More On Unity, Krugman, Obama And FL/MI

Steve Benen concedes Paul Krugman's point but then does not absorb it. Indeed he makes it. Steve writes:

I don’t doubt for a moment that many Clinton supporters “feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment.” In fact, I think those supporters are largely right and have every reason to be offended by some of what we’ve heard during the campaign. . . . The problem, I think, is that it’s a little too easy to misidentify the source of the problem, and I think Krugman may have been a little too quick to mention “Obama and his supporters.” There’s a difference, and it’s important.

Have some Obama supporters been quick to denigrate Clinton? Absolutely. But I’m not sure it makes sense for Clinton supporters to help John McCain — either directly (by voting for him) or indirectly (by staying home) — because some Obama fans were intemperate towards their favored candidate. Obama and Clinton have had a few dust-ups between them, but nothing outrageous or even unusual in the midst of a competitive process.

Krugman did not say it made sense. He said it could, even would, happen. He said voters are emotional. Steve Benen seems to believe all things in politics are nice rational choices by voters. They are not. Obama supporters would not treat Hillary Clinton as Satan and embrace the likes of Andrew Sullivan while vilifying Paul Krugman if that were the case. But they do. Heck look at Steve himself fall into complete nonsense in the very same post:

Last week, Clinton traveled to Florida to tell Dems that the party’s nominating process is not only illegitimate, but reminiscent of slavery, Jim Crow, and Zimbabwe. The message was divisive, misleading, and hypocritical. As Ezra [Klein], hardly an Obama cheerleader [Ezra is pretty much an Obama cheerleader in my estimation btw], put it, “As a message, it’s a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning. It doesn’t help her win the nomination, but it makes the nomination worth a little bit less for the likely nominee…. She shouldn’t leave the race. But she should stop using her presence in it to rip apart the party and try to push major states out of Obama’s column.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Both Ezra and Steve have been completely obtuse on the Florida/Michigan issue. They have said, and Steve says, just plain false things about Hillary Clinton's argument regarding Florida and Michigan. Steve Benen's entire paragraph cited above is simply false. Clinton did not say any of what he said she said. He has taken her comments completely out of context and just plain told a falsehood about them.

Because Steve and Ezra do not care about counting the votes in Florida, they think it is unreasonable (or as Ezra puts it -- "a mixture of toxic lies and a scorched earth campaign") for anyone else, including Hillary Clinton, to care. The reality is Steve just made Paul Krugman's point, while attempting to refute it. An amazing performance.

Speaking for me only

< Will McCain Go After Hillary's Female Voters? | Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it's funny (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:47:45 PM EST
    that supposedly astute political analysts need an economist to explain to them that people often do not behave rationally.  

    he's no longer an economist (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:16:43 PM EST
    he doesn't hate clinton and worship obama, so he's barely even human, anymore.

    I'm sure if you look hard enough (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    you can find someone who called him fat.

    whoops (none / 0) (#34)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    wrong reply.

    ankle snark was for you :)


    That's a club we all are members of now (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    *peeks at your ankles* (nt) (none / 0) (#32)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    BTD -- "inequity aversion" (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    That's the phrase you want. Not "rational choice."

    See here.

    NOTE If calling out commenters by name is not allowed here, feel free to delete or revise the comment...


    Yes EXACTLY (none / 0) (#115)
    by Faust on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    Nice to see someone pointing this out.

    Lets be clear here though. Were the tables suddenly turned I think we would see exactly the same behavior on the Obama supporter side.

    For example I think Clintons poll numbers would drop due to the emergence of a perception of inequity (what Kos threatens when he suggests the party will plunge into "civil war" if there is a "coup by superdelegates") and thus the emergence of angry "vote witholding" on the part of Obama supporters.

    What is exceedingly odd is that people like Kos do not percieve that a mirror of this phenomenon is already in play on the Clinton side and that nothing needs to be done to address it. It will simply vanish on its own is the theory.


    Iowa (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    You know, my folks are the nicest people. They caucused for Obama, not only because they like the guy, but also because at the time, it was Hillary supporters that were rude.

    Pushy and arrogant, expecting the election to be handed to them. They called again and again different members of my family, to a one, The Hillary calls were rude and brusque.

    As some of them were undecided up to a point before the caucus, they were also treated to Obama supporters. Not only were they nicer, they had more information upon what Obama was about and what his plans were.

    Now everyone says, poor Hillary.

    She gets treated with kid gloves gooped up with vaseline and still to the bitter end she feels entitled to the prize.

    HM, maybe shell get it if she waits for June's history to supplant the delegate vote.

    Worthless Devil's Advocate Arguments.


    Krugman's point presupposes that voting (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by Mark Woods on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:32:22 PM EST
    for McCain if you are a Clinton supporter is 'emotional' when many Clinton supporters seem to me to have a solid 'rationale' for doing so, apart from their accompanying emotions.

    It seems at least vaguely sexist to imply that the Obama followers aren't driven by 'emotion', doesn't it?


    He deserves to be punished (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    because a true leader does not remain silent and allow his followers to demonize others. It strikes me ironic that his ploy to allow others to demonize the Clintons to obtain the primary may very cost him the GE.

    For the record, I will not vote for McCain. There is a real good chance that I won't be voting Obama either though. I don't like either of them at this point.

    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:52:04 PM EST
    In that scenario, you can't punish Obama without punishing all Democrats.

    That's true only if you (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by dk on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    assume that Obama's election would be a good long-term development for the Democratic party and the policies that the party supposedly favors.  Some Democrats do not believe this to be the case.

    Even supposing that were true (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    you would have to also believe that the election of McCain would be BETTER for the party than the election of Obama to rationally vote for anyone other than Obama. I would strenuously disagree with that.

    Well, I can see both sides (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by dk on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    of this issue.  Assuming I am concerned about the long-term health of the Democratic party, I respect those concerned that Obama could so ruin the Democratic brand that, in the end, the effect of his presidency could have a more negative impact in the long-term than four years of McCain with a Democratic majority in Congress.  Of course, I agree with more of Obama's website than McCain's website, but voting on website white papers alone isn't always the most rational plan, in my opinion.

    Well-crafted prose with nothing in actions to (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:34:57 PM EST
    back it up as true and achievable is just campaign rhetoric.

    We need to watch this play out through convention to determine what the Democratic Party is really doing. They may have something up their sleeves to repair the damage they've done to themselves these past months, and if they don't, they are in self-destruct mode.


    After seeing a fair share (none / 0) (#159)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    of elections, I'm sure it's one of a few things that won't get covered.



    There are other, more important priorities. (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    Some can quite reasonably conclude that four or eight more years of an arrogant, incompetent, rookie leadership at the helm will drive the Country past the point of no return. Policies be damned. Congress is there to blunt policy problems.

    Obama's response to a crisis is to give a speech. Hurricanes do not stop to listen to speeches. We don't know what shape or form the next crisis will take, but I have absolutely no confidence in Obama's ability in a crisis. His helpless silence all these months while his supporters were taking the metaphorical machetes to the Clinton and Democratic legacies, while his silence was clearly not in his best interest, leads me to believe he will choke under pressure.

    He has no grandparents left to sacrifice to the next round of demons we face. Will he move on to the first born?


    Obama might be all of that (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    but I would argue that McCain is an order of magnitude worse.

    Worse than Bush? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST

    The repubs are trying to rehabilitate themselves, after all.


    A weak Obama presidency would hurt ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    ... Democrats much more than a weak McCain presidency will.

    And anyway, if Obama is nominated, Democrats will not determine the outcome. Independents and Republican women who would otherwise vote for Clinton will elect McCain.

    For evidence of this, see the latest national Gallup poll. Obama leads Clinton among Democrats 53 to 42, but when the poll is expanded to all voters, Obama loses to McCain 47 to 44, while Clinton beats McCain 49 to 44.

    Clinton, not Obama, is clearly the one who expands the Democratic party.


    53 to 42 lead (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    that lead among Democrats also includes some of those who are "jumping on the bandwagon" of the winner.  Take away that effect and I doubt the numbers would be so good for Obama.

    Agreed. And if the question included .... (none / 0) (#135)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    ... first telling the Democratic respondents the results of the two other national polls vs. McCain, I'm sure their preferences would shift accordingly. But their answers are reflecting the MSM and Obama campaign spin.

    Whoops! (none / 0) (#155)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    I don't know what happened but this thing rated this a 1 from me -- maybe because I hit the arrow keys?  Sorry!  

    I can take it!! But FYI ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    ... you can revise a rating. Another commenter showed me that recently.

    I see... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:08:07 PM EST
    I changed it!  Thanks for letting me know.  I've probably left other 1's without knowing it (because I didn't realize the arrow keys moving the rating when they don't let you scroll!)

    Order of magnitude worse? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:02:29 PM EST
    McCain has already said that he would have most troops out of Iraq by the start of 2013, which, as far as I can tell, is no different from where Obama is likely to have us. And for all of McCain's tough talk and swagger, it is Obama who combines inexperience with a promise to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with a troop surge there. I just don't see him as being less of a servant to American empire than McCain.

    And then there's the economy. Obama essentially promises to move the Democratic economic policies further to the right with his pro-market economic advisers and completely unsatisfying market-driven health-care reform. Plus, he promises to be post-partisan -- and from judging what I've seen from some so-called pillars of the progressive community, he can probably dismantle what little remains of our regulatory structures without sufficient opposition from good-government groups.

    Of course, whoever becomes president will have such a huge mess to cope with, fiscally, internationally, environmentally (climate change, energy crisis, etc.). If Obama falters in dealing with these impending crises, the GOP has a good chance of winning back the Congress in 2010.

    I still think McCain would probably be worse than Obama, but I no don't see it as an order of magnitude worse. I just hope my predictions are basless if Obama should manage to win the WH.


    This is a delerious statement (none / 0) (#161)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    What gets into people?

