Hillary vs. MoveOn; Remember Obama vs. Daily Kos?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

This is amusing to me:

A long time ago I said that Team Clinton hates [the Creative Class blogs] and that, if nominated, they will marginalize us and undo all the hard work we've put in . . .

Yes, and Obama has always been a "fierce supporter" of the "Creative Class" blogs:

Andrew Sullivan is crowing over a swipe Barack Obama took at Daily Kos, saying:

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

BTW, here is Ezra Klein in his full hypocritical glory:

This sort of thing really doesn't inspire confidence in Hillary Clinton. It's not, of course, that I can't understand why Clinton wouldn't like MoveOn.org. After all, they endorsed her opponent. But at the same time, they're an important part of the emergent progressive movement, and it's worrying that Clinton seems to view them as some sort of vaguely illegitimate organization . . .

Obama's disdain for the progressive blogs never inspired the same concern in Ezra. Imagine that. Credibility is a fragile thing. Ezra's has been shattered.

Barack Obama has made fools of them all. Do they really think they can hold him to account now? Just like their belated attempts to critique the Media, they have nothing they can say now to hold Obama to a progressive agenda. They have portrayed Obama as a God on Earth now, not to be questioned. They can not hold him to anything now.

< Musings on the Price of Gas | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I said a few weeks ago (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    that this reminded me of the Iraq debate.

    Remember how they all got behind Nancy Pelosi and wanted to help "whip" the vote?

    More of the same.

    And I'm sure someone will point to Obama's dkos diaries from, you know, three years ago, as "proof" that he cares about them.

    The most ironic is Obama's quote itself: (none / 0) (#137)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect.

    So Obama's measure of a site is "doing interesting work" ie. ACTION NOT WORDS, and yet he fails his own test.


    Wow (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    who would have guessed Clinton would have the inclination--or the power--to destroy the "creative class" blogs?  I thought she was weak and ineffectual and would never win the nom anyway, so what's the worry?

    (and does anyone else get tickled by the self-designated monicker, "creative class blogs"?  Honey, please!)

    As a professional singer, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    yes, I think it's ludicrous.

    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    I have never seen so many self-proclaimed intellectuals behave in such self-defeating ways in my life.

    yep, I'm a member of the creative class (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    in a design business all my life but I can use the right side of my brain too to read the fine print.

    And at this time in history reading the fine print matters.


    Really Absurd (none / 0) (#138)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    I have news for Booman: high falutin, but fatuous language never proved anyone's intelligence.  

    silly progressives... (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    evidently don't seem to realize that alienating nearly half of the democrats won't ultimately cause them a problem.

    I like this part from the Booman article. (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    This is exactly what I have always said. My initial opposition to Clinton's campaign was actually about self-preservation for our movement.

    So, they thought that if she was elected, it would discredit them as the new powerbrokers within the Democratic Party. Because she was not new, and shiny, and young, and hip and Facebook-y.

    It's so disillusioning to me. These people believe in nothing but power for power's sake. And this comes from a lefty liberal, ex-Deaniac, ex-Moveon.org member.

    I don't take Booman's self-centered (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    cry-fests seriously.

    To me the big story of this campaign (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    is the utter implosion of the so-called "progressive" blogosphere. Half of the Big Boyz' readers have defected.

    These blogs are dismissed when they should be respected by now. But they decided that backing Obama was more important than anything, and they turned the guns on themselves instead of on the Republicans.

    The wingnuts are just laughing at the utter cluelessness of the Big Boyz. They should have realized, as HRC has repeatedly stated, that the most important thing in November is electing a Democrat.


    I joined MovOn because I thought (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    they were an issue oriented organization.  But I resented their endorsement of a candidate in this important primary.  They should have pressed both candidates to commit to the issue of Global warming and the environment in general, social justice, etc. I am pretty sure that I was not alone in canceling my membership.

    Kinda like the League of Women Voters (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    They endorse/oppose ballot initiatives but stay neutral on candidates.

    I agree; cancelled immediately after endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by macondo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    Me too, I cancelled mine (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Mark Woods on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    But it took months to stop the e-mails. I felt they had taken my money and then spit in my face (figuratively speaking).  

    Which is why I admire John Edwards more (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    even if I initially did not support him and I doubted his commitment to the issue of poverty and health insurance because I thought that he was just picking on these issues to be elected.  But I was wrong.  His commitment to these issues, I am now convinced with all my heart, goes to the very core of his being.  I hope that when Hillary becomes the nominee, he would agree to be her running mate.  The two of them would be great for  the masses of the American people who do not make their living on Wallstreet.

    Edwards was and still is... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    head and shoulders above the candidates who used celebrity and need to spend upwards of 1/4 billion to secure a nomination.

    He was always the issue oriented candidate.


    Netroots Thuggery (5.00 / 14) (#7)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Whatever Clinton thinks about the activist base, it pales in comparison to the vile attacks launched daily at her and her supporters by MoveOn, Kos, and the netroots.

    Remember, it was Clinton who had the spine to send Wolfson on O'Reilly to defend Kos. Remember, too, that it was who Clinton voted against censuring MoveOn, while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

    Yet, despite these efforts, Clinton has received nothing but scorn from these thugs.

    Further, Clinton supporters are quite familiar with the nastiness and small-mindedness of the netroot's thought-police.

    We have been threatened, attacked, and banned across the internet from the beginning of this campaign. The bullying of Clinton supporting caucus-goers is well-documented. They believe that they alone can judge who is and isn't a "real Democrat", and woe to those who dare to advocate against or exercise their right to vote contrary to their draconian precepts.

    I cannot speak for how Clinton really feels about the activist base. As for this life-long Democrat, they've done little to earn my respect, and much to earn my disdain.

