tiny tent dems

Basically (via BTD): "Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

After being gone a week and coming back to the situation at hand with a fresh view, that about sums it up.

This, in the context of a discussion about how Clinton is no longer considered a Democrat by many Obama supporters, because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama. The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle.

Update [2008-4-18 4:29:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: For the record, I am Big Tent Democrat. What Obama has done to bring in Millenial youth to the Democratic Party has been terrific. What Clinton has done in bringing in more Latino and Women voters has been just as exciting. Competitive primaries never hurt anyone, as long as those who both win, and lose, don't go to the extent of kicking the other side out of the Democratic Party.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

310 Comments

Re: tiny tent dems

"Many"  A few ardently shrill bloggers doesn't not mean "many".  I would not, nor would any of my Obama supporting friends, think to question Senator Clinton's democratic creds.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

exactly. another smokescreen.

semantics aside, is this thread any better then the ABC's Tabloid Debate?

there's better topics out there. I'm sure of it.

by alex100 2008-04-17 01:17PM | 0 recs
Indeed.

Tom Watson has an EXCELLENT analysis on this topic:

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/ 2008/04/the-small-d-dem.html

by KnowVox 2008-04-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed.

kos was a gung-ho republican back in the reagan-bush one era. he hasn't been a democrat long enough for me to place much value on who he thinks is a democrat and who isn't. i worked on campaigns starting in 1968, and had the job of putting the party back together in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 after people like kos helped pick the nominees.

by campskunk 2008-04-17 05:47PM | 0 recs
Kos was a Cato Fellow? How about a link?

I did a search on this topic and couldn't find anything to confirm it.

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-19 10:32PM | 0 recs
Kos not a cato fellow

Neither Wikipedia nor the Cato Institute site lists Kos as a Cato fellow. Is your claim meant to be intentionally misleading, or is it just sloppy mudslinging?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Instit ute
http://www.cato.org/people/fellows.html

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-19 10:48PM | 0 recs
There is so much sock puppetry
and light and mirrors in Orange that it is impossible to know how many of the haters are real.
It would be so cool to see the place exposed from top to bottom.  I'm guessing 5 or 6 hired hands make up 90% of the gas.
by internetstar 2008-04-17 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: There is so much sock puppetry

How does it help your favored site to denegrate another, supposedly philisophically aligned (at least w.r.t. the big picture), website?

Isn't that in essence the same issue that this blog post is supposed to be combating?

by Lost Thought 2008-04-17 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: There is so much sock puppetry

Um no, have you checked the UIDs there?  

by interestedbystander 2008-04-17 01:27PM | 0 recs
So there is a law saying

only one id per location?

by internetstar 2008-04-17 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: There is so much sock puppetry

You have zero evidence for that.

People made the same baseless charges when Daily Kos was dominated by Edwards supporters (virtually all of 2007 and much of January 2008).  I was accused repeatedly  of that.

The charges were false about me then and likely are now.

There are many reasons why Daily Kos is dominated by Obama supporters, but I do to think sockpuppetry is among the valid ones.  

by TomP 2008-04-17 01:50PM | 0 recs
I was on Daily Kos long enough
to know what was going on.  And as you know, proving it would take a major endeavor, which is exactly why they get away pulling the crap that they pull.
Interesting how your spelling has improved.
by internetstar 2008-04-17 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I was on Daily Kos long enough

According to polls, they must also have multiple phone numbers.  And multiple "college student at rally" disguises.

by ashriver 2008-04-17 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Seconded.

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

We will see what kind of DEM she is after June 3 - I am withholding judgment until then.  There has been just TOO much hate from her and her campaign for me to forgive and forget quickly.  

It will extremely important for Obama to reach out to Clinton supporters, I think he will do that.  He does need her to say its alright to support him.  

Last night was tough for me.  She very easily could have sidestepped the negativity of the first 40 minutes.  Instead she piled on, useless gotcha bullshit.  Obama had a similar opportunity with her Bosnia comments, he took the high road.  You wonder why 1.5m people have donated to this man's campaign.  

by stryan 2008-04-17 02:34PM | 0 recs
too much hate....

i agree with that.  i must chuckle when i hear the Hillary supporters (I will say openly that I would vote for whichever Democrat wins the primary) talking about the Obama haters out here.   i have never seen any Hillary supporters called the types of names that I was at sites like No Quarter.  apparently i am a traitor, troll, and an enemy because i caucused for Obama in Seattle, WA.  um.  they're sick, folks.

by funknjunk 2008-04-18 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: too much hate....

Funny ... I lost all rating ability yesterday in the great Obama purge of 2008 ... I have been troll rated 2X in over 200 posts since March ... soviet style suppression ... America, 2008!  =)

by stryan 2008-05-01 04:50PM | 0 recs
many, not most

Well, cleaning up the place around here, separating out the haters, I happened to notice more than a few.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-17 02:12PM | 0 recs
How and why did this hatred develop?

I mean, I understand not agreeing with a policy or a program or a personal issue - but we're talking about absolute hatred - the dripping, nasty, evil kind of emotion that is beyond understanding.

How?

Why?

The Clintons, for better or worse, have devoted their lives to public service and, on the whole, have been good individuals, and good democrats.

What in the world happened?

I simply do not understand it.  And the fact that Hillary will still stand by the party after what it has done to her is unbelievable.  Simply unbelievable.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

There's been plenty of nastiness to go around, so lets get off the soap box.  Hillary has been relentless, as she has every right to be, and both sides have bruised feelings at this point.  We will ALL need to get over it once we have a nominee.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-17 01:21PM | 0 recs
Did you read Jerome's post?

It's about hatred for the Clintons, not who has been nastier in the campaign.  

"Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

And my question related specifically to that issue.

How?  Why?  Do you hate the Clintons so much?

I would really like to understand and I am not standing on any soapbox...I'm plenty tall on my own.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

Jerome, god love him, has a viewpoint on this contest that's pretty clear.  So do you and so do I.  My point, which I guess you missed, is that the campaign has contained sufficient nastiness to prop up both sides complaints about the oppositions' "hatred" for their candidate.  By and large, it's all a bunch of BS.  

I prefer Obama, so I'm more likely to notice ugly attacks against him.  The opposite is true of you.  The difference, as I see it, is that I'm not going to try and argue that Obama is pure as the fallen snow.  Jerome's post, and your comments, make this seem as if things are all stacked against the Clintons.  Which, frankly, is laughable if you actually watched the first 45 minutes of the debate last night.

