home

What's Next for the Hillary Haters?

I'm not into post-mortems and haven't and won't be writing any about Hillary's campaign. As I said Saturday, I'm moving forward, just like she asked us to. But I like this part of Richard Cohen's column today in the Washington Post and thought I'd share it:

I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, thousands of computer keyboards have been stilled, dozens of books have been abandoned in mid-chapter, and enormously influential bloggers, most of them unknown to me, have vanished from the Web. Some anti-Hillary obsessives (see the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) must be feeling the sickening vertigo once experienced by Vaughn Meader, whose entire show business career was based on impersonating John F. Kennedy and who, in essence, died when Kennedy did.

It's over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.

The hateful attacks that have appeared in comments at TalkLeft have slowed down. My intolerance for those who continue to post them has risen. I'm erasing these users rather than deleting their comments one by one. Life is too short to be consumed by irrational hate.

(Comments now closed.)

< Changing Times | Faith to Play Big Role at Democratic Convention >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Wow. Vaporized. Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM EST


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 23) (#2)
    by suki on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    I want to thank you again for the moderation here.
    I can't imagine the time it must take you, but I appreciate it very much.

    It was unimaginable (5.00 / 22) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    how much time it took, probably 2 to 3 hours a day. Every day for the past few months.  That's time I so much rather would have spent writing -- or just living. I am so done spending five and six hour stretches at the computer....

    We also now have a fair-minded comment moderator who has been exceptional. S/he can delete comments and also makes recommendations to me as to who should be banned. If I agree, they are banned or gone. S/he has also cleaned up older threads deleting comments I missed with hateful or obscene language.

    Thank you for appreciating it.

    [ Parent ]

    They'll find something else to hate. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Artoo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    People who hate irrationally will continue to do so. They'll just find a new target.

    welcome to the light (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    Richard.  took you long enough.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    hasent Richard Cohen (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    been pretty hatefull for most of this campaign season.
    particularly to Hillary, or am I thinking of someone else.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he has (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    contributed his fair share of Hillary bashing. Ugh...

    I don't believe any of these guys sudden "enlightenment" ...

    Maybe the WasPo has seen their reading rolls decline....  

    [ Parent ]

    No idea. I thought maybe (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    you were quoting Star Wars!

    [ Parent ]
    It's not just the hate - though those are the (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    most prominent examples.

    The haters were the outriders on a wave of media-driven, media-generated and media-responsive audience participation.  The silence you hear is (a) the sound the voices of the crowd (among them the haters) being still while waiting to be told the next chant to chant and (b) the media trying to figure out what the next chant will be.

    It's like at a ballgame, where every now and again a silent moment will open up.  The alert (loudmouthed and inclined-to-rabblerousing) fan can seize that moment with a quick one-liner and change the whole tenor of the crowd's reaction to the game, at least for an inning or two.

    So, this silence is the opportunity to set in motion the narrative against McCain.

    Or Obama.

    Depending on who grabs first and most effectively.

    The analogy (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by eric on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    to spectator sports is a good one.  I just wonder how long these people will stick around waiting for more action before getting bored.  Time to move on to the next fad...

    Look, over there....the new iPhone!

    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't it be nice if someone with (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    a positive message grabbed the initiative, intead of someone just hating on the opponent?

    Oddly enough I once had hopes we could have a positive campaign this year.

    [ Parent ]

    Note, Hillary 2012 is a big Obama fan (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    who has been handing out 1's to Hillary supporters like candy. His/her nasty comment was intended to tar Hillary supporters by association.

    I hate that tactic. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    I'd never dream of going to another site and pretending to be an Obama supporter just to troll. What on earth does that prove and who does it help? Just disgusting, probably Republican astroturfers trying to put us off voting for anyone at all >:(

    [ Parent ]
    Pitiful confession (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    What's an "astroturfer"?  I missed the meme on this one....

    [ Parent ]
    astroturfing... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    description can be found here.

    [ Parent ]
    Astroturfing.. (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    is an organized, planned action that is meant to look like it's a grassroots type of thing.  It's used quite often when describing the Obama campaign.  LOL

    [ Parent ]
    Thought this might fit into this (none / 0) (#166)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    discussion, I believe they're doing it on the phone calls for money as well.

