The Difference Between Disagreement , Criticism and Hate

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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 / 1) (#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...

    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.

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

    It does? (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    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.

    You are of course... (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Thing is that they already were deemed (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    Alec- I just do not understand how you feel so (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Alec is (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    Hating Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    Huh? (4.00 / 4) (#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?

    The day after Clinton ceded (5.00 / 17) (#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.


    Indeed, in fact, the more I associate with Obama (4.60 / 10) (#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.


    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?

    There's no guarantee (4.42 / 7) (#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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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?


    If you want theatre go to Florida (5.00 / 8) (#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."



    Well, I for one am relieved to learn (5.00 / 9) (#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.

    Interesting article (5.00 / 2) (#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.    


    If you want theater (1.00 / 1) (#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.

    Yeah, it's a bogus excuse. (5.00 / 10) (#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?  


    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!

    The past passes, it doesn't disappear (5.00 / 7) (#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.


    " Democrats gave it to him..." (5.00 / 7) (#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.



    I am not ready to blindly support Obama (5.00 / 9) (#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.



    That Is Smart (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    The problem is IMO (5.00 / 0) (#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?


    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.

    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.

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

    Sounds Right (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST
    Thanks for the wake up call. I think with all the residual passion, some have lost perspective of where we are now, and wind up trashing Obama out of habit.

    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 / 6) (#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 (4.20 / 10) (#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.


    why? (1.80 / 5) (#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.


    First off... (4.76 / 17) (#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.


    no, sorry (1.00 / 3) (#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.


    wrong (5.00 / 16) (#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.


    what are you talking about? (1.50 / 8) (#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.


    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.


    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 / 17) (#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 / 8) (#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.  


    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.


    Yes (5.00 / 15) (#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.


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    More than Fair Enough (5.00 / 10) (#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 / 17) (#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.  

    If by revisiting "this" (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    It's OUR party (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    You know (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:35 AM EST
    the DNC chose our nominee.

    Not Democrats.


    cmon Edgar (2.50 / 6) (#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.


    lots of crap to go around (5.00 / 10) (#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.

    anything and everything is "debatable" (3.66 / 3) (#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?


    i'm not undermining his legitimacy (4.50 / 8) (#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.

    My meme (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    You didn't address my concern (5.00 / 3) (#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?


    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.


    The smears came from (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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.


    When Obama pushes them out (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:57:21 AM EST
    You'll see me, and hopefully others, change my tone.

    Why (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    There is still time to make (5.00 / 2) (#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.  


    I can understand Jeralyn's point of view; she has (4.55 / 9) (#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!!


    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
    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?

    reconciliation (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Bintarong on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:47:01 AM EST
    I think that one thing that might help a great deal would be for people to abandon the idea that Obama supporters need to 'reach out' to Clinton supporters.  There is no reason for this -- our candidate needs to represent himself, and people (including myself) who support Obama are not his representatives.  

    Everyone votes for different reasons.  The Democratic candidate has never received 100% of the Democratic vote, nor has the Republican (of Republican votes).  The election is a process that is organized vertically -- votes flow from many unassociated people up to a candidate.  We should not make the mistake of thinking that all Obama supporters are organized horizontally, and that they need to convince Clinton supporters to join them.  I understand how annoying that must seem -- I wouldn't do that to anyone at a party, so why on the Internet?

    I hope in the end that you all support Obama, but I'm sure that if you do you'll find your own reasons.  Cheers

    I appreciate your post (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:58:06 AM EST
    because I agree that it doesn't help much when Obama supporters try to reach out to Clinton supporters.  

    One of the problems is that Obama supporters tend to denigrate us while trying to get us to vote for Obama.  "You're a racist if you don't vote for Obama" is not a convincing reason to vote for Obama.  "You're a bitter old white lady if you don't vote for Obama" is another non-starter.  

    The candidate does need to represent.  The Obama supporters should learn more about good sales techniques.  Instead of focusing on what is negative about the voter, they should focus more on what is positive about the candidate.  


    That is a problem (5.00 / 17) (#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 / 1) (#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.


    people like you are being purged... (5.00 / 11) (#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?


    I can't get this through my head (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    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.

    A few thoughts (5.00 / 15) (#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 exercises her own policies. Comment moderation is one of the things that has made this blog as good as it is.

    Regarding the Obama of it all...I am a member of a long-time political list that grew out of the horrors of the 2000 election. It's had its ups and downs but this primary has pretty much destroyed it - what was once a very active group is down to a few messages/jokes and arguments.

    One of the members posted something about the misogyny of the campaign. Another member, an Obama supporter, responded by saying that she was taking Senator Clinton's advice and "moving on," and that we would never agree on why things turned out the way they did, which I took to mean that she didn't think the misogyny was a big issue (she also disagreed with my characterization of Keith Olbermann, which shall we say, was harsh).

    I said that it's easy for winners to "move on." But if the grievances of the losing side aren't acknowledged and addressed, a lot of people won't move on, and under those circumstances, unity is just another empty slogan.

    That's why I'm still on the fence about what I will do in the fall (though it won't involved voting for McCain - I'll either vote for Obama or not vote for President at all and vote down-ticket). I think BTD has stated this - it is up to the winners to create unity, and they can only do that by genuinely reaching out, listening, acknowledging and giving us some of the things we want.

    When the Obama campaign seems more interested in outreach to right-wing evangelicals than to elements of the base of his own party, what am I supposed to think? That I'm just "low-hanging fruit," that I'll go along?

    "They'll come back. They always do."

    This is the thing. I want to vote for Obama because I don't want to see another Republican in the White House. But how can I vote for Obama, when voting for him basically says that I've accepted a candidate and a party that doesn't value me or my vote?

    All thoughts welcome.

    I'm planning on doing (5.00 / 12) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:16:22 AM EST
    as the Bible says.

    If people don't listen, I'll shake the dust from my sandals, turn my back on them and move on.

    If the DNC doesn't listen, I'll move on.
    If Obama doesn't listen, I'll move on.
    If the Democrats don't listen, I'll move on.

    There's a lot of political parties out there.  They may not be as big as the DNC, but they may be better.  I'm ready to turn the page and move on unless there's a sudden attack of listening and responsiveness in the Democratic leadership.


    Otherlisa, those are the feelings that I've had (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:56:55 AM EST
    and have not quite reconciled. I see the Party currently involved in and representing activities that I don't approve of, so it's difficult to comfortably get under the Democratic umbrella, so to speak.

    And as you said, when you have an internal conflict that's still unresolved, it's hard to move on. What puzzles me is that the Obama suppporters seem stunned that we don't feel like holding hands right now. As I said in a long post upthread, I do want some of my personal intense feelings to lessen, just for my own well-being.


    lisa, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:08:12 AM EST
    I don't think voting for Obama is voting for a candidate or a party that doesn't value your vote. First of all, the "party" is not monolithic. Most in "the party" have a positive view of Hillary, and most would value your vote and your concerns. I certainly do (but then again I am/was a Clinton supporter. But the point is, I am staying in the party). And I think I would share your view of Keith Olbermann.

    As I said above, the only reason that some Democratic activists now elevates people like Olbermann, who do think it is fine to act like shallow blowhards, or to tacitly accept, or even engage in, deep sexism, is because these attitudes have creeped deeply into the media and the elite culture as a whole, and that has in turn infected the Democratic party. Olbermann's whole shtick is that he's the next Edward Murrow right? What a joke. But what it shows is how insecure Democrats are, that they have to fashion their heroes after some long dead reporter from the past who give our current 'pundit' a false aura of gravitas.

    And misogyny became acceptable when feminism was shunted aside as "dead", oh 10 years ago, by TIME Magazine. It was only not so obvious as Hillary's run has made it.

    Both of these things are symptoms of DEMOCRATIC WEAKNESS as a party. Our insecurity, born from defeats.

    Yet ANOTHER defeat, electing McCain, would be a huge step back. Which is why I think it is stupid that some people are embracing an even greater evil because of the serious problems within the lesser evil. Electing Obama would not solve our problems, but it would be a step forward. A step forward badly needed.


    Rbeck, I would like to get to this place (5.00 / 18) (#90)
    by otherlisa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:39 AM EST
    I really would. My other set of issues with Obama is policy-based - the non-commitment to universal health care, the Chicago School neo-liberal economic advisors, the lousy environmental record...

    I mean, I am a person who was not a Bill Clinton fan because I felt that he moved the party too far to the center. Over time I've come to the conclusion that this was what had to happen at the time, or if it didn't have to happen, at least it wasn't a disaster, though there are still some things about his presidency that I have issues with - but hell, I'm not a purist.

    That's the thing. I'm pretty much a realist these days. I don't have a lot of unrealistic expectations about politics or what a president can and cannot do.

