Wolcott on Progressives "Going Postal"

James Wolcott examines the split among progressive bloggers over Hillary and Obama in the new Vanity Fair.

The vicious Clinton-versus-Obama rupture at Daily Kos, the most activist site in the liberal blogosphere, reflects a party-wide split. What really rankles, as Democrats tear at one another, is the free pass they’ve given McCain—and the White House.

Wolcott names many bloggers (we're not among them). Here's a snippet. [More...]

Once Edwards dropped out of the race, however, the buffer zone was removed, direct contact replaced triangulation, and the Obama and Hillary supporters faced off like the Jets and the Sharks. The rancor was disproportionate in intensity and extravagant in invective, a fervor worthy of ancestral foes. Months-old grievances seethed and erupted as if they had been bubbling for centuries in a lake of bad blood.

On the most egoistic plane, it seemed like a clash of entitlements, the messianics versus the menopausals. The Obama-ites exuded the confidence of those who feel that they embody the future and are the seed bearers of energies and new modalities too long smothered under the thick haunches of the tired, old, entrenched way of doing things. The Hillarions felt a different imperative knocking at the gate of history, the long-overdue prospect of the first woman taking the presidential oath of office. For them, Hillary’s time had come, she had paid her dues, she had been thoroughly vetted, she had survived hairdos that would have sunk lesser mortals, and she didn’t let a little thing like being loathed by nearly half of the country bum her out and clog her transmission. Not since Nixon had there been such a show of grinding perseverance in the teeth of adversity....

Menopausals? Ouch.

The last part of his article deals with Democrats' and progressives' inability to hold Bush-Cheney accountable and speculates the same will happen with John McCain.

Maybe that's why some of us want to choose a nominee based on which Democrat is most electable in November rather than the artificially and contrived formulation of pledged delegates that unduly emphasizes results in open Democratic primaries where Republicans can cross over and vote and caucus results in states where Democrats have no chance in November.

All in all, it's a pretty negative take on both sides.

< Government Seeks En Banc Review of Joe Nacchio Reversal | Fox News Poll: Hillary Preferred By Dems Over Obama and McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I liked this part (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    sorry to repeat, I liked...

    [Hillary's candidacy promised to make things better; Obama's to make us better: outward improvement versus inward transformation. With Hillary, you would earn your merit badges; with Obama, your wings.]  It happens to be exactly what makes me cringe.

    This one's for BTD...

    [Perhaps no vilifier of Hillary Clinton traipses across the footlights with a bigger satchel of calumnies than Andrew Sullivan, who diagnosed Mrs. Clinton as "the hollowest form of political life," a "sociopath." His solo act had and has a symptomatic significance. Published under the aegis of The Atlantic's stable of notable byliners, Sullivan's Daily Dish blog is must-reading among the media elite, those sheep.]

    Heh. (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    I take great exception to the assertion that the Obamans and the Clintonites are the same in their hysteria.

    Every so-called progressive blog I used to visit has become a swamp of Hillary-hating fanatics. You could not say anything even remotely positive about Clinton without being screamed at. It was only after months of abuse and vilification that some of us became more militant in our support of HRC.

    Heck, I don't like Obama, but I don't hate him. I save my hatred for George Bush and his treasonous, poisonous cronies. And I would still vote for Obama in November, although I firmly believe he would get trounced by McCain, whom I feel would be worse than the WPE.

    Not many Obamans in the blogosphere would say the same about voting for HRC. But I know that BTD would, and that's why I'm here.


    The clintonites (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    got bundled out fairly quick.  

    It was Obama all the way when Edwards dropped out.
    It was a systematic cull.  

    Although Wolcott missed one thing.

    Many Edwards supporters had reccomend and TR status removed (not me for some reason!).

    There was a TR patrol hat went around cleansing the site of lurking Edwards upraters.  It was a Pre-purge.


    Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:07:11 PM EST
    That's just terrible. I didn't realize that.

    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    They were deemed to be abusing the uprates and recs.  But of course, wat was really happening is that the ground was being prepped for Okos.

    I'm forever puzzled by ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:59:06 PM EST
    that argument.

    You're abusing your enthusiasm. Please stop.  Unless, of course, it's for Obama.


    Yep (none / 0) (#113)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    I also was not one of the purged but it was right around that point that I started to see which way the site was going. Certainly alo of the posters that lost their TU status were no worse than some of the more rabid Obama supporters.

    I really enjoyed Wolcott's piece. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    And, judging from Jeralyn's response, I suspect he's right.

    Wow.. now I know what it's like to feel (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    menopausal. It's... interesting.

    Trust me, it's not all that interesting! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    It's like being a perpetual 11 year old... (none / 0) (#112)
    by jackyt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:14:02 PM EST
    Not so bad at all!

    Let me know, will you? (none / 0) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    I've still got about 8-10 years to go before I get there. ;-)

    That's what you think (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:24:56 PM EST
    and you might want to look up the reality (not what a lot of male gynos think.:-)

    But look forward to it -- and to what Margaret Mead called it: PMZ.  That's post-menopausal zest!


    Don't worry, (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    I'm just going by what my mom experienced. ;-)

    Menopause is a wonderful moment forced upon (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:49 PM EST
    women when they again have no choice but to face down the fear of their own and of all mankind's mortality. As unpleasant as it might be from a subjective, individual perspective, it is in fact, a noble and even sacred event in human existence.

