Friday Afternoon Open Thread

I assume, like me, this afternoon turned a little hectic for Jeralyn and TChris. I was out of the loop and have no idea what is going on. Let us know here. This is an Open Thread.

< Does the 9th Amendment Protect The Right To Bear Arms? | On Board the Unity Train >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Missed the Unity Thread (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:09:30 PM EST
    but....after a trip to the great Orange, I have discovered that Hillary is a Classy Lady when she is supporting Obama.

    Now if she challenges Obama on anything, well....you know the drill.

    SHOUTOUT and love: Picasso, TL team, Modern Lovers (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    Pablo Picasso's name came up in an earlier threadlet on a bit of wisdom from Salò.

    I love that Picasso story about how he paid for everything, even a cup of coffee, by cheque after he became famous. He knew no one would cash it because s/he'd want to hold onto his signature.

    Brilliant man.

    Some guys try to pick up girls and get called a@@ho'
    This never happened to Pablo Picasso -
    Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers

    Click over for his seminal punk bio.

    Since Friday's cat and music day in the blogosphere, I'm sending this musical SHOUTOUT and putting some money* in the Talk Left jukebox to offsent the great work the moderators, proptrietrix and barkeep -- BTD -- do to clean up after the likes of me.

    :: snivel blubber ::

    Sorry for being sentimental. This display of tears isn't a sign of me doing or saying anything == anything! -- in my lifelong determinatio to rule the world someday. It's just that the first exchange I ever directly had with BTD at Cheetoh HQ, he called me an a@@hole.

    I just get a little verklempt is all. Anyway, that never happened to Pablo Picasso.

    * what's good, five bux a tune? Three for ten? I'd be happy to put up a separate diary proposing a model for Friday fun(d) raising this way, perhaps in open threads so I hope one of the pezzanovante let me know.

    I keep hearing there will be no repub 527s (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    What happened? several months ago I had heard the swift boat "people" would spend 100 millon this cycle. Anyone know whats up with this issue?

    It's the economy .... (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    A combination of a horrible economy and a candidate in McCain they don't care for. They expect a return on their investment and without a Bill Clinton structured economy to plunder, there is no value in dumping money into a swiftboat campaign.

    Last time I checked (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    the top 1% were still doing pretty darn well.

    It wasn't a bunch of kids with dot-com startups that funded the last set of 527s.


    Don't be so passive aggressive (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:17:14 PM EST
    What are you trying to say about Bill Clinton?

    Actually.... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:23:21 PM EST
    ...I think that was a compliment of Bill's economic record.

    Really (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    I'm just checking.

    Seemed a little daft.  Everybody does well and it's not so good cause 527s had more cash to work with.

    Something along those lines.

    But I'm willing to go with your interpretation.


    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    ...CG meant that there's nothing left for them to plunder because they're working with a Bush economy, not a Clinton economy, and they don't really like McCain, so they don't care.

     At least that's how I read it.


    Poor McCain (none / 0) (#101)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:17:57 AM EST
    It's starting to look like hardly anyone is voting for him.  Why should the 527's waste the money?  

    Obama is sucking everything up:  Oxygen, voters, anything else that is left.  


    Personally (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:26:44 AM EST
    I think it's a head fake. They do this every year. They set the election up as "the dems to lose" so that they're the underdogs. Then they start talking about what a terrible candidate they have. All the while they are honing narratives on talk radio and funding 527's. One GOP pundit said this was going to be the summer of Obama and the GOP was going to lay low. They will start the attacks after Labor Day.

    Ga6th- that makes sense;sort of (none / 0) (#103)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    most peole do not pay close attention until after Labor Day- but if the mccain campaign "lays low" and lets obama have the summer, they may have lost their chance to win.

    SurveyUSA (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    Shows a two point race in Ohio:

    Obama 48

    McCain 46

    Meanwhile, wide coverage for the unity event, mostly positive.

    A beautifully choreographed event (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    but for the point when Obama acknowledged that Clinton had been attacked -- by some of names unknown, apparently -- on the basis of sexism and misogyny to the extreme.  That was a start.  So was his acknowledgment that she handled the attacks well.

