home

The Stakes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum writes:

Atrios:

The campaigns and candidates themselves may not get nasty, but I get the sense that supporters of the various candidates are getting angrier at the other camp. Sure a lot of this is just relatively harmless virtual world internet flaming, but it has real world manifestations too.

This has sort of taken me by surprise too. I'm reminded of the old saying that the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the battle. Obama and Clinton are obviously different in some important ways, but overall there just aren't any huge gaps between them, either in ideology or governing theory. . . . I confess that I have a hard time understanding the level of vitriol that the race has produced among supporters on both sides. . . .

Yep. On the flip, I will show you what I mean.

NOTE Comments closed.

Who s the DLC candidate? The DLC President Al From says it is Barack Obama:

What [Obama] has done is he has certainly taken a good part of the strategy we have articulated over the years,” Mr. From said. “Which is to not polarize, but try to unite and build a coalition that understands that a Democratic victory is a coalition.”

Mr. From said Mr. Obama had an intellectual, and not just tactical, connection to the D.L.C. “I mean his chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is our think tank,” he said.

Mr. From said that he would not be so presumptuous as to call Mr. Obama the purest D.L.C. politician out there. But he nevertheless believes Mr. Obama has adopted whole-cloth the approach to winning elections that he and his cohorts had long advocated. He said Mr. Obama belonged to the group that had, despite “all the screaming and yelling and the blogs,” chosen the D.L.C. approach to the more partisan beat-‘em-in-50-states philosophy advocated by Howard Dean.

“There has sort of been a choice in the Democratic Party politics, particularly in the last four or five years,” said Mr. From. “A lot of people think that the way the Democrats ought to operate is to mirror Karl Rove. Go off to the other side and hammer him. Just talk to the Democratic voters because there are more of them out there and they will put you over the top.

See the stakes?

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Rezko Jury Selected: Opening Arguments Tomorrow | FL And MI Governors Demand Plan To Seat Delegates: >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Stakes | 216 comments (216 topical)
    I dont mean they can wave a magic wand (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    or something.  but ultimately, at the end of all this, the losing candidate is going to have to come out hard for the winner and tell their supporters in no uncertain terms that they have to STFU and vote for the democrat.  "or you are no supporter of mine"
    or words to that effect
    This is what happens (5.00 / 21) (#7)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    when a party bases itself on identity politics. At some point the identities clash, and you see how fragile the coalition always was. I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner.

    Everytime Obama faces a setback, even a small one, the accusations of racism fly as predictable as clockwork. Kos is in full meltdown over this right now, accusing Hillary of blackening Obama's face. He can't let it go. He has become a total laughingstock, and some of his supporters seem genuinely dangerous.

    its the same at americablog (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    but dipping into the comments it seems that the opinion is not as uniform as it was just a week or so ago.
    cracks are forming.  I think the nutsie racist stuff is making people uncomfortable.
    duh.


    Parent
    Avarosis has lost it (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    "She said it three more times in the past day. Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee? And what the hell does our party plan to do on stopping this train wreck? She can't win, it's over, she doesn't have the delegates and can't get the delegates."

    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    I think you've said more about race than anyone I know outside of Limbaugh.  I hardly see it at all on the official Obamablogs.

    Parent
    What's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST
    Are you calling me a racist? Based on what? Discussing race?

    Obviously you feel the need to bring attention to me personally here for some reason, so please follow through with your insinuation.

    Be as specific as you feel you need to be and the moderators will let you know if it's appropriate commentary for this site.

    Parent

    I don't think you're racist (none / 0) (#47)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    I do think you're preoccupied with race. You bring up valid points sometimes, but you comment on it more frequently than most.

    Parent
    Stay on topic please (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jim J on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    I'm done with getting suckered into race-baiting arguments. That's why I left dKos, I ain't gonna keep making the same mistake here. Good day, sir.

    Parent
    I'd just like to see (none / 0) (#77)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    more substantive arguements than this.  I don't approve of what DK is doing either.

    Parent
    Hardly see it at all? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    If you hardly see anything on race at the offical Obamablogs, then you are definitely not looking. Come on.

    Parent
    What this misses about identity politics (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    is that we always have had only one identity from which to select: a white, male identity. Seriously. I do not bring this up to start another long series of bashing or joshing. I bring this up to suggest that there are issues in this campaign that must not fit within BTD's frame of "ideology or governing theory." But they are within some voters' frames, the governing ideologies of race and gender in this country that have had immense impact on their lives. It may be more about the voters' experiences than about either candidate's experience. Maybe it always is. But it ought not be dismissed or ignored -- or if so, only at our peril. We are the party that has put forward, for the first time, serious candidates who differ from all other serious candidates for the presidency for more than two centuries. Did we think it was going to be easy, did we really think that Dems had solved race and gender issues in this country or even in our party? If so, Dems weren't listening then . . . and if they continue to not listen now, we may lose. Or we may win, but at what cost? Is that what Dems do, talk big about race and gender not mattering, when they clearly do? Or do we, as SNL says, learn to "deal with it"? For a start, we talk about rather than pretend that our candidates are not perceived by some voters as quite different for these reasons.

    Parent
    I accept your point (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    MY point is that on the issues - other than mandates, there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.

    As for who is more capable, that is subjective.

    Almost all of my critiques of the candidates have to do with their political style, an issue reasonable people can disagree about.

    My vitriol is directed at the Media mostly, and the blogs, for abandoning their principles re: Fighting Dems.

    Parent

    Thanks, but I think I still must need (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    to make this more clear:  

    Race and gender ARE issues, and central issues, to many voters.  And there are differences between the two Dem candidates on these issues.  And they are differences that, forgive me for saying so but I do so with the best intent in furthering this discourse . . . they are differences that may seem only stylistic to some observers but are issues resonating as substantive to many voters.

    And this may be one of the big "misses" by many blogs that were supposed to be so progressive on these issues, among others.   So this actually may be supporting your argument about Dem principles.  

    But then, it was clear to me and many others some time ago that some major Dem bloggers were throwing some of those Dem principles under the bus.  And among those were principles, for example, relating to civil rights and reproductive rights.  And those also were dismissed as, in so many words, identity politics.

    And that is a dangerous thing to do, dismissing voter's self-definitions as just dumb.  Winning candidates and parties connect with voters' self-definitions.  

    Parent

    So You Support (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    [white] Men voting for men because of gender? Isn't that type of identity politics what has kept us in the dark ages, so to speak.

    I always get confused when an oppressed person gets power and acts just like the oppressor. You would think being the underdog would make a person bigger.

    Parent

    Gosh, how did I miss that -- you're so right (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    that it's white men who have the choice this time, at long last, to not vote for a white man. Really, do read what I said and think about it before replying this time. And btw, white men who want to vote for someone that looks like them, if they vote that way as they say, will have McCain. Think about that, too. It always has been about identity politics; that is not a new term -- but it has been about the identities of the voters by race, gender, religion, and more. Remember "soccer moms"? Remember how will Jews vote regarding our stance on Israel? Remember the "black bloc" that was credited with winning it for JFK? It's just that this time, it's about the race and gender of the candidates, too.

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#232)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST
    Really, do read what I said and think about it before replying this time

    Sorry to get your knickers in a twist, but I did read what you wrote and have been thinking about the issue for the last 30 years or more.

    You are free to pride yourself on voting along gender lines for the sake of identity politics. It seems regressive to justify your position on the fact that other's have been doing it forever.

    It is also not news to me that a woman could overturn Roe just as easily as a man. And an AA could turn back the clock on civil rights just as easily as a white.

    And yes this year is historic. We have two candidates who represent the other, so to speak. I think that is great and welcome the change. But if either of them were typical GOPers Bushlicjers I would not even give them the time of day.

    Sounds like you would though, based on identity politics.

    Parent

    Except for mandates is like saying except for Iraq (none / 0) (#215)
    by desert dawg on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    As universal health care is the lynchpin of a progressive reclamation of the New Deal values that Reagan/Bush have just about killed,  that's a big, big difference.