Glad to hear you're tall though -- congrats.

by HSTruman 2008-04-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

I happen to view what Obama has done for the Democratic Party as fantastic, especially among the youth, millennial generation. I have the same viewpoint among Latino voters for Clinton.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

Don't forget the really older female voters that she has brought out.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-17 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

I agree with you.  And as long as we get a nominee -- whoever that is -- by shortly after the primaries end, I think we will all end up saying that the drawn out process was good for the process precisely because we will keep drawing all the groups you mentioned out to the polls to vote for democratic candidates.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-17 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

But when you go to HuffingtonPost aka Obamingpost, when you go to daily kos, there is personal vitriol against Hillary as a human being that I have never read against Senator Obama.
The worst I have hear Senator Obama called was an empty suit, an elitist, or a silvery tongues politician.
On the other hand, supposedly progressives have called Senator Clinton a lying b*tch, a wh*re, and worst of all, a racist.

It has literally stunned me.

by Jjc2008 2008-04-17 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?

You must not pay attention to the diaries around here if you haven't seen equal vitriol against Obama.  But ultimately, it's worth remembering that such comments and supporters are not representative of either campaign.  If I equated the worst anti-Obama tangents to Senator Clinton, I would never vote for her in a GE.  But I know that's not accurate, so I'll have no problem supporting her if she's the nominee.  At the end of the day, both candidates are good democrats -- even if their respective supporters sometimes forget that fact in the heat of the moment.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-17 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read Jerome's post?
I did read the post and I know both candidates get some pro and con HERE.  On the other hand dkos and Huffington have been spewing anti Clinton hate for a long time.  I came here for some honest discussions.
Instead some of the same vitriolic folks from dkos have now come here too.  It's like they cannot stand Hillary supporters having a place to discuss the pros and cons......
What's really funny is that I found this place on dkos...hearing it described as the Obama hating, militant pro Hillary blog.  I got here and honestly laughed out loud.  The first three diaries I read were pro Obama  (granted they did not contain the vitriol of dkos diarists).  And then I read a pro Hillary diary.  And this is what dkos calls a militantly pro Hillary place.  Give me a break.
And I had been reading trash attacks on Jerome Armstrong on dkos long before I came here.   I thought for a while Jerome was some neocon troll who was going to left wing blogs to trash democrats.  Lo and behold he is a Hillary supporter.  Amazing
by Jjc2008 2008-04-17 03:54PM | 0 recs
No! no, No, NO!

"Equal vitriol" my ass.

From Tom Waton's page, linked by Jerome:

last night on dKos, Senator Clinton was referred to as "a vile succubus," "a vile excuse for a human being," "a complete scumbag," "that monster," and multiple versions of liar, some with gender-specific modifiers - and that was just one thread.

Show me any thread that contains even one reference to Obama that is comparable to these slurs, never mind four like these.  You can't do it because it doesn't happen.  I don't even see him being slimed that badly by the Freepers.  Clinton faces it daily from members of her own party.

Obama supporters are so sensitive that the minute someone says something like "he's inexperienced" they think he's being totally trashed.  Clinton and her supporters are subject to slams like this continually.

by creeper1014 2008-04-17 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No! no, No, NO!

Clearly you've never read any of Universal's posts.

Further, Dkos has a far larger number of diarists - and responders than you'll find here. "Liar" is hardly the prerogative of anti-Clinton sentiment - that you've found a few whose vocabulary includes other choice adjectives isn't surprising.

Furthermore, there are worse ways to attack one's character than by use of the slurs you've mentioned. Take that darlin' blogger, for example, whose site spouts right wing propaganda - or the many hateful and taunting diaries that get rec'd on this site with the regularity of Old Faithful. The use (or lack thereof) of creative adjectives lends little support to your explanation.

If you're wondering at the polarization that has occurred among Democrats, look no further than the righteous indignation of comments such as yours - comments that are absurd to anyone of an opposing opinion that has had to hold their own in the midst of a tsunami of negativity and intolerance.

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-17 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Big Orange

I am fully aware of the number of posters on dKos.  I left a two-year TU status behind when I gave up blogging there.

I note that in your response you still have provided no examples of vicious slurs against Obama.  I was kind of hoping for a link.

My point remains intact.

by creeper1014 2008-04-18 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Big Orange

I have no desire to participate in any pointless "Is not/Is too" argument about which side is more vicious.

I have even less of a desire to supply you with links to perceived slights. The more angelic you believe your side to be, the likelier the chance that you'd be too partisan to even recognize a slur on the opposing candidate - even were it served up to you on a plate with bernaise sauce.

Good luck with your intact point - may it bring you comfort.

by Sumo Vita 2008-04-21 07:20PM | 0 recs
I agree. The hatred is personal with HRC.

I, literally, sit with my mouth open when I read some of the horrible, vile things that are said of her.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 03:30PM | 0 recs
Please, don't make me dig up

some of the numerous out of bounds name calling against Obama.  Just this morning, some little hotheaded fellow called him scum, etc. etc..  The Hillary fanatics' hands are far from clean on this issue.

It's been an education for us Obama supporters, too, believe me, a real eye opener, that there would be Democrats who could summon up such vitriolic hatred for such a nice guy.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

I feel the same way.  I am just bewildered--and devastated--that the Democratic Party has turned on the Clintons.

These are the good guys.  We're not supposed to be a character-attack party at all, but when we finally turn it on full bore we go after our own people?

by Trickster 2008-04-17 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

OMG, hyperbole much?  The democratic party has turned on the Clintons?  First of all, what a blogger says is not a bread and butter representation of a normal democrat.  That is like saying a freeper is a standard republican.

I mean, just calm down.  Everyone is all up in arms cause it's "go time" but only a very small minority on both sides are going this far and like the dude with tourettes at the bus stop it's just better to ignore it.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

If you think I'm communicating a sentiment that just arose in the last 5 minutes because of something Kos linked to, you're way way off.

I have been re-evaluating, for the first time ever, my 36-year relationship to the Democratic Party very seriously for at least a month now.  Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan, I'm not going along for the ride.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

"I have been re-evaluating, for the first time ever, my 36-year relationship to the Democratic Party very seriously for at least a month now.  Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan, I'm not going along for the ride."

Ditto here, that is exactly how I feel, and those are the lines along which I will decide where to put my time, money, and energy in the future. The Obama campaign has already permanently alienated me, the bridges are long burned there. The rest of the Democratic Party has turned on the Clintons to a degree I would not have fathomed before, it is unconscionable. The things that have been said about Hillary Clinton are so over the top I won't ever be supporting most of these Dems again.