    But then, to demonstrate how she brushed off the attacks, he did that hip-hop "dirt on the shoulder" routine . . . and I could only think that oh, no, he di'nt.  Does he not know that video has gone viral -- the one with his finger (or, debatably, two), the "dirt on the shoulder" and something on the shoe?  

    From what I've read, the security lockdown to keep any signs of Clinton signs and the like out of the area, only accessible by -- wait for it -- an Obama bus . . . all this indicates a campaign that is savvy in so many ways.  And yet, and yet, still the tone-deaf stuff.  Are there no savvy women, women savvy to perceptions of him, high up on his staff yet?  (I.e., re the report a few months ago comparing gender ratios on the candidates' staffs, a comparison in which Obama was well behind McCain and Clinton.)


    You gotta wonder (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:25:43 PM EST
    what that was about.  The visceral reaction that many of us had to the brushing off gestures when he originally used them (along with the "scratching his face" gesture) has never really faded; in fact, it is proving to have great endurance.  I suspect his use of that brushing off gesture today was an effort to dilute the impact of the original.  I think it backfired. In fact, for me, it had the opposite effect; it caused me to wonder what the heck his handlers are thinking.  

    Exactly. I'm trying to look at this (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
    in accord with the blog host's wishes, trying to analyze how the Obama campaign is going -- no matter how I may or may not vote -- and I just keep seeing signs like this that ought to be worrisome, it would seem.  

    I have found that, no matter how much awful video I witnessed all these months, most were of media dissing Clinton -- so this one, of Obama doing so, just resonates so much that it's most memorable to me.  Whether the memory will dim by November, who knows?  But to think that repeating the gesture would erase it from memory just seems a mistake.

    Ah well, his handlers probably are focus-grouping it now, and we'll see if it is repeated -- or if it goes the way of the Vero Possumus seal. :-)


    That (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    is so incredibly stupid. It's not like he doesn't have problems with women voters already.

    Bubble Boy II. Next cycle we'll have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
    a candidate campaigning against the out of touch Bush-Obama years.

    Here's more to add to the heap of (4.00 / 3) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    negatives building for obama:



    I saw the video link above (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    Looks to me as if that is already a Swift Boat ad. Not very flattering for sure. I suspect they will break it down into a 30 to 60 second ad. What is with the NYTimes copyright and the Boston Globe produced? Obviously giving Federal money to private housing people does not work very well. He had better leave that out of his campaign.  

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:56:54 PM EST
    I saw one back-of-the-crowd shot on CNN that showed someone holding up a Hillary sign.

    Anyway, I didn't notice the gesture that you noticed.


    Oh, and PPP promises numbers from FL next week (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    The OH poll shows... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:47:08 PM EST
    ...another huge gender gap: McCain takes men 58-35 while Obama leads women 59-35. If women didn't outvote men by so much in general elections, Obama would be in serious trouble, I'd think. (This poll weighted the genders at 53 percent women to 47 percent men.)

    I really think this gender-gap thing is going under the radar because everyone assumes that disgruntled Hillary supporters are female. I'd love to see BTD post his interpretation of how the gender gap is playing out in the state polling I'm seeing on SurveyUSA.


    Anyone ever heard an (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    Obama supporter say that they were going to vote for McCain, (or, more tellingly, "the republican") if he didnt get the nomination?

    Haven't heard of a one who admits (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    the possibility that he won't get the nomination, so the rest of the question would be moot.

    Good luck with (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:03:28 PM EST
    "the republican", btw.

    I never thought he'd get the nomination and didnt care terribly if he did get it. But Im sure you'll take it with a grain of salt since it seems to be a given around here that the "creative class/ opods" are all born liars.


    You're "creative class"? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    or an "opod"?  

    I am the eggman (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    How in heck is your comment (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:24:09 PM EST
    a response to mine?  Go stalk someone else.

    Stalk? (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    Good God.

    Obama's the liar for dropping his MAIN platform (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    Unity? Politics of positive Hope and Change and then he unleashes historically unprecedented bigotry on his rival and gins up racism charges out of nothing to divide voters?

    Disgusting. I don't know all of his supporters personally to call them liars or not. However, Obama's own words and deeds on the record are self-contradictory, and his Unity Hope Change baloney is just that.

    As for the mutual "support", Sen Clinton urged her supporters to vote for Obama.