    Everything seems to come down to (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    the junior-high - or middle-school for you young 'uns - mentality.  

    Hillary's defense of MoveOn and Daily Kos was treated as her wanting/begging/pleading too much for them to like her, and we all know that in junior high, if your neediness is too evident, you're toast, so like any clique that thinks it is just the coolest - EVER - she got the cold shoulder.

    Obama, on the other hand, played hard-to-get, and they fell all over themselves for his approval.  If he didn't want them, well, he must be uber-cool, right?

    Trying to figure out all of this is easy when you transport yourself back to a time when pretty much no one I know would ever want to go again, but at this stage, I'd rather reflect on junior high than live it again in the diaries at DK.  There's way too much unresolved history being played out there for my taste.


    Nah (none / 0) (#76)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    Obama was a paraiah throughout the netroots until just recently.  DailyKos was Edwards territory and even Chris Dodd was more popular.

    Obama gained in popularity as the race dwindled to two and the differences between his campaign and Hillary Clinton's became more stark.

    Now we have this strange phenomena that's taken shape wherein one blog becomes and "Obama blog" and another a "Hillary blog".

    The same echo chamber dynamics being complained about on this thread exist in all of them - and this site is clearly no exception.


    "So with Hillary" (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    is the usual way of Obama supporters' rationale whenever a fact is pointed out.  This site, is definitely not like Daily Kos.  There is no lynching (figuratively) mob here and it is not tolerated.

    The Edwards partisans never showed... (none / 0) (#104)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    the same viciousness in response to dissent that is almost the norm at DKos at present.

    It is completely anti-progressive to treat people who disagree with impunity.

    It is not just people here who notice it.

    Paul Krugman and others have spoken to this issue.

    It is reactionary, posing as change.  It is an illusion of change.

    And I do not support Clinton either.  But she and her supporters, generally, do not present themselves as unifiers and consensus seekers, and then act just the opposite unless you fall into line with their views.


    This makes so much sense! (none / 0) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    They've even got the junior-high school boys pre-pubescent attitude that gurls are icky.

    I mentioned this on dkos (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    I got troll rated for it, and told the Clinton only did it for political reasons.

    I wonder why Obama does the things he does?


    A lot of people are going to be dismayed... (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    ...at how Obama will govern if he is elected. There seems to be an assumption that he is really a liberal (er, sorry "Progressive") and that he is simply talking like a moderate in order to convince the moderate suckers to vote for him. There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Obama's voting record is no more liberal than Clinton's, and his written policies/positions are more conservative than hers (although in his defense, he doesn't always know what his "official" positions are - his aides seem to write a lot of them without his involvement).

    i've been writing about that for some time (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    One of the reasons I continually criticize certain elements of Obama's Netroots support is that I find in those elements a lack of rationality and honesty that I don't find as lacking in supporters of Clinton. It could be that it's due to Obama having so much more support in the Netroots, and it could be because his more shrill supporters are louder and more obsessed. And I do find many smart, sane, honest Obama supporters. But the dislocation from reality, in some of his supporters, makes me wonder what will happen if Obama is elected, and does not pursue a policy of complete withdrawal from Iraq. I have no doubt that if Clinton is elected, and pursues such an incomplete policy, that we will be unified in condemning her for it. We will hold her feet to the fire. We will put policy over politics, no matter our partisan allegiances. But will the same happen if Obama is elected?

    My fear is that there is such a deluded lack of understanding about Obama's Iraq plans that even if he pursues the exact same policies Clinton would have pursued, he will not be condemned for it. My fear is that there will be so much cognitive dissonance that the same people who now distort his strengths and Clinton's weaknesses will have trouble coming to terms with his failures. I'm sure some are even now having trouble coming to terms with what Klein and Scahill wrote. It is critically important that we accept, now, that neither Democrat is inclined to be aggressive enough, in getting us out of Iraq. It is critically important that we resolve to push them both on that. But it is most important that if Obama is elected, and pursues the same compromised policy Clinton would have pursued, that we call him out for it, just as we would have called her out for it. My fear is that too many in the Netroots will resort to rationalizing and making excuses. For if that were to happen, the hoped for change would not be the change that some now expect.



    Turkana, I miss your diaries at DKos. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    I read you at the Left Coaster but I haven't been to the orange place in two months. I know you're busy, but I wish you'd get permission from Jeralyn to diary here.

    As this site gets busier and busier, if Jeralyn or BTD aren't around, we run out of threads to post in. I think you'd be a great addition here and might get some of the other great diarists from other places to follow your lead.


    heh, thanks (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    i don't see myself posting at dk, anymore. but tlc and docudharma (which has a different focus- or playful lack of focus) are fun to write for.

    I really miss you too, and I miss the community (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    in the comment threads.

    I can't even get on the leftcoaster (dumbcomputerbalk) but they are not nice comments either...so I love what you write, still, but am so sad I can't say so there.

    The haloscan impersonal comment threads at theLeftCoast don't work to create community because you can't offer a quick hug to those you agree with (rate) you can't thread comments to get into conversations.

    I now meet us refugees all over the progressive blosphere, I used to only read Dkos, for news analysis - yeah you may laugh! but when Litigatormomn and turkana and Richard Cranium and so many others were diarying, there was great news analysis...sigh.

    My one complaint is that no other site has the design of dkos that made it work as an activist community center: hotlist, blogroll, threaded comments, recced diaries, (back then: before they became the wrecked diaries you see now there!)troll removal (before the professional thugathon there now with their IMs descended on me!) and the own diary page.