    Obama on the internet

    [ Parent ]

    Astroturfing (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    is when a group hires people to run around promoting a product while pretending to be regular people who just "discovered" it. You used to see it a lot on forums and webboards in the 90s, when a bunch of new posters would show up and loudly praise a new movie, tv show, shampoo or whatever. Over and over and over again, on lots of different websites, and all using the same wording or linking to the same sites. Drove me crazy when I started modding on LJ in 2002, delete delete delete, arrgh. Part of why many sites require log-ins now.

    The Republicans are classically good at astroturfing in real life, and I always suspect anyone going way over the top against Dems on the Internets is getting paid by the word. :)

    Astroturf-wiki

    [ Parent ]

    vaporized (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    including his comment ratings.

    [ Parent ]
    Concentrated and widespread effort (5.00 / 4) (#228)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    through the blog-sphere.   They steal usernames as well and post  simultaneous and coordinated messages from a known Hillary supporter stating a "sudden change of heart seen the light for Obama" etc etc etc. It is pathetic. But make no mistake it is infesting every site that was (or is)  supporting HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    It seemed to me that the Obama haters (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    always far outnumbered the Hillary haters. FWIW, I never was a hater of either. I would have happily voted for Hillary had she won the nomination.

    I'm glad to see that the comments that rant about Obama are being deleted now too.

    As noted in a recent diary on MyDD, there could be as many as six Supremes appointed in the next eight years. The youngest members of the court are Alito, Roberts and Thomas. We can't afford any more Republican appointments at this point, and this goes way beyond Roe v. Wade.

    What planet are you from??? (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    Lots of people here don't care for Obama's politics, but the hate is nothing like what was directed at Hillary. I think NoQuarter is a site whose comments are similar in tone to the front page and recommended diarists at DK, a site with millions more page views.

    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by eric on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    it's the tone of the comments that were different.  The anti-Hillary comments trended toward personal attacks, sexist language, and generally unwelcome nastiness.  As I've said many times, many commentors didn't seem to even understand the acceptable bounds of political discourse.

    Also, there is no question about the volume...there were literally LEGIONS of anti-Clinton forces out there with talking points to spread around far and wide.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, people could not distinguish (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    between political judgments such as "Obama is not qualified to be President", and  references to Monica L., etc.

    [ Parent ]
    i assume he was referring to this site (none / 0) (#63)
    by tben on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    not to the blog world in general

    On this site, Obama haters took over. Although the front pagers were restrained, the comment section became one long antiObama rant that went on for months.

    Maybe people felt that they had a right to act that way because they were being treated that way elsewhere, but all they did was sink to the same low level.

    [ Parent ]

    People didn't like his politics and didn't (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM EST
    trust him. That is a very far cry from what happened to Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    People having a criticism of Obama found a moderated space in which to voice it and discuss it respectfully.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm. Overly-generous. (3.50 / 2) (#118)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    To who, to what? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    to the site.....to respectful?  There wasn't any other place on the net where someone could support Hillary Clinton and talk nitty gritty about the issues and not be totally wailed on for it.  Because of that dynamic the site became very pro-Hillary.  It was need based.

    [ Parent ]
    My perception: some of the comments (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    about Obama and Michelle have gone beyond respectful disagreement.

    [ Parent ]
    Could be (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    I tend to write off things over the top as someone blowing off a little steam, and if something like that was posted I tend to ignore it.  I have my fave commenters here that I tend to be drawn to and read most of their posts because they are often balanced and knowledgeable and make observations I often miss.  I probably selectively missed a lot of over the top.

    [ Parent ]
    How many times was Obama called a liar (1.00 / 2) (#232)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    with absolutely no evidence in support on issues concerning Wright and Rezko?

    tben is right. The comments section of almost every front page article was one long diatribe against Obama. This went on for months. Anybody who opposed it was a "chatterer" and was silenced.

    [ Parent ]

    For comparison, I think saying that (4.42 / 7) (#72)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    Hillary is a warmonger is a very strong attack (which I disagree with) which is NOT an example of CDS. A comparable criticism of Obama is that he could not be trusted on Social Security. Obama supporters would not agree with that criticism, but it was not an expression of irrational hatred---it was grounded in real world data.

    [ Parent ]
    Word (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Laertes on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    Yeah, I was bitterly disappointed when Obama adopted Republican talking points about Social Security.  That is, in my view, one of the biggest mistakes he's made so far.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    Let's hope that the Dems in the Senate actually do their job and block unacceptable nominees.