    Michelle Obama explicitly said Obama's supporters would not vote for Clinton. Strong leader Obama stayed above the fray on that one.



    Scott Simon of NPR on obama.... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    Maybe it is just me, but obama can't stop shooting himself in the foot...



    I'm surprised my jaw hasn't broken this (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    primary season for all the times it has hit the table in amazement.

    That comment he made in FL about McCain will be trying to scare us away from him is so typical of this campaign. This one has gotten an incredible amount of TV time, but only in passing. No panel discussions, no endless analysis, no outrage. No one has to read between the lines and pretend he meant to say something he didn't actually say. He needed to get that race card back on the table, and early. Obama wins his races in the first quarter, then coasts to the finish line.


    Good editorial piece by Simon (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:18:43 PM EST
    Not sure Obama's statement is shooting himself in the foot. That tactic worked extremely well in the primary and unless it gets more widely debunked, it may work once again in the GE.

    It did and it didn't (none / 0) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    It worked a couple of times, and they were effective. But, it also blew up in his face in SF.

    His elitist comment ended with "but no one wants to hear this from a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama". The media decided to pick up on the insults and completely ignore the actual intent he had in getting race back in play.

    That's why Obama had such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for his comment. He was only prepared to watch that card he threw get picked up by the audience as fair notice he would accept no other reason for them deciding not to vote for him.


    So what he said was not racist, (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:34:27 PM EST
    it was race-bating...even worse!! But, it shall be overlooked because he's "different" and "fresh" and we're the new democratic party!

    He "unleashed it " how? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    And let's see that explicit quote.

    If you think the "bigotry is unprecendented" you have to have had your head in the ground for the last 15 years; your doddering white knight in shining armours confederates on wingnut talk radio have been traeting her like some combination of Typhoid Mary and Lady McBeth since Bill was elected.

    Your "unprecedented" McPuma b.s is hysterical in more ways than one.


    That was for Ms (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    Creatrix Class.

    Are YOu Joking? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    Plenty of em. Why would you think they were any different from Hillary cultists or fanatics of any sort?

    Ordinarily I wouldnt (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    but I never heard one say it. Have you?

    If so, I'll be happy to stand corrected.


    Try looking at some of the comments (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    at HuffPo.  I won't go there anymore so no links, but they were all over the place.  Many more threatened to vote for Nader.

    Yes (2.00 / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    Earlier on several of the early Obamaniacs swore that they would never vote for Hillary should she win.

    Seem like the same bunch to me, irregardless of who their cult leader was.


    That's... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    con-leader squeaky:)

    Monkeywrench in '08!


    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    It is beyond me how anyone can get so personally involved with any of these politicians. But I never understood how anyone could get worked up about any deity.

    I always took the golden calf story as a wake up call, and not a story about who the true god is.


    For a lot (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    of voters it's not about emotional attachment. Lots of Hillary voters see Obama as not qualified. Then you have national security voters who flip to McCain. All voters don't have the same priorities on issues.

    Exactly (2.00 / 2) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    And an equally small number of Americans saw Hillary as also not qualified to be POTUS.

    But the fact is, both are qualified to be the president of the US regardless what a bunch of irrational narrow minded people feel.
    And the irony is that both are nearly identical on the issues but their fringe supporters can never be made to understand that.

    If that is not emotional I do not know what is.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM EST
    I feel extremely confident the numbers are not "equally small."

    They are "clinging" to this belief ;) (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    Relatively Speaking (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:40:52 PM EST
    Compared to the by far larger majority of voters who see Pols as Pols, and will vote the party platform that most conforms to their values. The blog wars seem inconsequential, imo, given the larger picture.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:49:56 PM EST
    I wish the vast majority of voters "voted the party platform that most conforms to their values."  But it does, in fact, make a difference to most people which individuals get nominated.

    One reason people like BTD and myself argue for the politics of contrast is because it is designed to make people understand that yes, indeed, it is pretty much about whether you put the D's or the R's in power.  In practice, both sides try their best to blur that line in order to obscure the less popular aspects of their ideology.  That's why Dems try to be GOP-lite on national security and Republicans try to be Dem-lite on issues like health care and the environment.


    That worked well (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by pie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:54:21 PM EST
    in 2004.