    Antagonism to this aspect of the 'Divinely Female' in all human beings says more about the masked misogynists' inner immaturity than about the meaning of palpitations, sweat and mood swings in our pre-matronly sisters and mothers.

    'Hating the hag' is an ancient folly: Instead, read more Greek myths and re-capture the wisdom lost to a world-view whose  dubious pillars are naught but the schlock of Internet games and Reality TV shows.

    I know, I'm about to be branded as another almost 50 year old  Queer voice in the wilderness whose mascara is embarrassingly smudged, huh?


    Jets and the Sharks (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    I like that.
    que the snappy dance music and snapping fingers.

    I wanna be a Shark (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    Better clothes.

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    When yer a Jet, yer a Jet all the way!

    Puerto Rico (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    may be my heart's devotion by the end of the primaries . . . as long as we're showing how imprinted upon our menopausal minds are the lyrics of a great musical. :-)

    From yer first cigarette (none / 0) (#44)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:13:35 PM EST
    till yer last dying day!



    Dead Rabbits or (none / 0) (#43)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    Bulldog Club

    Why can't gangs sing and dance like that again? (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    Chicken and egg question, I know, but was it the urban youth that went bad first, or the choreographers?

    When you're a Jet (none / 0) (#91)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    you're the swinginest thing,
    Little boy you're a man,
    Little man you're a king.

    And, I might add, when you're a king, you get to decide whom to deport.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    I liked "Officer Krupke, we're very upset, we haven't had the love that every child oughtta get........."

    Great, now I'm going to be humming showtunes all night.  


    We ain't no delinquents (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    We're misunderstood,
    Deep down inside us there is good!

    West Side Story is my favorite musical of all time.


    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST
    Something I find interesting is that the former Edwards supporters seem to have no problem getting along with one another, even if they have gotten strongly behind different candidates at this point.

    Politics is less stressful once you get past the idea that your candidate can do no wrong and the other can do no right.  Folks who are currently on their 2nd-choice candidate aren't as likely to have that problem.  Although there are those who believed Hillary was the Queen of All Evil back when they supported Edwards, and still believe it now.

    I think you're right about that. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    Obama was always one step above Gravel because of his qualifications for me.  I liked Edwards, but knew that we'd be in for a ride if Hillary remained in the race.

    Seems pretty unfair though.  A lot of the crap that's been thrown at her is of the smear variety; people seem to want to punish her for Bill's indiscretion and their issue-of-the-day.

    Unfair?  Never mind.  That's politics.  

    She's resilient and smart and qualified.


    I came to HIllary by exclusion right around (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    Super Tuesday.

    I feel no great fervor, but I committed to not voting for Obama in October. His online supporters were not part of that decision, but if they were they wouldn't have helped him. Little has changed in that regard.

     I never had a first choice, really, though I flirted with Dodd.


    My ideal (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    was Al Gore.

    But as a lefty-left liberal, I'm used to not getting the candidate I want for President. I've been pleasantly surprised at how much I'm liking HRC.


    In retrospect, Gore seems like an excellent choice (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    I'm actually surprised at how mostly ok I am with Hillary.

    Well, I always liked her (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    but I never realized how much of the cartoon HRC I had absorbed until I started really listening to her and watching her.

    She is the very definition of presidential, IMHO.

    She is not lefty enough for me, but very few people are, and they could never be elected Presnit in America. ;-)


    Imaginary Gore candidacies (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    God how I hated you Gorettes!

    Clogging the bandwidth.  



    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    I only clogged the bandwith on my own teeny blog.

    Although I did sign up for DraftGore and was getting a lot of emails from them until we all realized it was a crazy, crazy dream.




    They shut up shop... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:25:19 PM EST
    ...around the time he got his Nobel.  They were interesting.

    by the way Jeralyn, your site strikes a great balance.  It's not fair to Obama but he had it coming.


    Yeah, another book out (none / 0) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:52:23 PM EST
    I wanted him to run too. And he gave those little teases whenever there was a DVD and book out. He should have been able to just say, NO, not this time. Really. He even let the draft Gore group putting him on ballots go on a lot longer than they should. I was disappointed that he was sly about this. I still wish he was running but I am more than happy with Hillary. I have come to appreciate how very knowledgeable and unflappable she is. Her face tells it all with so much feeling. And I think her hair looks fabulous. Ha.

    heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    I always scoffed at them, frankly.

    But in the context of our current nightmare. . .


    They blocked (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    a lot of cash for real candidates.  I suspect that group practically ensured that Edwards and richardson went to public finance.

    Oh my... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    now we're getting into tinfoil hat territory.

    I did not give one dime to DraftGore. I did donate to Edwards, though.

    I don't think you can lump all Gore supporters into one group.


    note the snark. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    oh wait forgot to do it...

    Richardson was a terrible candidate (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    and I don't think he would have gone anywhere--no matter what.

    Edwards is a different story. I tend to agree with BTD that his anti-trade populism was grating and substantively wrong. But his fighting Democrat rhetoric was on key. If either Hillary or Obama had sounded more like that, I think one or the other would have walked away with the prize.

    Edward's problem is that his natural constituency: white southerners, now constitute a much smaller minority in the party than even the 1980s, when Al Gore first ran. He almost sold Iowa, but Obama outspent him (and everyone).


