because Hannity (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    bring s a topic up does not make it automatically something we should ignore.

    In addition (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    Hannity will be directing a whole lot of the GE narrative.  If Obama can't handle it now, when exactly will he be able to handle it?

    What's bizarre is (none / 0) (#85)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    there are still thirteen Dems posting more or less regularly at DK...

    I hear.

    I hate to think about it in those terms (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    of no good deed goes unpunished.  If I thought about life in general in those terms I wouldn't even open the door and walk out in the morning.  Things change and evolve, in the light of that reality Markos has taken a turn and driven off the reality course.  It isn't the first time that he has done something like that.  He's a great guy who came up with a really great idea and then began carrying it out.  He was a pioneer but I think he has exhausted the credibility that goes with being a pioneer.  He has become detached from his common sense now and it is not he first time.  I became detached from my common sense with him once as well, when the Blackwater contractors were killed in Fallujah - and I still can't find my common sense on that one. Kos sits in a position where you can't become divorced from your common sense that frequently and do well and sadly he does.  I don't think he's going to survive this one and remain on the top of the A-list of progressive blogs.  Because he has many really great progressive authors working with him he will probably remain in the upper echelon but he won't take top spot anymore when this primary shakes out.  Such is life

    Question: (none / 0) (#97)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    Could Clinton have stepped in at any time and stopped the frivolous questions?   Did she?

    All she had to do is say, "guys, I really think we need to move on from these silly questions and talk about the issues."

    she didn't....

    Has Obama ever done that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    the many, many times during debates when Clinton was being trashed?  No?

    What's fine for Clinton obviously isn't fine for Obama.  When do the kid gloves get to come off when handling Obama?


    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    because Obama does that for her all the time ;)  Hillarious!

    Ha! (4.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    I missed when Obama did that in the NBC debates. You are simply a joke now.

    you are so kind BTD - how old are you? (none / 0) (#116)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    isn't this your profession (i.e. get these political things accurate)????  

    I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history.

    This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander-in-chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people.  

    now don't have time to go through the whole thing... regardless, as i watched, that Hillary wanted to keep this BS going.  thus, she invoked Ayes and Farakhan.  petty.  

    now, your going to say Obama didn't do a good enough job of trying to move on from these silly questions. right?  Hillary perpetuated and instigated more.  who's the idiot?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    Just no.

    It's too late.

    BTD is talking about how Clinton was ganged up on in MSNBC debates, and how her integrity was attacked, and how Obama played along with that.

    He kept that BS going.

    I agree with BTD's response to you.

    Until you can criticize Obama playing along during the MSNBC debates and indict him equally, then you have no credibility here.

    And even then it would be too late.

    The damage is done.

    But you can give it a try if you want.


    she's nice (none / 0) (#121)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    until she starts losing...

    You didn't even try (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    Don't you want to even try to say Obama may have not been the most perect person in the world when he played along with the MSNBC moderators, and pushed that BS?

    C'mon.  Give it a try.


    example (none / 0) (#132)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    ? thanks

    WHY. SHOULD. SHE. (none / 0) (#102)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    She is not his mother. IACF tactics like this are appalling. She is running AGAINST HIM. Do you truly not get that?

    If he can't stand the heat she's been taking for 18 f***ing years, then he should stay out of her kitchen.


    Too late (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM EST
    Obama the uniter is part of the problem.

    The problem is that other than here (none / 0) (#109)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    I did not see that much outrage when it was done to Clinton in other debates.  But now oh ABC is so rotten for being like all the other networks.  Sorry I have no tears for Obama he should have figured it was bound to happen when he became the supposedly preeminent candidate.

    dkos website (none / 0) (#112)
    by STLDeb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    I can't seem to link to the article.  I got server temporarily unavailable.

    Do you think Hillary supporters jammed his website to make it unavailable?  I sure hope so.  

    Karl Rove blames Dems for the war (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST
    Who does Obama blame for the war?

    Probably Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#127)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    Another Good Deed that did not go unpunished (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    Clinton went to yearlykos.  I consider that was a mistake.

    she did so well there! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Klio on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    even though she caught flak for the lobbyists remark from the audience at the main event, her breakout was outstanding.  And that's when I knew she had far more support than you could gauge from the cattle call polls.  That room was PACKED solid.  And she was commanding.  I think a lot of us solidified our support for her there.

    It's NOT bizarre ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    that I don't consider Kos a Democrat anymore.

    His site seems to devote as much attention to unseating Democrats, in favor of "Kos Approved" Democrats, as it does to defeating Republicans.

    He used to be a Republican.  And his roots are showing more and more each day.

    How to Rate a Debate? (none / 0) (#130)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are going to find out that Democrats look for political behavior that is DISTINCT from Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. They reject "politics by character assassination".