    [ Parent ]
    Which side had more haters? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Laertes on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    It's really quite simple.  People who enjoy poking at the other side will mostly hang out at the other side's blogs.

    So if you mostly hang out at Pro-Hillary blogs, most of the haters you see are going to be Anti-Hillary.

    So yeah, the Clinton supporters think that there were more Clinton-haters, and the Obama supporters think there were more Obama-haters.  Given where each was likely to hang out, they're both right.

    [ Parent ]

    I wandered away from dkos (4.00 / 2) (#215)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    cause the hate language that was being bandied back and forth and the conversation would be spiraled down into a weird, nasty version of moms and combat boots.

    Though...I will say that the HRC haters seemed to out number the Obama haters...there were just more of them.

    [ Parent ]

    But the real question is, can you (5.00 / 19) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    do anything about Richard Cohen, who didn't have much nice to say about Hillary, but seems to have conveniently forgotten his own contributions were not as high-minded as he thinks they were?   Perhaps he is projecting his own wistful longing for Hillary-as-target onto those other people.

    I would like to think that this part of his piece was pure snark, but I'm not so sure:

    As for me, I too have been critical of Clinton. My columns, of course, were a model of rational thought and cool analysis, and were based entirely on the issues, such as they were. For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

    Even with his minimally self-deprecating disclosure, if Cohen's op-ed came with Scratch-N-Sniff, the smell of hypocrisy would make your eyes water.


    who will be the first to step (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    forward and say "I was the irrational one"?

    [ Parent ]
    I'll step forward... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    ...to admit that I reacted to hostility with hostility. I don't think I'm irrational, but I recognize that I am biased. At least part of my hostility toward Obama is an irrational dislike of him because I simply don't trust "movements", and I see a number of his follower's (not all, but a significant number) as being members of a personality cult.

    I find myself diminishing his accomplishments, although there are valid reasons for some of that, not all. I

    At the same time, I try to counter my biases with reasons. I may not feel that Obama is charismatic (I've watched him, he doesn't thrill me), but I recognize that he is because millions think so (isn't that the defnition of charisma?). I have learned that he is quite intelligent. He has participated in community service, and appears to have a basically good character. These factors are not enough to overcome my doubts, but at least I recognize that he is a multi-dimensional person and understand why he appeals to so many people. I do not believe that all Obama supporter's are blind cult followers or fools.

    [ Parent ]

    He Is An Idiot In General (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    Not that I read him much, but when I have it has been poor.

    [ Parent ]
    Hopefully (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    Hopefully they will now focus their energy on getting as many good Democrat's elected in November. If we're lucky we might even end up with a few that have the spine to stand up even if it's not the easier route. The Congress we have right now disgusts me.

    Here's what I hope happens to them (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mickeleh on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:16 PM EST
    What I hope happens to the Hillary haters is two-fold.

    First, they should acknowledge that many members of the media attacked her with mockery and gender stereotypes that are cruel, nasty, and shameful.

    Second I hope what happens to them is pretty much the same thing I hope happens to the Obama haters. They should both stop hating. Both camps should recognize that, while they differ passionately on who should be the Democratic nominee, they both are both fighting or very similar agendas.

    I will never firget (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    obama hate, to the extent it exists, was reactive TO Clinton hate.

    Let's not pretend anyone started out hating obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah.. (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    I agree.  I don't think anyone hated Obama until the campaign became about beating Hillary and not winning an election.  

    [ Parent ]
    Think first! (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    There are no Obama haters, unless you are republican. Hillary supporters dislike Obama supporters for their nastiness.  Obama supporters take our honesty about Obama as hate.  It's not.  It's like turning away a fresh out of college kid, that doesn't have any experience mangaging 5 ppl under them , let alone a country.  It's natural rejection due to experience.  Even though, Obama supporters wish it were about racism, logic and bitterness, but it clearly isn't.  It's like a child being told, no more candy on Halloween night when they have a full bag of it sitting in front of them.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's over but I need some answers please (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Saul on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    What were the final totals?  Please fill in the blanks for both sides Hilary, and Obama in the following categories:

    Popular Vote Count

    Delegate Count (No Supers)

    Super Delegate Count

    Also am I correct to say that the Super sand not the regular delegates ended up choosing the Dem nominee?