    So I miss us all.
    We are partly reconstructed in various sites, but none as well in design...hint hint Big Tent Democrat...


    i'm hoping we'll be changing formats at tlc (none / 0) (#141)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    and docudharma is soapblox. and many of us have, indeed, begun spending more time here, and at eenr blog. but peeder and hunter did create fun software for markos, which is part of why his blog developed the way it did. but it does also allow for abuse, such as trollhunters. i also miss the community, but when i stopped posting there, i felt more relief than sadness. i realized that the community has been dead for some time. but that's what markos apparently wants. i didn't realize that crashing the gates meant getting inside, becoming part of the problem, and then trying to close the gates on others.

    You mean Hunter the funny guy (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    made that software? Can't anyone buy a software setup that does those things?

    many of the bells and whistles (none / 0) (#147)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    are site specific, although i believe soapblox will soon offer radio buttons for ratings, which will make things much smoother on a lot of sites.

    I Agree 100% (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    Many of Obama's supporters seem to have so much of their own ego invested in him that I fear that there is no action or lack there of that they will not try to rationalize. Seen many of them twist themselves into pretzels  already to support him on positions that they had previously strongly condemned.

    My fear... (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    ...is that his lack of understanding and lack of intellectual curiosity will leave him (and the nation) vulnerable to manipulation by people with their own agenda's. What is Axelrod getting for helping Obama? What about people like Rezko? People like that aren't idealists. They pay to play. Rezko is out of the picture, but who else is waiting in the wings?

    Obama seems to have spent a lot more time writing books than reading them. I want a President who is smarter than me. I want a policy wonk who knows how the government works and has struggled to work past bureaucratic obstacles. I don't really get the feeling that Obama has worked very hard during his political life. He feels more like Bush in some ways - he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. He wasn't born rich, but he wasn't poor either. What kid of person writes an autobiography before he is 40? What kind of person thinks he understands foreign policy because he lived in another county while he was a child? He says that he was raised by a "single mother", but his mother was only single for a few years while he was a young child, then divorced again when he was older. What is this man about? What does he believe? Why does he allow aides to write his position papers even though he writes his own books? Why does he make such bad choices in friends and advisor's?


    there's no question (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    that he's extremely intelligent- editor of the law review at harvard. but it has been disconcerting that on many policies he seems to be learning as he goes. to some degree, his lack of specificity has been intentional- the all things to all people schtick; but to some degree, it does seem he hasn't really thought issues through, in detail. i have issues with hillary, but one of the things i most respect and admire about her is that she's a serious wonk. it shows in every debate, when they get around to talking policy. she really knows her stuff, and she has thought things through, in serious detail.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by otherlisa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    That's what sold me on HRC, after Edwards dropped out.

    We need a grown-up who knows how things work and who has thought things through, not a charismatic figure whose real positions and passions remain opaque.


    In every debate (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    Hillary strikes me as the person I want on my team. I think that's a large part of the reason undecideds break for her.

    Obama, to a degree, is like a hugely hyped movie that leaves you wondering where you'll go for drinks later.


    My opinion is that both Clinton and Edwards though (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    through the issues, developed (or borrowed) their policies and took the time to become familiar enough with them that they could discuss them intelligently in detail.  It seems that Obama's positions were developed (or borrowed) on the fly by someone other than Obama and he has not done more than to read an overview of what they actually contain. Can see he intentionally being vague in his stump speeches as that seems to have worked to his advantage but I can't think of any other reason for his poor debate performances other than the one I mentioned.

    For instance on climate policy plans (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    Most glancing at the two sites plans, think they are similar.

    Clintons takes all the good ideas of Gore: efficiency, utilities decoupling, solar, wind, feed in tariffs, carbonrisk reporting to SEC lotsa the detail it will take to switch to a clean economy

    Obamas, just ethanol and nukes. See if you can find any Solar in there. Any Wind? Geothermal?  

    How are just ethanol and nukes gonna save us in the water deprived Merica we face under climate change already in the pipeline? No thought to that... Why? His advisors are ethanol and nuke lobbyists.

    Obama has 2 ethanol lobbyists, an oil guy Reilly's on the board of ConocoPhillips, and a nuclear lobbyist (CEO of Exelon) on his advisory team per Grist, at his aptly named...:-) Bipartisan Policy Center (!) I kid you not.


    scuse me,didnt mean to double, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    meant to amend, (because real Democrats don't slime people with lies)

    ok: he is willing to fund a little research into those untested unproven technologies, Wind and Solar...

    who knows, something may come of it...


    hey, thanks for that. (none / 0) (#145)
    by kangeroo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:52:25 PM EST
    i don't know enough about environmental policy to be able to assess the key differences between them myself, so this is good to know.  

    For instance on climate policy plans (none / 0) (#128)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    Most glancing at the two sites plans, think they are similar.

    Clintons takes all the good ideas of Gore: efficiency, utilities decoupling, solar, wind, feed in tariffs, carbonrisk reporting to SEClotsa the detail it will take to switch to a clean economy

    Obamas, just ethanol and nukes. See if you can find any Solar in there. Any Wind? Geothermal?  

    How are just ethanol and nukes gonna save us in the water deprived Merica we face under climate change already in the pipeline? No thought to that... Why? His advisors are ethanol and nuke lobbyists.

    Obama has 2 ethanol lobbyists, an oil guy Reilly's on the board of ConocoPhillips, and a nuclear lobbyist (CEO of Exelon) on his advisory team per Grist, at his aptly named...:-) Bipartisan Policy Center (!) I kid you not.


    I see JoeChi's here now... (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    We were both at FDL where Jane railed against HRC for the (I think foolishly unguarded) comments about MoveOn.

    Man did we get flamed for defending HRC!

    Me especially.

    I used to go there a lot.  Sent an email to Jane sayign please don't go down Markos' rabbit hole...

    What did they think was going to happen? (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    That she'd be attacked and slimed and called every name in the book for a year, that they'd bully and intimidate her supporters all over the Internets, that they disagree with her on key policy decisions, yet that she'd still think they were teh awesome?

