More Deep Thoughts

Atrios writes:

Deep Thought

If the fine people of Puerto Rico don't vote for Obama in November, he's doomed.

Here's a deep thought - Democrats making fun of the votes of the American citizens in Puerto Rico is not going to help Barack Obama win the votes of Americans citizens from Puerto Rico residing in Florida, New York, Massachusetts and yes, even in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

I expect this type of stuff from NBC, not from so called progressive blogs. Yes, I found it offensive.

Speaking for me only.

< The DNC Doesn't Want to Count Michigan's Popular Vote? | RCP Updates Its Popular Vote and Delegate Totals >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Shallow thought: (5.00 / 20) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    If Atrios and other Creative Class types weren't so into their Clinton hate, they'd stop being so blasé about Obama's chances in November.

    And yes, not insulting Puerto Ricans would be a good start.

    Why Wouldn't They Insult Puerto Ricans? (5.00 / 30) (#35)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    Like older women, Appalachians, and the non-AA working class, they voted for the "wrong" candidate.  So, of course, they must be awful people. Or as Molly Ivors wrote:

    It's been especially perturbing to see the same lines of attack coming from the right and the left. One friend even said "Gee, I wonder if she really did kill Vince Foster?" in a bizarre recursion that proves that, if you dislike someone, no attack is off limits.  I see sneering at those making less than $30K a year, at those without educations, even though they're registered Dems voting in huge numbers in the primaries, because they happen to support the "wrong" candidate, for what must be the wrong reasons. I see regular abuse of women, particularly older women, from people who know better: sly comments about the "Menopause Caucus" and idle banter about "The Pantsuit Riots." And I'm not getting into the accusations of racism, which started long before there was any actual evidence to support them. But then maybe I've been to too many rock shows to hear all those imaginary dog whistles.

    And, of course, in addition to insulting the voters themselves (an interesting way to bring "Unity" and get votes), they also continue to insult Clinton even as they claim her campaign is over (which is also interesting since presumably that means they've already won, so why bother?).  In addition to this very deep thought from Atrios, he also offered another one, saying that a party with Lanny Davis, Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe would be a lot of "fun," meaning, of course the opposite.  Because those are awful Clinton people.  Whereas I'm sure a party with David "Corporate Astroturfer" Axelrod, Donna "Screw the Voters" Brazile, and Austen "Privatize Social Security" Goolsbee would be a true affair to remember, with excellent food and only the best people, dahlings.  None of those hillbillies and Puerto Ricans.  Those racist, uneducated idiots!


    Amen! (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:31:06 PM EST
    Wish I could rec this post 1,000 times!

    Without Hillary and Bill, imo (none / 0) (#95)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    there would be no Barack Obama. He has many of Bill's people from 1992/1996. To not give them their due is ludicrus. Hillary, I believe, has shown what a well-rounded, well-informed, tough fighter and the most able of all around her to become the next POTUS.

    Black's angry online persona (none / 0) (#154)
    by datadriven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:39:43 AM EST
    is rather different from the Milquetoasty Philadelphia resident. Something of a Rick Moranis ("Honey, I Shrank My Vita"), the actual guy appears to be to be more of the anxious self-conscious ex-academic. Back in the last "Golden Age of the Internet" you'd see colleagues blustering and pounding away on the USENET groups who would later self-destruct during tenure proceedings. Of course, Black would have to have a for-real tenure-stream position to have a T&P review.

    There are about as many and perhaps even more (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:29 AM EST
    Puerto Ricans living stateside than in Puerto Rico. That was a stupid comment from someone who wants Obama to win in November.

    The fly in the oink'ment for Oboiz and RandyGrrlz (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:35:20 AM EST
    Tips of my tropical-fruit piled hat to you and BTD for cutting through the smugness.

    What's going to bite deeply into the self-congratulating @sses of the clowns at the head of Creative Class is that their expectation of presumed power to lead the way-cool scene directly rides on being able to influence parties and groups they deride.

    I'm not mind-melding but basing on observation of their behavior that, like their counterparts in the Dems, their puffery is inflated by being taken "seriously" by long pants media.

    But the long pants media aren't respecting these doofuses so much as exploiting them to carry slop from the Obama campaign, which the media can then primly convey -- through snarky letters planted on their blogs from aides and other invested parties -- with an Oh No They Didden! smirk.

    It's a form of political capital and media currency based on faulty notions that credibility and reputation are self-renewing tangible assets rather than an organic principle that must be fostered and maintained in order to be drawn upon.

    The Creative Class has blown through their accrued credibility during (Obama's words) the Spring Training and vigorous workout provided by Hillary. They haven't even made for the 162-game season, post season, or October.*

    Of course, the presumed pot at the end of the rainbow, where everyone gets access, cred, gold and Sody Pop Points, depends on TeamO actually winning.

    At some point, the bandwagon filled with this merry fife and drum band will have to start shouting the following to the substantial number of activists, Dem loyalists and other discarded presumed peons: "Hey a$$holes, push harder or else!"

    Or else ... what??? Atrios is going to typify my pseudonymous handle snidely and my self-esteem will collapse?

    I can safely predict surviving that ignominy and going months, maybe even years without engaging in an online parry of calling them Poopyheads back.

    I freely admit that I'm as much of an online doofus as any of the FPs or commentary gaggles among poliblogging Oboiz and RandiGrrlz. I've snarfed Cheetohs but I don't subsist on them.

    But the difference is, my huge ego isn't precariously teetering on the transitory and dubious success of destroying "my" candidate's rival in a primary campaign. My creative cred and fortunes aren't dependent on propping Obama into the WH.