    Campaigns have a way of sapping the intelligence out of the most cogent people. (for instance, me using spell check for the word, intelligence...which I spelled right the second time)


    Though I know this is one of those moments where, given the opportunity to look you straight in the eye and ask you, "Do you really believe what you said?" you would look back at me with wide doe-like eyes, partially mad, partially fearful and altogether ready for a staunch defensive, emotional,  "Yes."

    I'm sure I have read and watched just as much political rags as you, but my experience is totally different from yourn.

    So you think we have YET to reach rock bottom? Asinine thought. And you'll stick your neck out there and be culpable for the republican agenda...AGAIN.

    Fool you once. Well, there goes that axion.

    I guess I could take the time to cajole you along, give one the little pushes one needs to get one out of the house and into the voting booth, but why should I have to do that?

    Get a grip, cause I'm loosing it.


    awwww what a shame! (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    You mean that we'll be "punishing" the likes of Brazile and the other DNC leaders. Awwwww whadda shame!

    Do these folks take reponsibiliy for anything?  Is it always the Bad Mommy's fault? Will anyone buy these folks a pocket mirror?

    They will lose because of their own choices and behaviors.

    I'm a parent. If you want behavior to change, you have to have boundaries, penalties for transgressons -- and you never reward poor behavior.


    There (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    are a couple of things at play here.

    One is if we lose 3 presidential elections in a row we'll be the butt of jokes for 6 months from the GOP.  That'll last until they realize that they hate McCain.

    Two is do you really want to reward these craven jerks who are running things now? That's what an Obama presidency would be. Should Donna Brazile be rewarded? Dean? Pelosi? That's what voting for Obama would be. They treat us like a bunch of idiots already so would McCain treat us any less worse? I have my doubts.

    In the end it's really not going to be me or you that are going to be deciding. It's those working class voters who have already said they don't want Obama. Obama's lack of experience is a big point with a lot of people and it's something that he's not going to able to overcome. It's likely that he wouldn't win any age group over 40.


    So far, McCain has not shown the same... (none / 0) (#153)
    by AX10 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    level of vitrol for us as have Obama and the DNC bosses.  McCain will be reaching out to the moderates.  The only way he can win is if he gets the moderates and dump the right wing.  The moderates wil decide the election.  Also, I do not believe that McCain has such horrid contempt for the moderates as Mr. Obama does.
    I'll be with you in the fall most likely.

    Here's why McCain's election would be good for us (4.55 / 9) (#29)
    by mexboy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:19:52 PM EST
    It would teach the party bosses and the elite that we will not be taken for granted anymore.

    Sometimes you just have to hit bottom before you come to your senses.

    McCain was counted out, broke and with not chance of winning. Hillary is not out yet!


    McCain is not the choice of the GOP elites. (none / 0) (#151)
    by AX10 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:17:29 PM EST
    either.  The GOP really wanted Romney.  That was not possible.  It would put the GOP in it's place too.
    The same goes for Hillary!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    They can still talk to the superdelegates and get Hillary in. Otherwise, I'll have to go with the saying "can't make all of the people happy, all the time." Rather than a default vote that I won't be proud of, I'll stay home.

    If I had to be proud of every vote, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    I wouldn't vote much. Choosing the lesser of evils is pretty common, and not as onerous as some of the pure make it out to be.

    I don't consider myself a purist (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    which should make the Obama camp really concerned.

    I definitely have a practical streak.

    There does come a time though where you have to draw a line on priciple and the Obama camp has flirted with my particular line on a regular basis.

    Someone down thread put it pretty well.

    It's about respect, or the lack thereof. Don't spit on me and mine, denigrate what I believe and then expect me to meekly get in line. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.


    I expect that Hillary Clinton will ask you (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    to vote for Obama in the fall. I hope you come to agree with her, as I do.

    She can ask (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:26:08 PM EST
    Edwards, my first choice, already endorsed him and it didn't change how I felt at all. I, sadly, don't expect, that she will manage to change my opinion either.

    I can disagree with people and still respect them.(Something Obama's camp ought to learn).

    What I won't do is allow someone to profit off of disrespecting me and the things I believe.

    I expect that what was done to Clinton was done with the expectation of causing a visceral response. Sometimes you should be careful what you wish for. Furthermore, I see a troubling habit in the Obama camp of tossing folks under the bus in order to score political points. It's completely repulsive.


    We aren't cultists (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:28:40 PM EST
    and Hillary isn't our leader.  

    What we're doing is beyond Hillary.  It's about getting presidential representation back.


    It's a fight for the Dem Party! (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    The "new" Obama Dems have told the "old" Hillary Dems there is a needed change.  Come with us or stay behind.  I say, try and go anywhere without "us".

    IMO change s needed (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    That said, I am not convinced that Obama is the kind of change that will be positive. I am not about to change something for the sake of changing it without some sort of understanding of what I am changing it too. When you ask Obama folks how he is going to change things, their answers are extremely vague. I don't like that. Even more concerning is that when you point out they are being vague, they generally insist you are being unreasonable for having some sort of expectation. They inist on "shouting down" anyone who doesnt fall in line to board the "Hope and Unity bus" It's reminiscent of playground bullying.

    For me it's about disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    "The rulz" aren't in the universe of a good enough reason to negate the actual votes of taxpaying American citizens.  

    As of right now, there is no solution.  I'm gonna hold out on making a judgment of what I'm going to do until I see what happens in MI/FL.

    However, my voting address is in TN (though I spend a lot of time in KY) and it is 100% impossible for Obama to win here...whether that's an ominous sign for Obama, I couldn't tell you, but I'd bet a significant sum he'll lose here by at least 12 points.

    So it doesn't really matter who I vote for.  I realize reasonable people can disagree, but I think Obama has no chance regardless of whether we all support him or not.  Independents will vote McCain in droves.

    It's too bad, but there you go.


    Beyond good and evil is only evil (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    To choose the lesser of two evils benefits evil.

    If you only have 2 to choose from (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by befuddled on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    it benefits evil less to choose the lesser one. And if you have a choice of lawful evil or chaotic evil, you at least have a bargaining place to start with the lawful evil.

    Not really (none / 0) (#146)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    No. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes you actually have to take a stand.

    As a practical matter, the constant choice of the lesser of two evils leads you to the evil you tried to avoid in the first place.

    It's not "rational," so perhaps you don't  understand it -- but I've observed this too many times in practice to be in denial about it.


    Not really (none / 0) (#147)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    No. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes you actually have to take a stand.

    As a practical matter, the constant choice of the lesser of two evils leads you to the evil you tried to avoid in the first place.

    It's not "rational," so perhaps you don't  understand it -- but I've observed this too many times in practice to be in denial about it.


    How many presidential elections (none / 0) (#55)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    have you voted in?  

    1, 2004. The only contest (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    since I've been eligible. What's it to you?

    I am saying this with respect (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:33:00 PM EST
    so I hope you take it that way, but there are dems here who have been yellow dog dem all of their long lives, and we detest the direction in which Obama, Brazile, Dean, etc are trying to take the party.  Everything is cyclical, which is something you only really learn with age.  If some of us here feel it is time for us to take a principled stand and stop the direction that this party is going in, then we have that right.  We are the party of the working class.  We are not the party of elites.  We have been voting straight dem for DECADES, no matter how stupid or horrible the dem, and to get a lecture from you or anyone else that questions our party loyalty comes off as a tad insulting.  We LOVE the party; that is why we fear the changes that are happening.

    In the 1960s, the hippies and other kids were told that it was unpatriotic and unAmerican to challenge the government.  They were thought to be domestic terrorists for having peaceful sit-ins.  MLK was classified as an enemy of the government.  Civil Rights, Women's Rights--all of these issues were life and death.  People stood up and said their government was headed in the wrong direction.  They made sure their voices were heard.

    Change only happens when people demand it.  Sitting back and taking it, voting for the lesser of two evils, does not bring about change.  Making your voice heard, sending a message--that's change.

    But, again, I don't mean this as disrespectful to you, though I feel sometimes that doesn't go both ways.  I remember my righteous outrage at Nader voters back in 00, and how I railed about their stupidity and selfishness, but, ya know what?  Voting is a constitutional right.  If someone sees something wrong and their vote, or lack of vote, can change it, it is a fundamental right as a citizen of the United States to do something about it.


    For many people I know it is not about punishing (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    Obama, or even his supporter.  
    It is about punishing a party that
    1. betrayed the people's right to vote in a manner that counts,
    2. abounded the people's loyalty to basing social justice principles,
    3. abounded the grass-roots and their desire to have healthy and decent lives, and
    4. engaged in the disdain of blue collar workers

    all to embrace the dogmatic left intelligentsia with totalitarian attitudes and elitists forces.

    It is a class straggle and the party has chosen and is choosing the wrong side.  For many of my friends this new party it's not worth revenge or punishment or anything else either than the trash can.

    So the idea that McCain is scary or worst than Obama does not fly at all.  The analysis is that nether of them are worth sh1t.  

    It is the "Who cares anymore" that will ultimately make the Des and Obama lose.  


    Yes, as in any relationship, apathy (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    by formerly Dem voters is to be feared more than anger, hate, or other emotions.  It's a much farther way back from apathy to get people involved again.

    I find that since declaring myself an Independent, there is a distancing that is coming that is much more comfortable than being part of the stoopid party going down again.  I'm not apathetic yet, by any means, but even distancing from the Dem party (not from Clinton, by any means) is sufficient for now.  

    We'll see whether the Dem party drives me to total apathy -- which always has infuriated me in others.  But I begin to understand, when no party wants me.  (Yes, before the automatic reply: They want my vote, but that's not the same.)


    I never understood the apathy CC (none / 0) (#162)
    by Rainsong on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    Given the turnout numbers every election, that Great American Apathy Party is somewhat large.

    For me, Its not about Hillary, its about the Party.

    I never understood it before, until this year, when the apathetics said there was no difference. Been voting since 1976, but not this year and I have to agree with them, Obama is not the lesser of two evils for me. Its like choosing between very bad, and well - very bad too. Six of one, and half dozen, of the other.

    Unlike others, I think Obama can win with or without Clinton voters. Most people are just sheep and will do whatever they are told, and most will fall in behind Obama.

