home

The Difference Between Disagreement , Criticism and Hate

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:24:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm seeing a lot of comments that go well beyond disagreeing with Barack Obama on issues or criticizing him with respect to matters that reflect on his suitability to be President.

I'm not going to spell out what's okay and what's not. Suffice it to say, TalkLeft and all three of its writers now support Barack Obama for President. He is the Democratic nominee and we are Democrats.

That doesn't mean you won't find criticism of him here. You will. Just as you'll find criticism of almost all our politicans and policy makers and the media (and for Big Tent Democrat that includes bloggers.)

But there's a difference between expressing disagreement with politicians and voicing displeasure with some of their actions and comments, -- and even with questioning their sincerity or suitability for office -- all of which are okay -- and with filling the comment threads with hateful character attacks.

I hope those of you who supported Hillary will take her at her word and transfer your support to Barack Obama. If you don't want to do that, you can still comment here, but not just to trash Barack Obama or his wife. You can't spread falsehoods, like he stole the nomination. He didn't. The Democrats gave it to him. [More...]

If you honestly believe that John McCain is better on some issue, you're free to say so here. If you think he'd make a better President, you are free to say so, so long as you don't constantly chatter about it and try to dominate the threads or annoy other readers.

You may not use TalkLeft as an organizing ground to gain support for McCain. That's not what comments are for. They are for expressing your opinion, consistent with our commenting policy.

On a related note, if you are someone who champions the rights of crime victims, recognize that this site is dedicated to preserving the rights of those accused of crime. You may or may not agree with what we write and you can express your disagreement civilly, but you cannot suggest that someone "deserves to be fried" or direct readers to pro-death penalty sites. You cannot call offenders names. If those are your positions, please read another blog.

I had my fill of comment moderating during the primary campaign. I'm not going to dwell on comments here any more. I'm just going to ban commenters who violate the rules and in the case of new users, vaporize all their comments and their accounts.

TalkLeft has always allowed comments with all points of view, including those different from our own. It's how they are expressed -- and whether they contain blatant falsehoods or are banal repetitive chatter that determines whether they stay.

As for long-time Obama supporters, if you think I'm going to praise and cheerlead his every step to the White House, you're wrong. I wouldn't do that for my preferred candidate and I won't do it for him. If you personally attack me or any writer at TalkLeft, or the site itself, your comment will be deleted.

TalkLeft turns six years old today. I can't even begin to calculate how many hours and dollars I've invested in this site since 2002.

What I do know is that I will maintain control over TalkLeft and its content. It will continue to be a resource for those who follow politics, crime and injustice and media coverage of these issues.

If you find what we have to say worthwhile, by all means, keep visiting and commenting -- you are welcome here whether you agree or not. Conversely, if you find us intolerable or irritating, or if you dislike our commenting rules, the internet is a vast and wide place, and I encourage you to go out and find a site more to your liking.

Comments now closed.

< The 2008 'Fear Iran' World Tour | TalkLeft is Six Years Old Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Difference Between Disagreement , Criticism and Hate | 194 comments (194 topical)
    Well said Jeralyn. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:29:32 AM EST


    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TChris on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:30:02 AM EST


    There has to be a way for supporters of (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:32:03 AM EST
    both sides to move on from the primary. What I sense from the Obama supporters is that not only are we supposed to support Obama now, but we are supposed to agree with all the talking points from the campaign about Hillary. Why? She's gone.
    They are still obsessing on Hillary, IMO.

    I Agree Mark (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:55 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I have no interest in rehashing the primaries. And I would never expect you to agree on the way that events unfolded during the primary. I'm more interested in winning in November. But, frankly, it is difficult for Obama supporters to move past the primaries when Clinton supporters continue to question the legitimacy of Obama's nomination. Claims that he "stole the nomination" are difficult to let stand without a challenge because that's a threshold question that must be addressed before attention can fully turn to November. So I hope we can move past that...

    [ Parent ]
    Did you see what I was responding to??? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:16:48 AM EST
    I wouldn't normally post that, but I was provoked!
    The Obama supporters here have NOT let go of their Clinton hate. IMO that is the first prerequisite for the site to be able to move on.
    Also, the threats to unify or else have gotten stale.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:42:32 AM EST
    Clinton hatred still supercedes McCain hatred.

    [ Parent ]
    It does? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:53:42 AM EST
    Maybe on TL, but then again the comments have been viciously anti-Obama by many.

     Judging by the reactions to anti-McCain posts on this site, there are far more people for whom Obama hatred exceeds McCain hatred or Clinton love.

     And there are those of us, who have always supported the Democratic nominee, who look on in wonder.

     I welcome criticism of Obama from the left.  From the right, or from McCain supporters, not so much.  This is a left-wing site.  Shilling from the right, given site rules, is inappropriate.

    [ Parent ]

    Good (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:55:11 AM EST
    Is health care plan is triangulating centrist crap.


    [ Parent ]
    You are of course... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:21:57 AM EST
    ...entitled to your opinion and your vote.

     What bothers me is that for those of us who would elect a potted plant with a D next to its name this year, for rather obvious reasons, and who happened to consider Obama a better candidate this year, we are being treated, inter alia, as

     1. Sexist

     2. Fundamentalist

     3. Anti-gay

     4. Pro-life

     5. Republican

     ...empty suits.

     And I get that Senator Clinton's supporters feel much the same (i.e., they're racist Dixiecrats).

     So while I understand your frustration, and even unwillingness to support Obama, I cannot (and do not wish to) join in that effort.

     I have voted for candidates I did not support in primaries before.  I did not threaten their supporters by threatening to vote third party or opposition.  

     So for once I supported a primary candidate who won the nomination.  I am not going to be pressured into feeling bad about that.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:49:12 AM EST
    You didn't.  

     Unfortunately, a lot of Clinton supporters here do.  And threat is perhaps used lightly, as is pressure.  When the unelectability meme was used against Clinton it was either a right wing talking point or a sexist attack.  Now, it seems, that is perfectly acceptable against Obama, without being deemed right wing or racist.