    And how about his voting for the tort "reform's" class action bill--which she didn't vote for?

    Parent

    We are so set up for (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    the winner-loser metric in this country; we start kids off in sports as soon as they can walk, parents compete to get their kids into the best pre-schools, school is all about being at the top of the pile.  There's competition for slots in the best colleges, there's professional sports, and American Idol and America's Next Top Model, and all the rest of the drivel on TV.  Now we have the added elements of race and gender, which have stirred up some very positive things, but have also tapped into people's history and the country's history, and it's all been dumped into the contest that decides who the next president will be - along with all the emotion and whatever other baggage we have.

    The good news-bad news about the length of the contest, which no one imagined would still be going at this point, is that on the one hand we are getting a lot of time to know these candidates and what their strengths and weaknesses are, but on the other hand, we are getting very invested in the one we have chosen to support.  It's hard to let go of that desire for "our" candidate to win, so that we can see the real finish line that awaits the nominee.  

    As a former Edwards supporter who never in a million years imagined voting for Hillary in a primary, I have notice in myself a hardening of my reasons why I now support her and not Obama, and I see that and hear it from others, too.

    I absolutely agree that it will, in some measure, be up to the person who does not get the nomination to take an immediate role as the chief cheerleader for the one who does: that's where the healing will start.  In the meantime, there really ought to be someone making a concerted and organized effort to keep people's eyes and minds on where we want to be the morning after the election - if the DNC had not already made a mess of what they are supposed to be doing, I would see this as their responsibility, but I almost would like them to stay the hell out of it before it gets any worse.


    Parent

    I just saw the same thing at (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    americablog. They are going nuts!!! They are claiming Hillary is "endorsing" mccain and the people there believe it. It is so ludicrous. Imagine if he loses the nom- some of these people scare me.

    Parent
    They are going nuts!!! (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    I would say that would be affirmative.
    he has been in a steep downward spiral the last couple of weeks.


    Parent
    If I was a candidate, (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    ..I'd have to think twice about posting diaries there anymore.

    Parent
    Jim J, I agree with you, but (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    I disagree with the premise of the editorial, about there being an equivalent "level of vitriol...among supporters on both sides".

    It's abundantly clear that the media has been far more vitriolic toward Hillary (as documented by Media Matters and others).

    That higher level of vitriol is also reflected within the ranks of Obama supporters.

    I posted on it downstream...

    Parent

    Should Netroots Nation up its (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    security?

    Parent
    what do you mean? (none / 0) (#222)
    by Klio on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    why do you ask this?

    Parent
    This is a parochial response (none / 0) (#54)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    It may reflect what's on some blogs -- don't know, don't read 'em -- but it does not reflect what's going on in the campaign at large.  Neither the Obama campaign nor the media has raised the issue of race since South Carolina.

    Parent
    media and the issue of race (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    I don't think that's true.  Nearly every political analyst will speak of the likelyhood of an Obama win by stating the % of blacks in the total electorate.  They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't.  They also bring up the % of women in the electorate, and the % of voters over 60.
    Or do you mean where they attribute some statement made to a charge of racism?

    Parent
    I think it's precisely (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    because they're so similar, honestly. It leaves very little actual substance to argue over, so everybody gets into this parsing of the tiniest, weirdest crap.

    Personally, I'm fine with either candidate -- neither is exactly my cup of tea, but I think either one will be perfectly acceptable. But the supporters are so worked up at this point that they're IMO looking for reasons to be horribly, horribly offended.

    Kos's front page post today on the charge of Obama being "Blackened" in an ad is a new low for him, and plays right into that "looking for offense" problem. I've had a lot of problems with him in the past -- I remember the original pie war, and the dirty hippie war, and plenty of others -- but I didn't think even he would delve into that pile of BS for the sake of riling the masses. That's a very dangerous game, IMO, a thing people won't calm from easily, and I hope it doesn't bite us all in the behind later.

    I don't think it's the candidates (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by AF on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    Obama could hardly have run a softer campaign and Hillary's attacks have been mostly within bounds.

    I think it's a combination of (1) cultural, generational, and demographic splits, (2) the low standards of courtesy and respect taht exist on the Internet (present company excepted), and(3) justified rage at the Republicans being misdirected toward Democrats.

    I believe it also (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    has to do with the fact that many Obama supporters have never been involved in a political race before.
    they dont have a clue what happens in one.


    Parent
    And its the flip side (none / 0) (#144)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    of their idealism and devotion. I swear its almost like a football game to some of them. Win!!!! Lose!!!! Score!!! Kill.

    Parent
    Uhhh (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    Wasn't atrios talking about candidates supporters on both sides?

    Guess so..

    Parent

    Hmm...what I find actuall more unsettling (none / 0) (#202)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    is those that HAVE been through this before but are acting as if its the first time. The young folks have an excuse...and frankly their excitement is understandable, a young dreamer who makes them feel empowered...thats understandable. The hate-spewing from the 24+ers is revolting, and completely without any sort of excuse or reason...(both sides, one side more often however)

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST
    the candidates themselves have mostly been very good, IMO, at least so far. A few low blows, but nothing terrible -- much nicer than most of the close contests I've seen.

    I agree with your list, too, but would add two things -- one, a visceral hatred in parts of the left of all things Clinton (I watched this develop in the late 90's, and while I agree with much of the criticism, the degree of the hatred is out of proportion IMO), and two, a general anti-establishment feeling on the left blogs that has, fairly or no, been translated almost entirely on to Clinton's campaign (even though frankly I find both candidates to come from roughly the same school of thought, politically).

    Parent

    On the blogs vs. not on the blogs. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    Many, many of my friends and colleagues voted for Obama but none of them read or comment on blogs.  They are firm in their choice, but accept mine.  Big difference from reading some of the blogs, unfortunately.

    Parent
    it is true (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    blogs are, without a doubt, the cookoos nest

    Parent
    It's all about the damned (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    DLC and who's going to hold power over the Dem Party for the next 8 years.

    Parent
    I will amplify (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    This is about where the money will get funnelled.

    I know this isn't about an issue (say, Mercenaries), because they have abandonned all that.  We know that for sure.


    Parent

    Didn't Bill create the DLC? (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    He was the DLC candidate....

    Parent
    Bill and the DLC (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by liminal on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    Bill did not create the DLC.  He's a member, but he wasn't their favorite candidate back in 1992, as he is slightly to the left on a number of issues.  The 1992 DLC's favorite-sons were, say, Sam Nunn, and the other centrist Democrats who undercut Clinton's more liberal tendencies and forced him to accept half-measures like DADT.  Clinton would have gone for full integration of the military without folks like Nunn undercutting him.  Ugh.  That's why I always get a chuckle when some anti-DLCer on dailykos touts Sam Nunn as a good running mate for Obama.  

    Parent
    Sure was (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    Yes.  That is true.


    Parent
    Not just Bill (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    Al Gore too.

    Parent
    Howard Dean was on the DLC too (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama supporters (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    Started it.  And you know what?  I'm serious.

    I still believe the campaign kicked off with Geffen calling the Clintons liars, and Obama shrugging his shoulders smiling saying "Who me?"

    I can't say it wouldn't have gotten like this with or without that.  

    That's just my first memory of this campaign.  That was when I started in, dug in, and learned how to hate myself.

    I agree with that (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    The anti-Clinton fervor was clearly first.

    Parent
    Anti-Clinton movement (none / 0) (#36)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    predates Obama.

    Parent
    Sort of my point (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    But its existence in the firmaments of the Dem Party is of fairly recent vintage, brought by Obama supporters.

    It has led to Obama hate among Dems. Not as prevalent but now a real phenomenon.

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#145)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    ...there was anti-Clinton sentiment among progressives and liberals throughout the 1990s.  Not something brought in by Obama supporters, so much as something re-invigorated by the contest.

    Parent
    Fits me. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST


    Parent
    But he and his supporters (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    Have embraced it.  And what's more, more than one of them has admitted to me that they knew they would have never had a chance without embracing it.

