I can’t believe this! You are denying Obama’s divinity right here in his temple!

Ooh, I am going to burn so much incense at you…

D. Aristophanes, if you think either Clinton or Obama are “centrists” than you’ve been off your meds for too long my friend.

You know nothing of economics or political science you dumbfuck. Everything you have said about the economy is bullshit as is your assesment of where Obama and Clinton stand on the political spectrum. A centrist is one who is in the middleground “hence CENTRIST” between Conservatism and leftism. Not marxists who want to redistribute wealth and expand state power. You like most other people on this blog are fucking clueless.

Just so very well said, D.

If I may call you D., that is. I don’t mean to presume.

I don’t think we need to worry too much. Other than people who are into this Limbaugh ‘chaos theory’ BS, I really doubt that there are that many Clinton supporters or Obama supporters that are going to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t make it through the primaries.

Seriously, for what? Spite? That makes sense: I wanted Hillary, but Obama won, so now I’m going to vote for the craziest, most senile, war-mongering, right-wing motherfucker I can find, just to PISS YOU OFF! I don’t think there are that many people willing to destroy everything they stand for just because they want revenge any way they can get it. (Clear-thinking people, anyway.)

My wife & I have been big Hillary fans since we first heard of her, defended her to everyone, supported her, and backed her campaign at first. But, she lost us, which is amazing. Still, as you said, if she is the nominee I will gladly vote for her without a second thought, and I bet most Hillary supporters feel the same way about Obama — regardless of what MSNBC’s polling says.

Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”? Tourettes? Limited frontal lobe activity? Conservatism?

Just curious.

Four Yorkshiremen sketch

We dreamt of living in corridor!

So awesome….

Fighting on means never having to admit you were wrong. Ask the President ’bout that.

It’s been a long and divisive fight. Some people went into this without an exit strategy, and it looks like they are going to stay out fighting long after the outcome got decided.

Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”?

Because he’s John McCain?

Something I’ve always wanted to say:

Weiner for the Win!

This must be that post-wrapping-up-the-nomination-reconciliation I keep hearing about. Well done.

DA, I think I know exactly where you’re coming from, because when this whole thing started you could have put “Obama” and “Clinton” in a hat and whichever name you pulled out would have been fine with me. I liked Dodd best, but I knew he had no chance. Anybody but McCain has been my guiding principle from the start of this election, although admittedly the rest of the Republican field was pretty distasteful too.

And I’ve seen Obama’s warts. I used to drive my wife, a huge Obama fan, crazy, because I just couldn’t get all that enthusiastic about him. I didn’t like his conciliation-above-all rhetoric, he wasn’t liberal enough for my taste, and I didn’t like the fact that he won’t occasionally get down in the policy weeds and demonstrate a sharp grasp of the details. All those things are still there and still bother me, but no candidate is perfect. Then Clinton fell behind, and the attacks started. Obama can’t win. Obama isn’t as qualified for the office as McCain. Obama isn’t a Muslim “as far as I know.” Obama is an elitist snob who looks down on the rest of us on account of his fancy-pants book-learnin’. Liberals hate regyuler folks and are destroying the party. Ignorance is strength. And so on, to the point now where I don’t think there’s a right-wing meme about liberals that she hasn’t embraced and french-kissed at some point over the past month. And given that my goal here has been Anybody but McCain, it’s kind of distressing to me when the second-place Democrat is going McCain’s heavy lifting for him against the first place Democrat. So I became an Obama supporter.

Now he’s the nominee. Complain if you want but this primary is over. Threaten to go vote for Ralph Nader; hell, go vote for him, or for McCain, or just stay home. President-elect McCain thanks you for your support. The thousands of soldiers who are going to die for President-elect McCain over the next four years, the thousands more who are going to be seriously wounded and/or watch their standard of living continue to plummet to unacceptably poor levels might not thank you so much. Ditto for the poor saps who are going to get themselves waterboarded over the next four years at whatever gulag we pick to replace Gitmo. The working class folks who aren’t going to see a dime of economic relief for the next four years won’t like it, but the mega-rich folks who are about to see their precious Bush tax cuts made permanent will be sure to put you on their Christmas card lists. And when Stevens and Ginsburg retire or otherwise leave the bench, I’m sure you’ll all be satisfied with whomever President-elect McCain will appoint to replace them.

The best part is, this is all because a sizable minority on the left and left-center would rather lose than risk electing a candidate who is not absolutely 100% undeniably and incontrovertibly perfect in every way, shape, and form. Of course, those people on the left and left-center can’t agree on what the perfect candidate would look like, so that’s a lost cause from the start. But still, better a thousand years of Republican rule than four years of a Democrat who might not be everything we want despite the fact that he’s light-years better than the Republican alternative.

So hey, Talkleft and Corrente and the rest can keep directing their most vitriolic attacks at the Democratic nominee if they want; there’s certainly no reason they have to stop. But let’s not pretend we’re helping anybody other than McCain, OK?

ARGH, “doing,” not “going.”

I feel shame.

Who could have believed the MSM would do its utmost to pit two semi-centrist self-righteous narcissist assholes against one another long enough to generate some serious ratings and for the general public to forget Neanderthal Conservative McSame’s seeming infinite series of politically expedient policy reversals?

It’s not like elections and war drive ratings or anything.

First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it. Put the message out on matchbook covers or on the back of grocery receipt paper – the ones with with all those coupons.

We have two politicians fighting for the nomination. Flames erupt when either side pretends they’re something more, or need to be more to matter.

The worse of our *initial* choices when this primary began is better than the best the GOP had to offer. Something is working.

I’m just getting really sick of hearing about elitism, which has somehow been defined as drinking OJ and thinking that $30 is not much money. The fact that these accusations of elitism always come from the well-fed, if not the outright rich, does nothing to improve my mood.

Seriously, if you’ve spent a month barely surviving on spaghetti (without sauce) by selling your plasma, then I’ll listen to you tell me what’s elitist. Otherwise, shut your fat fucking mouth.

It’s insulting to be told that I’m an elitist because I’m unimpressed by the possibility that Clinton might save me $30 if she gets her bill passed and I spend a couple thousand on gas and the planets align. People who are so broke that $30 is the difference between eating and starving need more help than thirty fucking dollars. I’m an elitist because I notice that? Fuck you.

Wow. A mature blog post on the Clinton-Obama slugfest. I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf. Kudos. Or is it elitist to use that word? Okay, sorry. Thumb’s up.

Hey, Haam,

You got anything a little more convincing than that? Something with a semblance of coherency or civility or common sense or honesty or decency?

No?

Well, I guess you don’t need any of that when all you want to do is repeat the conservative media talking points over and over.

“Obama is unelectable.”

“Obama is unelectable.”

“Obama is unelectable.”

It just gets truer and truer! I bet you’re all tingly just hearing the growth of its trueness.

I can’t disagree with anything you said, which makes me mad.

What say you, Jonah?

If this gas tax thing actually becomes real, I’m not waiting to accumulate $30 – I’m spending my newfound wealth as it happens, 18 cents at a time.

Maybe the federal government can make a deal with Maruchan. One free ramen packet with every gallon of gas! Choose between beef or chicken flavor; nothing elitist like mushroom or shrimp.

Joe wrote: “First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it.”

And has no right to complain when ‘difficulties ensue’ the next time they seek a new site design.

You know, I really wish we had a proportional/parliamentary system in this country sometimes. Just so that assholes like Haam could see what a real leftist or Marxist looks like. And so that the 2% of asshole fascists could have their Asshole Fascist party and have 2% of the votes, and not hijack a whole fucking party.
Accusing Obama or Clinton of being far left is just ridiculous. Shit, I liked Gravel, but more realistically, Dodd. Then Edwards. Finally, in California I voted for Obama. I’ve got misgivings, but I liked the idea of getting someone in who at least looked different and wasn’t the wife or the son of a former president.
Democracy truly has yet to take hold in the USA.

What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you?

This is a really good question.

Please try not to phrase your answer as a conservative talking point.

And may I say – GODDAMMIT – I’ve been reduced to drinking fucking BOXED WINE fer Crissake!

This is a goddamn travesty – And I’m better off than a lotta people out here.

Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

May 8, 2008 at 6:43

Oink, oink, oink, squeee-EEEEEEEE! oink

Waiter? Could I have another troll? This one’s only half-baked…

Just so that assholes like Haam could see what a real leftist or Marxist looks like.

To steal my own line, Haam wouldn’t know a Marxist if one rammed a red flag up his ass while bellowing “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation” at the top of their lungs…

right – the discourse in this country has been shifted so far to the right that fucking anybody to the left of … ahh fuckit – HTML’s covered that many times.

Free Mumia.. whatever.

actually – Fuck Mumia – he probably did kill that cop.

Leonard Peltier on the other hand….he might have a case.

really 30 bucks? I still have a hard time grasping that there exist people somewhere who will absolutely die unless we rush to save them 30 fucking bucks. I mean, if that’s really the case than it’s gonna inevitably happen anyway so why should the rest of us fuck ourselves over just to keep them floating for another two months?

On a side note, are these same people bitching about immigrants doing their jobs for less. Because, really, if 30 bucks a month is life and death you should damn well love the opportunity to make 2 bucks a day for 10 hours hard labor.

“Creative”. Now there’s a character flaw if I’ve ever heard one.

Oh man- like the comedian Doug Stanhope (sp?) said – If you’re complaining that an illiterate peasant with no shoes stole your job – You’re such a loser that you should be fucking too ashamed and embarrassed to tell anyone – much less get all vocal about it.

Oh and how about the last debate, where the man of the people Charlie Gibson tried to corner that “elitist” Obama on raising taxes on the hard working middle class families that made between $200,000 and $250,000 a year?

Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.

“What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you?”

Ah, young grasshopper – there really are no answers; only more questions.

Who ordered spring rolls?

I just want to know how this person’s supporters can seriously attack the “creative class.” How in the tank can you get?

I believe the line is “starvlings from your slumber, arise ye criminals of want.”

So said my communist chinese friend in high school anyway.

I’m still mad at everyone for not writing in Gus Hall. Sellouts.

Perhaps this is projecting my own miserable, institutionalized racism on Hillary supporters, but I imagine (and strictly just imagine, no proof) that the problem with Obama is that he’s Teh Black. “Of course, I don’t have a problem with it,” they would say “but there’s just no way that millions of blue collar white people are going to vote for him.” Hence, the post-vote emphasis on Hillary getting the white vote in North Carolina.

Even if I am close to the truth, I further imagine your average, Caucasian, Clinton supporter would never, ever, ever say that in public.

Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.

Not that I probably have to say this but: Bullshit.

I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.

nice post, DA. At the risk of undoing your good work, much nicer than deserved.

oh and you beat me to it, IB. Total bullshit.

Are you suggesting that there are people in the world who, in talking about the salary of a college professor, would just simply pull numbers out of their butts?

You owed lambert no apology. You were spot on in your first post (and the follow-up), and he knows better than to think that you’re mocking the poor. Unfortunately, the primary has driven him to play the victim early and often. I’m hoping that when the nominee is determined, corrente will return to its regularly scheduled programming.

98% likely that Obama gets the nomination, and Hillary will endorse him immediately. Hopefully that helps salve the wounds of disappointed Hillary fans.

Me? I voted for Edwards.

GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS ALL SUCK EDWARDS WAS THE BEST AND HILLARYBOTS AND OBAMABOYZ ALL SUCK YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING TERRIBLE THEY ARE SUCH PHONIES ONLY EDWARDS REALLY CARES ABOUT PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SO I’M GONNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN JUST TO SPITE YOU REALLY REALLY REALLY.

Useful, huh?

Hi everyone, and let me briefly derail the conversation once again by thanking y’all for the messages of sympathy. I think I’ll have to head down to the animal shelter sometime soon, because Luschka has turned into a limpet – at the moment she’s resting comfortably on one arm (mine) on the desk, while I try to type with the other.

Oh and Smut, Abbys in general are loving and well-adjusted animals: you went wrong by naming her after a flibbertigibbet, and she had to live down to your expectations. Qetesh, on the other hand, was named after an Egyptian goddess, and was suitably regal/godly/good with sand.

I had named the Burmese Luschka because a friend told me it was the pet name that Vita Sackville-West used for her lover, Violet. Imagine my surprise on discovering this information: Google is no longer my friend. At least Lushy doesn’t act like a bile duct, ancillary or otherwise.

I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf.

Then you’ll be an orphan on that one, friend, because there ain’t never been no sich animal as a Tasmanian wolf. Tasmanian tiger, yes, but I’ve never heard of the Tasmanian wolf.

Ack, but wait: this Wikipedia page refers to both names for the graceful (and, sadly, extinct) Thylacine. Well, we live and learn.

Plenty of deal-breakers.

-Obama did not walk out of Reverend Wright’s sermons.
-In 2000, an untested Republican candidate promised change and the American people got shafted.
-He can’t win real people.
-He’s offering false hope.
-He gave a speech on the Iraq war, even though actions speak louder than words.
-We don’t want change you can Xerox.
-He’s run a campaign right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.
-He’s trying to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.
-Obama is not a Muslim, as far as we know.
-He’s an elitist.
-He opposes a gas tax holiday, like economists who don’t care about the interests of ordinary american.
-He can’t win big states.
-The mainstream media is against Hillary Clinton.
-He doesn’t have the experience to answer the White House phone at 3am.
-He can’t stand the heat and should get out of the kitchen.
-There might be an October surprise with Obama.
-He’s won’t be ready from Day One.

Shame on you, Barack Obama! Who do you think has what it takes?

-Park Menn

Haam wouldn’t didn’t know a Marxist if when one rammed a red flag up his ass while bellowing “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation” at the top of their lungs…

fixed.

The nomination was Clinton’s birthright and Obama stole it. And I’m not being snarky. Just expressing the disgust I’ve felt over the last few weeks as Clinton’s supporters have become more vocal and more desperate. He “stole” the nomination; he “played the race card” by – I guess – being African-American; he’s a “frat boy” and “born to privilege” (my personal favorite – a mixed race kid raised by a single mother – now that’s what I call privilege!)
Seriously DA, you’re missing the point. There is no legitimate argument against Obama. He’s slightly more centrist on domestic issues but far less hawkish then AMUF/blast Iran into the stone-age Clinton yet turn to any pro Clinton blog or comment and see if it isn’t described as if not the beast, at least the neighbor of the beast. And you’re asking for rational, reasoned opinion. From Lambert??? Don’t hold your breath.
Btw – all quotes above are direct quotes from pro Clinton blogs – and no, the “frat boy” quote isn’t from Tom Schaller.

I disagree that “we have two strong candidates.” The strong general election candidate is long gone. Neither of the two left standing, with their high negs, would have a strong run against McCain, but I prefer the candidate of wonkish specificity to the candidate of vague notions.
Anyway, first off, your guy had better:
– get damned specific, damned soon,
– lose his naiveté about reaching out to Republicans (wasn’t he paying attention when Clinton, of necessity, tried that with the Republican Congress?),
– lose his nostalgia for the Reagan years which, like the Bush years, were only good for the moneyed Ruling Class,
– stop merging the good Clinton years with the horrible Bush years and describing the whole 16 years as one long train wreck, and
– reign in his Brownshirt disciples.

Stemler said,

I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.

Where is this community college where part-timers make 80K/year? I’m all over that! Well, I’m not at any fancy Ivy League university or anything, but I am at a major state university, and I can confirm what Incontinentia is saying. Of course, we elitist professor types are pretty dumb when it come to salary negotiations and such, so maybe we’re just suckers, and all our colleagues are pulling down the big bucks and laughing at us. My “salary negotiation” when I was hired went literally like this: Chairman: “Well, the most we can start you out at is 48K per year.” Me: “Really? Wow! OK!”

Your field has something to do with it too. I’m a professor of environmental science, and we don’t make what law profs or medical school faculty do, by a long shot. Hell, I’m at the point where, if I need to get much more dental work, I’m going to have to whore myself out to some Exxon think-tank to “prove” that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory. On second thought, nah, I’d rather be toothless.

Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:

1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.

2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out

3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ‘sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’

4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).

5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ‘supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain – the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then – Clinton won the late deciders.

6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.

If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.

Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?

We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:

1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.

2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out

3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ‘sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’

4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).

5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ‘supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain – the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then – Clinton won the late deciders.

6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.

If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.

Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?

We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’ It’s a fraud, and I’d rather not have the lasting legacy of the 2008 campaign be that we blew it on an empty vessel of faux ‘change.’

Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.

Or maybe this one: which president will be more likely to investigate war crimes and rampant lawbreaking in the executive branch, and which one would be most likely to call a true & let them regroup?

These are valid arguments, and they are no less driven by fear than Obama supporters’ desire to end the primary as quickly as possible.

One last thing — and this may seem small but here it is — Hillary said she would not quit, that she would fight to the end, and she has and probably will. Isn’t that what we want, someone who will fight to the finish and make sure every vote is counted, and do it with enthusiasm, passion and grace? She is accused of ‘pandering’ but in a democracy don’t we sometimes, uh, want to get the candidates to commit to things that we want even if they don’t? And this brings us back to the double standard on ‘pandering,’ of course…

Shit, I didn’t expect my proof to come so quickly. I post at 12:08 and the very next post: Chuck @ 12:38 opens with “your guy”, followed by the absolutely false claim that Obama has “nostalgia for the Reagan years…” (no – he said Reagan’s presidency was a transformative one – that’s a perfectly true statement – and in no way, shape or form does it say the transformation was positive – noted Republican Michael Berube has pointed that out), and, finally, referring to his supporters as “Brownshirt disciples.”
Seriously, DA, this is your crowd your expecting serious dialogue from?

I too will vote gladly for Obama though I have long be a Clinton supporter. I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.

So far among blogs that support Obama, I mostly see two arguments for him: he speaks well and he raises a lot of money. Hardly a political program.

My message to all the Hillary fans.

Go ahead, “vote your conscience” or whatever you want to call it. You’ll get what you deserve.

If you really notice no difference between *any* dem candidate and Taint John of BBQ, then you won’t mind serving under him, in Iran. And probably several other places.

Now get over yourself. This election is about a lot more than your pet issues or your favoured candidate and if you can’t see that I can’t help you.

There’s an old saying that misery and poverty is the standard of the human condition and the brief times when humans manage to rise above it are the exceptions not the rule. It’s a bleak outlook but it’s difficult to deflate sometimes.

But again, Obama should ask for our votes if he wants them — he assumes that everyone who isn’t going to wouldn’t have in the first place. Wrong.

Try some more progressive policies, or is that too much ‘pandering’ for Obama to stomach? How about having a landmark speech about health care, one that in the process points out what a crime it is that you have to pay for medical care in the richest country in the world, or what an easily preventable tragedy it is that people die because their insurers arbitrarily decide not to cover an operation? He could come out and explain that he really wants truly universal care but that he thinks his plan is the best we can achieve in one or two years, and it won’t end there. I’d like to be proven wrong, but I’m betting he won’t do anything like that, and the wakeup call is when you start realizing that maybe he doesn’t really care or hasn’t thought about it because he’s so caught up in being a Serious Policy Wonk who listens to the Heritage Foundation as much as anything. Or maybe he’s just afraid to even acknowledge that we want to redistribute wealth from the powerful and the well-off to the people in need. At least Clinton freaking *acknowledges it* even if she doesn’t outright promise to go after single payer right away.

John McCain panders to his base because he needs their support to win. Guess what, Obama needs ours. And we’re a lot harder to fool. He needs to be competing for our vote, because I have news for you – I am one of the ones who would be out canvassing for him if he had thus far lived up to a fraction of what once seemed to be limitless potential. But sometimes what you see is what you get.

Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite

Pull yer lever for whatever floats yer boat, Iris. But puh-leeze, don’t pretend that a vote against Obama, should he win the nom-nom-nom, is a principled vote.

Here’s how I see it: the vote in November will be between a crazed, half-senile, wholly warmongering, privileged idiot who knows fuck-all about anything and will doubtless start World Wars IV, V and VI, and a semi-conservative. What can any principled progressive do, but hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Jesus Fardling Christ, no-one’s asking you to get “Obama Makes My Nipples Hard!” tattooed on your forehead. But a mature and responsible person would realise that there is not, and never has been, a serious contender for the Presidential Throne who was even slightly progressive (okay, maybe Carter. In some ways).

So in the absence of Teh Ideal Progressive Candidate, responsible and mature folk will cast their vote for the least worst, recognising, of course, that it is the least worst and not the best that they’re voting for. They don’t stride around bleating about how Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) fails to be the Bestest Ever Progressive Candidate.

“I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”

I think he is. Obama’s got a strong line in bell-ringing jabs, and he’s quick to deliver them.

It’s been a key part of his platform from the start. He’s always argued that if you want to take on McCain over the Iraq War, for example, you’d better be able to distinguish yourself from him. “I voted for the war before I was against it” is a weak argument. “I’ll bomb Iran” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. “I’m for the gas-tax holiday” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. Voters prefer the real thing over Dems running as “Republican light”.

…although Hillary would still win against McCain in November. He’s a weak candidate, and it’s a bad time to be from the incumbent side.

She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

A lot of folks commenting at Shakesville yesterday said they were going to vote for McCain because Kos is an asshole, and it’ll be all Kos’ fault anyway. And that Obama is going to ban abortion. And if you tell them that’s crazy, it only means that you yourself are crazy.

I’ve had to take so very many crazy-ass blogs off my Favorites list in the past few weeks…

Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.

OK, I thought about it for a while. The answer is ………….. Chris Dodd.
He endorsed Obama. Do you then dismiss Chris Dodd as an unprincipled charlatan?

Or maybe this one: which president will be more likely to investigate war crimes and rampant lawbreaking in the executive branch, and which one would be most likely to call a true & let them regroup?

Well, sort of a meaningless question. Neither candidate has taken any sort of meaningful action on that front.
I’d say the closest we come is Sen. Leahy – he was fairly vocal about changes to the War Crimes Act two years ago.
He endorsed Obama.

I think these are both entirely meaningless issues on which to decide a presidential election – unless your point is that John McCain would be a nightmare on either issue.

Finally,

Anyway, first off, your guy had better:
– get damned specific, damned soon,

Man, I’m sick of this shit. I’ve seen it adopted as an attack on Obama, but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody raised it against John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or anyone. This is such an empty fucking trope.

There are campaign websites, with issues sections.
They’re free! You can read them anytime, even at 3 a.m. or your lunch hour at work, or on a library computer terminal if you can’t afford a computer!
To complain because a candidate is not presenting these issues to you in hour-long speeches, or in 30-second ads, is just lazy.

It should probably be kept in mind that there will be different subjective viewpoints between now (MY candidate is / is not winning, YAY / I wil nevr vot agin) and the actual general election (OMFG after 8 years of Bush Jr we may get ‘nuther Republican / cannot survive).

Max Power said,

“I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”

The best way to deal with the Rethugs is to kick even more of them out of office in November of 2008 than in 2006.

For this task, I am convinced Obama is well equipped.

This is more than being asked to vote for the lesser of two evils, this is being asked to nominate someone who isn’t even that proud to be a Democrat (he is post-partisan) and someone who really does believe in Democratic values, even if flawed and compromised.

I’d also like to direct you here:
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1504

And here:
http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1160

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand if you want. All I can say is we’d all be a lot more likely to support Sen. Obama if we at least thought he represented our basic message, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what he stands for other than talking to our enemies more and ‘changing the tone.’ Remember, I was leaning towards Obama early on. Not a good sign, folks. The most I’d do is sit the election out, but not everyone detests conservatism like I do or knows the shift (or was it really a shift?) McCain has undertaken from his former status as a ‘maverick.’ And if you’re willing to hold your nose when you vote for the lesser of two evils, why not go ahead and vote for Hillary since she has the most progressive policies?

The only case you all have that Clinton has run as “Republican lite” is based on distortions from the media about Clinton ‘taking the low road.’ Her policies are certainly more, shall we say, pro-corporate than Edwards, but Obama isn’t even trying. He expects us to fall in line because we have no other viable choice and I’m just saying I know a lot of people are tired of being threatened. Won’t the Democrats in the Senate fight for Roe v. Wade? Won’t they stand for us on torture? It’s blackmail, pure and simple, and it won’t work this time.

She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

I see, so she’s just power hungry, but Obama “really wants to make things better.” This is an odd mix of mind-reading, sexism and true-believerism.

I actually had to fight against a lot of Clintonian / DLC Democrats who were actively fighting for a Republican agenda and against anything I supported.

Although Obama may not scream every day what an awesome party Democrat he is, he is (a) not the founder and leader of an organized group (i.e., DLC) which has declared its political goals to undermine liberals and labor; and (b) seems to me a great deal less likely to be a hardline fighter against pushes for liberal and progressive bills by the Congress, as HRC would be.

HAAM:

A centrist is one who is in the middleground “hence CENTRIST” between Conservatism and leftism.

Believe it or not, that’s traditionally / historically been the definition of ‘liberal’. So I guess you’re the one who’s fucking clueless, HAAM.

(Sorry, all. I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but the idiocy was just too blatant to ignore.)

.

Iris stood in the front of the mirror when she said all that and made little, self-righteous “fist-shaking” motions at certain key emphasis points.

What bothers me in all this is the almost total reliance on right-wing talking points. In the end the person who benefits the most from the Republican message is the Republican candidate. Isn’t that obvious?

If Hillary wins the nomination she’s going to be portrayed as elitist, and half her supporters will be former Obama supporters, that damn “creative class.” (lol) The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.

Latte-liberal is right out of the GOP playbook, and that’s exactly how *either* Democratic candidate is going to be charicatured. Why give the right-wing ammo?

Obama and Clinton? Where were all these true progressive purity-trolls when Dodd and Kucinich were still in the race? Oh yeah, I forgot, Kucinich believes in UFOs and Dodd looks old. Silly me. We couldn’t support them but now we have to fight to the death over which identical twin can maybe save those of us with cars $30. Even if that fight tanks our chances in the general election.

Why is anyone still talking about this horse-race bullshit? Nobody has anything new to say. Yeah yeah, Obama supporters are all yuppie fags and Clinton supporters are old harpies. We got it the first thousand times.

What possesses anyone at this point to think “wow I’ve got some really novel thoughts about Obama and Clinton that I just have to share with everyone”?

Seriously? Can anyone answer that?

In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’

Wonderful strawman you created there. His claim to the nomination comes from the fact that he’s won more votes and earned more delegates — you know, from the party non-elites.

Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

I’m very, very tired of that.

Iris: You’re right. Let’s see to it McCain gets in. I mean, there is an upside. Before the insane right wing ideologues he appoints to the Supreme Court are able to do much damage he’ll have started WW III anyway, so what difference will the repeal of Roe v. Wade make?
That’ll show us who’s boss. A damn fine plan and one any liberal can be proud of.

The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day.

Erm … it is mathematically impossible for her to win now, even with FLA and MICH, unless she wins all the remaining states by 90 percent of the vote.

Are HRC supporters among those liberal academic elites who contend that math and science are nothing more than “the dominant belief systems of the economic patriarchy.”

The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.

Obama already did that when he said blue collar folks are “bitter” and “clinging to their guns.” I winced out loud when I heard that, because I knew the GOP would jump on it. If anything, Hillary saved us with the working class when she denonced that comment. Lesson One in Dem Politics; If you don’t want to be attacked with GOP talking points, then don’t give them ammunition.

I think that’s the least we can expect from a GOP nominee.

Though I agree mostly with Iris, I’ll vote for Obama for the sake of party unity. He’ll need it since he’s pretty much lost the blue collar folks already.

The best part is, this is all because a sizable minority on the left and left-center would rather lose than risk electing a candidate who is not absolutely 100% undeniably and incontrovertibly perfect in every way, shape, and form.

If we felt this way, many of us wouldn’t be voting for Hillary, as many of your criticisms are well-taken. But that’s not it. You compromised too soon, and now you’re lowering your expectations every day and defending Obama’s completely non-universal health care reform plan. It’s about the issues, and these are issues of no small import. We’ve been through this before, asked to sit down and shut up and we have — but Barack doesn’t seem to think he needs the ‘old coalition’ anymore, because he’s changing the nature of politics. God, how fucking naive can we be? Oh wait, I can’t call Obama naive because that would be playing the race card!!!

Our Dem leadership is getting ready to pass telecom immunity for mass warrantless domestic surveillance, Schumer is already lowering expectations on health care, and Obama scoffs at the idea of taxing rich people. We should just sit down and shut up and vote for Obama because he makes a tingle go up Chris Matthews leg (and many progressives’, apparently)? Because if we don’t the Dems will let the Republicans take away our rights? If Obama does his work he could convince me, and I told the campaign that when they called. Who wants to bet, though, that he won’t? Because it would alienate the former Reaganites…

I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can. Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that this is overriding the “will of the people” If this doesn’t happen, Obama either panders to the base or he loses. Simple as that. And he may lose even with our support. I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done. It will certainly be historic, though not in the way we had hoped.

Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

As tired as we are that if we say anthing pro-Hillary, or criticize Obama, then we’re KKKers who get a kick out of toasting marshmallows on burning crosses?

Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.
…
Won’t the Democrats in the Senate fight for Roe v. Wade? Won’t they stand for us on torture?

Are these joke questions?

Neither candidate would ever filibuster telecom immunity. They both had their chance and declined. Senate Democrats won’t stand for us on torture, we know that for a fact, that’s been proven beyond all doubt. Neither Obama or Clinton voted on Mukasey by the way. We don’t have to speculate on these things, they are well-established by history.

I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done. It will certainly be historic, though not in the way we had hoped.

If you really want to convince anyone about anything, stop scolding them – particularly about something they presumably put some thought into.

Blue jean: Thank you so much for noble willingness to vote for the centrist candidate who beat your centrist candidate in a nearly year long campaign. You’re a real trooper.
DA, really man, this is what I meant – Obama the elitist who was saved by Clinton, as were we all.
Still waiting for that calm, rational explanation.

I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done.

Knew we’d be hearing this. “We could’ve won if it hadn’t been for you damn kids! We’re only doing this for your benefit, you know.”

Bah.

Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

The nastiness, in my view, started with one simple thing: the Obama campaign deliberately chose to play the race card against fellow Democrats in South Carolina. Unfairly but as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. Big mistake; we take that charge somewhat seriously, you know. So yeah, I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.

Y’know, I think I may have commented here long enough that I won’t be instantly mistaken for a “Hilbot drive-by hitwoman”, and for the record I will state AGAIN that I’m voting for the Democratic candidate be that Obama, Hillary, or a left-handed wide receiver to be named later. But seriously, Obama’s claims to the presidency are no less and no more legitimate than Hillary’s, okay?

As Aristophanes so eloquently explains, both Barak and Clinton are party-hack “centrists” whose allegiance to the (D) column keeps them from sinking to the nadirs of xenophobic militarism that the (R) column stalwarts demand from their candidates. Barak has the advantage (I’m told) of being New! and Inspirational! and possessing a patent on Hope!!! Hillary has the advantage of having been on the national radar a lot longer. Neither of them have run Ghandian campaigns so far, and Clinton’s advisors have made far more and worse messes in public. And Obama’s been fortunate in his enemies, because frankly “This time, it’s different!” has trumped “At long last, it’s our turn!” So, one way and another, it looks like Obama’s going to be the Democratic nominee that I will be voting for six months from now.

Which doesn’t mean that I believe Obama’s going to be my friend, or even that I would want him to be. The minute he gets the nomination, if not sooner, he’s going to start disappointing us. By the time he sits down in the Oval Office, he’ll have “betrayed” some portion of his fiercest constituency. He’s a politician, and that’s what politicians do. I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama, so he’ll have pissed off a lot of his “base” by the time he gets around to crushing my dreams for a better America — I hope.

Although if Obama ‘Reaches Across the Aisle in the Spirit of Bipartisan Comity!!!’ and taps Willard Romney for his VP, I may have to reconsider.

iris @ 14:11
It’s really this simple: McCain or Obama.
Take your pick – barring death or major scandal one of those two will be taking the oath of office in Jan. 09.
If you’re ok with McCain – more power to you. Hope you don’t care about Roe v. Wade, peace in our lifetime, the end of torture, tax cuts for the rich, etc, etc, etc.

This is not good.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Although I haz college degree, I must go off to work. As a number of posters at Atrios said, they had to put on their white faces and go work hard.

If you really want to convince anyone about anything, stop scolding them – particularly about something they presumably put some thought into.

It’s nothing personal, but I am at pains to point out that Hillary and her supporters put up with this daily. Everyone seems to have been calling for her to drop out of the race since the Iowa caucuses, and women are made to feel as if they have to apologize for voting for a woman because, you know, we just want to get past those icky gender politics. It seems to me that everyone is allowed to play gender politics EXCEPT Hillary and her supporters, but it’s just played from the opposite side. Go try and defend Hillary over at Daily Kos and see what it gets you…

Nice post, D.! Can we get back to teh snark now?

How is supporting Obama a “compromise”? Maybe some people just like Obama better.

Ask a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and another 4 million refugees about their health care. On my blog I have a picture of a kid with his leg blown off above the calf. Who’s paying for his health care? “Universal”? No.

Our Dem leadership is getting ready to pass telecom immunity for mass warrantless domestic surveillance,

Hillary has never fought against telecom immunity, and was the LAST one to weigh in on it. She only made a statement on it after being repeatedly pressed and after Obama had already done so. (Who himself only weighed in on it after being pressed repeatedly)

You appear to be living in some sort of fanatasy-land where Hillary is leading on issues like telecom immunity. In reality she’s bringing up the rear. She has shown zero leadership on that issue, zero leadership on torture.

That’s what makes me scratch my head about all this. Look at the records of Obama and Clinton. We aren’t talking about Dodd here. Clinton and Obama are not civil liberties crusaders, they aren’t fighting tooth and nail against torture or telecom immunity, they aren’t fighting to close gitmo or to restore Habeas or to stop extraordinary rendition. Neither of them is doing jack shit on any of these issues.

You need a serious reality check. If we’re counting on the leadership of Clinton or Obama on these issues we’re fucked.

I don’t care if you support Clinton, but can you find some reasons that make sense? Telecom immunity? The fuck?

How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

Quick pointer: Just because Rove tries to smear your candidate with something, does not mean it is 100% false. The key is turning your weaknesses into strengths, not ignoring that the weakness exist and painting your opponent as racist for pointing them out. Jeez.

And if you’re willing to hold your nose when you vote for the lesser of two evils, why not go ahead and vote for Hillary since she has the most progressive policies?

Happily. But she will not be an option (unless you happen to be in one of the remaining 6.) To all her supporters, I’m truly sorry your candidate didn’t win. That sucks. I know because I’ve spent my adult voting life supporting the person that loses: in both primaries and general. Perhaps this will help ease the pain as you pull the lever for Obama in Nov. By voting for Obama you will be making the following people cry: Doughy Pantload, Red State, Freepers en masse, the architects of the Southern Strategy, Pam Oshrey (probably be more of a shriek), Michelle Malkin, the krazy k-lo korner kids, etc…

Kinky Friedman said it best:

Fuck ’em and make ’em eat Fruit Loops.

Yeesh. Clinton supporters. I don’t get you. Yes your candidate is smart, successful and would do well in the general election. But Barack Obama is not the antichrist anymore than Clinton is. I think that in certain areas (e.g. foreign policy for Obama and Health Care for Clinton) one candidate would be better in the White House than the other. Overall? Not really. Either will have (if we are fortunate not to have a 3rd term of Bush) a huge freakin’ mess on their hands that will require all of their energy to even begin to repair.

I keep hearing about the whole ‘electability’ argument. Which is stupid, because it can be argued that BOTH candidates are unelectable. Also, when the Clinton supporters complain that Barack Obama can’t win working class whites, hispanics or older women, (and that’s the key to November) they neglect to mention that Clinton has difficulty winning Obama’s coalition. You know, the youth vote, African Americans or people with higher educatoin… people we EQUALLY need to win in November.

Also: Yes Obama’s more rabid supporters wanted Hillary out of the race in February. Why? Because she lost 11 contests in a row and at that point it became mathematically dubious for her to win the nomination through a pledged delegate total. So her campaign started arguing that certain states didn’t count, that Michigan and Florida should be counted as is, (even though they broke the rules, Obama didn’t campaign in either and wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan) and that the supers should decide based on ‘electability.’ Just a question Hillary supporters: but if your candidate had had a narrow but clear pledged delegate lead in February and Obama’s camp started suggesting such things, wouldn’t you feel that he was attempted to win by crook what he couldn’t win at the ballot box?

I apologize for ranting, just I don’t get it. Neither candidate is a saint. Both can, based on polls, win the darn thing. Each does better with their respective constituencies, each brings something to the table. Yes, both could lose it, and both have weak spots. Anyone who thinks the fight for November is going to be easy is out and out crazy. The Republicans know how screwed they are, hence they are at their most dangerous.

The idea that either nominee is so terrible and so awful and so out of touch with (insert core democratic constituency here) that you would want to enable (through either inaction or action) a third term of Bush is flat out insane.

/rant

I may be coming to this discussion too late, and feelings may be running too strong for me to have any impact, but I’m going to try. I’m a Clinton supporter who thinks Obama has plenty to offer as a candidate, as well. Though I think issues matter more, I get a thrill when I ponder how historic this race truly is. The idea of a presidency that might make a true dent in the racial divide in this country, and heal some of the wounds of our past, is huge.

What has gotten up my nose is the overt and appalling misogyny in this primary, which leaves me and many other women feeling pretty much thrown under the bus. Violet at Reclusive Leftist captures it here.

I don’t agree with Violet about not voting for Obama. I think we all do need to come together, ultimately. And the misogyny doesn’t excuse the racism that has come from the Clinton side of the infosphere. I’ve been appalled and embarrassed by some of the things Clinton supporters have said and done.

I must defer to my friends of color with regard to the level of racism they have experienced as directed at Obama — I’ve certainly seen evidence of things that have made me angry on his behalf. I don’t think it benefits any of us to try to weigh whether Clinton has experienced more sexism than Obama has racism.

But the overt, blatant misogyny directed against her during this campaign has made me just sick to my stomach. In that context, getting a patronizing lecture about how all us Clinton supporters need to fall into line doesn’t sit very well.

Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist. I spent a lot of time thinking over my choice, before I settled on Clinton. I have good reasons for it, which you may disagree with, and I’m willing to discuss them, but don’t expect to change my mind by insulting me for my choice.

The last time I gave a rat’s ass about who was going to wind up the Democratic nominee was whenever it was last possible to think of John Edwards as a genuine contender. Since then, from my perspective, it’s been all show. If I’ve had any sort of preference between the two crypto-rightist Establishmentarians currently on offer, it’s for Obama, merely on the grounds that he’s the more talented politician: Hillary has never, ever looked comfortable on the stump, and my guess is that natural (like, ironically, Bill) plays better in the general than sweaty.

So from this relatively impartial position, I have to say that I’ve been really surprised and dismayed to see bloggers (Lambert, Susie Madrak) who I’ve considered reliably, even eloquently, leftist go off the deep end in these last couple of months. I don’t understand it either–I also don’t see it to the same degree on the Obama side (though I also never touch the orange Satan’s site). When somebody like Lambert does this cute “creative class (cough)” bullshit–which can only be a sniggering way of suggesting that Obama supporters are all big big ‘mos–we’re in the Twilight Zone of political discourse. I no longer read either Corrente or Suburban Guerilla, after having read them for years. It’s not because Hillary love offends me (OK, it does, a little, but so does Obama love): it’s because their politics seem so driven by their class (or other) resentments, whatever they are, that it’s embarrassing to watch. They’ve abandoned intellectual honesty and squandered their credibility because of some visceral dislike of (some caricature of) Obama support, and they won’t get it back.

You appear to be living in some sort of fanatasy-land where Hillary is leading on issues like telecom immunity. In reality she’s bringing up the rear. She has shown zero leadership on that issue, zero leadership on torture.

No, I’m just choosing the lesser of two evils, as some here have advised. What I’m saying is that Hillary is eminently more sensible of the threat to our republic, to the general welfare itself, that the conservative movement poses. So Hillary has compromised her principles in favor of political survival? Duly noted and acknowledged. But so has Obama – and I refuse to stand idly by and watch anyone paint him as some sort of progressive savior when he’s not whatsoever. He threw his own pastor under the bus after a supposedly ‘offensive’ speech and a press conference – how long will it take him to throw the rest of us under the bus? At the end of the day, all issues considered, I suppose I just have a little more faith in Hillary to not give up so easily.

Everyone seems to have been calling for her to drop out of the race since the Iowa caucuses, and women are made to feel as if they have to apologize for voting for a woman because, you know, we just want to get past those icky gender politics.

Nobody has to apologize for voting for Clinton. What gets my goat is threatening to not vote at all if Clinton doesn’t win. That’s just silly. Not voting makes it easier for McCain to win, and from a logical perspective it makes no sense, period.

It’s just a dressed-up version of taking your ball and going home.

I’m not a huge fan of either candidate, but I’ll vote for whichever one wins, because quite frankly to do otherwise would be fucking stupid.

Anne Laurie:

I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama…

Which, to be fair, is probably a quality we want in the presidential candidate – at least during the general election.

At least, in that situation, one would think ‘winning’ is roughly equivalent to ‘maximizing the political career’.

.

Iris, all SadlyNauts,

We have to get beyond our ‘feelings’.

Some of us are supporting Clinton, others are supporting Obama. For full disclosure, I am one of those who support Obama. I know that there are very intelligent people who support Clinton for what are doubtless very good reasons. Obama appears to be winning at this point, though that could change.

The important thing, to me, is that we should not attack each other. The ‘Ramengate’ thing seemed to me to be very insulting to Obama supporters, calling us ‘the “Creative Class”‘ and ‘elites’ and other complete nonsense, and that is why it angered us. I don’t doubt but that Obama supporters have insulted Clinton supporters at some time, and if so I am sorry.

We, (Clintonite or Obama-ite bloggers) need to be the intelligent part of our groups and try to keep the attacks to a modicum. We don’t need a schism in the Democratic party now.

You completely have to read economist Bryan Caplan in the NYT on why he supports the gas tax “holiday”.

Yes, it still makes bad economic sense.

But he supports it because he fears if something throwaway and symbolic like this isn’t done, the public may demand some actual solution and that would be worse.

You think I am joking

I am not.

From “The 18 Cent Solution“, by Bryan Caplan in The New York Times

Why are economists so opposed? In the short run, the supply of gasoline is basically fixed; it takes a while to build a new refinery. The demand for gasoline, in contrast, is more responsive to price; we’re already seeing greater use of public transportation and brisk sales of fuel-efficient cars. When you combine fixed supply with flexible demand, it’s suppliers, not demanders, who pocket the tax cut. That’s Econ 101.

So far, I pretty much agree with the consensus. Economists might overstate the rigidity of supply — it’s possible that eliminating the tax could spur producers to find a way to squeeze out a little more gas — but they’re probably right that the Clinton-McCain proposal will not shrink the price at the pump. Nevertheless, I think it’s an idea worth supporting. In fact, I’ve got two arguments in favor of it, though I doubt that either candidate will want to repeat them in public.

The first is that the tax holiday is a relatively cheap symbolic gesture that makes truly bad policies less likely. The main causes of high gas prices are probably factors beyond our control, like rapid growth in China and India and low real interest rates. But voters don’t want to hear this; they want politicians to “do something!”

During our last big energy crisis, in the 1970s, “something” turned out to be a salad of populist nonsense: price controls, rationing, windfall profits taxes, arcane loopholes and lots of lawsuits. That political response turned an inconvenience into a disaster.

We can do better this time. Since in an election year Congress will feel compelled to show the voters that it feels their pain, let’s do something that at least keeps energy markets in good working order. The tax holiday fits the bill. Markets will adjust to it, no problem. And it won’t cost much — the estimated $9 billion in lost revenue is about $30 per person. That’s not a bad price to pay for a little insurance against a rerun of misguided ’70s measures.

Second, even a “giveaway” to the oil industry sets a positive course for the future. During the last crisis, the industry was a scapegoat for scarcity. Politicians scrambled to stop oil companies from profiting from the crisis, even though temporarily high profits end shortages by giving businesses an incentive to figure out how to increase output.

It’s naïve to think that the oil companies have forgotten the ’70s. They know there’s a decent chance that economic populism will return. In fact, it already has: Senator Clinton’s full proposal is to combine her tax holiday with a ’70s-style windfall profits tax.

In this light, that oil companies might pocket most of the tax cut could easily be a good thing. It helps cancel out the negative legacy of the last energy crisis: public hysteria will occasionally work in your favor. This makes the energy companies less likely to hunker down on their profits and more likely to do what they didn’t do enough of in the 1970s: search for ways to increase production.

Yeah.

Tell me again why I hate me, the working class, because I don’t support d*ckhead policies designed to help the poor, poor oil companies avoid burdensome populist reforms and allow the poor, poor dears to make up all that money that they lost when they went broke in the 1970s which I somehow never heard of?

Tell me again which approach is patronizing and arrogant.

Yeah.

I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can. Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that this is overriding the “will of the people” If this doesn’t happen…

Ummm, Iris… if your candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, then how does that reflect the will of the people if another candidate gets larger than 50% of the vote? Wouldn’t Hillary winning through the super-delegates and/or seating Michigan and Florida as is without sanctions be something (if not exactly) akin to having the Supreme Court pick the winner?

Iris said,

How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

Let’s think about that one a while.

Not exclusively whites?: Those are exactly who was referenced.

“any different than if”: If is different from did.

Finally, Iris, saying “all the Archie Bunkers out there won’t vote for the n!gger so support me “* is something I never want to hear from a Democratic candidate.

*My paraphrase, and I think it’s accurate.

Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist.

I’ve honestly never heard anyone say this. Maybe I don’t hang out in the right places…I like to think that when people support a candidate it’s not because they are racist or sexist or “compromised too early” but that they simply like that candidate better.

I liked Dodd. I guess that makes me both racist and sexist. (But not ageist!)

As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced – yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.

Damn, and here I thought British Politics were divisive.

As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced – yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.

Some people liked this Saturday Night Live sketch where some black dude was calling Clinton a bitch, or something like that. I thought it was fuckin’ stupid.

Also didn’t like those “Vote Obama! Bro’s Before Ho’s” t-shirts.

I voted for Clinton in the primary, and will gladly pull the lever for Obama in the general – assuming he’s the candidate, which seems likely at this point.

Frankly, I’m perplexed by the hate/nastiness from both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide. Neither is a perfect vessel for our hopes, but the important point is that they are vessels for the changes we would like to see enacted.

McCain is a vessel for despair.

Also can people stop using the phrase “Obamabots”?

I’m not a big fan of Obama or Clinton, but I dislike Obama a bit less. That makes me a latte-drinkin’ racism-cryin’ robot? I don’t even know what a latte is.

Literally dehumanizing people because they have the audacity to prefer another candidate?

How about a tiny bit of good faith and charity? I’m not a robot and I’m not a retard, I just like one candidate more than another. It happens.

Look, the entire Corrente crew has gone off the fracking deep end. No need to apologize to those clueless rubes. Lambert is the worst of the bunch. It is like an echo chamber for idiots attached to Hilary Clinton’s gallbladder drinking bile straight from her right upper quandrant.

Now that I have that off my chest – I totally agree – I’d vote for either BHO or HRC in a heartbeat against any Republican even if Abe Lincoln himself rose from the grave (because you know, if he were still a R after resurrection then it would mean he must have had a sip of their Koolaid)

But the overt, blatant misogyny directed against her during this campaign has made me just sick to my stomach. In that context, getting a patronizing lecture about how all us Clinton supporters need to fall into line doesn’t sit very well.

Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist. I spent a lot of time thinking over my choice, before I settled on Clinton. I have good reasons for it, which you may disagree with, and I’m willing to discuss them, but don’t expect to change my mind by insulting me for my choice.

Thank you for putting it so well. But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle? The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama. Hillary has said she’ll fight til every American has health care — that’d be a start. Obama could also rule out using military contractors like Blackwater (no more privatization of the military) or do some “straight talk” about how there is no Social Security ‘crisis,’ ….or that he will not appoint SCOTUS justices solely on the basis that they went to harvard law….anything! I can tell you right now if the Hope and Change seem as empty in November as they do now, I will stay home. And I’ll encourage other progressives to do so also.

It seems that to criticize Obama I must first prove Clinton to be an angel….but it just doesn’t work that way.

I really do feel what you mean about not tarring Democrats as ‘elitist,’ but to a degree there is a bit of elitism that we are unwilling to examine, or so it seems. It’s certainly not a good idea to internalize every Republican smear, attack or criticism, but there is some elitism in telling rank and file Democrats to “move past” the fights of the 1990’s — taxes, health care, jobs, the post-cold war ‘peace dividend’ — those were important fights worth fighting. Obama reveals his elitism by dismissing the Clinton and Bush presidencies together in one fell swoop,

I say if Obama wants to be the nominee that badly, he has to offer us more. If he doesn’t need people like me that care about those issues (and yes, ending the war is important to fund such things as health care) then he can look for votes elsewhere. Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

Justin said,

May 8, 2008 at 13:48

She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

I see, so she’s just power hungry, but Obama “really wants to make things better.” This is an odd mix of mind-reading, sexism and true-believerism.

No no no – I’m saying that the Dem nominee WILL BE the next President. McCain will not win because, this year, after Katrina and Iraq and the second Bush recession, having an [R] appended to your name is the kiss of electoral death.

Which is why Hillary is fighting hard, despite being behind and very unlikely to win the nomination from here. Obama’s fighting just as hard. The only difference is he’s ahead and is very likely to win the nomination from here.

His Grace said:

Also, when the Clinton supporters complain that Barack Obama can’t win working class whites, hispanics or older women, (and that’s the key to November) they neglect to mention that Clinton has difficulty winning Obama’s coalition. You know, the youth vote, African Americans or people with higher education… people we EQUALLY need to win in November.

The unspoken corollary seems to be “where the hell else are they going to go?”, one of the many “tough shit” arguments from Obama electability doubters. I think Hillary is being a horse’s ass of a much greater degree of magnitude than Barack. Sure, I’ll vote for her if she gets the nom, but I think she has become so cynical that she’s now a full-on triangulator like Bill. I believe Barack could sweet talk some better deals than Hillary’s “fold if it’s not a quick win” approach.

And the $30 argument of Lambert’s is really pitiful, as it reveals he is not well-versed as a poor person either. If $30 is a deal breaker, you ride the damn bus (Here in Little Rock it’s $32/month unlimited) – you won’t be buying gas to begin with.

“really 30 bucks? I still have a hard time grasping that there exist people somewhere who will absolutely die unless we rush to save them 30 fucking bucks.”

I’ll believe it. There certainly is a limited segment of the population that can’t get a job or is scraping by on minimum wage, has health care problems, etc. to whom $30 is a very big deal. Particularly if kids are in the picture. (I’ve also known basically middle-class kids who have slummed, seemingly so they could spin out poverty tales like Lambert’s, but I’ll give him/her the benefit of the doubt on this). In any case I don’t believe people for whom $30 spells the difference between eating and going without are often found tooling around in their own private cars, which is the whole point of the argument about the importance of saving $30 over three months in gas tax. Lambert neglects to mention whether s/he had a car at the time of extreme poverty. I’m sure s/he didn’t.

There’s better ways to reach the desparately poor and hungry than with a gas tax break – a point elided by Lambert’s post. I’d much rather the government hand out free food or extend unemployment benefits, etc. than give a tax break to Hummer-3 drivers to target the small part of the population who have chosen car ownership over eating.

Yeah, I don’t like being called an Obamabot either. And, if you call Clinton supporters Hillbots or some crap like that, then please stop.

Does someone think that Clinton supporters are ‘retards’? Well, let me clue you in: James Wolcott is not a retard. Think Obama supporters are ‘retards’? Guess what. Roy Edroso is not a retard.

Can we just admit that, while neither of them is perfect, neither of them is Satan either?

Er, Random Observer, look up.

Johnny Coelacanth, May 8, 2008 at 10:04:

“Perhaps this is projecting my own miserable, institutionalized racism on Hillary supporters, but I imagine (and strictly just imagine, no proof) that the problem with Obama is that he’s Teh Black. ‘Of course, I don’t have a problem with it,’ they would say ‘but there’s just no way that millions of blue collar white people are going to vote for him.’ Hence, the post-vote emphasis on Hillary getting the white vote in North Carolina.

“Even if I am close to the truth, I further imagine your average, Caucasian, Clinton supporter would never, ever, ever say that in public.”

Iris…when puffing up your chest and acting like your grand progressive feet should be kissed by Obama, it would behoove you not to drop lines like this:

I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can.

Simply put, Hillary cannot win the nomination without “technical means,” and by “technical means” I mean “Election 2000 Part 2.” And you sincerely hope this happens?

Wow. Oh yes, you certainly = teh progressive. I couldn’t possibly mistake you for yet another wingnut lackey.

The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

1. Because he’s not John McCain.
2. Because he’s not John McCain.
3. BECAUSE HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN.

Iris:

But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle?

Maybe because protest votes and staying home didn’t work out too well the last two election cycles. And it’s not demand to fall in line, so much as a request to consider the options and the consequences.

Two things (and I know I’m coming to this late):

1. I am a tenured professor (with a PhD) at a private, elitist liberal arts college. I started, in 1999, at 33K. I now make exactly 50K. That’s after three years with tenure. So, no, the American professoriate (with the exception of those in the business schools) are not part of the demographic that is really concerned with capital gains tax hikes.

2. When did “post-partisan” become a pejorative? Partisan politics is killing our government’s ability to function.

So yeah, I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.

Perfectly and 100% fair and understood. I don’t know of anyone who’s done that, and I haven’t done that myself, but people who said that to you were completely, completely wrong.

Blue Jean said

“Lesson One in Dem Politics; If you don’t want to be attacked with GOP talking points, then don’t give them ammunition.“

No, I think they can make their own ammunition no matter what you do.

We tried nominating a decorated Vietnam Vet, a true war hero – and see the kind of ammunition they got out of that.

Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

How about a tiny bit of good faith and charity? I’m not a robot and I’m not a retard, I just like one candidate more than another. It happens.

Same here…I try not to do that personally, but sometimes you do have to use confrontational language to make a point. If you go elsewhere you’ll find that Hillary supporters are mocked as deranged “Hillbots” (Balloon Juice comes to mind) and practically called traitors to the cause (even here) because we won’t just fall in line even though Obama may happen to pull off a very slim victory. Many of us compromised once already and are unwilling to completely sell out and up-end the party into total meaninglessness so that we can have a feel-good moment. I think that’s as perfectly valid an opinion as preferring to keep our heads down and hope for victory. Because even if we do win, what kind of mandate would we have with a campaign based on ‘less partisanship and more unity’? What would Obama do when entrenched Bush appointees in the civil service start to revolt and run ratfucking operations with their GOP pals out of office? Maybe it’s silly, but I have a much easier time imagining Hillary bringing down the hammer on them. This just isn’t the time (not yet) for unity and reconciliation. Would Obama grope endlessly for the middle way?

No, I think they can make their own ammunition no matter what you do. We tried nominating a decorated Vietnam Vet, a true war hero – and see the kind of ammunition they got out of that. Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

Bingo.

I like Hillary’s plans to expand National Science Foundation funding and grants.

An NSF plug on Sadly, No! ?!? I’m swooning.

In all seriousness, NSF funding SHOULD BE the biggest no-brainer for any President or Member of Congress, since it’s the best-run agency in the federal government and basic research is probably the best thing that tax dollars can support. But you know, politicians tend to get distracted by shiny things right around the time they’re supposed to be finishing appropriations…

(But thanks for acknowledging the misogyny.)

I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

He decided to run his campaign without lobbyist money or PAC money. I still can’t believe that. Totally insane.

Then he won.

That’s worth voting for.

Iris-

Because I’m ever-so-curious, who did you vote for in 2000?

Thank you for putting it so well. But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle? The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

We are talking about in the general election. You want to vote for Clinton now? Knock yourself out.

I can tell you right now if the Hope and Change seem as empty in November as they do now, I will stay home. And I’ll encourage other progressives to do so also.

“Other” progressives? Progressives don’t campaign for McCain.

I’m really starting to believe that this “stay home and protest” meme was started by some clever Republicans because they are the ones who obviously benefit from it.

How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

Fuck off bonehead.

This snark-free postage is like Splenda– i know it tastes *like* sugar, but it’s got that unsnarky aftertaste of ass.

However, i, too, sing Ameri–uh, will vote for HRC should she ride to the nomination on a magic pony after Denver. Of course, given that the black people will shave 5,279 feet off the mile-high city if Obama doesn’t win, because we can’t control the primal urges that cause us to automatically translate pluralities among primary-and-caucus delegates into mandates, we might still end up nominating the boy wonder, John Edwards. Edwards-McDreamy ’08!

If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

And by the same token, that is perfectly and 100% wrong. You wanna talk about throwing people under the bus — that’s what you intend to do. If Clinton got the nomination, I, as an Obama supporter, would eagerly and wholeheartedly vote for her. Because I don’t want my sister, mother, and grandmother hurt, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I don’t want soldiers to continue to die in an illegal war, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I don’t want to Supreme Court corrupted any more than it already is, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I want the economy to improve, New Orleans to be rebuilt, infrastructure to be improved, and McCain doesn’t want any of that. Because torture sucks, and McCain thinks it rules.

Honestly, Iris, if you really think, after eight years of Bush, that you want things even worse to punish people for not loving Clinton enough? Fuck you, go die.

Also, I’ve never from the start given a rat’s ass who won the Democratic nomination. That D lever was getting pulled one way or the other.

I preferred Hillary from the onset because I thought she’d rip the GOP a new one. Changed to Obama by the fall because I thought HRC was DLC-as-usual. But it never really really mattered. We’ve been splitting fucking hairs for months now.