     My point is, my loyalty to voting for the Democratic nominee, although challenged, has endured, even when I didn't get "my" candidate.  Now another part of the party is being faced with that reality.  We'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    Thing is that they already were deemed (5.00 / 7) (#175)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:38 AM EST
    right wing and racist when they questioned his electability during the primary.

    The reality is that all of this name calling over something as complex and frankly silly as "electability" is tiresome.  If your guy looks weak in the polling - calling people names isn't going to change that - the only thing that will change that is to get out there and campaign for him.

    That's been my problem with the approach taken by the leading Obama supporters on the blogs.  Instead of saying, "Hey we have a problem in West Virginia let's try to figure out a good way to solve it."   They simply proclaimed that state along with several others as "racist".  Then they said, "To hell with them."  Now, the "to hell with them" approach has some merit when you are talking about hard-core Republicans, but it seemed to be a go to position for many Obama supporters everytime there was even only slightest resistence to Obama.  

    Good Democrats and Progressives were told to get lost and visciously attacked for not being all about Obama.  That isn't how you win elections.  It is a good approach if you're trying to establish a dictatorship, but in a democracy you still have to get votes and there is no distiction made between uber-supporters' votes and those who vote with reservation for the same candidate.  The mania for Obama became so intense that it seemed to me that if you didn't support him 1000%, you simply couldn't be accepted as part of their coalition.  That is not how you build a democratic political coalition.  That's how you establish an elite club which is again not how you win elections.

    Obama is the presumptive nominee now.  He's on his own.  Senator Clinton is out of the race.  The more supporters continue to harp on his former opponent, the more nervous I become about his prospects for winning this election.  It is almost as if some people haven't a clue what to do with a win.  They want to keep fighting an old battle rather than going onto the next much more important challenge that we face.  Democrats are so much more comfortable attacking each other.  That is, has and always will be a losing strategy for the Democratic Party.

    The reality is that the Dem Obama detractors that make you feel pressured or whatever will be convinced that Obama is a winner when he starts winning against McCain.  So instead of going round and round engaging in speculation and reflecting on political theory, maybe you should just show them that he is electable by getting him elected.  That will be the only thing that settles the electability debate.

    [ Parent ]

    Alec- I just do not understand how you feel so (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    "attacked" or whatever by Clinton supporters. Obama was NEVER treated here the way Hillary was treated by the MSM and most leftblogs. Over at kos, americablog,ect. they hounded people off and called the Clintons and their supporters every foul name in the book. Their favorite was the "b" word. That did not happen to your candidate, so excuse me if I have no sympathy for you.

    [ Parent ]
    Alec is (4.20 / 5) (#198)
    by Claw on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    Pretty spot on.  As an Obama supporter and frequent Obama criticizer (I hated what he did Re:FLA and MI, etc.) I knew I would be troll rated and/or attacked if I argued for Obama; agreed with and given 5's if I attacked him.  The ratings don't really matter except that they send a message, and I believe that if someone gets troll rated quite a bit, they're eligible to be limited or banned...or something like that.  I was an early Clinton supporter who switched to Obama and would have voted for her in a heartbeat(in the GE).  They're both excellent politicians and both would make great presidents.  They are both, as I have said many times before, infinitely better than McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Hating Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by daring grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    I never have.

    I've had and still have strong feelings about her voting record in the senate and the way she conducted her campaign. I've also had strong feelings about the conduct of some of her supporters (note: not ALL of them; not even ALL of them here.)

    But I've never hated her. In fact, when she first ran for the senate I wholeheartedly supported her. And even in my vehement disagreement with many aspects of her campaign and her presentation of her positions, I've admired many other aspects of her as a person. I also feel empathy for her in the challenges she's faced and I've expressed that here.

    I've tried to present my support for Obama in a rational, respectful way to the many here who support Senator Clinton. I've never expected (and do not now) that Clinton supporters would automatically support Obama. I've never tried to persuade anyone to do that or chided them when they announced they were voting for McCain. I don't feel like that's my business. Moreover, I know myself how un-persuade-able I would feel at this moment if I were in their shoes.

    So I wish, Mark, you would modify your attitude that we Obama supporters here have not let go of some hate for Clinton. It's not accurate about every Obama supporter who is here.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (4.20 / 5) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:25:15 AM EST
    The Obama supporters here have NOT let go of their Clinton hate.
    Seems like a mighty big generalization. Are you sure that you are not confusing TL with another site?

    [ Parent ]
    The day after Clinton ceded (5.00 / 18) (#50)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:18 AM EST
    ...I started to see rather condescending letters all over from (probably) well meaning people suggesting that Obama's supporter's keep the gloating to a minimum and not harangue the Clinton supporters' while we "grieve" until we can rejoin the "family" of the Democratic Party. They further suggested that we should be tolerated, because our votes would be needed to win. Nobody that I saw said anything about how we had valid grievances and perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss our issues with us. The implication was always that we would cry for a few days, then get on with the hard work of getting the better man elected.

    It was a fantasy. A few people crawled back on their hands and knees asking to be brought back into the fold. It was quickly made clear that they were welcome as long as they didn't try to distract anybody by mentioning past grievances. You've moved on... you don't want to hear from the losers.You want our vote, but you have no intention of giving us anything for it. The privilege of voting for Obama should be enough. It's not. Life doesn't work that way. I'm betting that some of the people who recently switched to Obama from Clinton will wander away because they don't like the flavor of the campaign. Some will hold their noses and vote for Obama. But you won't get a lot of enthusiastic supporters when all you are offering is acceptance of their unconditional surrender.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed, in fact, the more I associate with Obama (4.63 / 11) (#75)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:29:16 AM EST
    supporters, the less likely I am to ever vote for him. Condescension turns my stomach, and does nothing for my intellect.

    Jeralyn is setting guidelines, but the comments about taking Clinton at her word' are not logical, IMO. While Clinton might be forced by her position to transfer her support to Obama, I as a voter am not.