    Which is, in effect, selling their candidate short.

    He has built a movement.  He does have an awesome ground game.

    Not sure he needed this.


    Parent

    He is a pol (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    trying to win. It is not his job to make people act like grownups about him.

    Parent
    Whew (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    Sure.  Whatever.

    I find that to be a lame excuse, even if it is true.

    Why do I get the feeling it would be thought of as Clinton's job to make people act like grownups about her?

    I do know the Clinton campaign has let some people go on this issue.  Fired them.

    Right before Geffen made his comments some Clinton supporters from South Carolina or somewhere made some asinine comments about Obama's electability and she had them apologize.  They apologized.

    I have never heard one apology from the Obama camp.

    So I must conclude they've been perfect.

    Of course.

    Parent

    Not by me (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    Pols are pols. Their interests are NOT yours.

    Pols are there to be pressured.

    Parent

    At no point does a politician ever do something (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    Cause it's right??


    Parent
    DeLay left (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:34:15 PM EST
    but that was because everyone else thought it was right.

    Parent
    If the hypothesis (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    Is that the only thing different about our politicians and DeLay is that our politicians get pressure from different groups of people, I hope I can disagree.

    Clinton has been under enormous to make some sort of apology about her AUMF vote.  There is no known pressure group anyone can name saying she shouldn't.  Yet.  She has decided not to.

    I'm going to make the self-serving statement that firing some of her staff (for spreading crap about Obama) or making some of her supporters apologize was also something that she did cause she thought it was right.

    Now everyone can call that self-serving.

    But I'll stick to it.

    Parent

    I'll top you (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:45 PM EST
    Clinton took off from campaigning two days before the most important primary of her life, ditched the press corps and attended the funeral of the officer who was killed while working her motorcade.

    Parent
    One of the main reasons I support Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    is because I think she will do what she thinks is right, in the face of opposition.  Thats character.


    Parent
    Pressure Exists (none / 0) (#163)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    It's reductive to think it's the only thing that exists.


    Parent
    If a qualification for being successful (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    as a politician were that you had to get people to be nice about you, we'd be in a Dick Lugar administration.

    Parent
    Oh boy (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    There are limits.

    If my point is just something that's going to be caricatured as such, I should probably just bow out now before exiling myself from yet one more blog.

    There's no absolutes here.  Yes.  Pressure exists.


    Parent

    This is one of the more prescient things (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    I've seen written about politics.

    Parent
    Just a d*mn minute. What happened (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    to the campaign responsible for words of surrogate stuff?

    Parent
    Do you mean that you (none / 0) (#135)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:49:47 PM EST
    yourself now hate or that you hate your own self?

    If people are mad at Hillary or Obama because some of their supporters are immature or ignorant, I'd suggest taking a deep, cleansing breath.

    Anonymous internet posting encourages over-the-top responses.  Most of this type of posting is intended to upset people rather than to discuss an issue.

    Of course, we'll always argue that the other side started it.

    Advocate for your candidate; don't get drawn into arguments from vitriolic posters, call others on weak arguments and make sure your own arguments are well sourced.

    Ignore the idiots.

    Parent

    I hope you're right (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    But I fear that the hatred is far more widespread than just on these internet sites. This morning, I listened to call-in radio in Chicago and the callers were all filled with Hillary hate -- calling for her to drop out, making wild accusations of racism, and consistently saying that black voters will not vote for her in the fall now period. Then there is the stuff you hear on TV as well.

    This is a truly disheartening democratic primary. I deplore that it has become so racially divisive among democrats especially. This is why I'm so upset with Kos today - he is whipping this up even more and that just can't be good for us.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    There should have been a comma before myself.

    And it's not what Geffen saying what he said, it's Obama rendering himself powerless to say anything about it.

    So note that I am making a judgment about Obama based on Obama's action here, not on Geffen's action here.


    Parent

    I get it.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    I said it once I'll say it again.  Politics is no better than the WWF.  If you like Hulk Hogan, you have to hate Big John Stud...it's in the rulebook.

    LOL (none / 0) (#81)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Minor correction (none / 0) (#171)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    The WWF is the World Wildlife Fund.

    The funny guys in spandex are the WWE.


    Parent

    I actually don't think (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    that the majority of primary voters are like this.  Don't we see poll after poll saying that 70% (or maybe even more) of democratic primary voters have positive views of both candidates?  My bet is that the vitriol really is restricted pretty much to the partisans whose views are magnified by the blogosphere.

    I guess the only problem I have with the Atrios/Drum view is that it takes on a bit of high-broderist "pox on both your houses" attitude.  Is it really so?  The Clinton crowd seems to be saying that as long as the race is pretty much 50/50, and there are elections in front of us, the race should continue.  The Obama crowd seems to be saying that since the race is essentially 50/50, one side (and by coincidence, this always seems to be the Clinton side) should stand down.  Are these two positions really equal?

    According to Huff Post, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    exit polls showed people are dissatisfied with both Dem. candidates.  Lesser of two evils, I gather.

    Parent
    That's not what I saw in exits (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:04 PM EST
    I'll go look at them again, but that seems exactly opposite what I thought I saw in exits. It looked to me like most people were satisfied with both.

    Parent
    Here we go (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    from the CNN exit of TX, just for example:

    Would you be satisfied...

    Only if Clinton wins    28%
    Only if Obama wins      24%
    If either wins          42%
    Dissat. with both        4%

    That's pretty consistent with what I've seen in exits all along. The hardcore supporters are worked up, but Democratic primary voters in general seem happy with the candidates, and few are as dissatisfied with both as I am (actually, I would have answered this question "either", I'm not that dissatisfied, really).

    Parent

    If that's true (none / 0) (#39)
    by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    it flies in the face of most other polls I've seen.  Of course, it also depends on how the question is asked.  

    Parent
    Dissatisfaction (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    Also Fox News (yes, it's sad) had a poll on last night that said the dissatisfaction had taken a large jump with the latest exit polls.

    Parent
    No, they are not (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by annabelly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    You rarely see a Clinton supporter threaten to boycott a Dem campaign in November, and you certainly don't see any of her supporters making paranoid accusations like kos made today about race. There are a few ardent HRC supporters, but there are a million Obamatons online trashing HRC every chance they get, the GE be damned. I know it's because a bunch of them are new and inexperienced, but they're barking is getting old, and I'd like to see the Obama campaign slap a muzzle on some of them.

    Parent
    I said almost the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    the other day and was quicly corrected by Obama haters.


    Parent
    Ah, back to agreeing with BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    Much nicer.

    This trend of supporters demonizing the competition is disturbing, and I fear it may play a very negative role on Democratic chances in November if allowed to continue all the way to the convention. We're all Democrats and hatchets will be buried in due course, but 3 months might not be long enough. Especially with the ghosts of FL and MI hanging over our heads.

    A unity ticket is a possible escape path, but even that is going to be very tricky. Clinton won bragging rights yesterday, but the delegate count barely budged. Barring some kind of massive surprise, it seems likely that Obama will go into Denver with a significant (if not decisive) delegate lead. That would suggest an Obama/Clinton ticket. But would that satisfy Clinton supporters, to say nothing of Hillary herself? The Clinton/Obama ticket would presumably be more satisfying to those parties, but how do you convince the man with the delegate lead to play second fiddle?

    We have a narrow bridge to cross.

    Emotional Appeal (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    This is what happens when emotions become the main appeal.... same thing happens with religious zealots.

    Anytime overly emotional feelings get involved... logic goes out the window.

    Balance between the emotions and logic would help.

    it is true (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    that the Obama "campaign" always seemed more like a religious movement than a political one to me.


    Parent
    Today on NPR's Day to Day, a (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    female in Philadelphia who was technically undecided stated maybe she would be for Obama if she attended a rally and was moved by him.  

    Parent
    I wouldn't necessarily characterize (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    emotions as you've done. But this is a pet peeve of mine, because emotions have gotten such a bad rap throughout history.