    Thanks!

    The popular vote ... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by eustiscg on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    is, of course, very contentious.  Here's a nifty Excel sheet that allows you to explore all 972 ways of counting it.  (It was originally posted pre-Montana/SD, so you may need to add those in by hand.)

    [ Parent ]
    Superdelegates (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    definitely ended up choosing the nominee by swinging to Obama between May 31-June 3. But we all knew that's how the nom would be decided, becaues neither could possibly get enough pledged delegates to swing it on their own.

    I understand some people have been spreading rumors that Hillary has released her pledged delegates to Obama, which she hasn't. Just in time for the state conventions, so the final count probably won't reflect the actual primary results. Sad, really, reminds me of 2000.

    [ Parent ]

    Its not that simple (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by CST on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Unfortunately, given the rediculously idiodic nature of the democratic primary system, none of those answers are straightforward.

    Popular Vote - There are many different ways of counting this number.  Do you include caucus states where there was also a primary?  Do you include caucus states where no vote totals were released?  Do you include Michigan where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot?  If so, do you give him the uncommited or some share of the uncommited?  For many different answers, see realclearpolitics.com or the many posts here debating the issue.

    Delegate Count - A little more straightforward, except what do you do with Edward's delegates and what about Hillary's pledged delegate who switched?  Realclearpolitics gives Obama 1766.5 and Clinton 1639.5

    Superdelegates - As far as I am aware, not all of them have even declared yet, and a number of Hillary's switched after she dropped out.

    Finally, the superdelegates did decide the nominee, although they decided in favor of Obama who was ahead in pledged delegates.  The supers just put him over the top to clinch.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny coming from Richard Cohen, (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by nulee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    while I would not call him a hater, and don't have the examples at my fingertips, I don't think he can be remotely credited with having a grip on the sexism in the election.

    What's next? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    I suppose the focus will be on McCain the Hun.

    There hasn't been much to crow about when you look at Obama's actions and statements over these last few years.

    So, I guess we'll just have to go after McCain.

    The mainstream media won't chime in though.
    They're as much stuck on McCain as they have been on Obama.

    It doesn't look as if ending the war in Iraq is of much concern to anybody.

    What a country.

    What's next for the Hillary haters? (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    The ones on the loonosphere have already said that if he doesn't win the election, her career is ruined.....

    If it were any other politician, I'd worry, but we're talking about Hillary, not Kerry.

    I don't understand this (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    Obama is the candidate. It's his job to rally the troops, not her's. I don't understand why she should be responsible for whether he wins or loses.

    Actually, that isn't true. I've been browsing Daily Kos, trying to understand what happened. It is amazing. It seems to be taken more or less for granted there that all of the nasty accusations about Clinton running a racist, divisive campaign are completely true. They even buy the "assasination" meme, even though even the supporter's say that she didn't actually say anything wrong - but they just know that she meant that she hoped that Obama would be assassinated.

    [ Parent ]

    The malaise (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    of 0 tolerance for crticism (of almost any kind) for the favored candidate while assuning all kinds of lisence in making attacks on the rival candidate has been going on for a while now.

    And the "hate" (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    is almost always rationalized as being in responce to, or reaction to, PERCIEVED hate.

    If you're the percieved recipient, it's "hate", if you're the purveyer it's "outrage" and "indignation".

    [ Parent ]

    This primary caused (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Electa on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    entirely too much divide and ill feelings on both sides.  I just we can put the anger behind us and do what's best for the party and the country.  Let the healing begin with me, if I offended any of Hillary's supporters, pls. accept my sincere apologies.  I personally experiences from friends and family how deep the emotions ran.  Although, I supported Barack, I didn't support his blunders and was blind sighted to the extent that Barack could do no wrong and even when Hillary was right or her policies were more favorable to me than Barack's, many close to me would get angry at me.  For instance his small town peoples remark pissed me off because I lived in a small town for 13 years and it was the best quality of life I've had.

    As a fellow commentor remarked the potential SCOTUS vacancies are far more important and too crucial to have a republican get into office.

    It's time for a truce.

    I'm all for supporting my country (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    And to do so, I don't support the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    HuffPo (5.00 / 11) (#48)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    I went from reading HuffPo several times daily to never looking at it. It really went into the basement.