    And the presupposition that being a Democrat means I must always vote Democrat is not going to sway me or millions others who are not getting less angry, and are not going away.

    By the way, some might be grieving the theft of the nomination by the DNC RBC committee, instead of the 'theft of the nomination by Obama' but this seems like semantics to me.

    I'm grieving neither: I'm trying to hang around and be civil, but civility will not compel me NOT to vote for McCain, especially as a disgruntled, abused FL (1/2) voter.

    I no longer accept the argument that McCain would be worse than Obama. The Democrats are losing me and many other quickly.

    [ Parent ]

    In light of Sen. McCain's vocal support (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST
    for Alito's position on Gitmo/habeas, are you comfortable voting for McCain in the face of certin SCOTUS vacancies?

    [ Parent ]
    There's no guarantee (4.50 / 8) (#99)
    by Mari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:22:21 AM EST
    that Obama will appoint better judges in light of his close associations with rightwing law professors at the University of Chicago. The old arguements won't work in this election. Obama may as well be the Republican party nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Pols (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:39:28 AM EST
    Are pols.


    [ Parent ]
    In my opinion, your reply (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:43:52 AM EST
    brushes off my concerns, which, of course, need not be your concerns.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:46:59 AM EST
    It's a totally pathetic, idiotic, reprehensible response to anyone's concerns.

    It's an ELITIST point of view.  The idea that it's all just theater.

    [ Parent ]

    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:48:40 AM EST
    If it's all just theater, I'm at liberty to regard McCain's pandering to right wing fundamentalism as just that..... nothing more or less than... theater.

    I wonder what BTD and andgarden will think when they see my "tirades" tonight?

    [ Parent ]

    If you want theatre go to Florida (5.00 / 9) (#95)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:56:14 AM EST
    where the DNC just rammed another betrayal down our throats. According to the Sun Senitnel, Obama just REMOVED to long-time LGBT delegates to replace them with his cronies --

    does he think this is going to help persude extremely angry gay & lesbian Clinton supporters to trust him, now? The knife is still dripping with the blood:

    One clear demonstration of Obama's control over all things Democratic -- and the one note of discord -- came early Saturday, when the state party redid some of its delegate decisions.

    Most of the 211 Florida delegates were unaffected. Six delegates and two alternates who had been selected weeks ago were dumped and replaced with new delegates. In South Florida, there were two winners and two losers.

    Out are alternate Obama delegates Harvey Goodman and Renee Pera, both from Broward County.

    In as a full convention delegate is Broward County Commissioner Stacy Ritter, who signed on with Obama early when most of the county's elected officials were supporting Clinton. She is now Broward chairwoman of Obama for America.

    Another new delegate is Eric Johnson, of Boca Raton, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, the Broward-Palm Beach County congressman who was the most prominent early supporter of Obama in the state.

    Some complained it was politically unwise to unseat party activists and the change was being rammed through too quickly. Democrats voting on the replacement delegates didn't have a list of whom they were voting on. The names were flashed on a big screen in front of their meeting room.

    Ultimately, they had little practical choice but to approve what the Obama campaign wanted. State Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman, explaining what would happen if the move failed, said, "We'll stay here until it passes."

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbdems0615sbjun15,0,7588721.story

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I for one am relieved to learn (5.00 / 10) (#126)
    by mary kate on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:02:36 AM EST
    that there is a role for women in the Obama Party:

    At a caucus meeting for women -- a constituency in the party who strongly favored Clinton -- there were cheers when one activist modeled her Obama T-shirt.


    [ Parent ]
    Interesting article (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:29:15 AM EST
    Did you read the comments that followed?  Yikes, looks like FL is surely not supporting Obama.  

    Funny thing (actually not "funny" at all) was that months ago I received a telephone solicitation from DSCC to contribute.  I replied, "Count all the votes."  The phone call repeated a few times over a couple of weeks.  My reply was the same. The last call the spokesperson said that Florida does not count, not to worry about; they screwed up the last two presidentail elections; those voters do not count as it is a red state.  

    Needless to say I was horrified.  I immediately notified the DNC and also FL Dem Party.  I never received a reply from either.  I even directly emailed a very active Dem. in Tallahassee, FL.  

    This was way before the Rules Comm. decision.  In fact, it was months before.  

    No wonder FL will go RED.    

    [ Parent ]

    If you want theater (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:58:13 AM EST
    In lieu of talking about what's right and wrong, got to talkleft.com.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, it's a bogus excuse. (5.00 / 11) (#103)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:32:42 AM EST
    If a Dem does it then "Pols will be pols.".

    If a Republican does it then it's not pandering, but hard evidence of what they will do if elected.

    Since elections are mostly public relations and marketing, they are 90% smoke and mirrors, bullsh!t, misdirection, obfuscation and mendacity.  The remaining 10% is truth and facts, and we can have endless arguments about if any given action or quote represents truth or fiction.

    So all anyone can really do is to go on a politician's record.  What are their most consistent traits?  When times get tough, do they fight or flee?  Are they about political expedience or principles?  

    [ Parent ]

    I believe both sides agreed and (none / 0) (#195)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    disagreed with Supremes as they were "expected" to do. No surprise there!

    [ Parent ]
    The past passes, it doesn't disappear (5.00 / 8) (#131)
    by koshembos on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:29:28 AM EST
    Obama and the DNC have add the baseball asterisk to his victory. Obama's success at denying MI and FL real voice will always haunt him; there is nothing you can do about it. The DNC's implicit support of the anti Clinton pogrom and explicit support of Obama is another blemish on Obama's win.

    Obama is the candidate, but history adorns his victory with an asterisk. It's way too late to whine about.

    [ Parent ]

    " Democrats gave it to him..." (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST
    BTD said, "I hope those of you who supported Hillary will take her at her word and transfer your support to Barack Obama. If you don't want to do that, you can still comment here, but not just to trash Barack Obama or his wife. You can't spread falsehoods, like he stole the nomination. He didn't. The Democrats gave it to him."