    Maybe the Party has been corrupt like that for years, but I never saw it before, and it was the just the higher-profile of this particular primary season that made it obvious to me, and I can no longer turn a blind eye to it.  


    Class straggle? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    I like that. Maybe I'll use it. Perhaps we all need to go forward to something new, instead of backward (unless it be to the Federalist Papers).

    For my part (no link, sorry) I remember I think Shakes saying something like "Markets? Sure, they do terrible things, but we can mitigate them. But patriarchy? We don't know how to mitigate that at all. And that's the lesson of the misogyny in this campaign." Brutally paraphrasing, but that I agree with that.

    We've got class, race, sex/gender all mixed up in an unholy brew with multiple crises heading right at us... And I don't know what to do, but I do know that formulas like "the class straggle" are at best partial explanations and at worst make things a whole lot worse.


    Punish the Democrats? (none / 0) (#107)
    by not the senator on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:28:55 PM EST
    Now you sound like a McCain troll just trying to stir up trouble. What Democrat would actually say the party has chosen the wrong side in a class struggle when the alternative is McCain and the Republicans?

    "Let's keep those Bush tax cuts and appoint rightwing judges, its good for the working class!"

    I ain't buying it.


    Give me jobs, (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    mandatory health insurance,
    government run Social Security with NO privatization
    No bombing of Pakistan and no escalation of the war in Afghanistan
    No Bush/Cheney energy plan

    Then I may buy something with my vote. Now, not selling or buying anything.  A nice armchair comes November is all what I have stomach for.


    Just because they aren't the GOP... (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    ...doesn't mean that these "new" Democrats are "good".

    You're making the mistaking of thinking that if you have two choices and one is bad, the other one must be good, or at least acceptable.

    For some of us it's down to two possibly equally bad choices, just bad for different reasons.

    "We're not the Republicans" is not enough of a platform to get ANY Democrat elected.  Period.


    Who cares anymore is exactly right (none / 0) (#187)
    by lily15 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:45:59 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, watch all the excitement evaporate.  Depression will set in. And many people will not care anymore.  The true Democrat will have been scuttled for an untested media creation by a weak elite Democratic party ruled by amoral morons who could care less about democratic principles or the will of the people.

    It is ironic that McCain was chosen democratically and is thus the most electable Republican while Obama, if the nominee, was chosen undemocratically, and is thus the least electable Democrat.


    Enter McCain Stage Left (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:07:27 AM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, watch all the excitement evaporate.  Depression will set in. And many people will not care anymore

     Perfect antidote, I think it is called displacement.

    Works like a charm.


    Tell that to dispaced workers, (none / 0) (#192)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:03:12 AM EST
    that will give them a meaningful job, with good wages and benefits. Or not.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    Anyone who believes that voting for Hillary, Obama or McCain

    will give them a meaningful job, with good wages and benefits.

    is beyond help.


    Bill Clinton did. (none / 0) (#198)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST
    he economy boomed, there was a workers' market in many part of the country as opposed to an emplowers' market.

    Obama and McCain are equally bad when looking at them with the grass-roots blue collar lenses.

    You go worry about the judges and supreme court since it is quite clear you for your necessity covert and don't give a f--k about those who don't.

    Those who need a job to put food on the table, a roof on their head, etc., have little of no use for the platform presented by Obama or McCain.

    It is Hillery or nobody for me. I do not need your help, you do not have in your hart to give it.


    But what if I feel that the party shoving Obama (5.00 / 12) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    down my throat is punishing me AND the country?

    Do I not have a right to expect the party to stop working to engineer the nomination of the lesser candidate, to get out of the way and let the process play out as the voters decide?

    At what point did the DNC anoint itself the arbiter in place of the voters?  Because really, with where things are right now, the only reason to keep screwing around with FL and MI is to make sure that nothing messes with the Obama nomination.

    So, fine - if this is who the DNC wants, let them own it, all of it.  Let them be accountable for the blowback in Florida and Michigan.  Let them explain in the aftermath of an Obama defeat why they ignored every single sign that told them that is what would happen.

    Stop trying to hang the defeat of Barack Obama around our necks because we can't rationalize voting for the lesser candidate when there is an excellent one available.

    And if you are so afraid that Obama cannot defeat John McCain, then maybe you know in your heart of hearts that he really is a lousy candidate.

    Honestly, sometimes I think this spine-weakening syndrome is contagious.


    The problem is (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    that you're asking me for things I cannot give you. I did my part by voting for my chosen candidate in April. But my vote was insufficient to prevent the other candidate from winning.

    So the question of November arises. Which candidate is least bad? The answer is quite clear to me.


    How do you define (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:57:59 PM EST

    The best qualified candidate needs to be the nominee.

    Otherwise, we lose.


    Young people have shorter horizons (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:30:20 PM EST
    I think the difference between you and some of the older commenters here (myself included) is that you want short-term results whereas we don't expect anything of importance to be decided in the short-term. So you tend to view the '08 election as a crucial election for Democrats, while we tend to view it just another election.

    Thus you conclude that electing another Republican will be a disaster for Democrats in the short term, which you value highly. We, on the other hand, conclude that teaching the DNC a lesson would be a good thing for Democrats in the long term, which we value more highly than any short-term (and likely, short-lived) "success".  


    cymro (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:48:14 PM EST
    good point.  I remember when folks told me stuff like this that I was always highly insulted, because they were basically telling me (in my opinion) that I did not know my own mind.  Please note to the younger folk here that we are not saying that.  We are just saying that while we do not agree with your opinion, we respect it.  We would like the same courtesy in return, but maybe that just takes time.

    Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry...these were some hard lessons to learn.  Some of us feel it's time to teach the party a lesson.


    More a "learning moment" than a lesson (none / 0) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    This is what one of the buzzword mavens at my work says.

    I agree with the differing points of view on time.  I was crushed and depressed for weeks when Dukakis lost, it seemed as if the world ended.  Well, it didn't.  I won't vote for McCain, but in the long term a bad Republican president for 4 years may be better for the Democratic Party and the interests it is supposed to represent than 4 years of a bad Democrat in office.  Or not even bad, just weak.

    Others have expressed this better but I will have no guilt and nothing to answer for if I stay home in November and McCain wins, for two reasons.  First, the DNC and all its members have a chance to nominate the most electible person.  That is Clinton.  If they fail to do that, then a McCain win is on them, not me.

    Second, I have always voted Democrat, even when the candidate in the primaries I favored didn't get the nom.  But those candidates never, ever derided my interests or sat by laughing while the tsunami of misogyny was unleashed.  They may have had different priorities than I did, but they did not denigrate my priorities.  (and, btw, they didn't act like I owed them my vote, either).


    That would depend (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by stxabuela on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    upon the state in which one resides.  I will NEVER vote for McCain, but I may well skip the race or vote for a 3rd-party female.  TX is not in play.  Those living in other than bright red states have a much more difficult decision to make.    

    ayup (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    I am in bright red Georgia, so I have the luxury of saying I will not vote for Obama.  As I have said many times before, I might look at things differently if I were in a swing state, but I am not.

    I can easily cast a protest vote without knowing that it might actually matter in the scheme of things.

    I can also stop sending money to the dem party, which I did around Feb.  I have been giving money to them since I was sixteen years old--no joke--so this was a very hard thing for me to do.


    How many people did Obama FIRE (none / 0) (#166)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    For people on his campaign talking out their butthole, Obama was swift and decisive about how one was to treat another person.

    And now you want to besmirch the record with bile.

    Punish Who?


    For, what? Caring?

    Worthless devils advocate drivel.


    By your own logic, then he should FIRE himslf. (none / 0) (#193)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:09:08 AM EST
    Headlines are Drivel (none / 0) (#200)
    by Exasperated on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:50:52 AM EST
    Drivel this: (none / 0) (#201)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    When cannot defend, then offend. Is that why your handle is Exasperated? eh!

    I put 98% of the blame on obama and many (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    of his supporters.  He is all about dividing, not bringing coalitions together.  My hope is that people are smart enough to send him back home to Chicago.

    Additionally (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    I think if you consider one of his supporters to be the media, you have a big problem on your hands.  I know it may not necessarily be fair to conflate the two.  But consider this:  on TV news this weekend, the story of the Obama campaign forwarding Keith Olbermann's comment to superdelegates has been repeated.  If a Clinton voter sees this story, and watches the KO piece, what can they conclude?  The Obama campaign endorses the treatment of Hillary by the media.  I'm sure the Clinton campaign has shown news articles and such to the superdelegates.  But the sort of cause-effect of this weekend's RFK comment brings the Obama campaign schmoozingly close to the media.  And to win a Clinton voter, that might not be where you want to be.  And of course John McCain is so cool with the media they'd hardly notice him using the anger of these voters against the media to his advantage...

    SO (1.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:58:46 PM EST
    You'd like to have someone wish YOU to be assassinated and then think the whole thing was just a joke?

    Depends upon what IS, IS, people. There are no wording mistakes in the Clinton Campaign, people.

    a response to yet more Devil's advocate drizzle drivel.


    Obama....I have had enough already!! (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    I keep arguing these same points over and over to the Obamabots. Quit rubbing it in and quit being jerks. I have been called an a$$hole, a racist, stupid, etc. and my GF has been called a c*nt, for supporting Hillary. My Hillary Clinton yard sign was burned over night last week and I am in a very rural area. Is this how team Obama gets things done, by violence and threats and alienating 49.98% of the Democratic party?? They WILL not even win a runner up trophy. I have found Obama's surrogates AND supporters to be arrogant, condescending JERKS.

    That is the general feeling I get everywhere in Pittsburgh. The few people I know that would vote for Obama love him....The rest will vote McCain no matter what and want to push Obama out like he did to the Clintons... Like a revenge vote.

    Obama signs can be in yards (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:41:09 PM EST
    in my neighborhood -- a very nice one -- but we with Clinton signs have learned they will be vandalized.  I keep mine inside a window now, although I fully expect to have to clean or replace the window.  

    That's obscene (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    What next?