    I agree emotions can lead us astray, but then so can logic. I think emotions have been unjustly described  as irrational and the intellect as rational. As the philosopher Robert Nozick said, "Maybe dispassion is needed in science, but empathic emotion serves best in ethics."

    The fact is, emotions make us care about morality and ethics. Think about it: you FEEL badly for suffering; you FEEL loyalty to friends; you FEEL guilty over wrongdoings.

    Emotions are always working on us. Studies show that most of our politic decisions, for example, are based on emotions. Whether those decisions are good is another question, and we should definitely understand how emotions work on us--but emotions give us motivation and goals. Fear tactics work because they play on our worries and fears; but something like universal healthcare plays on our empathy for people who cannot afford decent care.

    My support for Hillary, while being based in many ways on policies and issues, is definitely fueled and energized because of emotions. Not because intellectually I've reasoned her to be the best. The fact that I CARE about whether she wins is because I'm emotionally invested in her.

    And I don't think that's a bad thing.

    That being said, though, fanaticism can be a terrible thing if it's not in the service of something good. And, I think the fanatical energy of some Obama supporters (and maybe Hillary supports too) would be better used if refocused elsewhere (like on specific issues rather than on persons).

    Parent

    Thank you. Emotional is not the same (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    as irrational. It is entirely possible to be both rationally in favor of a candidate -- or a cause, or a potential employee or what have you -- and emotionally moved by a candidate. Actually, I think what may have hurt us in 2004 is that we had a candidate who clearly was the rational choice but, well, he just didn't have a lot of emotional appeal. With these candidates, we've got both. So arguments about them arc from rational to emotional to rational again . . . but if we want to lose those arguments, we will just go ahead and dismiss the emotional ones as typical of, well, a particular racial group or gender. It's like trying to argue against the white guys last time who voted for Bush in part because they liked him. Why not? He seemed likeable -- and in no small part because he was like them, and they could emotionally connect with him, and then they could listen to him. And then they liked what they heard. (Okay, it turned out to be lies, but that's a different point.:-)

    Parent
    Emotions make us (none / 0) (#180)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:28 PM EST
    Irrational..... Actually

    However, it has increasingly become recognized that humans often act irrationally, as a consequence of biasing influences.

     Several have been done ...... here is oneStudy Link

    Have you ever played poker? If so, you know that some people get become very emotion when they are about to lose all their chip while other keep their cool. I've sat at many poker games where the low chip person is pushed by another player with the "bias outlook" to make an irrational play.  

    Of course there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule.

    Sen Obama presents his HOPE and CHANGE message to appeal to peoples emotions.

    Mr Benedetto de Martino, of the UCL Institute of Neurology, says: "It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased. For example, saying an operation carries an 80 per cent survival rate may trigger a different response compared to saying that an operation has a 20 per cent chance of dying from it, even though they offer exactly the same degree of risk.

    In fact, both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton ARE presenting the same platform... the presentation is the big difference.

    An operation that has 40 per cent probability of success seems more appealing than one that has a 60 per cent chance of failure.


    Parent
    I could agree (none / 0) (#223)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    that emotions make us irrational.

    But I would qualify that by saying this:

    Rationality is a series of arbitrary agreed-upon concepts designed to create and condition norms, so that everyone acts in similar and "acceptable" manner. Irrationality disrupts those concepts, allowing for new models of thought, behavior and ethics to appear.

    As such, my original point that emotions are not only helpful, they're absolutely necessary, still stands.

    Parent

    The main difference is in the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by hue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    Hillary has ran a GE campaign in the primaries, focusing on big blue states and swing states. Obama went after all of the little red states, the ones in the upper Midwest that he likely is not going to win in November.

    If Hillary carries the same states in the GE, including Florida and Michigan, she would have 263 EVs right now. Penn will put her over the top.

    With Obama's 25 states, and if you give him Michigan and Florida, he would only have 227 EVs right now.

    Who is more likely to win the same states in the GE?

    There may be something to this (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    as it sounds like the endless discussion I have with some pretty smart Dems about this damnable delegate count at essentially a tie and needing to be decided by super-d's.  It generally gets down to me saying but I want to win the White House, and so we need them to use their political experience to select the best nominee that they can see, after more votes to test them in big states and more vetting.  

    And to that and just about any other point, the inevitable answer seems to be "but, but, but Obama has won more states."  And then we circle back through the rather obvious point, I think, of which states. . . .

    Parent

    a little disingenuous.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    ...since neither candidate is likely to lose California, New York or Massachusetts.

    Also, Colorado and Missouri, among others, are crucial swing states, which Obama won.

    Parent

    Obama came in second in the big true, blue states (none / 0) (#90)
    by hue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    and wracked up a string of victories in little states that he won't win in November. Plus he lost big in Ohio.

    If we flipped your argument, then she can also win
    Colo., and Mo., when she only lost 48-49, in the GE.

    Parent

    Ohio and Florida (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    are more important, and he can't win in either.

    Parent
    Missouri (none / 0) (#198)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    The map of Clinton/Obama wins in Missouri looks alot like the map of Clinton/Obama wins in Ohio.  He wins the few urban areas and Clinton wins the rest of the state.  Missouri does not look good for Obama if Ohio does not look good for him.

    Parent
    Don't forget NJ (none / 0) (#182)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    Three days ago, Rasmussen reported Clinton 50 McCain 39, and McCain 45 Obama 43 in NJ.

    As seen on pollster.com

    NJ could be just as pivotal as Ohio or Florida this time around.


    Parent

    And you know (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    The big guys, the "A-list bloggers" really have a special responsibility that the little guys don't.    

    When they shirk this responsibilitY?  Well, they're everything they've always hated about the media.

    And the A list bloggers are pretty much all on the Obama side of things, so it's bad for Obama's name.  No wonder people like us dislike Obama because of his supporters.  They, at places like KOS, are thugs.

    Of course, what I'm saying doesn't add anything new to the conversation, just gives me the opportunity to vent ;-).

    And once again, I'l say, thank Gawl for the thugs in the A-list blogosphere.  Without their thuggery, I would never have found a whole host of new blogs I enjoy a whole lot more than I ever did theirs.

    markos (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    is all in, now. hillary wins, and daily kos is finished.

    Parent
    He still thinks (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:37 PM EST
    he's "just a guy with a blog," and every time he embraces non-credible BS, he comes closer to being just that.

    Parent
    he is, now (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    his credibility is shot.

    Parent
    Actually. . . (none / 0) (#142)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    I thought Markos's commentary improved somewhat over Texas.  That's still not a high bar, but. . .

    Parent
    the posts today (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    were inexcusable. and they tacitly give the green light to every possible smear against clinton. reality-based community, no longer.

    Parent
    Agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    There is also a big discrepancy going on over there between their trashing of Hillary's supposed insults of such and such a state doesn't matter and the vitriol directed at Ohio today. Stupid, racist, hick, un-educated, etc....I live in OH and watched the precinct maps on CNN map closely, and I was surprised how Clinton managed to carry plenty of the vote in urban areas and places where voters would be considered generally middle to upper class and highly educated. Those must be the racists I guess. Funny, because most people I talked to about this election seemed to be pretty caught up in the issues as their reason for one over the other...

    Parent
    Haven't read today. . . (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    I was thinking of last night's posts.

    Parent
    his post today (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    was the worst i've ever seen on the front page of a supposedly liberal blog.

    Parent
    kos - a new low today (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Not only was that post some puerile, evidence-free crap, it is possibly the most irresponsible thing I've seen him do thus far. I mean, really, he is just inciting people to more and more hatred with this stuff.

    You say it is evidence-free yet (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    he has posted what many would consider evidence at his site.

    HAve you watched both videos?

    The Clinton campaign denied having that ad on there website, yet when you visit the website, the ad is there.

    I've watched them both.  You can argue that the difference unintentional or accidental, but you cannot argue that there is no difference between the source material and the ad.