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    When Edwards won the 2004 South Carolina primary, he claimed 37% of the black vote.  In 2008, he got 1%.  I guess he must have said something to really, really upset people in the interim...

    Although (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    I suspect he'd have dropped the Protectionism.

    Of course White Southerners are a determining factor in national elections.  

    We only seem to win when we carry a few southern states.


    Well, I agree with Schaller (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    that we have to "Whistle past Dixie." Edwards clearly would have been a stronger November candidate IMO. I think he'd actually win places like Tennessee and North Carolina against John McCain.

    But since John  McCain is from the southwest, I think we need to look to the old map once again: PA, OH, and FL. Only Hillary is equipped to do that now, I think.


    Kos liked Richardson first (none / 0) (#98)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:53:46 PM EST
    I remember in the straw votes. Then he turned to someone else.

    We Were The Authentic (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:27:23 PM EST
    "HOPE & Change" supporters. We hoped that Gore would change his mind.

    Also, scoffing didn't deter us at all. We were a determined crew even when we knew it was a long shot.


    Spent Most Of The Primary Season Waiting For Gore (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:20:01 PM EST
    which was IMO a real benefit. Since I accepted that Gore was a long shot, it allowed me to view the other candidates more objectively. Read some of the better candidate diaries, comparisons of the different plans by people knowledgeable about the issues both on blogs and elsewhere and kept a list of plus and minuses for each candidate. After it was definitely determined that Gore would not run, I defaulted to Edwards based on his well developed domestic policies. When it came down to HRC and Obama while I still disagreed with her on some issues, I found I disagreed with Obama more. Yet, I was still reluctant to vote for either. The straw that broke the camel's back was Obama's "Harry and Louise" fliers on universal health care and I voted for HRC. Have not regretted that vote and hope she can somehow pull this out.  

    "a pretty negative take on both sides" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    that sort of his stock and trade no.
    but the man can turn a phrase.

    It Has Been Ugly And There Is No Excuse (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    for it.  I know I am Hillary's side, but in our defense, in all the time I spent at Huffpo and Dkos (which was too much time that I will never get back), I have never seen such hate from commenters.  It has to do IMO with being a part of the American Idol generation, which is under informed (no sense of history) and thinks the best candidate would be the supposed cool kid. Both sides should work towards a common goal..

    Yep. (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:53:46 PM EST
    When it started at my favorite blog, I was furious.  I wondered what had happened to the people whose intelligence and opinions I had long respected.

    It's ugly out there.  Obama doesn't deserve what he's getting, IMO.


    I should have said (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    Obama doesn't deserve the accolades he's getting.

    Sorry for that confusion.  :)


    I LOVED americablog til they went crazy (none / 0) (#92)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    the viciousness with which I was treated and the foul names Hillary and I were called chased me off. Now if I go there to occassionally post, whatever I write shows up with the oldest comments and then vanishes within a few minutes. The "progressive" hate mongering blogs and the MSM have put me off of Obama permanatly- not to mention his "judgement" of associating with wright and a "former" terrorst.

    I kept wishing for Kos to calm it down (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    But instead he fueled the fire and the front pagers were all in there too. For all the good and all the information they were responsible for, it all went to being boring. O O O O O. As much fun and group participation on Jeff Gannon, it suddenly was taken over by by by newbies. Ha. Anyway, I hope one day it will be back to normal when Hillary is elected President of the United States. Yes!

    I do sort of wonder... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:36:03 PM EST
    ... if Markos realizes, or cares about, the degree to which his sight has squandered it's pre-eminence among Democratic sites by tacking in the direction of shrill ideological purity (in support of a candidate who doesn't even really stand for it's principles).

    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#93)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:43:40 PM EST
    were treated worse than trolls.

    It wasn't just Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:31:06 PM EST
    Before it was Hillary supporters, Edwards supporters Trusted user status was purged for vehement disagreements. It wouldn't have been so bad except that th rules for Edwards supporters didn' seem to apply to the Obamites.

    I'm a bit disappointed in Wolcott's piece. (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:49:38 PM EST
    It's superficial and not up to his usual.  It leaves no one with a real understanding of the split at Daily Kos, opting instead for that "this, on the other hand, this" kind of "balance" that pervades the mainstream media.

    I can't wait to see an article, perhaps many months from now, that captures what has happened.

    The left blogosphere has changed.  It's no longer about growing and reforming the party, big tent politics, the fifty-state strategy.

    I read more disillusionment with the "Netroots" (such as it is) among Hillary supporters, than the "anger" Wolcott identifies.

    I expected (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    Dkos to be a battlefield when I started cracking open the candidate diaries in May.

    It looked like a party purge to me at the time.  DKos was prime real estate in any political turf war.


    I never thought there would be a purge like this. (5.00 / 9) (#58)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    There was, I believed, a group of intelligent gatekeepers who called bullsh*t when craziness started happening.

    I saw the handwriting on the wall when the McClurkin thing hit in October (IIRC) when some of the more intelligent and formerly sane partisans defended Obama's actions categorically, and employed ant-progressive, borderline homophobic arguments to explain away Obama's treatment of the matter.

    That's when I started to know it was over.  It was really over when Kos tolerated his front-pagers going into diaries to stamp out any dissent from Clinton supporters, or merely Obama skeptics and Hillary admirers.  

    At least Kos was honest enough (low standard, that) finally to come out and say that Hillary was not entitled to fairness at Daily Kos, essentially ruling out any "reality-based" defenses of her or criticism of Obama.

