About Those Proud Hillary Haters

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In a response I took to be directed at Jerome Armstrong, Tom Watson and me, Markos writes:

You know those rabid Clinton supporters who think everyone is a sellout because of inadequate Hlllary worship (like this site, Keith Olbermann, Howard Dean, Stephanie Miller, etc)

I do not know what Howard Dean and Stephanie Miller have to do with it, but if Kos is equating his site to Olbermann's antics, that is saying he is proud to be a Hillary Hater. But to bring Markos back to the point, he endorsed this:

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

If refraining from saying Hillary Clinton is not a Democrat constitutes Hillary worship for Daily Kos, I think he confirms my point - the destruction of the Clinton Wing of the Party, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Legacy is what his web site is about now. Drumming Clinton supporters out of the Democratic Party is what his web site is about. If that is what Barack Obama's campaign will be about in November, he will lose. The Creative Class Wing of the Democratic Party is not enough.

< Judge Releases Tony Rezko on Bail | Jose Padilla Sent to Supermax >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The rumor of their greatness (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    is greatly exaggerated.

    And the working class will finally disappear. (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Lysis on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    Two major parties represented by elites with disdain for the common man.

    Finally, those pesky working class people will disappear.  Political conversation will continue as if they never existed.

    Hillary's the only one left speaking for us, and the deck is stacked against her.  

    and become the new base for Bloomberg/Hagel third party...LOL
    Dean the putz et,al. will look up and see that 2/3 of the traditional democratic base are gone as the WC don't like the party built by FDR being HIJACKED by the left, a rigged election, and a 48 state strategy. I swear sometimes I think Dean et, al are at best apolitical....at worst republican operatives, they have bungled this so badly....

    I Will Be More Than Happy To Let The (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    Boys In The Blogs bring in Obama's victory in November without me.

    The most infuriating aspect of this for me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    is that if Obama is nominated, my least bad remaining option will be to do everything I can to make sure that he's elected President.

    He doesn't deserve it, and neither does the Hillary-hating "creative class," but NO ONE deserves John McCain.


    I have a slightly better option, IMO (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:23:47 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee, I devised this middle-of-the-road approach for myself: I will actively campaign AGAINST McCain on the issues without actually actively supporting Obama. My own personal nonpartisan, nonprofit 527. Or something.

    It's the best my conscience will allow at this point, but I still haven't solved the quandary of the vote in November. Not sure what to do about that: I can't vote for McCain, but will that be enough to assuage my problems with voting for Obama? Unclear.


    I will talk down McCain (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    and vote for Obama. Figuring out how to talk up Obama will be difficult. I sure hope he gets a new shtick--though I doubt he will.

    This is MY problem (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:10:28 AM EST
    We are in deep do do right now. It will take experience and Washington Know how to get it all straightened out and on the road back to normal. I truly in my heart do not believe that BHO is that person. Truly. I use to think he might be, but I now realize he is not. I don't want McCain, but I do not want Obama either. The person elected MUST turn the country around. I am afraid that BHO can not do it and the Democrats will be out in the cold for a very long time. At the same time, in as much as I am no longer a Dem according to the other blogs because Hillary is no longer a Dem, I am under no obligation to vote for Obama. I won't vote for McCain but I guess I will have to do a write in. It would be the first time in my long voting for the Dem candidate (insert name).But I have to stop that as I would not vote for someone I did not feel was qualified for the job. I still can not understand with the millions of people in this country, we are left with few choices. Well, on to Tuesday voting. I will go Tuesday and cast my vote and hope she wins big. The weather looks pretty good if the showers hold. You know us old people over 40, can't get wet. Might melt. Not.

    Don't Lie Well Enough To Campaign For Obama (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    He doesn't need my money and I will not contribute to someone who has crossed so many of my personal boundaries of what is acceptable.

    There is an extremely slim chance he could get my vote. If contrary to current polls, he is close enough to beat McCain in MO in November I might rather than contribute to a McCain win. A lot depends on how many more issues I consider core Democratic values and programs he is willing to put on the table like Social Security during the run up to the election.


    I will vote for him without compunction (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    It won't be the first time that I've had to compromise on my values to choose the lesser of evils, and it won't be the last either.

    That's democracy.


    That Of Course Is Your Choice (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    I've voted for the lesser of two evils on a regular basis but right now I'm not sure that Obama will be less harmful in the long run than McCain. No question that McCain will be harmful but Obama might be as bad but in different ways.

    You said it. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    Why would I vote for a "Dem" who admires Reagan, wants his foreign policy to be like that of Bush I, etc?

    exactly (none / 0) (#171)
    by moll on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:33:07 AM EST
    Why would I vote for a "Dem" who admires Reagan, wants his foreign policy to be like that of Bush I, etc?

    ...and in the name of the Democratic Party.

    That's what kills me. I am afraid he would be doing Republican politics but in our name.

    Who'd be opposing?


    I think of (none / 0) (#180)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    Obama and his supporters as being like the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress. And I know how I feel about them.

    I am far more uncomfortable (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:46 PM EST
    with an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency.  As far as Republicans go, McCain isn't difficult to stomach.  We know where he stands and it's closer to the center than the right on most issues.  He seems like a reasonable enough guy to me.

    I've said before that I believe a McCain presidency would be the same as GHWB - one term with a Dem congress and nothing getting done.  Then Hillary will have another chance in 2012.  By then, Obama will have had plenty of time to be fully vetted and exposed for the same-old-politician he is.  

    Obama is simply not an option for me.  He may be great with a prepared speech, but listen to him in the debates. The uuuuhhs and the stammering alone are a dealbreaker.  I can't tolerate another president who's utterly incapable of thinking on his feet and speaking off the cuff.

    I choked back bile when I voted for Kerry.  I'll never do that again.  If I can't have Hillary, I'll vote for McCain without losing a blink of sleep.  


    I know what you (none / 0) (#182)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM EST
    mean about voting for Kerry. I loathed the man but I loathed Bush more.

    I vowed after Kerry didn't put up a fight for every vote in Ohio that I wasn't gonna hold my nose and vote for someone I didn't respect ever again.

    I cast my first vote for Humphrey in 1969. I didn't like him but I held my nose and voted for him. And then I did the same for Kerry in 2004.

    I don't know how many more elections I'll be around to vote in  but I promised myself that every vote I cast from here on out will be for someone, not against someone else unless that against vote is on a par with Bush/Cheney.


    I know - It is really a bad situation (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:08:47 PM EST
    I wrote earlier that we are obligated to do as much as we can to get Obama elected to maintain our and Clinton's influence in the party.

     Is that still the right approach?  I don't know anymore.  If there were no troops in Iraq I would be tempted to just let McCain beat these idiots like a drum.  But I'm not willing to let more troops die there under McCain for four years just to prove a point.

    I'll hope Obama talks some sense into the boyz at some point.


    My husband and I are standing... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    right next to you!

    Come this November, we will vote only down-ticket if Barack Obama is the Dem. nominee.  AND, we will evaluate down-ticket races based on his/her support for HRC in the primary.  

    We have been saying that for two months and Obama supporters scoff at us.  But trust me....they are wrong - wrong in their support of an inexperienced candidate at this most important time in the history of this country...and wrong about my husband and I not voting for him.  Ever.


    I've gotten this (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:34:42 AM EST
    from active dues paying Democratic Party members.  Won't support the top of the ticket if Obama is the nominee. Support the rest of the ticket but not the top.

    Obama is not the example of a Democratic president I want and I'm not alone.  