    I don't think I'll ever look at it again.

    I'm sure that many read it, but I have wondered how many people might have been similarly revolted.

    huff po (5.00 / 12) (#93)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    kos, america blog, tpm - all hate swamps. that hatred will eventually eat them alive. it's been quite the wake up call for me.
    i now see how the R's see us - hateful hypocrites. I also understand their feelings about the media. Our own party is not very progressive at all.

    [ Parent ]
    wehn I used to hang at Americablog (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    there would be hundreds of comments in every thread.
    it is now down to tens.
    it doesnt look like the traffic has dropped as much but the comments have died.  its always the same five or six angry people.


    [ Parent ]
    Looks like Obama is a uniter after all (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by Palomino on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:23:37 PM EST
    Seems he's uniting half the Democratic Party with the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    Took a broom and swept my bookmarks clean (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    Bah. Don't need the clutter on my browser or in my head.

    The sites I kept have commentary I enjoy reading regardless of which "side" it's on. I like strong voices, diverse subjects but specialty in a fascinating area is a bonus, wit.

    Long walks in the rain, brunch and lazy Sunday afternoons ...

    [ Parent ]

    Cheap Progressivism (none / 0) (#212)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    Well if people can take this atheist quoting Bonhoeffer's description of cheap grace:

    Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. 'All for sin could not atone.' The world goes on in the same old way, and we are still sinners 'even in the best life' as Luther said. Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world's standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin.

    I can't help but notice the similarity to the cheap progressivism practiced by so many this primary season.

    [ Parent ]

    HuffPo, it makes me see red (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    that HuffPo articles appear on the GoogleNews page.

    What is THAT all about??

    [ Parent ]

    'Breaking news and opinion' -- HUH??? (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    An opinion so important, we interrupt this continual coverage of the end of the earth upon the impending meteor crash ...

    Arianna: and hov'bout that suit Hillary was wearing was all wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    HuffPo (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by noholib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    I too was revolted.  I also dropped HuffPo cold turkey some months ago ... same for DailyKos; and of course, MSNBC and most other political coverage on television in fact.  I don't think NPR distinguished itself either in radio, though it's not usually quite as bad as the others.
    Hey, re: blogs, does anyone know if it's safe to sneak a look again at buzzflash, truthout, or commondreams?  Frankly, I've been afraid to look for a long time.  
    I'm also not rushing back to some of my regular liberal-left magazines that I used to read regularly.


    [ Parent ]
    I won't go to Huffpo, Americablog, TPM, (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM EST
    Dailykos, Atrios anymore. That's a partial list.


    [ Parent ]
    I can't give up (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by eric on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:13:49 PM EST
    Atrios no matter how hard I try.  He wasn't a hardcore Kool-aid drinker, so I didn't get nearly as repulsed.  The other sites named are also off my list.  TPM will be the most missed.

    [ Parent ]
    truthfully I hadn't been reading atrios (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    much anyway.
    I think the times have passed him by.
    Only digby still seems relevant to me, out of the original crop of bloggers.
    Atrios was very good at his best though.


    [ Parent ]
    Digby is the cream of the crop (5.00 / 3) (#237)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Buzzflash is still atrocious (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Palomino on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    I won't go there, and I've given up Truthout and Common Dreams for the time being, too.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for tip (none / 0) (#244)
    by noholib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    OK, Palomino, thanks for answering ... good to know that I should maintain my distance !

    [ Parent ]
    Me, for certain (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    In the beginning it was pro-Obama with only an occasional pro-Clinton bit showing up.  I could handle that, as I generally like to read a lot of different opinions.

    Then I noticed all the pro-Obama opinions were all the same -- He's so awesome!  He can draw a big crowd!  He can draw a really big crowd!.  That was boring.

    But then the comments turned nasty and vitriolic.  Not just rude or annoying.  But something really dark and scary had been tapped.  When the threats to riot in Denver if Hillary 'stole' the election (this was before she won Ohio) started, I was outta there.

    Ironically, I'm still not sure what I was disgusted by more -- the fact that threats to riot were made, or that I suspect that the threatmakers were too cowardly to actually carry them through.

    [ Parent ]

    Unity (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    If the Obama wing of the party has room for the Evangelical's, surely there should be a small corner someplace for those that admired the Clinton's for their positive contributions to the party and country. He needs to finally lead and insist that his followers get with the unity program. They're delusional if they think they can win with a fractured base.