    Given the complexity of the primary, not just because the two candidates' demographic constituent make-up split the electorate, or the other variables such as media preference, the incalcuable caucuses, the most destructive feature was the party's blatant predilection for one candidate over another. I've never seen this in an election before. It was a lynching. And we sat by watching helpless to do anything about it.
    What we experienced will continue to reverberate among many of her supporters;  it's not just our
    disillusionment with Obama as a candidate. All is not fair in love and war and politics, but the one thing we have that no one can take away from us is our vote. The point being 2008 may be the year the people vote party politics out. Right now the polls are verifying that discontent showing Nadar with 8 to 10% in Michigan.

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7985_warning_warning.html
     

    [ Parent ]

    I am not ready to blindly support Obama (5.00 / 10) (#161)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:39:23 AM EST
    nor am I counting him out. What leaves an awful distaste is the DNC's actions, not to mention the awful, still persistent, attacks on Clinton and her supporters.  I asked one blogger on ABCnews Political Punch to post one good thing about Clinton.  This blogger is trying to scare Clinton supporters into voting for him and still persists with anti-Clinton propaganda as if Clinton is still the opponent.  Needless to say, the Obama supporter never posted anything positive about Clinton.  

    I find this sentiment far too prevalent with Obama supporters.  Now no one can convince me that Obama could not control this.  He has paid bloggers and definite volunteer supporters who could post something conciliatory at the very least.  They do not; he does nothing about this.

    My distaste for his candidacy is not waning.

     

    [ Parent ]

    That Is Smart (4.50 / 2) (#196)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    I am not ready to blindly support Obama

    The problem we have here, and elsewhere, is that many did and still do blindly support their candidate, as if they were in a cult.

    Most of the voters who support the Democratic candidate do so because it is a better platform than the alternatives. Most have their eyes wide open that their candidate and take all the campaign promises with a heaping dose of skepticism.

    [ Parent ]

    Edit (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    Most have their eyes wide open that their candidate falls short of perfect and take all the campaign promises with a heaping dose of skepticism.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is IMO (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    that then I would have to take his promise not to privatize SS with a Hugh dose of skepticism.  I would also take the idea that he would defend the right to choose with skepticism.  

    Sorry, but if I am going to admit that all Candidates lie to get elected, what is to stop me from believing that what McBush is saying now to attract his voters are not the same as what Obama is saying to attract his.  If they all lie then what's the difference?

    [ Parent ]

    Polling Correction (none / 0) (#209)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    That was polling was done in April, the polling at Pollster NOW shows 6% points nationally, same as in 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday TalkLeft! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:34:54 AM EST
    I've only been around for a year and a half or so, but I've always enjoyed it. So here's to another six years!

    Thanks but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    please hold your comments for a little while as I'm about to do a separate post on our blogiversary. They'd be really welcome there.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if I'm not awake, congrats anyway! (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good heavens. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:39:44 AM EST
    Six years? I've only been here six months commenting, and a little longer lurking.

    You do a fantastic job keeping up with this place on a day-to-day basis. I have no idea how you do it, and you are a better person than I.

    Thank You Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:44:43 AM EST
    Very well stated and Happy Birthday to Talk Left. In addition, a Happy Father's Day to all the fathers here, and also to the single moms that fulfill both roles.

    The hours of work show (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by catfish on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:14 AM EST
    I can't even begin to calculate how many hours and dollars I've invested in this site since 2002.

    This is a nice reminder to we who ask ourselves why our blogs aren't so spiffy and rich in content and focus. Nice job.

    Disagreement, criticism and hate (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Fredster on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:23:15 AM EST
    You can't spread falsehoods, like he stole the nomination. He didn't. The Democrats gave it to him

    Can we at least be allowed to say he got a lot of help from the DNC and the like?

    Obama's theft and RICO (4.00 / 12) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:58:55 AM EST
    I don't know why Jeralyn has such a hard time with people who say that Obama stole the nomination.  Obama was in charge of, and the chief beneficiary of, a corrupt enterprise -- its like saying that when the profits from "protection" rackets flow upward, that the head of a crime syndicate isn't extorting money from business owners.  Just because the guy at the top of the food chain isn't doing the grunt work doesn't make him innocent.

    One would think that the same standards that we apply to Bush when it comes to those who operate on his behalf would be applied to Obama.... but I guess IOKIYAO is the going to be the big new acronym -- except that Obama supporters say it without irony.

    [ Parent ]

    why? (1.66 / 6) (#133)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:31:47 AM EST
    why cant you simply accept the facts of what happened?
    Hillary was sure she would wrap up the nom on Super Tuesday, so she didnt bother to organize all those inconsequential states that came in the month after. THat cost her well over a 100 pledged delegates, and with our proportional delegate system, that was too much of a gap to make up, even though she finished strongly.

    Thats why she lost. Its was not stolen from her, and it was not given to him by party elites. He went out and won it fair and square.

    I sympathize with those who sincerely thought she would be the better nominee, especially because she actually could have won the nom if she had not made strategic errors. But thats the way it played out, and its not his fault that those errors were made. He ran a better campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    First off... (4.77 / 18) (#148)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM EST
    Why don't you face the fact that unless a candidate gets a supermajority of pledged delegates avaiable in primaries and caucuses, it is the job of the super-delegates to use their best judgement to determine who should be the nominee.

    And while Obama had two good weeks in February, after February he tanked...and tanked badly, demonstrating not only that he was incapable of attracting support from key Democratic constituencies -- but that he preferred to ignore and alienate those constituencies, rather than demonstrate that he was worthy of their votes in November.

    Clinton's ability to make the necessary adjustments after her mid February losses -- and hand Obama a series of stunning -- and in a few cases, humiliating -- defeats demonstrated that she was the only RATIONAL choice for superdelegates who were doing their jobs, and acting in good faith.  

    Obama's inability and unwillingness to address the deficiencies in his own campaign that were made obvious by his losses in Ohio and Texas showed the SDs that he was the WRONG choice.