    In short: I may indeed suck, but they suck more.

    And * yes, BTD is the Straw that Stirs the drink!


    i do not hate the clintons. (1.00 / 7) (#36)
    by cy street on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:14 PM EST
    i voted for both.  what challenges me in the present is their disregard for what is best for the party, versus the house of clinton.

    the house of clinton has put itself ahead of the party since wisconsin.

    there will be no change from then to a week from now.  obama will attain the delegates needed for the nomination as projected back then.

    for someone who has worked for, supported through impeachment, donated to, and voted for the house of clinton, the question is why tear apart obama?

    we will not agree, but the answer seems obvious:  so he will lose.

    i recognize this is not a shared sentiment in these parts, but it is not hate, it is disappointment.  i have lost faith in the clintons and question their political efficacy much like a connecticut senator.

    pardon the breadth.  we agree on puerto ricans and the island.  they are both beautiful.


    Oh the drama (5.00 / 16) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    How you must have struggled!

    Why tear apart Obama? He hasn't been torn (5.00 / 18) (#65)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:41 PM EST
    apart.  He hasn't even had a glove laid on him.  The Clintons have been torn apart, shredded, vilified, burned at the stake, crucified, and any other gross and inhumane thing one can think.  Obama has been given a free ride.  But just wait until the republicans and their 527's get hold of him.  As far as your comments about the 'house of clinton," what I see is a stunningly intelligent woman who cares deeply about our country, who wants everyone to do better, to have more, to live the American dream.  And President Clinton was one of the best presidents this country has ever had.  And what he has done in his post-presidency puts the others to shame.  Not to mention that the "house of Clinton" has a beautiful, intelligent, caring daughter who should be a role model for many.  You are filled with Clinton hatred and it shines through in your post.

    If people can disagree why can't the Clintons? (5.00 / 23) (#71)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:39 PM EST
    And does it never occur to you, that Hillary Clinton could think that her winning the nomination is what is best for the party? Can she not think that she is the better candidate? Can she not do the math that shows that Obama has NOT won yet?

    You think because they disagree with you that somehow that is damaging to the party? It does NOT damage the party for candidates to compete for a nomination. It does NOT damage the party for her to stay in the race until someone actually wins. It damages the party when people assign motivations to others because they have a difference of opinion.

    When you pick a side and then decide that someone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, but must be out to hurt the party, you are the one hurting the party. Because your side is clear, you are either with us or you are evil. Thats been the Repub song for years now and I didn't like them singing it and I sure as hell don't like Dems singing it.

    Perhaps that is lesson some of those in the House of Obama still need to learn.


    I'm sorry to inform you (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM EST
    but the "House of Clinton" IS the Democratic Party, always was and always will be. HRC has said on numerous occasions that she will support and campaign for Obama. I took him forever to say the same and then only because he got pinned down in a debate and it was kind of wimpy. The Clintons have been loyal Democrats and have been vilified by the corporate controlled media and the uninformed.

    Um... (1.00 / 3) (#85)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:38 PM EST

    The Democratic Party was successful LONG before the "House of Clinton" and will be successful LONG after  the "House of Clinton".

    And some call Obama arrogant...


    Not presidentially (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:13 PM EST
    Prior to Clinton, FDR was the last multi-term Democratic president.

    Your definition of "long time"... (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:52 PM EST
    ... is severely short and mistaken, in my opinion.

    Wasn't Harry Truman a Democrat? He was a multi-term Democratic President, taking over for FDR in 1945.

    Here's another take: The Democratic Party was successful before FDR and will continue to be strong long after Clinton.

    Do you get the point, or do I have to go back to Andrew Jackson in 1829-1937?

    The Clintons are NOT the Democratic party.


    Harry Truman Was Elected President Once (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    in 1948.  

    The only Democrat to be elected more than once to the presidency since FDR is Bill Clinton.

    Not that the Democrats have been good at picking Presidential winners generally.  Since January 1969, we've had a Democratic President for a total of 12 years.  Or as one of the protesters put it on Saturday, I'm paraphrasing, "those idiots in there have given me 2 winners in 40 years."   After watching yesterday, I'm surprised we managed 2.


    Funny... (none / 0) (#114)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST
    ... and true.

    So sorry I mis-spoke (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:55 PM EST
    Prior to Clinton, the last president successfully ELECTED more than once TO THE PRESIDENCY was FDR.  Truman took over for FDR, but was only elected president once.  He could have run for a second term under a grandfather clause.  However, his job approval rating was 23%

    We've had only 2 Democratic presidents in 40 years.  That's 12 out of 40 years.

    I really don't call that success.  Democrats aren't very good at choosing candidates, the current one being a case in point.

    However, I'm not sure why Obama supporters are so angry these days.  Don't they realize their guy won the nomination?


    The Clintons (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    have always supported the Democratic Party, its policies and its candidates. If it weren't for Bill Clinton, you wouldn't know who Donna Brazile is. Damn him for that.;-)
    And you can take the personal insults to the orange balloon.

    Personal Insult? (none / 0) (#103)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:28:32 PM EST
    Who did I insult?

    The numbers don't bear your theory out (5.00 / 12) (#105)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    Apologies to the poster who posted this yesterday -- it was so impressive that I am stealing your numbers for my response as well.