    One of the candidates used these linkages:
    Rev Wright -> Farakahn - > Hamas
    Ayres -> 9/11 -> "wish we could have done more"

    That's why Hillary will loose votes from this debate. Most people watch these debates to get a sense of the person's character. The policy issues just leave them numb. Important to you and I but most people don't have the time to following the discussion.

    It's a chance to show character.

    Did George Bush EVER mention the Swiftboat slur in a debate with Kerry? No. Because he was coached that it would only cost him in the eyes of the voter to pull the conversation into a mud pit.

    Hillary's supporters are ALL ABOUT POLICY and they think Republican "stink bombs" are FAIR. That's why she's loosing because on issues of substance she should have won support but on issues of character she's coming up short.

    Democrats are becoming polarized around the issue of what the party stands for: empathy or win-at-all-costs?

    George Bush based his first "win" on compassionate conservatism: it worked! In round 2 he was more considerate and respectful with John Kerry than Hillary was with Barack and that's pretty hard for a lot of us to take.

    But, it's why she's going to loose: it's a character flaw.

    I hope you let me stay and share my thinking with you. If not... I can understand how angry you must be at what works and what doesn't in a debate. I can see you're point of view.

    It's "lose." (none / 0) (#158)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    Third comment from you (none / 0) (#134)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    I enjoy looking at the comments from new posters lately... two comments both are good candidates, supporters are 'twitching' 'moral outrage'... but from your third comment 'disgust', I'm thinking you are no longer on the fence.  hmmmm?

    Frankly, I think at this point, and certainly (none / 0) (#138)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    after the general election, any elected Democratic official who posts at Daily Kos is crazy.

    I'd like to keep track of Dems who post on that site, and keep a record of quotes like this one, and ask them: why are you posting there?

    Everyone of those democrats LOST! (none / 0) (#139)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    ... or did not capture anything close to 50% of the popular vote. You must remember the effect of Ross Perot.

    What effect would an independent have on a Clinton v. McCain matchup? Becuase it's the only hope she'd have of winning Survivor Season 2.

    I know you're convinced that Obama can't win and that's the nature of this impasse. Most think he has a better shot than Clinton on the basis of character... not policy or even experience. Just character.

    He gets knocked down and... you end up liking him for it. OK... not "you" but the voter. Not becuase you see him as a victim but you think he deserves to be treated fairly.

    We can win the war. But there will be casualties. The next casualty will be ____.


    No (none / 0) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    "He gets knocked down and... you end up liking him for it. OK... not "you" but the voter. Not becuase you see him as a victim but you think he deserves to be treated fairly."

    No - I see it as he is finally getting some of the same attention the media and his campaign/supporters have been giving to Hillary.

    He gets knocked down, he looks like what many of us already think of him - he looks weak and unelectable.


    Our minds here are already decided... (none / 0) (#167)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    We have already made up our minds.

    We spend our time looking for data to see how our candidate is doing.

    But the impact of the debate is on the undecided or loosely committed.

    Obama won the character debate.

    I'm sure you enjoyed the beating but the reality is that Charley and George aren't running... Hillary IS and she took the bait and piled on the mud:

    Rev Wright -> 9/11 -> Hamas -> Farakahn
    Ayres -> Terrorist/Bombing -> "wish we could have done more"

    She looses votes when she goes negative. Let the commercials, press briefings do the dirty work.

    A democratic candidate MUST appear to be compassionate... "I feel your pain" works even for the opposition.

    Sorry. You'll see how stupid people are when the polls start to show the impact. She lost the debate in the score that matters. She may have lost PA. Then FLA and MI won't even help.

    Sorry. I feel your pain. She's a great candidate. She just didn't have the experience to play at this level. Maybe next time. When she's 64. Unless the unthinkable actually happens and she'll be 68.


    No matter how many (none / 0) (#169)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:17:45 AM EST
    times you insist that Obama "won" the character debate it remains nothing but your opinion. Dress it up and use multiple postings and insult our candidate repeatedly and it still doesn't make us want to agree with you.

    We've all ready made up our minds? Yes most of us have.

    But so have you. So other than repeating your opinion what's your point?

    And being condescending about our pain is a little tacky too IMHO.


    I'm still pissed about Gore in 2000, (none / 0) (#141)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    That's what it's going to feel like again for 30% of the democrats... either way.

    Meanwhile: the Repugs are dealing with their issues.

    We will carry our baggage until __. YMMV. I'll endorse and support either.

    I'll support anyone that comes out of this alive: Gore, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Obama or Kucinich. The stakes are that high in the race that matters. Jerry Brown even. Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. Anyone But McCain (ABM... how fitting).