    John Kerry ended up standing for nothing.


    Heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    Dozens sounded about right to me.

    I'm (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    sorry but Obama isn't qualified. Anyone who hasn't completed at least one term doesn't meet qualifications standards. And 6-7 years as a part time state senator doesn't count as experience either. I had the same problem with Edwards in 2004. I felt he was too green to handle the job.

    According to polls, 1/2 of voters see Obama as unqualified so it's not a small number.

    Frankly, with Obama it's not the issues. He says he's for these issues and then he caves the next week month or year. Then he scrubs his website and acts like he never supported an issue. Obama isn't about issues, he's about Obama and nothing else.


    He added "women" under issues! (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    day late and many dollars short, but he really expanded his issue section. Guess it saves him from having to actually talk about it  ;)

    and yes, he seriously lacks experience {shudder}


    Even (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    Kerry wasn't that bad. He had women's concerns listed very early in his campaign.

    Yes, he did. And Kerry gave a major speech (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:54:14 PM EST
    on women's issues, as it was billed -- but the media ignored it.  However, it was given near my house, and I was there, and it put forward a good agenda.  I haven't seen or heard anything similar from Obama.

    Plus, at every Kerry rally in my town, and throughout the campaign, Theresa Heinz Kerry also talked -- and about many issues, including women's issues.  It really was striking and seemed much more than symbolic equality, the way that the Kerrys interacted.  I don't see that in the current candidate's campaign; Michelle has her own venues but at his events, she's mostly just along with him.  


    Im (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    sorry Zell, but an experienced MIC tool who is basically promising more blood in the M.E, more kowtowing to End Times loons, more foreclosures, higher food and gas prices etc will never be "qualified".

    An experienced f*ck up is still a f*ck up.

    Qualified. LOL


    No. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by pie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    Obama ddn't have the years, the fight, or the experience that compared to hers.  Or the grasp of policies.  Or the confidence.  Or the willingness to face the opposition.

    That's not emotional...

    Them's the facts, jack.

    You can try to deflect from those facts, but not one of us believes it.


    Saying someone isn't qualified (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    is an emotional response?  I think it's a completely rational response.

    The problem is, as many of us kept saying (4.77 / 9) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:25:42 PM EST
    but I'll say it again:  Yeh, I get "emotional" -- I would say angry -- when women are subjected to sexism and misogyny.  

    Sexist and misogynist attacks on any woman are attacks on all of us -- even if only some of us see it, because we have been around long enough to know what the result can be.  It happened to me after similar crap from media, Congress, etc., at Anita Hill. Additionally, a lot of sexist and misogynistic attacks were aimed not just at Clinton but also supporters -- old hags that we are.  

    And it was on an almost daily basis for month after month.  How long do you think it ought to take to "get over it," to get over being attacked and angered from at least January to June?


    Well (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    not me.

    Of course now that the site could renamed Red Meat for Pumas, I have to watch that I dont overreact.


    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    Dozens of them.  Absolutely.

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:56:44 PM EST
    Heard it tons of times before the primary even started. Obama supporters were screaming all over the blogs that they were going to vote for McCain if Hillary won the nomination.

    Whole diaries were written on the (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    subject and were widely recommended. Pretty standard fare before Obama became the nominee.

    Are you KIDDING????!!! (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST

    Don't just look at the title but think of all the Obama supporters who RECOMMENDED that diary.

    Listen.  Yeah.  It's a bummer there ain't no unity.

    But one of the reasons why there isn't any unity is because too many Obama supporters deny or pretend, as you just did, not to know one bit about the Underbelly despicableness of that movement.


    ALWAYS (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    warn people when links go to KOS or HuffPo or MyDD, please.

    Some of us really don't want to visit those sites or give them a hit.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    You are right.

    I will do so in the future.


    Thanks :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:00:02 PM EST
    I knew you didn't do that on purpose :)

    HA! IcebergSlim is a recommender (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST
    of that diary.

    That is no different... (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    ...than what one encounters on this site, among Clinton supporters.

    Obama trolls (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by pie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    are tres boring.

    Who cares?

    But you're right: unity is a pipe dream with those guys around.


    Daring to sharply (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    disagree is trolling.

    How democratic and inclusive.