    Yeh, and there's lots of libruls here (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    in a neighborhood said to be stuck in the '60s -- and we say we like it that way!

    Well, not anymore, not me.  And of course, none of my stuck-in-the-'60s ex-hippie neighbors seem to have heard Obama diss that era as "excessive."  Apparently the local latte libruls (yes, there's a Starbucks but blocks away) went to too many rock concerts and got hard of hearing at an early age.  So they don't hear their lil darlings sneaking out of their houses -- I see them -- at night, the ones I suspect of doing the vandalism.  It happened in past, too, but never as much as this year.


    It's not good for the gander either (none / 0) (#168)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    You know, this happened to some friends of mine too, but the sign was an Obama sign.

    I have anecdotes of HRC supporters being rude, condescending vandals too.

    You know, if we both stuck our feet out, we'd be wearing two shoes.

    -Yet another response to our shortsighted ways.


    Alert! FL + MI = HRC nets 110 pledged delegates! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    Do not believe the Obamabots.  Should the DNC choose not to punish the voters of FL + MI, HRC can net at least 110 delegates.  See proposal of Lanny Davis at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10614.html

    If HRC wins the popular vote by June 3, the DNC decision can make this a toss-up.  Help out in Puerto Rico, SD, and Montana.  Keep fighting!  Big Tent Democrat / Jeralyn, please read the Lanny story that was posted just now.  Happy holiday.

    I didn't know of the Delaware precedent (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    for a revote when it went too early with it primary -- that ought to have come out sooner, if we had a media that did any research at all.

    The rest of your link also seems very well argued, at least to me, although I'm no lawyer.  So it would be good to see what Jeralyn, BTD, and other legal type say to it.  For now, I'm bookmarking it -- no doubt to see how far Prima Donna, Dean, et al., stray from fairness in their decision this week.  Thanks for a good find!


    I'm not sure it's irrational (5.00 / 24) (#11)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    I've been insulted, ridiculed and had hate speech hurled at me during this election. All for supporting the candidate of my choice.

    You're giving me a choice between my self-interest and my self-respect.

    I choose my self-respect.

    (By the by, regarding the Krugman article: Obama suggested Clinton be allowed the "bragging rights" of getting a majority. Funny. Getting a majority used to be called a mandate. By this very party.)

    But The Hate Speech (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    Directed at you, albeit indirectly, by wingnuts, white supremecists,  
    mysoginists, racists, and all the other hatemongers that are blasting their messages 24/7, has no effect? Hmmmmm why is that? Most of them if not all of them, and there are quite a few, are GOP supporters. Why no visceral reaction to them, as their hate is exponential compared to the Obama supporters that have pissed you off? And yes they hate Hillary too.

    I do not get it, any dispassionate view has Obama and Hillary as almost identical, and both are diametrically opposite to McCain.


    It's obvious. It's always more painfulwh (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    when it comes from within, from those you thought were your friends -- or in this case, from those you thought were fellow "progressives" who also supported the Dem party principles and platform.  That platform includes, for example, a plank on women's issues . . . but watching the leading liberal blog that shall go unnamed go against that plank was the beginning of the end.  And now, they and their candidate pushed us to the end of the plank.

    But it turns out there were lifeboats below, and the water is nice and warm.  Who knew?  Come on in -- and it's better to jump, before you're pushed!


    Hey! I'm not voting McCain (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    And no, I haven't had any hate speech directed at me from the parties you mention -- or at least, not nearly the amount I have had directed at me by the party I have supported for 30 years.

    I'll vote for Green, or Gus Hall, or write-in. Or I'll walk the dog that night.

    I'm tired of being threatened with bad things if I don't do thus-and-so.  Bad things have already happened to me, but you didn't notice!


    Your fractured soul could take a breather (none / 0) (#170)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:16:02 PM EST
    Then go vote Democratic.

    No one has left you behind. It's been a painful race.

    This is all truly awe inspiring that we are trying to extricate the wounds we have had for more than half out country's life.

    You know, a lot of people died right here in America to give us the right to choose what to do with our vote...and to give many of us the right to vote at all.

    It isn't pretty, but it's what we have. Not everybody is a jerk.

    I'm not a jerk, I'm just exasperated. If we want to change the plan, let's do so when we get a Democrat in the Office.

    McCain will never change the rules and we'll keep right on getting squeezed out of the picture.

    It's not even an, "at least Obama won't blah blah," argument.

    This crap is all what we make of it, because we are sitting in a very good place right now. It is fear that makes this stuff unbearable.


    The key word here is ... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by DavMD on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM EST
    dispassionate !!

    "I do not get it, any dispassionate view has Obama and Hillary as almost identical, and both are diametrically opposite to McCain."

    How many of those views have you seen around here lately?


    Indeed (4.20 / 5) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    That is hard to argue against. But I will try during the GE.

    With apparently no help (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    from Obama and crew.

    How long do you think it will take for them to realize that this is a problem?


    Probably after they stop slinging (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    the mud, which hasn't happened yet.  

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#171)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
    Apparently no one told you  that no one was attacking you.

    How dirty are your hands?

    You make great mud-pies it seems.

    Yet another response to preemptive mud slinging.


    Oh, I must disagree. I check the (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    FP and diaries at DK from time to time.  No let-up yet.  

    boehlert wins the award (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    for coining the most important new political term, this campaign season- post-parsing. what you highlight is benen doing exactly that. the shrillosphere takes clinton's statements out of context, twists them into outrageous phrasings she neither used nor intended, then acts as if these invented outrages are part of a pattern, almost all of which were also invented.  

    BNut it is worse than that (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    Bene is lying in his post parsing as Ezra Klein did.

    See they do not give a sh*t about counting the votes in FL and MI so to them anyone who does is a toxic liar.

    To be honest, it is the Klein/Marshall/Benen schtick I really detest the most.

    Aravosis I have more respect for. His insane hatred is honest at least.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
    The purest examples of WWTSBQ come from Americablog, if not always Aravosis.

    The muddy middle, where people lie and pretend to be reasonable, is the most annoying. Benen comes off like David Broder here.


    HAHAHA! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:30:54 PM EST
    Aravosis is insane!  ;)

    Aravosis (none / 0) (#52)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    is a former republican.

    But he's now seen the light?



    Not unlike (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    our former friend Kos.

    What is it about converts that makes them so wacky and fanatical?  I noticed the same thing about a good many Catholic converts of my acquaintence.  They are hardest, of course, on those of us who recovered before they ever joined up.


    post-parsing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    usually includes a degree of lying, although cds/oc probably does cause many to actually believe even their own lies.

    Reason, not emotion (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by livesinashoe on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    My choice of Hillary over Obama is NOT emotional.  I happen to think she's the better choice.  I think Obama is a dismal choice.  If it comes down to McCain or Obama, I will vote for the better candidate based on who I think will be better for America.

    I will NOT vote based on emotion.

    Give this woman some credit for being a rational being.

    Winning means (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    different things to different people.

    For me, winning means voting for Democrats who really espouse Democratic ideals.  That means rejecting Obama.


    It isn't emotional, it's RATIONAL.

    If he wins, the Democratic Party leaves ME behind.  Forget it.


    This leaving behind of which you speak (none / 0) (#172)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:36 PM EST
    Is truly a strange thought to me.
    What party, per se are you speaking?

    As a lifelong Demo, I feel like we finally are getting back to the values that MAKE democrats, so.

    Helping out the poor
    helping the earth
    fixing the economy
    working with others

    are things I have espoused for thirty years and more, as have my parents and theirs before them.

    What is leaving you behind? Where is is going. Maybe there's a way to bring up your thought and addressing it, rather than just turning away from all we have worked on.


    Reason first, but plus emotion (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    is my option.  Rationally, I see her as by far the best candidate.  Emotionally, I feel such pride in seeing a woman so succeed against the odds in our culture.

    By the way, I pick my men the same way -- I gotta have an intellectual equal, but there better be an inexplicable passion. :-)


    Couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by oldpro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:16:50 PM EST
    As for the men...they don't come along every day, so make an effort to keep one if you get one (as described!)

    I had one for nearly 30 years until he died of cancer...and all my friends asked over and over "How were you smart enough to marry him when you were only 20?"

    The answer was, I was clear-eyed and not ever planning to marry at all...so when that one guy sauntered into view, it was 'now or never!'

    Far different with candidates, although often both components come into play...emotion and rational evaluation.  Still...rule number one is NEVER  FALL IN LOVE with a politician.

    Good grief.


    Here Is A Summary (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    Of their records:


    Looking at the voting records of both candidates I checked 16 categories (including Health, Abortion, Campaign Finance, Education, Gun Issues, Civil rights, Civil Liberties, Crime and more). Out of 152 votes over almost 3 years (2005 up to February 2008) there is a difference of only 9.9%. That's 15 different votes in total. That's 5 votes a year.

    To me, that means they are exactly the same type of candidate, neither being more qualified nor providing a greater benefit than the other. No matter how the polispeak is spun, or what 30 second soundbites are used they both are planning to do the same exact thing to America.

    Both Senators voted exactly the same on Abortion, Agriculture, Campaign Finance, Congressional Affairs, Crime, Environment, and Civil Liberties.


    Must be your gut, imo.


    The salient difference, then, (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    is that one is crapping on me and the other is not.

    Oh, and of course my assessment of the candidate's real ability to get things done.


    Irrational? (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    The salient difference, then, is that one is crapping on me and the other is not.

    Since no one Is actually crapping and this is not about having to be personal friends with Obama, but an election, it appears that you are basing your position on hurt feelings, not rationalism, imo. A position that is not atypical in elections and sports.

    Still not sure why you are giving over so much power to those who have insulted you. It seems that they should be brushed off like any other nut case that is saying stupid things.

    Once the nomination process is over, I imagine that the brain will be able to resurrect its connection to the heart for most Democratic voters, save for the most extreme fanatic cult cases.


    You are being patronizing (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    I suspect you are young -- too young, for example, to understand the notion of a metaphor (or to understand its potential power). But I assure you your condescension couldn't be more misplaced. I'm tougher than you on your best day -- people who give lectures on rationalism are usually pretty small. I know from experience. If you're lucky, someday you'll know too.