If Hillary were to (and let’s be frank, this is the only way at this point) steal the nomination, no protest vote from me. HillRod’s name would get the checkmark. If you want to party like it’s 2000, go ahead. Leave me out of it.

Maybe it’s silly, but I have a much easier time imagining Hillary bringing down the hammer on them.

I agree with you on the necessity of doing so, but I think the exact opposite way on the candidates. I think Hillary is less likely to do this; her role in authorizing the Iraq War and continued support of it for years afterwards makes it less likely she’ll be keen to revisit that disastrous period of misgovernance with a microscope and a hammer.

Not that Obama has promised to do this, but he’s not complicit in it, and he hasn’t ruled it out

“But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.”

Are you kidding me? I know of no Clinton supporters who believe she is the fricking second coming of Christ. She has a lot of flaws, but so does any other politican who is electable. When I take the issue survey I get Kuncinich like I bet a lot of people do. The problem with old Dennis is that he isn’t interested in actually working to govern a nation of diverse and differing viewpoints. He stands up for what he believes in strongly, and we need people like him out there; but he can’t govern. He can’t lead the political system because there are just too many people out there who don’t agree with him. Any politican who actually works to govern and create real change will be imperfect. That is because ultimately our political system is not about trying to achieve perfection, it is about having a system where all opinions, even minority ones, can be heard and have a say in influencing policy. At the end of the day, no one believes our government is perfecrt, and that is one of its virtures.
Obama claims he practices a new kind of politics, that he is somehow superior to the Clintons because he is honest and trustworthy in a way they are not. This is just a lie, and anyone would half a brain would know this. Obama is a politican like anyone else, will do and say certain things to win that in an ideal world one would rather not do, is a shameless hypocrite who has the audacity to criticize others for doing the exact same things he himself does. I have no doubt Hillary Clinton will do the same things, but her pitch to voters was not vote for me because I don’t these things and the others do. She is not promising to magically change Washington by having a level of honesty and integrity that she claims all others are sorely lacking in. Bashing politics and those who actually bothered to show up and engage in them to get some sort of results in order to advance one’s own ambitions will get you a lot of votes, but it is a fraud, and it ultimately won’t produce any results for anyone.

If you want us in the car with you, just admitt what a hypocrite Obama is, that he is a politican through and through just like everyone else, that his claims to be practicing a different kind of politics are a sham. You have to do these things to win an election, especially against a more experienced, qualfied, and accomplished opponent. Obama is going to need to go all in on this fraud to beat McCain, and I will glady go in with him, but only if the more savvy of his supporters will give us a little wink to let us know they aren’t fooled by his non sense. If that is the case then we can be certain that a President Obama will be held accountable and then we can be certain we actually would be better off with him in the White House come January.

LauraJMixon:

Good catch, I totally missed that. Guess I have seen it after all.

Perfectly and 100% fair and understood. I don’t know of anyone who’s done that, and I haven’t done that myself, but people who said that to you were completely, completely wrong.

That’s generous of you and it’s much appreciated…I for one am of the opinion that a lot of the insults like that are unintended and maybe even unconscious, but we can see what they have done to the discourse.

Get Real-

Read this blog more. No one here thinks Obama is the second coming. Hell, even John Cole, who hay-hay-hay-hates HRC, thinks Obama’s mostly full of it.

So no, I don’t think Obama is above it. I think he’s good at fooling people that he’s above it. I think that’ll nab some votes down the line.

But it doesn’t matter. Know who Obama is? Not John McCain. LISTEN TO ME, YOU PEOPLE, HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN. NOT JOHN MCCAIN. NOTHING. ELSE. MATTERS. THIS ELECTION IS FRIGGIN HUGE. AND HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN.

Iris,
Even though I think you are wrong and deluded, I have to say that I am very impressed. Walking into the lion’s den and speaking your mind. Brava.

What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns? The very thought of another media darling campaign genius a la Rove makes some people want to write in Cthulu ’08.

Obama reveals his elitism by dismissing the Clinton and Bush presidencies together in one fell swoop,

Aw, come on Iris. “elitism”, give me a break, that’s Republican meme material. In terms of the Democratic Party, Bill did do a pretty shitty job – there weren’t much coattails there. Sure it’s extreme to paint Bill with the same brush as George, no argument, but it’s not “elitist” – Hillary is not a blue-collar person either, by any means. And Hillary gave props to McCain over Obama (“Obama gave a speech”, instead of “Boy I sure fucked up voting for that war”).

Most folks seem to prefer Barack. Moreover, the folks that like Barack aren’t going to defect to GOP come November (unlike a blue-collar low information voter that will then have to choose between a white man and a white woman, not between a white woman and a black man). Is he perfect? Aw, hell no. But Hillary has made a lot of piss-poor choices as well. Hillary doesn’t have to be angel, but she does have to be *demonstrably better*, and I am not seeing it.

What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns?

Mark Penn isn’t business as usual, because, um, er, durr, uh…

“Leonard Peltier on the other hand….he might have a case.”

Just so everyone knows, even the FBI knows that Peltier is not the killer. The person that actually did it got away from the firefight and Peltier has refused to identify the man. The Fed prosecuted Peltier because they had him in their control, they had expected Peltier to roll on the actual shooter, but he still hasn’t to this day.

Look: Not liking Obama or disagreeing with him does not mean you are a racist. Not liking or disagreeing with Hillary does not mean you are a misogynist. The fact that we have to even state such things appals me.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize either of them. There are plenty of reasons to believe that one is the better candidate than the other, one candidate is ‘more electable’ than the other, and one will do a better job fighting the republicans than the other. Intelligent people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

However, it is past the time for these debates really. Obama has pulled off a defacto win, albeit a slim one. But as another candidate so marvellously declared “a win is a win.” In order for Hillary to win, she needs something like 75% of the remaining popular vote and 84% of the superdelegates… unless Florida and Michigan are seated as is, without sanctions. (They aren’t going to do that and reward bad behaviour just so Hillary can win sorry).

The question is, do you want McCain to win or Obama? Clinton is irrelevant at this time. SHE CAN’T WIN THE NOMINATION. And yes, I would say this wholeheartedly to a hardcore Obamunist were the roles reversed.

Just one final note: It is absurd to suggest that either Clinton (were she the nominee) or Obama will ignore substantial voting blocks of the democratic base. In the general election, Hillary would need the African American vote and the youth vote as badly as Obama needs the white rust-belt vote or older women. Neither wants to ignore a coalition that represents about half of the democratic base.

“Either will have (if we are fortunate not to have a 3rd term of Bush) a huge freakin’ mess on their hands that will require all of their energy to even begin to repair.” That is the problem. I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that. The Democratic Congress is and will be mostly a bunch of wimps and they need someone to whip them into shape against the Rethugs. Clinton can do that but I doubt that Obama can.

Obama’s campaign reminds me of John Lennon’s song “Gimme some truth”.

“with just a pocketful of hope
money for dope
money for rope”

the Democratic party: seriously, you can do pretty much anything and we’ll forgive you

We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

Great. President-Elect McCain thanks you for your support.

Just please, please don’t ask me for my support when you get whatever candidate you really really want.

I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that.

Too bad. He’s the candidate.

We’ve seen Clinton supporters come in here and parrot the “why won’t the bitch quit” line. Which, by the way, is a lovely recurring feature at the sewers in Corrente. And the “white votes count more than black votes” line. And claim that people oppose their Iraq-war-voting-for, flag-burning-bill, ban-evil-video-games candidate because they hate women.
Donna Shalala was responding to an appalling white-votes-are-what-matters appeal from Begala. And the Clintonsphere has taken her “new coalition” response (e.g. you shouldn’t pretend only white votes matter) and turned it into some kind of bullshit shunning (they don’t want us in their party anymore.) Forgive me if this sort of nonsense doesn’t provoke sympathy.

Corrente is off the rails, they’re vicious and thin skinned, and they deserve relentless mockery. I will predict, right now, that the extreme Clinton sites will end up doing a Lieberman or Nader, according to which way the crank turns. “The democratic party didn’t leave me” blah blah blah. Look for Lambert and his crew to go for some third party crap, along with riverdance. (Who, by the way, has a vicious….man, just go look. Those lucky black folks!) Look for the loons at No Quarter to go McCain. Armando will continue to post hate on Obama while pretending he supports him; Jeralyn will avoid general election politics. No idea what Taylor Marsh, Suzie Madrak, and the Hillaryis44 gang will do. The Left Coaster will support democrats with a leftist critique, a ok by me.

Is it OK to mock youstabees? ’cause that’s what you’re about to be looking at. August Pollack is right – these are warblogger wannabes, for whom EVERYTHING CHANGED in primary season 08.

Obama is going to need to go all in on this fraud to beat McCain, and I will glady go in with him, but only if the more savvy of his supporters will give us a little wink to let us know they aren’t fooled by his non sense.

Why? What possible difference could it make? If you know it to be true why do you need the Obama supporters to validate it for you?

Look, I’ll spend the rest of my time from now through Election Day with one eye closed if it will help, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why it matters at all.

Iris:

What would Obama do when entrenched Bush appointees in the civil service start to revolt and run ratfucking operations with their GOP pals out of office?

Agreed. Both Bill and Hill have written about how unexpectedly difficult the transition in the executive bureaucracy was when Bill first took office. Hillary knows better than any candidate what to expect and how to handle it. It’s one of the reasons I voted for her in the primary. And if Clinton doesn’t win, I hope she’ll give, and Obama will take, her advice on it.

That said, there’s a lot to like about Obama too – for instance, I suspect he has better foriegn policy *judgement*, despite having less experience than HRC. And at this point, I think he’s doing more to build the party – which was never Clinton a strength.

So, again, I’m happy to pull the lever for him if he’s the candidate. Frankly, Iris, I can understand supporting Clinton, but I can’t understand hating Obama so much as to sit out the election or stay home.

Iris:

If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

That’s just nuts. I don’t want to see things get any worse for *America*. Another term or two of Unitary Executives, and the country may be too fascistic for the Democrats to learn or use whatever lesson you’re pushing.

If you want us in the car with you, just admitt what a hypocrite Obama is, that he is a politican through and through just like everyone else, that his claims to be practicing a different kind of politics are a sham.

Umm, ok. Obama is not the second coming of Christ. I sincerely doubt that his administration will be substantially different than a Clinton one. Yes he is a politician. That makes him a hypocrite who will say things to get elected, just like any other one. Yeesh. As for the sham thing, well, the cynical side of me says that you very likely could be right… although declaring him a failure before he even got into office strikes me as a tad premature, any more than it would be to declare Hillary’s healthcare plan DOA at this point. Question: Why is it necessary for me to say this?

“We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.”

Near as I can tell, that something is handing dominionist, “originalist”, right wing extremists up to four more seats on the Supreme Court. Good move.

“Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite”

Let me make sure I’m getting this right…this was a Clinton supporter saying this?

“because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.”

The effective difference is one more term in the Senate. One.

DN Nation-
Good answer! You have got me leaning Obama with honesty like that.

I would invite everyone who thinks not voting is a swell idea to look at the picture at the top of this post:

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-we-learned-from-iraq-absolutely.html

At some point “sticking to your principles” is just selfishness. I don’t like Mark Penn, I’m not a huge fan of Clinton or the campaign she’s run, but I’ll gladly sacrifice my vaunted “principles” if it means McCain won’t be in office, invading Iran, killing a couple hundred thousand more people and creating millions more refugees.

Perhaps the most important principle, the one most worth sticking to, is not elevating your own ego above the lives the thousands of people.

if you choose to not vote out of “principle” the principle you are celebrating is extreme selfishness. It takes real arrogance to believe that “being true to yourself” or some shit like that is more important than life or death for others.

Not Even An MBA:

What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns? The very thought of another media darling campaign genius a la Rove makes some people want to write in Cthulu ‘08.

I don’t know what Iris has to say, but I’ll say the same thing I’ve said to the anti-Obama crowd. She’s not perfect, and neither is he. The important thing is that neither of them is McCain.

We simply can’t take another 4-8 years of Republican rule. And that’s what the consequence is of not voting for whomever is the Dem nominee.

.

In the 90s, the Clintons were champions of triangulation and the new third way between left and right. Now Clinton supporters are saying Obama’s not lefty enough for them? Memory, where are you when we need you?

I don’t feel like registering over at Corrente to comment on this (http://www.correntewire.com/an_olive_branch_from_sadly_land), but shystee, if you’re reading this “a pissed-off reaction to the assholish tactics and arguments employed by Obama supporters on and off the blogs” is not a “good” reason to keep attacking the party nominee. Somebody’s hurt feelings aren’t worth electing John McCain.

His Grace-
It is necessary for you to say this so we can have faith that you will hold Obama accountable on the issues when he is President, not do what I have seen to many do in this primary, which is sell out on very important progressive issues in order to rationalize their burning desire to see Obama elected. (Health Care for example.) If I know you know better, then we can create the atmosphere in which a true progressive mandate can rule, not the unity non sense Obama is trying to fool people into believing. A lot of the things that need to be done will be divisive if we do them. We have to know that Obama is ready to create some divison for a greater good, and that people won’t blindly follow him because of what he represents to them, rather than what he actually does. We have seem with Bush and his base how toxic that can be. What you have already said puts me further down the path to Obama though, so thanks.

burning desire to see Obama elected

Thing is, for a lot of us it’s really more of a burning desire to NOT SEE JOHN MCCAIN ELECTED.

Too bad. He’s the candidate.

No, he’s not. Hillary has not dropped out of the race, and until she does the fact remains that Obama has not secured the nomination. If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will? I for one hope she stays in, til the convention if necessary. You only win by getting 2209 delegates, pledged or super. Those are ‘the rules’ and that is ‘the math.’ And Florida and Michigan have to be included — Obama encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted for just this contingency. IMO Hillary played it smart from the beginning…..If she stays in, the fact is that it’s not over til the convention. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that as close as the race is, the superdelegates’ not following the Obama campaign’s expectations would not be stealing the election for Hillary, it would be the process working out exactly as it is intended to. You can’t argue that we have to follow the “rules” and support the pledged delegate leader, even though those same rules allow for party leaders to make a different choice. The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not. Hillary is FAR from perfect, but I feel like we’re getting a litte bit more than simple dogwhistles from her.

Anne Laurie:
“I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama… ”
Please, tell me that isn’t so – a presidential candidate out to maximize his political career. Why that’s unprecedented.
And I defended Clinton with the same argument form day 1. The dumbest anti-Clinton argument I heard (mostly from the right) was she’s too ambitious. Yes, in her case there’s obviously sexism at play but regardless of the sexism its just plain stupid to feign indignation over someone running to be the head of the wealthiest, most heavily armed nation in the world actually wanting to be in charge. Well no shit, really, they have a big ego and ambition to burn…while I’ll be damned, never wouldathunkit.

Also when your strategy is to do exactly what Republicans want you to do you’re doing it wrong.

You have Democrats saying that they’ll either force Clinton through as the nominee through some back-room deal that will tear the Democratic party apart or they’ll just not vote and encourage all their friends to not vote as well. This is a Republican wet-dream.

IMO Hillary played it smart from the beginning

Yes, when I think of “playing it smart from the beginning,” I can’t help but think of the former presumptive front-runner who now finds herself with almost no shot at winning the nomination. That’s some smart campaigning there.

If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will?

Because her attacks on Obama are weakening BOTH of their general election numbers. She’s running a campaign that’s going to leave WHOMEVER is still standing at the end in a weakened position with respect to beating McCain. Which, at the risk of beating a dead horse, is for a lot of us all we really care about right now.

If she can run a campaign that directs its venom at McCain and the Republicans instead of sizable factions of her own party, then I think she’d find that most of the people who want her to quit wouldn’t mind so much anymore.

“The effective difference is one more term in the Senate. One.”

Clinton has many more years on the national scene than her Senate term. It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team. Don’t you remember the “co-presidents/ two for the price of one” business? It’s one of the reasons the Clintons got so much heat — they challenged the paradigm that First Ladies are supposed to be about teas, parties, and at most, children’s health and literacy. Hillary was much more involved in administration policy, and it was a big threat to the Villages and the rightwing noise machine.

Look, I’m in the same boat with those who say we can’t afford to stay home in November. Too much is at stake in this election. But it’d sure be nice if we Clinton supporters saw more evidence that Obama and his supporters cared about the right to choose, for instance, and didn’t appear blind to — or worse, even indulge themselves in — truly repugnant sexist slurs against US history’s first viable female presidential candidate.

If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will?

Nobody is.

Like another commenter said, I have taken many websites off my list in the last few months.

I can’t read Corrente any more, just like I can’t goto Kos anymore. I simply do not understand the rancor and bitterness over the obviously Republican double-agents Obama and Clinton.

Judging solely by their public record, both Obama and Clinton are moderate Republicans. I can not in good conscience support either one. I might be able to convince myself to vote Obama in the General Election were he to win the convention, but there’s simply no way I could possibly vote for Clinton or McCain. I still have a Kucinich lawn sign in my yard, and I was ready to vote for barely-left-of-center Edwards, until the conservative media forced him out of the race.

Just so you all know, I knew way more about the blatant corruption and right-wing policies of the Clintons back in 1991, and sure enough, as President, Clinton (it seems) signed more pro-GOP laws than during the previous 12 years of the first Bush presidency. After serving as Token Woman on the board of WalMart, where she helped to plan Wal-Mart’s role in the destruction of the US Middle Class, she worked at Rose law firm where her task was to take on the worst clients, the ones that were so evil that the regular partners were scared off. One of Clinton’s efforts was to make sure that a corporate polluter got off scott-free after knowingly killing and maiming children. Hillary is clearly evil and has been for decades.

The Democratic Leadership has been a subsidiary of the GOP since 1979, making a show of being an opposition party, but consistently voting with the GOP when it really mattered. For example, during the Reagan years, when the executive was violating the holy US Constitution left and right, the Democratic Leadership publicly announced that they would never hold the GOP accountable. And when Clinton came in, the Dems lay down and refused to fight against the Contract On America, where Newt Gingrich pushed America another two points toward right-wing totalitarianism. The Dems refused to stop anti-American extremists from being appointed to the US Supreme Court and lower courts, not only that, but they voted FOR these extremist bastards, (like Scalia).

So it makes very little difference who gets elected, all three Republican slaves will follow the right-wing agenda as set by their corporate owners. The differences are minor, like what day to invade Iran, not whether the US has any right to start yet-another war of naked aggression (the same thing we hung Nazis for) against the citizens of a foreign nation that never harmed the US.

So I just don’t understand why people are so crazed by this primary. We have NO choice, it has already been made for us by the wealthy,

Good answer! You have got me leaning Obama with honesty like that.

See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

There are some sexist assholes out there supporting Obama and saying a lot of misogynistic shit about Hillary. Granted. There are also plenty of starry-eyed Obamacultists who are probably in for a big let down. Those aren’t the people who are going to run his administration. Getting the respect that you feel you deserve online isn’t a principle. In fact, its about as shallow as voting for the candidate with the nicest suits.

No, he’s not. Hillary has not dropped out of the race, and until she does the fact remains that Obama has not secured the nomination.

…but de facto, he has. Popular lead/delegate lead. Soon to overtake Hillary in superdelegates. Hillary’s only shot is some backroom shenanigans at this point. And as much as you say that you’ll enable a McCain presidency if HRC isn’t the nominee, I would advise you to consider what would happen in Denver if the second-place candidate declares victory.

With that being said, I don’t mind that Hillary’s sticking around. I’m with Steve Benen on this one- if she hangs around, espouses some solid values and spends the great bulk of her time dissing Bush/McCain, then it’s fine. If she keeps slamming Obama, then it only hurts the party. Small sample size has been a mixed bag; the pro-feminism anti-McCain talk has been good, but this new “our demographics PWN his!” stuff is just bullshit.

But again- She can’t win the nomination at this point without bullshit. Sorry.

You only win by getting 2209 delegates, pledged or super. Those are ‘the rules’ and that is ‘the math.’ And Florida and Michigan have to be included

Yes, keep moving those goalposts, even though Hillary herself only started using this math only after it became politically useful to do so. You do know Obama’s name wasn’t even on the fucking ballot in Michigan, yes?

But sure, count ’em. He still wins. Moving on.

You’ll have a hard time convincing me that as close as the race is, the superdelegates’ not following the Obama campaign’s expectations would not be stealing the election for Hillary, it would be the process working out exactly as it is intended to.

So…

Hillary wins = Win at any cost, and it’s fine!
Obama wins = I’ll leave the Democratic party!

I’m within my right at this point to declare you full of it.

They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not.

That’s nice. But look at the numbers. Obama’s been gaining on her for months w/r/t the supers, and will most likely overtake her in a matter of weeks.

“In the 90s, the Clintons were champions of triangulation and the new third way between left and right. Now Clinton supporters are saying Obama’s not lefty enough for them? Memory, where are you when we need you?”

The Clinton’s practiced triangulation as a matter of political necessity to get things done that had to be done. They did this because they were in power and understood the awesome responsibility that came along with that. Obama preaches his unity, praise the Republicans stick as a matter of principle, and claims that he doesn’t engage in evil political posturing. If this is true, which I hope it isn’t and he is just saying that to get elected, than I have a major problem with Obama. I hope that both Hillary and Barack oppose gay marriage because it is a political necessity to do so in our current climate, but apparently Barack doesn’t make calculations like that. So I am worried that when the country has progressed to the point where we are ready to embrace gay marriage that Barack will continue to oppose it out of principle. He is a very religious fellow, called by God to serve and all, and considering he doesn’t take positions for political reasons, it seems to me a legtimate concern that he will adhere dogmatically to some of his more conservative friendly positions, even once the country has progressed beyond them.

But it’d sure be nice if we Clinton supporters saw more evidence that Obama and his supporters cared about the right to choose

I guarantee that Obama wouldn’t nominate the kind of judges McCain will. I guarantee anyone Obama nominates will be pro-choice.

I’m very sorry about misogyny. Very sorry about it. I have no idea how it feels, me being a man and all. I’m so sorry about it. If there is anything- anything- I can do to fight it, tell me.

But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.

wow, you really are clueless.

Do you relieve believe that Clinton supporters don’t know about her flaws? Do you think we’ve on the Clinton for President bandwagon for 8 years, just waiting for the chance to vote for her to become President?

The vast majority of those of us in the blogosphere who support Clinton were ABC (anyone but Clinton) a year ago, because we were well aware of all of her flaws. But when it finally came down to her and Obama, and we looked at Obama, we saw….an empty suit. Someone with no record to speak of, whose ideas and policies were not his own, and whose past provided an abundance of fodder for the right right smear machine. Obama had just as many “minuses” as Clinton, but where Clinton had plusses, Obama had zeroes and question marks.

The difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is this: we chose our candidate with full knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses — Obama’s didn’t. And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

although declaring him a failure before he even got into office strikes me as a tad premature, any more than it would be to declare Hillary’s healthcare plan DOA at this point. Question: Why is it necessary for me to say this?

If Hillary is not the nominee, it’s going to take convincing from Barack, not his supporters, to get me in the car. And I stress again that I’m a long-time and loyal Democratic voter, not a Naderite. I have faith in the purity of your all’s motives, even though some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now, when it may be too late. But the truth is Obama is still an unknown quantity to me, and that’s a bad thing when you combine it with trying to be as vague as possible so as to protect yourself from attack. The fact that he was all for voting for Roberts until someone hit him with the fact that he could lose the primary because of it, is very disturbing to me. Does he think going to Harvard Law is enough? Does he really think that because he was prepared to vote on ‘non-ideological’ grounds that Republicans will too when he is president? If so, we are in trouble, folks. And, not to pander or anything, but does he not realize that even $30 is a lot of money for some people, and what that says about the US treating its citizens as less than human (as Wright said)? We bailed out the big shitpile, supposedly because we ‘have to’ and bad things will happen if we don’t, but a lot of our people need a bailout. Times have not been good to them. I know Clinton understands, despite her financial success in life….does Obama? Is his health plan the goal or the compromise? Is he just trying to be very generous on the issue of social security to sound moderate? Where do the panders end and the man begin? With Clinton, I know, she talks tough on national security now to protect herself against being too ‘soft’ or whatever…Obama distances himself from Wright to avoid being labeled the “militant black” candidate (also silly) but the truth is I couldn’t tell you how he really feels about Jeremiah Wright’s painfully accurate critique of America.

Now I have to go to bed, thanks for the fascinating discussion, maybe we can pick it up again sometime..=) Apologies for the harsh language, but as you can see there is passion on the other side too. Although I think you’re giving up too much leverage by readily falling in line, I too share your desire to keep McSame out of office (btw at Balloon Juice the new catch phrase is “Clinton McSame…” have I ever mentioned that former GOP’ers don’t make the best allies sometimes?

The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much.

Holy crap, your FIRST COMMENT referenced “the unity pony” and the misogyny of Obama supporters, the “why won’t the bitch quit” crap.

Many of us compromised once already and are unwilling to completely sell out and up-end the party into total meaninglessness so that we can have a feel-good moment.

Then enjoy your own self-righteous feel-good moment, but don’t fool yourself that giving “how do we beat the bitch” McCain the presidency rather than sullying yourself voting by for someone who is nearly Clinton’s political twin is some sort of grand victory for Truth, Meaning, and the Democratic Party.

Obama had just as many “minuses” as Clinton, but where Clinton had plusses, Obama had zeroes and question marks.

Again, oh well. Clinton is not the nominee.

And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

Do you have any proof of this, other than the usual slate of anecdotal wankery?

Again, *read! this! blog!*. Read all the threads the S,N!-ers started that weren’t in pursuit of teh funnay. Each and every time…”Obama isn’t perfect,” “Let’s be honest, Obama is business as usual,” etc.

Your strawman = fail.

Get Real, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t expect you to love Obama b) Not criticize him or c) not hold his feet to the fire during his administration when he enacts bad policies. Actually I encourage all three.

In fact, if any of the Sadlynauts here expect the opposite, I would be genuinely surprised.

some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now

Name names Iris you gutless dope.

Your candidate sucks and I don’t.

Too bad I dropped out.

In fact, if any of the Sadlynauts here expect the opposite, I would be genuinely surprised.

Right. Obama is not the perfect option, he is the option.

If Hillary is not the nominee, it’s going to take convincing from Barack, not his supporters, to get me in the car.

Good for you. You’re great. Great great great. Super great, doubleplus great, totes awesome 100% plus infinity times great with a cherry on top.

I will again say- If HRC manages to wiggle into the nomination, I’ll vote for her anyway.

And I stress again that I’m a long-time and loyal Democratic voter, not a Naderite.

Well, good, seeing how Nader is a Halliburton stockholder.

I have faith in the purity of your all’s motives, even though some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now, when it may be too late.

Um, you’re the one who’s breaking out the “by any means necessary” talk.

And, not to pander or anything, but does he not realize that even $30 is a lot of money for some people

Errrrrrrrrrp. End of discussion. You’re full of crap.

The difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is this: we chose our candidate with full knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses — Obama’s didn’t. And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

I would say that there are a great many Obama supporters who will see no wrong in him, yes. There are also a great many who choose him even after his weaknesses have been exposed. It is possible for good, intelligent people to approach the same question rationally and arrive at different answers.

Blue jean: Thank you so much for noble willingness to vote for the centrist candidate who beat your centrist candidate in a nearly year long campaign. You’re a real trooper

Keep snarking, Bob; I’m sure you can drive more Hillary voters into writing in her name instead of voting Obama if you keep trying. Won’t your centrist candidate thank you for that?

Iris:

The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not. Hillary is FAR from perfect, but I feel like we’re getting a litte bit more than simple dogwhistles from her.

Fair enough. That’s what all this sniping and backbiting is all about anyway. Some people want Hillary to concede the race so the party can focus on attacking McCain, and some people want her to stay in because they think she’s the better candidate.

My take is that I’d rather see this wrapped up by mid-June or the beginning of July. I have no problem with letting this play out till the end of the primaries, and giving the SD’s a couple weeks to announce their preferences.

But if it goes to the convention, I don’t see that as a great evil either. It will at least deprive McCain and the Republican Party of some airtime for their attacks, and perhaps keep people excited about the Democratic race rather.

In the meantime, it really would be good to see both sides refrain from race and gender based political analysis and other Republican memes. And it would be really, really nice to see the intra-party attacks stop, and be replaced by attacks on the Republicans.

.

Name names Iris you gutless dope.

It’s just a general impression, and I still think it’s fairly accurate to say that we have not noticed sexism nearly as much as we have reacted kneejerk to any hint of racism. It’s not necessarily all of you, I don’t mean to be imprecise.

So, can it be said that some significant percentage of Clinton voters simply wouldn’t mind a John McCain presidency? Because that’s pretty much what I see when I read most of these comments.

It’s not necessarily all of you, I don’t mean to be imprecise.

Then don’t fling shit when you don’t know if it should be flung. People here have noticed the appalling treatment Hillary receives and also that Obama is not the savior.