    It's not Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by pie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    who have the job of unifying.

    Just sayin'.


    False premise (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    Supporters do not have a job, one way or another.  Just because I voted for a candidate does not mean I have to grovel for votes.  

     Honestly, the attitude by some angry Clinton supporters is equivalent to overzealous Obama supporters.  In a parallel universe, if they were threatening to defect to McCain, they would be hearing the same thing.


    I see (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:59:18 PM EST
    We're "angry."

    But Obama supporters are merely "over-zealous."


    I'll have some fun with you.  Let out the rope a little more.


    Obviously, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by pie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    you feel that you have no responsibility here.

    It's all up to Obama then, right?


    The thing is (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    this thread was started by someone attempting to claim that there are no Obama supporters who would have defected to McCain, unlike those nasty faux-Democrat Clinton supporters.

    You are wasting your breath attempting to prove something that is not in dispute.


    I respond to assertions... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    ...made in the posts I'm actually responding to.  Conversations take detours.

    Sorry (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    Someone made an on-topic response to the original post, and you immediately decided to detour it to "Clinton supporters do it too."  Clearly, you weren't even interested in what the original post was about, it was just your Pavlovian response going off.

    That's funny... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    ...your standards for such detours must be remarkably low and/or selective, because you are hardly criticizing such detours when they are anti-Obama, and wildly off-topic.

     So I'll take your criticism with the degree of salt it deserves.

     I just noted that the same behavior in the link is evident on this blog's comments.  If you're denying that, well, we just have a difference of opinion.


    I have no problem with that (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:07:07 PM EST
    As long as you realize that what you hear from Clinton supporters is the end result of a process, that process being a karmic one of sorts, the process of Obama supporters getting back what they put out into the world.

    Dude (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:10:32 PM EST
    Learn to just admit when you're wrong.

    Um, according to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    you do  ;)

    "Supporters do have a job" is missing (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:59:54 PM EST
    the point that some are not supporters yet.  So whose job is it to turn people into supporters?  The candidate.  And who is the candidate?  See it yet?

    The problem in part this time is that previous candidates could count more on many voters being Dem supporters, so they "just came over" as the saying goes.  But this time, many Clinton supporters have split from the party, too, because of its corrupt behaviors.  

    So there is work for the party to do to win back its supporters, too.  But it doesn't seem to see that, to be listening, either -- when another candidate said that 18 million voters wanted their voices to be heard, to not be invisible and taken for granted anymore.  So Clinton did her job, and she keeps doing it -- but much of it is not a job that she can do.

    As we said in those excessive '60s, if you're part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution.  Clinton is not the problem any more.  So who has to be part of the solution now?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    But I see what happens on this site as a reaction to THAT.

    No THAT.

    No Clinton supporters doing what they do.

    At least as far as I'm concerned that is.


    It's a bit different Alec. That diary was (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:59:18 PM EST
    written last August...before any of the hard feelings from the primary. Last August, I would have voted for any of them. The stuff that has happened since August makes my decision harder.

    There were many many more examples that Edgar could have chosen. That place has thrived for months on pure Clinton hate. There's just no comparison to here.


    I don't know (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    Last August, I would have voted for any of them.

     That can't be right, at least not for the people who insist they will not vote for Obama because he is inexperienced.  He is as experienced now as he was when he entered the race...actually, a far more seasoned campaigner.  

     I have noticed the rah rah mentality on DK, but the same behavior is evident here.  There are clearly individuals here who thrive on Obama hate.  

     But I started here first, largely because I was surprised to hear that a law blog had become such a strong support site for Clinton.  So my impressions are probably very different from your own.  

     Regardless, even if they picked someone else entirely at the convention, I'd support the Democratic candidate (barring an outlier, like Zell Miller, then I'd have no idea what to do).  So I'll leave it at that.


    I was a trusted user at DK for nearly four years (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    Alec. There's just no comparison between the two sites. Comments that get deleted here are/were rec'd there. I probably spent at least three hours a day there and it got so sickening that I left before any type of strike happened. I had read Talkleft for about 2-3 years and I decided I needed a moderated blog to get through this primary.