    They don't even think she's an actual normal person with normal feelings. They really think she is the devil, IMHO.

    Talk about a lethal lack of self-awareness.


    MoveOn is a sick joke (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    and railing against them will only help her.  They are usually a distraction from issues by providing  stupid false targets like the Betrayus ad for the republicans to shoot.

    Thuggery Redux (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    Like I said.  Thuggery is an apt word.

    There's nothing more absurd than a bully with a thin skin, eh?


    Like W. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    The big orange is thuggery. (none / 0) (#45)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    I noticed before I left the irrationality and  absolutism of so many posters. The meme was "We don't like this Democrat so get rid of him/her."  When an issue came up that was complex they made it to be simply "we are the voters, so get them to do it" mentality.  The arguments over single payer health care were much like that.  "We want it so GET IT DONE you A**ho**."  Trying to convince them that half of the country doesn't believe the same as they do is another call to be flamed.

    Clockwork Orange is my name (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    Jack boots are their keyboards.  

    I've already noticed that their 'good democrats' (none / 0) (#133)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    , the ones they raised money for to elect,and haven't lived up to their (ie: we want out of Iraq) expectations. I know of at least 2, Jim Webb and forgot the other one, a Congressman,who haven't voted the way they (progressives)would have wanted.

    They don't say much about those. What happens then? Will they turn their fury on them at election time?

    I think by then, the netroots will have done themselves in, and the term nutroots, will be their new name.

    TPM has rehabilitated itself to me somewhat he seems to be posting more postive things about Hillary or lets say fair, but I'm still not totally happy with them.
    But I like Josh and when he gives us a glimpse of his family with pictures and stories, I tend to forgive him his trespasses. Kos did too, but he isn't trying like TPM is. He actually enjoys the snarky commenting. Too bad.

    I still think DK has some wonderful content  notwithstanding the diaries. KagroX, and MCJoan is what makes me miss them, but I'll get over it.


    Those posts seem immature... (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Leisa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Booman, Hillary hates us?  Come on, she does not like the behavior of some of these "progressives" and "creative class" adherents; arrogant and ignorant abuse of their right to free speech and right to assemble.  I support her thinking.

    I have said elsewhere that some Obama supporters are behaving like Brown Shirts.  We must not tolerate that behavior. I have seen how fragile democracy can be.  I feel strongly that freedoms should not to be taken for granted or abused.

    What is amazing to me about Clinton vs. Move On (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    Is the way this story emerged. I mean this comes from "Off the Bus" right? So is this Huff posts way of atoneing for the sin of releasing a major Obama Gaffe?


    It's so bizzare. The tit for tat in this campaign is just incredible to me. I mean you just KNOW that after Powers resigned team Obama had a group of people looking for someone to get kicked off the Clinton campaign. Ferraro. Weeeeeeee!

    I don't think that this particular "gaffe" will have any traction though. "Hillary has issues with Hillary opponents." Wow. What a headline.

    The effete Intellectuals now allied with--- (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by candideinnc on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    get this!  Sam Nunn endorses Obama.  Gives you real confidence about the future of the Femocratic Party, doesn't it?

    And the MCM began touting Sam Nunn as (none / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    Secty of State or SecDefense.

    The latter should make gays in the miltary feel really good....


    Obama supporters can't or won't hold (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    Obama to his promises? Is that a prediction?

    If progressives want change from Washington, the only way to get it is to maintain and intensify pressure on their elected leaders. To sit back and wait and see if they live up to their promises, and then to claim disappointment when and if they don't, is defeatist. It's hard for me to see all of Obama's supporters as fundamentally defeatist. So I'm not sure what this prediction is based on.

    Well, they sure aren't holding him (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by otherlisa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    to much of anything now.

    I still shake my head that this man is considered "progressive."


    I don't think that's how this works. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    See, Obama is allowed to be as vague as possible, so that his supporters can imprint their wishes and hopes on him, and all can believe that he is The One; it's a lot like praying to God and hoping He will answer your prayers.

    And do we ask, do we pressure The One?  No, we humbly await his command.

    I can't wait for the explanation when he fails to deliver: "I beg your pardon; I never promised you a rose garden."


    If people are (none / 0) (#80)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    humbly awaiting his command, that's their own fault. You can't hold Obama responsible for the lack of imagination and commitment of progressives who ultimately don't want to do the hard work required to get real change from Washington.

    I would say the same thing about Clinton. Waiting around for her to do everything she promises is to ensure disappointment. It's defeatist. She will need her supporters to pressure her if she is to live up to her promises, no matter how specific or vague you may judge them to be.


    Who is blaming Obama here? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Did you see my write a word of censure about him in this post? That is the part you seem to not be getting.

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    Progressives will have to hold Pres. Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire to get the changes we want.

    But with Pres. H.R. Clinton's administration, we may be able to count on the MSM to do its job: shine the bright light of skepticism on politicians and skullduggery.

    The MSM will never, ever dissemble, obfuscate, or lie for Pres. Hillary Clinton. They will never cheerlead. They will never feel from her The Tingle(TM). The MSM will be skeptical of her administration, which is what they're supposed to be.


    If we are to go by Bill's record (none / 0) (#139)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    I think he definitely had a very good track record of fighting for everything that he promised to fight for in the primaries.

    I do recognize that they didn't deliver a universal health care but they definitely tried.

    Just sayin'


    When BO doesn't live up (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    ...to his promises,

    They'll blame Hillary.


    They fell all over themselves (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    to endorse Jim Webb, an obviously conservative Democrat, then whined about how conservative he was.

    They seem to get caught in a "moment" and all rational thought goes out the window.


    Most libs/progressives realized Webb (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    was the best Dem who could be elected in VA--and he was strongly against the Iraq mess.