    But what I think we're getting with Obama and all his former Republican-turned-nominal Democratic supporters is a guy who is going to move the Democratic Party even further to the right, at a time when this simply is not necessary, when we had the perfect opportunity to return to our roots as a more activist, FDR coalition, government can do good things in peoples' lives kind of Party.

    What does Obama mean for the Democratic "brand"?


    I fived you... (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:38:38 AM EST
    Excellent, excellent points OL.  I'm probably going to swallow hard and vote for the guy, but man oh man is it going to suck.  He can still blow it if he doesn't rein in some of his supporters though.

    I can say this:  I will never vote for McCain.  At all.  Never.  If I can't find a way to vote for Obama, than I just leave it blank.  Oh, and I'll send a copy of it to the DNC as well, to see if Donna will maybe want me in 2012.  Although, since we're maybe blowing an almost sure thing, if he loses in Nov. at least we'll get rid of Brazille and Dean and the rest of the odious crew who have foisted this man upon us.  You know, silver linings and all that.  :)



    I understand your concerns (none / 0) (#92)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:40:33 AM EST
    But you must admit that your statement contradicts itself.  The two most loyal wings of the party have come out strongly for Obama (white liberals and blacks).  Now, electability arguments are another concern.  But it is unfair to denigrate the Democratic base.  The constant and consistent base of the party supports Obama.  

     We have supported the Democratic nominee, period.  To be called Republican lite now is slightly insulting.  Just call us Dems with differences of opinion.


    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:57:41 AM EST
    To be fair, I think she is talking about his Independent voters, at least when he was actually attracting them.  Some of his biggest boosters online are former Regressives, that includes Kos, Avairosis, and John Cole.  (Not a slam on them, I'm glad they saw the light, and while I disagree with their actions of late, they have been a net plus for the blogosphere.)

    Now, with the White Liberals and AA's, that is the "AA's and eggheads" coalition that Begala quite correctly points out has lost us many an Election.  I hope that he can garner a bigger coalition than that or we may as well not even bother.  He's already losing the White male vote by 20 points, which is typical for a Dem Nominee, but this is freaking June, and that number will only get worse as we near Nov.  I hope that I'm wrong, I really do.



    Respectfully (1.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:21:09 AM EST
    I believe things have changed this year.

     For 16 years the Dems have put up the so-called "centrist" candidate.  This year is really no different, apart from tone.  The difference is that this year, after a disastrous administration, the loyal coalition was told to step aside.  We didn't.  

     His numbers are above Kerry's at this point in 04.  It will be a close election, but I am really sick of hearing from the "New" Dems at this point.  They lost and yeah that sucks.  But bashing your coalition partners almost guarantees that you will be isolated in the party.

     Plus, the egghead slam screams of typical Bush anti-intellectualism.  For those of us with a post-grad degree who are also members of the working class, it is a double slam.  


    uniters not dividers.... (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:26:19 AM EST
    The two most loyal wings of the party have come out strongly for Obama (white liberals and blacks).

    ...and yet as a uniter, you manage to somehow insult 'women' and 'blue collar working people' who might consider themselves to be the most loyal wings of the party... I could easily make an argument that they've been with the party longer.... but I wouldn't, because it's silly... we were all supposed to be in this together.  Your statement however shows you vlaued one set of voters over another... fine... you win... we're less valuable... so you probably won't mind if we find another place to become accepted for what we bring to the table.

    You probably didn't even see the insult you were hurling.

    It's sad that over my 25+ years as a tireless Dem, someone like you actually comes to the party and specifies there's a hierarchy... big tent indeed.


    wow (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:25:12 AM EST
    Folks on this site jump to offense at the slightest provocation, I see. I think he was referring to voting rates - i.e. African-Americans vote for Democrats at higher rates than women do. Ergo they are a more loyal constituency.

    Like it or not, "blue collar working people" have by and large been voting for the other team since the early 1980's.


    Spare me faux outrage (1.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:37:20 AM EST
    Liberals and blacks are far more loyal than any other constituency.  You can kick us all you want, fake outrage all you want, but that won't change the demographic reality.

    Another point you miss (5.00 / 10) (#182)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    is that many of us here who are having difficulties supporting Obama ARE liberals. We ARE the loyal base. And women are much more loyal to the Dems than men. Obama has got problems with his base. At this point the only members of his base that he doesn't have problems with are blacks. But Obama is not shoring up his base, he's out appealing to the Republican base and cracking down like an authoritarian in his own party.

    That's a pretty bold statement. (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    I, as one of 18 million, will change the demographic reality this Nov.

    I am going to add something here (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:24:37 AM EST
    Disagreement:  I wouldn't have voted for the Iraq AUMF.

    Criticism:  Trusting Bush is a bad idea.

    Hate:  Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.

    This is an object lesson.

    The Democratic Party is now controlled, owned and operated by people who think Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.

    When I have good reason to think otherwise then I will re-consider supporting that party.

    It's nice that we can discuss all this.

    The comforting thing is this, that by quirk of fate, or by the intellect of common people, everyone I know agrees with me on this issue.

    Everyone I meet on blogs thinks I'm insane.

    you raise an interesting point jeralyn. (5.00 / 14) (#93)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:42:46 AM EST
    one i have had a problem with for a bit now:

    I hope those of you who supported Hillary will take her at her word and transfer your support to Barack Obama.

    this assumes (wrongly, i believe) that all democrats are interchangeable. clearly that's not the case, or why bother having primaries to begin with? it would be easier (and certainly cheaper) to just take the name of every registered democrat, put their names in a hat and draw one.

    sen. clinton, to her credit, is being the "good soldier", and i understand that. i don't agree, but i understand.

    you assert as well that sen. obama has won the nomination. i thought that wasn't official until the convention, since the superdelegates are free to change their minds up until they actually cast their ballot there? am i wrong on this?

    it appears that congress will become close to a super majority democratic body, come nov. 4th. that being the case, i'm inclined to believe a pres. mccain would actually be less dangerous than a pres. obama; a strongly majority dem congress would be more likely to act as a break on a pres. mccain, than they would a pres. obama.

    as you yourself have noted, it isn't at all clear what sen. obama actually stands for, since it changes from day to day. at least with mccain, we know what we'll get up front.

    yes, sen. obama appears to have won the nomination, by working the system set in place by the DNC, among other, more distasteful means. he's also managed, in the process, to display his glaring GE weaknessness, alienating huge swaths of the very people he'll need then.

    i started out liking him, but believing his candidacy was several years premature. i now dislike him, and feel he'll both lose in nov., and never be seen or heard from again.

    i speak only for myself, but suspect i'm not alone.

    You seem to think (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:48:23 AM EST
    Obama wasn't ready.

    You'd have more respect in this party if you just said he was dishonest.

    That is the future.


    You're definitely not alone. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:29:18 AM EST
    Obama dd not steal the nomination (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by stefystef on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:51:08 AM EST
    but I honestly do not and will not believe that he is qualified to be President of the United States with a very LIMITED experience as a politician, compared to decades of experience from Hillary Clinton.

    I will also never EVER forgive the Democratic National Committee and those politicians who turned their backs on the Clintons, who worked so hard to keep the Democratic Party viable when the Republicans bulldozed their way into the Congress and the White House.  The vilification of William Jefferson Clinton was the last straw for me.

    I will never say a bad word about Obama, but neither a kind either.  His recent actions- moving the DNC to Chicago, especially, proved to me that Rev. Wright is correct:

    Barack Obama is nothing more than a politician who will pander to anyone to get power and use anyone to help promote his arrogance.  

    The Democratic Party can go to Chicago and stay there.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Due respect (1.66 / 6) (#155)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    But do you understand that there are a lot of folks who think William Jefferson Clinton was the reason the Republcians bulldozed their way into power in 1994 and 2000? That there were a couple thousand voters in Florida who were turned off the Democratic brand because of his issues, which ultimately decided the last eight years of history?

    The guy wasn't a bad president from an ideological standpoint but jeez, he wasn't so great that his wife should have automatically gotten the nomination.


    A lot of folks (5.00 / 12) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    are flat-out wrong and have memory problems.  It's become one of the Obamaworld talking points of late that the Dems. lost congress because of Bill Clnton, but it's flat-out false.  BC's election was a temporary setback in a rolling wave of Republicanism, and congress finally went down because of the endless trumped-up "scandals" of congressional bank check-kiting nonsense, Gingrich's engineering of Speaker Wright's ouster on extremely flimsy charges, etc.  THe Dem. congress had been riding for a fall for quite a while.

    To blame it on Bill Clinton is nothing more than Obama camp revisionist history, one more way in which the Clintons are being trashed so that Obama can shine more brightly.

    And get off it with the "his wife should have automatically gotten the nomination."  Nobody has ever said that, nobody believes it, and nobody here, certainly, supported Hillary because she's Bill's wife.  More ugly and nonsensical talking points from the campaign to discredit everything Clinton.