I think the Left has long been horrifically abusive to the Republicans, even the moderates, and the more respectable ones who simply disagree out of a different perspective. I doubt that we notice as much when they are being debased in their attacks on the right, we don't notice until it is leveled at someone we think well of, then it becomes clear how outrageous and disgusting it really is.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan

Well if that were happening you might have something.  Not much but something.  Clinton is going to lose because of Clinton.  She ran a bad campaign, she didn't see the threat Obama posed to what SHOULD have been an easy coast to the nomination, and she was too loyal to people who were out of touch with America and it cost her.

The democratic party on whole is trying to push her out, not because they OMG WTF BBQ hate the Clintons but because she has already lost and most people can see that if they take an honest look.  Not handing Senator Clinton a nomination fight she lost is not hating or turning on her.  It is just trying to get everyone on the same page cause we have a third Bush term to start running against.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 04:36PM | 0 recs
The "kitchen sink" strategy

was started by the Clintons, and it hasn't helped.  Face it, people, if Hillary had run a better campaign, she would be the nominee by now, but she had the wrong message (more of the same DLC orthodoxy that has laid the democratic party low for the last few decades) and jaw-droppingly inept management.  Voting to invade Iraq and then not apologizing for sure didn't help, either.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:30PM | 0 recs
WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Paul Lukasiak had a post up at FireDogLake that talks about race and gender and polls, etc.
--------------

In the comment section he responds to this quote from an Obama supporter who said this: "I agree that Clinton's negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot."

Lukasiak's response:

"Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Is it scorched earth to point out Hillary's vote on AUMF?  And was it okay for Bill to try and tie Obama in with Jesse Jackson?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-04-17 01:48PM | 0 recs
And that's your reason to HATE the Clintons?

By the way, racists don't quote Jesse Jackson and LBJ to make their points.  And why in the world would the Clintons begin a racist kitchen sink campaing just before the SC primary - considering the demographics of that state?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's your reason to HATE the Clintons?

Because they knew it was going to be a loss, and it was the last primary before SUPER TUESDAY.  It's spinning expectations - the black guy wins the black state, and now on to real americans.

Nobody said that they're racists but I'm sure they knew what they were doing.  I've seen it done before.  I'm a southerner and I grew up with this stuff.  Pat Buchanan, who made his bones doing this saw it as it was happening and called the Clinton strategy a success.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

And your point is what?  That Jesse Jackson is a terrible person?  That being compared to a man who worked his entire life for the rights of the poor and the disenfranchised is a bad thing?  Only an elitist liberal could see being compared to Jesse as a bad or racist thing.

by Jjc2008 2008-04-17 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Give me a break with this swift boating in S.C. If the Clintons could not  convince A.A.'s what they really meant by the statement, then that is no fault but their own. You're implication that they were swift boated implies that A.A.'s couldn't understand what Bill really meant.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

You mean African-American's thought Barack was white before Bill Clinton pointed out he was black?

The fact that Jesse Jackson is considered a black pariah whose name cannot be mentioned in, you know, polite company points to the inherent reverse racism of Obama's entire enterprise. The name Jesse Jackson is being treated like a living slur. To reduce one of America's courageous civil rights leaders to a slur is itself racist. Jesse Jackson is forbidden, a taboo, historically erased, his name must not be uttered. That the racist media and much of black America went along with this Obama-inspired bait and switch charade was the worst aspect of this campaign. "Look Clinton said the forbidden word Jesse Jackson"  "Get Bill, stone Bill he said the slur word, Jesse."  Well Jesse Jackson was sacrificed so that Obama (an African not African American) could live. So be it.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

I don't think the problem was mentioning Jesse Jackson--it was conflating Obama with Jesse Jackson based purely on the fact that they share a race.

Imagine if Obama had dismissed Hillary's victory in Ohio as, "Well, Ohio always goes for the white candidate--that's nothing new".

It was perceived as a thinly veiled attempt to paint Obama as a single-dimensional 'black' candidate.

by Brannon 2008-04-17 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).
Except that Jackson also had a big win in South Carolina, and was the front runner in the early stages of that primary.
Comparing Barack's win to Jackson's makes perfect sense in that context, and yes, they are both black, but why shouldn't they be contrasted?
by skohayes 2008-04-17 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

I learned something new today. Apparently Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are the first two candidates ever to be the front runners in the early stages of a South Carolina Democratic primary, and then go on to win it.

In the history of mankind, in every single Democratic primary in South Carolina, the early front runner has gone on to lose--except for those two isolated cases, and therefore conflating the two is simply acknowledging a political similarity and not a racial one.

Thank you--knowing is half the battle.

by Brannon 2008-04-18 09:23AM | 0 recs
The reference to JJ was related to

a political position after the SC primary NOT the fact that he and BO are AA.  THAT'S THE SPIN BO AND FRIENDS PUT ON IT in order to trash the Clintons and their long history of AA relations.

Now the Clintons are referred to as "massahs".  Now how did that happen....exactly?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Bitter Much?????

by venician 2008-04-17 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Do you contend that the Clinton campaign has not been exploiting racism in regard to Wright?

I thought it the ugliest cynical use of racism since Willie Horton.

And I'm shamed that it was done by Democrats.

by wrb 2008-04-17 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

"Do you contend that the Clinton campaign has not been exploiting racism in regard to Wright?"--wrb

Hows that possible? You mean potty mouth "Bill's-been-riding-dirty-with-Monica" Rev. Wright? I'd say the Rev. Wright rode dirty on his African American audience all the way to retirement in a multi-million dollar mansion.  

by superetendar 2008-04-17 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Do you object to the facts or the use of vernacular?

by wrb 2008-04-17 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Neither, I'm amused and entertained, though I'd rather confine  sex jokes to a comedy club not the pulpit. My point was, though,  that Clinton was the victim of the potty mouth Rev's unholy shit fit, not the racist victimizer you just tried to make Clinton out to be.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Sounds racist to me-- describing something we all know to be true in the language of them nigras is offensive?

by wrb 2008-04-17 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell).

Being called a racist these days is a diminishing insult. Like the falling dollar its losing its value to shock, its over utilized, rather like antibiotics.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 04:12PM | 0 recs
Funny how the biggest war critics in the know supp

support Hillary: John Murtha and Ambassador Joe Wilson, to name two.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny how the biggest war critics in the know

John Murtha was a war supporter and Joe Wilson is a relatively minor figure.