    I looked forward to 2008 as the chance to elect a strong Democrat.  Someone with good Democratic Party values and not just for the current crises but for a long term Democratic ascendancy and with that the moderation of the GOP.

    That's why I supported John Edwards with every dollar I could give.  

    In recent weeks Hillary Clinton's bold proposals to deal with some of our most pressing domestic problems, her detail plans for straightening out the executive branch, to completely turn back privatization in government, including the elimination of private armies like Blackwater have made me an enthusiastic Clinton supporter.  I've always admired Hillary Clinton for her striking intelligence, tireless work ethic and resilience to the most shamefully dishonest, cowardly attacks that anyone in public life has been subjected to in my lifetime.  That she's withstood the onslaught with grace and dignity is testament to both her splendid temperament and intelligence.  An ideal president. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat we need in the White House to begin an era of Democratic ascendancy.

    Given ALL evidence, his lackluster domestic policy proposals, his personal judgement and brittleness, his shameful personal attacks on a fellow Democrat and his willingness to sacrifice critical bedrock progressive programs; Obama is NOT the example of a Democratic President that is needed to establish that ascendancy.


    amen, sister! (none / 0) (#137)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:41:37 PM EST
    Elsewhere on the big orange (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    Markos commented in another thread that he wished that Clinton would stop demonizing San Francisco. His link on that comment, presumably the "evidence" that Clinton was trashing San Francisco, was to an Americablog post linking to ... Markos and another dKos blogger. The echo chamber is complete.

    Hillary in SF (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
    I saw her there and she did not insult anyone.  She sort of united everyone.  Not putting people down, you know.  

    That's impossible. Obama is the uniter. [nt] (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    That description doesn't work for them (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:19:03 PM EST
    They have to believe that Clinton is evil, or they will feel guilty about tearing her apart in the name of getting Obama elected. There is no room for reality in their world.

    that desription... (none / 0) (#174)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:02:24 AM EST
    it's a common fasist tactic....Demonize the opposition. Obfuscation...Obfuscation...

    Wow really! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:27:23 PM EST
    Unless you already have shared, please share!  I will look and see if you posted elsewhere about this though.  Cool.

    Also, demonizing San Francisco?  C'mon.  There are way more important battles to fight.


    Mayor Gavin newsom is her (none / 0) (#56)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    San Francisco chair and a big supporter.  He even went to Iowa to walk the precincts for her one weekend.

    I remember, long ago in a galaxy (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:46:08 PM EST
    far away, Markos repeatedly reminding people that the mission of The Site That Cannot Be Named was to elect Democrats.  So naturally, since the Oracle has decided Clinton is evil, she can't possibly be a Democrat.

     Markos is not interested in unifying the Democratic Party. He is not interested in ensuring that those of us who have not supported Obama in the primaries bring our enthusiasm and dedication to the general election.  

    So he has decided that he doesn't need us, and that we're not really Democrats.

    All I can say is, it looks like Bob Shrum isn't the worst Democratic political strategist ever. Or maybe he is, since for my money, Markos isn't really a Democrat. No one who is more interested in grinding half the party down than winning the general election could possibly be a real Democrat.


    I don't even think he cares if we win (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    If he cared even a little bit about winning the Presidency, he would be using his weight to moderate the Obama supporters. He isn't. I think he see's this election as a tool that will destroy the Democratic Party and create a new coalition of young people and idealists who can rebuild the party in a "better" way.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:12:35 PM EST
    He is just interested in playing kingmaker.  The policies of the king are immaterial.

    I have to believe this is true too. They want to (none / 0) (#159)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:29:58 AM EST
    fashion the "new democratic' party with Republican lite ideals. Remember Kos USED to be a Republican.

    Their so called progressive goals for the people powered politics is leaving me in the dust and alot of us baby boomers who thought Democrats were doing ok we weren't complaining, until the Rs began to steal elections.

    I'm not sure where these 30 something year olds are thinking they're going with their strange ideas, but they can go without me.


    new party alignments? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by moll on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:40:52 AM EST
    Maybe all the former Democrats flooding in to the Republican party have a shot at stealing that party back from the wingnuts. I am not optimistic, though.

    I am concerned about how the center seems to be disappearing here in America - it is already all but gone in places like Israel, and see how that is turning out?

    At this point, I would defend the existence of the political center above my love or my hate of either party. When the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans, things are really bad.


    I sent a lteter to the DNC/Dean today (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    and said in essence:

    I expect the DNC to treat Hillary fairly.  That means that the SD's vote after all the votes are counted and that includes MI and FL.  If that doesn't happen, this long term dues paying hard working woman will register independent and leave the pary.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:44:57 AM EST
    That's reminiscent of Cheney citing a New York Times article to make his point when all along the administration had leaked the Times' article.

    Sites like KOS and TPM are really into using Cheney style dishonesty. Talk about going over to the dark side.


    Are the republican roots of Kos (4.20 / 5) (#36)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:40:39 PM EST

    I didn't notice any lovefest for Obama or (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    Clinton either last night. I thought Edwards stole the show.

    Edwards was WONDERFUL (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    The "Ed WORD." Brilliant.

    All 3 did well (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    performancewise...Edwards got the best material from the writers, tho...he had the longest and funniest bit and he hit his marks 'on the money!'

    Very funny...

    Wonder if he and Hil had a few minutes to talk in the green room?


    That broke my heart (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    I want Edwards to be the candidate so much. We would not only be a shoe in to win, but he is  ridiculously qualified and it's a tragedy that he had to drop becaue the media wanted a black man v. white woman contest.

    I still think... (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by NWHiker on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    that Obama and Clinton should drop out and ask their delegates to vote for Edwards.

    When chicken have teeth, right?


    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    I'm still a Gore supporter.

    Who can really compare to Gore?  Too bad he's too smart to set foot in politics again.


    broken heart... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:07:10 AM EST
    You can thank Kerry for that one...The back stabbing in endorsements in this election has gotten sickening. Don't count Edwards out, as he has handled himself excellently and has a bright future. He's solid.

    I didn't either (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    Colbert interviewed a pro-Obama polician who wrote a bood about his experiences in Iraq.  He was pretty enthusiastic about Obama and Colbert played along - but you can never tell when Colbert is serious and when he's play-acting. The Clinton bit was amusing if stilted. Edwards showed no preference at all. I stopped watching before Obama came on, but what I read didn't indicate anything special.

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    He both got the best of the writing, and gave the best performance.  It was a joy to watch, and well-deserved.

    Quiz for KOS and his like (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    Question 1: Now which wing of the Democratic Party won two terms of presidential office in the last umpteen years of the 1900s (too lazy to look itup, but you get my drift)

    Answer 2:  The Clinton wing.

    Question 2:  Who do you think might have a formula for obtaiing the presidency and competently and popularly keeping it?

    Answer 2:  The Clinton wing.

    Abandon the Clinton wing at your and the Democrats' peril, KOS.  

    The Obamican wing is not the way.

    They have not learned! (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    Gore distanced himself from Clinton during his campaign and ended up losing his own state of Tennessee and a couple more states that could have made Florida not so pivotal, knowing that Jeb Bush was governor of the state.

    Well, I still cling to my faith that someone up there is still looking out for this country.  And like the words of the beloved Kate Smith song, ". . .  stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above." And that is my prayer too, for Hillary.

    The evil that has been perpetrated must not be allowed to continue.


    They have not learned... (none / 0) (#176)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:13:16 AM EST
    I agree with you...Although Gore has not come out publicly to endorse Clinton..Like the Clintons he is a ( New Democrat ) and that is the centrist platform she is representing. The party either continues the centrist path interrupted in the HIJACK of 2000 or it veers back to the left ( Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry ). That is what this is about. The left did'nt want to give up the power they had held throughout the 70-80's.