    Why is it that Kos is being irresponsible?  If this were a McCain ad, people could rightfully draw the same inference - that the ad maker made Obama's skin color darker.

    Parent

    crazy, race-baiting paranoia (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    What he's presented is evidence of a slight saturation hue difference between a debate video and a video of a Clinton ad. So what? The entire video of the Clinton ad has the same hue and, knowing a little about this stuff, it's probably for clarity because it is juxtaposed with the black and white text to the left.

    What he has not presented is evidence that Clinton has made an ad intentionally designed to make Obama look blacker with a wider nose as he claims.

    The racism paranoia is really over the top here. What good does this possibly serve? The only purpose for this is hatemongering.

    Parent

    you need to clean up your language (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    and attitude. that may work at kos, but this site doesn't accept that.

    Parent
    Oh dear lord (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    They de-saturated his image, its like video tricks 101 to make the other side look less appealing. Notice how she is shown in full rich brown and reds? This is standard stuff.

    Do you have any proof they intended this to be anything else? To accuse others of something based on the thinnest argument, then keep screaming it over and over remind me of....well.....republicans.

    Is this part of reaching across the aisle I hear so much about, adopting their tactics? Unity through lying?

    Geesh.

    Parent

    that is such horse crap (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    Different monitors show shades and colors differently.  This is an accepted and proven fact.  Case in point, my Macbook Air shows the TL blue darker than my iMac does.  If I am outside or the sun is shining in the window, that changes it again.

    There are true display monitors (Apple makes the best) that are calibrated according to SWOP which you can supplement or verify with something like a Spyder or a PMS Huey to exact color and grayscale, but unless you are using one of these systems, then what you see when you pull up that film clip can look very different from what I see: darker/lighter; richer/softer.  Ambient light also makes a huge difference.  LCDs vs plasma vs crt adds to the variance.

    What you are charging (to use the pun) is beyond the pale.

    Parent

    Correct -- I often watch two tv's at a time (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    or a tv screen and a videostream on my computer screen, and the difference can be striking. Just last night, flipping channels from CNN to MSNBC for the same event and on the same tv, the Clinton acceptance speech, the differences were striking in the color of her suit, her hair, and her skin, too.

    Parent
    Kathy, the tech info is a great reality check. (none / 0) (#173)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I am a geek. What can I say? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM EST


    Parent
    But it's the ad (none / 0) (#209)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM EST
    on Hillary's own website that is the darker version....How does that fit into this theory....

    My monitor, or anyone else's, would not seem to be the issue....

    A benign explanation of this would be helpful....Hillary's camp denied the ad in Kos's diary was theirs, but the version in Kos's ad looks just like the darker version on Hillary's site....

    Parent

    Often (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:22 PM EST
    candidates ads about other candidatse show them blurred, darkened, even black and white.

    If they did change the colorization, I don't think it's anything they wouldn't have done to a caucasian person.

    And, as my always wise husband points out, "The folks at KOS need to clue me in on what's wrong with being AA".  Really, does KOS actually think that the Hillary campaign feels any reason to point this obvious fact out?  

    Parent

    The Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    Was fired for darkening smoke in Beirut.

    Reuters "killed" the 'photograph' and released a statement that stated Hajj claimed to not have intentionally altered the photo but was trying to remove "dust marks".[4] Reuters did not stand by the photographer and admitted that Hajj had altered it, saying "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvenience."[5] Head of PR Moira Whittle said: "Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."[5]



    Parent
    frames don't match (none / 0) (#152)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    The frames don't match and the frame shot he put at the top of his article is clearly much darker than the one that he points out further down in his article that is from the Clinton website.

    I have no idea how clips are imbedded into another video, so I'm clueless as to whether someone has to actively change the contrast or adjust the sizing to impact the image.

    Parent

    I do adjustments all the time (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    to make something as simple as PowerPoints for my classes. It helps to make them more visible for my classrooms, with their lousy lighting -- but with larger screens than a tv screen (well, except those in sports bars). It's easy to do, it's good to do to heighten contrast, for example. Btw, news photogs always do it in darkrooms (oh no, I suppose that will be read as a racist term!) to make visuals come out better on newsprint (awful, low-contrast paper). I just don't see the deal here -- and frankly, I think he looks better in the Clinton ad, less orangey than in that weird MSNBC debate lighting.

    Parent
    I think so too (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    My personal preference is for the "darker" version. It's clearer, and appears more strident and masculine. The "lighter" one reminds me of how I feel after a case of the flue-- kinda washed out, pukey, and weak. Why would his advocates prefer a photo making him look weak and sickly?

    Parent
    But how is it wrong? (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    Do you have a link to a discussion of how Kos is wrong?

    Parent
    I think you have it backwards (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    When someone makes highly inflammatory accusations such as this, it is typically reasonable to request that it be based on some actual evidence. Customarily, one doesn't say that it is OK to make such accusations so long as they can't be proven wrong.

    Kos provided no evidence to support his claim that the Clinton campaign did this.

    Parent

    I see, you want a copy (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    of the memo signed by Penn or Hillary saying "make him darker."

    I'm not saying it was intentional.  I'm saying there is a definate difference between the source and the ad.

    Make up your own mind, but most minds are made up before hand and then we rationalize backwards to justify our initial position.

    So if you want to see racism, you'll see it, and if you want to see an over-reaction to a slight discrepency, you can see that too.

    Personally, I recognize that the color is different, but I don't know how or why.

    Could have been an accident; could have been a result of how they were creating the ad; could have been intentional on part of the ad makers themselves.

    Parent

    Joike, re. "the memo" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    Call the Canadian consulate. Maybe they have "a copy of the memo" wherein kos talks about pinning this crap on Senator Clinton.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#184)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    Anything goes, it's all just perceptions, no reality or evidence required to say or do anything. Got it. Bye now.

    Parent
    It was a Clinton ad (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    Of course they "did this."  The ad speaks for itself.  I suppose they could say it was unintentional....

    Parent
    But isn't altering the original (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    an intentional act?  If there is an explanation, it would be good to hear....Maybe someone can point out how the distortion accidentally occured....

    Parent
    Yahoo top story on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    "Obama says he will sharpen criticism of Hillary".
    CHICAGO - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday blamed his primary defeats in Ohio and Texas on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism and news coverage that he argued benefited her at his expense.

    Gee, new coverage didn't go your way? Welcome to Hillary's world. Today he should have been saying something positive for his campaign and instead is blaming her for not winning and saying I will get you back. I can get nastier than you. Right now Obama has Hillary to blame. What will happen in the big show? Either as the lead candidate or the President? I can not take more of the George school yard plays.

    And that is what happened in the Big Blog World too. The criticism and hatred got so bad that it made you mad and people either got down to the gutter level or moved on to where they could have non violent discussions.


    great (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    Obama headline:

    "Obama says he will sharpen criticism of Hillary"

    Hillary headline:

    "Hillary throws the kitchen sink at Obama"

    Parent

    I just cannot believe (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    any of the pundits--Brazille in particular--honestly believes in their heart of hearts that Clinton has "attacked" or "gone negative."

    She has practically held his hand as he crosses the street.

    Parent

    Notice the difference in the headlines, though (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by dk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    In one of them, it is reporting what Obama actually said.  The other is an opinion about what Clinton did masquerading as reporting.  

    And people still claim not to see the media bias?  Ugh.

    Parent

    the kitchen sink (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    thing works nicely with her gender too. no?


    Parent
    Capt Howdy - you're onto something. (none / 0) (#149)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    Obama's "kitchen Sink" charge against Hillary Clinton is a transparent misogynist slur.

    There's no place in this galaxy where Hillary could get away with an equally racially charged slur.

    Has anybody publicly called BO on that one?

    Parent

    Please... (none / 0) (#172)
    by fiver5 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:17:48 PM EST
    The term "kitchen sink" was given to the New York Times by a Clinton aide.

    Parent
    Fiver, thanks. I'm glad to be wrong about the (none / 0) (#213)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    source of the "kitchen sink" term. You're right the Clinton campaign did use it first.