    "Purge" and "excommunication" are two apt words to describe what has happened at Daily Kos.



    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    It's an amateur propaganda house.

    I may have sensed the... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:32:40 PM EST
    ...potential for that a bit earlier than yourself.
    In may I saw a small group of former I/P censors who simply tranfered their tactics to support Obama in candidate diaries.(sidenote: I'm favourable to the Israelis.) And they simply repeated the medicine to the supporters of other candidates. They were extremely effective about suppressing embarrassing info about Obama that should have been openly discussed 10 months ago.

    I think what happened on DK must (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:40:40 PM EST
    have been coordinated with the Obama campaign, and that people got paid off.

    Claque (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:03:02 PM EST
    I suspect that there were (and still are) campaign staffers who have responsibility for organizing rapid response teams for progressive sites.  When reaction is needed they go into action.  It is a more sophisticated approach than faxing talking points to media outlets.  

    Evidence of this is how quickly there are multiple diaries reacting to the same event in the same way and then how quickly people fall in line with the talking points, or let's say "spin".  

    The potential for manipulation of this sort is huge.  And if people don't bother to check facts and use their critical thinking then this manipulation will continue to succeed.


    Adding to this... (none / 0) (#129)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    If you read the comments on many sites, you will see that many commentors seem to have the same set of talking points that they are pushing.  I espectially noticed this over at TPM.  I am not saying there is anything nefarious or even organized about it, but it is clear that these people have a common source for their information.  It could be the daily Obama email.

    What results is a feeling that there is a small army of young people with a lot of time on their hands filling comments threads.  What stands out to me is that while the commentors seem to have a grasp on the current issue at hand, they appear naive about politics generally and especially, history.  For example, you see comments that attack Bill Clinton and his administration in a way that doesn't seem to recognize the historical context of the 90's.  In short, they don't seem to remember the 90's or, at a minimum, weren't paying attention.

    Political inexperience is also apparent.  Many of these commentors don't appear to be familiar with what is - and is not - a proper part of political discourse.  There are personal attacks, sexist attacks, b-words and reckless accusations.  It just isn't the type of dialog that normally exists between politicos.


    Not really. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by rghojai on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    He's essentially said fairly recently that it's open season on Clinton, no holds barred, because the race is over and she's hurting the party. He knows damn well, though (or should know), that the ugliness was there and plentiful a long time ago--before Iowa.

    As someone else noted in this thread, some longtime Kossacks related concerns about where things stood and where things seemed to be going. It's a basic truth of online communities: control the zealots and the nasty people or they pretty much take over/drive away the reasonable people.

    What's the line from Cool Hand Luke? "...which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it!"


    Kos And Another FPer Made Stuff Up (none / 0) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:09:06 PM EST
    to fuel the feeding frenzy of  Hillary hate. That is when I left. From what I've heard it has only gone downhill since then.

    I wouldn't say made stuff up (none / 0) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:39:18 PM EST
    I would say that he was not even handed in how he handled Clinton and Obama. He went on and on about Clinton minimizing caucus states and then did the EXACT same thing when Clinton won Florida and likewise dismissed Michigan. You can't criticize someone for being dismissive of particular states and then demonstrate the exact same behavior without being guilty of hypocrisy. I also got in a tiff with DHinMI after he chastised Hillary for something she hadn't even done yet(it was right around the time the Senate caved on FISA). I told him that if he wanted to call Dems out that he should at least focus on the ones who deserved his ire. I got told to get thicker skin. Meh.

    Actually He Did Make Stuff Up (none / 0) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    He posted a video of a Hillary interview where she was asked about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain. Kos claimed that she had said that Lieberman should keep his committee's. No where in the clip did she say anything close to that. Basically all she said was that the Dems wanted him to continue to vote with them on important issues. He does after all vote with the Dems on domestic issues. The comments on that post were horrible and fed by Kos' complete distortion of the truth.

    Also, I think that the posts on how Hillary's campaign had blackened Obama's face in one of their ads was also off the reservation.

    Another FP post (not Kos) claimed that Hillary campaigned in Florida. When she was called on it, she stated that the basis for that allegation was that she had read other diaries stating that Hillary campaigned in Florida.


    Musta missed that diary (none / 0) (#131)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    Once the site became a fan club I found myself spending less and less time there. When I go to a political site I dn't want someone's opinion parading as fact(I'd watch cable news if I wanted that) I prefer to get the facts and be alloed to form my own opinion. I definitely don't like the mob rule that seems prevasive over thee where peopleare essentially bullied into submission(or leaving).

    The Lieberman Post Was The Straw That (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    broke the camel's back for me. Have only gone back a couple of times since then. Once to dispute the FP post that claimed Clinton campaigned in FL and a couple of times to recommend diaries that spoke truth to the mob.

    Bias is one thing, completely distorting the truth is another. I donated more money to Lamont than I did to the candidate running for Senate in MO. When I tried to point out that the video did not say what Kos claimed, I was attacked by that very mob for loving Lieberman and all that he stood for.

    Blind loyalty to Bush that caused his supporters to attack or issue threats of physical harm to anyone who disagree with him was not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to me now with Obama supporters. It is one of the many reasons I do not want him as our nominee.


    That is not what Kos said in his front page (none / 0) (#127)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    post cutting loose the Hillary Kossacks (including those like me who did not sign on to the "strike.")