    No, this isn't a matter of "hurt feelings." I think character matters. And people who hurl invective at me are people of weak character. I will not reward those who have insulted me by giving them my vote, and I will not enable those of weak character by propping them up. Someday you will be insulted, and we'll see how quickly you shake it off -- a betrayal of longstanding loyalties is a difficult thing. Until then...

    And no, I have no reason to believe that my "brain will be able to resurrect, etc." come November.  I know that character seems to be invisible to many of you -- you "rationally" decipher policy speeches and websites -- but it's not a matter of brains or heart, in the end. It's a matter of taste. Like wine, or bread. Character is a better predictor of what someone will do than promises and speeches and soundbytes. That brings us right back to the hate-speech issue, doesn't it?

    You see, that's why my decision is so puzzling to you.  It's also a matter of principles. That's why I won't vote. It's a decision, not a mood.

    I do not join mobs. And this is getting to be a mob sort of thing. Enjoy your bandwagon, and watch out for the bumps.


    Not Patronizing (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:16:22 PM EST
    And not so young. I voted for Hillary but have not taken seriously any insults by either camp, as they both seem silly to me, elementary schoolyard sort of stuff, imo.
    I do not join mobs. And this is getting to be a mob sort of thing.

    Perhaps you do not realize that you have joined a "mob" and an angry one at that. Seems to me that is giving a group that you disdain quite a bit of power as they are responsible for your decisions,  and a mere insignificant fraction of Obama supporters at that.

    Sorry I do not believe that idiotic cultists that hate Obama or Clinton speak for their respective prophets or saints. It does not seem wise to take them seriously.



    It's more than the voting record (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by livesinashoe on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    for me.

    I know plenty of professionals who have the same educations and the same approaches to problem solving.  One thing that I have observed that  differentiates them is the amounbt of relevant expereince they have.

    That's the first thing.

    The second thing is Brazille's comment about not needing older voters, not needing Latinos, not needing a lot of people.  When she said this, she polymarginalized ME.

    SHE left ME.  I didn't leave her.

    That's okay, I personally can deal with it, but I think it's deeply divisive for the country as a whole.   It's not unity, it's division.   People say "Divide and conquer" but they also say "A house divided against itself can not stand."

    Another thing is that Obama has done nothing to reign in the behaviour of his visigoth supporters.  To me, that means he owns it.  

    Those are a few reasons I think she is the better candidate.  Better resume by far, her coalition is far stronger and more tested, and the general tone of the people who support her.


    Classic Obama Speak (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
    His supporters like Steve catch on fast because his plea for unity and then his trashing and lying about Clinton is exactly what Obama does. His most recent escaped being the RFK 'incident' - which was not an incident at all. And in the end, Obama while accepting Clinton's 'apology' (she didn't really apologize), took his final shot and called her sincere comments "careless".

    Steve Benen in his plea to not hurt the party because of what a few supporters said is missing the point entirely. The supporters are just the rub. The real problem Clinton supporters have with voting for Obama is Obama himself. From his double talk as with the RFK incident - to his playing the race card by planting "unsourced' stories in the press so he could jump on them and turn Blacks toward him and away from Hillary - to his gross inexperience and naivety toward foreign policy - to his embrace of Republicans - to his 'Harry and Louise' attack on Universal Healthcare - to his employment of using Blue Dog Jim Cooper,who help kill Hillary's  '90's heathcare plan - to his hypocritic employment of past lobbyists in his campaign - and on and on.

    This ploy by the Obamabots to say that not voting for Obama because they have been asses is counterproductive is way off base. Yes many have complained to them about being asses. But again that is just the rub. The real problem Clinton supporters have with voting for Obama is Obama himself.

    fwiw (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST
    krugman is being purged.

    Very amusing. (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:25:18 PM EST
    I'm just no longer surprised by any of the garabage I hear or read. I just don't have the energy to be angry anymore. They just can't help themselves. They always start out sounding so reasonable but by the end they have dissolved into petulance. No matter where the idea starts it ends with some grievance they have with her. They are just trolls with a better vocabulary and more space to write.

    Clearly (5.00 / 11) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    there are no mirrors where you are from.

    I just finished watch The Recount on HBO (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by bjorn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    I wish we had learned our lessons, but it seems we have not.  Why am I not surprised that people are trying to demonize Clinton for wanting to count the votes.

    Excellent observation. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:31:54 PM EST
    Who is Steve Benen and Why should I care (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by bridget on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:31:01 PM EST
    about his opinions re Krugman et al?

    Oh, and before I forget,
    I would like to take this opportunity and ask my question now - most threads are closed to my chagrin when I come online :-(

    Please tell my why anyone would even want to be interested in what bloggers like the little Ezras have to say?
    Ezra is only 23 yrs old, isn't he? I mean, really! From college right to the blogs? Where is the life experience let alone sense of history?

    I am just saying
    since his name (and those of his his ilk) comes up regularly in TL diaries by BTD.

    What's the big deal w. all these young bloggers anyway - they live all in an echo chamber and have one goal in mind (aside posting about their required Clinton hate and recently found Obama love): How do I get on TV w. my blowhorn and my Newsweek contract like hero kos and make a lot of $$$.

    just wondering
    cause reading their stuff is a waste of time IMHO

    Benen, Ezra and all ... (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    these bloggers BTD seems to care so much about, remind me of the Little Rascals.  

    (I half expect their blogs to have all the E's backwards.)  

    Their idea of venturing into the real adult world is to stand on the shoulders of one of their mates, hiding this fact with a big overcoat.

    And we're expected to go, "How cute."



    hilarious irony (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    Benen: Have some Obama supporters been quick to denigrate Clinton? Absolutely.

    And then he goes on to illustrate unintentionally by quoting the rational and impartial Ezra Klein, who accuses Hillary of employing "a mixture of toxic lies and scorched earth campaigning."


    I guess Kool Aid is a lot like booze--in many ways, one being that if you're sipping it yourself, you don't smell it on others.

    If this Steve believes that hey, (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:35:06 PM EST
    it's just been another political battle, full of fun and games and throwing spit balls back and forth, then he misses the whole point of this historic place we find ourselves in. That, in itself, makes this year different. He reads, I suspect, what suits his position, not what some believe to really be. Again, to be told we are "emotional" is misognistic and insulting. He misses what's really there. There is hositility on both sides yes, but one sides hostility is being ignored and glorified while the other side is being dismissed and villified!

    Not emotional at all (5.00 / 11) (#56)
    by goldberry on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    The non-Obama forces are addressing this with cold blooded pragmatism.  Obama and his droogs would simultaneously like to write us off and insist on our votes  But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  They have yet to tell us what is in it for us.  Besides being incredibly insulting to women, working class and voters of two important states, they have offered us nothing in return except scare tactics.  "Oooo, McCain will be sooo much worse"  Hmmm, you mean worse than a guy who has comepletly written us off for the pretentious liberals who fancy themselves the "creative class".  (Take it from a real member of that class, they are not.)
    Obama is our worst nightmare: an inexperienced Reublican-Lite_libertarian who doesn't give a flying F^&* about the rest of us.  
    Why are we even arguing about this?  It is in our best interests that he loses.  If the party can not represent us, it needs to be remade in our image.

    And so it goes (none / 0) (#174)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:49:21 PM EST
    Please...just put another republican in office. More War!
    Let's all genuflect to the supreme ruler!
    Yay. Maybe we'll be able to afford streamers.

    Droogs indeed. Good word though.

    Well, hmmm. I though about taking off to a beach somewhere when Bush won again, but this time... I'm going to fight.

    I'd rather not let you put the conservative pulpit into the judges booth again. I'd rather if a mistake were made, someone own up to it.

    McCain is a conservative republican. And if his record doesn't show it, He ascribes all the more to it. He's said so himself.

    "I'm a Conservative Republican" John McCain.

    What, not the same as a neocon? You must have lost you Republican marketing dictionary.


    If Ezra's not an Obama cheerleader ... (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    ... it has escaped my attention.

    And if it has escaped my attention, it's because I don't read him any more.

    And I don't read him any more because when I did read him I kept having to clamber over these mammoth blocks of authoritative alternate-universe assertion, usually relating to Clinton or the Clinton years, to find the nuggets of policy analysis. Lately it's all off the deep end, with no nuggets.

    Send Ezra, Yglesias and their ilk back to wunderkindergarten, and let's wait to see what the next generation coughs up.

    Wish we could rate your diaries, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    Cause you would've just earned a 5 from me!  Thanky.

    Well, what would absolutely do it (5.00 / 16) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST
    for me would be if he would diminish her representing us in 82 countries, including her work with women in my beloved Ireland as well as her extraordinary speech at the UN's World Conference of Women in Beijing -- voted one of the top 100 speeches in American history, and the so-called "great orator" who is the other candidate isn't even on the list.

    And if he, who has barely gotten out of airports overseas, would call her international work just "tea parties," I really would be ticked off, too.


    [I loved your comment.]

    The booing (5.00 / 9) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    at his rallies whenever Clinton's name is mentioned.  He could stop that immediately with one sentence.  Hasn't yet.

    Even More Serious IMO (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    Obama was completely silent about his supporters treatment of Tavis Smiley. Tavis received death threats, his family was harassed and he had to leave his radio job because of Obama supporters. What was Tavis's crime? He criticized Obama for not appearing at an AA function. Not once did I hear Obama say that this was unacceptable behavior.

    We already had almost 8 years of people receiving death threats, being harassed and being called traitors and worse because because they criticized Bush. I refuse to vote for another 4 to 8 years of this type of thuggish behavior from so called Democrats.



    So saying (none / 0) (#176)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    Now, Now, Now, isn't addressing anything?

    This means, please I'm trying to be nice, but let's not have that kind of talk here.

    The crowds quiet down pretty quickly after this brief and simple admonition.