    Bill Clinton was the only Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM EST
    to win two terms in the White House since FDR.

    Truman and Johnson were not elected to their first term, they took over when the predecessor died.  Carter was a 1-termer.


    Not Sure What Crawled Up Kos' Behind... (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST
    But it isn't pretty and he has become exactly what he started DailyKos to rail against not having a place for leftwinger's voices to be heard.  He has become much too big for his britches and drunk with power, not unlike Rush Limbaugh.  There is no room for your voice unless it is to stroke Obama's ego. And, if I want the kind of vile spew I see on there, I should just go to a rightwing nut site or HuffPo.

    In his latest Newsweek column (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    He argues both that Clinton's actions are destroying the party and that the long campaign is good for both the party and for Obama.

    Is he still using that stupid meme? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    Destroying the party?

    I must have missed all the Ds fleeing the party and voting for Ron Paul in the R primary.


    I definitely can live with differing views... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by rghojai on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:40 PM EST
    ...but what's been unfortunate and perplexing about a decent bit of the Big Orange stuff doesn't hold water--things like it being fair game to run amok on Clinton because it's over (putting aside the question of whether or not it is)... when it was clearly going on a long time ago.

    Not a huge deal, but a bit sad to feel like there's a fact-based view that the approach taken over there is not one of honesty and integrity.


    I believe (none / 0) (#154)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:51:22 AM EST
    it's because KOS fancies himself to be a king maker.

    His ego was getting out of hand before the primary season.


    I frankly think (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    this is kos just making noise for the sake of making noise. But it's posts like that that make me glad I don't participate there anymore.

    Suppose that is true (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    then he is being incredibly irresponsible.

    Being a loose cannon gets you hits (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:23:07 PM EST
    and if you're big enough already, it can get you quoted by the big boys.

    I suppose the alternative observation (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    is that he actually thinks he's making sense. That would explain the self-satisfied attitude.

    Who knows.


    I wonder when he'll realize (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:01 PM EST
    that he hasn't Crashed The Gates at all and that his blog has been co-opted by The Establishment.  (Or become it - same difference.)

    I might have a different opinion if the community said one thing and the front pagers another.  


    He has crashed them. (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:39:38 AM EST
    Look how many people profess to never reading Dk now.

    Destroying Democrats was always his goal (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    Markos has never been a fan of Clinton OR the Democratic Party. He wants to "Crash the Gates" of the party, essentially tearing it apart and rebuilding it in his image, using an army of bloggers. His site has never been very sympathetic to the complexities or subtleties of politics, nor is there any evidence that he or most of his adherents have read historical accounts of what happens in most revolutions. They think that it's simply a matter of being right. If Pelosi really wanted to end the Iraq War, she could. If Reid really cared about bringing Bush to justice, he could. And if they won't do it, then we'll just get them out of office and do it for them.

    Donate Now! (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by lansing quaker on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    To Ned Lamont?

    Every time I see dKos spiral more and more into the Anti-Anything Clinton (or "DLC"), I just wax harmony on Ned Lamont.  They screamed and screamed on the Primary, and those netroots couldn't carry him on his own in a GE.  

    Not to say Lieberman and Hillary are even comparable, but I think the "WIN WIN WIN!" goal in this Primary is comparable.

    This need for righteousness is virulent.  Even on the small scale Michigan-centric blogs, the chorus rang up that our Governor is "DLC" and not progressive enough.

    It's not the party or even about ideology and policy anymore.  It's devloved into this binary war for being "right."


    The charge against (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:59:41 AM EST
    Granholm by these clowns is another example of the unrealistic world these people live in.  They seem to have forgotten that Republicans control the state Senate and they've done everything possible to thwart even the most arcane sensible acts.

    National Blogs. (none / 0) (#183)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    National blogs don't understand State politics, and they often could care less.  

    Michigan is a "blue" State.  Texas is a "red" State.  And it is never more nuanced than that.

    The cries against Granholm came well before the primary fracas, because a lot of people fail to realize the State isn't just Ann Arbor and the college towns.  She's centrist!  Aiieee!  

    The sad part is that most of these "centrists" try to get "Creative Class" more political clout, but also realize they have to win elections by doing things for those horrible clingers, too.  

    C'est la vie.


    Obama supporters think ALL Centrists (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    are members of the DLC. Oops!
    Obama has been identified as a Centrist by reporters, media pundits, and Dems endorsing him - while his DK followers claim he's a Progressive.
    Obama is so shallow and noncommittal that he's whatever people need him to be to satisfy their desperation for "hope and change."

    The dkos obection to DLC only shows (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    up when they disagree with the politician. They really like Richardson, Napolitano and Sebelius over there. Kos want 2 of those 3 as Vice President. All of them are DLC. All are more conservative then Clinton. They don't apply the "down with DLC!" rule universally.

    Kos is doing his job well (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by cygnus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:26:24 PM EST
    I will never vote for Obama. There's something very disturbing about that whole Fingergate video.  The pathological narcissism, the creepy Obamtrons in the crowd.  I shudder to think what he's going to do to the Democratic Party.  

    I am not going to watch a vid (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    to see if Obama did or did not flip the bird.

    There's plenty of evidence of his MO and his goals that one gesture won't make a difference to me.  (Unless that gesture was a long winded and heart felt concession speech.)


    Maybe I am too old to get it (none / 0) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    I watched two different versions of the video -- one that was dead center, and one that was to Obama's right.

    In the former, he looked like he was flipping the bird -- but because of the angle, it was hard to be sure.  But in the latter, it looked like he was using his pinky finger to scratch his face. I watched that clip five times to make sure.

    Is there some significance to the pinky finger, or was there more than one finger incident?


    pinky finger (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    common sign on the streets that your man has a tiny you-know-what.  I think he did give her the bird for the following reasons: 1. The crowds' reaction; 2. An AA guy in glasses and an orange shirt laughs and leans over to a guy next to him immediately afterward, apparently explaining what happened; 3. Obama's grin after the alleged "scratch;"  4. what he was actually saying at the moment, and his significant pause to "scratch;" and 5. seconds later he does the "dirt off the shoulders" sign from the Jay-Z video.   The reason he did it is because he knew he could get away with it because a. people who are too good themselves to believe he would actually do that would give him the benefit of the doubt and b. he and his supporters would drown out the voices of those who do believe he did it with their "outrage" that we could be so evil to think he did.  However, points 1-5 above belie the arguments of b.

    Obama definitely learned... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:48:11 PM EST
    (from Jeremiah Wright perhaps), how to gesture to keep people engaged.

    He makes a lot of hand gestures, twisting the knife, brushing off his shoulder, etc.

    These gestures don't just happen by accident...like scratching his cheek with his middle finger at the exact moment he refers to Hillary before he takes a pregnant pause to gauge the response.


    the pinky finger was at the start... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    of the longer video...the bird flip came in at approximate 1 minute 20 seconds in that video. If you are listenting to the audio, the clue is when he is talking about Hillary being in her element.

    In the short video, there is only the bird toss from a shallow angle and of course the Hillary in her element words.