    Number of EVs Needed To Win the Election:                            270 Votes
    Number of EVs Carter got in 1980:     49 Votes
    Number of EVs Mondale got in 1984:    13 Votes
    Number of EVs Dukakis got in 1988:   112 Votes

    Total Number of EVs for Democrats:   174 Votes
    1980 to 1988

    The Democrats would not even be a viable party today without the very successful two-term Clinton adminstration, IMO. Clinton brought the party back from the edge of the grave.  Dean, Brazile, et al seem to want to drive a stake through its heart.


    Yet, you see enough what in (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    the Obama campaign to lock your alliance to their train?

    If the Clinton campaign wanted to tear apart (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by bridget on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:01:36 AM EST
    Obama they could have pushed the Wright story much earlier into the limelight, say in October, before the elections. Obama wouldn't have gone nowhere after that. It would have been over for him pretty fast.

    But they never did.

    One of the senior political analysts on CNN, a woman whose name I can't remember right now, said exactly that after Hillary won big in WV. She said Hillary would have been the Dem nominee but now it was probably too late.

    One thing is for sure, Hillary did not run a negative campaign but Obama did. It worked for him.


    motivation (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by DefenderOfPants on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    it's amazing how many people think they have an insight into her psyche.

    Debate (4.87 / 8) (#82)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:56:06 PM EST
    When has debate ever been destructive? When has the exchange of ideas and thought been divisive? Maybe in Obama land but not in the United States.

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:17 AM EST
    Here's the funny thing, you know that guy Markos, he was talking today about how Obama got 20 minutes of free airtime.

    A positive byproduct of a competetive primary.

    Could it be that his hatred of the Clintons prohibited him from making an easy corallary, that had Clinton suspended after Wisconsin, Obama wouldn't have gotten the airtime he got today?


    Anyone that (none / 0) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:30:53 AM EST
    consistantly repeats "the house of Clinton" is an Obamatroll and not worth listening to.

    Seeing the light, drinking the Kool-Aid, & CDS (none / 0) (#157)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    tend to lead to commenting of this type.


    Of course, all these citizens need to do is move a US state for a short while, register to vote, and, bingo, their votes DO count.


    This is typical.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    ....of their behavior and attitude, which is why "unity" is going to be impossible.

    Father Pfleger comes to mind....typical Obama supporter if you ask me...and I heard callers (obamabots) on the radio saying they thought it was a hysterically funny thing Pfleger said.

    Its not us...its them.


    That's a pretty ugly remark... (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:16 PM EST
    ... from Atrios.

    If a Clinton supporter had said that about the Virgin Islands, all hell would have broken loose.

    He may actually have a point..sort of (5.00 / 11) (#16)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    If none of the Puerto Ricans living in the US vote for him, and their non-PR friends don't either, there goes the Latino vote. Add that lost demographic to the bitter, clinging, typical whites, and the gays, the Catholics who were offended by Father Pfleger, and the Jewish demographic that doesn't want to vote for someone endorsed by Hamas, and who is left?? AAs, college kids who won't remember to vote the undercard if they remember to go vote, and a couple of guilt-ridden liberals. That isn't enough to win an election for dogcatcher, never mind the President of the US.

    And speaking of the Virgin Islands.. here is a little family story about them..sort of. My sister was going to the US Virgin Islands on vacation when she was in college, and was telling the parents about her plans. My father looked at her and said, "Virgin Islands, huh?? Are you still eligible?? Will they let you in??" We all cracked up. He was pretty cool for a Dad in the 70's.


    Oh my lord, these people (5.00 / 19) (#4)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    dismiss every single voting group that doesn't choose Obama.

    The Yuts (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:01 PM EST
    You forgot the yuts.  Sorry, I'm one of those uncouth non-yuts, ahem, I mean, youths. :)

    Yoots (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:38 PM EST
    or Yutes.

    Great movie!


    You say tomayto and I say to.ma.to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:53 PM EST
    ;)  lol.  The Yutes have it. ;)

    I loved that film as well.


    Pshaw, everyone's got yootz (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:02 AM EST
    It's usually in the last place you look (or if you're not chronologically a yoot, CAN look.)

    the sad thing to me in this campaign (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:34 PM EST
    is seeing the aa's voting against their own interests and against a candidate who always supported them. yes, i can see the pride in having an aa candidate stand for president. but then ask what has he done for me and what will his policies do for me and mine. critical analysis seems to be missing with some voters though there are many that will say that isn't the case.

    i would never have voted for hillary just because she is a woman. she had to pass a number of tests with me. the dumbing down of voters in general has always worried me. issues voters think in terms one thing generally and are deaf to other frequently more important issues.


    I Totally Understand It (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    If I were an African American living in Mississippi, I would have probably voted for Obama.  Why?  Because one of the best things that could happen for me is a change in the culture and I would see his election as possibly bringing about such a change.  Even if it's a small improvement, it's still an improvement.

    It's why I think it's also perfectly okay for women to vote for Clinton because she's a woman.  After seeing all the misogyny the media has spewed, a change in the culture is desperately needed.  It's not crazy to think that electing a woman to the highest office in the land will change the culture and help women.  It won't eliminate sexism anymore than electing Obama will eliminate racism, but an improved culture for an oppressed group is still an improved culture.

    I've been having a hard time finding anything to be happy about in a potential Obama Administration.  The only thing I can think of is how happy African Americans are likely to be on January 20, 2009.  Sure, he'll probably throw them under the bus on January 21, but on that one day what many probably thought they would never see happen will happen.  It's like seeing gays get married vs. talking about it.  Those wedding photos of those first marriages in Massachusetts showed so much happiness that it made me happy because a group that has been beaten and killed and discriminated against got a little happiness for themselves.  

