Not A Dem

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • So transparently obvious (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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?

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


    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.


    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 !  ;-)

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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

    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.


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

    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.


    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!


    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.



    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.


    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.


    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.    


    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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).

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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."


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

    When the whole Obama Drama (5.00 / 17) (#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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.


    Are we all not Dems? (5.00 / 25) (#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
    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.

    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.  

    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.


    Actually We Are All NOT Dems Now (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    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."


    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.

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

    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!


    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."

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

    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.  

    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


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

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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!"

    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.

    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?

    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.


    Given that Hillary is leading in the (5.00 / 11) (#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.

    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.  

    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 / 11) (#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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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:


    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 in the Clinton vs. Obama primary.  Of course, that never stops them from trying.  Because, you see, IOKIYAO.

    There is no longer any sense of rational thinking or debate in certain parts of the blogosphere.  And that can't be a good thing, and it can't possibly help us win.  Frankly, I think we're blowing it.

    Soon Not to Be A Dem (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by cdalygo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    If Dean's attempt to push the Super Delegates to vote before remaining primaries succeeds, then I'm switching to independent. So perhaps that means "I'm not a dem."

    But this is not the democratic party of my proverbial peoples. It's a cabal of party insiders that has shamelessly manipulated the campaign to disenfranchise two of our bigger states and destroy our only successful presidency of the last quarter century. Moreover, it do so to nominate a guy whose immaturity and insularity grows more apparent every day.

    The only real question now for me is where to go next.

    BTD and Jeralyn (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    We need a whole thread on the Krugman column, today it's awesome.  Clinging to a Stereotype
    Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.

    Yeah...Mr. Krugman, thank you for being one of the few who still speak.  

    When is someone going to mention that (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    what he said didn't even make sense?
    People cling to these things to explain their frustration?? What the heck does that mean?

    I keep focusing on the antipathy (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:35 AM EST
    Everyone keeps saying it isn't bitter, it's cling.  For me, it's the antipathy to those that aren't like them.  Oh yeah, and the anti-immigrant sentiment.  I know exactly what he meant no matter how much Obama supporters want to stomp their feet and insist it isn't so.

    I will probably have to leave TL soon (none / 0) (#133)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    because I actually think McCain is a MUCH better candidate than Obama, now.
    He has some maturity. Obama? He's the worst I've seen in my life---in a serious contender---in almost every way. He even gives W. a run for his money in inarticulateness, at times.

    Obama is worse than Kerry (none / 0) (#137)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:13:01 AM EST
    by a very long shot. At least Kerry had decades of experience and was a genuine war hero AND anti-war activist.

    I have come to believe that if Obama were serious about winning the presidential election, he would have waited until he had more experience. I don't think he has a general election strategy at all, since "Not Clinton" will not apply when running against McCain. He will be a great martyr to the cause of post-partisan Unity pony-ness.

    McCain is a terrible candidate, but at least he has some experience. How anyone in the Democratic Party could have thought Obama was ready beggars belief.


    And of course, Kerry sees Obama as (none / 0) (#145)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    better? LOL... all the losers that lurked in the mud have hatched out, cried havoc and let slip the dogs of chaos.

    This is what I can't figure out. (none / 0) (#147)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    How did all these people who should know better, get rope-a-doped by Mr. Hope? Hell, Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate! Jeebus H. Christmas!

    They are backing a losing horse. I am so p***ed at the Party leadership right now that I could just spit.


    Um, they are idiots! Their campaigns (none / 0) (#152)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    prove it. Of course they don't know better.
    I know, I"m "chattering" now, but I'm so ticked off.. what a mess we are heading for.

    I am convinced (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    Obama will win (just without my vote.)  I think, like Clinton, McCain is old news.  He's been around for a while and already has a label (maverick) and his record of going against his party is known.  No new fun stuff to play with.  I think it is much trendier to elect Obama.  The people will elect who the media pushes as it can be difficult and frustrating to wade throught the cesspool that is the internet and do your own research. but but 'go to the websites'.  I have to say, I have never been to the websites.  I don't need to read some paper that a consultant has written and a PR firm has polished for consumption.  

    Wait till Bush attacks Iran (none / 0) (#192)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    just in time for the election.

    McCain will sail into the White House with nary a wave in front of his boat.


    I know (none / 0) (#198)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:48 AM EST

    Blame the Party Leaders (none / 0) (#194)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    The party leaders (at least the Midwest/Kennedy coalition) looked at Obama as a perfect candidate product.  (Much like Kerry was - an anti-war decorated military hero, what credentials!)  His lack of experience was a minus but there are advantages to not having experience in national leadership - no record to defend.  So I am sure that he was pushed into running.  On the other hand it is clear that his ambitions led him to run.  A Harvard Law Review editor has many career paths open to him or her - some choose money, other choose power.  

    The party leaders who pushed him on us are the ones to blame for blindsiding us once again with a candidate product instead of a candidate.  I don't blame Obama for not restraining his ambitions.  Who can withstand the song of the Siren of Power?


    That's pretty much the way I feel. (none / 0) (#207)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    They should have vetted Obama much more thoroughly. But they just can't admit that Clinton was successful for a REASON. That would negate their whole raison d'etre, apparently.

    Robert "I Can't Handle the Truth" Reich (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    ,hysterically, says he's going to endorse Reich because Clinton called out Obama on how utterly untrue what Obama said was.  Quote:
    ""I saw the ads"  the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago  "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics."

    So here's the timeline.  Obama says a bunch of untrue things.  Clinton disputes it.  Krumgan proves it's untrue.  Reich runs off shouting how utterly horrible it is to dispute and prove what Obama says is untrue.

    Krugman should be happy Reich hasn't called him the nadir of mean-spirited, negative Princeton economics New York Times column writing yet.


    Bitter (none / 0) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    Reich has bitterness issues with the Clintons.  

    Here's the problem if the Party dose not publicly (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    break with these bloggers and their irrational shrill, many view them as a Party extension a Howard Dean creation and Dean's Scream, Move On's Betray us, Obama's association with extremist Wright, Rezko, and Ayers, the needless strange trashing of traditional respected Dem Icons and the Dem legacy of the 90s has already defined a Party narrative that is overtly radical, angry, and reckless.

    Joan Vennochi wrote yesterday "But it's hard to deny that a big piece of Obama's momentum can be traced back to Dean's decision to leave Michigan and Florida up in the air as long as possible. ...

    Obama's success as a candidate is laid squarely at the feet of the DNC by many as Dean's product, not as the choice of the Dem Base. So now bloggers, move on, SC Mich Fla, Dean and Obama are unfortunately tied into one distasteful package.

    IMO, voters will not turn over power to another Party or elect a President they believe to be controlled by anti social extreme interest and certainly will not turn over Congress and the White House. If Clinton wins the nomination  she needs to clean house at the DNC Howard Dean and Donna Brazile from the rulz commitee and the SC oh Bill Clinton racist need to be gone or out of sight going forward.  

    I would not have said that (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    At the beginning of the campaign, I felt Dean had made some great contributions, contributions that McAuliffe was incapable of making given his set of priorities.