    I think there are two videos (none / 0) (#53)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    I saw one with the possible flip-off (I don't think he did it intentionally) and another in which he scratched his face with his pinky and then, later, did some kind of elaborate brushing of dust off his clothes. It was a bit strange, actually.

    it's the same speech (none / 0) (#83)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    he "scratches" HIS left cheek (on the right when viewing) with his pinky.  Moments later, he "scratches" HIS right cheek (on the left when viewing) with his middle finger.  Moments after that, he does the "dirt off your shoulders" sign (from the Jay-Z song/video).  I think you have seen two different parts of the same speech.

    pinky finger (none / 0) (#163)
    by Zee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:53:32 AM EST
    You just didn't watch the right clip, or else didn't watch long enough.  Before he flipped the bird he scratched or touched his face with the pinky.  Then he used the middle finger.

    Later on he did the other lewd gestures of brushing bird poop off his shoulders and wiping dog sh!t off his shoe.


    Unbelievable (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    I clicked thru on the link and see they are trying to make the Clintons into bigots now too.  What's left that they haven't used?      

    A few months ago we were united (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    and Hillary was the frontrunner.

    Then Barack Obama came along to "unite" us.

    What happened?

    The tendency at DKos... (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    is movement toward a totalitarianism that would make Orwell shudder.

    Too much ideological rigidity that overlooks principles in the fight for the cause of electing a candidate who spends more than anyone in history to market an illusion of change.

    It is like the Revolutionary Guard weeding out any and all dissent.  Look how wonderfully that Iranian group has evolved.

    It is antithetical to progressive principles of tolerance, respect, and diversity.

    After being called a Red Stater over there for making criticism from the left side of the spectrum, I see a site as a place filled with power hungry people who have no real sense of history or context or proportionality.  It thinks that conformity to the leader, Kos or Obama, is what defines what is right.

    That type of behavior was once owned by Free Republic, but no longer.  The hate spewed now at the so-called reality based community shows that it is not any smarter, despite the claims to the contrary.  

    You're absolutely right. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:42:57 PM EST
    What I see is a mirror image of the Bush supporters. Anything Obama does is okay. It doesn't matter that for years everyone was for universal health care but now isn't because Obama isn't for it.

    No no no (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Obama's proposal IS for universal healthcare because he is proposiing it.

    I'm still scratching my head... (none / 0) (#102)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    on how universal health care allows people not to be enrolled. How is that universal?

    I always thought universal meant universal...I mean dictionary.com says...

    1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.

    2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.

    3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.

    I must be reading the wrong dictionary because nowhere does it say most or some.


    Perhaps overstated (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:40:26 PM EST
    but not by much.

    Give it time (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    Sadly, the Obama model is eerily Bush like, the way it uses the tools of money to manipulate.  1/4 Billion dollars has worked to perfection.

    Most sad is that if they turn off too many in the electorate with their tactics and behavior that contradict their stated purpose, we end up with McCain.

    I suspect that Obama will govern no differently than he has campaigned, purely top down, insulated, self-promoting.  Give them a slogan to adopt and they will fall over themselves.  It is all about illusion anyway.  That much we have learned about America, money, celebrity, and manipulation.    

    Imagine how bitter it will be when they turn on Obama and his marketing techniques for governing.  They invariably turn on everyone.


    Time will tell (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM EST
    I look at some of the blogs supporting Obama and some of them are downright nasty, like Americablog, it is hard to imagine that if Obama wins the nomination, they are going to expect Hillary supporters to fall in line and support Obama... I just don't know if I could ever vote for Obama, I am just not use to being treated this way... I will vote for Democrats in ever other office..  I also don't think I could vote for McCain...  Being in Texas I don't think I will swing any election but there must be people in states where it will count that must feel the same way....  Divided gouvernment might not be so bad, it worked pretty well under Clinton...

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:40:00 PM EST
    that Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and can't be put back together. The more this goes on, the less likely it'll be that either Obama or Clinton can win in Nov. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but I know lots of people who will abandon the party in Nov. if Obama's the nominee.

    I had a dinner party the other week and the talk turned to politics. Anyway, most were saying Obama vs. McCain is the absolute worst choice the've seen in a long time.

    Sadly, I agree (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:48 PM EST
    It is just a travesty, how quickly some people in our party will resort to hateful tactics if you disagree with them.  I am white 42 year old woman, and I support Hillary. That makes me a laughable, uneducated racist who no longer happens to be a democrat as well... or so I am told.
    I had reasons other than the hyperbole that fills the media for supporting Hillary.  I am a Texan, and when I went to vote in my precinct caucus convention, I was dismayed by the atmosphere there.  It was very uncomfortable to be a Hillary supporter.  It was even worse if you were black or a man and supported her, no black person I know likes being called an Uncle Tom or a house slave and I have never met a man that likes being told he is castrated...  It felt like Mob rule... even so, I still felt that I would vote for Obama if he were the nominee.
    Fast forward to now... I was part of a group that challenged our caucus results, rules were broken and subject to voter fraud (like no ID's being verified, ballots passed around unchecked, calling friends and filling in information for them).  They were just unprepared to handle the crowds and it was out of control. Now we have been cast as evil for challenging that situation and bringing it to light.  Were we undemocratic to object to running a caucus this way?
    The tone and downright disrespect of Obama and his supporters toward anyone who challenges them has given me pause.  I have encountered blind, passionate hate from many Obama supporters and I will not be bullied.  The irony is that right wing republicans  have been accused of being brown shirts (esp 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-08.htm)...  now, I  am feeling that many Obama supporters are behaving that way.  I feel that a vote for Obama is a vote against democracy at this point.  I just do not think I will ever be able to bring myself to support him.
    If more Obama supporters behaved like BTD, and Obama himself was not so arrogant and duplicitous himself, I would reconsider.  
    Thanks for giving a true voice to democrats BTD, you are a true democrat and patriot.  

    From one 42-year old white woman to another (none / 0) (#140)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    ..what an excellent, beautifully written post.  Thank you for expressing my sentiments exactly.  :)

    Leisa...sickofhypocrisy...Ditto that sentiment. The pressure on members of the Congressional Black Caucus is particularly disturbing...among other things.

    What will the (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:50:32 PM EST
    'Creative Class' do when Obama begins to run to the right? Nothing, imho.

    See I don't believe that their hatred of all things Clinton has anything to do with policy, lobbyists, dynasty, or any other false pretenses that get mentioned. It is a generational battle that they're fighting and Obama is the one-eyed man in their quest.

    Yes... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    and this generation will discover that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

    The current generation seems more prone to manipulation than any group of progressives and Democrats I have seen in a long, long while.

    So much that they actually believe they are immune from the very forces that control them with slick viral marketing.  If only they could see themselves from the outside looking in.


    Whatever their motivation is (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
    I don't understand their willingness to be manipulated either.

    But I'm just a older liberal so what would I know?


    Balkanizing the Party of FDR.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:23:56 AM EST
    This whole thing has gotten way too tribal...The msm has really driven it and the DNC and it's inept leadeship has played right into it. HOpe HRC just creams the PUNDIDIOTS in PA.

    a high school taacher friend of (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:22 PM EST
    mine says that it is frightening that this generation that comprises Obama support (18-30) is one of the worst in terms of entitlement and material wealth that she has seen for a long time. She thinks they have no sense of proportion, and are sorely lacking in respect for history and people over 30.  Sort of like the '60's except this group has never really gone without (generalizing to middle class of course,) material comfort.  At least the '60's kids had the draft to contend with.  I certainly don't want to be stampeded into chosing a president based on that quality of power.

    Maybe it's the age of self-esteem... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:15 PM EST
    so they do not know how to deal with things not complimentary to what they do.

    I never liked getting a trophy just for showing up.


    Citizen53 (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    I remember you and I arguing a lot over at DKos  (about Wes Clark, remember?), and I never could have imagined we'd ultimately end up on the same side.  I love it - thanks for your great comments lately.  Peace.