The MAJOR opponents of the war support Obama - Zbigniew Brzinski, Al Gore, virtually all academics and politicians emeritus who opposed it at the time.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny how the biggest war critics in the know

Don't know the others, but Al Gore has spoken out about NOT supporting either candidate in particular. He has said he isn't going to get into politics at all, and is going with working with as many people as he can on the global warming issue, regardless of their political leanings.

by splashy 2008-04-20 02:07AM | 0 recs
Joe Wilson voted for Bush
for crying out loud.  Along with the shadowy Larry C. Johnson and many another operative. Now that Bush has made liars out of them, they don't like him so much.
 As far as Murtha is concerned, you don'twant to go there.  The man has been the biggest supporter of wasteful military spending in the congress, and the recipient of much largesse from the defense industry, not to mention having come this close to having been indicted for bribery.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:29PM | 0 recs
Joe Wilson wrote an article that said Bush

was purposely misleading the nation about Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction. His wife was targeted by the Bush administration for Joe's honesty and courage. So, he is no supporter of Bush.

Did he vote for him in 2000? I don't think he did, I believe he voted for Gore. He gave a contribution to McCain when he was running against Bush. You are probably lying. Where did you see that Joe Wilson voted for Bush? Bush Sr. maybe, but not George W. Bush.

John Murtha voted for the Iraq resolution along with John Kerry and John Edwards. He was initially a war supporter but changed his mind and became a huge critic and was attacked for it. He is strongly against the war now and supports Hillary. 35 generals also support her, how many generals support Barry?

by mmorang 2008-04-17 02:46PM | 0 recs
I stand corrected
I have Wilson and the highly suspect Larry C. Johnson mixed up.  Wilson gave $1000 to Bush in 2000, which one would call hedging his bets, since he obviously wanted to stay on in some capacity whoever came up the winner.  He has made no such side bets this time, having been the worst Obama basher of any Hillary supporter with any shred of credibility, now much diminished.
When Obama wins, I expect he'll need an experienced ambassador to Outer Mongolia.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I stand corrected

I wouldn't bet on Obama being president this time. Maybe in the future but not this time. Either you are very optimistic or you're not too familiar with the numbers.

I have two words to describe Obama's biggest problem: White Flight. He is doing very poorly with working-class whites. He will need about 70% of the hispanic vote to make up for it but guess what? They like McCain and love the Clinton's and feel that they have not been treated fairly.

Joseph Wilson is an American patriot who calls it like he sees it and in his opinion, Obama is not ready for prime time.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 03:24PM | 0 recs
Joe Wilson is certainly entitled to blow
as hard as he wants, he'll be hell on wheels as ambassador to Tierra Del Fuego.
 What is indisputable, and apparently really pisses a lot of Clinton democrats off, is that Obama beats McCain and/or Hillary in any combination in the polls.  Once we have a nominee, all this kitchen sink shit will die down and Obama will get about a ten percent bump in the polls.  I mean, come on, we've got a decrepit old geezer on the other team who has promised us a hundred years in Iraq.  Howdy Doody would win with a D after his name.  If we can't beat that PTSD afflicted, short-armed little bugger with the best orator the party has had since FDR, we'd better pack it in once and for all.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 04:17PM | 0 recs
My money is on the decrepic old geezer

if Obama is the only other choice we offer people.

Apparently you haven't seen recent polls like these:

Why does Obama, a "transformative" leader do so much worse than Hillary versus McCain?

Massachusetts:

Clinton 56
McCain 41

Obama 48
McCain 46

New Mexico:

Clinton 46
McCain 49

Obama 44
McCain 50

Missouri:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 42
McCain 50

New York:

Clinton 55
McCain 39

Obama 52
McCain 43

Ohio:

Clinton 53
McCain 42

Obama 45
McCain 47

Oregon:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 51
McCain 42

Virginia:

Clinton 39
McCain 55

Obama 44
McCain 52

Minnesota:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 43

Wisconsin:

Clinton 46
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 44

Kansas:

Clinton 36
McCain 57

Obama 37
McCain 54

Alabama:

Clinton 34
McCain 60

Obama 32
McCain 64

California:

Clinton 53
McCain 40

Obama 50
McCain 43

Iowa:

Clinton 42
McCain 48

Obama 49
McCain 42

Kentucky:

Clinton 46
McCain 48

Obama 29
McCain 63

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a spx

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 04/17/april-head-to-head-contests-six-st ates-flip/

by mmorang 2008-04-18 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Look, the Clinton's have their faults. Not all of the Clinton years were good. We lost both houses of Congress, more African-American men where imprisoned, the effects of NAFTA would leave many communities devastated for decades to come.  The Clinton years were not all that glorious.  

by regina1983 2008-04-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
But not bad enough to generate HATE

And hate from "our side" at that!

So where did it come from?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: But not bad enough to generate HATE

It came from her increasing arrogance and that of her supporters that they and they alone are the only ones who truly understand the election and the issues at hand and that all of Obama's supporters were somehow too stupid to see that he is fooling us.  That is an arrogant, demeaning, and condescending attitude and people got sick of it.  Hillary lost this election as much as Obama won it.  The anger comes from everyone in that campaign and that supports that campaign looking at me and saying "you're too stupid to understand what's going on".

Oh, plus the whole pandering to the right thing...

by Rockville Liberal 2008-04-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
Pander to the right? Obama has demeaned...

the only Democratic president to be elected to two terms since Roosevelt.  He has trashed all of the good things that went on during Clinton's terms as POTUS.  AND, he took a lifetime committment to AA and turned Hillary and Bill into evil "massahs".

To me, that's pandering to the right and using the same swiftboating Repug talking points of the past 18 years to dump on HRC.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-04-17 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Pander to the right? Obama has demeaned...

You mean as opposed to the Clinton's not so subtle intimations that Obama can't win because there are too many racist people that won't vote for a black man?  Or that she was not a big fan of NAFTA even though she was a major cheerleader for it during Clinton's POTUS terms?  Of that she now has a firm belief in the individual right to bear arms while having voiced strong opposition to that throughout the last 10-15 years?  Trying to smear Obama through guilt by association that was perpetrated on them by the GOP?  Claiming that Obama is elitist and out of touch as she and her husband pocketed $109M in 7 years?  Giving an interview with the very VRWC she railed against for years in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interview - which in case you forgot, basically accused her of having Vincent Fostered MURDERED.  She has become what she hates most - the VRWC.  

But thanks for not arguing against the arrogance and condescension since that would be a losing proposition for you...

by Rockville Liberal 2008-04-17 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

The mythology of Clinton being solely responsible for the Dems' minority status in Congress and the Senate needs to be addressed, as it was Congressional and Senate Dems themselves who had failed the American people at that point, and placing themselves in a position which made them easy targets for their GOP opponents. Blaming Clinton for the loss was a means to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own shortcomings.