    And I still think Dean's contributions need to be followed through on.

    What is so striking about the developements is how Dean betrayed himself, and undermined his own contribution, the 50 state strategy.  The Obama campaign and Dean, in their efforts to win the primary, have moved Florida into the decidedly red column.

    So Dean should now step down for that semi-tragic reason alone.

    Sadly I think you are right now.


    They will address it (none / 0) (#187)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    once Obama has the nomination.  They can whine about how the media treats the Democrats (boohoo) and can whine about the sexism (gasp) to get the women's vote.  Unity will be pounded once the nom is official.  Blame will be assigned to assuage all of the 'hurt feelings' of each and every demographic that has been offended this season. It will be enough to chase me from the net and pack my teevee in the garage for 5 months (I expect the nom to be done in June.)

    I believe you underestimate the extent of divisons (none / 0) (#212)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    Dems playing self inflcted victim will rally some anti Obama partisans sure, but not enough to win in Nov IMO.  

    wow, biggest Obama mistake yet (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    Obama just announced he will not debate Clinton any more. I guess when he finally got some of those nasty questions Clinton got at every debate, he couldn't take it. I think this is a massive political mistake. It will make him look like a cry baby. He will be ridiculed about it. It sure doesn't make him look like a strong commander in chief. I can see the running home crying after being hit by a girl jokes now...

    He's not gonna do it (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    wouldn't be prudent.

    Not at this juncture! LOL (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    That would be so totally sexist. (none / 0) (#139)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    I know nobody at TL would stoop to such misandry.

    This is the same reaction he had (none / 0) (#142)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    after the media asked him eight questions that were not massive softballs a while ago. He complained and ran away.

    IACF seems to be working for the Kool-aid drinkers still, but I wonder how many who are not devoted to The One will continue to fall for it?


    Too bad Hillary is not good at (none / 0) (#146)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    coming up with or delivering putdowns, because she has a great opportunity now.

    Oh yes she is... (none / 0) (#154)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    she is biting her tongue so hard, she's putting a hole in it.

    She delivered some great ones against Bush and Cheney in the debate.


    Clinton versus McCain debates! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    The perfect solution.

    Bet McCain won't debate Clinton either - but I'm dying for the proposal to be rebuffed.

    Hillary Clinton - Who will dare to debate Her?


    Hah! (none / 0) (#169)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    I've never seen anyone debate as well as she does. Honestly, her IQ has to be off the charts.

    I can haz really smart Prezdent nao?


    Smart, capable, Democrat. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    I like that combination.

    But yeah, seriously want the McCain/Clinton debate.  
    First - it points out that Clinton is willing to debate but that Obama isn't.
    Second - it portrays Clinton as a Presidential contender.
    Third - the only real alternative is a McCain/Clinton/Obama debate - and I don't think the GOP, McCain or Obama would go for it.  (Unfair! Two dems and one republicans  Unfair!  Obama has to face off against Clinton.  Unfair!  Having a woman in the room always works against men.)


    Thank you, TalkLeft! (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    Discovered your site a few days ago -- courtesy of an Obama Supporter who referenced and linked to "that pathetic Hillary site" (so, of course, I HAD to see what he was talking about!) -- and it's so nice to find a place where one can support Hillary, but still have apparently respectful disagreements with those who might not.  That's a rare thing on-line these days.

    I adore and cherish Voting.  Absolutely love it.  That tingle in your stomach, the sense of excitement because you're doing something not only amazingly important, but something people have shed blood and died for.  It really is a wonderful thing.

    But if Barack is the Nominee, I just have such an impossible time imagining voting for him ... or at all this election cycle, in fact.  And it's not only because I don't believe he's ready for the job.  That I strongly suspect it's less about what he'll do for the Country and more about what being President will do for Barack and his Ego.  

    It's the simple fact that his supporters have routinely and quite gleefully kicked my teeth in, poured salt in my wounds (when he won 11 in a row) and questioned my intelligence, my sanity and my patriotism (!!!) for continuing to support that "evil b*tch".  The unapologetic excitement they had in kicking me (and other supporters) when we were "down" was disturbing, at best.  

    And, surprisingly, at that "other" site I used to visit (rhymes with F.U.), these anti-Hillary comments were allowed without apology.  Barack has done more to divide this Party -- not to mention friendships and family -- than Hillary ever could.  Just my opinion, of course.

    Anyway, so now it appears as if I have a forum to add my thoughts to while keeping all my teeth intact, my wounds salt-free and my patriotism as strong and unquestioned as ever.

    I agree with your points (none / 0) (#167)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    and share much of your pique.  But I urge you not to bolt if he is the nominee.  We just can't afford any more troglodyte appointments on the Supreme Court.  

    The president nominates (none / 0) (#191)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    but the Senate still has to confirm.  Of course, if a few more Dems would have found some backbone, we  could have kept Roberts of the Supreme Court too.  

    A few months ago I was in the same camp, need to have a Democrat because of judicial nominations.  So if we end up with McCain as president, I am going to expect the Democrats in Congress to get their act together as a party for once.  It might help restore some of the confidence I have lost in them over the last few years and in this primary.    


    What is your proof that he is going (none / 0) (#200)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    to appoint pro-democratic values judges to the Supreme Court?

    There is more proof that he wouldn't. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by alexei on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    Obama was ready to vote for Roberts until he was informed that wouldn't be good for his Presidential "aspirations".  He has specifically used right wing talking points on abortion. His economic "program" is steeped in Republican talking points.  So, I believe that the Democratic Congress would have a much better chance of refusing McCain Supreme choices than what ever Obama might propose.  Just do not trust Obama's judgment and conviction.  So, the Supreme Court argument actually works for McCain better than for Obama.

    I feel like I've entered Bizarro World (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    When criticism of a Democratic candidate who praises former Republican Presidents, insults the only successful Democratic Presidency in my adult lifetime, looks down his nose at working class voters, advocates abstinence education, says that pro-choicers should "acknowledge" the concerns of pro-lifers - makes me not a Democrat.  

    Seems clear (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Lena on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    to me that Obama thinks that the only way he can win is:

    1. by conflating the records of Bush I and II with Bill Clinton's and dissing all of it at once

    2. by villifying and demonizing Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

    Obama supporters apparently want to think that Clinton is tearing apart the party by remaining in the race. The truth is, Obama is tearing apart the party with his campaign tactics, and then conveniently blaming HRC.

    Most HRC supporters online only became vehemently anti-Obama as a response to the villification heaped on them by Obama supporters (at least, this has been my path). Most, when questioned about HRC's plans and policies, have a pragmatic view about what she can accomplish as president and what's possible. We haven't "swallowed the koolaid" in our support for her. We don't think she will dismantle corporatocracy as president or singlehandedly restore the U.S. economy. And many of us didn't start out finding Obama so distasteful.

    It's only been a response to the constant Hillary hatred, which was evident on dailykos many months before the Clinton supporters became so disgusted with Obama supporters, and ultimately, Obama himself.