    That's not fair (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    The "Clinton cost us Congress" meme was going around long before Obama even entered the Ill. Assembly. I happen to think there's some truth to it and Gore's loss, but that's my opinion. To call it a piece of revisionist history invented by Obama is silly.

    Gore didn't lose (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    if you actually counted the votes in FL.  Especially all those votes that "mistakenly" went to Pat Buchanan.  Pat himself has admitted that those votes were intended for Gore but that the Butterfly ballot confused the voters.

    Classic sexism (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    but jeez, he wasn't so great that his wife should have automatically gotten the nomination.

    Yup, she had no qualifications and no abilities other than being the wife of Bill Clinton. Thank you, Chris Matthews, for posting at talkleft.


    I was responding specifically to the comment (none / 0) (#187)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:39:03 AM EST
    that the party should've shown a little more "gratitude" to WJC for his leadership. Its clear that to many people here, anything less than a victory for Hillary would have been ungrateful to the Clintons.

    Thanks for the veiled insult, though. I love being called a sexist this early in the morning.


    Gore didn't lose because of WJC. (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22:32 AM EST
    Most think Gore's mistake was distancing himself from WJC, who was still very popular despite the Repubs efforts to bring him down. He also made other mistakes.

    Also, FL didn't decide the election, they were just inept at counting the votes. 50 states' voters decided the election. You could just as easily blame Nader but most would recognize a combination of factors determines the outcome of any election.


    Yes, and one of those folks (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    was undoubtedly Donna Brazile. Her refusal to let Bill Clinton campaign on Al Gore's behalf, thus losing Arkansas and probably also Gore's own Tennessee, was one of the big mistakes of her campaign. Had Gore won either or both of those States Florida would not have mattered.
    Furthermore the kind of reasoning that  circulated in the DNC that his wife should not automatically get the nomination, certainly contributed in Obama's favor.
    I remember very clearly all the "unlikeable" and "unlovable" cruel epithets that circulated around the media, about Hillary.
    However, where Donna Brazile and others got it wrong, and what I believe will cost them the election was the genuine affection felt for both Hillary and Bill by the common voter.

    I Disagree 100% (5.00 / 14) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:13:50 AM EST
    Once Obama wins the WH, we are stuck with the NEW Democratic Party and all that it represents. Obama and the NEW Democratic Party will believe that it has a mandate to ignore anyone who disagrees with them including other Democrats.

    Any and all of our concerns can and will be ignored because they will have proven that no matter how much we disagree with their agenda, we will fall in line and give them our votes anyway. Our votes are our only power and if give them away to people who insult us now they will only continue to ignore and insult us after they win.

    I'd rather knit.

    Right wing (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:17:43 AM EST
    talking points? LOL! Stating that neither Obama nor McCain would be a good president is a right wing talking point? You obviously don't know what one is then. Obama has used them repeatedly. RWTPs have been part of his campaign.

    So, begins the purge. (5.00 / 9) (#118)
    by Mari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:22:31 AM EST
    This is why the Democrats lose. If I don't meet your purity test for being a good democrat, I am a right wing shill and/or I don't have your superior understanding.

    Many Clinton supporters have grave reservations about Obama's plans once in power, but Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge that sincere, thoughtful people may have a different point of view that may have merit.

    You can get rid of all the Clinton supporters from this site, but it won't change the problems Obama is facing or the ongoing destruction of the Democratic coalition.

    I'm sorry (1.66 / 6) (#121)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:36:53 AM EST
    But people who refer to "right wingers" at UC and call Obama a Republican do not get to cry foul. Particularly since this site is not a First Amendment zone, which may have been helpful to you during the primaries, but is obviously unhelpful now.

     If you want to support McCain, go to his website.  That is where McCain supporters belong. If TL became a McCain shilling site it would not deserve the L.  Sorry, them's the facts.


    How do you get that I was shilling for McCain (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by Mari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:56:09 AM EST
    by criticizing Obama?  What will you do when you find that you disagree with Obama? Are you okay with his lavish courting of the evangelical vote and the overt religiosity of his campaign? What about his willingness to privatize social security? His economic advisors from the UofC are neoliberals. If you don't allow dissent in the Democratic Party, then it's not much of a Big Tent anymore. Is rigid loyalty and all suspension of critical thinking a requirment to being an Obama supporter?

    We should let the moderators decide if my comments are inappropriate for this site.


    Strange interpretation (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:31:56 AM EST
    I didn't see anywhere that you shilled for McCain, Mari. And what you said was indeed true - some of his U of C advisors ARE quite conservative, especially the pro-life guy who's so in love with Obama. There is nothing wrong or untrue with what you said.

    Every once in a while, this pops up here - it's bizarre and authoritarian and I don't know how to explain it. Perhaps insecurity about Obama's support? I don't know.


    It is odd. (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by Mari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:04:40 AM EST
    So many Obama supporters proclaim themselves to be very liberal and try to throw guilt trips at recalcitrant Clinton supporters, yet they are strangely silent about Obama's many conservative stances. It is as if to discuss these issues would destroy Obama's chances in the GE, i.e.  Obama is that weak of a candidate.

    Social security privatization (none / 0) (#140)
    by songster on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    is off the table, as far as anything I hear from the Obama campaign.  There are indeed disturbing undertones.  I'm especially annoyed by having the illusory "crisis" brought back into the discourse of supposedly reasonable people.  But - and I say this as one who will out-bitter-end the best or worst of us - I haven't seen evidence that Obama is "willing to privatize social security".

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wants to privatize.  But trumping up a "crisis" in Social Security when there is none, and ignoring the crises that exist in Medicare and the federal budget are highly disturbing to me. I do not think the man understands policy at a deep enough level to get why his approach here is so detrimental.

    Keep Up The Good Work (5.00 / 11) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:56:09 AM EST
    You are a fine representative of Obama and by your example have given us a perfect picture of Obama and how he plans to unite the country.


    prime example of why "unity" (5.00 / 10) (#127)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:09:27 AM EST
    is elusive. As long as Obama supporters cannot be content with "we're Democrats and support the Democratic nominee," there is going to be shoving and shouting. Face it: half the party think the better candidate is not the nominee, and they're unhappy about how this outcome was engineered.

    Your outrage because because some of these loyal Democrats, like Jeralyn, can only voice lukewarm support for the nominee ONE WEEK after the suspension of Hillary's campaign is petty and, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

    Jeralyn's saying that TalkLeft isn't going to be a Kool-aid stand, not for Obama, not for Clinton, certainly not for McCain. Reasoned disagreement, questions, doubts can be expressed here--just not character assassinations and groundless negative assertions. Having a snit because gray is allowed and there's no bright, colorful Kool-Aid served here doesn't do much to further one's cause: it only alienates people even more.

    I'm not a loyal Democrat--not anymore. I'm an Independent now, thanks to Obama and his supporters in the DNC and elsewhere, but I'll vote for Obama--unless I become convinced that he would be so inept that even a good council of advisers couldn't help. But I must say that the utter intolerance of any criticism of Obama is disturbing.

    And partly because of this disturbing "you're either with us or agin' us" mentality, I do not regret leaving the Democratic party until (and if) I am satisfied that this "new and improved," rebranded party stands for the principles that made me a Democrat 32 years ago. As long as I have doubts about that, I'm over here on the sideline.... But I won't be voting for McCain.

    Bravo! (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:29:44 AM EST
    I traveled the same path. Got my changed registration card yesterday and felt ... quiet satisfaction.

    Indeed (5.00 / 15) (#142)
    by Mike H on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    This is my problem with "having" to support Obama.

    Since I disagree with the tone of his campaign, wildly disagree with the vilification of both Clintons, and dislike the direction Obama is moving the Democratic Party towards... if I do end up voting for him, I believe that will be taken as my CONSENT for what has happened.

    And I didn't consent, I don't consent, and I don't want to reward the Party for what it has done.

    If -- and it's a big if -- Obama wins the general election, it WILL be taken as vindication for everything they've done.  There will be no "unity" in the sense of all of us working together on common goals.  It will be the unity of "we were right, you were wrong, shut up and do what we tell you".

    I've seen nothing from Obama supporters to suggest any differently.  One of my core beliefs in life is that one should not reward bad behavior.  I believe the way the party has managed this primary, has allowed the defamation of the Clintons, and has moved away from strong support of traditionally liberal causes should not be rewarded.

    And what Obama and his campaign have done recently doesn't inspire me with any confidence that they "get it" or even want to get it.  That kind of arrogance also does not deserve support.

    If they change their tune, I'll be open minded, but right now I'm not holding my breath.


    Your Comment States Exactly How (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    I feel about this election. I find it very hard to vote to ratify the NEW Democratic Party when I disagree with it so strongly.

    I understand, Mike (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:23:17 AM EST
    You articulate very well my reservations. Trust me, I'm weighing all of that and the jury is still out with me. But if I'm convinced that the Democratic party is abandoning the principles I want a party to adhere to, then I won't be rewarding that either. I'm just trying to keep an open--if suspicious--mind right now.