    Even your version of events, if true, would be indefensible.  Authoritarian, I might add.


    Angels singing? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:51:04 PM EST
    I'm sure Reid, Pelosi, et al are loving that the vitriol is pointed in other directions these days.

    Our wonderful elected representatives.

    Obama isn't going to change a d**n thing.  That's the part that's always been hardest to swallow.

    BTW, James, Hillary is the most qualified, less senile candidate out there.

    That's why I support her.

    He Had Me Nodding (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:52:40 PM EST
    in agreement pretty much right up to the end, when Wolcott takes a potshot with "Hillary and Bill Clinton have taken turns polishing McCain's hood", while giving Obama a free pass for his repeated statements of how the Republicans were the party of ideas, how they were basically right about deregulation, lumping eight years of economic expansion in with the misery on either side, playing footsie with Chuck Hagel or Mike Bloomberg, etc., etc.

    Do these remarks make Obama a Democratic apostate?  No, but they're very much in the same league as the statements by the Clintons, and it was disappointing to end this piece with the implication that Obama has avoided this type of behavior.

    When Obama says nice things (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:48:18 PM EST
    about Republicans, he is riding the Unity Pony.

    When Hillary says anything at all that someone characterizes as Republican, she is ridden out on a rail.  


    Sad, But Seemingly True (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    The main reason why various other sites have become "no venture" zones for me has been the blind refusal to acknowledge such types of double standards.  If something is worthy of condemnation or praise from one candidate, it should generally be applied equally to any other.  But far too often this season, that simply isn't the case.

    For quite some time, I have seen myself as a devil's advocate/sounding board who would attempt to anticipate likely criticisms or faults in a policy or statement, and to air those publicly.  Generally, my sole motive would be to help strengthen the underlying argument in favor by shoring it up and making it at least somewhat battle-tested.  Over the past few months, however, it became increasingly obvious that many of the most enthusiatic supporters of one particular candidate came to view all such efforts as a direct attack on the candidate -- and by extension, on themselves, of whom they had offered up their unquestioning loyalty.

    We've seen this script before, a mere eight years ago, and we know how it plays out:  with those supporters betrayed, and the American people and nation suffering mightily.


    Not To Mention That Obama Says Nice Things (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    about Republicans approximately 10 times more than Hillary. He offsets that saying nice things about Democrats about 10 less than Hillary. See he balances it all out.

    Slightly OT (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    But Eric Boehlert has a piece today about how crazy the press has been during this campaign,although he kind of defends bloggers.


    That was a great article. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:03:39 PM EST
    Boehlert has been doing a great job at Media Matters throughout this whole mess. :-)

    boehlert's article (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    is fantastic.  very thoughtful analysis of how ridiculous and unprecedented the press calls for her to quit have been.

    Why is menopausal an insult? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    Okay, I get the "messianic". People who worship messiah's are fanatics and thus the insult seems quite reasonable. But making an invective out of something that every woman goes through seems more than a little bit sexist. I know, I know. I'm just being hypersensitive. But couldn't he have come up with some way of insulting Clinton supporters that didn't turn a normal phase of female aging into a derogative term?

    Dear.. (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:03:21 PM EST
    They will tell you you're just being emotional and hormonal. It's another way of saying you are old.

    (Now I'M not saying that, but that's why it's being used as an insult).


    or at least (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    not gone there...i mean it's a bad paragraph.

    Obamites are messianic and not menopausal and are instead "seed bearers"

    shakes head

    So...they're the jesus lovers and the young virgin marys of the world?  That's just bad imagery.


    I thought it was pretty ripe (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    but then, I'm periodically down. ;-)

    Well, there actually is a male menopause (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    but maybe Wolcott doesn't know that he's in it.  Women are so much nicer about what happens to men.:-)

    He does write all too cleverly sometimes, as in this case.  He ignores the facts of Clinton's support.  Women are not voting as a bloc -- their impact is from their turnout, also ignored amid all the false reporting that increased turnout is entirely Obaman.  Clinton's support includes the majority of some male age groups, and the majority of some younger age groups in more recent contests, etc.

    But don't let the facts stand in the way of a fun turn of phrase.  Don't keep up with the data.  Pffft.  Clever at the cost of concise does not impress me.  It turns a political commentator  into a stand-up comic.    


    I accidently left out this important quote (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    from Wolcott:

    And I may have been spurred somewhat by the sexist pile-on of the last few days on Hillary, such as the Chris Matthews panel that kicked off with a discussion of how genuine Hillary's near-tears were genuine, with Margaret Carlson manufacturing smarm with her own half-baked mix of snide faux-sympathy and bogus mind-reading.

    Women can't win (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    While they're menstruating, anything they say that men don't like demonstrates that they are on the rag.

    When they stop menstruating, anything they say that men don't like demonstrates that they are old and shriveled and essentially useless.  

    Hormones are destiny for women, and only women.

    After all, it's not like testosterone ever affects the conduct of men, right?


    Huh. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    I didn't interpret either one as an insult. Merely an attempt to dilute a group mindset into a single word.

    A group mindset? (none / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    A group mindset?

    I've seen maturity and lots of immaturity.


    I'm a guy. Can I be menopausal? (none / 0) (#84)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:13:19 PM EST
    Er, I'm not asking permission; I just don't think it's really possible, except metaphorically.