    In sum, Obama's campaign is ripping apart the party in a desparate attempt to win, and blaming HRC for its handiwork.

    The truth is, if Obama wins the nomination, it's not that I won't vote for him because of Clinton's influence. She has only encouraged all Dems to vote for the nominee.

    The reason I won't vote for Obama is solely because of him and his supporters, and how they have destroyed the Democratic party.

    No, he loves Bush I. [nt] (none / 0) (#166)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:46:01 AM EST
    Welcome (none / 0) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    It has kept us sane and civil.  

    Well I left my comment there (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    If Obama is going to be our nominee, if it truly is inevitable, then his supporters must shape up and they must do so NOW because there is no LATER!  You are right on the mark and Singer is far off the mark - he needs to take a day off and regroup and revisit how his past successes and failures in his own lifetime came about.  This is not rocket science!

    I think Bob Somerby is going to have (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    a whole new pile of articles to add to his archives. It's just to bad these new archives are going to contain, what used to be, progressive bloggers and columnists.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    The problem is that we keep hearing (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    that we must vote for him if he becomes the nominee because we need a Democrat in the White House.  I probably will but lately I am beggining to doubt his Democratic credentials.  Lately I have become suspicious that if he becomes the nominee we will choosing between two Republicans, only that one will be the nominee for the Democrats.  Hmm I hope I'm wrong.

    Well If You Liked The Reagan And Bush I (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    foreign policy now backed up with Republicans as Sec. of Defense and State, Obama is your man.

    When I was a registered Republican and (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    was a member of the Bush I campaign back home we use to call the kind of policies Obama talks about " Compassionate Conservatism".

    Okay (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    Wanna hear my psychobabble analysis of the situation?

    (of course, you do ;-)

    The Singers and KOS' of the world are actually mad at THEIR candidate.  He didn't perform well in the debate.  He didn't answer the gotcha questions well .BUT. he also didn't answer some of the real questions well.  He was embarrassing.

    They're finally realizing in their heart of hearts that he isn't a strong GE candidate.  And they've finally gotten a taste of how he caves against an unfair media -- he doesn't handle it as well as Kerry did, and Kerry's handling was pretty pathetic.

    They can't face it.

    So they're projecting his weaknesses onto Hillary.  

    They can't hate Obama and still justify all the time they've invested in him.

    So they're doubling their hatred toward Hillary.


    on this other hand, it could simply be that this election, like every other, has been reduced to a team sports mentality ;-).

    It has worked before (none / 0) (#213)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    We twice elected a mental midget to the White House. His debate strategy? Be so bad that you can accuse the other side of being negative, meany, bullies.

    Great analysis (none / 0) (#234)
    by Paladin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    I agree with your psychobabble, although it would be difficult to prove without a mass therapy session.  This really has devolved into a sports-mentality-contest.

    I am not action oriented... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Oje on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    But, there are many representatives and senators who post on the Big Orange. Have any of them spoke out tto rebuke kos for his smear of a sitting Democrat Senator as "not a dem?"

    It seems to me, that any elected official who continues to affiliate with the Big Orange, tacitly subscribes and empowers the McCarthyite party purity that kos seconded in his post.

    I think I am going to contact my state reps and senators and insist that they no longer post on dailykos until there is a retraction by kos on the site.

    Wingnut merry-go-round (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    Obamacans are whacked. It is useless to use reason, rational thought, and logic with them. They are no different from wingnuts. They are wingnuts.

    It is an endless circle: you point out their hypocrisy. They defend it and counter attack with more hypocrisy and/or obtuseness. You point this out...and round and round you go.

    when the going gets tough (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    you can't run away is what the Clinton campaign is saying already about Obama runnnig away from any more debates because things got a little tough for him for the first time (from an interview in philly):
    ...That goes with the territory, having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House, I know how hard it is every single day. When the going gets tough you can't run away. And it's going to be tough going to deal with these hard problems; getting out of Iraq in the right way, turning the economy around, getting universal health care, ending our dependence on foreign oil.

    The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists and we need a president who is going to be up there fighting everyday for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    He really thinks he can sit in a cushy seat in the White House and everyone will just roll over to his wishes like they do in the friendly press and the friendly rallies.

    Doesn't happen.  

    In reality, Obama is afraid to be president.  In his dreams, it will all be okay.


    I saw that (none / 0) (#224)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    and thought, she nailed it. Good for her.

    your post does not show enough (none / 0) (#18)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    what he was talking about. BTD you yourself think at this point its likely that Obama will be the nominee so what is she doing?

    I assume you saw the link where in MANY markets in PA Hillary's ONLY TV ad running is a negative one? other markets she is 50/50 1 positive 1 negative.

    she is not arguing why she should be the nominee, she is arguing why the person who is most likely to be the nominee shouldn't. at the end why wasn't Huckabee going negative when waiting to see what would happen? has Obama won? no, who is more likely to win? Obama so yes Hillary will get more flack for being negative for 2 reasons, 1) more people believe she is the negative one, its fine if no one here does, but whenever polled on it, yes the average voter thinks its Hillary, and whinning about what Obama does doesn't change it.

    2) she is being negative on the likely nominee, going negative doesn't build her up it tears Obama down, you are all free to think its ok. just like us and some supes are free to think its hurtful. those supes who don't think its helpful endorse. there is a reason that since Feb. 5th Hillary is now back to net of -3 Supers.

    I mean now we got people saying Obama flipped her the finger? THIS is what the primary is down to? and then everyone questions why people don't want this race to continue anymore?

    its fine everyone will have their opinions, everyone will vote how they want. the more negative this race goes, the faster the supes will endorse.

    you don't need to reply me to tell me I am wrong, we will all wait and see.

    I wasn't going to respond but... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:44 AM EST
    I mean now we got people saying Obama flipped her the finger?

    Did you miss where people were accusing Hillary of purposing darkening Obama's skin? The flipping the bird is silly, yes but...... I think that's BTD's point, the hypocrisy.


    Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    are getting a kick out of (I noted this last night) the part of the video, where in the posters words, Obama is wiping sh!t off his foot (copying another video).  har har har....  Apparently it is considered quite a talent to be able to get two, two dogwhistles in one (display in front of his audience.)

    yes I know, (none / 0) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:05 AM EST
    the they did it first defense.

    I have a 2 year old entering the terrible two's.

    she won't get to use the They did it first with me, so no one else does. I don't care who started what.

    we have a thread of people seriously talking about whether or not he flipped the bird, THATS what this primary is about now. this is what we will get for 2 months. Obama is going to to go even more negative now, we have seen it, for what? because Hillary MAY win? well as part of the post that BTD didn't quote says,

    when the odds start to become a long shot for you, then yes you do have to defend staying in.

    untill people show me where they were appalled before Janurary, at the rules about how primaries worked including delegates being the metric, then I personally don't care about their problems with it.

    Hillary can use GOP-style attacks because thats what the GOP will do deal with it?

    well you know what the primary is decided by delegates, always has been MANY of you have voted before in primaries and did not complain.

    delegates decide the nominee deal with it.

    and no, he didn't flip the bird.