    No one is expecting (1.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Chincoteague on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:48:08 AM EST
    great love of Obama from Hillary supporters.  But if you cannot even accept that he won, that he earned the nomination, the healing process  cannot even begin.

    I have great sympathy for Hillary supporters because it was so close.  It is why, for the great majority of the time I've looked in here, I haven't commented.  Because other than Obama supporters completely surrendering, there is nothing you've wanted to hear.

    But it's over.  He will be the nominee.  Yet most of the people here refuse to accept that, and there's all this talk of McCain.

    And the owner of this site, who is supposedly a Democrat, is fostering non-acceptance of his legitimate win by saying it was given to him.

    That certainly isn't going to heal Democrats, and it certainly isn't going to help the Democratic Party get rid of the disasters we've all faced from the last eight years.

    What is truly ironic is because some of Hillary's supporters are in such a snit on this site, they're thinking about voting for the party that is totally against their interests.  Womens interests and legal interests, which McCain doesn't care one iota about.  

    That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which this site seems intent on doing.

    Good luck.


    But... (5.00 / 13) (#146)
    by Mike H on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:08:25 AM EST
    If we think Obama and the party leaders are moving the party in the wrong direction, then supporting the party at this time only reinforces them in moving the party in the wrong direction.

    Maybe we NEED to lose this one in order to slap the party back into reality and get back to supporting its core principles.

    I believe they are counting on us to pull the lever marked "D" no matter who is nominated.  And I think that makes them take us for granted and softens their support for the causes I care about, that the party USED to care about but doesn't seem to anymore.

    It's not just a matter of 2008, it's what happens to the party and the country well beyond that.  If we elect a Democrat that is soft on traditionally left principles, that moves the party more rightward, with the GOP on the extreme right, and progressives and liberals get left in the dust with nothing to show for our continuing loyal support of a party that takes us for granted.

    I don't see how simply going along with the "new direction" of the party actually gains progressives anything in the long term.   Obama is certainly no progressive, and every day he seems to pull back further from traditionally left principles.

    I'm really at a loss, now, for this upcoming election.


    Say what? (1.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Chincoteague on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:36:36 AM EST
    If we think Obama and the party leaders are moving the party in the wrong direction,

    What is this new direction?  A 50 state strategy? That sounds like a good strategy to me, grow the Democratic party.  What other wrong directions do you see the party going?  Be specific.

    Maybe we NEED to lose this one in order to slap the party back into reality and get back to supporting its core principles.

    Wow, I don't think I've ever heard of a Democrat calling for their party to lose. Are you sure you're a Democrat?  What reality do you want to get us back to?  And what core principles?


    Honestly (none / 0) (#158)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:33:26 AM EST
    Can you name some of the ways you think Obama is moving the party in the wrong direction? Substantive ways please, nothing like "he plays rap music at rallies", a refrain I see often here.

    Not saying that you personally have done this, but I've seen Obama attacked from just about every ideological standpoint here - there are oodles that think he's too left-wing, then oodles more that think he's a closet Republican coming to privatize Social Security and overturn Roe v. Wade in the first 100 days.


    Pandering to (5.00 / 5) (#194)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    evangelical Christians is one move in the wrong direction.  That's one branch of the Republican party that could stay with the Republican party as far as I'm concerned.  

    I Do Not Need To Be Healed (5.00 / 13) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:24:53 AM EST
    I am not broken. I accept that Obama is the nominee. What I don't accept is that Obama and the New Democratic Party represents me or my values.

    The fact that I do not agree with Obama's world view does not mean anything other than I do not agree with him or what he represents. Lectures from you or from your candidate are not persuasive but keep up the good work of representing your candidate. You are a fine example of Obama and all he represents.


    Ha ha, MO Blue (5.00 / 10) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:01:56 AM EST
    Whatever is the matter? You object to being reduced to 'you're in a snit'? You find some disrespect for your principles and opinions in that comment? Why I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that you were not convinced by that.

    On a more serious note, I am exactly where you are. It is not bad to leave a party or not support a candidate when you feel that they have sold out progressive principles. In fact, it feels like the right thing to do. I get that others don't feel that way, but they don't have a right to reduce that opinion to 'snit'.


    What you don't get (5.00 / 15) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:41:34 AM EST
    is that most of us became Hillary supporters because the more we learned about Obama, the more unhappy we became, and Hillary was the only alternative.

    Because Hillary is out of it now doesn't magically change my opinion of Obama.

    It's not about Hillary, except insofar as the way her candidacy and her supporters were treated showed me things about Obama I find extremely alarming.  Not the only things by far, but certainly some of the first evidence of who he really is.


    "Earned it" versus (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by songster on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:50:20 AM EST
    "given to him" - as long as that's the emphasis, I can't move forward. Obama supporters will have to agree to let us disagree. "Who do you believe, me or your lyin eyes" is not a persuasive position.

    Talk to me about issues, leadership, how we can look forward to something better than the horrors of the last seven years.  Then maybe I can move forward.


    Huh? (5.00 / 14) (#177)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    Jeralyn is "suppposedly" a Democrat? I believe them's fightin' words.

    Most of the people that I have talked to who are contemplating withholding their vote from the Democratic party in November are not doing it because they are "in a snit" and think the GOP better represents their values. They're doing it because the events of the past six months have made them doubt whether the Democratic party stands for them and represents their values.

    Disaffected Democrats have a big decision to make: there is a struggle within the party for control and for the future of the party. Is it better to stay in the party, vote for the nominee, and work to make the party represent their interests? Or is it better to withhold their vote and their money as the only weapons available? I know what my decision is, but I try not to criticize those who come down on either side of this. I think people are trying to make the bast decision they can to make sure the party represents their beliefs and values going forward.


    well-said (5.00 / 9) (#191)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    The candidate who was well-versed in policy and eager to talk about it was defeated. Her constituency of blue-collar and older female and latino voters were mocked--openly deemed unnecessary by Donna Brazile and David Axelrod.

    Obama's policy positions are hazy, ambiguous. This is because he's running not as a policy leader but an inspirational leader. He's like "policies? yeah, whatever. Just vote for me and then we'll sort that out."

    He won not by out-arguing Hillary on policy but by demonizing her--or by standing around while his minions dusted off the old memes from the 90s rightwingnuts--all the while preaching about a "new politics" that transcends partisanship.

    And just as he's supposed to be post-partisan, he's supposed to be "post-racial," but he and his wife attended Reverend Wright's church for 20 years--and Wright is about as "post-racial" as Farrakhan.

    The gap between Obama's rhetoric and his reality is too broad for some folks to jump.

    This is why even those of us who see the logic in NOT voting for McCain are finding it difficult to vote for Obama. We don't know what he stands for. We don't know what the Democratic party, which finagled to make him the nominee, stands for anymore. We have serious and disturbing doubts about the alternative that our (former) party is presenting to McCain.



    it WAS given to him by the superdelegates (5.00 / 12) (#185)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    And the owner of this site, who is supposedly a Democrat, is fostering non-acceptance of his legitimate win by saying it was given to him.

    Did you know that from March 1, Hillary won the popular vote by 600,000? From March onward, Hillary was the choice of the voters. In an essential tie, if the DNC and the superdelegates it herded were interested in the voters' will, the superdelegates would have trickled over to Hillary instead of Obama. That's not what happened. Hillary would win by 30 or 40 points and the next day five superdelegates would declare for Obama, just so everyone would know who was the choice of the Democratic leadership, the voters of KY and WV be damned. (So much for that 50 state business.)

    Obama supporters seem to think he won by a landslide of voter support. He won by harvesting delegates much better than the Clinton campaign did: pledged delegates and superdelegates. The contest itself was tie, but the party leadership handed the nomination to Obama.

    Furthermore, Jeralyn has pledged her support of Obama. Is that not enough? Or do you want her to sing Obama's praises and shade the truth so that it's more palatable to his more worshipful supporters? If that's the environment you prefer, there are many, many born-again Obama-supporter sites on the Internet to choose from, aren't there? Or is it your campaign to shut down any that aren't preaching the gospel as you define it?

    Can't you simply say "thank you for supporting my candidate" and leave it at that?


    I used to be a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Virginialass on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:36:37 AM EST
    Until Bill Clinton came along. I was a Republican intern when Reagan was in office. I would probably consider myself more of an Independent right now. My vote is up for grabs.

    I really like this blog because it does not glorify Obama - the facts are presented about him and this is a source I can trust.

    Right now I am going to sit back and listen and then make my decision. I love Hillary but I am not going to vote for him just because she is telling me to or because he is a Democrat.

    I live in Virginia and here you do not have to declare a party to vote in the Primaries. I could have voted in the Republican party if I wanted to.  I am not registered under either party technically.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:02:07 AM EST
    but she kept her delegates.  