    It has come to this. (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by lentinel on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    On Taylor Marsh's blog today, a guest named Patsy wrote the following:

    "The party I thought I knew ceased to exist the moment, the minute and the second they allowed the first most qualified female presidential candidate in our nation's history to be attacked, destroyed, and ripped apart, which reached a tipping point this weekend. As of 24 May 2008 0930hrs, I no longer belong to the Democratic Party. I will no longer be affiliated with any group or group(s), person or person(s), that would allow a party member to be falsely accused of allegations that bears no relevance or has no relationship to the situation at hand. I will not be part of a party that utilizes character assassination to achieve a goal. I will not quietly sit by and watch the destruction of my chosen candidate. I will not support, vote, or show any loyalty to those who sit quietly aside and allow this to be played out in the court of public opinion. The Party I once knew I know no longer. Today I turn my back on the Democratic Party, because by allowing the falsehoods against Hillary Clinton to be embellished as they have the Democratic Party has turned its back on me."

    I know how she feels.

    And Patsy, if I recall, (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by oldpro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    is an AA soldier in the Army.

    She is one sharp and well-spoken cookie.


    You are using a horrible statement (none / 0) (#177)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    made by Hillary herself to expel YOU from the Democratic party?

    You know, just because you don't think that's what she meant (RFK assassination), doesn't mean she didn't mean what she said.

    Character Assassination... how about offering up an excuse for someone to bump off your rival?

    I took her statement to mean this. I was a Hillary supporter.

    and frankly, unless some kind of thing like that were to happen, if she did SOMEHOW get the nomination, I'd vote for her.

    As I remain a Democrat. As has my family for generations.


    What? (none / 0) (#196)
    by lentinel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    Clinton, if you watch the video, was talking about the attempts to get her to drop out well before the primary season has ended.
    She referred to Robert Kennedy because everyone who was conscious at the time remembers that the event happened in June and the nomination for President was still being hotly contested.

    To twist this into some kind of threatening statement as you are trying to do is really irrational. Watch the video.

    Additionally, since she was referring to someone campaigning into the June month who was killed, if you want to get sinister about it, she is the one who might be threatened - judging by the amount of insane hatred aimed in her direction.

    For you to twist Clinton's honest statement about the feverish attempts to make her drop out of the race and hand it to the undistinquished Mr. Obama into a threat against Obama is a flight of imagination that is not based on any kind of logic.
    And you're not alone.


    It was a horrrifying statement (none / 0) (#199)
    by Exasperated on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:48:19 AM EST
    The mistruth Clinton makes as her argument, that her husband hadn't tied up the election until June is yet another Clinton falsehood.

    She knew what she was saying and why she said it. And you have to be conversant in Clinton-speak to be able to get the underlying point in her words.

    Again, case-in point, the definition of "IS". This was not some singular moment in either the Husband or the Wife's commentary. This is being in the corner and looking for any way out.

    Being on the ropes and the biting of the ear...

    And yes, I am not alone in viewing the video and making this conclusion.

    I wrote Hillary and offered my honest opinion of what I thought this statement meant. I told her I was shocked, horrified and a number of other reactions of being faced, again, with not only the image of RFK being assassinated, but also Obama.

    I didn't mention any such attempt on her life though the reality is, sure there are superior risks to her. I'm not going to get into some kind of bidding match on WHO is MORE likely to get shot! That is the horror.

    My God. To even think of that... Murder. I mean we read books and watch movies, play video games and all sorts of media that portray the deaths of innocent people, whether reality or fiction. Many of these things are either machinations of an artist or the retelling of a story, but thinking about this as something that REALLY could happen, and having to visualize that as a realistic outcome.

    I don't know, but to me, to bring it up, to give the kernel of an idea, an actionable word, is abhorrent.

    It makes it no more right that HRC could speak of her own demise (based upon your premise) in the scope of a dry as sand interview is ,,,wow.

    I told Hillary that I rather not have the thought that she actually meant what she said, or meant the inference, that to me, unfortunately, speaks so clearly, after having watched her for two decades (sic).

    To find a comment offensive is not a litmus test for a candidate's dismissal unless coupled with other evidence that this behavior is compulsive or congenital.

    If HRC had won, or barring SNAFU, does win the nomination, I am fully in support for Her.

    There are other things besides snarky and truly vicious comments that curb my appeal to considering voting for GOP.

    These are things however, I fear that the opposing party can use against US. Not to mention whatever precious odiousness the opposition could gear up in Negative support for McCain.

    Meaning, I'm just one person. I truly have a deep respect for HRC and a passion for the Democratic party.

    My core beliefs in reaction to the DNC, HRC and Obama campaigns to date, have been well served during this primary.

    Some people on this blog, who call themselves Dems and call a person like me a Neo-Democratic, who state the the Democratic party has left THEM, I feel are not willing to rebuild this country in any fashion, much less compromise at a time when we can hold the sway.

    I think this is fundamentally wrong.  First of all, the reasons I have read for this detraction, non participation or evacuation for the Dem party are mostly from some propaganda, believed to be true, but holding no truth, or within which the truth is somehow tampered.

    This defection I think is understandable, if you account for the amount of time spent researching the numerous attacks to take into account. Very few particles of time.

    It's not an ignorance. Some people have other priorities.

    I am wholly advocating for the governance to shift into the hands of those whom I think will help out the best in this time of crisis. The fact that I am a DEM as are my folks as were my grandfolks, means the world to me.

    Like we have a chance to affect more positive change for those who have less.



    Oh, you don't want us in the party, then? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM EST
    I thought Obama said people have to be "nice."

    Or maybe this is nice?

    The neocons pushed out many (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by takxdp on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    old republicans and the neodems will do the same for the dem party. Having veto override majorities in congress will be more important than having the white house. Hopefully the dem lawmakers can undo some of the damage of the last 8 years.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    Obama supporters are neodems?  Not sure who you are talking about but all the people that I know who voted for Obama in the primaries have voted dem all of their life. Nothing "neo" about them.

    Neo-Dem (none / 0) (#178)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    Wow, just like my folks and theirs were neodems too. Amazing...we got the change we been talkin' 'bout, Roy!

    How cool. I am reborn.



    The Decision by the DNC on Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Richjo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:33:03 PM EST
    was a disgrace. Plain and simple. They basically decided that it was more important to ensure 4 small states got to play a disproportionately large role in this process than to ensure that millions of voters in Florida and Michigan got any say in the process. The blogs and the media sat by and said nothing about it then and continue to give the DNC a free pass on their disgraceful behavior. None of them were outraged by the fact that millions of voters could be disenfranchised, they are only outraged by the anything that threatens Obama's chance at victory. The next time the Republicans try to suppress the vote with crap like their ID laws the Obama camp with have zero ground to stand on.

    The thing is I do (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    think Hillary's treatment has been grotesque and not just by Obama's supporters but Obama himself, the DNC and the so-called Party elders(or as I like to call them a bunch of old, white men).  So for all those saying so rationally, oh, it's in your interest to vote for Obama(someone again I think has done absolutely nothing in his life to merit the Presidency), I say ok, but I fail to see how rewarding behavior I find vehemently anti-women is in my best interest.

    The anti-women thing (none / 0) (#179)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:09:48 PM EST
    Is that she lost.

    Put the blame on her for NOT WINNING enough delegates.

    The thing about losing is that it goes BOTH ways. Just because someone won, due to this or that, Someone lost because of OTHER this or that.

    Paraphrased from a wide receiver on my football team...who said it better than I.


    You seem to be implicitly arguing that (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    voting against Obama in the fall would be an irrational, emotional choice. Let's be clear: this is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
    There's every reason to vote against Obama if you oppose what he represents---especially since Democrats are going to control Congress regardless.

    Another problem I have with Obama (none / 0) (#129)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:22:33 PM EST
    is the messiah-complex.  I cringe when I see screen shots of his website.  Him basked in sun light like the second coming.  I don't think that sort of idolization is healthy for democracy.  I think the last 8 years confirm that.  

    There's every reason to vote against Obama if you (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by camellia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:28:56 PM EST
    "There's every reason to vote against Obama if you oppose what he represents---especially since Democrats are going to control Congress regardless. " ... with the same results as we have seen since 2006?  

    First of all though -- I really have no firm idea of what Obama represents since his positions are as fixed as the clouds.  Here today, different tomorrow.  Whatever works for him.  

    I have a very strong interest in universal health care -- a disabled daughter who depends on Medicaid and is therefore pretty much disqualified from working unless she can find a job with health benefits -- and I would suggest that you try to do that as a disabled individual, even with a Master's degree, in the current employment climate.  If you get Medicaid in order to obtain treatment for your disability, you cannot get a job without losing your Medicaid.  What does Obama plan to do for her and the many many other people like her?  I know what Hillary plans to do -- universal health care, portable by the individual and not tied to employment.  As it is in all other developed countries, with the possible exception of South Africa and even they may have reformed by now.

    Talk to me about Mr. Hope and Change when he has shown that he can deliver hope and change.  And, as I have heard before -- we don't need HOPE, we need HELP.

    He has plans for her (none / 0) (#138)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:40:28 PM EST
    He is going to make sure that she isn't forced to pay for health care that she can't afford.

    I don't have to make sense - I'm a woman (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    Haven't you heard, we're vicious, nasty, and selfish. Oh... and we live though our husbands. Perhaps if my husband decides to vote for Obama, I'll go along. After all - it's not as if anything I do independently of him matters. I guess I'm just being b*tchy.  I'm going to go crack some nuts and iron a shirt.

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:19:37 PM EST

    Look, Sister, we all have things we have to overcome.

    Everyone has struggles, some a lot more than others. This guy says he can't afford healthcare for his kid.
     Well both HRC AND Obama have offered plans to help him and his family out.
    With Obama's plan, he just won't HAVE to buy it Except for hi kid), even though it'll be subsidized enough so that he won't wince as much when  hopefully he DOES buy insurance.

    You don't have to play the victim card. We get it.

    You know, no matter how mad I got at Hillary for things SHE said, or her campaign, or her husband said about Obama, I was still ready to go Democratic.

    Hillary Lost because she didn't WIN, not because of the color of skin.