    You have people (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:06:29 AM EST
    seriously asking the question because his juvenile behavior in that clip makes it entirely feasible that he did. The fact that a Democrat is sitting there brushing the dirt off his shoulder AND referencing Hillary at the same time is classless enough. So it makes it entirely likely that he did that. Never mind the whoops that came from the crowd in response.  See the problem is this: We look for 13 year old behavior from him because he is OBVIOUSLY extremely capable of it.   Yes, she's in her element. At a debate!  That should worry him.  Instead it makes him indignant and nasty.  

    and you have people (none / 0) (#39)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:04 AM EST
    seriously asking if Hillary would say anything to win.

    she is 100% negative in Many PA markets, 100% negative, why can't we say she would do anything to win?  how is being 100% negative helping her to win PA?


    Perhaps it's all the new voters (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    that Obama is bringing in. But campaigning IS NOT negative.  My Lord. If his skin is this thin in the primary I cannot imagine when McCain rips into him. And it won't be pretty. Again, CAMPAIGNING is not negative.  Oh my.  See that's the problem.  You think anything remotely negative about Obama said by Clinton is "negative" campaigning.  And I think that Obama tearing down Bill Clinton, putting it out there that they're now racist, equating the 90s with George Bush's 00s and sitting there repeating Monica accusations and calling for Hillary's tax returns are negative campaigning. But he's trying to win. I get that. I just cannot stop shaking my head at the idea that you honestly think he's done nothing negative.  When he manages to make HALF the party stay home if he's the nominee, that's the definition of it.

    Negative Campaigning (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    What do you expect from a generation of kids who were raised to believe that anything that doesn't build up their 'self esteem' (read: Narcissism) is bad and evil.

    "I Love You, You Love Me, We're one Happy Family'

    Obama the Purple Dinosaur. Great.


    do you even know the (none / 0) (#46)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    ad we are talking about here?

    Source: Hillary TV Ad Campaign Is Now 100% Negative In Most Pennsylvania Markets

    you tell me this is just campaigning? this is what we should consider campaigning from HRC for the rest of the primary?


    That may or may not be true.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:15 AM EST
    ..but Josh Marshall no longer has much credibility with me so what a source tells him I take with a grain of salt.

    Here's my truth: I won't vote OBAMA! (none / 0) (#118)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST
    precisely for all the double standards; the way Hillary has been treated by the media in favor of Obama, and because the simple truth is:  OBAMA HAS NO EXPERIENCE AND NO DEMONSTRATED ACHIEVEMENT.

    Way to change the subject... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    ...I was talking about hypocrisy, comparing two situations. I don't give a rats patootey about flipping the bird. But there's only so much that I can be flogged with the psuedo high road and lecturing about MY BEHAVIOR before I just start to yawn.

    Nothing like a (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21:27 AM EST
    big bowl of pomposity for breakfast, eh?

    These folks (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
    These "two wrongs don't make it right" folks have got to do a better job of showing that they were equally outspoken about the first wrong.

    Otherwise they have no credibility whatsoever.


    Here's GGreenwald: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST

    As you note, I wrote about the horrific media coverage towards Hillary. Digby probably wrote about that more than any writer in America. Media Matters covered it extensively. Many other bloggers did, too.

    To the extent you're suggesting that some pro-Obama bloggers, including ones with a large audience, have overlooked or even approved of slimy right-wing-style media attacks on Hillary, I couldn't agree more. But it's also true that some pro-Hillary bloggers have countenanced similar attacks on Obama.
    -- GlennGreenwald

    Emphasis mine.
    Link HERE.

    The fact that you THINK (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    he will be the nominee does not make him so.  The fact that the little woman doesn't just get out of his way and give it to him already does NOT make it so that she's tearing the party apart. Last I checked she was ahead in PA and will likely win.  It's not divisive that they're both trying to win. She's never said anything other than we will unite behind the winner.   He is the one that refuses to say the same.  Again, just because you THINK he'll be the nominee does not make it so. And if you keep telling Hillary to just get out of the way already (as you all have been for months now) you will have blowback like you've never seen.  

    And if you're complaining about the way that Hillary runs her campaign, well go elsewhere because last I checked BILL was the only Democrat that has managed to win 2 in a row.  


    the fact that (none / 0) (#33)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:12 AM EST
    HRC supporters just wanna cry out at the thought of Supes endorsing now

    tells me that they also know Obama is the nominee and they need time for things to change, otherwise you would be saying yes endorse now, because then Hillary can win this now instead of later.

    NO I have never seen a HRC supporter say this, it was just a given that if they endorse they endorse Obama. I wonder why.

    why does everyone assume that if it is sooo neck and neck that the supes will just give it to Obama? isn't it just as likely they give it to HRC? shouldn't we want them to endorse? they would finally elect HRC the nominee right?


    The supers can endorse (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:08 AM EST
    whenever they feel like it. I have no doubt they will endorse Obama against their better judgment since he's got major electoral issues. That being said, the rest of the states to vote have a chance to have their voices heard. If you're so sure that Obama will win then let him continue and see if he gets more votes. Why are YOU so afraid? It's Democracy in action. Instead y'all are just dying for it to be over so that HRC can just get out already! Ted Kennedy  didn't get out when it was clear HE was losing, yet he is now leading the charge.  

    XXX (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:49 AM EST
    1. The SDs' decision is a serious one.  I would prefer that they gather as much data as possible.

    2. This means more primaries, more votes counted, more delegates won.

    3. MI/FL are still not resolved.  Still waiting on that leadership....

    4. Yes, waiting favors Hillary more than Obama but if Obama is all that, he has nothing to worry about.  He can start campaigning like he's won any day now.

    no he can't he tried that (none / 0) (#44)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:31 AM EST
    and guess what he was being arrogant by acting like he already had it won. no HRC supporters want him to ignore Hillary without ignoring her. what they mean is Hillary can be negative Obama can't. plain and simply.

    100% negative in many PA markets says it all. the only ad she is sending out to MANY PA voters is a Don't vote for Obama ad. oh I am sorry it only implies a don't vote for Obama.


    True to His Word (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    I want Obama to not only talk the talk but also to walk the walk.  He says he is the candidate of change and how it will not be politics as usual.  Well, right now he seems to be engaging in the usual kind of politics of personal destruction except perhaps even uglier because he feels the need to trash the candidate's spouse.  So his rival is negative.  Let him show how his new kind of politics works.  He can make a good start by posting a message on some of the blogs with the most virulent negativity towards Hillary and McCain and telling them in no uncertain terms to stop the nonsense.  I'm waiting.

    Hello Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    tells me that they also know Obama is the nominee and they need time for things to change, otherwise you would be saying yes endorse now, because then Hillary can win this now instead of later
    And Obama refusing to allow Michigan and Florida votes tells me that Obama knows the can not win with those votes added and the super delegates too. So, once again, is the jar half full or half empty.

    Tearing down Obama's bad, but the Clintons is okay (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by joc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:08 AM EST

    I mean now we got people saying Obama flipped her the finger? THIS is what the primary is down to? and then everyone questions why people don't want this race to continue anymore?

    So how did you feel when the Obama campaign brought out General McPeak to claim that Clinton was using McCarthyite tactics because when he was saying something about Hillary and McCain he didn't also say something about Obama? People see in things what they want to. Personally, I think it was despicable for the Obama campaign to intentionally smear a great Democratic President with the McCarthy label. Though, I guess that wasn't the time to stop the negativity, since it was the Obama campaign that was orchestrating the attack.

    On the other hand, you could be right, random bloggers asking whether or not (in a youtube video) Obama is intentionally using his middle finger to scratch his face probably means things have devolved too far.


    OR when Obama himself (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    claimed that the Clintons circulated that pic of him in Kenya AFTER we already knew it came from freerepublic.  Where they outraged then? No. They actually continued to accuse the Clinton campaign of doing it.

    Gee, TM.. you want me to believe (4.80 / 5) (#29)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:01:07 AM EST
    you or my lying eyes???
    According to Taylor Marsh, he did this TWICE, at different stops.
    You can go to her site for the links.
    He did it. Stop insulting my intelligence.

    I've seen her site, (none / 0) (#36)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:22 AM EST
    I am sending her site to supes to say, THIS is what we will get if you allow this race to go on for 2 more months.

    yeah her and those posters are great examples of why this should end now. her site is nothing more then tearing Obama down.

    you think Daily kos is an echo chamber? HRC supporters CHOSE to leave, TM.com bans anyone that doesn't agree with them even if you don't flame. she purposely let them think that oversampling a poll hurts the poll, she did not bother to try and explain to them what Oversampling was or what that it was a common practice in polling, no she intentionally mislead them.

    have you read the comments they post there?


    You're sending her site to superdelegates? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    I hope you send it to Donna Brazile. I'm sure she will enjoy it. Which superdelegates did you send it to. Do you have an email list of all the undecided ones? If you don't you can probably find one on Taylor Marsh's site. LOL.

    sure why not? (none / 0) (#89)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    I use to think it was dumb when people said they were writing them, but then I thought about it why not? why shouldn't I let them know my opinion? I don't expect anyone to listen to it, but I am hoping that maybe 1 or 2 will look around themselves and ask

    is the chance of Hillary pulling out a win worth what we are seeing now?

    I am a voter I have an opinion, so why shouldn't I make it known? but no I don't have a list yet, and yeah I did see it once long ago, but there is probably a list somewhere, so I figure why not. we aren't talking issues anymore, there are no posts about FISA, or the Administration and war crimes, no what we care about now is did Obama flip the finger, did Hillary darken Obama's picture. is Obama an elitst NO is Hillary an Elitist.

    all the while we defend it because well hey the GOP will do it eventually so Why is it wrong if a democrat does it?

    so I figure why not, I was nearly done with politics in '04 and I am all but done now, I can see why so americans don't care about politics and don't vote. THIS is what it becomes, HEY he doesn't wear a flag pin this is important!!!

    so I figure why not, maybe all of older people are use to this and say this is how politics work, but I don't see a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    its all about beating the other guy. I wanted a joint ticket, now I don't care. they are all the same they all only care about staying in office.


    TruthMatters, I agree with you (none / 0) (#248)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    that we should be talking about FISA, the Yoo torture memo, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, and all the important problems we're facing.

    But (you knew that was coming) when a candidate steps away from those issues to ridicule his opponent and make a stupid gesture, then he should be called on it.

    The cheek scratch happened twice. One time each at two different events. And it appears at each event he's reading prepared remarks.

    Scratchy-scratchy happens when he says that Senator Clinton looked in her element.

    Perhaps he has a zit coming out that gets itchy when he says "element" or something.

    But I doubt it.

    And really, in the midst of the sh!tplosion we're in the midst of, this is where Sen. Obama chooses to go? This is what's important? Or is he just pointing the way to the New Politics, Change, Hope, and Unity he speaks of?

    You may think it's unfortunate the media is covering it. I think it's unfortunate Sen. Obama decided to do it.


    No, no, no... (none / 0) (#253)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    The videos of the cheek scratch are from one event in Raleigh NC.  The video you linked to on YouTube is a clip from the Obama campaign video.  The CBS video is also from the Raleigh stop, just shot from a different angle.  The YouTube video shows the people behind Barack are seated in front of the "We Can" words on the banner.  The CBS video has people seated in front of "[Belie]eve In" portion of the banner but it is all shot from the same stop.  

    Of course the Superdelegates (none / 0) (#54)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:05 AM EST
    can have their vote and they can vote for whichever candidate they please. TruthMatters, if they decide Hillary is the better nominee, will you be ok with that?

    I don't care anymore (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:51 AM EST
    Hillary could steal the nomination while cursing my dead grandmother and I would still vote for her because i do not want the GOP in the white house.

    I am sick of the primaries, the internet supporters seem to think there is a mass group that will only vote if their candidate wins, well at this point I say lets see. end the primary and let the chips fall where they may.

    if McCain wins, so be it its not my fault, people aren't going to come to me and say well I WAS going to vote for Obama but TM, you made me mad and I voted for McCain.

    I will laugh in their face, no one is responsbile for how anyone else votes, if people really are going to get mad and vote for McCain so be it, its not some other persons fault, they use the power of their vote how they wanted.  Hell I don't even care if McCain wins, it doesn't actually hurt me financially, and on the wedge issues I am a conservative anyways. I just don't trust THIS brand of GOP and I won't vote for them, I vote democrat because they are the lesser of two evils. plain and simple. I don't trust the GOP, they are too big business friendly and I question if they really do care about the worse off in this country.


    "Hillary could steal the nomination"? (none / 0) (#61)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    That's a remarkable phrase. How? What in your view would constitute theft?

    Another Chicken Little meme. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    Along with "Hillary is destroying the Party.".

    In other words:  Hillary is not, and can never be, considered the legitimate nominee.

    The reasons vary, but the meme is constant.

    That's what bothers me so much about this contest.  I don't mind discussing whether Obama or Clinton are better on health care or the economy or any other issue.  But when you run up against this kind of dogma, there is no discussion.  It's either agree or disagree.


    not being (none / 0) (#64)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    the pledged delegate leader or popular vote leader, yes still getting the nomination.

    That will not happen (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    and you know it. Simply using terms like "stealing the nomination" is something that Obama supporters have been doing for some time. Already setting the narrative that if she gets the nomination (IMO it should be the popular vote leader) she has stolen it.

    actually some of us (none / 0) (#71)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    have gotten our caculators out and done it and say ok its NOT realistic to expect her to take ALL 10 contests by 20 points, she will lose at least 4, if those 4 cancel out another 4, and the other 2 are toss ups, well then she has really 2 contests PA and PR to get 700,000 popular votes out of. yeah I dont see it happening, you do thats fine.

    but if I don't see her ever retaking the popular vote lead, what will I think when I see her going all out to make Obama unelectable so that she can have the nomination?

    and now the well if MI and Fl were counted Hillary would be in the lead. yeah Obama has the power to stop revotes in MI, but some how he can't keep them from giving him NOTHING from MI? yeah ok.