    It's not over until it's really over -- and that will be in August.  

    Hoo boy (5.00 / 11) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:08:03 AM EST
    I'm not following your reasoning at all.

    You appear to be saying that the way to reduce the strength of the GOP memes within the Dem. Party is to elect the gang that used the GOP memes to get the nomination and is busy purging the party of its strongest non-GOP faction.

    I don't get the logic in that.

    It seems to me, to the contrary, that the only hope of reclaiming the Dem. Party and getting it back to something closer to what it ought to be is if the current party approach and leadership goes down to crashing defeat in November.

    My dilemma, and that of many, many others, is whether a McCain presidency, for four years or eight, is likely to be worse for the country in the long run than having the Dem. Party continue solidly in the hands of what I'm increasingly seeing as an authoritarian gang of Republican Lites.  My dilemma is that if Obama wins this November, we will not see a real Dem. Party again in my lifetime.

    I don't know what I'm going to do about that yet and I will have to sit back and wait to see how things develop before deciding how I'm going to vote.  I my not make up my mind, for once in my entire life, until I go into the voting booth in November.

    But it is a real and serious dilemma for me.

    'Splain this to me (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    If the Dems win using GOP memes, doesn't that tell the Dem Party that the GOP memes work?  Why would they give up a winning strategy?  



    Wise move (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:02:50 AM EST
    I'm extremely disillusioned with politics, and particularly politicians - er, with the exception of ANDREW RICE who is, afaic, a welcome throwback to the old time populists which used to run Oklahoma - let me say that name again in case you didn't catch it: ANDREW RICE.

    And even though I began as an Obama supporter, I can't support him at this time, thanks to the acrimony of the campaign.

    And equally important, one reason I bailed on dKos and on Obama is I could no longer see any difference between the Dem supporters and freepers. And I knew good and well I'd engaged in freeper-like behavior, and I was extremely self-conscious and guilt-ridden about that because I really, really don't like freepers.

    I would never vote for McCain - never voted for a Repub in my life and don't plan to start now. But I don't want to become or participate in the Dem version of freeperism.

    And I am extremely insulted and disturbed by what I've seen happen in this campaign, but I do not want it to govern my life or my behavior except insofar as I remove myself from its immediate proximity and refuse association with it.

    I'm trying to find my way through this, in short. The way it looks now, I'm jumping ship to Ind., but I want at least some degree of understanding of that move. In the short time I've been here, TL has been helpful in my search for that. I would hate to lose it as a resource.

    As a person who (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    while being a Registered Republican voted for Democrats a lot of the time, Kerry 2004, Corrine Brown 2002,2004,2006, I am used to voting across party lines.  Earlier this year I changed my registration and became a Registered Democrat, then I saw the way the Rules committee handled the Fl. situation and how the Magnanimously Gave 1/2 vote to the delegates as if they were doing Fl some-kind of favor.  That did it I really find no reason why anyone should feel compelled to vote Democrat this year.  I was a Republican activist and a Bush the father follower in 1980.   When Reagan won I voted for Carter because I thought that a Reagan administration would be a disaster for the nation.  IMO I was right and it was a disaster.  

    Now, I will never vote for McBush, but I am not too sure if I can make myself vote for Obama.  Now in Nov. I will be voting for , Ms Brown but I still have not seen anything from Obama (other than he is the Democratic  candidate) that assures me he is the better candidate, so I may just leave the presidential part blank.

    I really feel disillusioned by the way this primary was run.  I don't agree with those who say Obama stole it, IMO the DNC made him a gift of it.  Hopefully during the campaign I will see something from Obama that will finally make me see what he really stands for.

    p lukasiak (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    "Obama's theft and RICO" , I 100% agree with you. Bush didn't single handily stole the 2000 election, it was his backers in Florida.

    There is no difference in the 2000 stolen election than the 2008 MI/FL primary.

    Obama's backers were at least named:

    Bob Wexler, the chair of Obama's Florida campaign

    MI House Dems: supported Obama
    Coleman Young II, Bert Johnson, and Aldo Vagnozzi

    They even went beyond to cancel the election in MI when Obama removed his name but they were big supporters to move the primary dates up in MI.  

    nope, can't do it. (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    great love of Obama from Hillary supporters.  But if you cannot even accept that he won, that he earned the nomination, the healing process  cannot even begin.

    1. he hasn't won, the convention isn't until august.

    2. he hasn't earned anything yet.

    3. the wounds the obama campaign intentionally inflicted aren't going to heal, ever. he will be hoist on his own petard, come the GE, should the SD's completely lose whatever measure of sanity they possess, and give him the official nomination in aug.

    i wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. i'll write-in sen. clinton. should that option be unavailable, i just won't vote for presidential electors.

    i don't like sen. obama. i did, but his true character has come shining through during the primaries. it's an ugly sight.

    The party divided (4.95 / 21) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:31:09 AM EST
    Because Obama couldn't figure out a way to win without dividing the party.

    All blogs have to decide which side they're on now.

    I firmly believe that.  If one does believe that how the Clinton legacy was treated during the primary is not OK, I just don't see how you can move on.  It crossed the line.  Obama's pastor crossed the line.  Smearing the Clintons as racist crossed the line.  

    I just don't see it.  Again.  I just don't see it.

    And that's really the question to the bloggers here who run this site.

    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 have a fundamental disagreement with that perspective.

    The question is, does someone who has a fundamental disagreement with that perspective, should that person be participating at talkleft?

    You see.  The problem is, if you have a different perspective, then one must draw conclusions about what the Obama campaign, Obama himself, and the Obama movement truly does believe about the Clintons.  One must conclude that Obama himself really does think the Clintons are lying horrible people who must be purged from the party.

    Those are the conclusions that I have drawn.

    An ongoing effort is still underway to purge the Clintons from the party, and on that issue, there are sides one must take.

    Will talkleft avoid this choice?

    When you look at the text proper of what BTD says, the answer appears to be "Purging the party of the Clintons is a mistake" but that is constantly submerged by reading between the lines.  We must support the movement that seeks to purge the Clintons from the party because Obama is now the nominee.

    That's what the Obama supporters are looking for here.

    The dreamed of a war for the soul.  The wet dream of power.  Consultant power.  

    I spoke out against that repeatedly.  I said that was a mistake.  Because once you decide there's a war, everyone must take sides.  No one can be switzerland now.

    Everyone must take sides.

    I think the Obama movement is a despicable thing.

    I never hated Obama.  I defended Obama repeatedly in the past.  I defended Obama to the very people who he now embraces.   It is only because he has embraced the hateful people who dream about wars for souls that I must now be hateful towards him.

    Everyone must choose now.

    This is the war they wanted.

    One of the things that's been ticking me off (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:48:32 AM EST
    Is that it's being said that we must be nice to the Clinton wing because of electability issues.

    Not because it's right or wrong.

    But because we can't get elected if we don't.

    If I am mis-representing someone's views, I apologize.

    But perhaps, with respect to these issues, talkleft should talk more about what talkleft believes is right or wrong, and less about what talkleft thinks is going to get people elected.

    Don't be nice to the Clinton wing cause Obama can't get himself elected without it.

    Be a supporter of the Clinton wing cause it's the right thing to do.

    Now that would be something.


    to a degree (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:54:51 AM EST
    people do see the primaries as a highly artificial superficial event.  So you let it go in the end--like a sporting event.

    But you bring up good points:

    Obama trashed the last two term Dem President (and not on any policy F*ckups either).

    The media lied and censored on his behalf.

    Obama selfishly conceiled too much of his own bio and life long thoughts during the campaign. Relying on the media to systematically cut down his opponents as they  slyly adopted his talking points.

    So yeah you have to suspend critical thinking skills to move on; and if you do so:  You've accepted some very creepy events.

    It leaves a very very nasty taste in the mouth to see how one candidate was destoryed so cruelly. (And yeah BTD had a subtext to making his appeal to have Clinton on the ticket--Get used to Obama.)

    Edgar that's the reality.  We are going to have to get used the guy.


    Yes, and Obama said today that he (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:03:11 AM EST
    will be bringing a gun to the fight. Nice.

    Hmmm.  I'm still waiting to be reached out to, not poked with knitting needles by someone like Rahm Emmnuel who ought to know better.  

    Seems to me, if all blogs choose sides, and there are not some like TL that welcome both sides in a civil debate, that will mean no one can be persuaded.  If that is what happens, Obama is in big trouble because my sense, both from the blogs, and the "around the water cooler" real world, is that Obama is nowhere close to unifying the party at this point.    