Compared to the Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush and Bush/Chaney eras, the Clinton era was practically a golden age. It's all a matter of perspective.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-04-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?
Really. Some people here forget about Abscam, the House Bank scandal, the post office thing, all engineered by Dems that had been in office for years and years.
Bill Clinton did not lose the Congress-corrupt Democrats did.
by skohayes 2008-04-17 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

i'm glad someone figured that out. They cite triangulation, but that didn't begin until AFTER the elections that year. they also forget the Reagan Revolution.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

The Clinton years were fantastic economically and forein policy-wise. The Clinton's are held in very high esteem in much of the world.

If Ronald Reagan had Bill Clinton's economic record they would have carved his face on mount Rushmore already. Low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, strong dollar, budget surplus and strong economic growth, etc. He's the first Democratic president to be elected twice since FDR.

The standard of living for blacks as well as employment and home ownership was never higher than under Bill Clinton. Blaming him for blacks being incarcerated is ridiculous.

If you want to pretend that the 1990's were not a good time for America you are destined to be a permanant minority party.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

No it isn't ridiculous. He signed laws that gave harsher sentences for drug crimes which unfortunatley affected many minorities. Get your facts right.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

He also provided more federal funds for additional police which brought the crime rate down. I'm sure that resulted in more people being incarcerated in the short term. That's a good thing.

The AA community prefer less crime like everyone else. I think the drug laws should be eased for casual users but in the mean time, stop doing crack cocaine if you think the sentenses are too severe.

Considering all the important issues that a president has to deal with blaming him for harsh prison sentenses seems a little ridiculous.

My facts are staight and you didn't name one factually incorrect thing I've said.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 03:12PM | 0 recs
Make Up Your Minds

I've heard many, many Clinton supporters contend that Hillary has received much more than a majority of Democratic votes, and now you're saying that the Democrats have turned on the Clintons and hate the Clintons?

Well that's quite a stretch, portraying Hillary as the Dem's choice and the victim of unfair acrimony at the same time.

by toyomama 2008-04-17 01:37PM | 0 recs
Clinton is effective

Her health plan scared the crap out of the industry, and they have been out to get her ever since.

The last thing that big money wants is an effective democratic president.

by internetstar 2008-04-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Big money, as in big pharma?

The folks who have given more money to Hillary than all the other candidates put together?  Those people?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Big money, as in big pharma?

A majority of those donations are from individuals that work in the industry who like her health care plan.
When you take out the individual donations, Clinton isn't even in the top 25 Congress members for donations from the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007091700 05

by skohayes 2008-04-17 03:39PM | 0 recs
This must be the link you were


looking for:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354."

Rick Santorum, what a guy.

"Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies."

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: This must be the link you were

Actually, it was this one:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pa crecips.asp?Ind=H&Cycle=2008

You'll notice the top five are all Democrats and not one of them is Hillary Clinton?

by skohayes 2008-04-17 04:29PM | 0 recs
So, the above mentioned article

is erroneous, is that what you're contending?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: So, the above mentioned article
The "above mentioned article" has a link to the Open Secrets page from PAC donations in 2006 (she's not on the top 25 in that list either, by the way)- I just thought 2008 would be more relevant.
It proves my point.
by skohayes 2008-04-18 03:42AM | 0 recs
Ah, CNN. AOL Time Warner is yet another

corporation that feels threatened by the idea of the MOST EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION in 100 years, returning.

General Electric is another.  I bet you have lots of Chris Matthews to wow us with.

by internetstar 2008-04-18 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, CNN. AOL Time Warner is yet another
Do you also have a problem with OpenSecrets.org?
Why not address the issue and stop attacking the messenger?
by skohayes 2008-04-19 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Not unbelievable.  Sad maybe.

Fact is, many dems (ok, BO supporters) perceive Clinton as running a dirty campaign.  Whether the campaign has been dirty (and which side is worse) is absolutely debatable, but the perception is there.

As an Obama supporter, clearly I am biased towards one candidate but I have lost a lot of respect for the Clintons over the course of the campaign.  I would never doubt their dem cred, etc, but I would not be sad if they just drifted off and we didn't have to look at them for some time.

That is very different from "hating" the Clintons.  Maybe "disappointed" is a better word.  

How did this "disappointment" develop?  Things like "Shame on you Barack Obama" certainly did not help things, especially as the facts tended to catch up with the "outrage."  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

I agree. Disappointment is how I feel. As an African-American it feels like your best friend has decided to not only run you over but back up and do it again.  People want to scream that Barack is playing the race card. Do you think that black people are stupid? I've only been here for 25 years and know racial code words when I see them.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

So you know what she didn't cry for katrina means?

White people aren't stupid either

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

It means she didn't cry for Katrina.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

"People want to scream that Barack is playing the race card. Do you think that black people are stupid? I've only been here for 25 years and know racial code words when I see them."--regina1983

Well, looks like you will soon you will have your transcendent, post-racial candidate as leader. There will be no more race cards to play, code words, all racism will end. Barack will let all African-Americans out of jail that Bill Clinton unfairly imprisoned, all black people will be truly free and America will have paid the highest price by giving the country to the most inexperienced president ever to lead. Can't wait to get this over and done with frankly.

Fast forward to 2012,  America will have paid its final racial debt and then we can finally get back to healthcare, the economy, education, things that will benefit ALL Americans.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 01:57PM | 0 recs
Again, do you think black people are stupid?

I have NEVER said that Barack is going to wipe away our racial prejudices.  What will happen if he wins(which I think is very likely) is that those racists whom both parties have been pandering to will lose.  That is what will be great about him winning the fact that a majority of people can realize that a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid?

"That is what will be great about him winning the fact that a majority of people can realize that a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country."--regina1983

With much  respect, I pick my candidates on matters like universal healthcare with mandates. But I now recognize that there is some deep seated, desperate need to, as you put it, show that "a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country." Let's do it, get it over and done with and satisfy this need for the next 4 years, then we can finally get back to the real issues. Let's shake this fever so that everyone can be happy and then we can choose a new president in 2012 for less symbolic  reasons and more substantive ones like healthcare and education. That's all I'm saying.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid?

This is pretty obnoxious, asserting that blacks support Obama because he's black and white's support him because of white-guilt.