    Still, it's the kind of thing that doesn't sound good when Obama repeats it. I mean, as a woman, she can make puns about her own gender, and it's funny and self-deprecating. When Obama repeats it, it just sounds deprecating (and a tad whiny). Maybe, he should be wary of repeating Clinton's talking points.

    Parent

    Well, it was an aide who said kitchen sink (none / 0) (#166)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    According to the press reports I've seen like this one the "kitchen sink" line came from a Clinton aide.  See this is an example of the problem.  Each side's partisans react without facts.  I'm with those who don't get the level of vitriol.  I want a dem to win.  I think either will do fine as President and I agree with BTD that there is little substantive difference.

    I don't think either side has been particularly tough.  I disagree with some things each side has done. Obama's obvious Harry and Louise reference, Hillary's praise of McCain and fearmongering are examples of dems picking up the Republican play book and using it against one another in a way that can only help republicans in the fall.  

    I have electablity concerns about both of them.  I think Hillary mobalizes an otherwise moribund R base, but I also think there reality is that there is still a lot of racism in this country and there are a lot of people who just won't vote for an African American.  I think the reality is we don't know who is more electable this far out.

    I also don't think the vitriol on the blogs (including this one, there have been some pretty vicious comments about both Obama and his supporters here) reflects what most people think.  Maybe we all just need to stop reading blogs.

    Parent

    Are there other Dem politicians (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    who have based their campaigns on a "movement"?
    Were they successful?
    The "big tent" Dems are comprised of 7 different caucuses - not easily herded - unlike the Moral Majority "movement" that was successful electing Repubs.


    Malcolm (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    This isn't the WaPoRefugees.  I don't agree with you, here or there, and, um, here the style is different.  Welcome, but the tone is different here.

    StillReading (but not so much at WaPoRefugees)

    Im not with you on this (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:37:17 PM EST
     maybe because Im not a Dem but I would prefer a Dem be elected in Nov., not sure but I have a real problem with the JJJr Obama Co Chair and similar surrogate attacks on Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton as a racist that did not cry for Katrina victims on many levels including the dishonor and exploitation of a very harmed group of Americans as a campaign prop not a victimless group grievance.  I also take personal offense at what I the sexist comments and statements dismissive of women by Senator Obama and his surrogates and similar dismissals of anyone over 45 creating in me a lack of respect for his candidacy.  I also question the ethics in his dealing with Rezko and the home purchase that belies a message of non self interest non corrupting hope, his voting record missed votes, wrong buttons present on tough issues.  I believe a return to the Kennedy liberal economic policy and social agendas that have helped placed such a great burden on the middle class, my collective tax base is 48 percent, has stunted prosperity for my children my community and I do not in anyway romanticize a return to that Dem Platform.  And mostly I do not view Senator Obama as a competent leader, I do believe he could get along sure and maybe be beloved by the Party but so was Ronald Regan.  For me it is personal.  I believe we are a country in decline and need a competent, capable, tough, ethical President grounded in her own moral character and confidence, I believe that's Senator Clinton we have a war to end, deficit and debt to tame, corruptions and incompetence in our Government Institutions that needs resolved and I believe she is the women to do it, to turn this ship around not hope it will steer itself.  To me there is no comparison I see nothing similar in the two, I truly value one and not the other.

    also (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    deleting any comments asking for substantial proof of his claims, and saying any pro-Hillary commenters must have been paid to comment.

    Really. Really.  Low.

    Most of "our" (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    guys seem to have come unglued this primary season. Kos, Josh and I could go on forever. I finally couldn't take it at Bowers place any longer.

    It's the press, I'm more OK with Obama now (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    The rush of electing Obama because "the press won't pick on him" or "nobody likes Hillary" or "he has accomplished so much" or "she hasn't accomplished anything besides being first lady" or "he is more progressive than she is" just drives me crazy because none of those memes are true.

    Will the press pick on Hillary more than Obama? Possibly, probably. It's also possible Obama will be so disgruntled by the press that they slowly start to dog him too.

    As long as some of his vulnerabilities are exposed, and he faces setbacks like he did last night, and then he handles those, well I'm not as horrified at the thought of him being the nominee. (Though I do see some sloppy mistakes on his part, that concern me.)

    I am not so sure he's the unsettling alien (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    for them.

    I think it is probably more of a combination of 1) narcissism and 2) cynicism that has taken root (probably as a result of mob rule and group think).

    1. The ego of many of the members at some of these sites has grown out of proportion with their non-financial influence and relevance...they actually believe that they alone make or break candidates, and that candidates should pander directly to their online communities...hence narcissism

    2. the cynicism is that they believe anyone who disagrees with their view or decision does so out of ignorance or evil (black or white world view that often accompanies cynicism). The thought process is that "I see Obama as a savior of America, so everyone should see him as such. And if people attack him, they do so out of evil or ignorance. The ignorant are helplessly racist, the evil use the ignorants' racism to their advantage, making their actions racist...either way both groups are racists."


    Oje, I'd like to see you with your own blog. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    You've given some state of the art, academic (in a good way) analysis. Are you a cultural theorist by any chance?

    Do you know of any blogs that are frequented by academics?

    So why I think Clinton should be the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Raj on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    I tried to post this on the NYT blogs and they refused to post it. I tried twice and it didn't work. Discrimination much?
    Anyhow, fellow Clinton supporters - if you agree with my arguments, please post it wherever you can:

    The following arguments are for Clinton's general election "electability":

    1. Obama started out with 30% unfavorable ratings. His negative/unfavorable ratings have continuously increased to about 49% right now (check out rasmussen reports, a very pro-Obama site). Clinton, has always been at the 49-50% level ever since the primaries started. So, essentially, as Obama got more exposure, his unfavorable ratings went up. They are still climbing. Anyone who thinks they won't increase further will all the Republican attacks are probably joshing themselves. Given this trend, I don't understand the arguments of those who claim Clinton is more divisive than Obama. Seems they are both equally divisive.

    2. In recent polls, Clinton is holding her own against McCain in a general election matchup while Obama is falling short by 4-6 points. This is a big reversal in earlier trends that we saw where Obama was doing slightly better than Clinton.

    3. Almost 25% of Clinton supporters have said they would vote for McCain as opposed to only 10% of Obama supporters. So if Obama gets nominated, we are in a greater danger of losing general elections than if Clinton were nominated. My guess is the Latinos and some of the blue-collar workers are switching in favor of McCain who would have otherwise voted for Clinton.

    4. Obama's arguments that independents are only voting for him is not true anymore. They might be breaking by a few points for him but Clinton has got more than her share of independents now.

    5. Finally, in the so called big three Swing States of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton has a clear advantage over Obama which will help her carry the states in the fall. It's not clear at all if Obama can carry these 3 given the voter demographics (again- see point 3 above)


    Predictions (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    Whichever candidate gets the nomination, there will be a Big Meeting between them, behind closed doors.  The result will be that the loser takes the VP slot, in the interest of party unity.  There might well be some deal making, as in the VP candidate wanting more-or-less control of one or more particular policy areas, but something will get ironed out.  The talking heads will blather endlessly about whether this amounts to a "co-presidency".

    (In general, I agree with Craig Crawford when he said weeks ago on Olbermann that the more Clinton and Obama fight, the more likely it is they'll form a ticket, simply because the winner will need the loser that much more.)

    When the deal is announced, the more extreme blogs will go nuclear bananas, and those of us who realize what a tiny and twisted portion of the voting public the blogs represent will laugh ourselves hoarse at the spectacle.

    It is my opninion... (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by robertearl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    that this Democrat primary is doing serious damage to the party. What could've been an easy victory in November, unfortunately will be a defeat.
    If Hillary gets the nomination, the energy that you see in the Democratic party will disappear. Blacks will not be as eager and the youth vote will disappear.
    Believe it or not Hillary supporters. Those are the cold hard facts.