    Only the corruption of the Democratic Party as a whole could result in an Obama nomination after what we saw from March through the end of the primary season.  And what we saw on May 31st was precisely how openly corrupt the Democratic Party was willing to be in order to get their grubby little hands on what they THINK will be OBamacash -- May 31st, and the aftermath, showed that the leadership of the Democratic Party has no prinicples other than filling their own pockets, and maintaining, advancing, and promoting their own PERSONAL interests and positions.

    [ Parent ]

    no, sorry (1.00 / 4) (#151)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    she was not the only RATIONAL choice. You make some good points about the fact that she came back from early defeats to finish strongly. But so what? In the end they were almost even in popular votes, and he had won a significantly more number of pledged delegates - playing by the rules, earning those delegates.

    It is nothing but a lunatic, outrageous lie to claim that "corruption" of the party led to his nomination. The guy who had (slightly) more popular support, who won over 100 more pledged delegates, and you have the nerve to claim "corruption" because the superdelegates were not willing to conspire to deny him the nomination??? THats insane.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (5.00 / 17) (#169)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    she was not the only RATIONAL choice. You make some good points about the fact that she came back from early defeats to finish strongly. But so what? In the end they were almost even in popular votes, and he had won a significantly more number of pledged delegates - playing by the rules, earning those delegates.

    the number of delegates you get are irrelevant unless you can win a super-majority of them.  The system was set up SPECIFICALLY to ensure that winning more delegates was not a key to the nomination -- that you had to win enough delegates to show that the party had reached a consensus on the nominee.

    The fact that Obama's "majority" comes from disenfranchising people in Florida and Michigan, winning caucuses in deep red western states, and winning primaries in deep red southern states thanks to 'identity politics' is the opposite of demonstrating that Obama was the consensus candidate.

    IMHO, Obama had two, and only two, significant victories -- Wisconsin and Oregon.  Clinton on the other hand, won a slew of highly signficant victories in key states -- her win in Ohio DESPITE Obama's huge advantage in money, media, and momentum was highly significant -- even more significant was her victory in Pennsylvania, because it showed that Obama was unable to make the necessary adjustments to his campaign that Clinton had.  

    The blow-outs in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico showed that Obama was incapable of appealing to key constituencies DESPITE being the "inevitable nominee", and his loss in South Dakota should have put an end to his candidacy once and for all --- that loss (and the results of the non-binding Idaho and Nebraska primaries) showed just how ridiculous it was to consider Obama's Red State caucus delegate lead as being of any significance whatsoever.

    The nomination process is not a game of delegate harvesting -- its about choosing the best candidate for november, and the best person to lead the nation.  Not only did Clinton prove that she was the better candidate -- Obama's failures from March on showed anyone with any sense that he was the WRONG choice.

    NO ONE who understands how elections work who was making a decision in good faith could support Obama over Clinton given what happened in the last three months of the primary season.  Occam's Razor comes into play -- Clinton's superiority was as obvious as 2+2=4.... yet the SDs decided that 2+2=0.   Corruption and venality are the simplest - and therefore the correct -- explanation for what happened under the "occam's razor' theory.

    [ Parent ]

    what are you talking about? (1.44 / 9) (#180)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    first of all, your talk of "supermajorities" is ridiculous - its wrong. You need to win a majority of delegates. One more than half. Thats it. No supermajority. Thats why we were arguing all those months about whether the number was 2209 or 2015 or whatever they were. They were exactly half the number of delegates - not some somemajority.

    Obama won a majority of the pledged delegates. It doesnt matter what proportion came from red states. Red states have Democrats too. They get to go to the convention, and to vote for the nominee. If you want to disenfranchise them, then make that argument. But it would be an argument for the future. For this year, Democrats in red states have a vote, and Obama won them.

    Dont blame him for Hillary's incompetence. She probably could have at least run even in those states if she hadn't blown them off under the assumption that she would win it all by Super Tuesday. IF she had won more delegates in those states, somehow I suspect you would think they should count.

    I dont mean to be disrespectful, but I really dont care about what you think Obama's significant victories are. All you are doing is explaining why you think Clinton should have won the nomination - why you, if you were a superdel, would have voted for her. Thats fine. No one would begrudge you your opinion, made on your own criteria.

    The problem is your ranting and raving and jumping up and down and denying any basic respect to anyone else who may do their own thoughtful and sincere calculations and come to a different conclusion. THey must be "corrupt" or "venal" or insane, or blind or delusional or anything else. Well, sorry, no. They are intellegent and sincere people to the same extent as you are.

    Is this notion - that sincere and intellegent people can come to different conclusions than what you do - is that such a hard concept? Isnt a recognition of that a fundamental keystone to any respect for democracy?

    Thats what it comes down to. You look at the situation and think Clinton the better candidate. Others think Obama the better candidate. And you cant handle that. You need to make vicious personal attacks on such people. Bad show.

    [ Parent ]

    reread what he said. (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    wait, just read it once.

    He makes some very interesting points.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Jeralyn for the reminder (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:29:24 AM EST
    And thank you for being so tolerant.  I know I've personally let my frustrations get the best of me of late and been combative at times with some of the posters.  My apologies for that to everyone here at TL.  I resolve to do better.  I also resolve to do less harping about what unfortunately at this point can't be changed about this election going forward.  What's done is regretfully done as far as the primary is concerned.  All that said, thanks for promising not to turn this site into a non-stop Obama pep rally.

    I'm personally trying to segue into a more detached, observational mode of this election now that I dislike both major candidates, and have resolved to participate only to the degree that I feel comfortable.  Politics is still fun (and important) to watch and discuss, even when it doesn't go your way.  I just ask not to be bullied into parroting some Democrat company line, where reality is secondary to narrative.  I'm not ready or willing to go there.  And I thank you for making this a place where I don't have to.

    I'm also happy to get back to more law-centric chat.  Thanks for providing a smart and friendly forum to do so.  This place is  truly a special little corner of the internet.

    the problem is (5.00 / 18) (#25)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:53:29 AM EST
    people are going to have very raw nerves and be more angry as pundits that were misogynists throughout the primary now become even more misogynistic.  And instead of having someone to focus on (Hillary), they can turn full focus to Hillary's supporters and use extremely sexist language to do it.