Being a Kucinich devotee, I am suprised to be so strongly in for Hillary.
This country’s best days were when we had an economically strong and vibrant middle class. The other minor thing is that the world is on the brink of destruction and I want the smartest person at the helm. Like Bill, Hill’s understanding goes 4-5 levels deep on any issue. Obama?
he needs some time to mature. One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw. Obama is open to privatizing social security, keeping Blackwater in Iraq, is ok with mysogeny and is happy to drop a “racist” accusation for political headway – a mortal sin.

RandomObserver:

Also when your strategy is to do exactly what Republicans want you to do you’re doing it wrong.

Sometimes. And sometimes not.

Let’s not forget that the Republicans are often stupid, and frequently like things that aren’t good for them – like lactose intolerant dogs that love milk.

I think we need to spend less time worrying about what the Republicans want, and more time worrying about how to get the country working for us – all of us, and not just the rich – again.

.

Iris said:

Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

This may be the most dangerous political statement we’re going to hear in 2008.

I can only conclude that Iris is just not comfortable with democracy. She’s a narcissist in progressive clothing. I hope her kind are a tiny, tiny minority.

DN Nation-
Your last post has me leaning McCain again.

The Republican party allows all 50 states to vote, and when its states move up their primaries they follow their own gudielines and strip them of half their delegates, they do not prevent millions of voters from having any say whatsoever in the process.

I am not sure I can vote for a candidate that would suppress the votes of some, even if techincally the “rules” allow them to do so, because those voters having a say would hurt that candidate’s prospects. If in the future states follow Indiana’s terrible precedent and require ID to vote, and people begin to actively attempt to enforce this rule vigorously disenfranchising many voters, and the Republicans respond those are the rules, what are we are going to say in return? Obviously technical “rules” are more important than ensuring everyone has a right to vote. If people can’t follow the rules and get proper IDs then tough for them, just like it is tough for the people of Michigan and Florida?

Obama could not win the nomination withou this bullshit of Michigan and Florida voters being screwed over the rules comittee. The Republicans had the same problem and found a reasonable way to solve it. One the Democrats would have found if they had simply looked in their own fucking rules. Having those two big states go early helped the Republicans significantly by sorting out their nomination without all the mess we Democrats had to deal with. If you insist that Obama won this nomination legtimately by blocking revotes in Florida and Michigan then don’t be suprised when he loses those two states come November, and when people like me vote for the party that doesn’t disenfranchise millions of voters in the name of adherence to the rules.

The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008

Yes, and they can use other criteria, like who is motivating the most new voters, who has the highest favorability ratings, who is raising the most money, and who is competitive in more places. Super delegates are party insiders. Bill Clinton is a former president. Hillary had every advantage with them, but has been bleeding SDs for months now. The whole, “I can still win on superdelegates” line would be more convincing if she were actually winning them.

LauraJMixon: “Clinton has many more years on the national scene than her Senate term. It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team.”
How did Mrs. Clinton do with the Health Care Task Force? I have never seen so great an opportunity for so great a liberal reform so thoroughly destroyed by hubris and incompetence. Secret meetings, the big 5 insurance companies dictating terms, other key players frozen out., a plan so complex the best way to destroy it was to describe it. And yes, I know, big bad Republicans fought her. That’s the point isn’t it? And assuming she gotten it passed it would certainly be her main claim to the nomination so please don’t bother trying to distance her from the failure.
Furthermore, in 8 years as First Lady Mrs. Clinton never carried a security clearance. Not so much as a secret. I don’t know how much you know about how the federal government works, but a person devoid of a security clearance is a person with no input on foreign, defense or intelligence policy. Half the budget is closed to her. Most cabinet meetings would be off limits. Sorry, new paradigm or not she was not a “co-president.”

Your last post has me leaning McCain again.

That’s stupid.

The Republican party allows all 50 states to vote, and when its states move up their primaries they follow their own gudielines and strip them of half their delegates, they do not prevent millions of voters from having any say whatsoever in the process.

If we gave Hillary half the votes she won in FL and MI she would still lose.

Pedestrain:

See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

Good point. Thanks for making, Pedestrian.

.

Pedestrain:

See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

Good point. Thanks for making it, Pedestrian.

.

Fine, seat the delegates. Every single one of them. I don’t care, and I thought the decision to screw the states was a bad one.

But what do you do about Michigan? Again, Obama’s name was not on the ballot.

Also, seriously man. How the heck does what Some Guy On The Internet say figure into your political affiliations?

In the meantime, it really would be good to see both sides refrain from race and gender based political analysis and other Republican memes. And it would be really, really nice to see the intra-party attacks stop, and be replaced by attacks on the Republicans.

Unlike the press, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time can’t we? Some might argue that this primary as well as other recent elections have shown that adhering to Reagan’s 11th commandment will get progressives nowhere. If our party leaders know they can count on us no matter how much they stab us in the back, they’ll never address the issues that matter to us, and we’ll be asked again and again to wait. If Reagan did make the GOP the “party of ideas,” as Obama said, I wish he’d take this advice to heart and run hard to the left. Reagan ran hard to the right…he pissed off a lot of people but amazingly they got stuff done because they won popular support for their ‘ideas’ (if you can call them that). And I am not comfortable with the proposition that Obama is secretly ‘with us’ – I need him to show it, and besides, he is supposed to be the candidate who isn’t afraid to tell us the truth, right?

JGabriel,
Indeed, right now all eyes are on the circular donkey shooting squad. Barack and Hillary are dominating the news cycle. This is their opportunity to stick it to Johnny 100 years. I’ll drop my objection to Clinton, despite Mark Penn, if she goes on a two month long McCain-is-going-to-draft-your-babies-get-them-killed-in-Iraq-and-sell-the-bodies-to-Chinese-apothecaries bender

I too share your desire to keep McSame out of office

No, you don’t. You said upthread that you thought things had to get worse to make sure the Democratic party got the picture. You think punishing America with another crazy Republican is a good thing, because maybe people will accept your Messiah in 2012.

Go away, you awful troll.

Sorry, but I feel I need to use caps because I really don’t know how else to get this question across to the people to whom I want to ask it:
HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY OBAMA IS UNKNOWN AFTER 6 MONTHS OF PRIMARIES, 21 DEBATES AND A BIG FUCKING WEBSITE THAT WOULD TAKE NO MORE THAN 37 FUCKING KEYSTROKES TO PULL UP? HERE, I’LL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM OR YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM? BE FUCKING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST FOR GOD’S SAKE.

A latte is a horrible drink:
Warm milk with one drop of coffee in it. The Anti-Cappucino.

What the hell is the point of that?

Gore/Edwards 08

Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

Then why stop at 4 more years of war and economic collapse? If you really want to teach us all a lesson you should start setting fires and blowing shit up. That’ll show America!

This bullshit equivalence is fucking redneck-spooge.

Obama said “her health care plan is bad because no mandate will ever pass the congress and so its a waste of time to try”.

Hillary said “this n****** is just another affirmative action hire stealing a white person job”.

They are NOT equivalent at all.

Iris I’m going to be blunt with you: This is not going to the convention. Hillary Clinton would be, well, monumentally stupid to do this. Why? Because that would mean even if she won in spite of not being the leader in either popular vote or pledged delegates, she would have two months as an official candidate, with more than half of the democratic party out and out hating her.

The party elders are not going to let such a thing happen. I expect that the negotiations to get her out gracefully are already in full swing. By May 20th, Obama will have amassed a majority of the pledged delegates and quite possibly lead in super delegates (he’s down by what 12-13 now?). My guess is that in the interests in both parties, the remaining super delegates won’t storm over to Obama just so she can win in Kentucky and West Virginia and then end the campaign on a high note.

But if you want her to win, could you explain how exactly she’s going to? She’s behind in the popular vote and delegate count even if you count Florida and Michigan without sanctions. She’ll likely win Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Obama will win Washington and the rest. She won’t close the gap by enough and the supers have been breaking for Obama by far larger margins lately than her.

She’s lost. What is the point of her continuing until the convention and fighting on the floor? It serves no one’s interest, except John McCain’s.

But what do you do about Michigan? Again, Obama’s name was not on the ballot.

Obama and the Daily Kos both encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted, specifically so that they would be seated at the convention and counted as Obama delegates. Why he ever agreed to take his name off the ballot is beyond me…there was never an ‘agreement’ to do so. Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not. And she still more than likely would have won those states with comfortable margins. Obama will get delegates from Michigan, he just won’t get as many because more people voted for Hillary than voted uncommitted.

Max Power;

Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

I believe people go to church because they’re religious, and they keep guns because they like to shoot, not because they’re “bitter”. That’s why I voted Hillary.

And I believe that Obama should have said “I said something stupid, and I’m sorry.” not “What I said was right, and you’re just too dumb to understand it.” That’s the kind of attitude that’s going to lose in November, and that’s why a lot of folks are calling him “elitist.”

Then enjoy your own self-righteous feel-good moment, but don’t fool yourself that giving “how do we beat the bitch” McCain the presidency rather than sullying yourself voting by for someone who is nearly Clinton’s political twin is some sort of grand victory for Truth, Meaning, and the Democratic Party.

Bam.

This is about ego, nothing more. I think this is how you can differentiate between people who actually give a shit and people who think the election is nothing more than a chance to be smug. That’s what all the “stay home” screeds have in common, the toxic self-righteousness.

People who care about the right to choose aren’t going to be staying home on election day. People who care about torture and war and endless detention and health care aren’t going to tell their friends to not vote.

The people telling their friends to not vote are the people who figure they can go to Canada if they need an abortion, and fuck the people who can’t. The people trying to convince us that staying home is a “statement” are the people who don’t care if a hundred thousand Iranians die and a few million become refugees.

They get to bleat about “sticking to their guns” while people around them suffer. They get to call themselves “true feminists” while millions of women become refugees and are forced into prostitution and sex-slavery. What a joke.

One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw.

Uh, not exactly. One says go in to Pakistan if we have intel on bin Laden and can’t get the Pakistanis to do anything about it. The other says obliterate Iran and its 65 million people if something happens to Israel.

Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist.

Stop lying because NO ONE says this.

If you’ve been called a racist its probably because of the REASONS you gave.

Why he ever agreed to take his name off the ballot is beyond me…there was never an ‘agreement’ to do so. Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not. And she still more than likely would have won those states with comfortable margins.

Yes, and you know what?

OBAMA WOULD STILL BE LEADING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shorter this thread:

MY CANDIDATE FUCKING SUXXORS!!!1!

John McCain is a threat to the free world. Stop the fucking circular firing squad, unclutch the pearls, get off the fainting couch, etc, etc, etc…

I prefer Obama. Hillary isn’t terrible. Either way I vote Dem.

Is that so hard, Iris, Laura, GetReal? Seriously, is that so hard?

Randomobserver, I think you’re missing the point, and you couldn’t be more wrong. Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ‘symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

Obama and the Daily Kos both encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted, specifically so that they would be seated at the convention and counted as Obama delegates.

No, Daily Kos urged Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney to stir up chaos and because it wouldn’t matter. At least get your facts straight.

And when asked why she wouldn’t remove her name from the ballot, Hillary said:

“I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It’s clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.”

You can watch her yourself

Nice try, though.

Being a Kucinich devotee, I am suprised to be so strongly in for Hillary.
This country’s best days were when we had an economically strong and vibrant middle class. The other minor thing is that the world is on the brink of destruction and I want the smartest person at the helm. Like Bill, Hill’s understanding goes 4-5 levels deep on any issue. Obama?
he needs some time to mature. One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw. Obama is open to privatizing social security, keeping Blackwater in Iraq, is ok with mysogeny and is happy to drop a “racist” accusation for political headway – a mortal sin.

If we wanted the smartest person at the helm, we wouldn’t have limited our choices to politicians. I don’t really have a basis for deciding whether Clinton or Obama are smarter than the other; they’re both advised by really smart people.

Obama is 45. If he’s not mature now, it’s not going to happen.

While Clinton did, indeed, threaten to obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel, Obama did not similarly threaten Pakistan. He said that if he had actionable intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s location and Pakistan refused to act, he would send in our troops to get him anyhow. A different kettle of fish entirely.

Obama has not, to my knowledge, accused the Clintons or anyone else in the campaign of racism. His “bitter” comments were delivered specifically to rebut the charge that white blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania weren’t voting for him because of his race. His supporters are of course a different story, but if we were going to make our voting choices on the basis of who has the most civil supporters I would look forward to the Kucinich Administration with great interest.

The misogyny that Clinton has faced in the campaign comes largely from the media, who unequivocally stink. Chris Matthews puts out more misogyny in any given 15-minute span of time than the Obama campaign has put out since the race started.

I don’t recall Obama saying he’d be open to privatizing social security. I do recall him saying – incorrectly – that social security was threatened. I can’t imagine any Democrat in the current economic climate favoring putting retirement accounts into the stock market.

As for keeping Blackwater in Iraq, there’s not much choice; anyone taking office in January will be forced to do the same. We don’t have enough soldiers to do the job they’ve been asked to do, which is one of the compelling reasons for getting the heck out of there.

Honestly, there isn’t now and never has been a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton or Obama on policy. Clinton’s healthcare proposal is better, but neither of them give us a single-payer system and either of them will have their policy put through the Congressional meat grinder. Reasonable people can differ about which of the two are better positioned to accomplish the moderate, centrist policy goals they’ve proposed. Either of them is light-years better than McCain.

Not a deal breaker, because I will vote for Obama over McCain. But he has totally turned me off in this election for one reason:

He allowed (at best) or helped (at worst) the Clintons to be tarred as racists, for his own political gain. He knows that is just false, and he let it happen. Unforgivable to me.

If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

Spoken like a Nader voter in 2000.

Look, Obama’s going to have to accomodate HRC at some point; either offer her the Veep, or a Cabinet post, or Supreme Court Judgeship, or something. Jess Jackson wanted “proportional representation” in exchange for foregoing a floor fight in 1988. He got it, which is part of the reason the delegate count is so messy now. Let’s wait and see what Obama comes up with before we spill any blood on the convention floor.

Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ’symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

That’s nice, Mr. O’Reilly.

I think we need to spend less time worrying about what the Republicans want, and more time worrying about how to get the country working for us – all of us, and not just the rich – again.

I’m not worried about what they want, I’m worried about “progressives” doing everything possible to make sure Republicans win.

What could be better for Republicans than a small slice of progressives trying to popularize the message that staying home and not voting is the best thing to do if Obama wins the nomination. (Which he almost surely will)

I’m not talking about accidentally feeding them ammo, or being scared of their tactics. I’m talking about actively and purposely helping Republicans.

I am not much of a purity troll but this is where I draw the line: if you are trying to help Republicans win you aren’t a Democratic and you aren’t a progressive and you aren’t a feminist.

Iris is not campaigning for Clinton, she’s campaigning for McCain.

I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that. The Democratic Congress is and will be mostly a bunch of wimps and they need someone to whip them into shape against the Rethugs. Clinton can do that but I doubt that Obama can.

Huh? OK, this is my biggest reason for not supporting Hillary (in the primaries, I’m certainly wouldn’t refuse to vote for her in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination). Hillary and her supporters always tout her “toughness on the issues” and go on about how she’s willing to stand up and fight.

My problem is that they are only half right. Yes, she talks a good game and will be nasty in public. But when its time to vote, she caves. It’s almost like she hopes that nobody will notice the her actions don’t match her words. Here are the two biggest examples:

Hillary say “the war in Iraq needs to end,” but she voted for it and has never offered a good explanation for her vote, or even apologized for being wrong. In fact, she has repeatedly said that she would do it again!

Hillary loves to talk about how great her healthcare plan is. I’ve read it. It’s a disaster. I know, I know, everyone else thinks its great. It’s not, because it has one huge flaw—it relies on the insurance companies. Guess what, the insurance companies are the reason that we are in the mess that we are in right now.

Prices are high, coverage is bad, doctors in vital specialties are making less and less every year, but United Healthcare, Aetna, and Pacificare are all posting records profits in the BILLIONS ever year. That is not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect. The solution is not to simply start forcing everyone in the country to start giving more money to those companies. They treat their insureds and providers like crap right now, and they are theoretically trying to woo more of both into their folds. Things will not get better if they are guaranteed insureds and doctors, and they can stop pretending to be nice.

Hillary’s plan is not tough on those who created the healthcare crisis, its tough on those who need healthcare. It’s a godsend for the companies that created the crisis. Why? Because she has gotten lots and lots and lots of money from them over the past eight years.

Hillary won’t whip the wimps into shape. She’s the chief wimp.

BUT SHE IS NOT JOHN MCCAIN!

One says go in to Pakistan

Also we’re already shooting big rockets at places in Pakistan and the government there pretends it’s their operation.

“It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team.”

So does she get 50% credit for the DMA? For “ending welfare as we know it”? For ignoring the campaign plank to fund university educations?

So, really, congratulations. She was half of the greatest Republican presidency of the second half of the 20th century. But at least you can stand on your principle not to vote for that irredeemable centrist Obama.

If you apportion FL & MI delegates according to the percentage won by the actual candidates, Obama still leads. If you apportion the candidates in any way which yields more delegates (i.e., from MI) to Obama, he leads further.

Seating FL & MI do not change the game, just the numbers.

Iris said, “Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not.”

I have a totally different take on that. Instead of acting like a Democrat and doing the right thing as Obama and Edwards did, Clinton did the asshole Republican thing, she kept her name on, just to screw everybody.

And given that the delegate count has been showing the same thing for months now: that only an anti-democratic backroom deal could ever possibly get Clinton the nomination over Obama, I have to ask.

How obvious does it have to be to indicate that Clinton is a GOP operative? (For full disclosure, I believe Obama is also a GOP operative.)

Not a deal breaker, because I will vote for Clinton over McCain. But she has totally turned me off in this election for one reason:

She allowed (at best) or helped (at worst) her husband to make a racist argument in SC, for her own political gain. She knows that is just wrong, and she let it happen. Unforgivable to me.

Ruffian, I will grant you that some of the things that the Clintons have said have been stretched out of proportion to “prove” that they are racists. Whether it was their intent to send subtle signals to racist white voters or not, I don’t know for sure. Either way, it’s been ugly.

The Hillary camp has also tried to use sexism to its advantage, to less effect. Why that is I don’t know, especially when the % of women voting has been 55-60% in every primary. That is just how things have worked out, and it sure isn’t because the Clintons have taken the high road. Now you want to see dirty? Watch what the Republicans do between now and November.

Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ’symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

She has to be a troll. I’m done with this idiot.

The misogyny that Clinton has faced in the campaign comes largely from the media, who unequivocally stink. Chris Matthews puts out more misogyny in any given 15-minute span of time than the Obama campaign has put out since the race started.

Sadly, there are an awful lot of people who act like the stupidest members of Hannity’s audience and cant seem to fucking tell their enemies apart.

Confusing the Obama campaign with Chris Mathews is stupider even than confusing the Shiites and the Sunnis …. and the Sufis to boot.

I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days. If I believe Obama has truly built a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a movement for Obama and his charismatic appeal then I will be all on board come November. I will decide that based upon what I see and hear from people who support Obama and encourage me to do the same. I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.

I supported Hillary because I liked that she was smart, tough, been around the blocks a few times and as a result had a savvy that would allow her to be a competent and effective president. Competence was my major criterion because that is what we have been lacking in the last four years more than anything else. I don’t have any confidence in Obama’s competence. He may master the presidency like Bill Clinton did, but remember that took time. Bill’s first two years were diastrous, and we don’t have time for that come 2009. Obama may one day be able to accomplish a lot as President, but right now I see him soley as someone who makes people feel good by voting for him. That is not going to solve our problems, and there are too many people out their who need help to get caught up in those feelings right now. McCain for all his flaws has shown he gets things done, that he will get in the mud and play the game. I won’t agree with him on everything, but he is not unreasonable. Kerry wanted him to be the VP for us only 4 years ago. he has had to do some shit to get votes in a republican primary, but he hasn’t compromised himself any more than any of our cnadidates have, and in many ways he has done so to a lesser degree. I do not fear McCain the way I do the majority of Republicans. He has a record of doing what Obama only talks about. He is not George W Bush- he fought for this country honorably, his son is doing so right now. He hasn’t been lavished with the millions upon millions that Bush was when he ran for office. His decisions about our military demand respectful disagreement, and he is not compromised by ties to big money to the extent Bush was. Given all that I believe he could be competent and reasonable, and the democrats desire to convince otherwise seems to me to be pure politics driven by their desperate desire to win this election. This is the man they have worked with on numerous occasions, and the man they wanted to run as VP four years ago. I can’t be scared into voting against him very easily.

If Obama has truly created a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a crock of shit strategy for getting elected the way Bush did by making it about personality and attacks on the nature of Washington, then I can’t not be with him. But that is not what I am getting from him, or more importantly from the people who represent the movement he is suppose to be bringing about.

Is it just me or are the grocery lists that Clinton supporters trot out, enumerating what Obama and/or his supporters MUST do in order to earn their votes, really funny in that sad-lack-of-self-awareness way? Look, there will be two viable nominees in November. Barring the live boy/dead girl scenario, Hillary won’t be one of them. If you want to support McSame, either by commission or omission, knock yourself out. But no crying about the consequences, N’kay? And there will be consequences.

Feeeeelings…. whoa whoaaaaa FEEELLIIIIIINGS

Re: Paul Lukasiak’s comment above.

I’m reminded of a quote from A Man for All Seasons, where Thomas More says to the son-in-law who’s decided to betray him for the sake of a preferment, “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”

Paul, you’ve done some extraordinary work out there on the Internets. But lately it’s been all about goalpost-moving, and erecting strawmen. (You cannot really believe, can you, that Obama supporters are simply universally deluded or self-blinded? All those by-now millions of voters, not to mention a bunch of smart people in the blogosphere?) And for what, Paul? For triangulating, Iraq-war-voting, second-coming-of-the-DLC Hillary? Is she really worth the sale of your intellectual honesty?

I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days.

The evidence is right in front of you. The reason you cannot see it is you own personal failing.

I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days.

No, you don’t. Lying is unbecoming. What you want is to produce another screed attacking Obama, his supporters and Democrats in general while fluffing McCain.

Again, *read! this! blog!*. Read all the threads the S,N!-ers started that weren’t in pursuit of teh funnay. Each and every time…”Obama isn’t perfect,” “Let’s be honest, Obama is business as usual,” etc.

how many of the Obama supporters switched when exposed to the evidence of his imperfection?

Clinton supporters went into this fully understanding her strengths and weaknesses. Obama supporters simply adapt their opinions to whatever Obama says.

Wright is the perfect example of this. When Wright first became a big controversy, Obama supporters couldn’t praise him enough for his willingness to stand by Wright. Even after Wright said some pretty stupid shit at the NAACP, Wright was a great guy — and criticizing Wright meant that you were, at best, a closet racist. Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

Its never Obama’s fault — Obama is never held accountable for his embracing and then disavowing Wright — and never held accountable for turning Wright into a “race” issue.

No, Obama won’t get any delegates from Michigan, because Michigan has 0 delegates.

I want to be convinced that Clinton cares about a progressive agenda, and is not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seems to dominate every presidential election these days. If I believe Clinton has truly built a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a movement for Clinton and her triangulating appeal then I will be all on board come November.

Again.

My candidate sucks. So does yours.

John McCain is the Banality of Evil.

I will vote Dem, screw my ego. I’ll set it aside for the good of the world.

What is so hard about that? I’m not asking you to kow-tow, or lose face, or whatever it may be.

But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

I really would like to know, my friends.

PS – If anyone thinks a Universal Health Care package will be passed in the next four years, under either candidate, is more deluded than a Gravel supporter.

how many of the Obama supporters switched when exposed to the evidence of his imperfection?

Zero, because we knew about it from day one!

The fucking point is to put McCain six feet under. If we don’t do that, that is a major fucking FAIL.

Capesce?

Someone upthread was saying that it was pretty pointless to be referring to each other as hillbots or obamabots, but I think that once someone crosses the line to say that they cannot support the party ticket if their beloved isn’t the candidate, they become a true and official ‘bot’.

Iris, you are the H2 Hummer of Hillarybots. Almost everyone you’ve argued with has said that they’d be willing if not pleased to pull the lever for Hillary should she somehow manage to get the 120% of the remaining votes required for her to pull ahead of Obama, but all you can do is complain that we’re not with you because we’d also be willing if not pleased to pull the lever for Obama should he continue in his current path and win the nomination thru having the most votes and deligates. Iris, you are full of it.

McCain must not win. Get that message thru your head. It’s simple and easy to understand, and it’s the ONLY message that matters this election.

Welcome to the several Clinton supporters who have posted here and thank you for your input. I just want to say that the most important issue for me in this election is getting the good old U.S.A. back on track as a functioning democracy that promotes real progress, justice and humanitarianism in the world. If we can do that, everything else – ending the occupation of Iraq, reasserting the rule of law, universal health care, fixing our economy – will follow.

I am not about to sacrifice the Supreme Court, the military, the economy, the environment and thousands and thousands of innocent lives to a McCain presidency if my preferred candidate does not get the nomination. If Obama gets the nomination, great! If Clinton gets the nomination, great! I will happily support either of them. I’ll even support a mop handle with a hat on it, if it has a chance of preventing a third Bush term.

Gotta get past the “my candidate or eternal suckitude” thinking, peoples. There is too much at stake.

You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. The question should be, who would be best to lead us in this times, this place, under these very problematic circumstances? We need someone who will do what is necessary to put the country back on track, which means jailing hundreds of government officials, restoring rule of law, higher taxes, pulling out of the middle east, and dealing with global warming, scarcity and resource wars. None of the candidates will do this, and I think you guys realize that. There’s not enough money, time, or sense of urgency to do any of this, even if the candidates were as pure as the driven snow and wanted to do it.

We will probably bomb Iran anyway, because the government has spent years telling us that they are a danger and now are killing our troops. Will Clinton or Obama or Congress refuse to bomb “Revolutionary Guard training camps” or “weapons factories” killing our men and women?

Oil will continue to rise, because global demand is rising and so is the cost of finding new oil and drilling depleting wells. It will fluctuate a lot, including going down as the economy slows, but it’ll never be cheap again.

President Whoever is not going to pull us out of the Middle East because we need oil. We also will not stop supporting Israel, because the Israel Lobby won’t just go away.

I’ve already discussed why we won’t put Bush in jail or restore rule of law. We’re on the Titanic, and people are arguing about the best place to put their deck chair to watch their boat go down. It’s just daft.

If I’m wrong, that’ll be wonderful. But I don’t see a way out here.

p_lukasiak,

Count me as one of the people who say that Obama shouldn’t have distanced himself from Wright at all.

What do you say to that, pukeasiak?

Wright is the perfect example of this.

Now you’ve pissed me off.

If you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

But you’re probably in the camp that Hip-Hop isn’t music, so of course you don’t know.

Ya heard?

“I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.”

If as many as Four. Supreme. Court. Justices. doesn’t motivate you then you either underestimate the impact of the judicial branch or overestimate the impact of the executive.

I was for Brown in ’92, Bradley in 2000, Edwards in 2004 and Kucinich (then Dodd) this year. My candidate never gets the nom. But I still showed up to pull the lever for (D) in every leap year November.

Bottom line.

r4d20 & RandomObserver
So typical to blame anyone who sees through Obama’s crock of shit as having some sort of personal failing. It is always this way with a cult. I laughed my ass off when I reqad your comments because they just proved a point that was made a little whole ago by a very bright woman:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_the_savior.html

I can already see that all of Obama’s failings will be blamed on others and not on the fact that people choose an unqualified, untested, unaccomplished leader based on style rather than substance. You people are not pathetic fools, but predicatble ones.

Sigh.

Note to the Clinton supporters:

Please refrain from long cloggy single-spaced paragraphs full of arcane logic and unprovable examples.

Ms. Clinton has all but lost. Tough luck, as they say. Perhaps Obama’s alleged vagueness was a strategy to get him through the primary season. Guess what, it worked.

He now has six months to firm up his policy proposals, to move to the left, to become a progressive. The GOP is historically unpopular – this gives Obama a lot of room to operate.

Why not wait and see?

And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

Bullshit. His words are legitimate complaints. Just because you can’t find the compassion to put yourself in someone else’s shoes does not mean that their thoughts are wrong.

PLuk:

Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

Sadly, no, Paul. At the NPC, Wright said that Obama’s previous disavowals of Wright’s statements were ‘just politics’, i.e., that Obama didn’t mean them.

That left Obama no choice but to more forcefully disavow Wright and cut him from the campaign.

I know that you know this, so the question is: When did you start building men and arguments out of straw?

.

Obama can take politically popular nonsense, like the McCain-Clinton oil company giveaway, and say that things which look good are bad policy. He has been brilliant on race, thoughtful on foreign policy, and has in general really impressed me during the course of this campaign. Neither candidate has impressed in a legislative sense, but neither could have with a lunatic in the White House. So we just have to look at indirect clues. Clinton demonstrated bad judgment on Iraq, bad judgment on Iran, and has been campaigning against people like me for months. The choice for me was pretty clear after my first pick (Gore) didn’t run and my second pick (Edwards) dropped out.