    I don't think anyone actually expected him to be as liberal as he has been on some issues (and honestly I recall being pleasantly suprised and cannot recall about what, so take this as bloviating).  He made some very populist sounding economic comments.

    But, for VA? I think we lucked out with the Macaca moment video--otherwise we would have been stuck with Allen in the Senate and running for prez.


    Some People Made A Hero Out Of Webb (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    and he remains so even when he votes contrary to their stated positions on Iraq and FISA. Others listened to Webb's supporters rather to what Webb said about his position on Iraq and were sorely disappointed when he never voted for setting a deadline for leaving Iraq.

    If your main issues are getting out of Iraq ASAP and restoring and upholding FISA, Webb is not your man. If your main issues are populist economic ones, you will be less disappointed.

    And I agree that if Allen had not got caught on video on Macaca and Mike Stark had not pushed the issues of his racial slurs, he would have maintained his seat in the Senate


    Yeah. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    Webb, for all his faults, is better than Harris "Outsource every job" Miller would have been.

    I think 2 terms of Bush (none / 0) (#43)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    ...has made a lot of people irrational.

    Furious, frustrated, and irrational (dare I say bitter??  LOL)

    But anyway I think a lot of the virulence we're seeing is because people are so effin' POd that we've gotten stuck with Bush, that any opposition to the solution they see (i.e. Obama) gets met with flames.


    pressure (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Nasarius on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    How well has that worked after the 2006 elections?

    The only kind of "pressure" that matters to politicians is electoral. If you vote for someone who doesn't agree with your policies...you get exactly what you asked for. Obama has promised virtually nothing, excepts perhaps withdrawal from Iraq. What you see is what you get.


    I think some of them will be disappointed. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    If he really plays nice with Republicans, I don't think that too many of his more liberal base will really find that so appealing in practice. And if he  is as progressive as his young supporters think, then the libertarians won't like him.

    No doubt. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    But my point is that disappointment is inevitable if you buy into the idea that all you have to do to get real social change is elect someone who promises it.

    Achieving social change is a long battle against entrenched interests and values opposed to your own. It's about building consensus with those who disagree with you, and it's about maintaining and intensifying pressure on those you've elected.

    Presidents can and will only do so much if there is no pressure maintained on them. (Think LBJ-MLK). I would say the same thing about Clinton as about Obama. Without consistent pressure from citizens neither will be able to accomplish much in the way of progressive change.


    No (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    they do not even ask for promises from him. that is a FACT.

    So Obama's supporters (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    ask for nothing from him? Have no expectations of him? Are willing to invest so much energy into achieving nothing?

    How does this assertion differ from the Obama-cult accusation?


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    I can see that.

    I have watched them accept every thing Obama does, even when it is diametrically opposed to what they said they were for.

    If the shoe fits, you can wear it. I am telling you what I have seen.

    Can you tell me what issues they have taken Obama to task for? Name 2.


    I take your point. (none / 0) (#107)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    High-visibility Obama supporters demanding that he clarify his progressive goals (to the point where he might lose independents) are too few and far between. (You are one of the few, for which I am grateful.) But I've always assumed it's because the urgency of winning the nomination and the GE trumps a desire to inject doubt and thereby lessen the momentum, and media love, necessary for such an improbable candidate to actually win.

    But I have seen and heard many individuals supporting him who expect him to be much more decisive on, for example, health-care, immigration, and Iraq, once the primaries are done.

    If he wins the nomination and the presidency, the pressure from progressives will need to mount in order for him to achieve anything. Those that just wait around for him to "deliver" will suffer inevitable disappointment. (The same would apply to Clinton, imo).


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    There is always an excuse. Move On had them when they capitulated on the Iraq funding issue.

    In any case (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    He isn't getting in unless McCain implodes, big-time.

    I keep asking BO supporters to show me an electoral map that doesn't have Obama losing to McCain, and all I get is flames.

    all 50 states! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Nasarius on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    Obama will win Utah!

    time for a book BTD (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    something along the lines of credibility at the gate. Something to answer the crashing book and to critique the blogs this cycle and hold them to account. You could draw from quite a collection of your posts/essays. I'm serious. A good analysis of all that has happened this cycle would be really valuable.

    Credibility at the Gate (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:20:15 PM EST

    Repair/restore the gates... (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    they were there for a reason.

    Now it's clear what that reason was.


    booman (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:18:23 PM EST

    Woo-Hoo! (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead of Obama in the daily Gallup tracker for the first time since March 20th!

    up to this point the most important measure (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    of how Obama has been doing (since most other polls haven't been in his favor). Wonder how the ObamaBlogs and ObamaTV will cover it. Snark.

    hey buye r's remorse setting in now finally. good (none / 0) (#134)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    btw (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    i hate the term "creative class." i wrote something about that, and i may have to post it. bottom line- by calling themselves the "creative class," they presume others are not creative. not only that, but of all the writers who refer to themselves as "creative class," i don't think i've seen any write anything that was actually creative.

    It's the best form of self-satire (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    I could possibly imagine. It perfectly encapsulates what they think of themselves.

    wannabes... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    something like 'Sunday painters' who can't understand why no gallery will give them a show.

    are you implying they're arrogant? :-) (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    hell, I'M arrogant... (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    but at least i'm actually creative about it!

    If you admit (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    that you're arrogant you lose points on both your arrogance and your ability to be creative about it. So much as I love the things you write I can't give you a 10 on either your arrogance or your creativity about being arrogant.

    I just made my head hurt.


    :) thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Leisa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    I do not think people with a sense of humor are usually called arrogant... are they?  I thought that arrogant people took themselves too seriously and blind themselves with their self-estimation of importance... ;)

    Where DID "creative class" come from? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    Is a term applied generally, for voters who support certain issues or candidates? Demographic group?