    I am a Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:07:11 AM EST
    supporter I also agree. I have no intention of supporting Obama in November. However I would like to point out that without a public move by Clinton herself, a war on her behalf will most likely fail. Not because lack of desire to fight for her, but because of a lack of leadership and re-aligned reasoning. An army without a leader is in reality a mob. To re-hash the same old arguments (He cheated! He played dirty!) turns our arguments into the same tired refrain we are so dismissive of from Obama supporters ( Hope! Change!). WE must figure out a way to reframe our honestly held ideas (corruption,media bias, Clinton shaming) from ( Clinton should have won and Obama is evil) to ( we must keep our party on track). Not (Obama is a Republican!) but (democrats should never do such things and we can't allow it). Im sorry for the long rambly post, but I really GET what you are saying, but I think it is important that the arguments move to a different level.

    mob or critical mass? (5.00 / 8) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:06:33 AM EST
    To me, the rush to support Obama is distasteful in the extreme.

    The Convention is not until august -- and when smart people simply acquiesce to the corruption of the Party and immediately support the product of that corruption, its just dead wrong.

    The simple fact is that Obama is NOT the Democratic Party nominee.  He won't be the party nominee until late August -- and the process by which he became the "presumptive" nominee was so tranparently corrupt that real Democrats have an obligation to resist it.


    You make a good point (5.00 / 13) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:19:39 AM EST
    but I no longer see this as a war on Hillary's behalf.  Much as I like Hillary presonally, it was never a war on her behalf, really, in my mind.  It was-- and is-- a war on behalf of what she has come to represent, which is the wing of the party that more closely resembles what the Dem. Party used to be and ought to be.

    (How ironic that Dr. Dean introduced himself way back when as representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."  What happened to that?)

    I agree, there is no leader here.  There's just us voters.  Which is why millions of people will have to make up their minds one by one about whether they're going to go along with this takeover of the party or not.


    Thank you. (3.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Foxx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:47:49 AM EST
    Yes, time to go elsewhere.

    They paved paradise, put up a parking lot (4.81 / 11) (#165)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    As one of 18 million supporters of Sen Clinton, I agree with many of those here who do not support Obama. I don't support his campaign tactics of illicitly seizing power within the Dems at the cost of disenfranchising a considerable populace that the party formerly relied on, all while taking us for grated and representing us and core Democratic and democratic values.

    ClubObama and the NuDems -- the allegedly millions of voters allegedly here that render the "wrong" ones obsolute -- should stand or fall on their own merits for a change.

    I won't allow one thin dime of my own or one scintilla of my support to prop them up any longer.

    The further diminishment of the SCOTUS, the weakening of checks and balances, the continuing opacity of government, the disappearance of an active liberal presence within the Dems will be 100% the fault of Obama and his inside group of flatterers and toadies.

    The most expensive landslide loss in history won't be one scintilla the fault of Clinton supporters and other groups impeded from participating and who "failed" to give proxy to political hyenas who wanted too much power too soon.

    This, too, will be entirely the fault of Obama's prematurely triumphal political machine and its Boss-style vision of operation with self-important embarrassments like Rahm Emanuel and Donna Brazile riding the prow and scorching faithful allies and hard earned past accomplishments to pander to known right wing political enemies.

    As I've said many times here, and particularly during examples of it in action, Jeralyn and BTD are stellar Dems. Were they representative of the party even in small measure, it would be easier to put aside my disgust with what my lying eyes saw during the primaries and the disaster in the future.

    Jeralyn and BTD shouldn't have to babysit commentary, but I disagree even more that Clinton supporters should have to be subjected to the threats, patronizing, and ridiculous psycho-caca that TeamObama has been turfing in order to get us in line and turn over our support without making trouble.

    Speaking only as one of millions earmarked for this continuing rotten treatment, which has been more subtle in the past in exploiting my willness to give them the benefit of the doubt, I won't accept the future role either of convenient scapegoat and handy straw (wo)man for the party's continuing pathetic failure to do its job.

    My future activism regarding Obama and his kingmakers will be to ensure that the buck stops there and that they bear the full responsibility of their record, words and actions.

    I will wholeheartedly support Sen Clinton in whatever future she decides for herself, whether in '08 or '12, and I know it will be another historical milestone -- perhaps less shamefully hobbled by her alleged allies and more fully appreciated this time.

    Here's an appropriate signoff: a great electric performance by Joni Mitchell and the genuine hope that TalkLeft survives the locusts.

    Didn't You Say You Got a Moderator (4.50 / 4) (#30)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:04:59 AM EST
    who could moderate the posts while you were away?  I think he (or she) should be able to moderate the posts based on your instructions.  If you think he (or she) is not doing a good enough job, then you should get another moderator.  Since you and Markos are friends, I suggest you ask him to suggest a moderator (who you would hire) who is a Kos regular and would delete anything from Obama haters in the comments.  I have no doubt Markos could suggest someone who could do a very good job of it especially now that the nomination has been decided, the progressive  blogs are one big happy family again.

    You really should put a snark (5.00 / 12) (#41)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:20:31 AM EST
    warning in something this funny.

    Since the 2006 (4.50 / 6) (#128)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    Election I have been reading about candidates that the progressive community campaigned for and raised money for,that have turned out to be less than progressive. However when I or other question Obama's progressive credentials we're demonized. I don't care what name is on the ballot in November. I want to know that my values will be addressed. I need to hear some concrete evidence that will give me confidence when I pull the lever. I can't and won't settle for vague generalities. I also will not be forced into a vote of fear. It pathetic to hear progressive's throw the SCOTUS or McCain as the reason to vote for anyone. Obama and his supporters need to empathize the positive aspects of his agenda. I grant you, any Democrat is better than a Republican, but why should this election be reduced to that level. And finally, why shouldn't all in the progressive community push Obama to be the candidate we want?

    Thank you (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:48:10 AM EST
    Particularly for your comment on "victims" advocates.  Being forced into a corner defending my definition of first-time offenders was an unpleasant experience.

     I don't know if I am a long time Obama supporter (late January?) but my Democratic and, even more importantly, liberal support stretches back years.  I welcome criticism of Senator Obama from the left.

     And I apologize (to the extent I can) for the emails that must be flooding to you from Obama supporters.  Most of us are not interested in attacking a decidedly pro-left site.  

    As a long time Obama supporter.... (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:03 AM EST
    from his Illinois State Assembly days, I have enjoyed coming to TL during the primaries to do opposition research and observation.  Granted, many days during the past Democratic primary season, I was here on TL, lurking, biting my tongue and restraining my typing fingers from posting harsh words in response to many pro-Clinton/anti-Obama posts.  I fully realized that TL was a very pro-Hillary blog and I didn't see any sense in coming to Hillary's home and creating divisiveness here, by voicing my very pro-Obama opinions.

    And that is why I will continue to come here, to observe mostly, in order to learn about the campaign through a different set of eyes.  I welcome all critique and critism of Obama's positions here.  It is very easy to go and read and post on the many liberal blogs that have been pro-Obama all along.  I feel that the future of TL, during this current campaign season, will be more as a source of constructive criticism for Obama and how he is dealing with the issues, with his approach to those groups who have lost favor with him, with his rationale of expanding the electoral map through the western strategy.  

    I am prepared to be frustrated by some of the critique offered, but I will try to learn from it, rather than to refute and argue its merits.  I would like to thank everyone, in advance, for spending valuable time, now and in the future, in sharing your thoughts.

    Likewise, I will attempt to refrain from challenging you, if you are a Hillary supporter, and don't choose to vote for Obama in November, if he officially gets the Democratic nomination in August.  You are an adult.  You know what your core political beliefs are.  You know what Republicans stand for.  You know the ideological position of the Democrats.  IMHO, it is a no brainer which candidate best represents a Democratic agenda and I will leave it at that.

    Here's to a respectful, stimulating, intelligent political debate in the future.  Peace!


    Palomino, I have been "officially" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:26:35 AM EST
    a member of Talk Left since early February, 2008, lurking much longer before that time.  Since that time, I have posted a total of 32 posts, while coming to read the threads on a daily basis, often more than once a day.  If I responded to every pro-Hillary post that I disagreed with or every anti-Obama post that raised the hairs on the back of my neck, my comments would be in the hundreds by now.  If that isn't restraint, I don't know what is!!!

    Once again, I am only speaking for myself and cannot speak for other pro-Obama supporters who post on TL.  


    Thank you for posting this but (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:36:50 AM EST
    you said:

    Likewise, I will attempt to refrain from challenging you, if you are a Hillary supporter, and don't choose to vote for Obama in November, if he officially gets the Democratic nomination in August.  You are an adult.  You know what your core political beliefs are.  You know what Republicans stand for.  You know the ideological position of the Democrats.  IMHO, it is a no brainer which candidate best represents a Democratic agenda and I will leave it at that.

    Since all candidates "talk" during campaigns and make a lot of promises that won't be kept (like George Bush Sr.'s "read my lips, no new taxes"), I prefer to base my vote on the candidates voting record.  

    I would like for someone to show me how Obama's voting record supports the fact that he is a liberal Democrat and supports liberal Democrat values.  I would also like to be shown how his "life experience" supports the "ideological position of the Democrats."