    Their irrational hate (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    is rational in their eyes because they have the likes of HuffPo, DK, Americablog....the list is pretty long, that "validates" their "rational" behavior.

    I liken this to what we call in the south "home training".  The posters who post comments that are vitriolic don't have any "home training" because they don't know any better.  They think that what is acceptable in their trailer park is acceptable at the mall.

    No home training.  

    Authoritarianism (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    I've been studying this phenomenon for a while now, after I first read about it on Orcinus. The entire right-wing movements is based on authoritarianism. They believe because their friends and families believe, and they reject anybody who doesn't believe, thus ensuring that their belief system is not challenged. They choose leaders who reinforce their biases, and then accept new ideas, sometimes contradictory, that reflect the views of their leaders. They have no trouble holding differing views in their minds at the same time.

    I'm seeing the same pattern among Progressives. Actually, I've seen it for quite a while, but it is becoming more obvious. It's not that the large blogs cause this kind of thinking - it's more that people who are inclined to authoritarian thinking are drawn to echo chambers, where their views will not be challenged. They don't want to even try to see the other side. People who are not prone to authoritarianism will be repelled by this and tend to leave the site, except for a few contrarian souls who don't mind getting beat up a lot.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe a little OT (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Blogblah on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    Even as an Obama supporter, I "lurked" over here for months precisely because I wasn't happy about being subjected to the misogyny I was reading.

    It occurs to me, though, that the blogosphere is a very special place in many ways and that the Law of Unintended Consequence is an "Iron Law."

    What I mean by that is that the 'net is dominated, in terms of numbers, by males and often younger males, and that the vast majority of them, even the ones who are politically active, use the 'net for porn sometimes or often.

    Most of those guys see dipping their feet into the porn outlets as basically harmless.  

    To me, however, it seems likely that there's a carryover from the objectification of women on the porn sites and the misogyny we all saw in the campaign.

    I'm busy practicing law in Oklahoma, but I'd sure like to be able to test that theory.  Anybody got grant money?

    Thanks, Jeralyn, for this site and your hard work.

    UGH!! (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    What a nasty comment.
    Is this the kind of vindictive gloating and middle school level snideness we can expect from Obama supporters now?

    Remember that 1Jane is working for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    whether she knows it or not. It's comments like hers that take people who are on the fence off of it. She's trying to keep the rift open.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if she is the commenter I (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    am thinking of, she works for the insurance industry and spreads misinformation which supports Obama's plan.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes they all do it (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    For the record, my cult days are over and I only ever supported Obama because he was looking like he was going to be the nominee.

    Quite talking like you're speaking to a whole movement when you're talking to one person.

    Hooray for OUR side.

    [ Parent ]

    that comment has been deleted (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    for insults

    [ Parent ]
    It's still there (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    It was overwhelmed by "everybody be nice so that Clinton supporter's can heal and recover from their bitterness" for a bit, but it seems to be returning with a vengeance. I don't think this is over. Initially, Clinton supporter's were welcomed back, but the presumtion seems to be that they are only welcome as long as they join the Obama chorus. Saying that you will vote for him in spite of your misgivings is not enough. You have to believe. There are still some trying to counter this, but they seem to be outnumbered the same way the rational Obama supporter's were outnumbered by the fanatics during the primary.

    Stalin's Cult of Personality (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    And Mao's.

    It's not enough to just not criticize, or even to praise.  You must praise loudly enough and relentlessly enough and enthusiastically enough.

    At least DKos and ilk can only virtually annhilate the sane, rather than disappear them in the middle of the night or send them to the gulag.

    Not that I think virtual annhilation is any picnic, but hey, I'm trying to be positive.

    [ Parent ]

    For one thing (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    We're talking about two different people - Hillary and Obama. What is true and a valid criticism of one is not necessarily a true and valid criticism of the  other.

    are you going to (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    tell me what the definition of obscene is next?

    [ Parent ]
    True On An Abstract Level But (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    Utter BS in terms of Jlivingston's comment and what goes on here by some. A few of the most ardent Hillary supporters take regular license to trash Obama, and from my point of view it is exactly like the irrational Hillary hate many claim to have escaped from Obama blogs.