    Let me be clear, I didn't really get angry during the campaign--I got disgusted.  But now,  when i idiotically click a frank rich column I get really really mad.  I get mad, not because of the misogyny but because of the dishonesty inherent in his columns.  The misogynists destroyed something that is essential for democracy:  informed discourse.  They did it throughout the primary by focus on hillary and now they're focusing on women in general.

    "Angry women <3 mccain"  Gah.  why did i click that stupid link.  I'm so f'n mad after reading part of it...i stopped at "hysterical."  Probably the only time i wanted to comment on an editorial with %^&# &*$.  First it was "just not that woman"  now it's "maybe women are rational if they don't vote for mccain, cause clearly the only reason not to support obama is bitterness"

    And that's the ultimate problem, that people don't understand that this primary was a disgrace to the concept of democracy.  And without democracy, wth is the democratic party.

    Nice to know I'm a myth. (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:18:37 AM EST
    Obama's loudest supporters are truly his worst enemies.  

    One question, if (per Frank Rich) Obama is really up by 13 among women according to Gallup, how is it that he is only up by 3 today in the Gallup daily national tracker?  Last time I looked, women vote in larger numbers than men, and a 13 point lead among all women should be enough to have him up by much more than 3 points unless he has totally tanked with men, much more than Rich admits.  My guess is that this election will be the one to prove national polling has become next to useless.  State by state will be all that is useful, and even those are going to be dicey, IMO.  

    [ Parent ]

    The 13 points number (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:20:57 AM EST
    for women came from Gallup's polls from June 5-9.  The overall numbers for the same period were 48-42 (as best I can tell from their interactive graph).

    The 3 point number is from June 10 and 12-13.  There's no gender breakdown for this one, so either support among women went down or some other group grew.  Or it's the vagaries of daily tracking.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 16) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:20:04 AM EST
    Insults disgust.

    Pretending insults aren't insults angers.

    Things are getting worse, not better.


    [ Parent ]

    To be fair (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:46:55 AM EST
    Informed discourse went out the window long before this election, I'm sorry to say.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:52:49 AM EST
    but i just finished reading a book on women running for president, and this election is a huge step back on the misogyny front in specific (especially since everyone rationalizes by saying misogyny was not a determining factor) and also a step back on the discourse front in general.

    [ Parent ]
    More than Fair Enough (5.00 / 11) (#33)
    by cdalygo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:46 AM EST
    This is your site and you may do as you see fit.

    However, I have an important quibble. The "democrats" didn't give him the election. Rather certain elements within the DNC and other leadership structures gave it to him. That's a distinction with a real difference.

    I suspect that you know from your own work within the criminal justice the ineffectiveness of cosmetic fixes imposed from above. Just create three strikes and the bad guys will disappear -- as opposed to doing the hard work of fixing our educational and economic systems. Impose harsher penalties for drug use to prevent addiction- as opposed to investing in programs to provide necessary treatment.

    Much like those "cosmetic fixes" to the criminal justice system- combined with economic inequalities - have helped rip communities of all colors apart, so this "primary" has severely damaged the Democratic Party.

    I respect that you folks want to hold things together in order to elect a democratic president. However, the problem is not going away. Nor do I believe you will be very happy with the outcome even if you are successful.

    I post to emphasize that this problem is NOT going to go away. Hopefully ALL of us can revisit it in December.

    If this isn't revisited in December, no matter who (5.00 / 18) (#51)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:25 AM EST
    wins, then the Democrats are in huge trouble as a national party.  I had dinner tonight with someone who voted for Bush in 2004, then became so disgusted with him he became a Democrat, or at least what he called a Democrat, and voted for Kerry in 2004.  He was a huge Obama backer.  When I quizzed him on this a couple of months ago, he couldn't explain why, other than he thought Hillary was polarizing, and Obama wasn't.  In other words, he brought his Hillary dislike along with him into my party.  He and his kind are the ones who drove me out of what was my party.  Now he tells me he's so sick of politics he isn't going to vote in the fall, and he didn't vote in the primary.  Nice.  Anyway, how I see this is that in its rush to reach out to all the disaffected Bushies, the Democratic Party (my party) lost its soul.  The debacle with the Michigan delegates is the smoking gun evidence -- there is really no way around it that the party chose new voters over old democratic principles.  Can a souless party draw old time Dems back in?  Only time will tell.  

    [ Parent ]
    If by revisiting "this" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:52:19 AM EST
    you mean how Democrats nominate a candidate, then I'm with you 100%.   I think a lot of people in the party are.  My guess is the impetus for it will have to come from the grassroots level, since, with luck, all the big players will be busy preparing to take over the governing of this country.


    [ Parent ]
    It's OUR party (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:30:17 AM EST
    Let's face it, Obama "new voters" would not have gotten him anywhere without the unrepresentative caucuses and the heavy support he got on the basis of his skin color. The latter group is philosophically more in tune with Hillary than what Obama is peddling.

    The Democratic party has always been the party of Jefferson and Jackson. We do not need fancy speeches, just guts and substance. The working class, women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics. Hillary's coalition (plus African-Americans). Not some whacked out Republican who came over to Obama because he thought it was "cool". They may win the battle, but we will win the war, if we stay engaged. This is more than about Hillary.

    In any case, FemB4dem, I hope you can find your way back somehow. The GOP is infinitely worse. I can't afford to engage in the Sisyphusian effort of waiting to support my party's nominee for President until there is one that I am 100% satisfied with. I might be waiting forever while the country goes to hell. I will be staying in the party, because it is right for me and no one is going to kick me out.

    [ Parent ]

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:06:53 AM EST
    what? It's not 100% satisfied with for me, it's just basically acceptable like 50% of the time they are okay. The thing I find most interesting is that Obama supporters basically don't give reasons to vote for him only reasons to vote against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops. I meant he voted for Bush (none / 0) (#52)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:22 AM EST
    in 2000, not 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 11) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:35 AM EST
    the DNC chose our nominee.