    I won't rekindle the past... (none / 0) (#165)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:18:13 AM EST
    and say thanks.  Have a great weekend.

    I agree with that.. (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    The kids today have had people so worried about their self-esteem that they have basically told them they are wonderful because they are breathing. I had a little run-in with my niece a few years ago. She was going on and on about being in a program called ILAC, meaning I am a Loving And Caring person. Right. I told her that saying she was didn't cut it, BEING a loving and caring person was in actions, not in words. And a loving and caring person would not have been rude to her great-grandmother as she had been the previous weekend. Her mother nodded, and the kid looked confused. We had to explain to her the meaning of "lip service".  

    They have been taught that saying something is the same as doing it. Which would explain their infatuation with Obama. Someone needs to explain to them that just because someone says the moon is made of cheese doesn't mean the moon rocks are Stilton.


    Gen. Y (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    or better, "Gen Why?" I've read some interesting studies on them -- they're known to be mainly followers who like being told what to do, as they're entire lives have been micromanaged, from play dates, to soccer practice, etc.

    When Obama Runs Even Further To The Right (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:12:59 PM EST
    they will rationalize how he is proposing absolutely the most marvelous and far sighted ideas they ever heard no matter if they had denounced the same things 5 minutes ago.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    its the unity that we all want, isn't it?



    Hi Cb (none / 0) (#88)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35:59 PM EST
    Speaking of running to the right, what do you think of Hillary's "umbrella of deterrence" to reign in Iran? That sounded like it came straight from Krauthammer's keyboard.

    Hi b (none / 0) (#94)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM EST
    I thought it would be good tactic. Deterrence works with the a smart person at the helm.

    Bubmlebums, (none / 0) (#113)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    are you the same BB that used to be a Clarkie?  Just curious.

    Hi Gabriele (none / 0) (#115)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:14 PM EST
    Nope - I wasn't a Clarkie - I supported Dean. Seems like a hundred years ago.

    No actually (none / 0) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:18:54 AM EST
    it wouldn't have come from Krauthammer's keyboard.  He's more the bomb hell out of them type.

    Deterrence and containment was the way the Cold War was fought.  We had Iraq deterred and contained until GW Bush and company decided to become war criminals.


    bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    "Drumming Clinton supporters out of the Democratic Party is what his web site is about."


    And he's succeeding. So are Arianna and assorted others who find the centrist/pragmatist wing of the party too "Republican-lite." They're the left equivalent of those horrid rightwingnuts who are always attempting to make moderate Republicans (RINOS) unwelcome in their party. Both parties are dominated by ideological loudmouths.

    I am quite serious--and I say this at least once a day at HuffPo because I want these people to hear this--about leaving the Democratic party after 32 years of being a member. I'll say more about why later, but for now it suffices to say that Markos and other condescending, rabidly ideological, "progressive" purists have made me embarrassed to be a Democrat.

    I'm in PA and I hear that the GOP is making sure that registration forms are available at polling stations this Tuesday so that GOP members who changed their party registration to vote in the Democratic primary can readily switch back. I'm grabbing one and re-registering as an Independent.

    I'll vote for Obama in November, but I'll not be a Democrat again until the snooty Kos wing of the party learns to zip it and let the party truly become a party for working people, not the self-righteous and, I hate to say it but it's true, liberal elites.

    Except that they are not... (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by citizen53 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    the left, as their practices evidence.

    They are the illusion of the left, and their cause of change is an illusion as well, as it is antithetical to progressive practices and believes of tolerance, diversity and respect to all.


    good point (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:38 PM EST
    Problem is (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:28:52 AM EST
    these people are hardly what I'd call left.

    They're supporting the most conservative "Democrat" to get this far in many years.  If anyone's Republican-lite it's Obama. In fact, really not so lite.

    Obama, Wall Street and the insurance industry aim to make sure there's no universal health care, no prosecution of financial crooks and no direction changing policy at all except to put Social Security at risk.  Obama's economic advisor Jeffrey Liebman wants to privatize Social Security, make a giant tip jar for Wall Street. Obama is Goldman-Sachs man of the moment.

    How in hell does any of this qualify as left-of-center?


    BTD, I first learned (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by jen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:03:22 PM EST
    to love you when you supported General Clark. Now -- even though you're a "tepid" O! supporter, I love you, still. You continually are able to see clearly, and that is a gift that is sorely lacking in much of the so-called progressive blogosphere. One wonders why it's so hard for many O! supporters, and the speculation is endless and in a kind of scary horror movie way, fascinating.

    Thank you for being here. You, Jeralyn and the Leftist Talkers here have helped me get through this with a smidgen of sanity left.

    I feel just like you Jen, (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:10 PM EST
    I don't know what keeps BTD going, but he's truly a sane voice in a truly insane election process, filled with "rules", broken "rules", re-assessed "rules", selective "rules", and all kind of other ever-changing "rules" that make this whole election cycle a laughing stock to anyone who understands Democracy as put forth by the founders.

    Voters don't count, primaries, caucuses - all over the place.  No way to count the actual vote, and the  highly partisan "king-makers".  The whole thing is so screwed up I want to tear my hair out, or move back to Germany where I came from.


    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    I owe you guys a huge debt of gratitude.  I actually cracked a tooth because the stress from this election had me clenching my jaw so severely at night.  Your site is like a nice cool fresh-water pond in the middle of a desert.  

    progressive hate it appears... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by uppity kitty on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    Since I have always disliked the KOS site, I have not visited for several years.  Mon Deu, are these folks academics or professionals?  I find their hate filled juvenile rants quite off putting.

    In my general life, I go out of my way to avoid such hateful people, I change jobs, churches, and circles of friends to avoid such, I guess changing my 30yr+ Dem. party affiliation may soon be required.  Why would I want people like this to represent me or any candidate that I actually voted for?

    I wonder what's going to happen 4 years (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    from now. I pretty much know how the next 6 months are going to go, but I can't figure out 2012 yet.

    I'm sure the blogs will all be united behind Warner, which is both good and bad, I think. It's bad because he's a straight up moderate. But it's good in that he isn't hugely unelectable (at least as far as I know). Since I basically see Obama as a new Dukakis, maybe Warner can be the next Bill Clinton. What I wonder is, who will be the candidate that the blogs have to destroy to make sure Warner wins?

    Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:32:00 AM EST
    couldn't carry Dukakis' pencil box.

    I agree with what James Carville said last (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by gish720 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    Sunday on Meet the Press, to paraphrase, he said that the more respect the winner shows toward the loser in this choice for who will represent our party in this very important election, the less toxic will be the response from that person's supporters.  So far in regard to Obama's supporter's and somewhat with Obama as well, this respect has not been forthcoming--and in light of the fact that the Obama people that keep telling us over and over again that Obama has won already...okay then if it's in the bag, then where's the respect and the cessation of the rage? So many of the statements from the Obama supporters on blogs and in the MSM are alienating in the extreme.

    Obamacans ful of whooey (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    Obamacans know damn well its not over...they've been trying (without success) to manufacture a self-fulfilling prophecy that Obama has won, but have only managed acrimony and division among democrats. Funny how the inevitability schtick was a bad thing when the Clinton campaign was using it.

    Obama will be the most (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17:45 PM EST
    gracious you've ever seen.  Good grief, he will have gotten the nomination he will be head in the clouds with euphoria.  He will be grinning from ear to ear and celebrating.  Why wouldn't he be gracious.  He will be singing the praises of the campaign season once it's over.  We will all be welcome to step in line and march to the ballot box on his behalf.

    Obama (none / 0) (#161)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:36:31 AM EST
    has been systematically dissing Hillary Clinton from the start and hasn't stopped. He's been petty from the start.

    best of luck to them (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:26:20 PM EST
    and their new party sans Clinton dems, working class dems, Obama's age and older dems, etc. That is, sans most democrats.

    You know, it sort of reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the marketing, middle management, and phone sanitizes (aka creative class aka Obama wing of the party) go off in a space ship thinking their the first of a fleet to colonize a new planet. Turns out, they were just sent off on their own because no one could stand them.

    So perhaps this is the best thing that could happen. Maybe we can shove them off in the launch of their "new dem" party, and when their out of site, we get back together as the real dem part. Shhhh, please don't tell them. Their so cute, they actually think they're the democrats.

    Don't quit, but do scream bloody murder (none / 0) (#116)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    Well Tiger, you could be a Dandy Democrat, or you could be a Rotten Republican troll. But either way, your post makes me wonder (and not for the first time, I assure you) just how much this split in the Democratic Party is the result of a cleverly engineered Rovian plot to ensure a permanent Republican majority.

    This would not be the first time (in the US and in other countries) that the right has gained or maintained power by promoting divisions among those in the center and on the left. It's much easier to achieve unity when all you care about is maintaining power, not advancing principles or policies. So the RW is always much more cohesive than the left at election time.

    The difference in 2008 (if my suspicions are correct) is that the RW has now figured out how to exploit the Web to their advantage, while for the Left, the Web has been turned into the wedge that divides us. And opinions like the ones you just posted are exactly the result that those RW power brokers working behind the scenes would be aiming to achieve.

    The only way to defeat them is to work doubly hard resolve our differences within the Party and to present a united and cohesive front for the electorate. If our present Party leaders can't achieve that, we need to scream bloody murder until they do, or elect new ones.

    This is why I still believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket (despite all my reservations about Obama) would be the best ticket for the Party. Maybe a Clinton/Edwards ticket would work too.


    Scream all you want (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:21:03 PM EST
    the little people have been screaming at them for years, demonstrating, voting them out of office.  I haven't noticed any changes in govt in my life time.  The only thing that works is voting or not.  I'm not voting someone in to office I don't support.

    I scream at my reps all the time.  I get back form e-mails.  I'm not voting for someone who doesn't represent my issues.


    I agree (none / 0) (#138)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:45:36 PM EST
    What I'm arguing against is the notion that forming a new party is going to be "the solution". Until the US changes its system of government, there's no point in having more than two parties.

    hand that man a mirror (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    markos is about markos - end of story

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    Well, that certainly explains (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:52:21 PM EST
    his support of Obama. Two peas in a pod. Because Obama is all about Obama, no matter what else he says.

    All true but it is we who actually have the number (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    to drive him and they out of the Party if we unite in mass who is KOS to stay or force out anyone.

    Bravo (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by daria g on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    I'm sort of relieved now that Markos finally came right out and put forth the notion that to him, Hillary isn't even a Democrat.  Ha.  To paraphrase comments I've read elsewhere today, so kind of these former Republicans to join our party and try to kick us out..  Seems like a line in the sand has been drawn.  Glad there are so many voices of reason on this side of it.

    Dear Markos, (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM EST
    It isn't about Hillary 'WORSHIP'.  It is about having a sense of fair play.  For the first time in a long time Democrats had reason to be excited about having three quality candidates.  When it was narrowed to two we still should have been happy.  Propping up BOTH of them and saying, "the voters can't go wrong, even if it goes to the convention we will end up with a great GE candidate."

    But nope.  YOU and those like YOU ruined it Markos.  The more you railed against Hillary the more I looked into both Hillary and Obama.  Sure, your sycophants just jumped on board, some didn't...and it hurt Obama.  On first blush Obama is new, different, charismatic, the uber candidate.  When looked at through actual deed, Obama is a nothing more than a typical bloviating politician who is more worried about satisfying his ego than "doing the work of the American people," as he is fond of saying.

    So now we have diehard Hillary supporters who hate you and your guy.  We have diehard Obama supporters who hate people like me and my candidate.  Though you won't acknowledge it you and other Obama supporters are more responsible for the intraparty split than is Hillary.  Slash and burn?  Scorched Earth?  Sounds exactly like the type of hell you have helped to foster.

    But while you and other blog and media big wigs would catch too much flak for not supporting Clinton in the GE, I can abide by my principles without repercussion; meaning I don't have to support Obama, nor vote for him...and won't because Obama has not earned my vote.  I also would not vote for Obama because on a personal level Obama and his supporters have not earned the respect that a vote for him would entail.  I do not respect Obama as a person, I do not respect you as a person.

    You are wrong about B. She did not vote (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    for it and spoke out against it.

    Where did my party go. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jeffhas on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM EST
    I have to tell you... this election cycle was supposed to be the one - the obvious return to Democracy through Democrats... and then the Campaign.  With one small turn of a debate - the driver's licenses for illegals - et tu brutus turn by a mob of Democratic nominees knifing Hillary one by one making her vulnerable to Obama (who surprisingly has a more muddled stand on the issue).  I have felt disowned ever since.  I would go to blog after blog, and the Hillary hating Obama supporters would trounce me with how they were never going to vote for her, so I might as well get on their wagon - because my vote would not count, it would only force them to vote McCain.

    Such fierce hate of our own towards one another has brought me to an epiphany.  While driving home on a particularly lengthy drive, I realized, I don't like my party anymore.  I don't like the way we treat each other.  I realize some of this is due to the fact that I have a favorite, and she's not getting the love, and perhaps not even the nom, but somewhere along the line, I went from being perfectly happy voting for ANY Democrat to not believing in what they stand for if what they stand for means hating each other first.

    I'm not sure where I go from here.  I've always felt I identify with the Working Class of the Dem Party, scrappy underdogs that have to fight a little harder, work a little more to get ahead... and even though I'm clearly way out of that demographic now, I cannot give up my roots... I actually feel a calling to become or identify myself as a 'Reagan Democrat' even though I never voted for the man, and wanted nothing to do with that agenda.  The independence of mind - the willingness to be able to move from one side or another based on the best candidate and not be held to party loyalty - because after all, there are good people on both sides of the fence - half the population cannot be all bad?. Half the people I meet every day are not bad...  Surely I can at least be willing to see the other side's point of view from time to time.

    This site has been such a great place for me to breathe.  To not have to get caught up in raw emotions set aflame by rampant extremists from one side or another.

    Thanks for that.

    I wonder if there is anyone else struggling with walking away from this party too?... or wondering how they suddenly find themselves feeling as though they no longer belong in the Dem category... I literally believe I'm being forced out... and that I'm now going to have to fight for another side that has many issues I've never agreed with before either... I'm wondering if there's a Big Tent Republican or Big Tent Independent that will make me feel welcome to fight, donate and support the cause.

    I miss my old Dem party... and yet I know I must go.

    I feel your pain (none / 0) (#124)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    I think this has been a terribly sad situation.  Wait it out, keep breathing, hopefully things will work out. I am very concerned for the future of our party too.  Time will tell.
    I was relieved to find this place. True patriots are at work here!  BTD and Jeralyn to the rescue!  I think many of the posters here feel much gratitude for this sanctuary.
    The tone and civil discourse is so refreshing here.  I can leave this place feeling much more hopeful.  I hope you will too.

    It's weird cause at a local level (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Mark Woods on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    in Florida the Democratic Party is highly appealing -- we're going to fight hard to defeat the Republican-funded anti-gay marriage bill, we have coffers full to defeat, for the first time in a decade the cartel of Miami Republicans in the House, and so on.

    It's only when I recall the DNC and folks like KOS and Aravosis that the rolling nausea sets in again.

    But watching the fingergate video convinced me I could actually vote in November and NOT participate in the presidential vote --

    I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, except as 1/2 of a Clinton ticket, in any configuration, preferably with the lady 'on top.' That's my bottom line, end of story, so let KOS and Aravosis sit on that and wail.


    It may not be for everyone (none / 0) (#133)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28:12 PM EST
    but I became an Independent after the 2000 election when some of the the big dems were pushing Gore to give up the recount.  Felt like they were not worth my time and money.  I've never looked back and have felt much better not being a democrat.

    Generally I vote democrat, but not always, as I vote for the person and not the party.  This election cycle has cemented my independent status.  From my perspective, the democratic party has been taken over by the elite snob wing and deserves to lose if Obama is the nominee.  I have deep disagreements with McCain on policy, but I believe he has a core of human decency which I find lacking in Obama.  So if Hillary is not the nominee, I'll support him.


    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#143)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    I am in a closed-primary state supporting a Democrat for Governor.  The primary is September 9th.  On September 10th, I will be switching my registration to Independent.  You may want to consider doing the same.  

    I will tell you (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    a.  voting on the war:  First I want to comment on the overuse of I gave a speech against it rhetoric.  Obama was not there: vote = action; speech = words.  So his argument falls on deaf ears to me.
    If you have any knowledge of the middle east, you may be aware that there were several facilities in Iraq that did indeed have the capabilities to make WMD's in short order.  The UN inspections kept that in check.   Iraq and the dictator in charge were serious threats to the region.  There is more to the story than we know.
    October 11, 2002
    In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

    Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

    Is this a declaration of war?

    b.  I think that people should be responsible for their irresponsible money management.  I do not have a problem with this bill.  I do not want to pay your credit card debt.  I have had too many friends not save and plan for their future,  buy what every they wanted on a whim and get themselves in trouble.  Do you want to support that behavior?

    c.  cluster bombs...  I need to learn more about that one.   I doubt that would be a determining factor for me though. I think that Hillary expects our professional military to be judicious in the use of our vast arsenal of weapons.  

    Just one question back to you...How can you vote for Obama as he let black people on the South Side of Chicago freeze their butts off in one of his slumlord friend's (yeah, good ole Rez)housing developments?

    Save us from the TRUE BELIEVERS (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by macwiz12 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    Shades of 1968 and 1972.

    The zealots could not support Humphrey (the first presidential candidate I got to vote for - as a sailor in the Tonkin Gulf) and then those zealots revised the party rules to give us the disaster of McGovern. True believers gave us two victories for tricky Dick.

    I am saddened by the vitriol from many in the Obama camp. The hatred for Clinton is the same as the crap that gave us Nixon. Unfortunately this time I am not quite sure that that our experiment in democracy can survive a McCain victory. I truly fear for our country, the one for which I personally put my life at risk to defend. There are, I am reasonably certain, few on this blog who can make the same claim.

    While I served in Viet Nam, I can also call myself one of the educated elite. I hold an undergraduate degree from Oberlin College and a Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from Michigan. I also come from the upwardly mobile stock. Both of my parents were the first in their families to graduate from high school. My mother was the daughter of Polish immigrants. Her two older sisters were born in Poland.

    My father's family goes back to the American Revolution and I have relatives who fought at San Jacinto and another who spent "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" (only to fall captive to the Japanese and death). My spouse's family is also of Polish extraction.

    Although I have had a professional career, I retain a lot in common with my ancestors. Elitism does not set well with many of my relatives.

    I attended the launch of the 1964 campaign of Johnson in Kennedy Square in Detroit - that used to be the official start of the democratic party's presidential campaign. It recognized the importance of organized labor. My brother was at the "I have a dream speech" and all of my brothers and my sister were on the mall after the Kent State Massacre.

    I have been there and done that. All of us who consider ourselves DEMOCRATS need to realize that we need the BIG TENT. We need to win in November. Whether it is Senator Obama or Senator Clinton that is our presidential candidate we must realize that winning is THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. The differences between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are trivial compared with the differences of either of them with Senator McCain.


    Those who won't make that pledge are, in my opinion, not really democrats.

    Here's the thing: (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    I already voted for a Democratic Senator who voted "yes" on the AUMF. In fact, I voted for two of them. I guess my question is, why is Clinton's vote yes on that issue a deal-breaker, while Kerry's and Edwards' yes votes are not?

    Because I didn't have a choice (none / 0) (#134)
    by Tiparillo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    I wish that Senator Obama's campaign, (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    would put together a FAQ on his opposition to the Iraq war that lists his 2002 speech and then goes into 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 listing the rallies he attended, the speeches he gave, the op-eds he wrote, the organizations he supported, and the tv, radio, and newspaper interviews where he continued to speak out against the war. A list like that, preferably with links, would be a huge help in seeing his principles in action.

    Because I've looked and there's this huge gap between 2002 and 2007 filled with nothing but silence, aside from a few quotes which actually qualify his opposition, says that he doesn't know how he would have voted or he was really close to President Bush's views on Iraq. And his US Senate voting record bears out the same, at least until January 2007, which is also when he declared for president. I can't really give him points for anything but the 2002 speech until someone shows me there's something else there.


    Or like I've said (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:47:31 AM EST
    If the AUMF/Iraq issue was really sooooo important, Kucinich would be in running now.

    Did you vote for Kerry? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:05 PM EST
    I don't like her vote on Iraq, either, but given that she had knowledge of some of the same kind of bad intelligence about Iraq during her husband's presidency, she actually had more reason than anybody else in the Senate to believe what the Bush administration was saying about Saddam WMD was actually true.

    Personally, I didn't think it made sense to go after Saddam even if he did have WMD, but her vote is just not a disqualifier as far as I'm concerned.  Lots and lots of good Dems in the Senate voted the same way.

    I wasf rereading the dailyhowler on the debate (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by gish720 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    back in October and I came across this which I thought was so emblematic of the whole deal. From Bob Somerby:

    That said, we thought Garance Franke-Ruta, live-blogging the session, had the eyes and the guts to see and say what was happening half-way through. She posted this at 9:57 Eastern, when the gang-bang staged by these weak-minded boys had reached a remarkable level:

    FRANKE-RUTA: OK, this is now everybody--and I do mean everybody--against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable.

    If you want to vote for Obama (4.33 / 6) (#17)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    merely supporting him is not enough, you must also hate Clinton to be worthy of casting your vote for him. Oh well, no unity pony for me.

    Obama is Liar (3.00 / 2) (#147)
    by awang on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM 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/ (I vote for McCain if Obama is nominated)

    Jeralyn -- SPAM ALERT (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:39:01 AM EST
    awang has posted the identical post five times now.

    I just gotta say (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Satya1 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:39 PM EST
    because I've seen some well thought out posts from you and have read some good material.

    This post indicates to me that you are taking Markos too seriously and you are also taking yourself too seriously.

    I truly wish you the best of luck.  

    I am not sure who you are (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    So I can not say that I have any idea what you are talking about.

    I truly wish you the best of luck. Naaah. Actually, I don't wish you anything at all.


    Quite calm. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:40:20 AM EST
    These are serious times, or haven't you (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:34 PM EST

    Kos will be on Real Time tonight (none / 0) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    making his pronouncements to unfortunate HBO subscribers.

    Oh good (none / 0) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    Now I can go to bed right after Battlestar Galactica!

    2 way street (none / 0) (#59)
    by judyo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    Move On dot org = Brown Shirts (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:43:29 PM EST
    They deserve to be called out!!  They have behaved very badly and I have lost all respect for that group and their tactics.  They do not stand for democracy...  They are why caucuses should be abandoned.  They no longer work in a fair and democratic way...

    TGIF (none / 0) (#66)
    by Tiparillo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:13:51 PM EST
    I read the posts here and wonder what alternate universe I am living in.  Many of the complaints I see about Obama and his supporters are what I feel about Clinton and her supporters.  

    Are we all just blind partisan hacks?

    A few months ago I would have easily and proudly voted for either candidate.  

    But as the Clinton campaign started to sound more like a Republican campaign, I'm not so sure any more.  I don't want the Democratic party to be like the Republican party - not just in policies and platforms, but in attitude and tactics.  

    And the argument I see is that "The GOP is going to do it."  As if the ends justify the means.

    Sorry - I am just rambling now....but I wish someone would just wake me in November.

    Thank God its Friday.  I need a drink.

    Which candidate is campaigning in a gracious (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:18:04 PM EST
    manner? Hint, it's not Obama.

    Gracious? (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Tiparillo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    I'd use a lot of adjectives for the Clinton campaign, but gracious surely isn't one of them.

    But thanks for proving my point for me.


    Look what she says about supporting (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    the eventual nominee. She is far more emphatic than Obama, and stresses that she will tell her supporters to vote for Obama if he is nominated.
    She has said many kind things about him---for instance, at the Philly dinner.
    He has just been an all around jerk.
    And do you want to talk about supporters?
    Are you kidding me????
    Please, tell your fictions somewhere else.

    Yes gracious, and much admired too ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:49:20 AM EST
    I guess you just can't see what so many others can. But fortunately, you have only one vote, so the Party does not have to depend on you to elect Hillary.

    There is a huge difference between (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    campaigning like Republicans and governing like them.  You are saying Clinton campaigns like one, I say Obama will govern like one.

    I agree about the drink though!


    Cheers! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Tiparillo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    "sound more like a Republican campaign"? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    You forget which candidate talks about admiring Reagan, promises a return to the foreign policy of Bush I, and in public debates thinks saying Republicans have good ideas makes up for his own lack of any specific ideas.  

    Christ (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Tiparillo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM EST
    why do I bother?

    Adios y'all


    LOL.... just like Obama, he can't take (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    tough questions.
    See you after the inauguration of McCain or Hillary!

    Thank you (none / 0) (#106)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn -- PROFANITY ALERT (nt) (none / 0) (#168)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:55:08 AM EST
    Alot of this back and forth between the (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    candidates is just politics.  The pin thing and the Bosnia thing, etc. all stupid.  But what really makes me want to vote for Hillary is the long years of solid democratic experience. Of course the O's had to malign that since they had a candidate with a very short resume and some thin credentials.  They also had to distort (so right wing)  the Clinton's long work on behalf of the minority communities. That became ugly and it wasn't all the Clinton's fault.   It is too bad because Obama didn't have to run this year.  He promised to stay in the senate at least his first term.  What was the hurry? Hillary would have done a credible job and Obama could take over in 4 or 8 years helping to restore our country. So who is tearing the Dems apart?

    Sorry you feel that way (none / 0) (#96)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    Not sure how Hillary's antipathy (none / 0) (#72)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    toward Democratic activists would fit into your calculus.

    Gee, ask a hard one! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:00 PM EST
    The ranks of Dem. activists have been overrun with Obama arrivistes who don't just support their candidate but who demonize Clinton and her voters and are attempting to ride us all out of the party they've decided is theirs.

    Jeez.  Keep up, will ya?


    Thanks for the lesson (none / 0) (#103)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    Now I know there's demonization only when it runs in one direction.



    What? (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    Unintelligible reply.

    Blame your blind spot (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    I joined MoveOn when (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    they first started, sent money, supported their causes, called my legislators, signed petitions, worked their phonebanks to make calls for candidates. And I was really proud of Hillary when she stuck with them over the Petraeus ad. But I didn't sign up to have them pick my candidate for me from the Democratic side. They should have just supported the eventual nominee, so we could all stay together and focused on beating the R's nominee in the general.

    I felt very betrayed when they came out for Obama and perhaps Hillary did as well. When you stand up for a group and work hard for them, it stings to be told you're not welcome anymore.


    I detest Move On (none / 0) (#179)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:51:29 AM EST
    Fat Cats and Democrats (none / 0) (#123)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    That is exactly what they think is going to happen since we will like good sheep fall in line and vote for the Democratic candidate it doesn't matter that they destroy everything worth saving of the party.  They will destroy the Clintons, run over every Democratic value, and tell you to go F*** yourself they don't care we will give them our vote cause we don't want the Big Bad Wolf.  I don't know lately I am starting to doubt wether I will this time, they sure as hell are making it hard for me to believe that it would be any worse with the other guy.

    They are afraid that if Hillary wins (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:58:38 PM EST
    that they will actually have to do some work. With Obama losing the election, they won't have to.

    (snark, sort of)

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    by I think Dean has been misquoted by abbreviating the clip.  I heard a longer excerpt, and he said quite plainly that Supers would have to make up their minds by June 3, the last primary, which is reasonable.

    NOT reasonable (none / 0) (#149)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:14:04 AM EST
    convention is in August

    lots of time, and as they said in Forrest Gump...s**t happens

    FL and MI still unsettled

    Who counts the delegates/super delegates?

    It's all a machination to defeat the rules that they want to proclaim as being so important...don't buy in to the notion that Dean is trying to sell.


    If you are a Democrat (none / 0) (#150)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:16:43 AM EST
    then you would put the country's interests before the party's interests.

    Out of the 3 candidates remaining, only Hillary is truly qualified for the job on all counts.

    But if the choice is b/w Obama - a person who has proven himself to be a left wing Bush Jr. - and McCain - a republican sure but also an occassional centrist and one who has walked the talk sometimes -, then the choice is McCain.

    If you are a Democrat (none / 0) (#151)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    then you would put the country's interests before the party's interests.

    Out of the 3 candidates remaining, only Hillary is truly qualified for the job on all counts.

    But if the choice is b/w Obama - a person who has proven himself to be a left wing Bush Jr. - and McCain - a republican sure but also an occassional centrist and one who has walked the talk sometimes -, then the choice is McCain.

    I'll vote for Obama over McCain (none / 0) (#181)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    ...but Obama-supporters and Kos and Arianna and other ideological "purists" seem to want to purge the Democratic party of centrists like me, so I'm obliging them by leaving the party.

    I'll vote for Obama but I refuse to belong to a party dominated by his supporters and amazingly out-of-touch leaders like Dean, Pelosi, and Reid. I'm tired of waiting for the Democrats to once again deliver on their promises to improve opportunities in this country for the working-class.  

    Perhaps it's time for disgruntled, centrist/pragmatist Democrats to send a message to the party elites: you despise us as  Republican-lite? Fine. We won't embarrass you anymore by belonging to your party. (And good luck trying to win elections without us.)

    If these folks want to turn the Democratic party into one big salon for the academic left and the edgier young folks, that's fine. I see no reason why the rest of us should ruin the vibe for them.

    The GOP has been dominated by "movement conservatives" who scorn RINOs for years, and now the Dems are dominated by equally obnoxious "movement liberals" who may as well start fussing about "DINOs." Neither is a party that welcomes pragmatic centrists. So I think that it makes far more sense for me to be an Independent--leaving the Democratic party after being a member for 32 years.

    And I don't think I'm alone.