    In other words, I don't want to be talked to anymore.  I want to be shown, by example, why Obama is the one to vote for, the one who supports my ideals and dreams, the one who has the experience to make these things happen.

    I don't see Obama as being strong ideologically.  I actually see him as being weak because he has a history of voting "Present" on some of my issues in the Illinois state senate.  I don't see "Present" as a strong "Yes" or "No" vote but more as a "Maybe" vote.  

    Also, a speech given for or against a particular subject is not a "strong ideological value" when Obama appears capable of giving speeches supporting both sides of an issue.  I want to base my vote on voting record and "life experience" (which would include organizations Obama belonged to and lead in, activities that he devoted an exceptional amount of time to, etc.).

    So, can you help me here?  It sounds like you know a lot more about him than most of us do.            


    A Dem is a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    and a Repub is a Repub. Each nominee is pretty much staying with their own parties platform. No surprises here. Not much research need for that.

    Since Hillary left the scene... it has been a really boring campaign.

    Something needs to happen to put the life back into this... and I don't think the conventions are going to do it.


    The Campaign As Recounted By An Obama Supporter (1.00 / 5) (#77)
    by abotron on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:32:54 AM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter and this post may end up being futile, but here goes:

    I reject the notion that Obama "trashed" the Clintons. He did not trash them. Prior to the Philly debate in 2007 he made two specific critiques, which I think were accurate.

    1. Hillary was attempting to excuse the decision to authorise the war, a decision numerous Democrats(including myself) decided was a telling and pivotal moment in which the opportunists in the Democratic Party were sorted from the principled Democrats. Call it a purity test, but I continue to see it as a character test, and by voting as she did Hillary failed that test. John Kerry failed that test. We lost in 2004 because Kerry never demonstrated clear principles and I wasn't about to vote to let that happen again.

    2. The second critique was that Clinton kept on hedging her positions, flip-flopping on nuclear options in Iran and Pakistan, maintaining a public and a private position on social security, refusing to lay out a clear timetable on Iraq. Was Obama too quick to turn these minor issues into character issues? Perhaps. These were not blatant deceptions in retrospect(that came later for Clinton).

    On the issue of "Hillary and Bill are racist": I don't think they ARE racist. I DO think they were perfectly willing to USE race-inflected language to paint Obama as a token "black candidate".

    How did this start? It started shortly after Hillary said "this is when the fun starts" in the aftermath of the 2007 Philly debate. In the immediate days after she said that, three of her Iowa staffers were caught forwarding "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails. The Clinton campaign sent out a press release that juxtaposed a picture of Obama with a picture of Karl Rove. Then Bill Shaheen speculated about whether the Republicans would ask if Obama was a drug dealer. Bob Kerrey repeatedly stated that Obama had "muslim roots" and that he went to a madrassa. Andrew Young remarked that "Bill Clinton is blacker than Obama ever will be."

    Are these wholly unrelated events? Perhaps. Speaking for myself and many other Obama supporters, we were starting to see a pattern in which Obama was being baited into making a public issue of his own race. And since the campaign was in Iowa, nobody was sure how durable his support was among white people.

    After Obama won Iowa, this covert baiting seemed to become more explicit. When Hillary talked about Martin Luther King and Johnson and the Civil Rights Act and said, "It took a president to get it done," the problem with the statement wasn't it's factuality. THIS IS A KEY MISUNDERSTANDING AND REVISION OF HISTORY. Hillary wasn't insulting Martin Luther King in this statement, but rather she was insulting Obama by way of analogy. This was offensive because it came within the context of anonymous Clinton backers telling the Guardian that Obama was just "your hip black friend" and Bill Clinton comparing him to a television personality and a plumber, implicitly discounting Obama's twenty years of public service. Comparing Obama to MLK was a way of saying he wasn't a man with a decade of elected experience and another as a law scholar and community organizer, but rather THE UNCREDENTIALED LEADER OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT(this was also in the context of news articles comparing Obama's supporters to cult members).

    Through all this, Obama did not explicitly say that he felt the Clintons were campaigning against him in a race-based way. A campaign co-chair in South Carolina prepared a memo listing some of the events I just detailed, but Obama rejected the notion that Clinton was running a race-baiting campaign. Obama continued to reject that suggestion through Bob Johnson's comments, Bill Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson.

    In fact, the ONLY time that Obama or his campaign has explicitly said a comment made by a Clinton campaign member was offensive and demanded an apology was when Geraldine Ferraro decided to go on her "Obama Is The Affirmative Action Candidate" Press Tour. He has never said that they made racist comments in any other circumstance and if you want to try to prove otherwise, go ahead.

    Again, this post may be futile, but that is my clear recounting of the events of this campaign as they happened.

    "The events of the campaign as they (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:37:55 AM EST
    happened."  But so many of us would describe the campaign in diametrically opposite terms.  So, there must be some difference of opinion.

    Okay... (5.00 / 13) (#86)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:01:16 AM EST
    Can you please, please explain to me how running a racist campaign was going to help Clinton win the Democratic nomination?  You know, the party that gets 95% of the AA vote and where a third of its members are AA, yes, that Democratic Party.  How would alienating one of the core constituencies of the Party help her?  Seriously, answer me that?  Do you really think the Clintons are that stupid?

    And you're a real hoot playing the Guilt By Association game in defending Sen. Obama.  Do you seriously wanna play the Guilt By Association game?  Let's start with Jesse Jackson III, who after she won New Hampshire "She never cried for Katrina!" as if she was supposed to cry for every disaster on Earth?  (Oh, and btw, just for his information, White people died due to Katrina to you know.  Large swaths of the Gulf Port were completely decimated.  It wasn't only Black people who suffered believe it or not.)

    To be honest, I could go on and on with his Reverends, his Business Partners, and his cohorts at the DNC.  If you're holding Clinton responsible for every thing you cited, is Obama responsible for any of the multitude of items I could cite?  

    I agree with you on the AUMF, it was a lousy vote.  But she represented NEW YORK, and even though 9/11 and Iraq were not related, at the time that would have been a tough no vote.  Plus, it wasn't a specific Declaration of War, although that is a rhetorical point as we all knew what Bush would do.  Remember though, the vote was before the '02 Elections, and we had a chance to pick up seats and maybe force a different course in January.  Again, it wasn't her best vote, but it's silly to hold that much of a grudge over a vote, even one that important.



    The Clintons did not run a racist campaign (5.00 / 18) (#110)
    by stefystef on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:58:34 AM EST
    Obama is the only one who played the race card.

    As an African American, I understood EXACTLY what he did to use cries of racism on anyone would either criticize him  or critique his qualifications to become President.  And it seems to me, as an African American, that many non-blacks were convinced that any concerns for Obama should be contributed to some kind of hidden "racist" feelings and therefore, in order to prove a sense of equality in this country, may vote for Obama.

    Good thing 18 million Democrats didn't fall for that.

    Bill Clinton a racist???  If anything was a travesty this election, this lie about Clinton will be the "sin" that will bring down the Democratic Party.

    Shame on the DNC.


    Whats with this "racist" thing? (1.00 / 5) (#147)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:08:44 AM EST
    It is YOU people who are always bringing up the "racist" word - in what certainly sounds to me like an attempt at playing victim.

    Clinton was NOT accused of being a racist. They, the both of them, were accused of playing the race card - which is a hugely different thing than being a racist.

    As the poster above pointed out, the Clintons tried to paint Obama as the symbolic black candidate, like Jackson, someone who was running as a representative of the black community, for the purpose of getting black issues onto the national agenda, but was not someone who should be taken seriously as a potential president.

    That is how lots of people took the MLK-LBJ thing as well. Obama was being "praised" by being analogized with MLK, but the real message was that he was an advocate for blacks, not someone to be taken seriously as a potential president.

    And Bill's comments before SC - (paraphrase)"we dont have a chance because the blacks will vote for him, and...." seemed to many Obama supporters as a blatant attempt to say - fine, he is the black candidate, let all the blacks vote for him, all the whites should therefor vote for us"

    Thats not being a racist. THat is being a street fighting pol using whatever you can, in this case, the race card.

    That is how people on teh Obama side sincerely saw this. Not racism. Playing the race card. Maybe you disagree with this interpretation, because Hillary is a little saint who would never press her advantage like that, but thats your opinion.


    racist vs race-card vs race-baiting (5.00 / 11) (#157)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:31:40 AM EST
    call it waht you will.  But, if Obama supporters can't recognize that it was always a plan of the Obama campaign to demonize Clinton as using the race-card (in your term), then you are not dealing with reality.  Axelrod has a history of running just that kind of campaign for black candidates.

    Addressing the Shaheen comments.  First, we only know what he said, but were never told what he was ASKED.  So, it isn't easy to draw conclusions.  But, discussing drug use has nothing to do with race.  That is unless you claim that discussions of drug use are OK with white candidates, but not with black.  And, that would seem to be a double standard.