    It must be a reptilian part of the brain that gets activated in a small minority of the population, much like those who hate the Yankees with a passion but loooove the Mets regardless of how well or poorly they are playing.

    [ Parent ]

    So address those when you encounter them (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    Or don't. [/meh]

    This basis for spreading around "equal" blame on the presumption that the sides were equal in number -- or in degree of derangement is false. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

    For long and short pants media, apply a nutcracker / lawn jockey ratio if you need simple formula for where to place blame and how much indignation to apply when doing so.

    [ Parent ]

    What a crock (5.00 / 7) (#195)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    from my point of view it is exactly like the irrational Hillary hate many claim to have escaped from Obama blogs.

    Have you ever seen a Hillary supporter use the word n*gger? Wish for Obama's painful death? Obama blogs and commenters used the most disgusting and vile misgynistic attacks against her they could think of. It makes me literally ill to even think about the ugly things the O blogs said about her.

    No, sorry, if you POV is that there was equal hate on both side, your POV is skewed. Badly.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    Richard Cohen wrote that, especially this part:

    It's over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.

    Hmmm.  I didn't realize he was such a fan.

    I hate the way Obama supporters ... (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by cymro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    ... cannot abide the least amount of honest criticism of their candidate, and yet are happy to discuss Hillary Clinton and her supporters using premises and arguments that are entirely false and based on lies and character attacks.

    I do not hate Obama.

    Hear, hear (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by mwb on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    I don't even care what they will do as long as they do it some where far away.

    And let me add my thanks for all of the hard work by the staff, in what must have been a trying couple of months.

    I've been reading for a while and but only recently joined to be able to comment.  

    I greatly appreciate the pool of relative sanity you have created as places that I used to like but became unbearable collapsed under the wait of such hate.

    Frankly, while I personally supported Senator Clinton in the primaries - I could never take people who actively hated either Senators Clinton or Obama seriously or accord them status as accepted parts of the Democratic Party (this goes for party officials too!)

    my issue with the HATERS (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    and the mainstream bloggers who actively encouraged and allowed their comments on their sites (HuffPo, DailyKos, AmericaBlog, etc) is that they are all being rewarded now by the Dem party and by Obama.  They will ALL be blogging from the convention.  They will pay no price for the vitriol they participated in during the primary.

    There is always a price (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    most often it is paid over time though with interest.....karma and all that

    [ Parent ]
    considering the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    mr. cohen himself was one of the noisier "hillary haters", i am hopefull this means he's retiring from the pundit business. probably not. he will, like all the good boys & girls of the MSM, merely re-write or ignore history, to serve his group's needs.

    can we say "hypocrite" boys and girls? i knew that you could.

    I see some obtuseness (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    and so must remind:

    The kernel of every attack on Clinton is an attack on her character.  She is untrustworthy and must not ever be president.

    The kernel of every attack on obama is that he is not ready.  With more experience he could be president one day.

    There have been sub themes that deviate slightly but those are the basics.

    I urge those compelling us to look over there to meditate on this for a few minutes before continuing.

    I saw (2.00 / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    just today, something about "sociopath" and "raping and subjugating women". That was just today.

    [ Parent ]
    that was deleted (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:15:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Energy (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    Another way that Hilary Haters can channel their energy is to ensure that Obama doesn't continue this sharp right turn! It normal that candidates steer to the middle after a primary, but even Rachel Maddow expressed her concern over this. And no one could accuse her of being a card carrying member of the Hilary Fan Club!

    no it wouldn't (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    it would began a back and forth but wouldn't be a sv.
    it is a description of his skill and accomplishments in
    regards to holding the highest office in the land.
    i see him as incompetent in regards to that measure.
    sexist? huh? not at all.

    The Hillary Haters will continue to find (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    ways to hate her and Bill...e.g., the endless post-mortems about her campaign, the money spent, the debt, her loss is all Bill's fault, etc.  I imagine that the hate will continue until the death of both Clintons.  Too much money has been made and will be made off the hate to stop hating now.  Some of the haters don't even know how much they hate!

    So, long live Jeralyn and TL where hating anyone is never been promoted, rewarded or tolerated.
    Thank you Jeralyn!

    In my case (5.00 / 7) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    My support isn't tranferrable.  I don't care about what "Hillary wants".  I didn't support "Hillary".  I supported Hillary's issues.  Except for the ones Obama has borrowed this week, Obama's issues aren't Hillary's issues.