    So are these (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    A significant portion of woman will not vote for Sen Obama, and you know, they are the larger portion of the electorate. What is interesting is that imo both of these facts are the direct result of Sen Obama's campaign tactics and approach, not of Sen Clintons.

    Parent
    keep telling yourself that (none / 0) (#211)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    if it makes yourself feel better.

    Parent
    I have to say, I totally agree... (4.75 / 4) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    ..Most of the times that I get angry at Obama, it's really for something his supporters did. I honestly do try not to react that way, but I'm only human. My greatest joy yesterday was in seeing the Hillary-hating pundits and bloggers eat a little crow. I know that's wrong, and I'm working on it.

    yeah (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    I have to say it would give me no particular joy to see Obama lose.  it would give me GREAT joy to see some of his supporters lose.


    Parent
    Maria Garcia (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    I think both campaigns have been equally vitriolic.  I support Obama and get angry at things that HRC supporters do, but I think that's okay.  It's a part of being passionate about a candidate.  Enjoy the crow eating ;-) The most important thing--no matter who we nominate--is defeating McCain.    

    Parent
    it is going to be ultimately (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    up to the candidates to fix this I think.
    I (none / 0) (#4)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:56:00 PM EST
    Couldn't agree more.  Well said.

    Don't Get It Either (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    Must be something primordial.

    It's tribal (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    Same mechanisms are in effect for people and their favorite sports teams. Us vs. them.

    Parent
    I Never Could Relate To (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    Sport fever either....

    Parent
    amen to that (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    I always thought it was because I was gay that sports was something I didnt get.  like cigars.

    Parent
    I see sports.... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    as a great, safe outlet for our natural inclinations towards "us vs. them" thinking.  

    Too bad we can't just leave it to sports.  

    Parent

    Yes indeed because.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    ...we can always switch or set aside our sports affiliations. Not so easy to do with the others.

    Parent
    Uh, speak for yourself (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    as we're feeling rather low in Wisconsin today.  Flags at half-staff in Green Bay.  I am not kidding.  And after a night that provided rather momentous news for our morning paper in this state, there are no photos of candidates on the front page.  Favre fills it.

    We're blue today -- but because we're green and yellow first. :-)

    Parent

    My apologies. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    Didn't mean to be insensitive to your grief.

    Parent
    Be happy, you had 17 years of a great one.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    I could run down the list of quarterbacks my beloved Jets have started in the last 17 years...but I don't want you to lose your lunch:)

    And to think we missed out on Favre by one lousy slot in the draft, and ended up with Browning Freakin' Nagle.  Then again, if the Jets had drafted him he'd probably have been selling insurance for the past 12 years...that's how our luck runs:)

    Parent

    Marketing opportunity for Davidoff. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Gee I Always Thought (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    That is was because I wasn't gay that I didn't like team sports.

    GO figure.

    Parent

    My husband is not gay (none / 0) (#105)
    by splashy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    And he doesn't get sports either, except for those that are not so violent and are more about skill like gymnastics.

    Then again, he's more peaceful than I am. I like action adventure films, for instance. Him, not so much.

    Parent

    Gay... (none / 0) (#162)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    And love sports!  And action adventure films.

    I can say that, as a diehard Yankees fan (thank heavens it's Spring Training!), living in Boston for 8 yrs a while back never made me want to switch to the Sox.  

    Same way I feel abt political parties - I'm a Dem and staying that way!

    BG fan - sorry abt Favre!  What a great player!!  It's a loss for all of football.

    Parent

    Were supporters of Dem. primary (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    candidates more clear-eyed and polite in 2003?

    There was more to fight about then (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    Dean was new. Now, the stakes were not as high issues wise between Dean and Clark, but electoral wise, they were higher - gettng rid of Bush.

    We Clarkies believed Clark was the one, not Dean, to beat Bush. AS much as we loved the fight Dean put into the Party, we Clarkies did not think he could beat Bush.

    Those were our stakes. And most of our fight debated that issue.

    Parent

    So, you perfected your electability (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    theme awhile ago then.

    Parent
    At first (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    But there is no one I admire more in politics than General Clark. Having had numerous interactions with him over the years, I can tell you I do not think there is a smarter person on foreign policy in America than him.

    Parent
    How would HRC fare re (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    electibility if Clark was VP on her ticket?

    Parent
    He won't be (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    If you wanted to talk me into supporting Clinton, you would tell me that General Clark would be her chief foreign policy and military advisor.

    Parent
    Since he is on board for HRC now, (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    don't you assume he'll have his choice of cabinet post?  

    Parent
    Not with Holbrooke there (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Can You Say More (none / 0) (#154)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    On Holbrook?  I love Wes Clark, and am REALLY hoping he would have a big role in Clinton's cabinet.  A man of his intellect, experience, and talents should be #1 on anyone's cabinet list - Sec. of Defense, maybe?

    Parent
    and I think you were right (none / 0) (#20)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not just up to the candidates... (none / 0) (#41)
    by mike in dc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    ...to tell their supporters to STFU and support the nominee.  It's up to the supporters of each candidate to mutually reconcile/apologize/kiss and make up/buck up and suck up/whatever it takes to settle their animosities and differences.  If Clinton's the nominee, I will likely swallow my disgruntlement and pull the lever for her, but it would make things a little easier if her supporters would pull back on the demonization of Obama and actually find a few nice things to say about him, assuming that's the outcome.  After all, he may be on the ticket with her.  

    Unfortunately, because this thing wasn't wrapped up yesterday, it's more likely than not that the campaign will become more negative in the near future, not less.  I'm not really sure what leverage the supporters have to get the campaigns to cool things down a bit, and frankly, given the growing mutual hostility, I'm not sure there's a consensus for toning things down, either.

    That's what Talk Left is about (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    peace, love and understanding . . .

    Parent
    Ha. Post censorship. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST


    Parent
    And if there were more moderating (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    and deleting at other blogs, more taking responsibility for what they make money from while spewing outrage, it might be a lot less messy now. And it's not answering this to say as some do here that, well, it's just the blogs. The cable media shows have been taking a lot of cues from blogs, so the irresponsibilty of some has had wider impact.

    Parent
    Well.... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    it would make things a little easier if her supporters would pull back on the demonization of Obama and actually find a few nice things to say about him,

    I don't want to spurn all this conciliatory sentiment, and I don't want to sound like a 5-year-old, but it is true that Obama started it.

    And he has not done anything that would indicate he has a problem with it in his supporters, and he hasn't spoken out against the sexism. That is what a good Democrat would do. It wouldn't hurt him, it would help him.

    I know plenty of Hillary supporters who dislike Obama for how he's been gratuitously ungracious to her when it would not have hurt him to be otherwise. It makes him look petty.

    Parent

    Yes and we have judged his as such (none / 0) (#133)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    it is not only that he appears dismissive.

    Parent
    I meant to add (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    that because he acts dismissive and ungracious to Hillary, his supporters think that's ok and follow his lead. Only they step it up to the extreme. Maybe they figure they're doing what he'd like to be doing if he didn't have to act nice in public.

    He's already got the misogynist vote, there's no need to court them.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    that you are new here, but seriously comments like these will be deleted. There is actually a pretty civil dialogue going on here between Clinton and Obama supports, and please, participate in that or do not post these pointless smears.

    Parent
    Yep, me too (none / 0) (#48)
    by marcellus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    ...I've caught Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Call me a naive, kool-aid drinker if you must, but some weird stuff is going on - and I see Clinton fingerprints  everywhere. Drudge and Alex Rodriguez (not the baseball player). Mark Penn and Charlie Black, heck Mark Penn and just about everything.  CTV and Paul Begala.  Paul Krugman and Sean Wilentz.

    Bizarrely, the one guy who seems clean is James Carville.  

    I'm just gonna stop posting here for a while and leave you guys to it.  I did originally agree with BTD's contention that a Clinton/Obama ticket would work well for the Democratic party.  

    Sheesh (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    Relax Marcellus.

    Here's what you do not get - all pols and political operative are a bunch of conniving, shameless hypocrites. And liars. All the time.