    I'm not mad at Obama and any lack of experience can be handled with good advisers. I just don't like the way his campaign tried to act above it all while smearing both Clintons. He says he held his tongue but he did nothing to stop his surrogates from spouting off. That's just politics normally, but not when you pretend to be above it all. And pretending that two great Democrats are racists was just too low.

    My anger is much deeper at my party and the media. I am in Tennessee so my vote won't matter either way but I wish you could understand how deep the anger and hurt is and how the Obama supporters were the cause of much of it to me and others.


    And, he did not hold his tongue (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:54:31 PM EST
    Plenty of sexism and accusations against Bill Clinton and negative campaigning came right out of the mouth of Obama, himself. He didn't say it, but he was standing on stage next to McPeak when he compared Bill Clinton to McCarthy, and Obama just smiled.

    He ridiculed her at every stump speech with the meat of his speeches being accusations she was too busy talking about him to discuss the issues.

    NAFTA and Canada was his sin, but he denied it and let the belief it was Clinton continue until it was such old news no one cared when the truth of it being his came out.

    Such honor. Such integrity. Such ethics. Such truth.

    Doesn't belong in the Whitehouse.


    His inexperience became more glaring (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    for me. I was happy with Clinton, Obama, Edwards. Obama's experience was a concern, but I hadn't looked into it fully and had an idea that he was more than he actually has shown to be. AKA, his experience is thinner than I thought, he has no standout accomplishments, lacks substance on his positions and is just too vague. And that was my assessment a few months back at the beginning of the actual primaries. And instead of correcting that assessment, he's shown even more I don't like about him and his lack of experience is truly a problem for me along with his lack of grasp in some areas. And he's never addressed in a solid manner some of the issues that I care about. And they are meat and taters issues. And now he's running to the right.

    no thanks.


    Yes, my perception has changed also. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:57:35 PM EST
    I am surprised by the process.  I began excited by many of the candidates.  When it narrowed to two and I started reading and researching I became increasingly convinced that Obama was not POTUS material and Clinton was so much more than I ever knew.  Then seeing her face so much crap with such grace and strength and Obama and his debate performance, his inability to connect with so many voters from March forward, what I perceived as cowardice...all clarified for me who the nominee should be.  And the MSM and Party leaders were describing some reality  so different from what I witnessed.  

    Now his changing positions on so many issues frustrates me to no end.  Now there are articles and queries into past relationships, decisions.  Now, why not then?  Why was he the chosen one?  What is going on here?

    I am ashamed to say this is the most politically active I have ever been.  I have changed.  I will only become more active.  Determined, I would say I am that too.


    Some Obama supporters (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    were more fixated on Denver burning down if Obama didn't get the nomination - does thar count as not voting for Hillary?

    No, but over at HuffPo (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    There were plenty of folks back in March who threatened to riot at the convention if Clinton 'stole' the election.

    It was the final straw for me at HP (well, one of several).  It was not a a few idiot commenters, but many of them.  Whether they would have followed through is anyone's guess, but they certainly thought it was a reasonable part of political discourse.

    To me -- threaten violence vs threaten to vote for the other guy -- hmmm, you know, I just can't get behind the violence folks.


    Prima Donna Brazile said it on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:26:32 AM EST
    straight from the top tier of the Dem party:  "There will be blood" in Denver if Clinton was the nominee.

    Disgusting behavior that ought to have had her fired from CNN and taken off every Dem party committee.  And yet, look who's still on top, look whose candidate took over the party.  Just one of many reasons why I no longer can belong to such a corrupt organization, not if Prima Donna is one of the ones running it.


    She repeated it on This Week (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:34:22 AM EST
    with George Stephannnnnnpolis.  He asked her about her comment, and she cheerfully repeated and emphasized the claim like she was involved in the planning.

    Someone told me that over at (none / 0) (#99)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:16:00 AM EST
    Huffpo (when I'm not too sure, but recently) something was posted to the effect that John McCain would not end up the repub. nominee. They would pull a "surprise" at the convention and throw with dems off kilter. I won't go over to that site so I'm wondering if anyone heard or saw anything remotely like this.It sounds ridiculous, but he swears he read about it.

    Completely ridiculous (none / 0) (#100)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:29:20 AM EST
    John McCain will be their nominee.  They're more loyal to their causes than we are, and they know he'll come through.

     Plus, he's their only viable candidate.