    I don't think that Hillary (none / 0) (#76)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:04:23 AM EST
    will get it w/o being the popular vote leader but, unfortinately, there is no consensus on how to determine that number. I think the fact that Hillary has more democratic voters is very compelling--and I would think so if Obama had them. Nonetheless, the nominating decision does not quite belong to the voters or even the pledged delegates. The DNC and the Democratic party leaders (superdelegates) will decide.  Given what the DNC did to Florida and Michigan, there is little likelihood they will make a good decision. But if they tilt it either to Obama or Hillary that tilting is not unfair (though it could be unwise) or theft, it is just politics.

    I dont care who marginally has more delegates. I want to pick a GE winner--even if (and I know they won't) they decided it was somebody not named Hillary or Obama.


    So... apparently you admit Obama gave (none / 0) (#73)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    Hillary the finger.. but that's nothing??
    How can someone that immature be President?
    That is just as frightening as the prospect of McCain.
    Obama is MORE like Bush than McCain. That should bother you.

    wow.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:07:16 AM EST
    I have nothing to respond to that. if you want to dicuss whether or not he gave the finer feel free. just don't expect me to reply (obviously after this one).

    Then I suggest you change your nick (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    It doesn't fit.

    Ahah, it comes out (none / 0) (#150)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    I thought you sounded familiar. Are you one of those people who believes that the Bush/Clinton dynasty is part of a worldwide conspiracy (involving the World Bank, the Vatican and the Illuminati) to keep all the power to themselves?

    I've heard it over and over at parties with my friends (the ones who say the Peak Oil is a scam to drive prices up, that vitamin supplements are all you need to cure cancer, etc) that Hillary WILL win the nomination - it is predecided, and that the only way it can come out into the open is if Obama is so overwhelmingly winning that the fix is easy to see when it happens. And then we go to the streets, and then all those concentration camps that Bush has been building in America will be put to use.

    That about sum it up for you, TM?


    Vice Versa (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    I have been sending them the garbage all of the things the Obama supporters have been saying.  In fact, I think I will go back to MYDD and do a few of your greatest hits.

    No one scratches his face (none / 0) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:48:37 AM EST
    with finger # 3. This is crass. This is what GW would do.

    There was only one campaign (none / 0) (#165)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    stop yesterday.  The two videos are at the same event but from different angles.  Look at the banner behind him instead of the people.

    Not a Dem.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Simplicissimus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    First of all, why do you even give a rip what some commenter over at the Great Orange Satan thinks about the criteria for being a Democrat? There's a lot of venting going on all over the lefty blogosphere, by partisans of both sides.  Why sweat it?  Despite the sound and the fury, when confronted with the horrible prospect of a McCain Presidency, Dems will come together behind the nominee.

    But I do think that, in making your point, you conveniently use the rather expansive term: criticism.  But it is not "criticism" as such that many of us feel is beyond the pale with regard to Barack Obama.  Obviously, any and all candidates should expect criticism.  Rather, it is the nature of the criticism (if one can even call it that) that sends partisans (sometimes justifiably) on both sides into apoplectic fits.  In other words, I think most of us are perfectly satisfied with Hillary criticizing Barack for his Health Care mandates stand.  Fair game, absolutely.  Where criticism becomes dangerous and damaging is where it veers into things like, for example the Ayers issue, a non-policy issue where one candidate insinuates the other Dem has some unwholesome "relation" to a former member of a domestic terrorist outfit.  Likewise, most folks around here (me included) would be fine with Barack criticizing Clinton's war vote, but would find it totally out of bounds to dredge of right wing filth like the Vince Foster non-episode.  
    Criticism and defamation are not coextensive.  The first is Democratic, the second is most clearly not.

    Hillary did not bring up Ayers, and it is (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:36 AM EST
    PERFECTLY legitimate. No one is forcing Obama to associate with Ayers. If he wants the votes of Americans, he should not do so. Sorry, but he might as well hang out with Terry Nichols, as far as I am concerned.

    Perfectly legitmate for Hannity (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:17 AM EST
    I have no problem with the question, but for Clinton to join in on it... That's why Richard's abandoned her, that why Reich abandoned her. That's why Dean is asking to end this... she will tear her party apart to get this nomination.

    Hillary pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:54:29 AM EST
    that Ayers and Obama shared seats on the same board. Was this supposed to be a secret to be kept from all potential Obama voters? I dont see how this can be called tearing the party apart unless one believes it is necessarily "divisive" to point out flaws in Obama's candidacy. Some Obama supporters may be surprised to learn that Hillay actually does not have the power to declare Obama the loser--now or in the GE. I think that's up to voters (in the GE) and the Democratic Party for the nomination.

    Hillary excercised restraint (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    She didn't point out that Ayers hosted fundraisers at his house that kick-started Obama's political career. This was before Ayers was the main-streamed senior professor that he is now. At the time association with him would put you way out on the lunatic fringe. She could have expanded on what the moderators brought up but didn't.

    She did Obama a favor and kept it in a realm that, if he had the spontaneous oratory skill of an average politician, he could have turned it into his favor. But since Obama can't communicate, unless he is reading a rehearsed line off a teleprompter, he just flailed away.

    It isn't Hillary's job to protect Obama, but she did. And look at how she gets treated.


    Obama has already been doing it. (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM EST
    He is tearing the party apart by trying to slice the Clintons both into oblivion to get his way.  DEMOCRATS are solidly in favor of continuing the nomination process. No matter what Dean or Obama or new voters that are in love say.   Obama figured out that the only way to win was to tear the Clintons up and down. And thus far he is succeeding. Good for him.  He managed to do what Republicans were not able to back when Bill was in office.

    He will tear this party apart (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    Aw, come on. Who was the one who decided to create the overturned apple cart. We had a front runner, why throw in the wrench. And then, Kerry could not get anywhere again, so why not throw in another guy. A AA guy to steal the votes away from the front runner. No, the one who created this mess does not get a free ride. We mentioned Dukakis before. He would have made a horrible President but we supported him anyway because he was the Dem. Instead, we got another horrible President who served one term. Then a good President was elected. Two terms. And I do not know how he was able to accomplish turning the country around, but he got results and the country was running well. Then GW slid in. Gore won. Kerry should have won. I had confidence in Kerry when I voted for him. I have confidence in Hillary. I do not have confidence in Obama and I did not in Dukakis. I no longer will vote as Mob rules, blogs or no blogs. I will not vote GOP but maybe it is time for me to vote my conscious. I am only one vote. When you have the media and blogs on your side, you don't need me anyway.

    Richardson abandoned the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    because he wanted to get on board with the one he thought would win the nomination.

    Richardson is an opportunist.  Don't bother thinking anything more of him than that.