I don’t buy into the “all politicians are scum” bandwagon, by the way. It’s an extension of the republican idea that the government can do only harm, and it’s a toxic reflex that progressives would do well to abandon. Obama has the potential to persuade people, and sneering at fancy speeches is a good way to ensure that the government is kept from reigning in corporate power. That’s not my preference.

Truly it makes very little difference which one of the three GOP candidates win. McCain is clearly the worst, and both Clinton and Obama are barely any better.

I am amazed that the left side of America is engaged in this rift over their candidates, when both of those candidates have awful records. How did you all allow the media to snooker you into supporting either of these two Republicans? There were Democratic candidates, you know.

I am severely disappointed that our choices even are Clinton or Obama.

And to those that say, ‘so what, you have to vote for whoever the Dem is because McCain is worse’, I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different: the date of the invasion of Iran?

I don’t think for a second that either Obama or Clinton could stop the ruling class from invading Iran, both of them cave every single time they are faced with a critical choice for America.

So really, what’s worse about McCain? It’s that he’s obvious about it, like Bush is.

It makes no difference which one you vote for, either way this nation is doomed.

Get Real, I don’t know what more that I can say to you. I picked Obama because I’m an elitist latte drinking member of the creative class who thought that he was marginally better on the war over Senator Clinton. That basically is/was my rationale along side of I think he’s the candidate least likely to get us into a third war with Iran. I also think the idea of President Barack Hussein Obama, Stealth Muslim, Communist, Black Nationalist is awesome… though President Hitlery KKKlinton would also make the right’s heads a’splode.

I have no illusions about his rule. I have none about Senator Clinton’s as well. Each would have a different style and different priorities. But by and large, they would pursue relatively similar policies. I have no doubt that some of Senator Clinton’s would be more effective than Senator Obama’s (or vice versa). To me, I doubt that in the larger picture it would matter.

If pursuit of progressive ideals is behind your disdain for Obama, why not encourage your candidate to I don’t know, say have Obama adopt Hillary’s Heathcare plan (or even better appointing her as the leader of a task force to bring in healthcare reform) in exchange for her bowing out of the race? If this is about some great progressive cause and not ego, well, she does have negotiating room here.

GetReal,

You have not resonded to any of my comments, which makes me think you have no interest in having a discussion about this. You just want to get your ad hominem on.

I’ll give you one more chance:

My candidate sucks. So does yours.

John McCain is the Banality of Evil.

I will vote Dem, screw my ego. I’ll set it aside for the good of the world.

What is so hard about that? I’m not asking you to kow-tow, or lose face, or whatever it may be.

But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

I really would like to know, my friends.

#

Bullsmith said,

May 8, 2008 at 17:18

1. Mysogeny toward Clinton has been unbelievably widespread and, somehow, unacknowledged. Clinton die-hards (like my beloved wife) are rightly outraged both by how common and insiduous the bias against Clinton’s gender is and by how the MSM basically doesn’t admit it exits. Racism is acknowledged, but it’s far less allowable in common discourse as far as I can see.

In support of this, I find the general media treatment of Michelle Obama to be similar to the way Hillary was treated in 91-92. She’s uppity, shrill, angry, not a good wife and mother. The smear of her is all about being a professional woman with strong opinions, being black is just a bonus flaw, it’s her feminist side that is under attack.

2. None of that really has anything to do with Obama, just as the racist issues have nothing to do with Clinton. The campaigns aren’t a core part of either the Mysogeny against Clinton or racist smears of Obama. Frankly both campaigns have been pretty high-minded, Clinton’s toughest attacks don’t come close to the crap Bush/Rove threw at McCain. I did find when Hill labeled Obama “elitist” she shot her own party in the face, because the right will now repeat “well Hillary Clinton said it” ad nauseum to defend their usual smear of elitist liberals. If Hill wins, guess who the most elite and liberal politician in America will be? Hillary Clinton, no doubt. Other than that one gaffe, I don’t see either campaign as having done anything illegitimate.

3. Obama’s the candidate, Hillary’s already giving signals she’s ready to deal with that. While the huge anger both side’s most passionate supporters have for each other is understandable, I think it’s misplaced. The only real problem is that both candidates have incredible bases of die-hard support, either of which could take the general election, but one of which is going to lose the primary. Obama supporters shouldn’t blame Clinton for having such a strong campaign, and vice versa.

When Wright first became a big controversy, Obama supporters couldn’t praise him enough for his willingness to stand by Wright. Even after Wright said some pretty stupid shit at the NAACP, Wright was a great guy — and criticizing Wright meant that you were, at best, a closet racist. Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

Instead of pretending that all Obama supporters are a monolithic block why don’t you name names Mr. Lukasiak?

I recently had an argument with someone who supported Obama but soured on him after Wright’s comments first made it to the airwaves. Is that who you are talking about?

Put up or shut up. Name the supporters you confronted and point to their arguments.

Iris,

Earlier upthread you questioned John Cole’s credibility because he was once a republican.
1. I don’t think someone like yourself who is threatening to defect should be throwing stones.
2. So do you honestly prefer that Cole (and other ex-GOP voters would stay Republican? If so, can you not see how idiotic that is?

The 12th commandment: thou shalt not let on that Wright was right.

“So typical to blame anyone who sees through Obama’s crock of shit as having some sort of personal failing. It is always this way with a cult.”

So typical to be blind to the levels of Hillary hate in flyover country. As I said above, my candidate never gets the nod. So I had to pick from two least worst. And from my seat here in the hinterland it looks like Obama’s going to have longer coattails downticket. Wouldn’t any Democrat in the Oval office with more pressure from more (D) legislators be preferable in a contest between two “moderate” “centrists”?

I’ve already discussed why we won’t put Bush in jail or restore rule of law. We’re on the Titanic, and people are arguing about the best place to put their deck chair to watch their boat go down. It’s just daft.

If I’m wrong, that’ll be wonderful. But I don’t see a way out here.

This is a really good point, Susan.

Seriously, rather than worry about whose candidate vs. whose candidate, what we really should be doing is talking about strategies for living in a society which is failing. Because it’s quite possible that, no matter who ultimately wins the presidentcy, we will end up there.

Should we start stockpiling money? Would it be worth it to buy weapons? Would money even remain good? (i.e. perhaps Jewelry would be a better investment). Should we start looking at Canada, and ways to emigrate if things get bad enough?

Perhaps we should take survival classes of some kind?

Triangulating is better than letting Republicans kick your ass all over the place. If the asssholes who voted for Nader had triangulated and voted for Gore we wouldn’t have had 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive. We still need some of it, but now we are in the drivers seat and don’t have to preach unity as a philosophy or a principle, but rather can move forward strongly. We will still have to triangulate on occasion, and we need someone who can make sensible choices about when to do it. The Clinton’s understand politics is the art of the possible and will work to achieve that. Obama promises the impossible and is able to fool people who have absolutely no sense into rejecting what could actually be achieved as a way to advance himself. Don’t worry though, he will disappoint you in just the same way, but at least he will get what he wants. I can’t wait to read you bashing him in 5 years for actually doing politics. How dare those politicans practice politics!!!!!!!

“I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different”

The. Supreme. Court.

“Obama promises the impossible and is able to fool people who have absolutely no sense into rejecting what could actually be achieved as a way to advance himself”

Oh lawsy, I done been foolded!

Paul, you’ve done some extraordinary work out there on the Internets. But lately it’s been all about goalpost-moving, and erecting strawmen. (You cannot really believe, can you, that Obama supporters are simply universally deluded or self-blinded? All those by-now millions of voters, not to mention a bunch of smart people in the blogosphere?) And for what, Paul? For triangulating, Iraq-war-voting, second-coming-of-the-DLC Hillary? Is she really worth the sale of your intellectual honesty?

I think “self-blinded” pretty much covers it, actually.

The idea that I’m “selling” my intellectual honest is evidence of that self-blindness. When everyone over at Taylor Marsh’s place was praising Stephanopolus and Gibson for the job they’d done as moderators, I went over there and said “stop praising them. They did a shit job as moderators, and just because the shit fell on Obama instead of Clinton this time doesn’t mean it wasn’t shit.” And when Clinton released her “bitter/clinging” ad, I said that I thought it was “dog-whistling” (in other words, unlike all the false accusations of ‘dog whistling” that had been thrown at the Clinton’s this one had at least some substance.)

So when you accuse me of “selling my intellectual integrity” you’re exhibiting the symptoms of “self-blinding”… seeing what you want to see, and only want you want to see. Its not me whose selling his intellectual integrity here….

t4toby

I like what you have to say, except I don’t think John McCain is evil. Bush was evil, he wasn’t. It can’t get any worse as Obama himself says. But you do make a lot of sense.

I still haven’t seen any Hillary dead-enders explain to me how the prospect of genocide in Iran is something I should get behind.

“I like what you have to say, except I don’t think John McCain is evil”

‘Coure no. He;s a straight-talking maverick. He’s not evil. He just embraces it. Literally.

Ok p, here’s your bone:

It was good to disagree with Tyrant Marsh. Granted, her commenters probably had a conniption, but it was the best thing for you to do.

Like I said, there’s your bone.

Intellectual Honesty would start by answering simple questions, or by responding to rebuttals of your arguments.

The trollish behavior serves only to undermine your credit e.g. when you just blast talking points out there and don’t respond to criticisms of said talking points.

Thank you, GetReal. We need to have a discussion, not a shouting match.

I said McCain was the incarnation of the Banality of Evil, which is defined as:

the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

On Black Revolution Day this coming January I’ll put Hillary Clinton in a burqa. Women need to know their role.

Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive.

Wow. Losing Congress from 1994 to 2006 is “to survive”? Wow. GIMME MORE!!!

Gosh, that’s got to be the saddest, most pathetic attempt to justify the DLC strategy possible. At least Bill Clinton actually claimed the policies he backed were intellectually justified.

The DLC admirers apparently don’t care, they just think that if their policies didn’t purposefully endorse Republican policies and shut out the labor & liberal Democrats, what? The mean Republicans would have said mean things? They would have impeached the President? What?

Ya know, it is after threads like this that I shake my head, stand up, do a backbend, walk outside, and piss on the azalias. Ahhhhhh. The relief mostly comes from the fact I don’t vote. You guys at S,N! are great. I love you all and will buy you a couple rounds at our union bar if you ever visit Baltimore. You are better at doing work in the community and grassroots; *Stop paying attention to this kabuki theatre!*

I have banned all non-mocking discussion of primaries from my coffeeshop.

Name names Lukasiak. Making vague statements where you paint every Obama supporter with the same brush then refuse to name names is a great example of a lack of intellectual integrity.

Your complaint is that “Obama supporters”, who apparently exist as some sort of hive-mind, did one thing, then those same “Obama supporters” did something hypocritical and silly.

I’m an “Obama supporter.” Are you talking about me? Are you talking about the guy I know who ditched Obama after the Wright comments surfaced? Not only does that disprove your theory that “Obama supporters” don’t give him a pass on Wright no matter what his stance is, it also disproves your theory that “Obama supporters” don’t defect.

Name names. Or stop talking.

Already multiple “Obama supporters” in this very thread have disproven your claims.

The Rev. Wright thing is stupid. Are we really so shallow as a country that we won’t vote for someone because of their pastor?

As far as Obama’s treatment of the Wright thing, it has actually increased my regard for him. Here’s the way I see how this all came down.

Fiery excerpts from Wright’s sermons (which have been clearly edited to make him look crazy and extremist) hit the media. Obama reluctantly makes a statement in which he reaffirms his loyalty to Wright and and tries to steer the debate back to him and his policies. Subsequently, when given the national media spotlight, Wright presumes to speak for Obama, claiming that Obama didn’t really mean anything that he said about finding some of Wright’s statements personally offensive. Later, Wright does a horrifically bad, unfunny, and plain ugly rip-off of Chris Rock’s comedy routines. Obama, who has tried valiantly for several months to avoid thowing Wright under the bus, realizes that Wright—a man whom he has loved and respected for most of his adult life—has become small-minded, pandering, attention-whore and is forced to denounce him.

Having had to do a similar thing in my life a few years ago (although on a much smaller scale since I’m not a public figure), I can tell you that it sucks in a big way. It certainly, at least in my mind, should not reflect poorly on Obama.

All politicians are beholden. All presidents are influenced by the circumstances preceeding their arrival. All presidents are personally ambitious. And they all make compromises. It’s not scum versus Shining Knight, it’s one compromised person versus another by definition.

This blog, unlike Corrente, has not been particularly fervent in its partisanship for either candidate, although my guess is the majority of the regular posters support Obama.

But, because the posters over here actually have a sense of humor, it’s easy to see why Lambert’s crew would assume we’re Obama partisans.
.

Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive.

Only if your “90’s” doesn’t include 1998.

Triangulation is just political rope-a-dope. It was also a way for Clinton to gamble with other people’s chips. The Democratic party is still paying off Bill Clinton’s political capital credit card.
.

That’s funny, justbrent, because as an Obama supporter, I thought he should stick to his guns, because the Right Wing Noise Machine is going to continue to hammer him on it no matter what anyone says.

So he lost some standing with me.

How can we possibly see the same issue from two completely different standpoints? I thought we were a cult!

So which one of us didn’t get the Hive-Mind Memo?

Psst.
If we just get a nominee, we can then go raid Clownhall and stuff and hit people with pies again.

You know, instead of EACH OTHER.

Sadly, no, Paul. At the NPC, Wright said that Obama’s previous disavowals of Wright’s statements were ‘just politics’, i.e., that Obama didn’t mean them.

so calling Obama a politician is “shocking” and “outrageous”.

Obama didn’t say “well, I gotta disavow this guy because he’s telling people that my rejection of his ideas is ‘just politics.’ ” He disavowed him because of the “outrageous” and “shocking” statements Wright made at the NPC.

Oh, and Obama didn’t call a press conference to “disavow” Samatha Powers when she said that Obama’s position on Iraq was “just politics” — that his pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq was just a “best case scenario” and “some plan he crafted as a presidential candidate”. Indeed, I don’t recall Obama calling a press conference to denounce Powers “outrageous” and “shocking” comments about Clinton being a monster.

I think “self-blinded” pretty much covers it, actually.

I admit, it covers your ass as you run away from a debate you can’t handle.
.

Not keeping close enough tabs on you, Paul, on sites I don’t read (Taylor Marsh? really?), to know about those moments when you’ve demonstrated a bit of independence from Hillary groupthink doesn’t exactly count as “self-blinding.” But congratulations on the dissent.

And yet here you are, still stuffing straw into empty suits. Any remote chance you might be willing to admit that there may be–as there self-evidently are, in this very thread–un-deluded, dis-illusioned Obama supporters out there? That the “latte-swilling elitist creatives” bullshit from your Corrente pals is exactly that? That painting Hillary Clinton as some kind of progressive hero is as utter and complete balls as it is doing the same for Obama?

How can we possibly see the same issue from two completely different standpoints? I thought we were a cult!

Another meme bites the dust.
.

On Black Revolution Day this coming January I’ll put Hillary Clinton in a burqa. Women need to know their role.

&

Wow. Losing Congress from 1994 to 2006 is “to survive”? Wow. GIMME MORE!!!

Hurrah! Some snark.

The DLC admirers apparently don’t care, they just think that if their policies didn’t purposefully endorse Republican policies and shut out the labor & liberal Democrats, what? The mean Republicans would have said mean things? They would have impeached the President? What?

Eggsackly.

Flush the GOP-but-with-5%-fewer-calories DLC stranglehold on liberal politics.

Lukasiak says you supported Obama when he said Wright was right, and supported him when he said Wright was wrong, because you are a brainless Obamabot and they all think the same.

And if that’s not true well…too bad! It’s true! ‘Cause Lukasiak said so! ( Lukasiak 3:16 )

Seriously what a clown. Another two-bit bloviator waving his hands while speaking in vague generalities. Impressive. Thank god because the world doesn’t have nearly enough people who vomit up talking points minus any specifics and run and hide when called out.

Wait- do people think that Samatha Powers was literally calling Clinton a monster?

If so, do you think she meant like, a werewolf? Man, is it too late to change my vote?

My latest Clinton just died dimwittedly and with all the contemporary crap going on here a hard specific Clinton story would make my month. I don’t know how she got stuck in that mug. Just this side of Heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When a Clinton dies that has been insipidly close to someone here, that Clinton goes to Rainbow Bridge.

But, because the posters over here actually have a sense of humor, it’s easy to see why Lambert’s crew would assume we’re Obama partisans.

In all fairness, some of the Obama sites have been pretty ridiculous too. DKos at least hides the “BITCH MUST DIE!!!” posts, but I that before Obama became inevitable I was a little annoyed at all the hysterics and bridge burning.

And if that’s not true well…too bad! It’s true! ‘Cause Lukasiak said so! ( Lukasiak 3:16 )

Lukasiak is over here demonstrating the same ignorance of the Wright kurfuffle that got him laughed off of Balloon Juice.

Where will he take his dog act next?
.

I come here for the snark, but stay for posts like this…brilliant. I’m happy to vote for Obama or Hillary, and you’ve nailed the reasons why…

Shorter Iris/Get Real/p_luk:

Hillary’s great! Hillary realizes the game! Hillary was smart enough to stay on the Michigan ballot! Hillary is a master of politics! Hillary stands for true progressivism! Hillary knows how to properly triangulate! Hillary has smart supporters!

1) Aaaaand you dare call Obama supporters sheep. Right. Your ad hoc shenanigans smell of Hooters Hewitt.
2) You do know that Hillary is being beaten in the primaries, right? As in, to the point where she can’t really win, right? So I might temper my overflowing praise just a smidge.

DKos at least hides the “BITCH MUST DIE!!!” posts

The commenter rating system over there hides all kinds of posts, it’s not the site admins trying to hide content.

I once had one of my posts hidden because my snark was too subtle. It happens.
.

That’s funny, justbrent, because as an Obama supporter, I thought he should stick to his guns, because the Right Wing Noise Machine is going to continue to hammer him on it no matter what anyone says.

I see your point, but I don’t agree for one reason: I really want to see a politician who makes at least some decisions on principle instead of how it might play to the populace. In 2000, I though McCain might be that guy (even though I disagreed with him on most of his positions), but then he sold his soul for an endorsement by The Most Unpopular President in History(TM).

To me, it seems like Obama has consistently followed his conscience on the Wright issue. At first, he expressed his disagreement with some of Wright’s more extreme views, but affirmed his belief in Wright’s core goodness and principles. He even compared the man to a beloved uncle, for crying out loud.

Then, when Wright went batshit crazy on the TV and essentially called Obama a liar, Obama had to make a personal choice, again, and cut the cord. I don’t think it had anything to do with political expediency. I think that it had everything to do with Obama expending considerable political capital to stick up for this man that he really cared about and having that same man spit in his face for it.

I’ve noticed that HAAM is even more ill-tempered than usual since the police raided his secret basement dungeon and rescued the daughter he was holding as a sex slave and the seven children he sired by her. I guess a trauma like that would put anyone off his feed.

Is this Lukasiak fellow supposedly someone of note? He appears to be the typical internet pundit who says something stupid then changes the subject when people point out he’s fibbing.

That’s the great thing about internet debating, you can say something stupid and indefensible then when people rebut you can just pretend you didn’t hear them.

I think it’s time I made an appearance in this thread!

Look, Clinton supporters, what is it you want exactly? I’ve been reading this thread all morning and, well, I still don’t get it. Are you guys mad at us for winning? For pointing out that it is impossible for your candidate to win? Or that you have a choice between Obama and McCain winning in November?

Sheesh. What do you want from us?

No, Ralph, I don’t think that would be prudent.

p_lukasiak-

I don’t like to be ignored. What is it with you guys that I have to ask these questions twice?

If you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

Rebuttal?

Is this Lukasiak fellow supposedly someone of note???

He did yeoman’s work on the Bush/TANG issue back in the day. That’s about it.
.

Bush/TANG issue? Bush was on the space shuttle?

Dr A:

Snark more or less off —

No, I’m not pissed. Why would I be? Suddenly, this obscure little C list blog — this “dwindling band of paranoid holdouts” — is getting hits! “As long as they spell my name right…”

I’m not pissed about S/N ramen post either, though I confess, truly, I didn’t read past the first few paragraphs. (I was volcanically angry about the real subject of the post, which had nothing whatever to do with the policy implications of the now forgotten gas tax, or indeed any -gate at all.)

As far as “what would it take,” I’m tempted to say, with Laura Petrie, “If you don’t know why I’m mad at you, then I’m certainly not going to tell you.”

Seriously, rather than putting the burden on me/us to invest the time in answering — I feel I’ve been writing about that very subject over and over and over again for months — why not do a little research, use your imagination, put yourself in our shoes, and post on what you think it would take? That would be a real olive branch. For all I know, you might come up with ideas we don’t have. Self-insight is rare, after all.

Shystee has a fine post here — though the comments are a little hot right now, they’ll cool down in a bit, no doubt. Unfortunately, after trolls destroyed Digby’s comments and called her a cunt, we pre-emptively ttightened up our approvals policy, but if you don’t have an account, you will at least be able to read along.

Au revoir!

Bush had beef with the Wu

Atheist, if you’re serious, I have no idea what to do. I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know if the doom/gloomers are right. I think they are, but what do I know?

Nicely put, DA. The only reason I’m a little more keen on Obama is because he had the courage to stand up to a stupid majority and vote no to the invasion of Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Hillary has never explained herself voting for it. She also accepted a ton of campaign money from health insurers, second only to Mitt Romney. This makes me question her commitment to public health care.

Having had to do a similar thing in my life a few years ago (although on a much smaller scale since I’m not a public figure), I can tell you that it sucks in a big way. It certainly, at least in my mind, should not reflect poorly on Obama.

if it had actually happened the way you describe it, I’d agree with you.

But Obama wasn’t honest — and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia — and pandered to white people by equating the frustration and resentment of African Americans that comes about from living every day with the impact of this nations 400 year history of slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination with white people’s resentment of Affirmative Action programs. (and he had the nerve to accuse Clinton of pandering to working class white people because of her gas tax holiday proposal!)

Obama refused to acknowledge that Wright was a race-pimp — someone who took the legitimate frustrations of African Americans and deliberately exacerbated them for his own benefit. It was all about denial of what Wright’s message was (“I wasn’t in church the day he said that”).

Right now, I honestly don’t know what Obama’s position on racial issues is. I know what he says — and I know that his actions in this campaign belie what he says. I also know that Obama has exploited an only slightly less blantant version of Wright’s own race-pimping in this campaign — so while I still don’t know to what extent Obama has adopted Wrights beliefs about race, I do know that he’s learned from Wrights tactics.

One more:

I don’t really have a “crew.” The Fellows can post whatever they want.

[…] at CorrenteWire: D. Aristophanes, in an extremely classy gesture, apologizes and […]

Look, Clinton supporters, what is it you want exactly? I’ve been reading this thread all morning and, well, I still don’t get it. Are you guys mad at us for winning?

Her supporters watched her get dragged through the mud for years, all for a bunch of black-helicopter bullshit that the GOP drums up to exploit the yokels in the trailer park (I know these idiots, I grew up with them).

She rose to power in her own right at a very dark time for Democrats. She was an inspiration to women, specifically, since so much of the shit lobbed at her even during the 1992 campaign was a reminder of how much sexism hasn’t changed in this country. She’s the kind of strong woman that scares the hell out of the white-flight morons who made the GOP juggernaut of the last 25 years.

So, she’s paid her dues, and a lot of people already saw her as riding on a white horse into the White House, saving not just her fans but the whole fucking country. She was going to re-win the 1990’s in the same way that Republicans think they’ve re-won the 1960’s.

Then, her inevitableness started losing to Obama, who appeals to people who aren’t just trying to win the last war. To them (and I’m just guessing, here), losing to Obama is just as bad as Limbaugh joking about her oral sex skills on his short-lived TV show.

Hillary losing now reminds them (and I’m still just guessing, here) of being politically humiliated for most of 1979 – now, as “liberal” became a dirty word and Democrats became scarce and Republicans rubbed our faces in it, over and over.

Naturally, they project their cult of personality on us.
.

oh man xpost of all xpost up there

two things in response to Lambert:

Is it really so hard to read that which you are replying to? I know paragraphs be long and shit, but really.

And furthermore, how long will shitty blogs be holding up poor put-upon Digby as the 9/11 of blog comments or whatever the fuck? If you’re too pussy to have your comments open, just be straight about it. “Someone called Digby a cunt, this changes EVERYTHING.” Please.

Oh and also in that link you posted there is a plea for more progressive policy from a Clinton supporter, so I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be serious or what.

Get Real said,
May 8, 2008 at 17:31 (kill)
Triangulating is better than letting Republicans kick your ass all over the place.

Then fucking triangulate and GET BEHIND THE CANDIDATE THAT HAS WON.

and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia

Fail.
.

Don’t you remember the “co-presidents/ two for the price of one” business?

Sure do.
You remember a guy by the name of Al Gore?
‘Cause that’s who it refers to.

You said upthread that you thought things had to get worse to make sure the Democratic party got the picture.

aka “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Bullshit, lambert!

I saw you guys rockin’ the cardboard under the streetlight last night.

And how can you explain that ‘LAMBERT’ bomb on the side of the A-Train?

Laura Petrie!?!

Wow. That’s reaching way back.

Lambert, if you’re still around, please explain why any of us need to extend you an olive branch.

For all I know, you might come up with ideas we don’t have.

Isn’t that what this whole (coming up to 300) thread has been about?

Only in America would you find assholes moaning about thirty dollars in taxes while the government wastes trillions on a fucking stupid war.

And then these same moaning assholes have the effrontery to pretend that they are moaning on behalf of the poor, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an elitist.

Jeebus.

Lambert is the guy who can’t tell the difference between Obama’s message and Lieberman’s. Lambert is the guy who’s still pushing the “Obama is a closet Reaganite” meme. Is Lambert really cute enough to play that dumb?

I picked Obama because for reasons of political machine and demographics (i.e., he’s working with Dean’s DNC instead of against it, and his supporters are younger and broader). But, the Clintonites capacity for just plain playing dumb probably would have put me in the same camp, if I’d been reading their blogs all this time (I haven’t).
.

PLuk:

Obama didn’t say “well, I gotta disavow this guy because he’s telling people that my rejection of his ideas is ‘just politics.’

Actually, he did – in addition to the other things you mentioned. I think you need to google and re-read the transcript.

.

delete “because”

sheesh, need more coffee
.

Actually, he did – in addition to the other things you mentioned. I think you need to google and re-read the transcript.

Lukasiak needs to imagine the Obama he wants to bitch about.

Lukasiak needs to imagine the Obama cult he wants to bitch about.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.
.

This reminds me of that website Instapunk that made the post about how black people are terrible niggers. They defended themselves by whining about “A-list bloggers” and the “big boys” and all that…they figured that even though they wrote stupid offensive shit they could cast themselves as the underdogs and change the narrative into one about how some brave rebels stood up to the man.

That’s what the correntwire people are trying to do here, and it’s both transparent and pathetic.

He’s not mad, he didn’t even read it, but he was volcanically mad about the “real subject”, which he somehow divined without reading the post, and he won’t tell you why he’s mad, if he even is mad.

Got it? Yeah.

Seriously, rather than putting the burden on me/us to invest the time in answering — I feel I’ve been writing about that very subject over and over and over again for months — why not do a little research, use your imagination, put yourself in our shoes, and post on what you think it would take?

What a cop-out. Here we have another fabulously skilled internet debater.

I don’t like to be ignored. What is it with you guys that I have to ask these questions twice?

do please try and put your ego in check.

As to your actual question — I can only tell you to look up a recent poll that was done that said that (IIRC) only 9% of African Americans agreed with Wright.

Of course, that is after Obama finally denounced Wright. Who knows whether the results would be the same while Obama ‘could no more disavow” Wright than he could throw his own grandma under the bus?” or if they even told the pollsters the truth about how they felt (I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans.)

oh, and no, I’m not going to provide a link. IMHO, you’re bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

Nicely said.

I don’t know how she got stuck in that mug.

RB, I’m sure that people mentioned that you shouldn’t bring that Clinton home if you couldn’t take care of it. Clinton’s have special needs that are really hard to meet in a typical home setting.

What could be better for Republicans than a small slice of progressives trying to popularize the message that staying home and not voting is the best thing to do if Obama wins the nomination. (Which he almost surely will)

Everyone who feels the need to remind us that a McCain victory would be bad are really not seeing how condescending they are being. Yeah, we know that. We get that, and we don’t need any reminders from you. In case it didn’t occur to you, some of us just might have been the ones telling people in years past that they couldn’t stay home because the Democrats really are better. You’re afraid, rightly, that a discouraged and cynical Democratic electorate could hand McCain victory. But if that happens, it will be because our party leaders and Presidential candidate continue to sell us up a river and we conclude, quite rationally, that they don’t give a fuck what we think because they know we will show up like good little boys and girls every time.