    I'm going to re-register as unaffiliated.  I'm not giving any official Dem. organization a dime this year.  I may yet not vote for Obama.  But I refuse to take out my anger at Obama and the Democratic Party on African American voters.  That they will finally get what they apparently want is the only good thing that could come of this entire mess.


    I dread the potential fallout (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    if he loses.

    His candidacy is a gigantic risk. But I essentially agree with what you write here.


    If Obama does not get the nom. and (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:24 PM EST
    people riot, then what was his candidacy really about.What about Hillary's bloc of voters, will they take to the streets. We either are civilized or we are not. Using the reason that someone should vote one way for that reason is blackmail and is therefore illegal. After the 2000 election, the country went on. The SD's have to live with their votes, whatever happens!!!

    Donna Brazile has said on more than one (none / 0) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:30 PM EST
    occasion, "there will be blood".

    The Obama people have been preparing for months. What does that tell us?


    that tells me unfortunately (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
    that a deserving aa candidate won't receive serious consideration for a long time thanks to the racist dog whistles and division from the obama campaign.

    Great quote (none / 0) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    ALI: ... It's important to discuss issues of gender. But never conflate - it's very risky to conflate the candidates with race or gender. You can be a white male and run for presidency and fail, and that particular president has failed, and we move on. If you run on your color or on your gender and you fail, then it's all black people who fail as presidents, weren't - not good enough--

    MAHER: Right.

    ALI: [overlapping]--or all women who are not good enough. So, I would say, issues of race and gender are very important, and we still need to resolve those issues, but never conflate the candidates with it. [applause]

    AYAAN HIRSI ALI on Bill Maher


    I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:20 PM EST
    But Ali is a little interesting. . . She was bankrolled for a time by the American Enterprise Institute and she's made a cottage industry out of telling right wingers how evil Islam is.

    I know, but was still think (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST
    her point is valid.  Heh, women and minorities should have as much right to fail as mediocre white guys without their whole "group" taking the blame.    

    The "Creative Class" ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:03 PM EST
    of course.

    Which as far as I can determine doesn't include people who actually create things for a living.


    Reminds me (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:57 PM EST
    of a joke by a past school-teacher turned standup comic.  Comic was  talking about the really positive words that parents see on their children's report words and telling us what they REALLY mean.

    One was:

    Creative --> sucks at math.

    Laughed my head off, for some reason ;-).


    they're (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST

    Does anybody even (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:30 PM EST
    remember anymore how the fine people at DailyKos and TPM couldn't unload enough disgust over how the Clinton campaign was supposedly dissing people in small states?

    For example, from DailyKos, back in early March, when it seemed so outrageous (and politically convenient):

    How Many States Has the Clinton Campaign Dissed??

    Just couldn't get too much of the meme at the time from them.

    And now we have the august Atrios piping up with this dismissive junk -- not to mention the heaps of contempt the DailyKos and TPM crowd have shoveled the way of various types of people who don't seem to like their guy. And of course which is worse: to talk about how small and/or Republican states aren't as critical in a Democratic primary, or to single out classes of people -- working class people, older women, Hispanics -- and show them complete disrespect?

    Funny how all that changed with the political winds.


    IOKIYAO is the new IOKIYAR (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:07 AM EST
    It's OK if you are Obama.

    but (none / 0) (#70)
    by dogooder on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    they aren't a "voting group". Puerto Rico doesn't get to vote for president in November. That was the point...

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    We all got Atrios' joke.  However,their family living in the states vote.......

    I think a good approach to winning elections... (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    ... is to be less cavalier about all the people you invite to vote for the other guy. I do hope Obama will win, but if he doesn't, I'm not going to have much sympathy for all the people scratching their heads and wondering how all those uninformed voters in all those demographics they didn't need somehow decided they were elitists.

    You are speaking for me too, BTD (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    - it is offensive and un-American.

    Typical (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    deriding attitude  they have had all along. Pompous arrogance.  Very insulting.  Very typical.

    This is your (5.00 / 13) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:31 PM EST
    new Democratic Party!

    Cue thunderous applause. Or not.


    I agree (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:44 PM EST
    except it is not "my" Party anymore....

    Aren't Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    ususally pro-Puerto-Rican statehood?  Why the change?  ;-).

    Atrios:  Yet another narrow thinker.

    I am shocked (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    that you are shocked by Duncan's smugness, BTD. He's been going on like this for months. It's quite off-putting, and I have really decreased my trips there (and so many others ...).

    His posts on Philly and economics are still interesting, but he has gone into the arrogance deep end with respect to the primaries.

    I don't recall (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    the left blogs being so divided and I've been around awhile. Atrios was one of the bogs I read daily. Now he is no longer even bookmarked.

    I am so sad (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    about the pod-person who has stolen Atrios' brain.

    Does he really think that there are no Puerto Ricans in America?

    Has he ever BEEN to New York? Or does he just stay in his little palace in Philly, congratulating himself on his roofdeck all day long?


    Saw lots of PR flags today (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    walking through a part of my 'hood to a mtg. I had never been out in that direction that I can recall. Larger population in my little neck of the woods than I originally thought.

    Today (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:33 AM EST
    Geraldo was having a grand old time in Old San Juan. It was actually kind of nice -- he seems to have found his old brain and old personality back. Don't know how long it'll last but he was clearly happy to be there.