You've drawn this conclusion because you can't imagine any other reason to support such an 'inexperienced' candidate. What you fail to understand is that most of his supporters see his lack of indoctrination into the Beltway culture as a positive. He's perceived as an outsider and this is a change election--it's that simple.

by Brannon 2008-04-17 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid?

Whatever! At this point I've thrown in the towel, lets just give Barack his due, 4 years as the first black president, the destroyer of the Beltway, whatever symbolic hope  you've invested, lets just do it, get over it and get back to the real business of running the country for concrete reasons in 2012.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 03:08PM | 0 recs
AHA!

Sounds like David Dinkins. Yup, let's just give the brotha four years so the black folks will shut up.

You are wrong. I'm voting for him because I like his policy proposals and he is a breath of fresh air.

Screw you mofo.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Those Obama ads with "Harry and Louise" were a low blow to Hillary and the race baiting of the Clintons which started pre SC was the Obama strategy to hurt and hit the Clintons where they are the strongest.Shame on Obama! Admit it!  Obama's campaign and the 4 page memo started this race baiting, sexism and misogyny and that is when I lost my respect for Obama. His silence on this showed he was the one who would say and do anything to win. And is fear of counting Mi and Fl confirms my opinion.

by tiffany 2008-04-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Making the Clintons out to be racist is something that John McCain would NEVER do.

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 01:54PM | 0 recs
You are right!!

He would be considered a hypocrite.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Obama's race and Clintons sex cancel each other out. So please stop with this sexist racist crap.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Obama's race and Clintons sex cancel each other out. So please stop with this sexist racist crap.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

They run even in Michigan, according to polls. Obama is slightly up now, actually. Michigan would not get Hillary the delegates she needs.

Florida alone, even if seated now, wouldn't either.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 03:53PM | 0 recs
Not just BO supporters.

I was a late and reluctant BO supporter, by default. I was a Kucinich, then Edwards supporter.

I am a pacifist, a populist, and for universal healthcare. I am for impeachment. I am for turning the neocons over to the Hague and investigating them for connections to every foul thing that's happened in this country since Feb, 2001. I want my Constitution back. I want black sites closed. I want torture ended. I want out of the Middle East. I want a trillion bucks spent on green initiatives. I don't want our debt owned by Communist China. I want a real 9/11 investigation. I want a candidate other than Ron fucking Paul who talks about these things.

I WANT a fighter in the White House. Just not a NAFTA-promoting, take-money-from-lobbyists, donations-for-favors, adopt-right-wing-attack-memes fighter.

So no, it's not just BO people.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Not just BO supporters.

Molly Ivins in January of 2006

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

Do you know how many people felt and feel that way?  There was a huge expectation that she would run and an enormous opposition to it that bounced from candidate to candidate until it finally settled on Obama.  

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:27PM | 0 recs
You've said it well, rhetoricus.

  Big money corporate lobbyists are not people too, unless you were to loosen the definition considerably.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

This is a big reason why I have a hard time getting excited about Obama as a nominee. Had the roles been reversed, I would be as offended.

Democrats eat their own. It's why Republicans usually win. Sigh.

by Dari 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

No no no. If Hillary was in Barack's place. Barack would be treated like Mike Huckabee right now. Period.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Huckabee was not winning primaries and being supported by half of the Democratic voters.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-17 02:36PM | 0 recs
What it has done to her?

C'mon.  I actually think Dems will come together in the end, but she's been handing up Republican talking point after Republican talking point this campaign.  John McCain can run as an ad against Obama her comments alone on Obama and commander in chief, adding nothing.  

Jerome, I think you ought to be able to use any metric you'd like to prop up Sen. Clinton's candidacy.  But might I suggest we agree upon those metrics BEFORE we run the race.  That way we don't have to tell folks in Ohio that they're more important than Missouri or Wisconsin.  And we don't, as Democrats, have to engage in diminishing the obvious good of a candidate who plays well in Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming or North Dakota.

That's the kind of appeal we as a party ought to like.

by niksder 2008-04-17 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Identity politics.  A long and close race.

Mnay young people who see in Obam more than a politican.

I noticed it in February and March 2007.  Many Edwards supporters were left of center and about class issues and antiwar issues.  Obama supporters were about Obama.

Obama has marketed himself, through his book and over $100 M spent in campaign ads and otherwise, as something more than a politican, maybe more than a man. The transcendant imagery takes on a quisi religious tone with some supporters.

I often have criticized the idea of Obama as all good and Clinton as the epitome of evil.  Some, however, believe it.

Frontpagers on Dkos egg it on at times, although Markos did a front page post quoting Obama on Lieberman in an attempt to show Obama was not "infallible."  

It's a bizzare phenomena.  I believe it is a small minority of Obama supporters who buy into it.

On the other side, some Clinton supporters have red baited and played racial games, such as playing on fears of "black militancy" with Wright.

There are few issue differences, so hate is all many have.

by TomP 2008-04-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

Pick up a copy of David Brock's book, Blinded by the Right.  He details how the RW smear machine latched onto the Clintons while they were still in Arkansas and never let go.  Google The American Spectator, David Brock, Richard Mellon Scaife, The Arkansas Project.  It's all there.

The personal destruction of the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of anyone organizing it 20 years ago.  Everytime I hear RW hate speech coming out of the mouths of Democrats, I die a little inside.  Textbook example of the axiom "If you repeat anything often enough, it becomes true".

by jarhead5536 2008-04-17 02:57PM | 0 recs
Hillary will still stand by the party...

Senator Clinton more than most Democrats understands clearly that however badly the Democratic party is treating her the worst Democrat in the WH will be much better for men, women, children, blacks, whites, browns and yellows, union members, blue-collar workers, the poor, the middle class, and yes, even the rich, healthcare, education, defense, science, other US domestic policy,  US foreign policy, the world (global warming), etc, etc, etc than the best Republican.

I hope Obama and his supporters are as clear on what is best for the country as Hilary Clinton is.  
At present it is very clear that Obama wants to win the presidency.  
It is much less clear what he wants to do after he has done so.

by clio 2008-04-17 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

She's a hell of a woman...way more a stand up kind of person than Obama.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: How and why did this hatred develop?

You don't understand?  Maybe because you know where your next meal is coming from...

In 1980 I began my career in the computer industry, paid less that $15K a year.  After 20 years of working up to 20-hour days I finally broke six figures.  Then Hillary joined with the Republicans to create the India Caucus to lower wages of us computer geeks.  She succeeded,  In 2000, I made $103,000.  In 2005, I made $12,000, and in 2006, I made $13,000  after they raised the H1B guestworker quotas so my fellow workers and I could be laid off and replaced by people paid much less.  I was lucky because I have no family depending on me.  But I got to help my friend Angie, sole support for her granddaughter, pick her granddaughter's belongings off the lawn when they got evicted because the sysadmin jobs were all given away and the only job available, part time in a flower shop, couldn't pay for their cheap apartment.  I have friends who are now truck drivers, nurses, grocery clerks.  Thanks, Hillary!