    Just for certain bloggers?

    Thnx for info!


    someone wrote a book about it (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    i don't remember who, but a lot of the self-important bloggers seized on it. it's fun to feel important.

    Richard Florida. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    "The Rise of the Creative Class".

    His next book was "The Flight of the Creative Class". Then he moved to Canada.


    Or classy! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    To find the real creative class (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    you need to do a few Googles. These are the subjects one should google to find them.. artisan blogs, craft blogs, artist blogs, architect blogs, writer blogs, photography blogs, etc. etc. Why people in politics call themselves creative is a mystery. The profession of politics is the second oldest on earth. And, like the oldest profession, there aren't too many things in it that haven't already been done to death. So how can they be creative since they are simply repeating the same things that have been done for thousands of years, albeit on new technology. They should call themselves what they are, and what someone called them to great outrage at DKos, the chattering class.

    In Their Perfect Image (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    They call themselves the "creative class" because they believe that only "true" Democrats are created in their perfect image.

    They Have The Bully Pulpit Now. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    Now that they have this awesome power, what do they choose to do with it?

    Talk about Progressive goals?
    Tell the Democratic leadership what they want?
    Talk about unifying the Party, no matter who the nominee is?

    No.  The pushback against ABC is a positive step, even if their motives are selfish.  But the rest of the time, they talk about, well, let's go to Pixar:

    He starts monologuing! He starts like, this prepared speech about how feeble I am compared to him, how inevitable my defeat is, how the world will soon be his, yadda yadda yadda.

    Sound familiar?  This is a comic book villain!  A fiction, a stereotype!  And yet.....

    Regarding MoveOn... (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    I found this comment illuminating:

    The end of movement politics has infected nearly everyone, like a mysterious illness in a science fiction film. If a movement still existed, MoveOn would not have made an Obama endorsement via popularity contest. They never bothered to make demands of him, to ask questions before giving him their support. Their endorsement is worthless because it gives Obama cover and asks nothing in return.

    MoveOn spreads the conventional wisdom that super delegates are more likely to be pro-Clinton and are willing to subvert the popular will on her behalf. They have even circulated a petition to prevent super delegates from choosing the nominee. What MoveOn doesn't say is that both Clinton and Obama have used their political action committees to make contributions to super delegate campaign funds. They also fail to mention that Obama leads in making these contributions.

    His PAC has given $698,200 to super delegates. Hillary Clinton has made $205,500 in contributions to super delegate coffers. In other words, Obama is more adept at buying votes than Clinton. "Yes we can" indeed.


    Look at this also... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Leisa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    $uper delegates

    It is old news, but worth looking at.  I think there is a link that tells one how much each candidate has given individual SD's...  it needs to be updated.

    New politics indeed...


    so thats what that means, yes we can (none / 0) (#135)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    give you mo'money, mo'money.

    sen. clinton can now add (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    "destruction of the progressive, creative class" to her already glowing resume'. along with "kills & eats babies", "abuses dogs" and "slays virgins to bathe in their blood".

    actually, this could definitely work to her advantage on the foreign policy front, who's going to want to piss off someone like this?

    I apprecieate your effort... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    but this is a bit of a stretch.  Obama expresses disappointment about what he's reading on dailykos in response to the Roberts hearings a few years ago doesn't seem to equate to:

    1. Hillary dissing the "activist base" of the party - the very base which she courted when she tried to get the moveon.org endorsement, the very base that pushed back on behalf of her husband during impeachment.

    2. Hillary misrepresenting the organization's view as being against the war in Afghanistan - conflating Afghanistan and Iraq and using the "they're a bunch of dirty hippies" argument that republicans love so much.

    My question is, what part of moveon.org's foreign policy does she not agree with?

    I can tell you what I disagree with (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    Move On's capitulation and acceptance and cheering of Pelosi's decision to fund the Iraq Debacle with no strings.

    My point is actually different. Do you REALLY think Obama gives a fig about Move On?

    do you think he will defend them against Clinton's  dissing?

    Nice try to change the subject.


    For me... (none / 0) (#91)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    the issue is that democrats have for far too long taken the viewpoint that we need to be republican-lite on foreign policy.  You can't convince the public that you are strong on an issue when you allow the other side to define the debate, and then try to say we're just as good as them.

    I believe Obama's candidacy, presents us with a clear chance to define nat sec on our terms.  Hers doesn't.  Instead, she makes it more difficult to do so by railing about moveon.org due to their foreign policy views.

    To answer your question, will Obama defend moveon.org?  You say it's all about politics.  So therefore he probably shouldn't.  If DEMS are demonizing the "wild-eyed leftits", his doing so will only give more ammo to the right to try to define him as such when he's the nominee.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    Have you heard Hillary's positions on foreign policy or do you just make it up?

    There is no difference between Clinton and Obama. None.

    Sorry, this is the perfect example of not CARING ABOUT THE ISSUE imo. you do not even know what the candidates say about it.


    Quite the contrary... (none / 0) (#112)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    It goes back to her vote on Iraq.  You can dismiss his opposition as just a speech as she is wont to do, but the reality is he comes to the debate on the war and foreign policy with clean hands.  She does not.
    And coming out of the debate, there's now a big difference - she wants a NATO type of defense umbrella over our allies in the middle east to stop Iran.  Obama didn't go nearly as far as she did in the answer to that question.  She sounded as hawkish as Lieberman.
    So please don't accuse me of being an ignoramus and not caring about the issues.  It's beneath you.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    If that is the basis of your support for Obama over Clinton, I can respect that.

    But please try to make him live up to the rhetoric. When he was talking about "playing chicken with the troops" - he sounded like Joe Lieberman to me.