This isn’t coming from an independent voter, or a low-information, ‘smug’ or ‘self-righteous’ voter. It’s coming from a Democratic voter who is sick and tired of being sold up a river and is considering for the first time that maybe what our candidates need is the very real and motivating pressure of losing to make them earn our votes for once.

Maybe this would be a good time to state what we actually do believe in, and what things, specifically, we aren’t willing to cave on solely because we are afraid of the Republicans. I thought the Obama campaign was all about real, meaningful change and hope, not fear and cheap threats? Sorry, but my reservoir of patience is wearing thin with this little kabuki game. I’m tired of seeing prominent Democrats reach out to every constituency except their own, and I think it will be quite useful to force them to actually deal with us for once. And rolling your eyes at the ‘laundry list’ of policy concerns that Hillary supporters have in general, as well as in the case of the bafflingly but decidedly less-progressive Senator Obama, my friends, is a step in the wrong direction.

The truth of it is this: we don’t have unity, we have an alliance of political convenience. We have disagreements. Big surprise!! This is called politics…and because we have been distracted by non-issues like pastors and haircuts and snipers (etc etc) for so long we haven’t had to talk too much about these issues that a lot of us probably disagree on but where we may also be able to find common cause. Maybe now would be a good time to start that conversation.

f you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

But you’re probably in the camp that Hip-Hop isn’t music, so of course you don’t know.

What Wright said may have caused controversy, but nothing he said was very worthy of controversy. He is a decent and honorable man who is channeling a more authentic Christian message than most pastors in this country. That message is not kind to U.S. imperialism, hubris and war crimes.

But we know about the racism…..we’re on your side. We thought you were on ours. This is exactly how this shit gets started, how it became CW that the Clintons played the ‘race card’ – Obama and Obama supporters pull it out at every opportunity against fellow liberals and demonize and parody us while conservatives sit in the shadows and snicker.

I’m coming to believe more and more that Obama is just a blank canvas onto which many of his supporters project exactly what they want to see (not trying to be patronizing, just honest – call me a Hillbot if you want). But everyone’s seeing something different – which is why he is paralyzed from doing anything substantive or ‘controversial’ at all. His base of support would begin to crumble around the edges as true-believerism wears off.

I truly don’t have a lot of time to spend on this thread. Not only is RL calling, I have a blog of my own to tend to. If the S/N posters want to synthesize — I suggested a way that could be done, above — then have at it!

Henry writes:

“Lambert, if you’re still around, please explain why any of us need to extend you an olive branch.”

You don’t, nor did I ask you to, or expect it of you.

D. Aristophanes thought it would be a good idea. Raise your concerns with the poster if you have a problem with the post.

Now, really, over and out.

you’re [sic] bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

False analogy. Whether something is representative or not is not the same question as whether certain words are acceptable or not.

Lukasiak is pushing the FOX News/Limbaugh line that talking about race or racism is the same thing as being racist. In order to reach this pre-determined conclusion, he has to get even the most basic facts wrong.

Since Lukasiak has already announced plans to sit out the general, why keep pushing the inevitable McCain line?
.

Of course, that is after Obama finally denounced Wright.

Blah blah blah. Hillary is not the nominee, Obama is, so welcome to the right-wing noise machine.

I have been listening to Hip-Hop (what’s ‘rap’?) for over 20 years. What Wright said did not even slightly surprise me, because he was stating opinions that many of my favorite MCs over the years have been saying.

Read into it what you will, but don’t try to follow this line of reasoning:

you’re bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

That dog don’t hunt.

What a cop-out.

unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

But while I’m sitting out November, there are still lots of progressive Clinton supporters who are on the fence about voting for Obama if he is the nominee, so I will give you a hint.

Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

welcome to the right-wing noise machine.

That’s pretty much all that’s left of them.
.

GoatBoy:

““I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different”

The. Supreme. Court.”

No. The GOP will only send up more Scalias and fillibuster anyone else, and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable, [B]just as they have always done in the past[/B]. No Dem will be allowed to seat another SCOTUS justice.

if it had actually happened the way you describe it, I’d agree with you.

But Obama wasn’t honest — and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia — and pandered to white people by equating the frustration and resentment of African Americans that comes about from living every day with the impact of this nations 400 year history of slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination with white people’s resentment of Affirmative Action programs. (and he had the nerve to accuse Clinton of pandering to working class white people because of her gas tax holiday proposal!)

I’m not sure which speech you were watching. Apparently not the one that was televised. Or maybe we just have a different way of judging what people say. I try to base my opinions on the actual words that people use, not my speculation about their ulterior motives.

Let’s recap. A handful of soundbites from a few Wright sermons were edited together, out of context, and put on the internet and MSM. The soundbites, which expressed common resentments in the African American community about various issues, were thrown up in Obama’s face as if he had said them. Rather than justify the ridiculous criticisms leveled at him (“Why didn’t he walk out?” Because he was a prominent member of the church and walking out would have raised a giant stink over something that was really just a difference of opinion about one or two sentences in the sermon. C’mon, I disagree with statements made from the pulpit all the time. I don’t stand up and walk out because I’m not a pompous, self-righteous jackass. Do the people who make these criticisms even go to church?), Obama made a speech about race and acknowledging racial resentment (on both sides of the race line) and moving on to trying to find solutions.

As far as Wright benefitting from “race-pimping,” you are clearly just making things up here. There is NO evidence that the few statements that showed up on YouTube were typical of Wright’s sermons. In fact, every one that I’ve heard talk about the church from first-hand experience has said that they were the exception rather than the rule. Plus, we’re not talking about Creflo Dollar, here. There are no private jets, lavish vacation homes, and water parks here. Just an inner-city church that has, undisputedly, done a lot of good in its community over the years.

unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”

Hey, it breaks up the monotony of taking lesbians to get their abortions on my magic carpet made out of a burning flag …

… you Limbaugh-fellating failure.
.

I’m trying to read lambert’s posts at correntwire and all I see is snark and a bunch of “this one Obama supporter on the internet said something mean” posts.

I can’t find anything there that isn’t just blatant red-meat for the most die-hard Hillary supporters. I don’t even really see anything like “this is why Clinton is good.” It’s pretty much just “lol Obama sux lol” over and over again.

Am I missing something?

Oh and also in that link you posted there is a plea for more progressive policy from a Clinton supporter, so I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be serious or what.

That’s the part about this that really cracks me up.

Where were all these clowns when Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards were still in the race?

Obama made a speech about race and acknowledging racial resentment (on both sides of the race line) and moving on to trying to find solutions.

Yes, but Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee, now, so her supporters have to pretend they can’t compweehend that.
.

I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans

Hey, I don’t know what exit poll you are pulling that from, but look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

Oh and Lukasiak? Go fuck yourself.

I have been listening to Hip-Hop (what’s ‘rap’?) for over 20 years. What Wright said did not even slightly surprise me, because he was stating opinions that many of my favorite MCs over the years have been saying.

I think you’re missing the distinction between “opinions” and “feelings.” Jay-Z isn’t Gil Scott Heron, and there are precious few rappers whose lyrics are as politically sophisticated as those of The Last Poets.

The GOP will only send up more Scalias and fillibuster anyone else, and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable, [B]just as they have always done in the past[/B]. No Dem will be allowed to seat another SCOTUS justice.

fail

look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

The Clinton campaign’s message since Tuesday has been about white voters’ support.

Oh, but Obama is a race pimp, because … because Glenn Beck told me so.

Or something.
.

Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

*Sigh* Why is it that a lot of the demands of progressive Clinton supporters are of things their own candidate has not done? Also note: If your candidate had—I don’t know, made the race about her having the best healthcare plan for example (or gone to the senate and filibustered the darn FISA bill)—instead of the last few months being about how elitist and unelectable Barack Obama is, maybe you would have won us over. Maybe I would be giving this speech to an Obamunist telling him that it is time to quit for the good of the party and the good of the country, although I doubt it would be to any regulars here.

Its nice to see that you liberals are so united in your choice for President.

Because you know what they say, “united we stand, divided we fall.”

So have fun devouring each other, me and my fellow eeevil Conservatives have to get back to work supporting McCain.

Hahahaha!

Jay-Z isn’t Gil Scott Heron, and there are precious few rappers whose lyrics are as politically sophisticated as those of The Last Poets.

Jay-Z? The pimp?

I’m talking Chuck-D. Mos Def. Talib Kweli. KRS-One. Common. X-Clan. Even the Coup.

Why are you still talking lukasiak?

unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

I’m still waiting for you to name some of these strawman “Obama supporters” you keep talking about.

Obama supporters all supported him about Wright, then supported him when he said something else about Wright, stammered and stuttered incoherently when you bravely confronted them, accept anything that can be framed as “change”, blah blah blah, drown kittens and sacrifice virgins…

Wow, random unsupported generalizations sure are a blast!

How’s the running, Jonah? Is the Dough sloughing off?

*Sigh* Why is it that a lot of the demands of progressive Clinton supporters are of things their own candidate has not done?

Obama voted for the Dodd amendment. Clinton did not.

So, who are these “progressive Clinton supporters” again?

Are they paying attention?

Hello?
.

Fast Eddie is da bomb.

Hey, I don’t know what exit poll you are pulling that from, but look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

And given Obama’s failure to address the issues of concern to so many working class white voters — and his attacks on Clinton for ‘pandering’ to those people for trying to address those concerns (not to mention the fact that Clinton has spent the last eight years working to appeal to white working class voters) while Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from a sophomore year sociology class, I think that white voters that say they didn’t vote for Clinton because she’s white and Obama isn’t are probably telling the truth.

Constitutional scholar pans Clinton for fleeing from FISA fight

Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley criticized the Senate for bowing to President Bush’s demands for more spying power and amnesty for potentially law-breaking telecommunications companies.

“The fix has been in for some time on the unlawful surveillance program and the torture program,” he said Wednesday on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. “Many Democrats and Republicans were aware of the program and they are actively helping the White House to try to shut down any confrontation on the issue. This is also helped by the fact the telecoms are one of the five most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, and many of these members have close ties to those lobbyists.”

Turley panned presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who skipped the politically tricky and controversial Senate vote on the spy law Tuesday even though she had been campaigning in Washington that day.

“It really, I think is symbolic of this disconnect … here you’ve got someone who is campaigning for the President of the United States, making pitches to civil libertarians, but doesn’t even show up — when she’s in the neighborhood — to vote against telecom immunity,” Turley charged. “I’m not just dumping on her. The fact is there has been a lot of really duplicitous work being done by both parties.”

Republican John McCain and Barack Obama both voted on amendments to the measure; Obama opposed telecom immunity, while McCain supported it. Clinton left town early to get to a campaign stop in Texas.

So, Lukasiak doesn’t know what Obama said, and he doesn’t know what Clinton did.

All he’s got is what Sean Hannity jizzed in his mouth this morning.
.

Can we haz sum funnee photoz of Pastor Swank or Daffyd Ab-Hugh now pleez?

Oh, by the way, I hear Ralph Nader’s running again. It looks like he’s gonna pick off a few million dumb liberals this election like he did in 2000 and 2004.

I hope you liberals cast your protest votes. Look how good its served you all these years.

Bwahahahaha!

Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from a sophomore year sociology class

Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from here.

And it worked in 2006, remember?

You know, the approach that Clinton’s DLC-controlled campaign not only opposed, but tried to dismantle after it worked? Why is it that Clinton lacks the guts to take on the GOP’s use of decoy issues?

I’m running out of space to keep track of what you don’t know, Lukasiak.
.

unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

At the end of the day, this fucking strawman is still the best you can do?

Leave, troll. You’re only belittling yourself at this point.

Heh. I like where this p_lukasiak guy is going! Hey p_lukasiak! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning!

The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

I’m already fed up to the back teeth with the Democratic Party’s utter spinelessness. I don’t want a Democratic President who talks about how important it is to make nice with the Republicans, and how partisanship is such an ugly thing, and how the Democrats should be so much more hospitable to religious concerns and on and on and on.

To hell with it. I want a fighter to vote for. If one isn’t on the ballot, I’ll write one in.

And given Obama’s failure to address the issues of concern to so many working class white voters

Don’t you mean The Hard-Working Americans?

not to mention the fact that Clinton has spent the last eight years working to appeal to white working class voters

Don’t you mean she’s spent the last several weeks downing shots and standing on pickup trucks?

– Another member of the monolithic Obama Supporters Straw Horde. We all think alike here in the dark corners of Lukasiak’s small, small mind.

Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter.

Hey! Get a load of the race pimp!

(CNN) — In what appear to be the New York senator’s most blunt comments to date regarding a racial division in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that “White Americans” are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Clinton cited an Associated Press poll “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Wow! Obama sure is a race pimp! Right?

In the meantime, we know that younger whites AREN’T going to Clinton’s side.
.

Nadai, do what you like. But I contend that your are making a mistake.

The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

Cite or leave.

Additionally, since your write-in candidate natch has no chance of winning, you’re helping McCain. So good for you, shill.

One more thing – given the monumental amount of crap thrown at Clinton by goopers over the past 16 years, it would have been very soul-satisfying to see her elected as President, DLC ties notwithstanding. But the fact is (sheesh, I’m sounding like La Ruppert), she and her advisors did not run a very good campaign, and they let their initial advantage slip away.

Remember, we are not simply voting against McCain. We are voting for up to 4 supreme court justices and a cabinet populated with competent people.

Lukasiak is living in some sort of fantasy land.

Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

This has got to fucking stop, the pretending that Clinton is some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.

This is right in my wheelhouse. I have no idea if some moron like Lukasiak is bullshitting me on a subject I know nothing about, but this is a subject I know a lot about.

Clinton had not done jack shit to oppose telecom immunity. Obama made a statement about it before she did, he worked it into speeches before she did. She has been on the back of the pack on this issue.

I don’t care if you support Clinton, but can you stop just making shit up?

On telecom immunity Clinton was way behind Dodd, behind Biden and behind Obama.

I have been following this telecom immunity stuff for a while, reading about it, blogging about it. I read the fucking bills before Clinton did. Clinton and her supporters weren’t saying shit about telecom immunity until recently and she has been pulling up the rear since day 1.

This is really insulting to the people that have been doing the work. When Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher were putting together a mailing list and Dodd was making noise about putting in a hold and I was donating to Dodd and blogging Clinton wouldn’t touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

To now pretend that she is some sort of brave crusader against telecom immunity is the worst sort of revionist history and an example of telling the big lie. Go read some old Glenn Greenwald pieces where Hillary is excoriated for doing NOTHING on this issue.

Hillary has not done shit on telecom immunity, or gitmo, or Habeas rights, or Iraq contractors,or black sites, (the Clinton admin invented the practice of extraordinary rendition for fuck’s sake) or torture or any civil liberties issue of note.

Why doesn’t she get her ass back to the senate, actually READ THE FUCKING BILLS for a change then show some leadership on an issue instead of only jumping on board when everyone else has already issued statements?

Stop lying about things that have happened in the past 6-9 months. This is pathetic.

unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

When these same idiots threaten to stab HC (and the Democratic Party) in the back by voting for McBush, how much caring for the issues can there be?

The saddest part of Clinton zealotry is that her supporters can’t detect their own obtuse logic.

She.can’t.win.the.nomination.unless.she.steals.it.

To hell with it. I want a fighter to vote for. If one isn’t on the ballot, I’ll write one in.

When you aren’t winning the game, go play your own game with your own rules! That’ll show ’em!

The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

That’s because you’re a fucking moron.

If you’re throwing your vote away, you don’t deserve a fighter.
.

But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

Seriously! No one running for national office is liberal enough for my taste, but I will find it absolutely delicious to defeat my political enemy, even if the representative from my party ain’t my cup of tea.

People who will sit out: have you already forgotten what happened in 2000? If your specific desires for a candidate aren’t met, you’ll take your ball and go home? I can’t imagine a more childish position to take.

It really makes me angry to see people with such a blatant double-standard, and to see people purposely misrepresent what their candidate has done.

And to see people riding on the coat-tails of those that have done good work, then trying to claim that their candidate was fucking leading the charge when she wasn’t involved at all.

This “ends justifies the means” bullshit is crazy wingnut land. Lying about what your candidate has done is just not right.

I don’t want a Democratic President who talks about how important it is to make nice with the Republicans

Do you folks just not know what the DLC is?

If you people don’t like the political landscape in America than move to North Korea were I’m sure Kim Jong ll will fulfil your marxist fantasies of a workers paradise.

Good one, Jonah! Real zinger!

You never answered me about the running regimen. And we already established that my ego needs attention. So:

Are loads of pounds melting away?

Are you now looser in the pants?

Where’d the dough go?

When bloggers fisked
his empty head,
he bravely turned
his tail and fled!

Brave, brave, brave Sir Lukasiak!

Looks like I’m going to have to go find some more trolls to humiliate. This house is clean.
.

Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

If I could find something on the Web(after checking 5 pages of search results at Google and another at TPM) that so much as suggested that Sen. Clinton herself had done something like this in the recent past, I might have taken you seriously about that.

The scorecard so far shows:
– Sen. Obama voted against a FISA bill containing immunity provisions for telecomms
– Sen. Clinton did not cast a vote, as she was not present.
– both have stated they oppose immunity for telecomms
I’ve been told that actions speak louder than words.

If you have an update, I’d be grateful to be directed to it.

Random Observer sez:

“Good catch, I totally missed that. Guess I have seen it after all.”

No, it wasn’t a good catch, because I did not call Clinton supporters racist, but let me be more specific: I believe that there is a real contingent in the Clinton ranks who are afraid that America is too racist to ever elect Barack Obama. You will never see this admitted in public.

I’m already fed up to the back teeth with the Democratic Party’s utter spinelessness.

So your solution is to vote for the DLC insider? Excellent strategy. They’ve had so much success since being voted into the majority in 2006.

The force is strong with this thread.

Come November we will have a choice between two corporate lackies. Whether one of those lackies will be Clinton or Obama will make no difference; they are both corporate lackies. But as lackies, they will be lining up their bosses for the big America gangbang. The only difference between McCain and the other two will be that with Obama or Clinton, we will at least be provided with a small jar of Vaseline.

As far as Hillary supporters, or any other delusional “progressive” deciding to stay home on election day on principle, the GOP thanks you for your lifetime of support.

The Democratic Nomination interpretaive dance

Hillary!
Hillary?
Hillary…
OMG…LOL @ OBAMA/WRIGHT/BITTER, HILDOG IS DA BOMB
HILLARY@#$!%

Obama!

GO NOW LIBERALS! What are you waiting for. North Korea is only a plane flight away. Go to the Dear Leader where he will satisfy all of your marxist fantasies complete with summary executions of “reactionaries” and all your political opponents which I know would make you liberals all very happy. The North Korean media will spout marxist propaganda about the evils of capitalism and America and how the state is all powerful just as you like. Free universal health care, free housing, free schooling every giant government program you pork barrel spenders have wet dreams about is yours for the taking. What are you people watiing for, you hate capitalism and America so go to your 1984 Orwellian fantasy land of North Korea.

Only in America would you find assholes moaning about thirty dollars in taxes while the government wastes trillions on a fucking stupid war.

And then these same moaning assholes have the effrontery to pretend that they are moaning on behalf of the poor, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an elitist.

It’s not either/or here – there’s no need to stay silent if we happen to support shifting a tax burden from the struggling to the well-off. In the next sentence, you can also take note of the fact that our country is (literally) collapsing, that the same people to whom $30 is food for a week are often the ones who have trouble finding decent jobs, and their and their children’s future is being pissed away in the desert to support what has been widely recognized now in the blogosphere as an imperial war of aggression, a war crime, compounded by further war crimes including torture. Those are the people you call stupid ‘assholes,’ people who registered as Democrats for the first time in several previous elections because we told them they should, because we told them it would get better if we could just elect more Democrats to office. A great many will get kicked out of their homes onto the street this year. Among the economically struggling are many young people in the military, having been drawn in by the promise of a college education, health care, and believing the bullshit lies we fed to them. A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.” What Obama said about people being embittered by broken promises and failure was not elitist, just accurate, but this sure as hell is some elitist crap.

interesting…

Someone accuses Lambert of “copping out” because he won’t explain what it will take to get his support for Obama.

So I offer a suggestion — have Obama make telecom immunity a front page issue. Not just issue a statement, or vote against it, but use his position as the “presumptive nominee” to actually stop it from happening.

But nobody says — “y’know, that a really good idea. Obama needs to do something like this to convince progressives that are supporting Clinton for the nomination that he is on their side — and as a progressive who opposes telecom immunity, I’d like to see that happen as well”.

Instead, we get this kind of (typical) response…

Lukasiak is living in some sort of fantasy land. [quote my suggestion] This has got to fucking stop, the pretending that Clinton is some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.

Now, nowhere did I ever suggest that Clinton was “some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.”

I suggested telecom immunity because it is an issue that is important to ALL progressives — and its an issue that neither Clinton nor Obama have distinguised themselves on. I thought about mention Obama adopting Clinton’s approach to health care, or having Obama apologze to the Clintons and their supporters for the way he and his surrogates have deliberately demonized them for the last eight months, but I decided to go with a suggestion that should have been completely non-controversial on a progressive blog

Like I’ve already said, I’m sitting out November, because I won’t tolerate a Democratic candidate who uses the same race-baiting strategy to build margins and turnout in the black community that the GOP has been using to build turnout and margins among whites for decades.

So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

If I could find something on the Web(after checking 5 pages of search results at Google and another at TPM) that so much as suggested that Sen. Clinton herself had done something like this in the recent past, I might have taken you seriously about that..

Read some old Glenn Greenwald posts on the issue, which were basically ground zero for the telecom immunity fight. People were pleading with the Obama and Clinton camps to throw their weight behind the issue and neither did anything. Obama finally issued a very tepid statement and Clinton followed with an equally tepid one. Neither did anything of note and Clinton didn’t even vote.

If every Senator was a Clinton and Obama telecom immunity would have passed a long time ago.

I’ve had it. Look, I’m sorry that your candidate lost the election, but well, a majority of the primary and caucus voters think she’s the lesser of the two remaining democrats. I’m sorry you hate that so much that you want to take your ball home and not vote in November, thus enabling a John McCain victory. I’m sorry you feel that such an action, while essentially dooming the country would be entirely Barack Obama’s fault and not the result of your own petty vindictiveness. I’m sorry you feel that Barack Obama’s coalition of voters, while larger than Clinton’s is somehow less broad and thus less deserving of consideration. I’m sorry that since February, only through the use of wishful thinking, magic and/or a pact with the devil that would split the party were the only options for a Clinton victory. I’m sorry you feel that the DLC backed HRC is a bastion of progressivism, while simultaneously holding Barack Obama to standards that you refuse to apply to her. I’m sorry you feel that Obama supporters here are part of some sort of cult mindset, even though any reading through the thread (let alone previous ones) has us disagreeing with each other and admitting his flaws.

YEESH. What do you want us to do build you a fucking time machine so that you can bring up Jeremiah Wright during Iowa?

Just to recap…

1) p_luk comes here, and claims that Obama supporters are naive and see things in their candidate that just aren’t there.
2) p_luk acts like HRC is a trailblazer in the fight against telecom immunity, which is…
3) completely not true.

I’m astonished. I didn’t think we could reach the heights of epic fail that we saw during the Liberal Fascism read-through…but here we are.

You should have a pantload of pride, p_luk.

I will answer it sincerely why I cannot support Obama:

He is unqualified to be president. Why? He is three years out of the Illinois state senate and a first-term US Senator. He has no real accomplishments in the Illinois Senate or in the US Senate.

Everything he says about himself is pure rhetoric. He has no substantive record of bipartisanship and no record of new politics (Alice Palmer, anyone?).

His resume is thin and not suitable for the Presidency of the United States. I live in Illinois. He should have run for governor and proved his worth here before he thought about Presidency.

There is a huge discord between his rhetoric and his record.

But nobody says — “y’know, that a really good idea. Obama needs to do something like this to convince progressives that are supporting Clinton for the nomination that he is on their side — and as a progressive who opposes telecom immunity, I’d like to see that happen as well”.

Hey, I got a GREAT idea for Obama to convince the progressives supporting Clinton:

Go on Bill O’Reilly’s show and trash his opponent for being an elitist.

Will that do for ya, p_lukasiak?

Oh, wait, you now say that you don’t think HRC is a trailblazer, it’s just that…Obama’s also not, but needs to win your support like HRC had, even though she, um, wasn’t a trailblazer, and uh, durr…

You fail. Stop talking.

Well said. I shared some of Lambert’s concerns about Obama a few months back, and still do, but since some of the Corrente crew has endorsed Clinton, there are times I don’t recognize the blog anymore, it pains me to say. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Obama, but I really don’t get the sudden polarization, including a blindness toward Clinton’s gambits and flaws. The gas holiday is just a bad policy, and it’s ludicrous and insulting to claim that anyone who opposes it is an elitist who hates the poor. Umm, excuse me? Argue for a policy or a candidate, by all means, but wow, rationality and disagreeing in good faith have really taken a hit in the liberal blogosphere in the past few months. I think it depends on which sites one frequents, but personally, I’ve run into far more crazy Clinton supporters than Obama supporters, in terms of faulty or disingenuous arguments — and I still haven’t seen Obama supporters say, “Send this to Fox News to bash our opponent!” But your mileage may vary, and it’s not as if I’m not going to vote for someone because of their more obnoxious supporters if I think he or she is the best candidate. I also try to defend each candidate from BS attacks and criticize each when they use right-wing framing or advocate bad policies. Neither Clinton nor Obama was my first choice, neither is that liberal, but both are much, much better than McCain would be, especially given that he’s essentially running for Bush’s third term. I don’t care about the primary season dragging on as much as I do about Dems using right-wing framing, which is bad mid-term and long-term politics. Like many others, I’ll vote for the Dem nominee in November. I’m hoping after the nominee is settled, that “cooler heads will prevail,” as the saying goes.

So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

Just a hint, Glenn Reynolds…sometimes the shoe fits.

A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.”

(deep breath)

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.”

The ‘creative class’ decided the surge was working and impeachment should be off the table? What the hell does that even MEAN??? Who are these horrible ‘creative class’ people that you’re angry with? What the bloody fuck are you talking about???

Like I’ve already said, I’m sitting out November, because I won’t tolerate a Democratic candidate who uses the same race-baiting strategy to build margins and turnout in the black community that the GOP has been using to build turnout and margins among whites for decades.

You’re right, Barack has been robocalling black voters telling them Hillary has a illigitimate child with a white father and robocalling to mislead whites on voting dates. Also, Barack has been sending out operatives to polling places to challenge their identifications and intimidate them out of voting.

For someone who decries GOP tactics, you certainly don’t have a firm grasp on them.

progressives that are supporting Clinton

…are deluded. Obama’s not very progressive either.

Obama played the race card in the single most devious way imaginable — by having teh sheer audacity to be black! *cue sinister music* An evil genius is born.

I’m gonna fucking puke

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

There sure is, you race-baiting asshole. Only whites work hard, right? And those lazy, no-account negroes are lining up to vote for a brother, hoping he’ll include with their food stamps a taxpayer-funded voucher for a shiny new Cadillac.

Fuck Hillary. It’s sad to see her destroy her reputation and her husband’s legacy like this. But at least we won’t have the Clintons to kick around anymore.

Wow. This thread is really long. Can someone shorter it for me?

My candidate Sucks. McCain is worse by a country mile.

Why does this escape you?

Oh, and Tom?

He is unqualified to be president.

Have you heard of a guy with the initials JFK?

Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1960.

But what did Kennedy have to deal with?

<blockquote.Events during his administration include the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, the American Civil Rights Movement and early events of the Vietnam War.

What a n00b! JFK’s a piker!

The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

I would really, really like to see some evidence of the Obama campaign attacking Hillary supporters.

Anyone? And not your perceived slights that you cooked up in the bath tub with your homemade gin. Really attacks on Hillary voters from the Obama campaign.

I went to see monster trucks this weekend.

And I like pata negra.

A quandary.

A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.” … this sure as hell is some elitist crap.

Fixed!

“and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable”

Worse than Scalia, Alito and Roberts? You actually believe this? Why not go whole hog and vote for the Honorable Congressman Doctor Bircher Klanfoil then?

“Obama refused to acknowledge that Wright was a race-pimp”

You forgot to say “megadittos”. Go back three spaces.

More thread, please?

About that $30 bucks. Sorry if someone’s touched on this but it’s been bothering me that people are pretending (or pretending to pretend) that “the poor” will receive $30 all at once, rather than scattered over the course of a summer.

Providing they drive enough to benefit from the “holiday” of course.

It’s bullshit and frankly it’s about as insulting as Hillary’s latest drivel about Hard Working White Americans. “Here’s a shilling for you my good lad, vote for me.”

gee between those comments and the rhetoric behind Bill’s welfare reform, one could almost percieve yet another pattern altogether

Please, sir, may I have some more thread?