    One of the stats he showed was that 70% of the people in Puerto Rico have family who live in New York. And a disproportionate amount of Puerto Ricans are in our armed services fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If both of those points aren't enough to show some respect to the people of Puerto Rico, I dont know what is.


    Puerto Ricans (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:43 AM EST
    Living in PR (2007 est.):     3,994,259
    Living in the US (2004 est.): 3,800,000

    The mainland figure has likely increased since 2004.


    Today was the first day of events (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:38:14 AM EST
    that will continue until next Sunday when the parade is. The music festival is held in my 'hood next Saturday. It's a very big deal around here. Ton's of PR pride for everyone!  :) The flags on the cars started popping up a few days ago. Usually my first clue an event's coming up.

    What states besides NY have a sizable PR (none / 0) (#159)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    population? Anyone know?

    And, while probably not a "voting block" in those other states, they can still be voters and make votes that count. The primary attention can only be good for the Dem Party--if they don't blow it.



    Florida, for one (none / 0) (#162)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    The "A-list" (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by dk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    are nothing more than cheerleaders now.  Their credibility is shot; the days of "reality-based" are over.

    The problem for the next few months, of course, is that when they bash McCain, why should anyone believe them?

    I don't think they will bash McCain (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    They seem to believe he has no chance of winning.

    And that Obama will coast to victory.

    They'll spend most of the summer talking about Obama's re-election campaign in 2012.

    I'm only kinda joking.


    Coasting To Victory (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM EST
    You must remember, Barack Obama has never lost an election.  Well, except for all the primaries that Hillary has trounced him in.  Those, of course, are viewed as anomalies by the Obama campaign, as they are happy to prove with tortured numbers and twisted logic.

    I don't think he and his supporters take into consideration the possibility that he will lose.  

    I also think they're in for a heluva shock in six months.


    He lost running for a hosue seat in IL (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:44 AM EST
    I haven't looked into it, but now I'm kinda curious as to why, lol!~

    Obama didn't campaign hard enough (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:10 AM EST
    per some report I read of his run against Bobby Rush.  Must have been like the Bataan death march of  the Chicago wards for Obama, who found this campaign such harrrd worrrk even after a couple of months.

    And we're only halfway to November.  


    He lost in the only election where he had a strong (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:44 AM EST
    candidate running in opposition. It was a Dem primary, but his opponent was local, much better known, and won handily.

    He wiped out the opposition for his first state senate run by challenging their petition signatures; thereafter, he was essentially unopposed for that seat. Somehow, both the strongest candidate in the Dem primary was wiped out and then Repub opponent was wiped out, both by court ordered leaks of their divorce papers.

    BTW, legal beagles, why is it that could happen? Are anyone's divorce papers open to scrutiny? If so, why were't Ronald Reagan's divulged (or were they?)?


    I Stand Corrected (none / 0) (#161)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    Thank you, all.

    I have a different expectation - (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    I have come to expect this kind of stuff from "progressive" blogs.

    Well, Atrios and his gang can laugh now, but they (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    will cry in November when Obama loses in a historic landslide.  

    I will cry when Meteor Blades (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jes on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:41 PM EST
    quits supporting Democrats and their causes. But I draw the line at biting him.

    i disagree (4.87 / 8) (#27)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:14:40 PM EST
    they will not cry. they will whine and point fingers at the "divisive" and "so stupid that they believe their own talking points" Clinton campaign.

    Their quotes, not mine.

    They are truly engaged in the process of worshipping the smell of their own farts at this point.

    Sorry if that's too off-color a comment.


    Reminds me (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    of when I worked in the corporate world.  My manager at one job (a woman) used to vent about her co-managers (men) who would all go in to a meeting room together to discuss -- um, whatever?  Of course she was never informed of these meetings.

    Anyway, she'd refer to the meetings as "a*s-licking sessions".  Not very "ladylike" (LOL) of her, but it was great for venting!

    That is what the behavior of the O-list bloggers reminds me of.


    The "fine people" of PR don't get to (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    vote in November.  I'm sure Atrios knows this.  So it's just sophomoric double-snark.

    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST
    making fun of people's inability to vote for their own head of state is REALLY FUNNY, Atrios!

    yup making fun of women, boomers, (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    blue collars, small town folks, democratic base, jewish voters and now the voters of puerto rico sure won't win any elections. and these blogs need traffic after the elections. good luck with that atrios!

    4 million Puerto Ricans (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    living in the U.S.  I wouldn't turn my nose up at them by dissing their brethren on the island.  & I think a campaign that thinks that Latinos in U.S. from different countries of origin don't take offense when a subgroup is disparaged is engaging in wishful thinking.

    perhaps the Obama stance is that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:05 AM EST
    the Puerto Ricans time is not now?

    The Dismissive (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:18 PM EST
    and rather biased remarks are not only offensive, but politically suicidal.  PewHispanic.org has lots of stats on role of Latino vote in 2008 primaries & how important their votes might be for November elections. I summarized some of the points in a diary last week.  Latinos not only 9% of eligible voters now, but they've been voting in large numbers in key states such as TX & CA & could make the difference in a close election!

    the latino vote is only getting stronger. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:16 PM EST
    these voters are typically well informed and have excellent memories also.

    the hypocrisy of progressive blogosphere (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by tarheel74 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM EST
    I stopped reading Atrios for a long long time because I found his 2 line "deep thoughts" to be reflective of the kind of arrogant hubris that doomed the Democrats every year. He just happens to be a loud-mouth with a blog. But unfortunately the proclivity of these elite bloggers and liberals to first label anyone who does not vote for Obama as racist and then now discounting large electorates flippantly alienates the 17 million people (and growing) who voted for Sen. Clinton. It is now apparent that far from having a minority problem it is Obama who has a minority problem. With the exception of AA, Clinton has won every minority group and the blue-collared Reagan democrats. The wounds of a stolen nomination or perception of that will remain. It is up to Obama and his pals to heal the wounds and woo these voters (like me) and posts like the one by Atrios only hardens my resolve to sit home and ask the people like me to do that same come November.