    Not Democrats.


    [ Parent ]

    cmon Edgar (2.28 / 7) (#139)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:54:58 AM EST
    why do you bother with this crap?

    She forgot to organize the caucus states. She forfeited on over 100 pledged delegates. She was unable to make up that gap. She lost, fair and square. Nobody "gave" the nom to Obama, besides the voters.
    Sheeesh

    [ Parent ]

    lots of crap to go around (5.00 / 11) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:42:49 AM EST
    yes, she did poorly in the caucus states and that's her fault. but your statement that the voters gave the nom to Obama is also crap. the superdelegates gave the nom to Obama, just like they could have to Clinton. this was a very close election and it came down to supers. they made the choice. and to act as if they weren't influenced by the party elders and merely followed the clear will of the voters is really debatable.

    [ Parent ]
    anything and everything is "debatable" (3.00 / 4) (#168)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:54:20 AM EST
    but he won a clear advantage in pledged delegates, and it would have taken a massive conspiracy of disparate superdels to come together and decide to overturn that result.

    Talk about party poobahs "giving" a nomination to someone - if Hillary had been given the nom after winning 150 fewer delegates in the popular contests, that would have been 10x the outrage.

    So whats you point? Why try to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's nomination when anyone else having been "given" the nomination would have been far less legitimate?

    [ Parent ]

    i'm not undermining his legitimacy (4.55 / 9) (#176)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    He undermined his own legitimacy, IMO, when he blocked revotes in MI and FL. Those would have made his win beyond dispute. But I can already anticipate all your talking points about FL and MI, so don't bother, I've heard them all before. Bye.

    [ Parent ]
    My meme (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:11:42 AM EST
    Is that the Republican memes about the Clintons are wrong.

    when the Dem leadership can focus on that, then no one has to choose sides.

    I think we should make it known (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:25:03 AM EST
    in other ways than handing the Presidency to McCain. There MUST be.

    There are elections to membership of the DNC, for one thing. There are ways to protest & attack the media and the people who spread lies within them. There are ways to hold the Obama people's feet to the fire without committing irrevocably to McCain. And there are even officials who can be primaried.

    A McCain win at this point would be a disaster for the party. The recriminations would go on without end, and the Clinton wing of the party would not end up better off, just owners of 1/2 of a destroyed party.

    [ Parent ]

    You didn't address my concern (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:28:40 AM EST
    Republican memes about the Clintons.

    All you did is say I must accept republicans memes about the Clintons because that is now the path to party victory.  And without party victory, the Clintons are equally damaged.

    Can you address my concern more directly?

    [ Parent ]

    No, I did not say (none / 0) (#53)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:37:01 AM EST
    we must accept Republican memes about the Clintons.  Party leaders can come out and specifically reject the smears hurled at them in the primaries, which were mostly originated from the media. I think that would be a good idea, if it were sincere.

    But to still support the party does NOT mean you have to agree with (or validate) the smears against Clinton. Heck, a lot of people who voted for Obama in the primaries disagreed with those smears. Just look at the polls. Hillary is at 53% favorable nationwide. 58% among African-Americans. Most of America has rejected the stupid media narratives already.

    [ Parent ]

    The smears came from (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:38:34 AM EST
    Rev. Wright and Obama blogs, too.

    If Obama would like to reject them as well for the sake of unity, now we're getting somewhere.

    Think of what's at stake too.

    This should be a no brainer.


    [ Parent ]

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#64)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:54:44 AM EST
    Obama has rejected Wright and his statements, without referring to any specific one. And he has left the church full of bigots.

    As for the blogs, I think Obama is going to push them out, just like he pretty much pushes out all the independent groups. This is not the Edwards campaign. There is already complaints over at the Orange Satan about how he doesn't use ActBlue. They'll find themselves on the short end of the stick if they ever deign to disagree with him. He doesn't need the blogs (except to use them) but he does need the voters. Which is why I hope he does some serious outreaching to Hillary supporters in the next few weeks and months.

    [ Parent ]

    When Obama pushes them out (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:57:21 AM EST
    You'll see me, and hopefully others, change my tone.

    [ Parent ]
    Why (5.00 / 9) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:01:14 AM EST
    would it be a disaster? If the DNC decided that it wanted to put forth the weakest candidate we had for Nov. then how is that anyone's fault other than the DNC, Obama's supporters and Obama. If the DNC wasn't really interested in winning in Nov. then why should we care either? That's my feeling anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    There is still time to make (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:55:31 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton the Democrat nominee for President.  

    Obama is only the "presumptive nominee."

    The real nominee won't be picked until August.  

    If it truly concerns you that Obama can't beat McCain in the fall, then you should be urging the DNC to urge their superdelegates to nominate the candidate that CAN beat McCain in the fall.  

    [ Parent ]

    I can understand Jeralyn's point of view; she has (4.60 / 10) (#81)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:40:07 AM EST
    maintained a professional atmosphere at TalkLeft for as long as I've been reading the site. I was a lurker for years, but I've just begun to comment because of my strong interest in politics and the future of the Democratic Party. Also, TalkLeft has been a welcoming place for a Clinton supporter. At the same time, civility was maintained, for the most part, even during passionate discussions.

    On the other hand, I can also identify with you and others who find it hard to let go of memories of some of the harsh and judgmental attitudes held by some Obama supporters along with the accompanying vicious attacks perpetuated by the Obama campaign and especially some of his supporters. After seeing the venom released by some people during the campaign, I knew that I didn't want to be a part of that kind of intense, cyber-altercation either, especially because it's so counterproductive and people didn't seem to be capable of thinking logically. I know that quite a few of the regulars here are attorneys or other professionals who normally must express ideas or opinions in a reasoned manner on the job at least; but it seemed that some people in cyberspace and elsewhere lost a bit of their humanity along the way. Clinton supporters were the subjects of ridicule, and it's hard for me to forget the ugliness of it all.