    Thank You (none / 0) (#121)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    But I don't know the "chicken" quote.  Please enlighten me.

    I wrote about it at this blog (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    Google Obama chicken troops and Iraq and you will find it.

    Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    in 2003, Obama was for single payer health care.

    His positions have changed with his political calculations (not that I'm not saying that Hillary's vote for AUMF wasn't a politically calculated vote too).

    This notion that she voted for the AUMF and he didn't simply isn't entirely valid. He didn't have to vote and have his vote recorded.

    I'm quite certain that if he were in the Senate in 2002 and had presidential ambitions, he would have voted for the AUMF too...that's my bottom line.


    Moveon is not (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    the activist base of the party...not now, not then...but especially not now.

    This is NOT expressing disappointment. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Burned on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

    That was a snotty comment directed at a well known, heavily trafficked website back when it was mostly known for supporting progressive candidates and causes instead of the current version of Unity08.

    I'm so turned around by all the turning around that my head is spinning.


    One Of The Things That Really Bothered Me (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    when I regularly read DKos was the elitism of some of the community. I can remember quite a few first time diaries that the community tore apart because their punctuation or spelling didn't meet their standards. One such instance in particular comes to mind. The diary was written by a person in the military and provided a great deal of worthwhile information about a subject that was at the time of was of great interest. Rather than read the diary and appreciate the information (and it was very good), many tore the diarist up over his format, spelling and punctuation. Questioning this type of behavior often got you labeled anti-intellectual.

    Even Hannibal Lector (none / 0) (#77)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    (one of my favorite fictional characters)
    has manners!

    My first turn off moment was almost exactly... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    ...a year ago when after the killings in Virginia Tech there were several diaries complaining that the nation mourned for the murdered students but not for the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians or the slaughter in Darfur. Okay, I get it and I agree that little thought is given by most Americans to the atrocities that happen around the world. But still. I thought the sentiments were expressed rather rudely.

    Listened to HRC last night (4.55 / 9) (#49)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    ...in a HS auditorium in Radnor PA. Though I'd heard much of the stump before she varied it very nicely for the mostly younger crowd.

    The questions at the end were mostly good, some asking for very clear specifics i.e. what would you do on Day One for the environment or whatever.

    And I thought, well we'll get vagueries, but every answer was specific and detailed, create a Kyoto-like summit, include the nations that haven't participated, meet every three months with the leaders, tax cuts here and here and here for green energy, energy bonds to help car makers re-fit factories, and on and on.  More specifics in one answer than you hear in an entire Obama speech. She's got a ridiculous amount of info on the tip of her tongue and thinks on her feet very well, a reason why she kills BO in debates, and (should she get the opp) I hope will eat McCain's lunch.

    She also told a nice story about at first not wanting to get in the NY Senate race. Many were asking her to because Moyniham was steppng down. And abouthow she loved sports but was a lousy athlete, and when on stage to support a documentary about women athletes called Dare to Compete, shook hands with a women's B-ball captain, and the woman leaned over and whispered "Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton" and that helped changed her mind about running.

    Contrived? Maybe. But it was a nice story. One young AA youngster got up and his question was to ask for a hug after the meeting.

    I think accusing Ezra of being (3.00 / 1) (#48)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    a hypocrite here is unfair and unfounded. He has attacked Obama in the past when he felt he was working against progressives on health care for example.

    Last February he wrote:

    "I really don't feel like writing this same post over and over again, but it's worth saying that Obama is simply lying here. . . Housing isn't like health insurance. A mandate is only a part of Clinton's larger solution, which also includes deep subsidies and limiting out of pocket costs to a percentage of income. As Paul Krugman says, 'There are no excuses this time. You can't say that it's the work of some staffer. This is unscrupulous demagoguery from the candidate himself.'"

    So it's not as though he only criticizes Clinton and is entirely blind to Obama's faults. Just a few days ago, he lauded Krugman for his article, saying the Clinton's economic record was indeed quite good, and criticizes Obama for not distinguishing himself on domestic policy issues.

    Id onot think it contrived at all (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    I think Ezra's decision to attack Hillary for dissing Move On is proof positive that he is hypocritical about this very point. He did not such criticizing when Obama criticized and attacked Daily Kos.

    Your defense seems contrived to me.


    I saw a clip of Obama being (none / 0) (#31)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    interviewed by Chris Matthews recently and Chris asked Obama something about his feelings over news coverage and Obama said "I got better when I stopped watching cable."  It was a real slap at Chris and the look on his face registered it.

    Jeez: Barack and I agree on something. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    Scary ain't it? (none / 0) (#51)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    perfect example as with the blogs (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    on how the ObamaBlogs and ObamaTV think they're with him. The reality is they're not, or more to the point, he's not with them. He's a politician. He'll use what he needs, and discard what he doesn't. There are going to be many more surprised looks on faces before we're done. And the same is true of Clinton too of course. They're all politicians. With any of them you have to dig deep to really figure out what they are driven by and what they'll do. Clinton's been around long enough for us to have a good idea. Obama, not so much.

    Oama said he does not read blogs-ChiTrib (none / 0) (#68)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    Lynn Sweet reported on Feb 27th in her blog that Obama told reporters he doesn't read blogs.

    Yet, at one time he did?

    Uh oh! ReThugs will say he flip-flops!

    Huge difference... (none / 0) (#70)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    ...between critiquing the blogspehere andcondemningthe entire activist base of the party.

    I'm generally among the first to criticize the blogsphere, and I have my issues with MoveOn.org.  But I don't criticize activists for participating in the Democratic process, which is essentially what Clinton has done.

    BTD this comparison is a real stretch.  It can only be sustained if one doesn't botrher to look too closely.

    Move On is the entire activist base? (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    You think Hillary was criticizing Emily's List, NOW, etc?

    There is something just otherworldly about some of Obama's supporters.

    They seem to think they invented activism.


    they're a tad new to this (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    and will, for the most part, crawl back into their caves when Clinton gets the nom, so I don't think that we can technically call it "activism."

    More like "baractivism."

    That's what you get when they're dim for a day.


    See...I don't get where this comes from? (none / 0) (#87)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    Why such condescension?  Here you've got a candidate who finaly galvanizes the youth vote - and does so for our party.  Why the dismissal?

    Don't we want young voters to identify and work for Democrats?


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    she is dismissing the "Creative Class blogs" there.

    Because it's not for our Party (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    ....Young voters are great and Dems need energy and passion...but the BO campaign in no way targets rank-and-file Dems.  Read Kos. Hillary isn't even a Democrat anymore. Well - what the hell are half the registered Dems who want to vote for her then?

    And the condescension from the Obama campaign towards anyone thet criticizes him smothers meaningful debate.

    Can a young Obama supporter even tell you what he's for? Except in very undefined ways such as Hope, Change, not politics as usual and so on? Ask them about his Health plan. His SS plan. His energy plan.

    We need to expand the Dem party. But ignoring the people who've been voting Dem for years is not the way to do it.


    And trashing the Clinton years... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by smott on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    ...and equating them with the Bush years, is not only inaccurate, it's appallingly divisive for the Democratic party. Most blue voters remember the Clinton years fondly. They did much better then, and they know it.

    So we;ve got the Youth Obama vote sayign Clinton was just as bad as Bush, and the older Clinton vote saying "WTF?"

    Mr. Unity needs to start including the most recent successful Democratic President in his Kumbaya Schtick. Instead of lumping him, and all his supporters, with the other side.

    That's how you divide, not unify.


    I'm 43 (none / 0) (#144)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    And I'mnot such a big fan of the Clinton years.

    I'venever heard anybody call her "as bad as Bush" though.

    There's plenty of hyperbole all around.  This thread being no exception.


    I was told on Mydd (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    That the folks I attend local Democratic meetings and parties with, the folks that get together and stuff envelopes for our local and state candidates, those of us that go out and knock on doors - we are not activist, we are the establishment that must be destroyed by the blogoshpere and by groups like MoveOn.  Can you imagine that?

    And do you suppose those folks are going to step in for us and keep the local party alive.  I seriously doubt it.  I didn't see a single one of them at our St. Patrick's day party.  They were too busy blogging.


    Heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    She was criticizing a large enough subsection of the activist base to be able to swing the results of multiple caucus states. I think that qualifies for use of the phrase "criticizing the activist base."

    The reality is she thought this would be an air war and Obama beat her by fighting a ground war.  Given that we all want to see a dominant Democratic party, I'd think that a demonstration of effective organizing would be lauded by the majority of us.  Instead I see people here resorting to using hyperbole like "brown shirts".

    Curious indeed.


    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    think it qualifies and I think it takes a special kind of arrogance to get upset about Hillary critiquing Move ON (full disclosure, I heartily detest Move On and think very ill of its leadership and have for quite a while) when what the Creative class blogs have said about Hillary has been incredible in its vitriol.

    The whine is incredible and hypocritical as Obama has utterly disssed them.

    they are fools and care not a whit about he issues.

    Here is a question, what are they activists about?

    do they think there is room on the bandqwagon for them? I am sure there is but what issue will they care about? None.

    This is a rather disgusting display imo.  


    She criticized far more than MoveOn (none / 0) (#99)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    She criticized the "activist base of the party" (her words - not mine).  MoveOn has 3.2 million memebers - mostly likely concentrated in larg cities.  It is not only them "flooding into caucuses" and she knows that.

    This isn't about MoveOn.  This is about Hillary Clinton Sister Souljah-ing Democratic voters.  

    I honestly don't see how anyone can make excuses for it.


    Really? (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    Are people NOT upset about the criticism of Move On?

    I'm sure some are (none / 0) (#142)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    So what?

    The "brown shirts" refers to... (none / 0) (#113)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    the attitude, particularly against other Democrats who disagree.  There is no need for it to be that way.

    This is obvious.  At DKos, I am called a Red Stater and a troll with regularity.


    Looking up and down this thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    I don't see much of a difference.  

    See Mariah Carey "Shake It Off" (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    Pop culture question: So Obama's 'flick it off' comes via Jay-Z? Did Jay-Z get it via Mariah Carey's song/video "Shake It Off"? (She does the hand-to-shoulder gesture at 3:01.)

    Has 'shake it off/flick it off' been out there as a thang long before either Mariah or Jay-Z used it?

    I'm pretty sure Jay Z started it (none / 0) (#130)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    and if he didn't, then he should be credited for making the gesture so popular.  Mariah Carey's song came out a couple years after "Dirt of Your Shoulder" by Jay-Z.  But his song was so popular, that the gesture and variations of the phrase is in other songs and people use it in conversation, too.

    Hillary was right about Afghanistan (none / 0) (#118)
    by kateNC on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    MyDD has a link with archival pages which show "Eli" was at least disingenuous but probably just CYA.


    Hee (none / 0) (#124)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    We should definitely follow him.

    Dec 9, 2004 | Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

    And yes was right about Afghanistan.  


    I agree it would be tragic (none / 0) (#119)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    if all the energy and enthusiasm simply dissipates. On the other hand, to sit back and predict that it will is to help ensure that it will.

    But for now the fight is on. I think many progressives see electing Obama as a tactical necessity, (not as the coronation of a demi-god who will rule through mind-control). Those that see this is a long-term battle for real change should not be so dismayed that he is imperfect (nor for that matter that his supporters are imperfect.) I would say much the same of Clinton if she is the nominee.