    Of course, the Democratic nominee (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    will be getting my vote unconditionally, but that is far from a universally shared sentiment.

    If O is the nom, he'll get mine grudgingly, (none / 0) (#149)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:12:27 AM EST
    though without condition.

    Neither Obama (as nominee), nor the DNC (as 0.5 vote counter), will get any money from me this cycle.  And that is a first since I made enough money to give.

    I'm looking to give to Senate/Congressional races.  Perhaps also to some worthy 527s Obama wants to defund.


    Atrios enjoys race baiting (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by bigbay on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:55 PM EST
    his continual mockery of missing white women in the news suggests to me he's got some serious personal issues.

    those posts (none / 0) (#131)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:08 AM EST
    are actually mocking a) the lurid news coverage missing persons in lieu of, you know, war and death and such, and b) the LACK of coverage of other, non-white missing women (who are legion).

    There are plenty of things to dislike about Atrios, but I think your criticism misses its mark here.


    Once again they demonstrate that (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    all what they are interested in doing is belittle people.  

    What motivates them to be so mean?  
    It is no longer stupidity or blind partisanship, it seems these people are deeply mean and full of hate for everybody.

    think back to school when the so called (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:14 PM EST
    "in group" enjoyed putting what they considered the lessors down. same principle!

    took him a while (5.00 / 9) (#54)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:28 PM EST
    but he finally jumped the shark about a week ago, with his inane post about "cheating." sad to see.

    Yup, he had been ok (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:43 PM EST
    no (none / 0) (#132)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST
    he had been transparently anti-Clinton long before the cheating post. he was just less blunt about it.

    Do middle aged white guys not see the implicit ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:18:46 AM EST
    ... idiocy of presuming that their female counterparts -- who disagree with them politically -- yet are within the same range of age- and flesh-tone, are old bitter racists with a vaginal dryness problem (as snidely reported at Club Cheetoh)?

    I wonder how many doughy wheezing hipsters are desperately trying to fan THAT into a scene from being legends in their own minds. (Oh yeah, barkeep, order me a Panty-Dropper and schnell so I can be a camp follower.)

    That's "rational" real-world living at it's heartiest, from egomaniacs who are clinging by a thread to their stories of basing themselves in reality.

    They're about level with idiots who tell blonde jokes with a complete lack of self-awareness that relying on humor founded on using hair color as a metric for intelligence is (a) stupider than any blonde in the joke and (b) not fractionally funnier than the joketeller's lack of irony about himself/herself.


    A few lowlights from DailyKos today (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by BoGardiner on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    From the first Puerto Rico thread I glanced at... multiply the following times gazillion:

    Poster 1:  Why is Hillary so popular there?
    Poster 2:  Because..Puerto Rico... is full of Puerto Ricans..
    Poster 3:  Puerto Ricans do not know anything today.
    Poster 4:  Ballot stuffing??
    Poster 5:  "Fantasy Island"
    Poster 6:  Bill Clinton wins Puerto Rico!  Hillary is winning there based on Bill popularity.
    Poster 7:  Looks like candidate appearances won... From the exit polls, everyone cared about candidate appearances and they voted for Hillary.

    latinleo:   VIVA CLINTON!
    Poster 2:  Bill or Hillary?
    latinleo:   los dos!
    Poster 3:  You can have 'em both, long as we get Chelsea.
    latinleo:   Viva Chelsea too!
    Poster 4:  Yes long live Clinton!   Where long = 3 more days. (7 recs)

    Poster 1:   Kenyans for Obama.  Obama would win Kenya and the rest of the Rift Valley countries by a wide margin.  They don't have electoral votes either.  WTF?
    Poster 2:   They're not US citizens.  And Puerto Ricans are.

    Poster:   Uneducated voters...Hillary's bread and butter...

    Poster:   Americans ... who don't pay taxes and reject Statehood.  I've got no problem with Puerto Rican people, per say, or the concept with them becoming either independent or a state.  But, c'mon, this whole thing reeks of a Banana Republic election.

    Poster:   PR votes don't matter.

    I feel dirty after reading (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    this list.

    They are, quite simply, not like us. (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by BoGardiner on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    It's like reading dittoheads at rushlimbaugh.com.  

    No, it's worse.  Michael Savage.

    There is, without a doubt, a truly startling difference in tone between pro-Obama and pro-Clinton blogs.

    Has ANYONE seen this mentioned in the media?


    Yes, I saw that too (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by laurie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:13:58 AM EST
    Puertoriquenos actually voted for Hillary because they recognized the Clinton name on the ballot.
     Good one.
     My thought when I saw that 72 per cent of voters had family in the US mainland, was that a lot of people had been phoning to urge their dear ones to get out and vote.
    It was wonderful listening to Puerto Rico music last night. Gracias!!!

    Shorter Atrios (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by songster on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    Obama is doomed.