    Depends on who you know (pistol wink) (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    No matter what age, race or cultural group you're in, if you support Sen. Clinton you become an Older Racist Problematic Typical White Woman -- or an honorary one!

    Look on the bright side: as an entry prize you're automatically granted the superpower of cultural invisibility!

    (My working theory behind the ravings for Sen. Clinton to fold and go away is that she's created a tear in the mass effort to disappear women at a certain point. No wonder there's a mass panic: everyone can still SEE her. The script called for her to be flogged and skulk away. But everyone keeps SEEING her so she must have ripped through the fabric of the space/time continuum or ruined the integrity of the collapsing Obama WORMhole.)


    no way dude... (none / 0) (#95)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    but you will be afflicted by a weak stream and the need to get up and pee several times each night...pretty much the same but less sweating.

    It's called andropause (none / 0) (#110)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:09:02 PM EST
    for males. And is still being argued about in the medical profession as to extent and severity.  

    Course, if it was mostly female physicians & researchers, they'd have a nice list of all sorts of illogical stuff that (some) men do.  

    Come to think about it, Obama's right in the age bracket for the early end of andropause!


    He was just using hyperbole (none / 0) (#107)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    Using the most extreme language to characterize the two factions.  We're not (all) menopausal and presumably they are not all messianic.  They're both messianic AND deranged.

    His hyperbole is inherently misogynistic (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    because hyperbole is an exaggeration employed to emphasize an underlying truth.

    What is the 'truth' implied? That Obama fans can't see that they are 'true believers' and that Hillary fans can see that they are aging females?

    I'll buy the former as biting prose with substance and spit out the latter as ulterior chauvinism dressed as verbal panache.

    The author might turn a phrase but he can't invert reality: he's inventing a binary opposition to prove his point, not to support any argument that the two sides are equally deluded.

    But to be fair, there's seldom a method for late-coming bystanders to sort of the din of 'he said it first' she said it first' back-and-forths that typify internecine clatter and always appear to self-aggrandizing external analysts as 'nothing but childish chatter'.

    It's lazy writing parading as 'the wise observer' and it's superficially clever but void of depth and accuracy .


    Nah, he's a critic (none / 0) (#119)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    I don't think he was being mysogynistic.  Think of him more like the color commentator of a sportscasting team.  The Dkos community thinks we are menopausal; we think they are drinking the kool-aid. Neither one of us is correct.  
    We;re not menopausal and they are totally frickin' nuts.  
    It's not misogynistic.  

    Alliteration (none / 0) (#134)
    by alsace on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    I think it was a bad try for a cutesy alliteration.  Way back during the Days of Edwards, I referred to his principal opponents as Ms. Attitude and Mr. Platitude.

    How many comments (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    on Clinton's hair styles and pantsuits? I lost track? Listen I'm glad for anyones support but Wolcott does her no favors.

    You forgot (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    thick ankles and cackle.

    consider me corrected (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    There's a lot of ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    "former" Republicans in the Dkos mix, including Mr. Kos himself.

    They wear the word "progressive" like a badge of honor, but their aims are anything but.


    Saying it again... hijacking! (none / 0) (#111)
    by jackyt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    I really think this bunch is trying to take over the Democratic Party and turn it into the Unity Party. Wasn't Bill Bradley involved in that. And the Huffy One, DKos, Sully, Aravosis, (and lots more I can't recall at the mo), are republicans who feel abandoned by their party. I think they're trying to hijack ours and make it over in their own image.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:22:50 AM EST
    Hijackers with blogs instead of box-cutters.

    Maybe so but he voted for her (5.00 / 12) (#69)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST
    So spurn me, I voted for Hillary

    ....Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification....

    I can't tell you how much I agree with that (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    Hear, hear (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:54:28 PM EST
    That pretty much sums it up for me too.

    You should be among the ones mentioned (1.00 / 8) (#2)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    Because TL has become Hillary Hystericals, just as everyone here at TL calls the Obama supporters maniacs and that we all have CDS etc...

    Please don't think you are any better!! Sometimes I think I stumbled onto Red State by mistake when I come here.

    I have been a loyal reader for years because I find the legal information very interesting and the stories highlighted to be very important for people to know.

    So please, we are ALL guilty of emotional posting, both here and at Kos and everywhere.

    I am not saying anyone should drop out, but it is impossible to deny that this primary bickering is not good for us.

    Why would you think you are at red state? (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    It's Obama and his camp that use Republican talking points?

    Yes, we get snarky sometimes, and yes, there are way more Hillary supporters here, but this place has the most rational posters on it and all sides are welcome, as long as they aren't trolls.


    What i like is that there (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    are no gangs of TRers.

    My god the censors were mad over there.


    It's still calmer here (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    than at most other sites where comments are not moderated and posters say the vilest stuff.

    Buck up, bucko.  The worst is yet to come.


    i agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:21:58 AM EST
    I can't even bear to read the comments at HuffPo anymore. It's literally like turning over a rock. Icky things are writhing over there.

    As for Kos, it's become the Big Tinfoil--one, big  Hillary-is-evil-and-I-can-prove-it conspiracy theory after another. I'm embarrassed for the place.

    Here, I got in trouble last week for saying the four-letter word for poop. But that's fine by me, and my late, Southern mama would approve of the restraining effect that posting here has on my sometimes pottymouth. :)

    I've seen hateful posts at TL whisked away, and I think that sort of iron-fist moderation is necessary these days.