    Okay, Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:53:06 PM EST
    If I believed that Obama's campaign had nothing to do with the nastiness, I would vote for him. But I don't believe that. I believe that Axelrod had an army of astroturfer's sitting by their computer's getting IM'd the latest talking point. I believe that Obama never actively tried to silence the cacophony of attacks on Clinton. I believe that they manipulated a willing media and the public to discredit their opponents. I believe that Obama's campaign used the fact that he was black and the public's anti-racist instinct to tar his opponents as race-baiters (at best) or racists (at worst) in order to win the primary. I believe that they consciously divided the party in order to win. How can I vote in favor of somebody I believe did this?

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:32 PM EST
    All you had to do was spend a couple of weeks at Kos a few hours a day at the height of the purge, and you could see it: The talking points were all the same, and they changed at once. It was like watching a school of fish change motion simultaneously. And if you tried to engage any of them, it was two exchanges, they were out of ammo, and "Bye! You're a racist!"

    There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Kos was AstroTurfed -- and with the Orwellian screens that Larry Johnson got (propagating "false information IIRC), among others, it's clear the Kos sysadmins, and therefore Kos, were in on it.


    It is kind of funny (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    how BTD and Jeralyn have been gently trying to coax people into the GE and Obama support mode. I think it is safe to say that most are not ready for that, if they will ever be!

    But I do want to say that I appreciate the heartfelt seriousness about the general election from BTD and Jeralyn. There are also some commenters here that are very genuine and intelligently argue (andgarden, squeaky, others) about their desire to elect a democrat no matter what.

    I'm feeling guilty now about my Obama Outrage and will go off to ponder.

    The "bubba" magical mystery force (3.66 / 3) (#101)
    by wurman on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    It was rumored to me, by people in USAF uniforms who may have known, that when the Clinton admin. took office in Jan 1993, that the VC-25A aircraft known as Air Force One were jokingly referred to as "Bubba 1" for Pres. Clinton & "Bubba 2" for V-Pres. Gore.

    There is a way in which some elements of the Democratic Party power structure see Bubba 1 as out of the picture because he cannot run for president again.  Foolishly, Bubba 2 was vilified & character assassinated into oblivion by a vengeful media & a great deal of half-hearted, mumbling, fumbling support from power elites who bought into the "warm buck of spit" mode.  [aka J.I. Lieberman]

    Now, the same group is at it again with Bubba 3; i.e., Sen. H.R. Clinton.  

    My concern is that the not-so-democratic wing of the Democratic Party will succeed at their task of purging the bubbas from their "new" coalition, and it will become an operation of no interest to me.

    And it is genuinely hilarious, George Carlin type of hilarious, that the members of a group who like to describe themselves as the "creative class" made such an effort to drive Bubba 2 out of the party--he of one Oscar & one Nobel & still "creating."

    Sen. Obama's supporters cetainly pwn3d all the available meglomania in the room.

    About Carpetbagger (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Kevin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    I don't agree with BTD's assessment of his claims.  She did mention the civil rights movement, woman's suffrage and Zimbabwe in talking about the Florida vote.  She did it repeatedly, talking about how important voting is, drawing together her point (counting Florida and Michigan as is 100%) and the other movements.  It isn't a false reading of her statements.  She may not have said "Florida = civil rights", but this is politics, and her speeches had very specific goals.  

    Don't even pretend you don't see this.  You keep blasting Obama supporters saying they're so delicate that they don't realize politics are going on, yet you pretend that Hillary had no intention of comparing those struggles with her own in those speeches.  Sure.

    She mentiuoned them (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    She did not compare them to Zimbabswe.

    Indeed, it was one of hte ugliest bits of lying and flasehoods I have yet seen in this campaign.

    Ezra was the ringleader in the Wonkosphere, one of the ugliest moments of the campaign.

    I am still enraged by it.

    It is when any respect I had left for them went pout the winddow.


    So what if she HAD said it? (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    I would agree with her 100%.  You can't simply not count votes of people in a democracy because you're not in the mood, or there's some BS technicality you can hide behind when you're afraid you're going to lose.  

    I live in a state that's used good-ole-boy excuses to block women candidates for a long time (Tennessee, which has never had a woman Governor or Senator, which has only elected five women to Congress - ever, and which currently has a whopping 15% women in its state legislature.)  

    Having campaigned for women candidates here, I for damn sure feel that this issue has a lot to do with suffrage as well.  How exactly do you think folks who abuse power do manage to stop non-GOB candidates from being elected?  Abuse of technicalities, among another zillion tactics.

    Frankly, were the shoe on the other foot and HRC flatly blocking the counting of votes, I can just imagine the hysteria from people accusing the Clintons of bringing back Jim Crow, the poll tax, etc.

    The hypocrisy of some Obama supporters on this issue is absolutely breathtaking.  


    Don't be silly. (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Exasperated on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:09:50 AM EST
    This is silly.

    People keep saying united party when Obama is supposed to unite the nation.

    We are supposed to be Democrats here, given that you are a Democrat. If not, then well, case closed.

    Anyway. The Democratic party and its fat cats did not write off Mi./Fl. to keep people FROM voting. What kind of foolishness is this to think this was meant to disenfranchise people.

    FLA/MI wanted an earlier vote so they could influence the nomination. The DNC said, no way take THIS SPOT. Allowing them their vote.

    FLA/MI Fat Cats decided to say, you don't rule us and changed their date against strong appeal, admonitions and threats.

    To no avail.

    There was a ruling and there you go. The candidates pledged to abide by the ruling, all of them, and off the primaries went.

    Until Mrs. Clinton was losing. She decided to continue to bring anarchy into the process.  FlA/MI started this whole deal (including the Fla Governor) and Hillary instead of playing nice with the others, painted her political war wagon with Count the VOTES.

    There are major problems with ALL of this. BUT to suggest that the DNC tried to, before voting even began, get Obama elected, or to disenfranchise folks, is going to hyperbole.

    This is not an easy solution.

    But the problem is that we are supposed to be Democrats. We need to work together to fix the problem, not run away from it eating popcorn, promising to watch.

    We watched last time. Mission Accomplished, our chum re-elected.

    We have to do better than this.

    I have sat on this site all night reading, answering and becoming not frightened, angry, or more upset at this infighting (you chaos freaks be damned) I have become inspired.

    This is not the fight we are supposed to have. Whatever aegis we are under thinking that we are all jerks, or worse and thinking all of these sometimes pertinent, yes, jibes and slams and smears are has been working. Up till now.

    We ALL have our problems. But this is supposed to be the party that strives to make things better for everyone. Everyone.

    It's not going to make things better to have John McCain in the office. Not in the long run.

    The task is to put a Democrat in the office. We have strong candidates and if Barack completes his task and gets the nod, he will work for the good of the people.

    If Hillary somehow makes it, She will be good too.  You know she'll work her heart out. But know this...Barack will too.


    Are you talking about the posters here or (none / 0) (#40)
    by bjorn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    BTDs post?  Or Steve Benen?  I can't tell who you are calling stupid...I guess that makes me stupid.

    Please name 1 President (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    elected for 12 years.  More fear mongering.  McCain doesn't scare me, not with a Dem controlled Congress.  Obama scares me, with the prospect of another Carter Presidential legacy.

    Exactly why I'm working on downticket (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    races, instead.  I think that your candidate would need checks and balances, by means of a stronger Dem presence in Congress, just as much as McCain would.  

    So that works for me, either way.  As for the next 12 years, nope.  If a shock gets the Dems to get rid of Dean, Prima Donna Brazile, et al., it would be in far better position to win back the White House from the GOP, whose policies will fail.  And since your candidate is too comfy with too many GOP policies, that takes me back to putting my energies into downticket races. . . .


    GOP policies? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:33:04 PM EST
    So, THAT's it.

    You are going to vote (or not) so that McCain gets elected so that we can have however many more years of GOP luvvvvin'.

    Because you think Obama is too GOP?

    So, you are going to (metaphorically speaking) take your perfectly good heart out, though you don't like the way it beats sometimes, and replace it with the Jarvick Seven, so that you can get a new transplant heart heart that will - you think - solve all your problems.

    This is tolerable?

    I'm just seeing where the battle lines have to be drawn here. Because if you are going apoplexic, the election is not going to be as easy as WE DEMOCRATS thought.

    If we have to battle you guys through the general election too, we will. It'll suck, as we'll be hacking at our own legs that have decided to kick us and run away.

    Shabby, Shabby thought.


    At least you didn't say Roosevelt. (none / 0) (#69)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    Carter is still doing damage to Democrats (none / 0) (#188)
    by lily15 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:53:39 PM EST
    And you are exactly right.  A vote for Obama could be as damaging as a vote was for Carter.  Despite being a Democrat, Carter was a disaster as a President and did a lot of damage to the country and the Democratic party.  If people vote Democratic down ticket and Dems increase their congressional majorities, a McCain presidency might not be as damaging as an Obama presidency...especially if things get worse.  Obama's advisers do not give me confidence.  I do not like Susan Rice.  I do not like any of Obama's people.  And Republicans can't afford to continue more of the same policies. What Obama has done in this campaign is demonstrate a lack of leadership and a lack of principle.  

    oh geez, wake up! (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    I don't care what the Obama supporters forget or don't forget. I don't care about Obama genuflecting.

    Don't you get it? He's shallow. He's a lightweight. His apologies mean nothing, his words mean nothing. He means nothing -- and that's why he's going to lose. Do you think the Republicans don't notice the intellectual mush he's making?

    You said you no longer needed women, older voters, Latinas, etc.

    The kids wanted to be in the driver's seat and push mummy out of the car.

    Ok. I'm out. I'm getting my popcorn and I'm going to watch. Good luck! And push in the clutch when you want to change gears!


    First, Crow, (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oldpro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    you'll have to explain to them what a 'clutch' is.  They think they're driving an automatic!

    I expect all the gears to be stripped while they drag the gut (or is it the strip?)

    As the neighbor kid used to say..."whatever."