    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Simplicissimus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    Quite right, she did not bring it up.  
    But she took the handoff and tried to run for a touchdown.  
    Is it too much to ask that Dems should have each other's backs on ridiculousness like that - in the same way we all had Bill's back when he was being trashed for equally non-sensical reasons?  If Gibson had brought up a question that insinuated deliberate racism within the Clinton camp, I would hope that Obama would resist the temptation to attack a fellow Dem on such silly grounds.
    (And no, it doesn't count if some obscure partisan bloggers pursue such dumb issues.  There is a world of difference, in terms of culpability, between what the candidate does and what his or her overheated supporters say.  The former really matters, the latter really doesn't)
    Yes, its possible to make cheap points on such things, but it ain't Democratic.....

    Ayers is a fact (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sancho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    of Obama's political life. Bringing him up is not a smear or even negative campaigning, imo. If Obama is the nominee, we'll just have to hope that enough voters do not care about his relationship with a self-confessed terrorist. The Ayers thing does not bother me personally but it does raise the judgement issue for many. What is disturbing to me is that it has not come up before. This should have been part of the Iowa discussion.

    Obama resist temptation? (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    You mean like how he resisted the temptation to slime her back on the topic of Ayers by pointing out that her husband had pardoned/commuted the sentences of 2 other Weather Underground people?

    Seemed pretty clear to me that Obama is capable of carrying the football to score his own points.


    That was a response to an attack (none / 0) (#67)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Obama's a fighter too.  

    He did not join in during questioning on the Bosnia issue.  He could of jumped in, as she did, and pointed out that she wasn't just "tired" on one occasion, that it was stated four times.  But he kept his mouth shut, which is what she should of done.


    He kept his mouth shut (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    Cause he knew that after Clinton owned her mistake he would have looked silly trying to push it further.

    That's one of the reasons why Clinton can keep pushing on Obama's mistakes.  He doesn't own them.

    He says "I might have used the wrong words, but I was right."

    So Clinton can say "No, I think it wasn't just using the wrong words, I think it was wrong."

    And I think she's right to keep doing so because I myself not only think Obama was not just using the wrong words, but he was wrong on point too.

    Rich people like religion and guns too!!!!!


    IOKIYO (none / 0) (#95)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    I keep forgetting...

    I think we should give him a lapel pin for his restraint on the subject of Tuzla which was finished off for all purposes when Hillary said she made a mistake...clearly, not the type of admission that we heard from Obama about anything so far.


    Oh, good (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    so at least maybe we know where the bottom of the cellar is, where Obama and his supporters will not go, and that's Vince Foster.  How reassuring.

    Your memory, and that of most Obama supporters, apparently, only goes back about a month.  When Hillary was the likely nominee way back when, Obama's campaign had no problem with calling her and her husband and a whole bunch of other people race-baiters, if not outright racists.

    And you want to get up on your high horse and talk defamation?  I laugh in your face.

    That's where this whole thing dates from, and if you deny it or excuse it or try to explain it away, you have simply lost contact with anything resembling reality.

    There simply is no more destructive and divisive and shameful and just plain UGLY charge one Democrat can make against another.


    we are being threatened again (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    via americablog:

    Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday's debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt.

    They call it activism (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    I call it fascism.  Sorry, it's a mob.  

    as mentioned yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    this is quickly becoming one of the reasons I dont think I want a President Obama.
    the implications are a bit frightening.

    He scares me big time (none / 0) (#225)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    Think of the Iraqi war vote. Senators voted for it (Unless you were not in the Senate but think you were)based on the information that they were given. Later, when they knew the truth, it was too late. We really do not have enough Senate experience in DC to be able to know what we are getting into if we vote for BHO. Look at the similarities. Or is it the go to war with the army you have and not the army you would like to have.

    This Organizational Tactic (none / 0) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    They are better at holding their breath until they get their way than we are.

    So are you saying that the Clintons (none / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    are acting in a totally justifiable way? If so, was Obama justified in October? And if Obama was despicable in October, are the Clintons not despicable now?

    Or do you just completely embrace your own double standard as a supposed "Obama supporter" yourself?

    BTD has pointed out consistently the (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    hypocrisy on both sides. And, nowhere in this post, did he say Clinton was justified.

    You practice wonderfully selective reading.


    This response from below (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    Are you saying that Obama was despicable in October?
    Was Obama despicable a year ago when Geffen was calling the Clintons liars and Obama was invoking the Lincoln Bedroom right wing talking point?

    Was for you.


    I asked first. (none / 0) (#138)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    But your avoidance of an answer is evidence enough.

    LOL (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    The "I asked first" routine.

    If you actually care about what you're talking about, and not just scoring argumentative points on a blog, then you don't care who asked first.

    Was Obama being despicable in October?


    Talking about purging the Clinton (none / 0) (#131)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    Watch this video.

    It's Keith Obamaman's Worst Person In The World.

    When mentioning Democratic Presidents while mocking Rush Limbaugh, notice which one he skips, twice.

    I am not a conspiracy nuts, but knowing that KO takesmany things from the "progressive" blogosphere, it says something.

    Just watch and tell me what you think.

    It depends (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Are you saying that Obama was despicable in October?

    Was Obama despicable a year ago when Geffen was calling the Clintons liars and Obama was invoking the Lincoln Bedroom right wing talking point?

    Obama Is Weak (none / 0) (#199)
    by awang on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. The extreme righwing nuts of the Republican party took control of the party and they gave us George W. Bush. The democratic party is in danger of repeating the same mistake---not electing the most capable person into the white house. Our country needs Clinton NOW. There is no time for the empty "hope" talks. In Wednesday debate, it was obvious that while Hillary has provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing this country's problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems. Obama, I am afraid, is quite hollow in terms of his plan to lead this country to a better future. We need to alarm the democratic party that many independent voters could turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I think this scenario is quite real and it has not been talked about enough in the main stream media. Take a look. http://ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com/ (I vote for McCain if Obama is nominated)

    rational thought (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    here is the ONLY rational train of thought for sane people that don't like Obama:

    * I don't like Obama for blah,, blah, blah
    HRC is better for blah, blah, blah
    * I will do everything I can to help HRC win the dem nomination
    mccain or any other republican is unacceptably disastrous under any circumstances
    * I will vote for the democratic candidate no matter who it is.
    I will make sure I vote in order to do everything I can to prevent mccain from winning.
    * period

    any other result is mind-numbing self-absorption and crass callousness for the endless death, suffering, and destruction that a mccain administration represents.


    bolding above is unintended (none / 0) (#233)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Why can't Obama say (none / 0) (#240)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    HE will support the Dem nominee?

    Boy... (none / 0) (#202)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    ...that will teach them, huh?  Put McCain in the White House so he can finish the job of destroying America that Bush started.  Yeah, bring it on!

    As a "left-leaning" independent, I don't care who the Democratic nominee is, McSame would never, ever get my vote.  I choose not to support eternal war, continued stripping of our rights and freedoms, corporate control of everything, loss of clean air and water.  The list goes on and on.


    Um, and if one thinks that Obama is worse, (none / 0) (#204)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    how does your argument apply? It does not.