    Edgar, your statement below sums up what I was thinking when I said that it seemed that some folks lost their humanity:

    "One of the common refrains is 'Pols are pols'.  It's an excuse I think.  A lame excuse.  In the end, it's a way of saying 'whatever the Obama campaign did, it's OK because they only did it in an effort to win a primary.   In the end, pols are pols, that's what they do.'"    

    I think you're absolutely correct that it's an excuse to justify inappropriate behavior. However, for me, I need to get over the feelings I had of being attacked and witnessing regular attacks on the Clintons. I probably won't totally get over it anytime soon, but I want to strive for less acute feelings about all of it. I don't have good feelings about the Party right now, so it's difficult for me to experience any sense of unity within it.

    I will never become part of the Obama "phenomenon," but I will not vote for McCain because my values are almost totally inconsistent with his. I'll probably take it day by day and see how I feel. I have never voted for a Republican, and I won't start now, but I no longer feel "at home" with the Democratic Party. With all of the insults back and forth, it's no wonder that we feel battered. Apparently, the opposition feels that way too. Go figure!?!

    Thank you Jeralyn, BTD, and TChris for providing a haven for this Clinton supporter and for keeping your objectives and principles intact during this "conflict." HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY!! And, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!


    [ Parent ]

    This is the only site left which made the (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by lorelynn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:18:16 AM EST
    full transition to supporting Obama that i can stand to read. Congratulations, Jeralyn,  your sanity and BTD's (not to mention common sense and fundamental human decency) is still managing to triumph over the insanity of this election and that is no small accomplishment. I admire you two all the more.

    Wholeheartedly seconded. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Happy Birthday, TalkLeft (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:28:50 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I'm one of those Clinton supporters who's having a hard time with the way this primary went.  At this point I can't see myself voting for Obama in November.  But that's not the reason for this post.

    What I'm not having a hard time with is the way you run this website.  When every liberal blog was climbing blindly on the Obama bandwagon you provided an oasis of reasoned discourse.  That you can now support him does not take away from that.

    In many ways I'm glad to see TalkLeft returning to its roots.  There's a crying need for study and dialog on how we deal with crime.  While other sites are consumed yet by politics, this one gives its readers something meatier and, I daresay, even more important than who said what about whom.

    Thanks for not chasing people like me away.  I'll try to be mindful of your guidelines in posting.  

    One question: do you disapprove of any movement which works toward turning the nomination to Clinton at the convention?

    That is a problem (5.00 / 18) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:55:52 AM EST
    Because I don't agree, on a fundamental level, that supporting Obama will ever result in action reaching out to the Democratic base, or what may soon be the former base.

    Why would he? He hasn't yet, and he is not by any measure assured of a win in November.  If he won't reach out now, when he needs the people who are not just Clinton supporters, but who support a Democratic party that does not act as this one has for much of this year, what possible incentive does he have after he has our votes?

    If it were just Obama, what you've said might come to pass.  Maybe I'd be willing to wait him out and get the party back.  But it was not.  The was a full-court press by a significant part of the Party leadership to change the party itself.  Look how long it took the remaking of the Republican party start to unravel.  And it's still stuck.

    I don't see any signs that supporting this party will cause it to give me or others with similar views any credit.  All I've heard here, on most other blogs, and in the MSM is that no one needs worry about my vote, because I'll come back, people like me always do.  And usually, not always, with scorn.  Howard Dean only even acknowledges sexism in the media (only) because of the volume of switched party affiliations and angry emails and returned solicitation envelopes.  Again, how would that change if I support the party?

    It's not that I wouldn't like to be able to agree.  I would love to live in a world where what you've said is true.  I just don't see any evidence of it in the past or any indication that might be true in the future.

    I don't think there are any quick fixes (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:07:18 AM EST
    Valhalla. I hear you. I think this is a long term problem that has been building for a long time. It's going to go on after Dean is no longer in charge at the DNC, which may be soon. Party chairs generally do not serve longer than 4-5 years, period, and this one has screwed things up royally, from managing the primaries to raising money.

    I knew that this kind of a thing would happen if Hillary became involved in a long primary. The MSM meme for YEARS has been to caricature her, and all that she stands for, in the worst possible way.

    I just think that it's an easier fight to fight within the Democratic party as the majority than to fight both a GOPer Presidency & the Democratic leaders at once. Fights within the majority party, the party holding the Presidency, are always taken more seriously OUTSIDE the party, in the press. And therein lies the real problem. The MEDIA's mentality, and how that has reinforced the Dem leadership. It is their thinking that needs some major shaking up, beyond their 20% usual cable news demographic.

    [ Parent ]

    people like you are being purged... (5.00 / 12) (#116)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:15:34 AM EST
    from the Democratic Party.

    It just happened in South Florida -- two Obama supporters from the gay and lesbian community in South Florida were thrown off of the at-large delegation alternates and replaced with political hacks.  If you have an agenda that includes anything other than complete and utter devotion to Dear Leader, you are an apostate.

    And this move to Chicago?  Just how many Clinton supporters who work at the DNC do you think will be laid off -- and how many new hires will be made in Chicago that will be long-time Daley/Obama machine loyalists?

    [ Parent ]

    I can't get this through my head (5.00 / 11) (#167)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    ...that Wexler could remove delegates and place his own and that the DNC agreed to move and give Daley the reins.

    I've been around politics for a long time but all this just does not feel right. It feels very wrong, like something is happening and no one is telling.  It is really very frightening.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    I'm also certain that with all those Chicago people will come an awful lot of electoral FRAUD.
    Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, NJ, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, won't need Hillary women because the dead will grow wings and vote...in true Daley style. Sadly the DNC will have been purged of all those who might have controlled them.

    [ Parent ]
    A few thoughts (5.00 / 16) (#67)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:56:17 AM EST
    First, TalkLeft has been a rare oasis of sanity during the primaries. It's one of the very few political blogs where I actually enjoy reading the comments. The discussion here is funny and smart and observant. I know this is largely because of the strict moderation policy that's employed. So I can't do anything but support Jeralyn when she decries certain types of comments and exercise