    One little difference (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    is that places like KOS have the "gang-troll-rate feature where individuals on the list can get together and hide anyone who disagrees with them.

    Here, there are moderators, not gang troll-raters.  Here, dissent isn't stifled by the mob.


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    You could literally drive off people with Autobans.
    It was quite amazing really.

    It turns out it was an information control method though.  In retropect it looks systematic to me now and quite contrived. Although i have an TU account there still it was a war zone of TRing.   They call it a Hide rating now.  Of course they were hiding things like Wright from gullible readers.


    Please distinguish (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:09:43 PM EST
    between the authors of this site and commenters. The authors are not hysterical in their writing over any candidate. Nor have we ever called Obama supporters "maniacs."

    Since you say you're a long time reader, you should know that personal attacks aren't allowed here and that TalkLeft has a disclaimer on its front page that says, "TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk."

    That said, I doubt any blog erases as many insulting comments as we do.

    Wolcott's article focuses on blog writers, not their commenters. Since anyone can write a diary at DKos, it's in a different category. But the other blogs mentioned mainly pertain to refer to the posts by authors.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    I have never understood the behavior of people who come to a blog and complain about it.

    If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to come.

    And Jeralyn, you and BTD should never be lumped in with the hysterical Obama bloggers or, Jeebus forbid, Red State. It's a ludicrous accusation.


    Yes, it is different (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:59:08 PM EST
    and I should distinguish between them.

    I guess after I have been immersed in the threads over there and here, I forget that a blog is not just the commenters,but the name calling is equally awful in the comment threads on both blogs, TL and Kos.

    Maybe it is the level that we have all decended to in this slog that makes me feel like I am at Red State sometimes. This blog used to be so interesting with the real legal people explaining complex issues and good debate. This Hillary/Obama thing is just getting too ugly and awful.

    Although today there was a front page post here that took a comment from a kos reader and made it look like Kos doesn't want to register Hillary's demographic voters. That is over the top.


    Uh, it's not. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by rghojai on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:47 PM EST
    It's simply not true to say "the name calling name calling is equally awful in the comment threads on both blogs, TL and Kos."

    The moderators here won't tolerate a fraction of what goes on at DK, relative to insulting candidates and members of the community.


    WE disagree (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:32:31 PM EST
    I read most diaries and lots of comments on both blogs (I have  aboring job) and it feels equally awful. But then, you haven't been an Obama supporter at TL!

    rghojai...save your breath on l-bart...Is on a (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    union break from HuffPost and appears to be hear just to stir the pot.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    everyone here at TL calls the Obama supporters maniacs

    I guess we have your post as our example of emotional-post-of-the-day. There are comments (not diaries) here that make me wince sometimes, but if you do not see the difference between the average comment and diary here and at RedState or Kos, you just aren't paying attention.


    But Lili, we really are better (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    and our candidate is. ha ha! The site managers keep this a really neat place to post.  I'm sure you know that too because you are always here.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CCinNC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    I've been coming here for a couple years, tho I don't post frequently.  It isn't a comfortable place for voters who aren't sure who they're supporting.  I don't go to dkos, and altho I read HuffPo's headlines I rarely read the articles and never read the comments because they're mostly awful ... and they were that way before the primary race.  I do read 5-6 other blogs regularly, and they're all pretty fair.  I've been sitting on the fence, leaning toward Obama, and I don't mind dissent.  I honestly wanted to hear some different views.  I respect Jeralyn.  I realize this is her blog.  I still enjoy the posts that aren't related to the race, which is why I've lasted here for this long, but some of the comments made toward Obama go 'way beyond "snarky."  You all may not see it, but it's there.  Differing opinions do not seem to be welcome.

    I hope people treat differing opinions, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    and the people who post them, with respect.

    People do tend to congregate among like-minded people.  However, there are certainly posters here with whom I disagree, and I very much enjoy engaging with them and discussing things. Because this is a moderated site and attacks are deleted and offenders suspended, it is demonstrably more civil than many other sites.  That doesn't mean we can't have strong opinions and express them forcefully.

    I think everyone should also keep in mind that posting is mostly anonymous, and that means we often don't really know who it is at Kos or other sites who is spewing hate at Clinton and her supporters. Some of it comes from actual Obama supporters, but some likely comes from the real opposition, the right wing, who are just trying to stir the pot. I have many friends in real life who are Obama supporters. They are, IMHO, misguided, but they are not messianic, they do not hate Clinton, and they recognize the real achievements of the first Clinton administration. I think they are pretty typical of Democratics who support Obama.


    This is bull (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Nadai on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    There are no posts here ranting that Obama is destroying the Democratic Party, followed by a thousand comments each trying to out-do the next in describing exactly how horrible the man is.  There are no comments here describing Obama as whatever the male equivalent of the "Joan of Arc of the dry p*ssy demographic" would be.  There are no comments wishing physical harm on Obama or his family.  I've seen all of that aimed at Clinton on the major pro-Obama blogs.

    Yes, people here make emotional comments.  But no, they don't make the kind of comments you can find on DKos, even on the diaries which specifically call for reconciliation between the two groups.  And if you want the bickering to stop, I suggest you take it up with the people who are truly rabid, not the ones who are simply angry at the way they've been treated.


    No, we are not all guilty.... (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Camorrista on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    ...but it is impossible to deny that this primary bickering is not good for us.