    I am totally serious.

    Parent

    BTD, I just switched over from (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    your other thread: "Carving up McCain: What's Stopping You". I gave it my best shot because I, do believe, "B*tch is the New Black".

    But nobody on the thread is going after McCain.

    Here's my theory (it relates to this thread as well): most of the Hillary-supporting, true-blue Dems at TL, and elsewhere, don't embrace hate as a core value. They don't go after Obama with the same vitriol that many Obama supporters routinely heap on Hillary.

    Why the difference in tone? Presumably, Obama has plenty of supporters who are Indies and/or Repubs - that's the big claim to fame. Historically, that demographic is far more comfortable with the politics of hate: talking trash about 'liberals' and Democrats in general, feminists, anti-war activists, environmentalists, gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, proponents of secularism, and usually people of color.

    Do the Dems have a comparable history of hating anyone?
    --------------------------------------------------


    Parent

    This Dem does (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, etc.

    Parent
    Me too, but that's a pretty d*mn high bar. (none / 0) (#134)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    Bush & Co are on par with other war criminals of the 20th century. But still, the GOP expresses more hatred toward 'bleeding heart liberals' than we express toward the whole murderous lot in the Bush regime.

    Hate just isn't inherent to the Democratic agenda.

    And now, we can't summon adequate criticism for the man, McCain, who promises to perpetuate GOP criminality into perpetuity.

    How do you explain that?

    Parent

    agree (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    It's always amazing to watch the youngsters saying some candidate is different, etc. Ah youth. I want to see them hash it out. Hone their message and their fight. We'll be better off. Sit back and enjoy. :-)

    Parent
    As you wish. . . (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    a naive, kool-aid drinker

    your a naive kool-aid drinker.  And you believe in the myth of fingerprints.

    Parent

    CDS (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:23:59 PM EST


    Is this snark? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST


    Must Be.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    not

    Parent
    It's sad (none / 0) (#136)
    by eric on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    that you can't even tell anymore.  It's that crazy.

    Parent
    thinks he's a great orange satan (none / 0) (#203)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST


    Parent
    no, it isn't. this poster needs to (none / 0) (#228)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:20:35 PM EST
    either clean up their act or GO.

    Parent
    That first-time commenter Malcolm (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    is having an attack of something viscuous, I think.

    Does he sound like an Obama supporter to you? (none / 0) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    I can't tell.

    (this is snark)

    Parent

    Nope, he sounds like a Republican (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't tell the difference anymore (none / 0) (#234)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:50:18 PM EST
    The forum where I've hung out for the past ten years  looks like Free Republic on the political threads.

    It's a Dem forum. These are Obama supporters.

    Parent

    ahh (1.00 / 0) (#210)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    Whatever...

    Parent
    Why is he the DLC candidate? (none / 0) (#129)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    He isn't a member and he requested his name be removed from New Democrats if I'm not mistaken.  Not that I remotely care about the DLC, maybe I'm missing something important that someone more knowledgeable can explain.

    Just a guess (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    But I think it's because he's embraced the DLC philosophy, while representing himself as being opposed to it. It's very slick.

    Parent
    Because he's running. . . (none / 0) (#190)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    a post-partisan campaign.  The DLC's stock in trade has been don't-look-at-us-as-Democrats post partisanism.

    Parent
    Does this jive (if I can use that word!): (none / 0) (#212)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    SUNSTEIN ON OBAMA

    Parent
    Can you imagine this stuff (none / 0) (#147)
    by Joike on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    going on for the next few months?

    I don't know if some people will survive the anxiety.

    Proof positive that the nomination process starts too early.

    Start voting in March or April not freaking January.

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#150)
    by dem08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    I think Hillary will get the nomination, and I have always believed this. I think she deserves to be our next President.

    But before people who support Hillary get on their high horse, visit Taylor Marsh dot com. Big Tent provides a link. There is pure, raw hate, in her vilification of Obama and even moreso in the people who post on her site.

    And I know Big Tent claims he is for Obama, but most of us come here because we can mostly hear pure Hillary praising and fault finding with Obama.

    Taylor is over the top (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:02:25 PM EST
    no question.

    There is more of that with Obama supporters in my experience.

    Parent

    I can't figure out what you mean... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:07:56 PM EST
    TM is pro-Hillary but there are no such "pure hate" comments about BO on her blog like there are at JA & DK.  

    Parent
    P. S. I hope Big Tent (none / 0) (#158)
    by dem08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    continues to keep the conversation here civil. This is a pro-Hillary Web site, and thank God for that.

    Eventually, however, Hillary WILL need some of the Obama voters. It would be wonderful to get all of them.

    There were two things I found distressing in Exit Polls, one that more people say Hillary is negative, and two, that many people still say that race is an important factor and that that group broke something like 8-1 for Hillary in Ohio. I wonder if they will break for McCain in the Fall.

    This site is only pro-Clinton. . . (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    in the sense that it isn't vehemently anti-Clinton nor part of the Obama "movement".  I think they do a stunning job of being fair-minded (of course, that means that they're disliked equally by rabid supporters of both candidates).

    Parent
    the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the battl (none / 0) (#167)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    Whoever said that definitely had it right.  Think of the English Civil War, largely fed by hatred between protestant sects -- or Sunni/Shia violence, or Irish Catholic vs. Irish Protestants, or certain violent passions experienced in junior high.

    That's where we are.

    Can someone please tell me (none / 0) (#176)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    if it sounds at all feasible the TDP would actually say the things claimed in this article?

    No difference? (none / 0) (#186)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    With all due respect? I see a large difference. You say none? A lawyers trick. Yes if you chose to boil it down to either he said she said or points of nonsence, policy that means nothing as it is not nor will it be implemented, calculated votes cast or slimed up history. How about what they advocate? What they want, envision and speak of. Boil it down

    Hilary represents the status quo, Mark Penn, Terry Mc Cafferty, rehashes all, fear once again.

    Why do you ignore the tide? The one that says enough with fear, enough with the old, enough with the negative? A new wave offers hope optimism and perhaps radical a foreign policy that would talk to our adversaries. No difference my ass. The devil is in the details does not compute this time, it's in the main message.

    On a domestic level I cannot at all fathom why you would support the corporatist's who hold us all hostage and in our state of economic affairs offer nothing but cover your ass and screw the rest. NAFTA is good, greed is good no thanks even in my own little money world this does not compute. Lose your shirt vote for HRC. Hopefully one would vote for a greater good then fear or failed economic greed. What's so funny about peace love and understanding?

    Where is the tide? (none / 0) (#201)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    I must have missed it with the race being dead even and all.

    Parent
    what are you talking about (none / 0) (#218)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    Hillary is status quo, she's for NAFTA and Obama is not. Where do you get these things? Let's see they're both about the same on NAFTA, Obama got caught in a lie about it with Canada, but I agree with what they both say -- maybe patch it up a bit, bit mostly keep it. Unless maybe you like the idea of Canada taking their toys (read oil) and going home.

    It looks to me they're very similar on many issues. Of course they have differences in health care. They I'm sure have differences on a few other issues. But that's all in the noise if you ask me. Both would be a major shift away from status quo simply because of who they are.

    And as for Mark Penn and all the rest, they're both politicians. They both lie. They both sling slime. It's called politics. It's not pretty.

    Parent

    I guess I didn't understand (none / 0) (#226)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    what tide you were referring to.  It seemed to me you meant a tide swelling for Obama.

    And Universal Health care isn't some side issue, and they are nowhere close on the issue.

    Parent

    sounds sane? n/t (none / 0) (#229)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST


    Comments Closing and Note (none / 0) (#235)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:10 PM EST
    TalkLeft is not going to host screeds against other blogs and bloggers. If you want to rip another blog or blogger, please do it on another site. Thanks.

    And thanks to alerting me by email to the over-the-top offensive comments in this this thread. Two posters have been banned and had all comments and their account removed.

    The Stakes | 216 comments (216 topical)