I'll vote for Hillary when my friends and I get our careers back.  But it's not gonna happen because Hillary (and Obama), like McCain, fully support giving even more of our jobs away by raising the quotas yet again.

"I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York" said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the former first lady of the United States of America.

by numen 2008-04-17 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

She's such a partisan Democrat that she's willfully damaging the likely nominee.  She isn't a team player.  Last night's debate showed that she'll say anything - even linking Obama to Farrakhan and Hamas without prompt - to win the nomination.  She's making these absurd attacks more credible by giving voice to them.

by cilerder86 2008-04-17 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

How did she do anything last night to link Obama to anyone?  You are delusional.

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

  I'm sorry if you didn't hear it, but she said that Obama's church distributed a pamphlet with a quote from Hamas, and then something unintelligible about Farrakhan.  She mumbled it to be sure.  She brought it up without prompting from either moderator.

by cilerder86 2008-04-17 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Is this not true?  How is she linking Obama to anything?  He linked himself by choosing to be involved with the church.  If the tables were turned you can bet the Obama campaign would be using it to their advantage.  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

  It's an absurd character attack that originates from the right-wing media.  If the tables were turned, Obama would not be using it to his advantage.  He's a team player.  

by cilerder86 2008-04-17 01:29PM | 0 recs
Right just like his

campaign was not sending out e-mails about cattle futures, just like he didn't start an inquisition into her tax records, just like his chief strategist didn't bring up white water on national television and just like his wife didn't say Hillary couldn't run the WH because she couldn't run her house.

The real Obama that I have seen this primary clashes with the innocent lamb you idolize.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Right just like his

   Not one of those things was said by Obama, and yet you pretend that they are.  I don't idolize him as an innocent lamb.  I'm just trying to find out how far Hillary has to go before the self-professed Democratic partisans realize that she is damaging the likely nominee.  I would happily vote for Hillary.  I'm a partisan.  I just find that Hillary's partisan rhetoric is undercut by her attacks on the likely nominee.

by cilerder86 2008-04-17 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

You are joking, right?  Obama is a team player?

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

  Nice response: the ominous rhetorical question.  What's up next, John McEnroe's "are you serious?!"

by cilerder86 2008-04-17 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Oh lordy, if you want to play the guilt by association game, you better be prepared for incoming.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-17 01:30PM | 0 recs
DONT' EVER INSULT THE BLACK CHURCH

That is a big no no and THAT is why Hillary would NEVER EVER get the black vote if she somehow got this nomination.

by regina1983 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: DONT' EVER INSULT THE BLACK CHURCH

The Black church will have to face scrutiny if the sentiments expressed by Reverend Wright are common and defended as acceptable. The feedback may be important, communication is a two way street. If that alienates some people so be it. Hate speech really doesn't have a place in society. Not against any color of people.

Many people will refrain from expressing their most hateful sentiments when they are faced with direct feedback from the people they are hating, so perhaps this conversation is overdue. If people cannot stand to listen to the response from the ones on the receiving side of the screaming they won't grow, and will be left behind.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Actually, they're not. I know a whole lot about Clinton's creepy right-wing prayer group, much of the blogosphere knows about it, but nary a peep from the Obama campaign.

by Gimmeliberty 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
No, Obama is NOT

..using everything that's out there on Hillary. Not even freaking close. He's just trying to run a positive campaign because that's his schtik.

Did he bring up the whole list of Clinton pardons, and the long, long line of high-level criminal scumbags in that parade?

Did he bring up Hillary's work defending terrorist cop-killers in a Berkeley law firm?

Did he bring up Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

Did he bring up how "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?

Did he bring up Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

Did he bring up how powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

Did he bring up how Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

Did he bring up her dishonesty about her NAFTA support?

Did he bring up the 800K from the Colombian group that arms the right-wing paramilitary thugs down there?

Did he bring up how much money she got from big Pharma lobbysits?

Did he bring up how much money she got from AIPAC lobbyists?

Did he bring up how much money she got from carbon emitter lobbyists?

Did he ask what kinds of "favors" are attached to 1 million-dollar contributions?

Did he bring up "screw the middle class," after she'd absolutely crucified him over "bittergate"?

No, Obama didn't go near the arsenal he could have used on her.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Say anything?

I think she has held her tongue more than once.  She could have skewered him many times.  

For the good of the party in the fall, she has NOT said a hell of alot.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I think the biggest names have been the most divisive: Markos, Josh Marshall and Arianna Huffington. It's like they beat the unity schtick hard as long as it's not within the party.

by tarheel74 2008-04-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
and sadly,

those radicals are somehow taking this party over.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: and sadly,

I would not call them radicals (at least not Huffington) I prefer cynical opportunists.

by tarheel74 2008-04-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
I would

look at how the HuffPo covers Bill. they cover him worse than the Weekly Standard does. They love all Democrats, except the man who brought our party back from the depths of political hell.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I would

Bill Clinton brought our party back from political hell?  Are you joking.  

His inability to keep his hands off of Monica Lewinski and his subsequenlty lies about it, lead to his impeachment and contributed greatly to George W. Bush's "election" in 2000.  

Don't get me wrong, I loved him and defended him while he was in office, but his personal misbehavior did grevious harm to our party.  

He's no savior.  

by ruskin 2008-04-17 01:46PM | 0 recs
average electoral votes, lets compare

electoral votes before Clinton
1968-191
1972-17
1976-297
1980-49
1984-13
1988-112
So thats an average of 113. Now lets look Clinton and post Clinton
====
1992-370
1996-379
2000-267(292 with Florida)
2004-252
Even averaging Gore and Kerry, we get 260, and thats a fuck of a lot better than before Bill Clinton. Even if we go popular vote percentage, and we don't factor Perot, who has been proven to actually COST US, in 1992 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A96495826 0 and 1996 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html  we usually got in the low 40's in raw overall popular vote. It was CLINTON who propelled us to the upper 40's, and we'd averaging lower 50's if Perot had not been on the November ballots in 92 and 96(and if you think Perot changed either election outcome, I challenge you to actually PROVE it, as I have shown proof he didn't in popular vote)
While, yes, the Lewinsky thing didn't help in 2000, Gore's inability to turn the tables on Bush, as Bush's father did to Dukakis after Iran Contra, and his horrible campaign strategy sunk him. Dukakis had LEAD in spring of 1988 for a reason, so the people obviously were somewhat sick of Reagan/Bush, but Bush Sr. turned the tables on Dukakis and beat him. Yes, he did use negative ads, but negative ads WORK. Gore had horrendous ads. Gore picked a dud running mate, and you'd have thought with his charisma lack that year, he'd pick someone with charisma.  he should have ran a "kinder gentler America" and "thousand points of light" campaign, rather than a "people vs. the powerful" one, which was obviously phony, coming from Gore, especially when put next to Bush. He also should not have counted on Florida. It doesn't take a dope to realize in a close election, the fix was in there. He should have won West Virginia, a state where only Mondale and McGovern lost, but couldn't. He didn't effectively try, even TRY to combat the NRA attacks.