    It's not about "supporting a person".  And I think when you talk that way about people who don't support your candidate, then you are, yourself, trolling.

    Are you saying a person is a GOP troll if they happen to support the green party candidate?

    Some of us are no longer members of the Democratic Party.  

    In addition, being loyal to something for its own sake, not because it actually deserves your loyalty, is cultism, IMHO.

    thank you . a million times is not enough. (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by Lil on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    TL saves my brain from exploding. In fact I'm gonna try to send a few bucks now.

    Safe Harbor (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by Sunshine on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    This is about the only blog that I go to anymore, as so many have said the others are so crude and hateful that it is upsetting to go there...
    I am so glad it's not up to me to cast the deciding vote, no matter who I vote for here in Texas, McCain is going to win so I can make a statement... So when I vote for Cynthia McKinney, I will be casting a vote for the other woman on the ballot....

    I have a friend (none / 0) (#235)
    by Lil on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    who supported Hillary and "knew" that Obama was "never gonna win", but as an African American, she wanted to make a "statement" so she voted for Obama...and the rest is history.

    [ Parent ]
    "Healing process"? (5.00 / 9) (#226)
    by Palomino on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    Not. Interested.

    Because this is about upholding democratic principles within the Democratic Party. It's not about my bwuised widdle feelings.

    "Healing," for me, starts with Barack Obama going back to the U.S. Senate and learning to do his job.

    I suspect that the country as a whole won't lose any sleep over the question of choosing between the war hero/two-term congressman/three-and-a-half-term senator and the half-term senator/motivational speaker.

    Use And Misuse Of The Word "Haters" (5.00 / 3) (#233)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    All during BushII's administration I listened to everyone who disagreed with his policies described as "haters." To me this was a way to discount and stop legimate dialog on his decisions and the direction he was taking the country. Were there people who truly hated W. Yes. Was everyone who voiced disagreement with him and his administration, "haters." No.

    There was definitely "Hillary hatred" evident in the media and on the blogs. Some of the blogs encouraged or fueled this hatred and others ignored it. The media definitely wasn't into Obama hatred during the primary but there were some blogs that encouraged or fueled Obama hatred and others ignored it.

    TL allowed disagreement on the issues as long as it remained in bounds and deleted comments by everyone that legimately went over the top.

    I hope going forward that the label "haters" is limited to only those people who truly deserve it. Disagreement is not hatred. If Hillary had won the nomination I would have disagreed with her on some of the issues and thought some of her actions were dumb.I would have voiced my opinion on it. That would not make me a Hillary hater. I want the same freedom now that Obama is the nominee.

    Mark, Mark, Mark (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by Palomino on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    Obama is NOT unqualified for the presidency. He is over 35 and is a U.S.-born citizen.

    Haters on both sides (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    I've been spending some time on numerous Democratic blogs over the past month and I can verify that there is just as much hate for Obama out there as there is for Hillary. And it's not pretty. [Check out No Quarter as an example] I think it is just part of the process. But I also think it is not prevelant among most Americans. It's just something that fits into the internet blog chat mentality. I'm hoping the haters on both sides simmer down and focus their energies on getting a Democrat into the White House.

    How ingenuous of Cohen (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    To call out all the Hillary haters as if he wasn't one of them? Talk about an utter lack of ethical journalism. From race-baiting to hate-baiting WAPO is getting my numero uno ranking. Yes, the list is growing, and truth be told, the left lib media has superceded the right in the hate department. This should be a lesson to all, stay in the middle, don't get caught in either extremist view, no matter which direction it flows..

    True Lies (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by DemBillC on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    Yes the Obamabots certainly took Clinton bashing to a whole new level and were much more slimy than the Repubs ever were. I will never forget Randi Toads screaming that Hillary was a F*cking Wh*re while Obamabots cheered. It was the low point in campaign history.

    Some of them are busy bringing (4.42 / 7) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    irrational hatred of McCain to the comments here.
    I don't care for that at all.
    There SHOULD be plenty of reasons for voters to reject McCain that don't rely on ignominious character attacks.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:37:45 PM EST
    If only you felt the same way towards attacks at someone ostensibly in your own party.  But you have no problem with those attacks.

    [