“But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet”

The ones with functional, adult egos have already decided to vote against the Republican.

For those using the term, “Triangulating” is not going to “the middle” of some policy.

It originally meant when it was coined by Dick F***ing Morris to pick a position which appeals to Republicans — “more Republican than Republicans” — so that a small group of conservative Democrats and a majority of Republicans could push it over a majority of Democrats.

That’s not “centrist” or “the middle” or “bipartisan” — it’s backing a Republican agenda and bringing Democrats into it.

The “reward” for this brilliant strategy was losing the Congress for a dozen years.

For Marita:

Shorter this thread: D. Aristophanes extends an olive branch to which BLEEEEYYYYYYYAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH?!?!?!?! is the apparent reply.

Threeeeeeead!

What the hell does that even MEAN??? Who are these horrible ‘creative class’ people that you’re angry with? What the bloody fuck are you talking about???

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

Here’s what I don’t get: why is an alleged progressive telling me I have to vote for Hillary Clinton or stay home? Hillary is a progressive? DLC, big money, corporate support, AUMF, obliterate Iran Hillary? Give me a break. There isn’t a progressive or liberal even on the scene in US national politics. Iris, you might as well just say you refuse to vote, ever. Better John McCain? What, are you awaiting the revolution after our economy, justice system, international standing, armed forces and work force are completely destroyed to put some savior in place by force? You just flat don’t make sense.

And a freebie: what’s wrong with Hillary’s “I got the white vote” mantra? It’s the next question/answer: But Hillary, what about Obama’s advantage with African Americans? Hillary: oh, they’ll vote for me. Her implication, and her surrogates overt answer: but the whites will never vote for a darkie.

Guess what: Bill C. didn’t win the white, working, Real American vote. And in the general, it’s no sure thing that she will either.

“It originally meant when it was coined by Dick F***ing Morris, a F***ing Republican”

FTFY

Marita said,

Wow. This thread is really long. Can someone shorter it for me?

I’m mad that Hillary didn’t win, so you Obamabots have to make it up to me by admitting that Obama is a rightwing elitist racist with no experience.. And that still won’t do, because I’m mad.

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

OK, even without reading this whole thread — that’s a whole freakin’ straw village right there.

“Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.”

Asked for straw?

Remind me, how many motions to impeach has Senator Clinton made in the last five years?

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

What a tool…

About that $30 bucks.

I just thought of something somewhat tangential, but it could also serve to draw this thread out a while longer.

So, if that $30 is such a big help to people struggling to make ends meet once they have it in their pockets, how is garnishing their wages to ensure they’ve bought into the universal healthcare plan going to affect them?
That seems like it may be a little more than $30 …

I would really, really like to see some evidence of the Obama campaign attacking Hillary supporters.

and I’d like to see some evidence that Cole (the quintessential Obot — was deranged against those who opposed Bush, then switched his derangement to Bush, and is now deranged about Clinton) knows the difference between the word “derision” and “attack”.

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

I did ask, and you did answer…the only problem is, I have never seen the creature that you speak of, except perhaps in a cornfield somewhere warding off crows.

I just don’t understand how if they prefer Senator Clinton they’re wise, thoughtful, reasonable and intelligent, and if I happen to prefer Senator Obama I’m “in the tank” or I’m a “fanboy” or something.

See, to me, this indicates that they are not as reasonable or wise or thoughtful as they seem to think…

mikey

I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.

President-Elect McCain thanks you for your support.

Ok, so Bush is a complete and utter disaster and his successor promises more of the same. Although very few Americans support Bush anymore, McCain will be able to count on…….the revenge votes of crybaby Hillary-zealots.

Is it a mad mad mad world or what?

I sincerely hope when Hillary steps down she mends the fences, puts her support behind the victor and encourages her supporters to blow their noses, get over it, and do the right thing. Anyone who votes for McCain is not a democrat, never was a democrat and is lying through their teeth about being a democrat.

Iris is an obvious dumbass, but one of the most entertaining parts of the thread.

Iris: I promise you candy if you vote for Obama.

OK, even without reading this whole thread — that’s a whole freakin’ straw village right there.

You can put up a new thread now, because WE HAVE A WINNER!!!1!

Atheist, if you’re serious, I have no idea what to do. I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know if the doom/gloomers are right. I think they are, but what do I know?

That makes two of us who have no idea what to do.

I imagine that, in a real failure of society, I’d be one of the first to die.

It probably can’t hurt to think about it & try to plan, though. About a month ago, do you remember the thread here where we were talking about this?

Ideas:
-Save cash
-Have strong shoes
-Get a gun
-Buy jewels
-case your neighborhood

There are probably a bunch of other things that could be done & studied, too.

p_lukasiak said,
May 8, 2008 at 19:45 (kill)

Okay, what you said might just tip the balance towards Hillary…except that she lost some time ago.

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

Ok, this constitutes, what? Eleven people? I really don’t think either constituency need be overly concerned with the ideology you describe here, Iris. If they exist at all, I haven’t seen one…

mikey

Why would you be first to go, atheist?

I got your back…

I’m mad that Hillary didn’t win, so you Obamabots have to make it up to me by admitting that Obama is a rightwing elitist racist with no experience.. And that still won’t do, because I’m mad.

Hee hee.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wins the thread.

(Sorry if this is upsetting to white, er, hard-working Americans.)

Iris is the Queen of Straw, mikey.

In her mind, Obama is worse than McCain, so why try and reason with her.

And again:

My candidate sucks!

-Have strong shoes

I can jump higher than a building in mine.

I like Obama. I support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and if she wants to go to the convention, I say why not? All the hand-wringing about “but she’ll DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!!11!11one!!” is bullshit.

Here’s what I really hate:

Righteous Bubba said,

May 8, 2008 at 15:17

How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

Fuck off bonehead.

No one can accuse Righteous Bubba of being a latte’-sipping arugula-scarfing elitist, because I can’t imagine a latte’-sipping arugula-scarfing elitist saying “fuck off bonehead.”

Righteous Bubba said,

May 8, 2008 at 16:24

some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now

Name names Iris you gutless dope.

OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

Here’s another prize-winning comment:

Five of Diamonds said,

May 8, 2008 at 19:01

The saddest part of Clinton zealotry is that her supporters can’t detect their own obtuse logic.

She.can’t.win.the.nomination.unless.she.steals.it.

Really? So playing by the rules and convincing superdelegates to vote for her is stealing? OMG, WE WUZ ROBBED!!!!!!111!1!!!

Every time an Obama “supporter” opens their mouth and says “Hillary should just quit” and “Obama’s the nominee” and “scoreboard, bitchez!” or coughs up some similar assholery is one more time I have to think, good god, I’m going to have cast my vote with these assholes? This is the progressive movement?

WTF happened?

Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy.

You’re a friggin dope.

I promise you candy if you vote for Obama.

Bubba, you catch more [redacted] with pie, you know.

You know, I don’t think I’ve see many if any in this thread use some stupid in-group lingo to make fun of Hillary supporters, but nearly every Hillary supporter has to litter their posts with references to “obots” and other moronic dehumanizing terms.

on what planet is “dope” a gender specific insult

oh right, Planet EVERYTHING IS SEXISM!!!111ONE!

OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba.

You’ll note that even Iris backed off on specifically calling anyone misogynist, but I applaud your chivalry in defending this gentle lady from danger.

I got your back…

I really appreciate that, t4toby.

However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles.

liberalrob, thanks for that concise collection of reasons that I like this site so much.

This thread is indeed confusing. How is “gutless dope” misogyny? I mean, it’s insulting and everything, but it seems like a pretty gender-neutral insult to me.

He is not George W Bush- he fought for this country honorably, his son is doing so right now. He hasn’t been lavished with the millions upon millions that Bush was when he ran for office. His decisions about our military demand respectful disagreement, and he is not compromised by ties to big money to the extent Bush was. Given all that I believe he could be competent and reasonable, and the democrats desire to convince otherwise seems to me to be pure politics driven by their desperate desire to win this election. This is the man they have worked with on numerous occasions, and the man they wanted to run as VP four years ago. I can’t be scared into voting against him very easily.

The same wars, only more of them

The same disregard for separation of powers and limits on presidential authority, only disguised with McCain’s patented double-talk

The same kind of SC justices, only more of them

The same economic policies, only bigger and more permanent

Seriously, if you’ve been paying attention for the last 10 years and still think John McCain is a good egg, then nothing any Obama supporter or anti-McCain voter says is going to convince you of anything. I’m not entirely sure you were ever open to being convinced in the first place.

Ahem.

Given that 92% of black voters also voted against George Bush, it appears that black voters are simply more inclined to vote for Democrats than they are for anyone on the basis of skin color.

Did Obama’s race play a role in this primary in their support? I’d be surprised if it didn’t, at least for some portion of the black electorate. Is there anything wrong with that? No, no more than there is anything wrong with white women over 50 supporting Hillary. And given that black voters have been a much more loyal voting bloc for the Democratic party than older white women have been (they voted Republican in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004), I’m inclined to give a bit more weight to their preference than I am to the preference of older white women. And this isn’t a bone that’s being thrown to black voters – their preferred candidate has won this thing fair and square, playing by the rules and against the odds.

But all that aside – people vote for candidates based on their own personal metrics as often as not. I voted for Obama on the basis of hte following: he actually has more experience in elected office than Hillary does, and I didn’t buy her argument that her years as first lady of Arkansas and the United States were equivalent to experience in public office. And none of the three remaining candidates has executive experience, whether it be as head of a company, a state, a county, or even a city. Not to mention that there really is no job that could really prepare someone for the presidency. Obama shows intelligence, reason, and the ability to remain cool under pressure. I decided that those attributes were as important as, or more important than, many years as a governor or even a legislator.

A lot of people have complained about the “unity talk”. Well, which is better – unity talk which might succeed in winning over a few of the more reasonable conservatives, or flat-out pandering to the worst of the worst via anti-flag burning legislation? Those far right nuts aren’t going to vote for any Democrat, no matter if they completely sell out to them. So let’s can the unity bitching – because there are smart and non-destructive ways to peel off conservative voters, and then there is completely selling out, which not only doesn’t work with conservative voters but also turns off your base.

Then there was the issue of the war. If your superior experience led you to vote in favor of the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation, despite the fact that you weren’t up for re-election for another 4 years, despite the fact that you represent one of the more liberal constituencies that was more against the war than for it, then what good is your experience? Not much. So Obama merely gave a speech publicly opposing going to war? That’s still better than what Hillary did. Even if he wasn’t in a position to stop the war or vote against it, he did the right thing in spite of the potential political fallout.

I was disgusted by the presumed coronation prior to the election, so that played into my decision. I also appreciate the fact that Obama is only a couple of years older than me, because sweet Christ I am sick and fucking tired of rehashing Vietnam every four years. In a Hillary vs. McCain race, that’s what we would have – another replay of how the DFH liberals stabbed us in the back in Vietnam and now they’re back to do the same on Iraq. Count on it. Why do you think anyone ever tried to drag Bill Ayers into this? It’s because the “betrayal of Vietnam” play is one of the oldest plays in the GOP playbook, along with racist dogwhistles. The media by and large doesn’t know how to cover an election other than through the prism of Vietnam, because for 40 years, they’ve never had to. Enough of that shit. What happened 40 years ago has little or no bearing on where we are now, other than the fact that the endless replay of it finally got us to the point where a swaggering moron decided to do it again and show us all how it could have turned out if not for those dirty liberals. Uh, no. And one of the people who protested that war 40 years ago grew up to vote for another just like it, in order to preserve some twisted notion of “electoral viability.” Fuck that shit, it’s time to be done with it.

Last but by no means least, I maintain the hope and belief that Obama’s years as a community organizer will bring something to his views that we haven’t had in a candidate or president for quite a long time, which is a true understanding and empathy for the poor and working classes. I worked as an organizer for a number of years, and that shit doesn’t rub off. It colors your perception of people and the struggles they face for the rest of your life. Which is not, you know, a BAD thing to have in your president or Democratic Party nominee.

Is Obama an unknown quantity? Yes, in some measuire he is. But that at least leaves open the possibility that he won’t be a corporatist triangulator to the extent that we KNOW Hillary is. I decided that this was a case in which the devil I didn’t know was quite possibly better than the one I did. I’m sure he’ll do many things to dissappoint me. But with Hillary, I already knew what many of those things would be.

So, those are my reasons, none of them having anything at all to do with Hillary’s gender; all of them having to do with her actions. YMMV. But these are all valid and legitimate reasons for deciding as I did.

One more thing – the Edwards love – I don’t get it. Yeah, he talked a good story on poverty this time around, and I appreciate him putting it out there. But his record of his one Senate term is pretty much a zero. I just don’t see the life’s work he’s done on fighting poverty – because it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just makes him another guy saying what he thinks will be most helpful in getting himself elected.

(Sorry if this is upsetting to white, er, hard-working Americans.)

{whispers} I thought I was god-fearing … did the script get changed?

liberalrob-

Sorry, Iris has proven herself to indeed be a bonehead. See the above strawmen.

I can jump higher than a building in mine.

I admit its stupid. I was just trying to think of things.

Ack! Travis beat me to it! Travis is obviously misogynist!

Every time an Obama “supporter” opens their mouth and says “Hillary should just quit” and “Obama’s the nominee” and “scoreboard, bitchez!” or coughs up some similar assholery is one more time I have to think, good god, I’m going to have cast my vote with these assholes? This is the progressive movement?

So you pick a few comments out of 420+ and then tell us about what an Obama supporter thinks and says? What were the other people talking about? Bitches and beers? Eel pr0n?

Yes, you are going to cast your vote with assholes like us, unless you want McCain in office. Period.

Have you ever seen a building jump? Even I can jump higher.

Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post.

Calling someone a “gutless dope” is misogyny?

Come again?

What made you select that particular number of comments, t4toby?

I got your back…

But I know you do mean it, and so, I appreciate that.

I was just trying to think of things.

Seriously, I agree with the shoe thing and recommend Meindl boots. Also, you’re supposed to remind me that buildings don’t jump.

Man, cognitive dissonance and projection aren’t just for wingnuts anymore, are they? (I know, never really were, they just mastered the forms.)
Dear Hillary supporters, explain to me voting to illegally pre-authorize a war (read the damn Constitution) based on clear lies because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Explain to me sitting down with Richard fucking Melon Scaife then accepting his “operation chaos” inspired endorsement. Explain to me how the DLC, a group dedicated to corporate enabling, dismantling the welfare system, and not just maintaining but escalating the largely racially based drug war while glossing over it with a salesman’s bullshit pitch of “feeling the pain (we cause)”, is progressive.
Hillary is not a leader. She’s a standard issue play it safe pol. She takes the positions she has to according to polling and has learned so much from the right wing conspiracy against her family a decade ago that she’s using their tactics and breaking bread with them. She has given me no reason to support her.

First off, athiest –

A good sturdy pair of shoes should be in everyone’s disaster readiness kit. It was not dumb to say so. And..

However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles

Details, details. Y’all are welcome out here if the shit hits the fan. I’ve always wanted to live tribally.

So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

They aren’t attacks on your character, they’re responses to the idiotic things you write, and your single-minded insistence on only arguing with this guy.

OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

Ok, I’m at a loss here. Is liberalrob/Iris or whothefuckever, calling RB (and Obama) misogynists? Wtf?

I call slander and trolldom and stirring up shit for the sake of it.

McCain called his wife the C word in public. If you’d rather have this guy, this woman thinks you’re an ASSHOLE.

Marita –

Just because? 😉

gbear answers the call.

Re: Obamabots or whatever I’m called.

Sadly, the Hillary-or-nothing attitude and willingness to sink the entire party if fellow democrats don’t condone cheating-to-win was conceived and engendered by Hillary’s campaign.

The best article I saw on survival was from, I think, a Serbian. He and others said water, most of all. Since we live on a hurricane path we keep large water-cooler sized sealed bottles at all times anyway. He also said things like toilet paper, soap, toiletriies, sewing supplies, matches, etc, the usual you’d expect. Also some things you might not expect, like romance and mystery novels, just to get away from the situation for a little while.

Like most people, I can’t spend a lot of money on preparation. I guess we’ll all have to pull together or sink separately.

Awesome link, Mantis.

Shoot. That was me, of course.

Fie. Anyone, commenter, blogger, or whatthefuck, who doesn’t support the Democratic nominee in November, is completely fucking required to quit the Democratic party and join the Republicans where you belong.

Seriously, you guys go ahead and write up your Yoostabee posts, tell us about how much you love Gingrich and are outraged by Chappafuckingquiddick, and go hug Ace of Spades. GO.

Yeah, he talked a good story on poverty this time around, and I appreciate him putting it out there. But his record of his one Senate term is pretty much a zero. I just don’t see the life’s work he’s done on fighting poverty – because it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just makes him another guy saying what he thinks will be most helpful in getting himself elected.

Oh no, Jennifer brought the smack down!

Seriously, does anyone bother to look at what any of these people have actually done?

The gas holiday is just a bad policy, and it’s ludicrous and insulting to claim that anyone who opposes it is an elitist who hates the poor.

actually, its not bad policy — at worst, its debatable whether its good economic policy, The lies that Obama tells about it make it sound like bad policy (i.e. that Clinton’s proposal would cost jobs and be bad for the infrastructure, when her proposal is contingent upon replacing any funding lost to the Highway Trust with other revenue — like a windfall profits tax on oil companies).

You raise the gas tax holiday proposal, and Obama’s shifting position on it, with the Obots and the response is positively Borg-ian.

“It didn’t work in Illinois”
“Obama learned from his mistakes”
“Clinton is pandering”

except that, of course, the only study of the impact on the gas tax holiday in Illinois shows that it was a success at lowering gas prices. Obama supporters say that because it was estimated that ONLY 60% of the tax found its way to reduced prices at the pump that it was a failure. But they fail to mention that when the gas tax holiday was over, prices increased by only 4% — suggesting that 80% of the tax savings was passed along to consumers.

The “mistake” that was made in illinois was that the state lost a great deal of revenue as a result of the tax holiday, and that created serious budget problems. Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

And there is a reason why “working class” voters felt attacked — Obama singled them out as the one group that should not be ‘pandered’ to. Obama — like every politician — panders. What is the promise of a $1000 middle class tax cut at a time when we have a massive federal deficit anything BUT pandering?

Obama can’t connect with “white working class” voters. He attacks Clinton because she has spent most of her adult life learning how to connect with them (its not like there is some intrinsic appeal among white working class voters toward upper-middle class suburban female graduates of Wellesley and Yale Law — she EARNED their support), by lying about her proposal for a gas tax holiday. And all the little Obots follow along in lockstep, repeating the Obama approved talking points as if they were gospel.

And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

A good sturdy pair of shoes should be in everyone’s disaster readiness kit. It was not dumb to say so. And..

yep.
I’m on the east coast. Welcome to stop by if things get weird.

Good plan, Scott! If conversion requires hugging Ace, no woman will defect from the Democratic party!

I mean, seriously. Ew.

No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of Barack Obama. I assume you already know that Obama may come to represent the most insidious corruption of ideals yet, but I have something more important to tell you. I doubtlessly hope that his rodomontades were intended as a joke, although they’re not very funny if they were. His codices are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

If Obama is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. If you can go more than a minute without hearing him talk about totalitarianism, you’re either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Obama once heard a callow, delusional blood-stained criminal say, “There is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” What’s amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his subalterns that it is inane to question his teachings, which makes me wonder, “What happened to his common sense?” The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that the majority of oleaginous voluptuaries probably agree that he is so intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices that his perception of reality is absolutely warped. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you’ll understand why we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Obama wants to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. Faugh. Let me sum up. Barack Obama’s unedifying preoccupation with demagogism will create massive civil unrest faster than you can say “pharmacodynamic”.

” And really, they’re not hard to miss.”

I think, based purely on the context of the remark, that you mean “they are hard to miss.

I don’t mean that in a snarky, “fixed!” sense, I mean literally: If her faults are apparent, which is what you appear to be saying, then they are hard to miss.

I guess we’ll all have to pull together or sink separately.

Bingo.

That reminds me. We are going to have a NW Sadfest in the very near future. I like the Beveridge Place on Mondays because of the $2.50 micros. Any other NW DFH’s have any input?

And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

I see. He beat Hillary though, so you’re stuck with him. Get used to it.

If you vote Republican you’ll have to pay for Jonah Goldberg’s beers and listen to him tell you about the time Ann Coulter felt him up.

I am white and work for a living, is it too late to change my vote to the DLC candidate or what

O-bots, Borg…all while telling us how more progressive Clinton is than Obama?

mote, beam, eye, something something.

Now kids. Who is playing with the complaint letter generator?

No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of Barack Obama.

I call fake Iris.

with the Obots and the response is positively Borg-ian.
…
And all the little Obots follow along in lockstep, repeating the Obama approved talking points as if they were gospel.

What did I say about relying on stawmen, dehumanizing language and in-group lingo?

This is self-parody.

Just for the record, all Hillary supporters are lesbians. ALL OF THEM. THIS I COMMAND!!!!!1111!!!!!

I am white and work for a living, is it too late to change my vote to the DLC candidate or what

Unfortunately Travis, yes, it’s too late.

Toby, any desire to come to PDX on a weeknight in early June? If so, we should talk…

Hope is not a plan.

Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Nor is “probably”.

I’d like to see it, frankly.
But given what I know about the legislative cycle, and Bush’s protectiveness of Big Oil, I concluded: “Nice smokescreen.”

To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X and tolerating his bruta fulmina, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Sen. Hussein X’s homilies are misleading and deceptive. Let me get to the crux of the matter: If it weren’t for shallow weirdos, Sen. Hussein X would have no friends. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is he hoping that the readers of this letter won’t see the weakness of his argument relative to mine? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that he and his apple-polishers take is that my comments about him can serve as a provisional response to his teachings until a more comprehensive treatment becomes available. When I state that it’s quite sad that Sen. Hussein X chooses to squander his talent on this sort of bestial extremism, I’m merely trying to give our young people the values that will inspire them to invite all the people who have been harmed by Sen. Hussein X to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. As someone who is working hard to put his perfidious anecdotes out to pasture, I must point out that it is hardly surprising that he wants to defend deconstructionism, philistinism, and notions of racial superiority. After all, this is the same out-of-touch psychic whose amoral prattle informed us that we ought to worship hostile stumblebums as folk heroes.

Ignorance of the law does not excuse Sen. Hussein X from the consequences of violating it. Sad, but true. And it’ll only get worse if Sen. Hussein X finds a way to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. He has vowed that within a short period of time he’ll reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. This is hardly news; Sen. Hussein X has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that he always demands instant gratification. That’s all that is of concern to him; nothing else matters — except maybe to eat our nation to its bones. I tell you this because when Sen. Hussein X hears anyone say that it would help if he realized that education and wisdom aren’t necessarily the same thing, his answer is to contaminate or cut off our cities’ water supply. That’s similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to give him condign punishment.

This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I’ll provide in a moment. But first, let me just say that I don’t know if Sen. Hussein X is consciously and purposely evil or merely deceitful. I do know, however, that reason, not make-believe, is the best way to deal with the real evils of our world. The logical consequences of that are clear: Sen. Hussein X’s whinges manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. Phase two: go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I’d love to hear about them.

p_luk, just quit.

And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

Except, you know, the whole “winning primaries often over Hillary” thingy. Two primaries in after the gas tax promise, and he’s beaten her soundly in one state, while damn near beating her in another.

As for “Obama can’t connect to the workin’ class,” take it away, Alex Koppelman:

African-American voters are absolutely critical to the Democratic Party. And while it’s true that Obama trails behind Clinton in winning support from white working-class voters, it’s not as if he’s getting no support from that group whatsoever. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost no support left from African-American voters. Even George W. Bush captured a larger share of the African-American vote than she has in some recent primaries. In 2004, Bush got 11 percent of the African-American vote. In the Indiana Democratic primary on Tuesday, Clinton got the same percentage Bush did in ’04 — in North Carolina, though, she took just 7 percent.

I hope you don’t skidaddle like you did on Balloon Juice. Your ad hoc ravings are fun.

Me complaint about Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Blimey! Obama I ‘ave sumfink important I need ter tell yer. I’ll get out me spoons. I anticipate it will result in me receivin’ a barrage of angry e-mail from Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Struth! Obama accusin’ me of bein’ narrow-minded, but Barack’s deputies will leave us ‘igh and dry as they tear dahn all theoretical frameworks for addressin’ the issue. Read on, right, gentle reader, right, and ‘ear wot I ‘ave ter say. If I said that ‘e is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all blokes, I’d be a liar. But I’d be bein’ completely ‘onest if I said that only frough education can individuals gain the bloomin’ independent tools they need ter take off the kid gluvs and vent some real anger at Barack. But the first step is ter acknowledge that there is sumfink grievously wrong wiv them despicable blowards ‘oo twist the chuffin’ history, sociology, and anffropology disseminated by us mass media and in us children’s textbooks. Shame on the lot of them! Right! I should add parenffetically that Barack is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Evry sentence ‘e writes is filled wiv needlessly long words like “phoneticogrammatical” and “superincomprehensibleness”. Eever Barack is deliberately tryin’ ter confuse us or else ‘e’s secretly schemin’ ter up the ante considerably. We all need ter be orare of each uvver’s existence as intelligent, right, feelin’, right, human beings, even if some of us are wot I call predatory adolescents. Barack’s most progressive idea is ter work ‘and-in-gluv wiv inconsiderate, jejune pettifoggers. If that sounds progressive ter yer, yer must be facin’ the bleedin’ wrong way. Even fough sposedly distancin’ ‘imself from the bloomin’ most debauched urban guerrillas yer’ll ever see, Barack ‘as right not changed ‘is spots at all. Because we continue ter share a common, right, albeit abused, right, atmospheric envelope, right, if we don’t remove the bloody Barack ‘USSEIN! Struth! Obama freat now, right, it will bite us in us backside sooner than yer fink. In purely political terms, evry so often, he tries challengin’ all I stand for, init?Wenever ‘e gets caught doin’ so ‘e raises a terrific ‘ullabaloo calculated ter resort ter ad ‘ominem attacks on me and me family. Blokes used ter ffink I were exaggeratin’ wenever I said that fought should precede any attempt at intellectual writin’, right? After seein’ Barack rebrand local churches as faiff-based emporia teemin’ wiv impulse-buy items these same blokes now realize that I weren’t exaggeratin’ at all. In fact, they even realize that if one dares ter criticize even a singgle tenet of Barack’s philosophies, right, one is promptly condemned as ribald, contentious, paffetic, or wotever epiffet Barack deems most appropriate, usually wivout much explanation. I shall not argue that ‘is newsgroup postings are an auffentic map of ‘is plan ter install a puppet government that pledges allegiance ter his uninformed Praetorian Guard. Read them and spot for yorself. So, in summin’ up, we can establish the followin’: 1) Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Obaman ‘as graduated from occasionally exemptin’ ‘imself from the few principles ‘e ‘as ter betrayin’ them altogeffer, and 2) Barack’s dissolute, duplicitous press releases are an evil wivout remedy. Why do yer ‘ave a complaint about me on yor Web page?

Just for the record, all Hillary supporters are lesbians.

Greek nationals can’t vote in US elections.

Bubba said:

I call fake Iris

Agreed, that post stinks of concern troll. Only a wingnut douchebag thinks one candidate will bring the Great Downfall of Society.

And re: The I’ll Vote for McCane if Clinton/Obama Doesn’t Get the Nomination! nuts (all 16 of you).

Go ahead. This is America. It is your right to vote for whomever you please. I’m not sure why you need to say so now when the election is months away and I kind of suspect you’re the adult equivalent of the little kid who says he’s going to run away from home if he can’t have a puppy.

Except I would never say a little kid is full of shit.

But if you aren’t huffing and bluffing so someone will come kiss your ass and tell you how great you are, have at it.

Now shut up about it until November 5th.

To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X and tolerating his bruta fulmina, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us.

This is honestly the funniest sentence of the tread. You win the prize.

To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X

I call plausible p_lukasiak.

Sorry. I don’t understand your thesis well enough to respond. And your usage of “Sen. Hussein X” makes me think either your sincerity or your sanity are questionable.

I love the Hillarybot attacks.

>>You are an elitist, latte drinker!

Actually I get my coffee from 7-Eleven. And it’s pretty good.

>>You are a member of the Creative Class!

Actually I do accounting. I’d like to think I do it creatively, but Sadly, No.

>>$30 buys a month of food for people on the edge!

Sadly, No. A pound of ground beef and a dozen eggs each cost over $4 at my local Harvey Nicks Ralph’s. Ramen noodles may be cheap, but you will die if you attempt to live on them. They have no nutrional value at all.

And I’ve got news for the Desperate Set over there…anyone living within $30 of starvation gave up driving a car long ago. They are either using public transportation, bicycling, or walking everywhere. The gas tax holiday is just yet another Republican talking point that Hillary and her Dead Enders are ass over tincups over. God only knows why these people are embracing Gooper ideas…or why they are still in our Party.