    If you think... (none / 0) (#206)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    ...he is worse, then you really aren't fit to call yourself anything but a Rethuglican.  

    I am not the one who talks up (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    Republicans and puts down the only successful Dem in 30 years. Obama is not qualified---that is independent of his party. In addition, his extreme immaturity is very scary.

    Whatever... (none / 0) (#214)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    I'm going to waste my time arguing with a deluded DINO wingnut.  

    McCain is not infantile. Electing Obama (none / 0) (#215)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    would be like handing a 2 year old a gun. Maturity matters more than politics. USUALLY the maturity of a candidate goes without saying. Too bad that's not the case with Obama.

    BTW (none / 0) (#219)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    I'm very receptive to what you are saying.

    For those of us who do consider the viability of McCain over Obama (for me it's a 20 year thing and weighing the impact of 4 more years of Republican ideology vs. 4 years of Democratic party incompetence that will lead to a Republican resurgence), there's a time where we will no longer be welcome on any blog at all.

    Including this one.

    I think Jeralyn and BTD think you are crossing a line.

    You wouldn't be crossing a line on my blog, but this is just what I'm thinking here.


    I don't care for McCain's politics at all;' (none / 0) (#220)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    however, I do find him to be a decent human being.
    I also think he has a sense of the stakes involved in Presidential decisions.
    My decision is not relevant, because I am in a state Obama would lose by 30 points. I don't think Obama stands a chance, regardless. He won't be able to pull the sh** on McCain that he does on Hillary.
    No giving the middle finger, no glaring, no shaking his head. Can you imagine how Obama will be "Gored" if he glowers, harrumphs and shakes his head while hearing McCain answer a debate question?

    Yes (none / 0) (#222)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    There's absolutely no way to tell how he'll be treated once a Clinton is out of the picture.

    Worst case scenarios have to be considered.


    Absolutely agree with the Repub insurgence theory. (none / 0) (#242)
    by alexei on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    If Obama is such a Democrat (none / 0) (#238)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    Why is it impossible for him to say "I will support and campaign for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is."?

    Check the debate transcript.

    Notice how Hillary says "I will do everything to make sure that the people who supported me support our nominee" and "I'm going to do everything I possibly can to make sure that one of us takes the oath of office." She always says this.

    He says, "the Democratic Party will come together, because we have no choice." (nothing about shared issues and ideology.) He says, "both Senator Clinton's supporters and Senator Obama's supporters will be supporting the Democratic nominee."

    But not "I will support the nominee."

    Why not?

    Who's the "real" Democrat here?


    See, MarkL? (none / 0) (#209)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    You are not Of the Body! You are not a Dem!

    Could BTD's post be more on target?


    Let me just point out... (none / 0) (#211)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    that I'm not emotionally tied to either candidate.  I have no dog in this hunt, so to speak.  So, if in your willful ignornance you choose to make me out as some Obamiac, then you are as wrong as the day is long.  

    Both candidates are not what I would prefer (i.e., they ain't Edwards), but I will hold my nose and vote for whoever is running against McSame.  

    You are what you vote.  


    I vote Dem all the way, (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:03:48 PM EST
    but Obama scares the hell out of me. That said, I am hoping that HRC is the nominee so that I don't have to make that decision in November. I've never voted for a Republican President and don't intend to.

    If you're not an Obaman, fine, but your point is the same as the Obamans. It is possible that the core Democratic voters who are being constantly dissed and insulted by Obama's campaign and supporters, might actually feel uncomfortable voting for him.

    How is that difficult to understand?


    And... (none / 0) (#252)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    ...is it so hard for you to understand that the street runs both ways?  Perhaps the "other" side feels the same way?  

    Honest to god, this idol worship crap is disgusting on both sides.


    No (none / 0) (#216)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    The Party isn't being hijacked by left-leaning extremists.

    In a way, if only they did stand for something besides Obama.


    I wish (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    the Party leaned more to the left!!! However, Obama and his supporters consistently attack HRC from the right.

    That's why I think he and his supporters have no business telling me who is a Dem and who isn't.


    sheesh (none / 0) (#229)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    i can't believe that people are actually parsing whether Obama gave HRC the finger.  

    by the way, Robert Reich, Sam Nunn and David Boren all drank the Kool Aid today. i guess they were all "hijacked by the extreme left wing."

    my goodness. the histrionics just continue to escalate.

    no need to parse the finger (3.00 / 2) (#230)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    because the crowds reaction says it all. That's how they interpreted it. And that kind of nasty juvenile behavior in the Obama camp comes from the top down.

    And by the way, those guys drank the kool-aid a while ago. They're just formally saying so now. No surprises there.


    the fact that (none / 0) (#237)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    you really think he's doing more than scratching his cheek pretty much speaks for itself.

    Isn't Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#231)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    the guy who toured the submarines in 1993 asking if we really wanted f*gs in our military?  Isn't it Sam Nunn who's responsible for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as he undermined Clinton's efforts to ban discrimination against gays in the military?

    that's the one (none / 0) (#247)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST

    and David Boren is the one who flirted with Ross Perot.

    What's sad is how many of these (none / 0) (#239)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    endorsements look like political axe-grinding from people who we might even call "bitter" - and who have been waiting a long time to finally have a way to punish the real object of their grudge: Bill Clinton.

    I suppose on one level, this has been a real exercise in identifying who has the country's best interests at heart, and who has their own.  The thing is, though, that once the Bitter Ones have gotten their revenge, have done a little dance on the political graves of the Clintons, we are either stuck with John McCain, or we are stuck with someone who wasn't ready for the job, and won't have the luxury of growing into it.

    It's just really unfortunate that it will be America that suffers for the sake of a few overblown and immature politicians.


    yes! (none / 0) (#246)
    by VicAjax on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    that's it... all these Obama endorsements are purely based on bitterness and revenge at the expense of HRC!

    Destruction of the Clintons? (none / 0) (#250)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    Is that Robert Reich's goal? Or is there some reality to be faced in the criticisms?

    "I saw the ads" -- the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago -- "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst -- and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

    Wow, Kool-aid drinker (none / 0) (#254)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    Does Reich really believe that anything that challenges the unity narrative is off-base? Even "unimportant" stereotypic comments dismissing huge classes of US citizens? I thought we were DEMOCRATS.

    How do you not understand (none / 0) (#251)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    The tactic is to make Obama unacceptable as the nominee, which means making him unacceptable to be president.  Not that Hillary is better, that he is unacceptable.  Several people posting here, even stated how he is unacceptable as president. Attacks like that are bad for the Dem party.  Saying Hillary will do anything to win, doesn't make her unacceptable as president, saying she is a negative campaigner doesn't do that either.  

    An example of the kind of attack that could be waged against Clinton, that would be bad for democrats, is to run an add going through her various emotional states, and say she doesn't have the temperament to be commander in chief, or to parrot her words to say John McCain has the temperament to be commander in Chief (which we all BTW, know he doesn't), but Hillary will have to answer if she does.  I'm sure thats a line republicans would used, but I'd be upset if Obama went there.