    Of course it's possible to deny it, and anyone with a knowledge of history of primary elections should deny it, and deny it repeatedly.

    There simply is no historical evidence that primary fights, no matter how rancorous, hurt the party's surviving candidate in general elections.  

    Right now, 99 percent of this noise (which falls somewhere between a sob and a wail) comes from the Obama camp.   It is his supporters who are terrified that all this "bickering" will do him harm in the GE.  Please.  

    If Senator Obama--who is ahead in the delegate count, is (by most measures) ahead in the popular vote, is having no trouble winning super-delegates, has had a cushy ride with both the press and most of the A-list blogs--isn't tough to handle the puffballs that Senator Clinton is tossing his way, he might as well lie down in a fetal position tonight, because he's way too soft for the general.  

    Anybody old enough to have paid attention to even a few previous primary competitions could tell you just how tame this one is--and especially how tame it is compared to what's in store.  

    As for throwaway phrases like,  "TL has become Hillary Hystericals" and "we are ALL guilty of emotional posting," they're best saved for group-therapy sessions, where doutbless other sensitive types will appreciate them and nod their wounded heads in self-satisfied sympathy.

    The rest of us will simply try to keep from laughing out loud.


    Any better? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    BTD supports Obama.

    Isn't the whole point (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    that it doesn't matter, because bloggers never held anyone really accountable, anyway?  Who cares if it's "good for us" or not?  Who's "us"?  For the most part, blogs seem to be the ladder to book deals, and blogging standards seem to be very provincial.  It's a better situation than the current media, but it's still based off the day's media.  It seems more like information consumption than activism.  

    You need some new lines (none / 0) (#117)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    You posted a comment nearly identical to this one just a few short days ago.

    Um, hundreds of the comments from (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:02:33 AM EST
    Orangistan would never even be allowed here---whether in support of Obama or Clinton--because of profanity or rudeness.
    The proof that you are wrong is that you could not even post the examples from DK which are offensive.. not here.

    Fetishized Non-Partisan Elitism = Wolcott (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:18:10 PM EST
    Everyone sucks but me.  That's one way of being non-partisan!

    This business of saying everyone's equally wrong and that kind of makes me special is a kind of cop out.

    Yeah.  Of course.  That might be one way for history to recount how all this transpired, but perhaps I can remind people that Clinton did go to YearlyKos.  Clinton did send Wolfson out to defend DailyKos.

    And it was pointless.  Kossacks (as they like to be called) are still so pathetically clingy to something this character the bullmoose said 6 years ago, there was just no way it was ever going to work out.

    The history is what it is.

    Back when Obama wasn't the golden child you could find any number of "Clintonistas" who were willing to stand up to some Kossacks and all the crappy inane things they said about Obama at the time.

    They had hate in their hearts for Clinton from day 1.  

    Clinton supporters didn't start off hating Obama, we had to learn to hate Obama and, frankly, we came to it quite late by comparison.  But we did learn well didn't we?

    Right now, at this moment in time, if one wants to say it's all the same and both sides are behaving equally badly, that's great, but to ignore the history is to perpetuate a lie.

    Wolcott gets this wrong.

    keystone cops (none / 0) (#88)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    shooting oneself in the foot pretty much encapsulates the democratic/progressive personality type...at least as far as politics is concerned.

    That picture of Markos is quite... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:33:36 PM EST

    And though there are aspects of Dkos that I'm really missing as one of the non-camp members, I found his description:

    Daily Kos is a schizophrenic enterprise: a community with a shared history (initial enthusiasm over Howard Dean, shock and grief over George Bush's re-election in 2004, jubilation over the 2006 midterm elections) that is populated by individuals who, because they spend so much time hunched over a computer taking politics personally and living intensely inside their heads, are on constant hyper-aware alert--sensitive to slights, prone to excitations, and susceptible to a hair-trigger impulse to dramatize their thoughts and feelings with words loaded into a rocket launcher. (emphasis added)
    to be quite telling.

    Am too busy at the moment to be that hyper-aware or in possession of a hair-trigger.

    The characterization of (none / 0) (#130)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    why people support Hillary is pretty lame, to me.  It had nothing to do with her having "earned" it to me.  I listened to her, and I heard someone who had had a mature and well-reasoned platform unlike most politicians.  I didn't want to see any woman run.  I wanted to see HER run.  I feel more strongly than ever that she has the right direction for the country.

    As far as being menapausal women, we must be getting a bit more respect.  Initially, Obama supporters suggested we all had walkers.  :)

    There is nothing quite so formidable as a woman of a certain age.  I believe that some of the bloggers thought that insulting us would drive most away.  When that didn't work, then one site had to do the work itself, showing how patently ridiculous its "posting" policy really is.  The pretense of free speech is just that....pretense.

    Blogging has this aura of anonymity and, therefore, that ideas will be based upon merit rather than on mere reaction.  One thing I regret is that it took me entirely too long to realize just how young some of the Obama bloggers must be and how they truly are besides themselves when bad news hits their candidate.

    They can't take it.

    On the other hand, those of us of a "certain" age have gone through raising teens, mergers, probably more than one husband, and buried a parent perhaps.  There's just not a lot that shakes our tree.  *haha  

    His noticing persistence is right.  The blogging world has underestimated tenacity of her supporters from the get-go, however.  I think, privately, because they are undervaluing our life experiences, too.  

    Just my 2 cents.