But Progressives they are not.

This thread has put on its leather jacket and is revving up the motorcycle.

The shark awaits.

Good plan, Scott! If conversion requires hugging Ace, no woman will defect from the Democratic party!

No, no, no, you ain’t gonna put those words in my mouth. I said “Anyone, commenter, blogger, or whatthefuck” — I didn’t say anything at all gender-specific.

And the only reason I’m gonna kneejerk about this is that I’ve had way too many people strawman me to pretend I’m a horrible evil sexist, and I’m very, very tired of it.

Apologies if you didn’t mean to say that.

I am not adverse to a trip to PDX, Marita.

I am also willing to go to Olympia if that is a better central meeting place.

I would really lie to meet you guys, as you take up a significant part of each of my workdays.

I mean the shark awaits with bated breath!

Toby, any desire to come to PDX on a weeknight in early June? If so, we should talk…

Me too me too!

#

atheist said,

May 8, 2008 at 19:58

I got your back…

I really appreciate that, t4toby.

However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles.

I thought we decided when it all went to hell in a bucket we’d all make our way to HTML’s farm, harden it good and apply our diverse skills to surviving and building a community for a better tomorrow.

Kinda like “The Stand” but without the Captain Tripps and the god ‘n the devil shit…

Oh. And yeah, shoes. LPCs we called ’em. “Leather Personell Carriers”. I get my boots from Merrell. Not well known, but the best “rugged” shoes and hiking boots in the world. I have a pair that are actually on an outfitters list of approved gear for Everest…

mikey

Calling someone a “gutless dope” is misogyny?

When the target is female and the topic is misogyny, yeah, I think it is. Context is important. At best it’s generic assholery; if R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that. He’d certainly not be the only one around.

I also love how Iris is now a “troll.” That’s awesome. If you stand by your beliefs and disagree with me, you’re a troll. Hell, we’re all trolls then. Me too! Brilliant! Let’s all ban each other from our respective blogs, divide up into tribes of “Obamabots” and “Clintonistas” and bask in the glow of how pure we are vs. how sucky they are. That’s what the progressive movement is all about, don’t you know!

You wanna know who’s dividing and destroying the Democratic Party? You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments. Congratulations, you have met the enemy and it is you. Heckuva job.

Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric.

Hoosier – Don’t be bamboozled by the Complaint Generator.

I like how his explanation of why Obama is unelectable doesn’t include any math or delegate counts or state breakdowns, and doesn’t explain how Obama is beating Clinton.

A credible electability study would probably include a state-by-state count of likely delegates – just sayin’. That is kind of how we elect the President after all.

I also love how Iris is now a “troll.”

I don’t care what Iris’ inner biological workings are.

I do know that she categorized Obama supporters as the same types who supported John Roberts and The Surge.

I do know that this is beyond stupid.

Sorry.

Name names Iris you gutless dope.

OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

Oh… i see. RB combined an adjective and a noun to make an insult. That reminded our friend of a different adjective and a different noun directed at a different woman 30 years ago as part of a comedy sketch. Of course, that sketch wasn’t sexist either, but it did lampoon sexism.

Game. Set. Match.
Hillary WINNZZZ!!!

liberalrob said,

May 8, 2008 at 20:22
a bloo bla bloo bloo bla bloo

seriously dude, see more shit that isn’t there

also, really, declaring the Democratic primary “whites only” is totally not divisive

“If you stand by your beliefs and disagree with me, you’re a troll. Hell, we’re all trolls then. Me too!”

No, you’re only one if you insist on arguing against strawmyn and refuse to treat in good faith.

“You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments.”

Like that. You too, indeed!

R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that.

Well I won’t say that and you can judge for yourself, but obviously I’m only a misogynist depending on your whims. So much for the charge.

Come on, Rob. That is silly.

Sadly is about the most middle-of-the-road supporter of Obama there is out there. This thread alone probably has 50 comments to the tune of, “We will vote for a polished turd over McCain.”

I think you think you are at some completely in-the-tank Obot site, which couldn’t be farther than the truth.

And mikey – Arkansas is hell in the summer.

liberalrob, the reason people are getting pissed with on a thread that began with an appeal “why can’t we all just get along” is the absolute refusal of Hillary backers to discuss any points raised by the “Obamabots” in good faith.

What’s progressive about the DLC?
What’s progressive about appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show to trash your Democratic opponent?
What’s progressive about voting for the AUMF, never reading the NIE, and refusing ever to justify either?
What’s progressive about a gratutious threat to ‘obliterate Iran’ based on a ridiculous hypothetical scenario?
You want to play up Hillary’s experience in Bill’s administration, fine: own what went with that administration: the very definition of triangulation. What’s progressive about that?

Now you go on up thread and read the hundreds of comments, including many serious responses to Iris, and then come back and talk about context.

“What’s progressive about the DLC?
What’s progressive about appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show to trash your Democratic opponent?
What’s progressive about voting for the AUMF, never reading the NIE, and refusing ever to justify either?
What’s progressive about a gratutious threat to ‘obliterate Iran’ based on a ridiculous hypothetical scenario?
You want to play up Hillary’s experience in Bill’s administration, fine: own what went with that administration: the very definition of triangulation. What’s progressive about that?”

Hear hear!

Its very important that this blog return to satire and cruel jokes – and I for one am very grateful that this thread is turning back in that direction.

Heh, indeedy!

What did I say about relying on stawmen, dehumanizing language and in-group lingo?

its not a strawman. I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian. It wasn’t enough that one or two people had to repeat the exact same Obama talking points. Dozens of people did so.

Groupthink is very real. You can see it on some pro-Clinton sites, but the level of Groupthink among Obama supporters is nothing short of astonishing, and frightening

And its pretty obvious where this need for Groupthink comes from — the fact that the rational “positive” reasons for supporting Obama are few and far between, and the rational reasons not to support him are more numerous — and that the only real ‘rational’ argument that can be made for Obama is that he’s better than Clinton.

Thus, just about any criticism of Obama is met with an attack on Clinton — and on ‘the messenger’. Obama-groupthink evolved because his supporters could not respond to criticism of Obama with a positive argument, because there wasn’t one — at least one that didn’t apply to Clinton as well.

liberalrob. Hillary supporters are not morons. Hillary supporters who will not support Obama should he become the Democratic candidate in the general election are morons. Please note the difference. We have.

Man, Jennifer talks purty when she’s worked up.

At best it’s generic assholery; if R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that. He’d certainly not be the only one around.

I won’t speak for RB, but I’m quite frequently an asshole. Not the only one around? No shit, Sherlock, where do you think you are? We are only discussing politics because we ran out of poop jokes.

Remember, when multiple people recognize facts and realistic trends, it’s “groupthink”.

The Borg were just rather well educated and not shy about pointing it out.

Let’s all ban each other from our respective blogs, divide up into tribes of “Obamabots” and “Clintonistas” and bask in the glow of how pure we are vs. how sucky they are. That’s what the progressive movement is all about, don’t you know!

I see very little in-group language in this thread directed at Hillary supporters, but I see plenty of in-group language directed at Obama supporters. I don’t think it’s possible to read honestly and reach a different conclusion. Lukasiak by himself is using more “oBot” style language than overy Obama supporter combined.

Basically every Obama supporter in this thread has said they’ll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Meanwhile virtually every Hillary supporter is threatening to stay home.

The two sides are not mirror images, much as you’d like to imagine so.

p_lukasiak-

why aren’t you bothering balloon juice any more?

cause you’re not very funny…

“You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments.”

Point out which posts said those things. Then, when you’re done counting to zero, tell us how many posts deride all Obama supporters as Obots or Omabatrons or mindless followers or any other equivalent way of dismissing more than half the Democratic party as stupid and naive.

– Another member of the monolithic Obama Supporters Straw Horde.

troll homosexuals are aids monkeys couldn’t get any attention so he morphed into p_lukasiak .

Way late – but fuck Lambert for that sad/angry post.

It’s not hypocritical to love his work and note how bat shit stupid and offensive it was. It’s just the way it is.

And Shystee says:

“The worst possible downside to the thousands of hours we have all spent paying attention to this campaign is that democratic voters who supported the losing nominee will be so pissed off that they won’t show up to vote in November.”

You know who sounds like someone who’d do that? Lambert. (Though I guess he wouldn’t, thankfully.) You know who hasn’t? D. Aristophanes. Jesus. This is dumb.

Just wanted to say.

I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian. It wasn’t enough that one or two people had to repeat the exact same Obama talking points. Dozens of people did so.

That’s DKos. It’s creepy, I’ll give you that. It’s either group think or pie fight – something about the scale they operate on. They were just as lockstep over Edwards and before Edwards it was Kerry. John Fricken Kerry.

Secret for you: DKos isn’t running for president. They get exactly zero influence. No cabinet posts, no ambassadorships, no court appointments. The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

I’m getting the feeling that p_luk doesn’t even read all of the comments in the thread…

P_luk,

Welcome to a site full of folks who originally supported John Edwards or somebody else, and then picked Obama over Hillary. Based on who we thought was the more progressive.

You want to argue that decision, than go ahead. But it’s almost 500 comments in, and I’ve seen nothing but tantrums and strawmen from your side.

Toby, and all other Pacific Northwesterners…

Speaking as Mr. Gavin M.’s personal appointment secretary, I do believe I could secure his presence in Portland (he will be coming from south of there, and Olympia would be too far, given the incredibly hectic nature of his schedule for that week) on the evening of either Tuesday, June 3, or Wednesday, June 4. If that works for anyone, let me know, and we’ll make more concrete plans.

The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

Kaye Grogan v 2.0?

its not a strawman. I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian.

Every Hillary supporter in this thread has said almost the exact same things verbatim.

DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!

Thus, just about any criticism of Obama is met with an attack on Clinton — and on ‘the messenger’. Obama-groupthink evolved because his supporters could not respond to criticism of Obama with a positive argument, because there wasn’t one — at least one that didn’t apply to Clinton as well.

Correntwire is full of attacks on Obama and on the messenger, far more so than this place or DKos or quite frankly any other blog I’ve seen wrt Clinton. So your protestations come off as a little silly and contrived.

I’ll need to check my schedule, Marita.

sorry… may have missed a comma in there.

520 Comments? Five fucking hundred twenty fucking comments!?interrobangtothenthpower!

Sure I slept in but seriously now. I’m going to go get some lunch and hope for a new thread.

Sorry to be so specifics on dates and locale Toby, but there’s an insane amount of other stuff going on that week. If you know what I mean…

I’m going to go get some lunch and hope for a new thread.

It’s been pretty entertaining for me. I’m happy with it. I don’t think I mentioned it before but there’s a fine piece of writing at the top of it.

God, how fucking naive can we be? Oh wait, I can’t call Obama naive because that would be playing the race card!!!

I’m curious. Why do people always complain that they aren’t allowed to say the thing they just said?

Wow I try and take a break from the stupid and, well, it just gets worse.

1. Hillary can’t win. In fact, if you have been paying attention to things like delegate math and the rate of additions of the supers this has been clear since February. Pointing this out and wondering what she and her supporters are accomplishing is not the same thing as “why won’t the bitch quit?”

2. It is fundamentally stupid to demand things of Obama that your own candidate has failed to do. If Hillary was our last hope of a progressive president, then maybe she should have, I don’t know, made that the focus of her campaign and not Rev. Wright, elitism, “I got more white votes,” and the ever elusive “electability.”

3. The gas tax. We’ve discussed this before: a) To save the $30 that feeds you with Ramen in a month, you would have to spend $170 a month on gas. b) It does nothing for poor people without cars an awfully elitist sentiment c) Gas prices are likely to rise more than 18 cents, thus its mitigating a loss and not a real savings d) it is not a long term solution etc, etc.

4. As a Hillary supporter, do you feel that you can offer anything constructive now given that she can’t win? If so, what and what will your candidate do (seeing as she is a sitting US senator) to help? If not, well, what is the point of all this other than “We didn’t win, so we’re going home!”

If you vote Republican you’ll have to pay for Jonah Goldberg’s beers and listen to him tell you about the time Ann Coulter felt him up

It’s not as exciting as it sounds. He never let her take his bra off.

Maybe I don’t Marita. Is that week a wedding or something?

I think I recall p_lukasiak from years past at salon tabletalk discussing the Bush draft dodging. He was pretty sane then.

liberalrob, the reason people are getting pissed with on a thread that began with an appeal “why can’t we all just get along” is the absolute refusal of Hillary backers to discuss any points raised by the “Obamabots” in good faith.

actually, Rob, the real problem is that the thread is premised on a falsehood (that Clinton supporters are unaware of Clinton’s flaws). Thus, what pretends to be an “olive branch” is really an attack.

the other problem, of course, is that Obama supporters insist on their own framing, This contradicts the premise behind the final question that was asked (“Or to turn things out and attempt to be a little more gracious, what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?”),

You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

Obama can’t do that…. and as we’ve seen here on this thread, neither can his supporters. So instead of the thread being about “what Obama and his supporters need to do”, you get a thread that is personified by the kind of comment that “ifthethunderdog” provided in response to you.

I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it. Maybe I missed those people in the deluge of groupthink here,… and if there are some non-Obots, I certainly do want to apologize to them.

Iris at 20:11

Either Iris took five tabs of acid this morning and now she’s peaking or that’s a fake Iris.

If the latter, nicely done.

What kind of fucking republican troll are you iris? I’m just curious.

I don’t get this entire debate. It’s like being stuck in a return behind some privileged, self-centered fuckstick who demands to get what they want even though it’s clearly not going to happen, it’s not right and they don’t care who else waits while they have they fucking tantrum. They’re damn well going to have it.

When iris said she would stay home rather than vote for Obama, I knew it was a troll. Or someone really, really fucking stupid.

So I’m sticking with troll.

Burn some more incense for me, RB.

I gotta go back to work. I mean be creative and drink some lattes.

You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

as someone wise once said:

pffffffffffffffffffffft

Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama.

It’s pretty clear that people like Lukasiak have mentally checked out, know Hillary is going to lose, and are just looking to score points by calling people “obots” while crossing their fingers and hoping for Republican victory.

I love how Hillary is supposedly the most progressive candidate evar!, yet somehow the Hillary supporters are fine with a McCain victory. The hell?

Neither of these people has accomplished much in the Senate, neither has shown leadership on the issues, and neither is terribly progressive. Get real.

I mean attacks from the left, of course.

p_luk, you DO realize that under HRC’s plan, the gas companies would just raise their prices, right?

Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama.

Yeah, you hear that kind of thing a lot. It’s almost never accompanied by any examples, though.

You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

Interesting. When Obama tries to do that very thing with independent and Republican voters, he’s attacked for not being partisan enough.

Incidentally, white working class voters support both candidates. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton had a bigger lead among that demographic, but it’s simply false to say that working class white people don’t support Obama. Many do.

Psst… Toby… check your facebook messages…

“You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters?”

Because the other guy is black. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Earlier upthread you questioned John Cole’s credibility because he was once a republican.

Not that I really care what some jackass commenter cares about my credibility, but you know, I think my actions speak for themselves. I have helped to raise almost 20k for the Democratic candidate. I am volunteering for the likely Democratic nominee. I have gone door to door for the almost certain Democratic nominee. I am, in an hour, walking down to the campaign HQ to phone bank for another three hours today for the Democratic candidate, even though this is the busiest damned time of the year for me. I will, in all likelihood, continue to do so throughout November.

Why?

Not because I hate Hillary Clinton, but because beating John McCain is that god damned important. I don’t know how I establish my street cred with some of you folks, and nor do I really care, but I am thinking my actions are probably a little more important in the big scheme of things than constructing internet arguments displaying my loyalty to the Democratic Party. Truth be told, I am probably not that loyal to the Democratic party- if they start acting like total wankers like the GOP, and I will leave you in a minute, too.

Beating John McCain is what counts. It really is that simple. If you want to to continue the same hideous economic policies that brought us an almost half-trillion dollar annual deficit (but hey, McMavericky Straight Talk might cut 2 billion in earkamrks!), vote for McCain or sit out because Hillary did not win. You want the shit in Iraq to continue, as is, ad infinitum, vote for McCain or sit out because Hillary was the victim if sexist attacks from Chris Matthews. If you want Ruth Bader and others replaced with Clarence Thomas #2 and #3, vote for John McCain or sit out.

I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. If you sit out or vote McCain, you are part of the problem. Period.

As to Clinton, do I hate her now? Yeah. And that probably is in part due to my baggage from being a Gooper fool in the 90’s. However, when I left the GOP and joined the Democrats last October, Hillary was Mrs. Inevitable. It was a foregone conclusion I would be voting for her. The first thing I did as a new Democrat was… DEFEND HILLARY from bullshit when people were piling on her about driver’s license for illegals. I thought Dodd and Obama pulled some bullshit there.

You remember how that ended, don’t you? She caved and left Spitzer’s dick hanging in the wind- that must have just been the fighter in her, amirite?

I only turned hard on Hillary when her campaign started acting like the Republican party I left. After the “this state doesn’t count” or the multiple layers of bullshit and direct insults to my intelligence stacked up. That is when I finally had enough. Since then, it has just gotten worse, with nonstop bullshit about Rev. Wright and how black voters aren’t as important as white voters and god knows what else.

Regardless, it does not matter. Hillary is not the candidate, Obama will be. So, you have a choice- vote for him, or enjoy the next 4 years of McSame. Your call.

…the fact that the rational “positive” reasons for supporting Obama are few and far between, and the rational reasons not to support him are more numerous…

Nice. Again. You have nothing but reasonable, logical reasons for supporting a particular candidate. Of course, anybody who came to a different conclusion is “irrational”. And yet, it is the people who prefer to support Senator Obama who are “in the tank” and “fanboys”. Man, I’m sorry to say this, but you guys woulda fit right in at the bush white house.

“We make our own reality”…

mikey

The people running for POTUS whom you’re so fervently arguing about are about two cunthairs & an angel’s-fart apart in either ideology or policy … it should now be obvious to the non-Kool-Aid-imbibers among you that you need to just STFU & pick one of them to UNITE behind, as in right now – or in another year or two you’ll be foraging for stray cats & dogs to eat in a pile of radioactive rubble, not squabbling over telecom immunity or triangulation.
You’re acting as if the clock isn’t running, but reality will happily give you a Real-Time Tutorial on that score, & you won’t have to wait long for the Exam. History doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you THINK but what you DO matters, a lot. Take a good hard look at what you ARE doing – making the GOP you had totally owned a few months back spring another woody of optimism & energy with every day that this pointless dogfight goes on – & think about the consequences for a change.

The GOP is hoping you all just keep right on bickering, as long & as bitterly as possible. It’s put tin-plate losers in the White House for them before, & it can again. They’ve been enthusiastically throwing THEIR support behind whoever’s looking weakest, right from Day One, to accomplish just that.

So why are so many of you so eager to help them?

Oh … & doesn’t the troll have a John Birch meeting to go to or something? It sounds even more autistic than usual, & is obviously both OT & talking to nobody but itself. Sucks to be you, haamster.

This whole “white/working class” thing is pretty terrifying to me. Apparently we’ve descended into full-bore volkism in this country, and the working class is entirely white. Obama’s broad support among black workers is evidence that he doesn’t appeal to the working class. What the fuck is going on here? Why are Democrats so obsessed with a demographic which is going to break hard for McCain, anyway?

I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it.

Ok, what are your terms?

actually, Rob, the real problem is that the thread is premised on a falsehood (that Clinton supporters are unaware of Clinton’s flaws).

YOU’RE THE FREAKING GUY WHO SAID OBAMA SHOULD COME DOWN HARDER ON THE TELECOMS WHILE IGNORING THAT HILLARY HAD DONE EVEN LESS.

THAT WAS YOU.

She caved and left Spitzer’s dick hanging in the wind

Well, to be fair, Spitzer’s dick…no, never mind.

Secret for you: DKos isn’t running for president. They get exactly zero influence. No cabinet posts, no ambassadorships, no court appointments. The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

well, since you at least seem to be aware that DKos is scary, I’ll just point out that my reason for sitting November out has nothing to do with Obama’s supporters — its about Obama and his campaign’s efforts to not merely demonize Clinton using Republican frames, but going well beyond the pale with the ‘Clintons are racists” stuff.

My description of the Kos diary incident was merely illustrative of why I use terms like “Obots”. I just explained to Liberal Rob another reason why — if I was in the shoes of Obama supporters, and Clinton looked good for the nomination, the ONE thing I’d be doing now would be listening to what the Obama supporters had to say, and trying to frame my response in a way that was consistent with their own framing. And I’d be doing that not out of respect, but because I’m smart enough to know that the candidate that I support needs their support — and the only way to get that support is to communicate with them in their own “language”.

You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

Yeah, I have to say: I may have clawed my way up to “elitist” status, but most of my family is pretty blue-collar. And they really don’t think Hillary comes across as genuine. They would vote for her against McCain, sure, but they prefer Obama, for pretty much exactly that reason.

This thread reminds me of something….

I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it. Maybe I missed those people in the deluge of groupthink here,… and if there are some non-Obots, I certainly do want to apologize to them.

God please tell me this a parody troll.

Has to be right?

…someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms…

Here, I’ll try:

Blargh blargh if Obama doesn’t win I’m not voting, I have principles and I refuse for vote for a woman who exploits race, even if it means hundreds of thousands of Iranians have to die to soothe my ego. Also Clinton sucks, she’s all sizzle and no steak. WHERE ARE THE DETAILS? I don’t see any plans, just empty talk. And all her followers are groupthinking morons who just follow the queen bee, doing whatever the hive mind tells them!! Blargh blargh!! The groupthink is both frightening and astonishing! There is no rational reason to support Clinton. Blargh!

That about right? I speaking your language now?

point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

We have been. Your terms are “All Obama supporters are mindless groupthinker Obots who are naive and stupid” and “Obama is not progressive enough, but don’t mention my preferred candidate’s progressive resume, as it is not relevant”.

Actually, although Hillary can pull some annoying stunts, I do like that we have millions of Democratic voters showing up at the later primaries. It’s kept the media focused on Democrats and has given the campaign organizations a good prep for November. I sometimes wonder if there’s been some secret pact between Clinton and Obama that neither would drop out until one won a majority of the pledged delegates.

p_lukasiak said,

May 8, 2008 at 20:10

“The “mistake” that was made in illinois was that the state lost a great deal of revenue as a result of the tax holiday, and that created serious budget problems. Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.”

———————————————————————————-

Please explain how Hillary gets the windfall profits tax on oil companies passed with GWB as President? Maybe you have a RISK analogy to share with us that will make it crystal clear? I’ll wait.

If my candidate was losing ground and I had to think about supporting the other candidate, I think rather than listen to the other candidates rabid nut-case supporters, I’d listen to the sensible one.

To make a judgement about a candidate based on their most insane supporters over which they have no control is …. insane.

Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama

Yeah, you hear that kind of thing a lot. It’s almost never accompanied by any examples, though.

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Daily. For weeks.

YOU’RE THE FREAKING GUY WHO SAID OBAMA SHOULD COME DOWN HARDER ON THE TELECOMS WHILE IGNORING THAT HILLARY HAD DONE EVEN LESS.

THAT WAS YOU.

and? You seem to think that I don’t know that Clinton’s record has been inadequate on telecom immunity.

but you know what? If Clinton was in Obama’s position right now, I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue — because I think that she would need to establish that she is aware of, and concerned about, issues that concern Obama’s progressive supporters.

What I wouldn’t be doing is using all caps to scream at someone who supports Clinton but never said that Clinton was even good on telecom immunity, and raised the issue of telecom immunity as a way that Obama could reach progressive Clinton supporters.

the other problem, of course, is that Obama supporters insist on their own framing,

Newsflash: Obama’s frame is now the frame. Hillary did not win.

You only win by getting 2209 delegates

Iris, how much are you getting paid to do this? Enough to pay for the daily faxes?

my reason for sitting November out has nothing to do with Obama’s supporters — its about Obama and his campaign’s efforts to not merely demonize Clinton using Republican frames

Listen, my man, you were called out earlier to provide specifics and you refused. You were called out earlier to address Hillary’s performance on O’Reilly and with Scaife and you refused.

So don’t give me this.

Screw it. I don’t care if you sit out. In fact, vote for McCain. Marry his daughter. Don’t care, don’t care. You’re a hack. A shill. You refuse to even consider changing your mind, and you refuse to address some pretty thorough smackdowns of your spin. Get lost.

Here’s a difference.

Senator Obama has been working to help Dems across the country not just in the “States that matter”. It has meant a lot of meeting with local party leaders and all the volunteers. In places that hadn’t had a visit from any Presidential campaign in decades. Senator Clinton really only began to make the rounds when it was forced upon her.
Who will feel more energized to help? Work harder?

When I have to make a choice between the ‘lesser of two evils’ I try check out how they go about accomplishing their goals. Senator Obama has worked hard trying to bring everyone along on his coat-tails.

I like that. I like that a lot more than seeing a campaign based on winning a small portion of the population.

One says “we’re in this together” the other says “I’m in this for the votes”.

And now that its almost assuredly a done deal (crossedfingers) I woulda voted for Senator Clinton if came down to it.

Also, as someone who wouldn’t vote for either Democrat in the primary with Armando’s dick, I think I’m a qualified dispassionate observer, so:

Point: Clinton and her supporters have been subject to unacceptable sexist attacks from both Democratic and Republican opponents, and the media as a whole.

Point: Obama and his supporters have been subject to unacceptable racist attacks from both Democratic and Republican opponents, and the media as a whole.

Point: Clinton and Obama are both deranged right-wing hawks; for every “obliterate Iran” there’s a “the political problems in the Middle East are caused by radical Islam, not American policy.”

Point: Clinton supporters, by and large, did not arrive at that position for racist reasons.

Point: Obama supporters, by and large, did not arrive at that position for sexist reasons.

Point: Some Clinton supporters have, in fact, levied racist arguments or rhetoric against Obama. It is not unfair for Obama supporters to protest this.

Point: Some Obama supporters have, in fact, levied sexist arguments or rhetoric against Clinton. It is not unfair for Clinton supporters to protest this.

Conclusion: At this point, both Clinton and Obama supporters need to wipe the blood and spit out of their eyes, shake hands, kick the bigots out of ther ranks, and focus on getting beaten by McCain in November.

I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue

Yeah right.

What I wouldn’t be doing is using all caps to scream at someone who supports Clinton but never said that Clinton was even good on telecom immunity, and raised the issue of telecom immunity as a way that Obama could reach progressive Clinton supporters.

So you want Obama to reach progressive supporters on an issue that Hillary didn’t reach them on.

You make little sense.

And for what it’s worth, I wish Obama would be more vocal about the telecoms. Because it’s the right thing to do. Not because it would somehow appease (yeah right, again) hacks like you.

effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

One of those terms being that she’s in the race and all?

And all her followers are groupthinking morons who just follow the queen bee, doing whatever the hive mind tells them!!

Guh Guh GASP!!! RandomObserver is a sexist!!!

Now I am DEFINATELY voting for McCain!

What are you Clinton supporters going to do when she inevitably moves to support Obama to unite the party?

I think Clinton is smart enough not to let John McCain win. IfWhen Obama’s the nominee, she’s going to work to help get him elected – I can’t see her standing back and doing nothing and I certainly can’t see her being a spoiler and actively working to deep six the Democratic nominee. You admire this woman so much now – why would you refuse to follow her then?

effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

Entitlement, finely honed.

but you know what? If Clinton was in Obama’s position right now, I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue — because I think that she would need to establish that she is aware of, and concerned about, issues that concern Obama’s progressive supporters.

Either (1) she should do it anyway, because it’s the right thing to do regardless of whose progressive supporters she might win over; or (2) she would be better served to find an issue in Obama’s platform that wasn’t in hers. Telecom immunity, sadly, isn’t big on the list for either of them, although Obama did at least vote against it when they had the chance. Since there’s hardly any difference in their platforms, there really aren’t any issues for “Obama’s progressive supporters” that aren’t also issues for “Clinton’s progressive supporters.”

So really, they should both “get their asses to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue” – not because they need to make a gesture to the Other Candidate’s supporters, but because it’s the right thing to do and would appeal to “progressive supporters” of every candidate.

I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it.

Here goes: I can understand how someone who is in the bag for Senator Clinton can come to S,N! or Daily Kos or Obsidian Wings and get enraged at all the criticism and snark directed toward their candidate. Likewise, every time I pay a visit to No KKKuarter or Corrente or TalkLeft, I lose a little more faith in my fellow Democrats.

But here’s my deal: The Party Is Bigger Than The Candidates. At the end of this nomination process, I will vote for whomever comes out on top because I’m a Democrat, not an Obaman or an Clintonian. What the Democratic Party does in state races, in House races and in Senate races is more important to me than which one of DLC 2.0 (Obama) or Old School DLC (Clinton) ends up running for President.

My question to you and those who are as committed to Senator Clinton as you are is this: Why are you more committed to the Candidate than the Party?