    Uh... No one said that. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:36:12 PM EST
    Please finish your popcorn before the election and come and vote democrat when the time comes. We do need you.

    Hey, just do us a favor...

    If you are going to go watch, could you at least wish us luck.


    It won't be our fault when Obama loses. (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:12:43 PM EST
    It'll be his own.  And the likes of Brazile, Dean and Pelosi's.

    Oh, and folks like you who claim he's above reproach when his campaign tactics have been reprehensible.


    Mahn, what is the deal? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:43:17 PM EST
    Why can't a guy play by the rules?

    You guys are trying to out and out hijack the democratic party.

    It really suck though, as there are millions of people who were going to play by the rules.

    How is it Obama's fault that Hillary and her campaign changed the rules during the campaign?

    Ferget the reproach thing...people in campaigns say stuff.

    But when anarchy starts to take over THAT's when we have a problem.

    Paranoia and is leading some to throw away their Democratic ideals.

    That's not reasonable.


    Not sure you can find anyone (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    who really gives a sh!t what Obama supporters forget.  Start searching now and you might find someone before your retire though.

    Is everybody frightened yet... (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by katana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    Do you really think the Obama supporters are going to foreget what you've done (if it happens) in 4 years.....not likely.

    Ah, another Virtuous Cavalier canters in on his Unity Pony--to threaten us.  Since his clones have already warned us that McCain will continue the war forever and make abortion illegal, Subroutine is too shrewd to play those cards, so he turns over his ace:  Obama's supporters will remember!

    Is anybody quaking and quivering yet?  Is anybody breaking into a sweat because our Virtual Cavalier will not forget?  Does anybody need a Prozac?

    What has happened in the last couple of weeks that has stimulated all these fevered Obama bottom-feeders to visit TL?  I mean, we've always had our share of belligerent Obama disciples, and though some of them still do their usual barking and growling, others at least try to pretend that they need our support in the fall.  They try to pretend they understand our frustration and rage.

    Oh, well, everybody needs a hobby, and our visiting Cavalier--like so many of his ilk--has two: gloating and threatening.  Character traits that are considered admirable in his circle, if not in anyone else's.


    There are some rational (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:50:01 PM EST
    "agree to disagree" Obama supporters here.

    Just so you know, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    This poster is an impostor.

    Can you see the likes of Rush Limburger reeking through the words?

    I do like some good blue cheese.


    Um (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    He means all of us.

    that is what I thought, (none / 0) (#51)
    by bjorn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    I guess I was hoping he or she would see that they are the stupid but your mirror comment did that much better, as usual!

    Stupid keeps good company (none / 0) (#136)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    no (none / 0) (#169)
    by gentlerabbit on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:06:23 PM EST
    he could kiss my bfwd, and the answer would still be no.  no class, lazy, mean, intellectually stupid man.  he doesn't even deserve the time of day from me, so don't worry, he won't be getting any vote he doesn't want.

    At this point, isn't it scorched-earth campaigning (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    to not be advocating for FL/MI?  Obama's scorching his own earth.  Or, um, not in the way of the fire his own inaction is helping to politicize.

    I am a gardener and (none / 0) (#123)
    by camellia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    on many gardening websites you are asked to indicate in which climate zone you live, so that other gardeners can evaluate your situation and make appropriate responses.  It occurs to me that it would be extremely useful if we could use a similar system here -- name, plus (age).  It would be very helpful in making an evaluation of the post.  (OK, I'm not serious, before you slam me.  Although come to think of it ....... )

    party, but did some person or persons mentioned here actually frame the widespread repudiation of Obama as being due to "emotional" and non-"rational" factors?

    I'm sure that was not the case, was it?

    Heat, but no light (none / 0) (#152)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    I expect there's heat on both sides.

    G'night to all.


    I would take McCain over Obama. (none / 0) (#148)
    by AX10 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    Given that this scenario is NOT my first choice.
    The dismissive "elitist" attitude from the Obama camp must be punished.  Also, I have experienced the same nonsense that many around here have all because they support Hillary instead of the chosen one.  I was in Philadelphia working for the HRC campaign for the primary.  We were heckled, we had bottles thrown at us, we were even run off the sidewalks into moving traffic.  It reminds me all to much of Bush's 2000 campaign.
    McCain and his supporters have been far more gracious than Obama and company.
    If the left winger can befriend Sullivan, then many of us can go with McCain.  The difference is of course, that McCain has many redeeming qualities as where Sullivan does not.

    BTD (none / 0) (#149)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:11:59 PM EST
    ...and for the record, I think the world of BTD.

    Thank you, BTD, for the (sometimes contentious) forum!

    never gonna get it (none / 0) (#163)
    by gentlerabbit on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    Sorry Paul, A-ObamaNation ain't never gonna get my vote, never!  He's done nothing short of destroy the Clinton's because he thought he needed to do surgery to separate some of the blacks still loyal to them. Unfortunately, he did manage to do that to many of us, but there are some of us who are still loyal.  Unlike say, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and several others who have jumped ship like the ugly stinking rats that they are.  Whining, crybabies, making deals with the devil. There has never been any thought as to what to do with my vote.  If I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, then I won't give my vote to Barack Obama.  The man doesn't even have one tenth the experience of this woman.  He is intellectually lazy, a mind dead beat, dishonest, as well as a few other things I could think of.  I cannot in all good conscience vote for this man.  While voting for him might help keep Shamus McShame out of office, it would also put someone else who is more eminently not qualified there, and I can't be part of that.  So, I will be keeping my vote at home and no one gets it.  

    I hope you cn see your way out of this morass (none / 0) (#191)
    by Exasperated on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    You have placed an opinion upon someone, exactly the same lies that kept us down for hundreds of years.

    Please break your cold heart. What you say is not true.

    Find Obama's podcasts as a Senator. listen to them. Read his books.

    There is depth there. Courage and wisdom. There is experience, more than a tenth.

    IF things go wrong, he can change direction and humble himself, and say he was wrong.

    The problem we have is that, no one knows how the wind will blow past a few days. Hillary doesn't know either. But rather than have someone who sees things in black OR white, I think it's time to see things through the prism of what our country truly is.

    The hope we need, but it is US who are here to make it happen.

    Please, before you go away, just delve into this man's story. It's there for the taking.

    Ask to see what HE has to say rather than everyone else. You will find a better person and one quite capable of leading us to do better.


    Thin skin (none / 0) (#175)
    by Exasperated on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    It hurts.

    But golly, leaving the Repubs with that for fodder seems a lot less lewd than the detritus Obama had gotten.

    It's an election. Are you a democrat or not?

    Not saying, step in time, but come on... Kick your heels up!

    Not voting for Obama to spite the Democrats (none / 0) (#195)
    by pr1 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    is crazy.  On so many levels.

    Hillary deserved to lose to Obama because 1. She voted for the resolution of force against Iraq 2. She supported pandering legislation that even her defender Paul Krugman doesn't, like that idiotic gas tax repeal.  However, she's an alright person, I guess, and doesn't need to be dragged through the dirt any more than she already has been (or at all, for that matter).  It's just, Obama was the better candidate.  He stood up for more things Democrats believe in.  If we nominated a president who voted for that resolution of force, we wouldn't be offering a very big break from the last eight years, would we?  Someone mentioned Democratic leaders needing to hold a mirror up to their faces.  Well, Hillary should, too, when pondering why she's probably not going to be the nominee this time around.

    I'd imagine what should happen with Florida and Michigan is that the Democratic leadership will find some way to hold out until the end when Obama will win anyway (we may be there now), and go ahead and reward the votes proportionally from Florida and convene some special action to re-tally Michigan.  That way these two states' parties can be punished (no, their votes really didn't matter), but we don't punish the voters as much if we actually record their will and seat their  delegates.  If it would change the outcome, they probably shouldn't count the vote.  We can't just have a do-over, and that's not really fair to Obama voters either in Michigan or Florida (who might have stayed home or abstained) or elsewhere, since he operated under the assumption that their delegates wouldn't be counted.

    To cover other concerns, Obama is more electable than Hillary by multiple metrics:  He receives less scrutiny from the press because he has a positive perception rating.  More people like him than dislike him; more people dislike her than like her..  He actually beat Hillary, so he's apparently not as naive a young politician as the Hillary camp would like to portray him.  He does better in a national head-to-head against McCain than Hillary.  He actually competes for McCain on a key constituency -- independents.  No independent is going to vote for Hillary -- she just might hold together a few marginal followers of her cult of personality who would switch sides if she lost to Obama.  Obama probably has a similiar number of myopic supporters, so in my opinion, that's a wash, too.  The election is a long way away, and he has the opportunity to come back in swing states that swing slightly more in favor of Hillary than Obama in respective head-to-heads against McCain.  Obama also brings his own swing states to the table:  Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and possibly even Virginia are a lot more likely to vote for Obama over McCain than Hillary.  Right now, he's still winning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and narrowly in Michigan.

    Ok, ok.  All those arguments aside, here's why you should really vote for Obama over McCain:  McCain supports the Bush tax cuts.  That will hamstring any social policy that needs to be done over the next four years.  McCain supports doing pretty much what Bush has done about the war.  Voting for Obama would BRING OUR TROOPS HOME EARLIER, CAUSE LESS VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, and DISCONTINUE THE FISCAL DISASTER that the war is to us.  Obama has a federally subsidized health plan that, while it does not require all Americans to seek coverage, is a lot more of a sensible solution that McCain's health savings accounts.  Finally, McCain wants to stack the Supreme Court with anti-Roe v. Wade judges.  Think about this, if you're a woman, perhaps of the same proud generation as Hillary, who lived in an age that accorded significantly fewer reproductive rights to women, who may think it's crass and cheauvenist that Clinton has been "cast aside" by the press and perhaps some pundits as the nominee:  Stevens will be 92 in four years, Kennedy 75, Ginsburg 79,  Breyer 73, and Souter 72.  Some of them will be replaced by the next president, in all likelihood.  Obama is pro-choice.  Are you really going to vote according to primary campaign politics in leiu of a reality that plays out in a field of pain and death?