    I expect this and so much worse from the socalled (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:37 PM EST
    progressive blogs. This particular Atrios quote is benign compared what's typed on these blogs on a daily basis ... the comment sections should def. be avoided at all cost.

    but even I never imagined that they would get as bad and offensive as they now are, i.e. even worse now than the rightwingers (one learned to expect Dem hating talk from them).

    the few blogs that I still check out I can count on the fingers on one hand. This saves me a lot of time but it is v. bad for the Dem party and the liberal cause.

    As lambert said (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    I liked Atrios a lot more when he wrote about economics.

    That's what the orange people say (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:19 PM EST
    about Paul Krugman.

    I hope we can all come back together again, but I doubt it.


    I Know (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    That's why it's funny.  Heh.

    Never Returning (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:55 PM EST
    I'm never returning to many of the websites I used to frequent.  I don't do business with folks who peddle misogyny and sexism, not to mention those who lie about fellow Democrats.  

    I've found a whole new list of sites, some of which supported Clinton and some of which didn't but all are reality-based and non-sexist.  The others can live without my hits.


    I figured I have more free time (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    to get stuff done. I've just found new distractions--and mosly-enlightened discourse here.

    I'll Not Return To The Obama 527 Blogs (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:06:53 AM EST
    Once a site loses credibility, there is no reason for me to go there.

    Orange People Must be Dense Then (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:56:03 PM EST
    Because when Krugman explains why he prefers Clinton to Obama (and Edwards to both), his reasons ARE economic reasons.  To the contrary, Atrios doesn't explain why he prefers Obama, let alone give economic reasons for the preference.  He just enjoys saying ridiculous and absurd things and expressing his Drudge-love by quoting the latest Drudge hit piece on Hillary Clinton.  At this point, I think the most likely reason he prefers Obama is because he believes "the medium is the movement."

    Explaining (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    Atrios doesn't explain why he prefers Obama, let alone give economic reasons for the preference.

    If you stop and think about it, almost no one gives any reasons for supporting Obama beyond the nebulous "change" and "hope".

    That's one of the reasons the Obama campaign so closely resembles a cult. Rational thinking is suspended in favor of blind faith in one man.  

    Even more amazing, they're baffled that the rest of us can't just drink their kewl ade, sign onto the ship of dreams and work our butts off for their leader.  They cannot understand why we insist on a record, some experience and a some leadership.


    Man, atrios sounds as smug as (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST
    Josh Marshall there.
    Just like W., Obama ruins all who adore him.

    I still say (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:36 AM EST
    If one was an outsider looking on the "crash the gates" movement, one would be less surprised to see what it has evolved into.

    Many progressive bloggers have lost it (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:38 AM EST
    Common sense and common decency be damned.

    They should take a cue (4.95 / 20) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    from Donna Brazile, who reminded everyone today that citizens from Puerto Rico, Guam and the other territories are risking their lives for the country in Iraq and Afghanistan just like everyone else, and that she was very pleased Hillary spent this week campaigning so hard for their votes because it's good to have them in the process.

    If she can say it, they should all be able to say it.  It's not that hard to respect people.

    But when hating Clinton is (5.00 / 21) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    your Prime Directive, then it is anything goes.

    I believe Donna B always has (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:44 PM EST
    interior motives for anything she says. She wants to play nice now, now that she needs the Hillary vote for Obama! Cynical, yes...but I've been taught very well.

    I'm mailing my voter registration change (4.83 / 6) (#19)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    tomorrow.  In Cali - from DEM to DECLINE TO STATE.
    I've had ENuF.  Atrios is just another Kewl Kid.

    Wait Until After Tuesday (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:57 PM EST
    I'm presuming you're going to vote on Tuesday?  If not, you should. There are some horrible people (Bill Johnson in Los Angeles) and things (Prop 98) on the ballot that should be opposed.  Don't mess with your registration until after you vote.  

    Then mail your registration change.


    I'm voting on Tuesday! (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:51 PM EST
    My registration change is for the Fall elections.  I'm a DEM until my change takes effect in November.
    I'm planning to write in Hillary, unless Obama does something miraculous.  Never McCain.
    Also, being the cranky that I am - I always vote NO on propositions - they are poorly worded, misleading  bunches of garbage!

    Same here! (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    Tomorrow I have to go to the post office and while I'm there I will pick up two registration forms.

    I plan to become an independent voter and remain so until the Democratic party, my home for upteen million years, reforms its primary process.  The ridiculous vaudeville act of the 2008 primaries has pushed me over the edge.

    I never thought I would do this, but then I never thought I'd be so disappointed in my party.


    Amen to that Radiowalla! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    Pot... (none / 0) (#88)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:06:09 PM EST
    Please tell us where that link goes (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:29:15 PM EST
    I try to be selective in who I give hits to during this primary season :)

    You Tube - (none / 0) (#113)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:23 PM EST
    Suitable for Work.  No profanity.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:56:28 PM EST
    saw that one and the one of the teacher who ended up with bruises being removed forceably by security for chanting "Denver".

    You deserve mojo. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    but I absolutely abhor Donna B.  Just reading her name increases my blood pressure.  What an abominable hack!

    My Mom is a life long Republican (4.91 / 12) (#18)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    who thinks Nixon was scr#wed over by the media, asked me why if Obama is supposed to be the nominee he can't win a big race.

    She also is appalled by how unfairly she thinks Hillary has been treated.

    Unity indeed.

    I think she is right. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    My knowledge is fairly limited, since I am not American.  But from reading and seeing the typical US magazines making all excuses to say 'Camelot', I think Jack Kennedy was a media darling, and Nixon was hated by the media.  

    Although JFK had many accomplishments to his credit when he ran, even though he was so young.