    With Bob Kerrey's comment, again, we don't know what he was ASKED.  But, he was in essence defending Obama against the RUMORS of him being Muslim.  And, he never said Obama attended a madrassa.  He used the term "secular" Madrassa.  Which is completely true.  Again, he was addressing the false rumors that were out there.

    Bill Clinotn's fairytale comment was twisted intentionally by Michelle Obama.  period.  fact.  And Donna Brazile jumped right in tere and helpeed her out.

    Hillary's LBJ / MLK comment was intended to talk about Obama's speech making ability and addressed the fact that we need actions and not only speeches.  It had NOTHING to do with race. The anlaogy here wasn't that he was the "black" candidate.  It was he was the candidate of "speeches" and "rallies" as opposed to action.


    Why Tim... (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    Don't you understand the world of difference now between saying someone played the race card and saying that they're racist?! It's kind of like the difference between cash and money.

    what I am saying is (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    that people who say the Clintons were being called racist MEAN THE SAME thing as those saying the Clinton's "played the race card".

    It's just semantics.

    But, there is no denying that consevative dem votes WERE called racists for supporting Clinton over Obama.

    And, I'm still waiting for ANY Obama supporter to explain how discussing Obama's drug use was "playing the race card".  Do Obama supporters honestly believe that if Obama were white that Shaheen wouldn't have made the exact same statement?


    You're totally ignoring the point (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    Where is the logic in the Clintons deliberately race-baiting in the Dem. primaries, particularly right before a series of primaries expected to have a heavy AA turnout?

    It makes no sense.  It's totally illogical.  And it's completely false.


    playing the race card (1.00 / 6) (#189)
    by tben on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:40:57 AM EST
    is how I put it. I did not choose to say "race-baiting". I dont know exactly what you or others mean by that term, but I suspect it is something that I am not attributing to the Clintons.

    Look, aroudn SC time, the Clintons were reeling. They assumed they would march to the nomination without too much trouble. They assumed they would wrap it up after Super Tuesday.

    When they lost Iowa they were knocked back on their heels. Suddenly it seemed like it was all evaporating in front of them. They went to NH in a state of shock, and then got lucky. For whatever reason, they won there, and suddenly had a chance to breathe. But things were still looking pretty bad, and they suddenly realized that they had better knock off Obama quickly because he seemed to be on a roll.

    I am not saying that they are some evil people. They are politicians, and very proud of how tough and bareknuckled they can be. They looked to SC, with its large black population, and they sensed that Obama was probably going to start making inroads there because, after iowa, people in the black community were becoming convinced that Obama might actually have a real chance of winning.

    So the CLintons were looking for their angle. Looking for thier niche, their votes. IF the black vote might start slipping away, because blacks were getting excited about Obama having a real chance, then why not ride that wave, let the black vote go to Obama, and come in behind and pick up the white vote. Bill's statement in SC is almost painfully explicit about that being their thinking.

    And if that is the way you are thinking - that maybe Obama should be let to have the black vote, then all manner of statements consistent with that thinking might slip out in unguarded moments, statements that seem to indicate that Obama is "just the black candidate", someone not to be taken seriously.

    Once agian, its not racism. Its not race-baiting. It is playing the racial angles. That how a lot of people sincerely saw it. Maybe they are all being hypersensitive. Given how sensitive lots of Hillary people are about gender stereotypes and statements, I would think people here would be a bit more understanding.


    The Clintons (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    were NOT running--in SC or any place else.

    And, btw, Jesse Jackson was far more than a 'symbolic black candidate' in his HOME STATE of SC.


    This is just (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:04:57 AM EST

    If this is the future of the dem party, I can't be a part of it.


    He trashed the Clinton years over and over... (5.00 / 13) (#104)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:33:32 AM EST
    That pretty much killed the unity pony before anyone could ride it.

    Ha! That unity pony is ready for the glue (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:26:35 AM EST

    Congratulations to Talk Left and Jeralyn, BTD, (none / 0) (#7)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:29 AM EST
    and Chris for your dedication, time and effort in maintaining TL as a very informative blog, welcoming all opinions in an atmosphere of civility and respect.  Thank you, one and all, for your efforts.

    Happy Birthday to your blog Jeralyn (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    and many more successful ones to come I hope...

    Right because (none / 0) (#48)
    by rbecki225 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:29:57 AM EST
    the Republicans have treated the Clintons with so much respect, winning with them would validate Hillary and her supporters so much.

    Look as much as Dean, Brazile, etc. have disrespected the Clintons, the whole Obama wing of the party is still closer to the Clintons and their supporters than the Republicans. The Republicans were the original seed of hatred and contempt, and it has just infected the Dem party.

    The problem with the "building season" analogy is that with every election a Republican legacy is created that can never be erased. The country is already going to sh!t and with another 4 years we will have backsliding enough that not even Hillary would be able to undo.

    I think republicans (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:40:16 AM EST
    respect the Clinton wing and wage war on them politically.

    I think the Obama wing really doesn't have any respect for the Clintons at all.  If you have testimony to the contrary maybe I missed it.


    Uh... (4.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:43:53 AM EST
    ...the GOP was calling the "Clinton" wing of the party murderous corrupt hitmen throughout the 90s.  The "Obama" wing responds with skepticism as to political style and suddenly the GOP respects the Clintons?

     "News" fit for FOX.



    I can fight against aggression (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:50:35 AM EST
    I can't fight against a passive aggressive tacit support of that aggression.

    I really think Obama disrespects the Clintons.  I really believe Wright was saying something he believed about the Clintons and I really believe Obama agrees with Wright about the Clintons.

    Do you agree with Wright about the Clintons?


    You know (5.00 / 14) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:52:11 AM EST
    what? You expect the GOP to go after them. When your own party puts a knife in your back what then? You are saying that we should reward them? Obama has done the party no favors. Dean has been a disaster. Electing Obama would do nothing but reinforce the GOP talking points. The thing I truly believe is that Obama would be a horrible president. He would be another inept version of Carter. And that's no better than having McCain in office.

    IAlthough a zealous advocate for Clinton, (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:35 AM EST
    I will vote for Obama.  Nevertheless, when I heard on NPR Sat. afternoon that he was in Quincy IL helping with the sandbagging effort, I was immediately mildly irritates.  Why?  He is, afterall, an elected U.S. Senator for IL.  

    why, exactly, were you irritated? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by moe21885 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:39:16 AM EST
    Thanks for even (none / 0) (#87)
    by phatpay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:04:24 AM EST
    attempting to try and keep this site more civil. I'm sure that's a very difficult task.
    I have had so much turmoil personally that I just recently checked in and am aghast at how serious the division actually is in the Democratic party. This is not apparent just randomly consuming media.
    I caucused for Edwards.
    I'm of the, "vote for the guy with the 'D' next to his name for president", ilk.
    I love internet forums so I had to chime in, but have been shouted down a few times for even daring to call for unity.
    Obviously Obama has got to make a profound overture to the "Clinton wing". Shoot, even McCain has done more to court the Clinton supporters vote since the nomination was <insert your opinion here>.
    I understand that the Clinton supporters are infuriated, and I don't want to cause further pain, but could someone point me somewhere where there is concrete proof of all Obama primary wrongdoings?
    Someone posted earlier that if the "Clinton wing" votes McCain into office that the Democratic Party and the Clinton's will suffer irreparable harm. Now I have been focusing more on a call for unity because I know for sure that McCain aint lookin' out for me. But I had not even thought about a post, "Clinton backers vote McCain into office!", U.S. What does a schism of this magnitude truly mean? 3 parties? Repugs in firm control of everything?
    This is all revelatory to me. I had nothing invested in Clinton or Obama. I did not devour the blogs during the primary. What amazes me is that Obama is going to lose this election because of the blogosphere. Well, unless something drastic/great happens during the GE. As someone who posts on various forums, almost completely devoid of political content, it seems as though all the enmity and division was fostered online. To use the parlance of many, many forums where trolling is tolerated, nay, even rewarded, the "Clinton wing" got owned (pwnt). The basic rule is that, even if you're pissed beyond belief, you never respond like you are. If you do, then you have just "lost at teh intarwebz". Except now we have to extrapolate that out to me losing irl (in real life) when McCain(?!) wins.
    Someone please illuminate all the dirty tricks.
    And point me in the way of any police reports filed, etc. etc. You know, anything other than internet hearsay.

    Votes count for me, and Hillary got more. Simple. (none / 0) (#220)
    by zridling on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:52:51 PM EST
    Hillary was the people's choice by virtue of winning more actual VOTES. So was Al Gore. Any attempt by obama and the DNC to rewrite that is blatantly undemocractic, and by default loses my support. Period.

    I will not be voting for obama in Missouri. He will lose the state by as much as 8-10%.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#221)
    by coigue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST