home

Not A Dem

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:06:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Jonathan Singer writes:

Reading Jerome's post this afternoon, I must respectfully, though strongly, disagree with the sentiment he passes along from Big Tent Democrat that Obama supporters' "hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

. . . I wouldn't use the words of a Daily Kos commenter Markos points to, namely that the commenter no longer considers Hillary Clinton a Democrat . . .

Respectfully, Singer just did agree with me. Those are the words that I found objectionable. Singer continues:

What I would say, however, is this: Clinton is not beyond reproach. She isn't above criticism.

The question is not are the Clintons beyond reproach. They clearly are not nor should they be. The question is is BARACK OBAMA beyond reproach. If criticizing Barack Obama makes one "not a Dem," then Singer and others are arguing that Barack Obama is beyond reproach or criticism. I categorically reject this double standard. Singer continues:

Nevertheless, as I said before, there is a line. That line is crossed when the attacks are no longer simply mentions of the very real fact that the Democratic nominee is going to be hit by the Republicans, but go beyond that to validations of the Republican attacks.

Oh really? So when Barack Obama started saying Hillary Clinton will say and do anything in October 2007, Singer was out there saying "Obama crossed the line?" The answer is of course he did not. This is the double standard and hypocrisy that rather make the point that destruction of the Clintons is the goal for some. I think Singer's attempted defense makes the point as well as anything I could write.

(Comments now closed)

< Obama's Itchy Finger | CBS Poll on PA College Student Preferences >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Not A Dem | 249 comments (249 topical)
    So transparently obvious (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:13:45 AM EST
    If I were a card carrying member of the creative class I could compile a video going back to the nearly the beginning of the Obama campaign of him validating the right wing attacks on Hillary Clinton.

    How exactly do they think this line of attack helps Obama at this point?  The argument they need to be making to the Superdelegates is that they are able to beat the right wing attacks, regardless of whether Hillary repeats them.

    Obamedia certainly seems to be working (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:55 AM EST
    The same media that sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.
    It's all about corporate media revenue.

    [ Parent ]
    That's (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    hitting the nail on the head, imo. The media wants to toy with Obama before they go in for the kill. It's all about ratings, folks.

    [ Parent ]
    Not just ratings (none / 0) (#109)
    by joanneleon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    Ratings are part of it, but it's not just about ratings.  It's also about consolidated corporate ownership of the media and their ability to control the message.  There is no doubt that they'll go after Obama and prop up McCain as soon as they've gotten their chosen dem candidate, Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Or not.... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    ...Obama might be their chosen candidate this time around, which I find equally troubling.

    [ Parent ]
    Why debates need to go back to public TV (none / 0) (#245)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    and be run by the League of Women Voters.

    That's how it used to be done, before the networks persuaded the parties to make debates about money -- about selling we-the-people/viewers to advertisers.

    These are about the cheapest shows to produce on tv.  For example, the actors/candidates work for free.

    We need a petition to the FCC?  Once it's no longer under a Bushie?

    [ Parent ]

    So what is Obama's answer to (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    the Ayer's issue, besides saying he should not be asked about it anymore?

    [ Parent ]
    another display of Obama's elitism (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:25:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Beyond Elitism (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    "another display of Obama's elitism"

    and brittleness.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a truism in the ad biz... (5.00 / 13) (#84)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    "The worst thing that can happen to a bad product is good advertising." The point is this; effective advertising can encourage huge numbers of people to go out and buy a product -- but when it does not deliver as advertised, the consequences of that failure is  correspondingly huge (and most often very rapid).

    The same is true in politics with this difference -- there is a greater lag time. When you buy an attractively packaged and advertised widget, take it home and try use it, you will discover immediately -- and tell all your family and friends -- that it isn't as advertised.    

    It takes more time (it may even take a couple of elections, as it did with Nixon and Bush) to take the full measure of a well marketed politician -- time in which the lies start unraveling and the economic losses  and deaths start adding up.  But once the hype is revealed as false the consequences are devastating -- for Nixon it meant the destruction of his political career. For Bush it has meant the near destruction of his political party.

    Those who are impressed with how well Obama is being marketed should give this, and his extremely light record of real accomplishment,  some very serious thought.

    [ Parent ]

    buyer's remorse - well said ! (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    I've had it for a long time. I was surprised how Obama zoomed past Edwards, but his packaging was tight and that is how it was delivered !  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    The media (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    Remember that the media ripped Edwards as soon as Obama declared, then ignored him and some media people actually admitted that destroying Edwards was deliberate.

    Obama started getting boatloads of cash from Wall Street, etc. and given press and money it became a foregone conclusion.  

    Still incredible how so many allegedly 'savvy' Democrats fell into the same old trap; money, cheap sloganeering and media manipulation.

    So what we may end up with as a candidate would be the shallowest, emptiest of shells.

    [ Parent ]

    Buyer's remorse (5.00 / 9) (#136)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:12:32 AM EST
    If Obama's elected, I expect many voters will be experiencing buyer's remorse.  Even if, contrary to my own rather low expectations, he does a decent job as President, there's no way that his performance (or any President's for that matter) can match his hopey-changey message.  That's the problem with soaring rhetoric - it sounds like empty promises once reality rears its ugly head.  Oratorical skills are an advantage to any politician, but unless they're backed up by actual policies and the ability to get the job done, they're meaningless.  

    Some people seem to equate the ability to run a good campaign (with plenty of collaboration from the blogs and the MSM) with the ability to run the country.  There's a world of difference between being a good leader and being a good candidate.


    [ Parent ]

    Obama isn't running his campaign (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    Axelrod is. And he is running a good campaign, but we're not voting for him. Obama is getting credit for running a good campaign, while Clinton is getting credit for running a bad campaign. But Clinton has been careful not to damage core Democratic beliefs, running on her experience relative to that of Obama, while Obama has been tearing down Clinton in any way possible. When is the last time that Clinton implied that Obama was dishonest, or dishonorable, or "willing to do anything to win"?  It could be argued that Axelrod is running a more effective campaign, but it certainly is not good for the long term prospects of the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! (none / 0) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    "There's a world of difference between being a good leader and being a good candidate."

    I've said it before here - Obama is the better candidate. Hillary would make the better President. Which do you prefer?

    [ Parent ]

    I should qualify that by saying (none / 0) (#157)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    he's the better candidate in the primary race.  In the GE?  Not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    White men (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    the other part of his coalition are gung ho with him beating up on a woman, but how will they take to him beating up on a white man?  A hero at that.  What are the move-ons etc, gonna say.  

    Listen to right wing radio sometimes and see the similarities with the Probama folks.  

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#197)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    This makes no sense to me.  I'm not gung-ho about Democrats beating up each other period, regarless of their sex.  And as a "white man", I don't care who beats up on McSame, just as long as he gets pounded into retirement where he belongs.  

    Pretty sexist comment, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, she wasn't softballed (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    He asked her some very tough questions. She just handled them so well that they looked like easy questions. Obama, on the other hand, made "softball" questions, like the one about the flag pin, look like tough questions because he had a hard time answering without tripping over his tongue.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! Good point (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:23 AM EST
    I guess it doesn't have to make sense to work. Hey, isn't that a Republican strategy? /snark

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Should Stop Bashing The Clinton Years (none / 0) (#203)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    Clinging to a Stereotype
    Nice article by PAUL KRUGMAN in NY Times.

    ".....the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration."

    There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading.

    In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.)

    We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I'd urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.

    Let's hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he'll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the ONLY Democratic administration most Americans remember.

    [ Parent ]

    How Obama fell to EARTH (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    By DAVID BROOKS

    Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new -- an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

    But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

    He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn't on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates' words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

    Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

    He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

    Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

    If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge -- in which case he would destroy his credibility -- or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

    Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the "bitter" comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards's haircut as clues about shared values.

    When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

    Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

    It was inevitable that the period of "Yes We Can!" deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He'll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

    General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I've asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that's going to be hard.

    A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

    Welcome to 2008. Everybody's miserable.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess Ol' Bobo (none / 0) (#227)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    has given up his pretense of ObamaLove, and can now reveal his true, McCain-Loving self.

    Oh, the predictability!

    [ Parent ]

    It's hard to imagine (none / 0) (#235)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    my agreeing with David Brooks on anything. But he has some real points in this piece. Most of it i agree with, except in the last paragraph he says:

    A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon.

    He wasn't "riding his talents," so much as he was riding the wave of media adoration, CDS, and the wave of messiah (father figure)in waiting.

    And secondly, getting "ground down" was not Hillary's doing. He did it himself. His own hypocrisy, shallowness and vanity have ground him down. It's becoming apparent to many, how phony he actually is. A New kinda politics--what a joke.

     

    [ Parent ]

    she's a very good spontaneous speaker. (none / 0) (#241)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    She's crap at speeches.

    Obama can't debate and he knows McCain and Clinton are better debators. He'll have to learn how to debate. It's not natural to him.

    Given that Bush was lousy debator it may not matter--because the spin after the debate is more critical.

    Who knows what orders MSNBC and CNN and ABC will be getting by that time?

    Spin for McCain or Spin for Obama?  who knows.  Clearly ABC are ready to rip Obama a new one.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, no surprise that I completely agree with you. (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:25:48 AM EST
    As you know, I'm a Hillary supporter. Historically, the candidates I prefer in contested primaries hardly ever win the Dem nomination, yet I have a 100% record of voting Dem in every election, up and down the ticket. I never, ever had a problem jumping on board with the eventual candidate. Heck, I even convinced myself at the time that Dukakis was a good candidate, though now I see that he was horrible. The double standard and denial that I see in this campaign, however, is just insane. I guess a lot of it has to do with the Internet, but still. What came first, the stupidity or the technology?

    Maria, you are so right (5.00 / 14) (#21)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:38 AM EST
    I am in the same boat as you--straight dem.  It made me furious when Obama started not just attacking (which all politicians do) but razing Clinton, and then going after Bill Clinton in the same manner.  Calling them racist, charging that she is a liar, and desperate, and unseemly...all served to turn me from not thinking he is a good candidate for the job to actively disliking him.

    And now, I see that it's not far enough to vilify and humiliate her, they have to take away the essence of her character--her democratic-ness.

    Absolutely despicable.  The level of outright hatred shown during this primary season has made me ashamed to be associated with these so-called "fellow" democrats.  And I find it rather rich that the first time Obama gets some hard questions during a debate, the outrage is over the top.

    Where were they when Chelsea was being "pimped"?  Where were they when C.U.N-you know the rest-was formed?

    John Edwards talked about two Americas.  These are the two different democratic parties.

    [ Parent ]

    What burns me at least as much (5.00 / 10) (#101)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    (if not more) than Obama's many gratuitous validation of GOP talking points against Hillary (his reference Tuesday night to her 16 year old "baking cookies" remark is just the latest example), is his constant conflation of the Bush and Clinton records on the economy.  Sorry, Senator Obama, there was a yoooooge difference how the middle class and working class fared under the Clinton Administration on the one hand, and the Bush I and II Administrations on the other.

    Bill Clinton was not a perfect president, quite apart from Monicagate.  But Obama's unwillingness to acknowledge the Clinton Administration's very real achievements in economic and foreign policy is very worrisome to me.    

    [ Parent ]

    Me too litigatormom, (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    ...I really have a hard time getting past it.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Has Not Only Chosen To Portray Bill (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    as a failed president, he has stated that he would have a foreign policy like Reagan and Bush I. I guess that was the reason he needed Republicans as Sec. of Defense and State  (Hagel and Luger) so he could sure to accomplish great foreign policy achievements just like the Republicans. Every one knows that Democrats are weak on foreign policy because the Republicans have been telling us that for decades and now we have it confirmed by Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I repeat (4.90 / 10) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    The Obama candidacy is troubling in many ways.  One of the most troubling aspects is the yes, the mob.  The only trickle up aspect is the creation of single thoughts and attacks that are started from the alleged bottom, Axelrod driven, that then become viral and become the truth.  

    If no one is scared with that mob functioning in unity and precision I don't know what you all need for a wake up call.  This is a modern day reign of terror.  

    [ Parent ]

    I totally agree! (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nashville on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    The whole mob mentatality is very troubling.  I guess the positive spin on this is this is a "movement." By either description, psychology shows that people do things they wouldn't otherwise do when group think takes over.  And sometimes it can be pretty scary stuff!  When I see "everyone" moving one way, I always stop and check myself.

    [ Parent ]
    It's an artificial movement (5.00 / 10) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    Axelrod knows what he is doing, he is using the blogs/boyz etc, to create the issues.   Seriously, I will not vote for anyone even a dem who uses these kinds of mob techniques.  I also hold responsible the alleged "progressive leadership" for fueling the mayhem.  

    [ Parent ]
    the movement (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by anniethena on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    is getting creepy.
    I logged in to DK to support dhonig's diary yesterday and clicked onto just one of the diaries on the rec list.
    Now I don't have to link to there as the same diarist posted (at least most of) her diary in the form of a comment to that gotcha video

    Scroll down to comment 16 by Melody

    Last night, the people who consider themselves to be the true "elites" of this nation began stepping up their game, showing us what Obama -- and we -- should start to expect if we keep pushing a candidacy that they can't control.

    Last night, the corporate-controlled media and the right-wing noise machine and the RNC and the old Democratic party guard made it absolutely clear that they consider democracy, the netroots, and anybody who hopes for true change in America an anathema. The enemy. The other.

    Last night, the people who've entrenched their control of this country and become fatter and happier during 24 years of the combined Bush and Clinton political dynasties said, "Not so fast."

    Last night, people who truly believe they're better and more important than the rest of us told us to step the hell off.

    Last night, they put us on notice that, once again, there's no bar below which they're not willing to crawl, no playing field they won't deliberately tilt off level, no lie they won't tell, no stunt they won't pull, no deck they won't stack, no dice they won't load to put the genie of an empowered U.S. public back in the bottle.

    Which means...

    Last night, Hillary Clinton and her good friends in the Republican Party blinked....

    I'm not comfortable at all with the tone and the use of "if we keep pushing a candidacy that they can't control", and also "the enemy. the other.", even if the writer is saying that the "elites" hold this view of the hopers.

    [ Parent ]

    but but but (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    Obama is hohohohohooope unh unh unh... He's change, he's the one true one who is going to actually change the way our govt all on his own (I'm expecting Bush/Cheney changes myself)  I think it's creepy, but it will tone way down when Obama gets the nom (without my vote) and they will crash when he gets elected (yes, I absolutely believe he will but, again, without my vote).  I have no idea what they will do for 4 years but I imagine it will be adore him like the little group of diehards adore Bush.  In certain eyes, neither of them will ever do anything wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Are Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    not aware of the tag 'astroturf' assigned to Axelrove?  Do they not know what it means?  I'm sure they do, but 'winning' is more important than actually getting some legislative change from the people that are elected (sorry lot that the majority of them are IMO).

    [ Parent ]
    it certainly isn't in the tradion of the party (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by thereyougo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    the other half of "new" democratic party sounds like Republican lite to me.

    I'm not happy with it, but we'll unite under the opposition.

    I wish they had listened when Al Gore told them about the SCOTUS judges that now has tipped the court to the right.

    [ Parent ]

    They are authoritarians (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    I've been reading a lot about authoritarians lately. Authoritarians are called "right-wing authoritarians", but this can be misleading, because the "Right-wing" in this case has nothing to do with the political right.  Progressives can be right-wing authoritarians (RWA's). I think that Obama has found a way to appeal to a large group of these people - not coincidentally the same people who are drawn to the larger blogs.

    There are a lot of people on larger blogs who think they are opposing authority figures, but they are actually simply worshipping a differnt "establishment", the progressive leaders on the internet. These are the people who reflexively recommend the diaries of certain people before they even read them. The ones who blindly follow the orders of blog leaders in terms of what they believe. Markos is an authoritarian leader. He has set himself up a a person with ideas that will save the Democratic Party from itself. And a lot of people agree with him and parrot his views. That's what authoritarianism is about - accepting the views of an authority figure rather than challenging those views.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    What I find amazing is that their comments are uniform.  You go to the various blogs and you will see word per word the same arguments.  One of the things I love about TL is that people are clever, they use their minds and the come up with different and new arguments.  The Probamas, have this robotic unity in what they say.  These one liners that are so stunning, you cannot respond to. I so hope someone puts together the confluence of this after it's over.  It is truly scaring me.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's not entirely authoritarianism (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    It's also partly astroturfing. I can't prove it, but I believe with all my heart that Axelrod has a very small army of commenter's who regularly get text messages telling them what campaign message to promote next. Once they have the basic ideas out there, the ideas move into the public consciousness as a meme and are spread by non-astroturfer's.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (none / 0) (#243)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    uncanny how it works on all the "independent thinkers" , Reich, etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    We lived through almost 8 years of people (5.00 / 10) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:39 AM EST
    who criticized W being branded a traitor (and worse) and receiving death threats and having their families harassed.  Tavis Smiley has gotten this same treatment from Obama supporters. Black politicians who supported HRC were also threatened. Not a peep out of Obama on how this was unacceptable behavior.

    No way will I support these types of actions from a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    Organizational Piracy. (none / 0) (#244)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    It's the mirror of twhat the evangelicals did with the GOP back in the 1990s.

    Maybe the party is using them.

    [ Parent ]

    Good question (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:35 AM EST
    The technology was just the forum to express it. But, in all fairness, none of us would be here without the foresight of many. So the technology was a good thing because it allowed for all opinions.


    Jeez, I voted for Dukakis too, being the good Democrat. Especially against Bush Sr. Now I look at him and wonder, with all the millions of people in the US, how could we only come up with the lesser of two evils to be our candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Petey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:23 AM EST
    "I think Singer's attempted defense makes the point as well as anything I could write."

    Yup.

    'Twas my exact thought when I read Singer's odd post.

    Obama is God (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:32:46 AM EST
    Only criticism of Obama is damaging to the democratic party. The republicans would NEVER EVER know what bad things to say about him if Clinton didn't say it first.  

    blech

    what it really all boils down to is "Hillary is a bitch and getting in the way of our Messiah".

    sounds so familiar (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:55:21 AM EST
    can someone tell me where I've heard this before...

    "You're either with us or against us!"

    [ Parent ]

    Next step... (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    "People who attack Obama are not true Americans".  A pony for the first person to find a reference.

    [ Parent ]
    Oooh! I know! McCarthy! (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    Do I get one with a rainbow mane and tail?

    [ Parent ]
    If he gets the nom (big IF) (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    then we all get the tail.

    Speaking of, Clinton had a really good interview on a local station this am wherein she said, basically, Obama needs to man up.  We'll see how that gets spun, but I gotta agree.  One debate and the guy is pouting in the corner.  What's he gonna do when the real stress gets piled on and he's vilified on every television show?  Because that's what we do to presidents, no matter how much we like them.

    [ Parent ]

    Messiahs don't act like street kids (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:13:29 AM EST
    I think of GW and I see a bratty, cocky kid that had it easy, had the roads paved for him, and is crass. I see that he allowed 'other' people to run the show. Sound familiar? A bobble head doll? Big blogs became powerful just as we wanted them to. I just did not know they would become so ugly. I always thought the Right Wing blogs would sprew lies but the Dem blogs would only have the honesty of the many. Wrong. In the end, these same "Pure" blogs were able to pass on lies and become the equivelent of the Right Wing blogs. In the end, the Left Wing blogs as they got bigger and more powerful, became a Chicago back room filled with smoke.  

    [ Parent ]
    When the whole Obama Drama (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:34:03 AM EST
    started this year, I began to make jokes about the "Singularity" (as opposed to Unity) and "assimilation".  I never meant them as more than jokes.  I only observed a few supporters who appeared to believe in the One True Candidate.

    Things are different now.  There is an entire narrative that does not embrace a diversity of views, but excludes all that do not accept the Anti-Clinton Doctrine.  Not only is Clinton unacceptable(to put it politely), but her supporters are also outcasts and must be made to see the light and brought to Obama.

    I do not know if the Democratic Party has a candidate.  There is TeamObama - but they don't appear to think they are part of the Democratic Party.  It seems to me that they think the Party is a part of TeamObama.  They'll take any Democrat, so long as they first renounce the heretic Clinton.

    Where is the Unity?  Where is the Change?  Where is the Reaching Out?

    Not only do I see the candidates, the campaigns and the media playing politics as usual but what I see online is a deliberate shutting off of discussion.  The drawbridge is pulled up, the shutters are closed, the gates are barred.

    Glenn Greenwald has some excellent points about how the Right and the Media drive elections.  We need to talk about them - not as partisans, but as a Party.

    religious argument (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    a lot of this does seem to cross over into what is termed a religious argument. This is when the arguments are not about substance but about some seemingly irrational argument over less than substantive differences. In an ideal world, people should either be arguing about policy differences or electability differences. But a lot of arguments seem to be more irrational than that.

    That happens on this site too. Even from my saintly self. :-). But now with more exposure and more debates and getting to know the candidates better, I think a lot of problems I'm having are leaning more towards not thinking Obama's policies are compatible with mine (and the dem party) in a fundamental way.


    [ Parent ]

    From my humble experience (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:42 AM EST
    the religiosity is more pronounced on the Obama side and there's that wonderful Obama quote that has "epiphany" in it.

    I want to discuss issues and framing and the media.  But it seems like more and more people have figured out how to completely avoid having to discuss anything.  Another attempt at unity from a dk diarist nets a handful of comments.  I don't even have to look at the rec list to know there's another CB(clintonbashing) diary up there.

    [ Parent ]

    Religiosity -- that's what I saw in Obama (none / 0) (#249)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    many months before the first primary, and it raised my radar even then.  I was surprised, because I had really liked his 2004 speech -- but when I heard him again last summer, it was quite a different style.

    I watched as he toned it down when heading to Iowa, but it has re-emerged recently . . . and it gives me the willies I get seeing televangelists on the toob on Sunday mornings.  

    [ Parent ]

    We are welcome to the table... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    ...as long as we observe the house rules. No challenging Obama's qualifications, character, or intellect. No praise for Clinton. No defense of the Democratic establishment.

    Like Ford said - you can have any color car you want, as long as it's black.

    [ Parent ]

    Are we all not Dems? (5.00 / 26) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:39:04 AM EST
    That seems to be the claim now. That anyone that dares criticize Obama is not a Democrat. Never mind that Hillary is the one that continuously calls for Party Unity, not Obama. Never mind that she was the one that said we will unite behind whoever the nominee is in November while crickets chirped from Obama.  Never mind that he is the one that puts the Clinton administration over and over again in the same sentence as the Bush administration.  Never mind all that.  If you dare criticize him you are not a Democrat. It's disgusting. And if he's the nominee a lot of us Clinton supporters will take their accusations to heart.  I already have.  I feel like they don't care at all that any of us are in the party. They honestly believe that they can win the White House without us.  Well, good luck with that Jonathan. Good luck with that Obama. I'll be watching the returns on that Tuesday night.  And that's about all I'll be doing. Considering I'm apparently not a Dem.

    you've nailed it perfectly! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Dem-bashing by Dem candidate (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by noholib on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    I agree with almost everything you say ...
    I turned to Clinton after Edwards withdrew because I was disgusted by Obama's Harry-and-Louise inspired attack ads against Clinton's health care plans.  I thought then that that crossed an unacceptable line.  I have written many posts about my disgust at the Obama tactic of pretending there was one long Bush-Clinton-Bush administration and that only Reagan and Bush I deserve any praise over the last 30 years. I think this amounts to Republican-lite policies on his part and his anti-Clinton bashing becomes ultimately a very damaging anti-Dem bashing ... I don't see it only as outreach, but as a new form of "triangulation" and a very old form of divisive politics.  Yes, he is guilty of most of the charges he flings at the Clinton campaign.
    I have gone from admiring him a few months ago to being frankly very turned off by him. I feel dissed as a loyal Democratic voter and strong Democratic partisan.  I have lost a lot of respect for him and I really think he needs a lot more maturity before being ready for POTUS.
    BUT, we as voters have to remember what our true commitments, values, and concerns are.  Do we want to see Republican President McCain continuing the policies of the disastrous Bush II regime and the disastrous Republican economic policies that go back to Reagan?  We cannot lose sight of the real stakes for the country.
    I do fear the long-term consequences of this campaign.  And as a woman, I am frightened, disgusted, and dismayed by the rampant sexism and misogyny that has been so prevalent and so easily accepted.  I am not sure now what political consequences to draw from this in the long run.

    [ Parent ]
    Well now the (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    "dirt off your shoulder" video has become a mash-up. Not being dissed by anyone in the left. It's being PRAISED.  And 2 comments into a lefty blog I see "He's got 99 problems, but a B** ain't one."  Yup. Obama the Great Misogynistic Uniter.  

    [ Parent ]
    You nailed it for me... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    Yes, he is guilty of most of the charges he flings at the Clinton campaign.

    This is so obvious to me as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually We Are All NOT Dems Now (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    I have changed from being a life long Democrat to being an Independent because I will not be a part of the Obama party.

    [ Parent ]
    We should be Americans first (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    and partisans second.  It will be a cruel joke on the American people to let loose this Barack Obama with no experience and has gotten away with nebulous promises.  But, maybe the democrats need to learn a few more lessons before they realize that they have been taken over by a noisy claque.  

    As for me, I will cling to my faith that somehow, Someone up there will continue to "stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above."

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is an electoral disaster (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:40:37 AM EST
    waiting to happen.

    OT (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:45:15 AM EST
    Did you have a specific complaint about my comment?
    I'm curious about the "1" rating.

    [ Parent ]
    my bad (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    corrected

    [ Parent ]
    S'Okay. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    I try very hard to be on my best behavior, so if I do err, I want to know what my mistake was.

    This site has been good for me and to me.  I don't want to screw it up!

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please. (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:51 AM EST
    There is a primary going on. Simply because BOTH of them are campaigning does not make Hillary divisive and using Karl Rove like tactics. Last I checked it was Obama that used right-wing framing about healthcare and social security against Hillary.  But that's all fine. He's trying to win an election. But when it becomes that Hillary does everything evil under the sun and Obama can sit there and "brush the dirt off his shoulders" in reference to the other Dem in the race and that's seen as just fine and NOT divisive and damaging to the party, we've got a problem.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:07 AM EST
    There is no conceivable criticism of Barack Obama to which "not many would object."

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, good one. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:54:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama was labeled an elitist last year! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:20 AM EST
    according to AP and other news sources - and that was before "arugula." Then the exit polling began showing the wealthy voting for Obama -the working class for Hillary.
    Obama displays even MORE elitism by whining and complaining about "unfair" debate questions.
    Hillary is strong - can handle the heat - and will be a great President!

    [ Parent ]
    Racism (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    Telling black voters that they were hoodwinked and okie doked is not outrageous?  It's not a lie to make out that the Clinton's are racist?   Compare being accused of elitism to being a racist?  a liar?  and someone who stoops to anything.  

    [ Parent ]
    Okie dokie, then try this list on for size (none / 0) (#193)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    [ Parent ]

    Never can get links to work. Link Here (none / 0) (#196)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    [ Parent ]

    Obama gets elected (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:43:55 AM EST
    And the Democratic brand is done for years to come. Well, first, I don't think he'd actually GET elected, but assuming he does,  I don't see him being able to handle the overwhelming tasks that lay at hand. Frankly, I think the SNL skit where Obama calls Hillary at 3 am is probably a lot closer to the truth than not.

    I see one term for an Obama administration, and that it would be such an unmitigated disaster, that it would be the sequel to the Republican Revolution of the 1990s.

    Sigh.

    I'm replying to myself (none / 0) (#228)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    And so it begins - hello President McCain:

    From CNN -  Al Qaeda planning Baghdad attacks, says U.S.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Even though they word it nicely (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:45:04 AM EST
    And they wonder why we are so against Obama. I can not understand the blindness of very intelligent and political savy men/women who will not acknowledge they hate the Clintons. And the 90's were good to them. The odd thing is I had more respect for Obama when this all started. If she had quit immediately, we might not have seen how truely he is just not ready. If either one is elected, how will those blogs treat them? Will they continue to attack her or will they continue to cover up for him or will they finally be honest at last? If she is President, will they be leading Right Wing talking points just like they are doing themselves.  

    Hypocrisy and double standard (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:36 AM EST
    will make it extremely difficult for some of us Clinton supporters to vote for Obama in November, if he's the nominee.  I believe the attitude comes from the top down.  Obama takes criticism personally, and so do his more fervent supporters.  

    So.... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:39 AM EST
    hate of those who are different.

    If this is the worst part of human emotion, then what do you make of the hate toward Hillary supporters that we see from many Obama supporters. And do you think it may be even remotely possible that Obama's derisive comments which were greeted with standing ovations and cheers, can be interpreted by reasonable people as giving permission to that hate? It isn't your opinion, I realize that...but try to see how someone else might reasonably see it that way. There can be no coming together if we are constrained by rules which posit that no comparisons are allowed to be made of Obama and Clinton because of this pre-condition set up by attitudes like Singer's--- ie,  Obama is always attributed a good reason for his behavior and Hillary is always just considered a b@#ch.

    McCain was criticized (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:42 AM EST
    for allowing a crowd to laugh about Hillary being a B***h. iirc - he later apologized.
    Elitists rarely apologize, and we're not expecting it from Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    Evidently... (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:03 AM EST
    characterizing Obama's remarks about small town mid-westerners given to wealthy California donors as elitist makes you a racist...who knew?

    Who knew all this time, the Clintons were racist?

    That Obama felt he had to destroy the legacy of the only living 2 term Democratic president in order to achieve his goals might be understandable to some and certainly works for those who are afflicted with CDS and certainly found a complicit ally in the media.

    It seems evident to me that in his quest to get the nomination, Obama will have substantially harmed the Democratic party and likely will have ruined his chances to win in November in a year when a Democrat was a virtual lock to win it.

    I categorically reject that all criticism of Obama means that you are a racist.

    Given that Hillary is leading in the (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:35 AM EST
    popular vote cast by Democrats, I would say that there are more people feeling that she is a Democrat than there are people who aren't.  

    Shouldn't that matter?  Or mean something?  Or render ridiculous the claim that Hillary is not a Democrat?

    On the other hand, if you're Barack Obama, and so intent on blurring the line between Democrats and Republicans, I guess you have to find a way to change the definition of what a Democrat is, so that you can just cut Clinton out of the picture, cut up her card and send her off to wherever old Democrats go when they are deemed expendable.

    I have to wonder, though, if anyone has asked Ted Kennedy if he thinks he is still a Democrat.  Or John Kerry.  Or any of a number of long-time, dyed-in-the-wool liberals.

    I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton is most assuredly a Democrat, and if Barack Obama or his supporters in the blogoshphere wish to change the definition, or distance him and themselves from people who have worked like dogs to do the right thing for this country, maybe it is they who need a new party affiliation, not us.  And not Clinton.

    You are 100% right (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Lil on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    I had the exact same thoughts when I read that post by Jonathan Singer. It has been an eye opener to me to see how frequently the left has missed the point, in so many way. It's the same as focusing on bitter instead of cling.

    Obama crossed "that" line first. (5.00 / 12) (#51)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:34 AM EST
    Paul Lukasiak had a post up at FireDogLake the other day that talks about race and gender and polls, etc.
    --------------

    In the comment section he responds to this quote from an Obama supporter who said this: "I agree that Clinton's negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot."

    Lukasiak's response:

    "Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

    Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

    So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

    And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

    So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"

    Attacks (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    First of all I think the queasiness some people espouse about Dems attacking each other is just silly.  There's this constant search for some high standard of peaceful socratic dialogue.  This is American politics, and there are real fights within the Dem Party.  See how to go about healthcare as a great example.  Secondly, with the elitism charge, does it bother no one on the Obama side that the things he said were WRONG?  That they were as Krugman sums up today, simply stereotypes?  I thought this community was supposed to be reality-based.  Apparently it's seeking only to spread wrongheaded CW.
    Lastly, Obama has taken up a position as a matter of political strategy where any attack upon him reflects more poorly on you than him.  He hardly moves from this potentially destructive posture because it's working now.  But overall, IMO, it's not a good strategy to categorically dismiss attacks as "old politics."  I think there are more Americans out there who don't want to see their President as a golden god and take a jaundiced look at politics for good reason.  Aside from the fact that pretending you are immune to all criticism only plays into an eventual depiction of Obama as a true elitist who won't listen to anyone.

    But no, continue blaming Hillary for all your problems.  Believe you either won by overcoming her, or lost by her hands, instead of looking at his real electoral issues (and I'm not talking race).  

    Sadly, if Obama loses big (none / 0) (#190)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    in Pennsylvania, I think they'll dust off poor old Vince, too.

    Nothing is too Republican for these oh-so-faithful "Democrats" to embrace.

    [ Parent ]

    The "not-Dems" (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by alsace on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    are those who want to emulate Reagan and GHW Bush, and denigrate the only Democrat (and his spouse) to hold the White House in the past 28 years.  Unlike many of the Obama supporters, I was an adult through all of those years, and I saw little to admire during the Reagan-Bush years

    Their basing their ideas on a fallacy (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    The idea that Clinton is hurting the party by "supporting" right wing talking points is based on the same idea that allowed the Supreme Court to require Florida to stop counting ballots in the Buth/Gore fiasco because it might undermine Bush's win if it were shown that he didn't really win. The assumption is that one candidate is presumptive winner, and anything that undermines the confidence of the public for that candidate must immediately cease. It's a tempting tactic for people who want their candidate to win at any cost, but it is not Democratic and it's not good policy.

    Oops... They're, not Their (none / 0) (#91)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    I don't mind typos (I can't type worth a d**n), but I hate basic grammar mistakes.

    [ Parent ]
    MY: Shoulder flicking image (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    Dirt off Your Shoulder
    Since we are not hip the flicking shoulder thing is a cool kids video, that is how you treat......look for yourself on the video at Matt Yglessias, one of the kool ones.

    That isn't a criticism of "tactics" (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    ...it is a very personal character attack. Just as when he speaks of not being "bamboozled" and "hoodwinked" his message is that she is personally dishonest, untrustworthy, lacking in character and integrity. Most often these characterizations are used without ANY examples of tactics or actions that would justify their use.

    And frankly he wasn't talking about just Hillary.. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    ...he was really talking about all white politicians, wasn't he? That's why I had to laugh that so many of them leapt to his defense. They don't even get when they are being dissed. LOL. I have to give Obama credit for that. I do enjoy how he makes fools of some of these puffed up buffoons.

    [ Parent ]
    Wide net (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    I was asking is he talking about Clintons, the Bushs, the Democratis, the Republicans?  It was all whites.  It was out of the Rev Wright playbook and it worked and everyone clapped about the unity.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'll put together a list of attacks on Dems (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    That are validated and re-inforced by Obama and his blogging buddies.

    I'll post it in an open thread.

    First one is this.  Rove says Dems are responsible for the war.

    So does Obama.  So does his blogging buddies.

    It might be a pretty long list.

    One of the curious aspects of this discussion is that Republican attacks on Dems are so eponymous that any attack a Dem makes on a fellow Dem is going to resonate with the Republican attack.

    For instance, Obama's lobbyist argument against Clinton validates the Republican argument that Dems are beholden to Special Interests, and have no real core values.

    And this argument was not just a Republican attack per se, it was a Nader attack on Gore, that also impacted the Democratic Brand.

    Here is a link from NRO:

    Link

    This link shows another attack on Dems that Republicans have used in the past.  Conflate any deviation from absolute truth (even though the claim is true in spirit) as a lie and thus impugn the integrity of the Dem.

    I think we've all scene Obama and Obama's buddies validate this Republican attack lately.

    The "Harry and Louise" ad (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by joanneleon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    There is a simple response to the nonsensical argument that Clinton is no longer a dem because she's using right-wing tactics.  "Harry and Louise".  Obama resorted to despicable right-wing tactics long ago, in an expensive direct mail ad.  This was directly out of the Republican playbook.  

    Much as they would like to try, Markos and his allies cannot deny the hypocrisy and double standards being applied