    Nixon (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
    If you can look past Watergate and some of the underhanded, nefarious things that the Republicans pulled, Nixon had a good record with civil rights and foreign policy, other than Viet Nam which was a disaster that he inherited from the Democrats.

    Nixon (none / 0) (#67)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:04 PM EST
    If you can look past Watergate and some of the underhanded, nefarious things that the Republicans pulled, Nixon had a good record with civil rights and foreign policy, other than Viet Nam which was a disaster that he inherited from the Democrats.

    PR residents should get to vote in the GE (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:28:08 PM EST
    and hopefully will soon.  

    But for now they do not.  My only point is that it not consistent for folks to diminish the importance of the Obama's red state wins while trumpeting Hillary's PR victory.  Neither will add electoral votes to the Dems in the fall.

    Mr. belittle people got his feelings hurt. (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by halstoon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:28 AM EST
    What a shame.

    I'm sure all the PRs living in the states are daily Atrios readers, btw.

    It's not a blog (none / 0) (#15)
    by facta non verba on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    I ever visited. A Philly blog, right? Influential? By what metrics or standards?

    Just curious. I know little about Atrios.

    As a repeat commenter, I was (none / 0) (#21)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    surprised to get this message just now

    Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added


    Banned from Atrios? (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Jim J on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    Is that even possible, considering all the total doofuses that post there every 30 seconds (Frist!)

    I think I read the comments there once (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:23 PM EST
    Never again--what chaos!

    do you know what you posted that (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:40 PM EST
    ended with such an unfair result?

    False Alarm?? (none / 0) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    I think the problem is with Haloscan/AOL (it happened numerous times on Steve Gilliard's blog)

    I just posted a comment successfully outside of AOL


    I don't know who this Atrios, Duncan person is.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM EST
    but what credibility did he have before that people are focused on the dumb things he is saying now?  Did he used to be a great progressive blogger? Or has he always been kind of a jerk?

    Well.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by daria g on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    He's always been a bit.. confrontational.  But he was one of the first, his blog's been around since.. 2003, at least?  A couple years earlier even?

    i am showing my ignorance but watb? (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:29 PM EST

    see (none / 0) (#78)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    ok! not impressive! thanks (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#89)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:25 PM EST
    No offense but you've really been taking Atrios a bit too seriously lately. His blog is one endless loop of in-jokes and mostly unserious remarks, with the occasional point-and-laugh about flippers getting burned in Orange County real estate. I'm sure you know this, but really, even he admits (and often, at that) that his blog sucks.

    Yeah (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:50:56 PM EST
    he also posted the doctored Mickey Kantor video and pushed people to complain that Obama was mis-treated by ABCNews....never said a word about MSNBC and Clinton's mis-treatment, go figure.

    He's an O-list blogger, just pretends to be cooler than the rest.  In the end, he's "teh awesome fauxgressive" just like the rest.


    phooey (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    Atrios takes himself very seriously and takes considerable pride imagining himself to be the smartest guy in the room. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

    BTD, did this get explained to your satisfaction? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:50 AM EST
    Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
    A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention.

    Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February;

    (held January 3rd)

    that theNew Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February;

    (January 8th)

    and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

    (January 26th)

    In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

    Why were FL and MI punished, but not IA, SC and NH who were also too early?


    But he does get quoted a lot by fellow bloggers (none / 0) (#110)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:41:01 PM EST
    looks like he is a member of the "in crowd"

    and no mater if smart or not - just like anywhere else - once you are in you are in ;-)


    I used to visit Atrios/Eschaton (none / 0) (#134)
    by MisterPleasant on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:35 AM EST
    to read to monumentally crude exchanges between Anne Coulter and rock critic Steve Simels.  The fact that she was stupid/brave enough to keep coming back for more was hilarious.

    I certainly never visited for the political insights (as if there were any there).  Once the primary season got going I left in a jiffy when the kool-aide crowd took over.  


    That's Right (none / 0) (#116)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:48:58 PM EST
    Every time someone lampoons an argument you make, whole swaths of the American electorate will refuse to vote for Barack Obama.

    What would be helpful is if you have any polling data to back that up.

    gosh the vapid yuppies are so clever (none / 0) (#120)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:59:00 PM EST
    with their snide remarks about blue collar workers, women, latinos, puerto ricans, appalachians, and any other group that doesn't worship at the alter of Obama. They got us on that one. Gosh, I wish I were as clever as them.

    Oh, My... (none / 0) (#139)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:17 AM EST
    This brings back such fond memories.../snark

    please tell me this was snark! (none / 0) (#141)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:37 AM EST
    for someone who has worked for, supported through impeachment, donated to, and voted for the house of clinton, the question is why tear apart obama?

    there has been the occasional snide comments about sen. obama, usually in reference to his total failure to know anything about anyone he's associated with for the past 20 years. hey, he opened the door.........................

    aside from that, jeralyn and BTD have been pretty consciencious about enforcing the site rules, and most of the posters themselves have been more than charitable in their comments about him and his campaign. so your allegation holds no water.

    geez, no one here has to say anything, the sen.'s campaign is imploding all by itself, with no help from anyone.

    and wait until the repub 527's sink their teeth into him, it won't be a pretty sight, assuming he is the eventual dem. nominee.

    Nevermind.... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    what some knucklehead blogger said, what is really offensize is that Puerto Ric ans can't vote in the general.  What's up with that?

    If you are living under the federal govt's thumb, you absolutely should have the right to vote to choose whose thumb you're living under. This is an embarassment for a supposed great democracy.