Just because we had "more seats on Congress" before Clinton doesn't mean he hurt us. Those seats were bound to change after the Reagan Revolution, the 1990 census, and the averse reaction the new Republicans from Reagan would have to ANY Democrat in the White House, and to associate his longtime local Dem politician with the party he had been absconding from since Nixon or Reagan, not to mention the countless scandals with the D-logo on them, house banking, Keating Five(proof McCain is not a real repub, he was the only one in it), Post Office scandal, not to mention, wasn't the press treatment of President Clinton a little unfair? I mean, they took him reforming a corrupt travel office, and made it a "scandal," talked about a land deal gone bad as if it hurt anyone, Paula Jones, Bill Clinton didn't ask the media to fuck him over.

but the fact is, Bill Clinton expanded our base big time. In 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1972, we would never won PA, CA, IL, DE, MI, NJ, ME, NH, MD, CT, VT even, and now we win these states in huge landslides everytime. Even in 1968, where we lost the south, we lost most of those states. Those states make up a total of 160 electoral votes. Thats a majority of the 270 we need to win. Before that, the best we did was 112 with Dukakis. Clinton solidified the states he got for us, like NY, MA, RI, WA, OR, WI, IA, MN and HI which have gone for us in all subsequent elections (e. Iowa 04) We lost most of those states in 1980, 1984, and 1972, and even 1968. Bill delivered suburbs which used to be very Republican, like Nassau County in NY, like much of suburban California, New England, and others we used to get wrecked in. He brought the Reagan/Nixon Dems that we lost in a big way, and brought the socially liberal New Englanders onto our side from the Reagan/Bush side. It is because of Bill Clinton the blue states that even exist exist. Before him, there weren't many blue states.

It is also because of him more people associate us with fiscal prosperity than ever before, and don't see us as much as the "party of welfare" and "soft on crime". Take a read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-mic hael-smith/what-obama-owes-bill-clin_b_9 4236.html I'm surprised Huffington hasn't offed his head yet.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: average electoral votes, lets compare

Excellent informative post. Thank you!!

by skohayes 2008-04-17 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I would

IMO Arianna, Josh , Aravosis and Markos are really not Democrats because true Democrats would never trash the most successful Democrats in our party.  What I see is that they are all former Republicans who still possess that mean and selfish streak.  They have personal issues and hatred for the Clintons and are using their blogs to destroy them.  Anyone who falls for these phonies and their blogs is an idiot!

by tiffany 2008-04-17 01:47PM | 0 recs
they WOULD be

as no one foams their mouths better than Repubs, and as old habits die hard, even with former Repubs. I don't get it.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: and sadly,

radicals? Seriously. How does this kind of talk NOT sound like it is coming directly from a Republican?

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
the same way their talk of the Clintons

sounds like Rush Limbaugh. they rehash myths, and have these talking points which lack any depth or insight. Just go the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, take a look, and you'll see what I mean.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: the same way their talk of the Clintons

Fine. Rehashing myths is bad too. I have been angered many times by the Clinton tactics, but I try to refrain from posting negatively about Clinton. What's the point?

If you don't like the tactics of these Obama supporter's you speak of, then don't use them yourself.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-17 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: and sadly,

You sound just like that great democrat Joe Lieberman

by beermeister 2008-04-17 01:30PM | 0 recs
calling Bill Clinton immoral

as Lieberman and many Obama supporters/Kossacks/DUers do is like Lieberman AND Rush AND Hannity AND so many other conservative simpleton rednex. And you know, Lieberman wasn't that bad on issues except foreign policy, censorship, and "morals". However, unlike him, I will support the Dem nominee even if it is Satan himself, and I dont' like his lack of being a Democrat today or his support of McCain.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Lieberman was THAT BAD

He didn't give a rat's ass about the poor people in New Orleans after Katrina after he swore that he would start investigations and work on legislation to get more funding. Now he says, "it's a waste of time."

by regina1983 2008-04-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
didn't know

but he wasn't terrible on domestic issues too long ago. but after Bush's "re" election, he took a turn for the worse.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Radicals?

what fresh idiocy is this?  Jerome wrote a book with Markos about the fifty state strategy.  You might try it sometime.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:34PM | 0 recs
I believe in the 50 state thing

but is also wrong to say "the Clintons don't care about it" because they won more states than Kerry AND Gore. There are at least 12 states we always carry that we never did from 1968-1988 that Clinton picked up in 1992. They solidified the Dukakis states, and  they even won states we can't win today, like AR, OH, TN, LA, MO, NM, FL, while yea, some other ones like GA, KY, MT, CO, NV maybe were flukes. But the Clintons know a fuck of a lot more about 50 state strategy than Kerry and Gore did. To say the Clintons only focused on big states is bullshit.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I believe in the 50 state thing

They?  It's Hillary running, not they.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-17 01:45PM | 0 recs
Yes, but Perot

..isn't running this time.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:09PM | 0 recs
perot didn't change shit

and i notice its how when you Clinton haters use the old GOP myth, you never can actually cite EVIDENCE that Perot changed the outcome of either election. Its just a rightwing excuse for why Bush lost, and a Kos excuse for why someone who wasn't a radical won, and to rally against the martyrdom the far left loves. He swung very few states that made no difference in the outcome. Exit polls showed he split votes evenly in both

1992
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A96495826 0

1996
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

So just face it, the DLC worked in the 90's and not being Dukakis and Mondale were completely necessary. I'd rather we have sold out than not sold back then. perot was not a factor in the Bill Clinton election outcomes. I challenge you to PROVE otherwise. Just because Perot got 19 percent of the vote doesn't mean that all, or enough would have gone to bush to change the outcome, and same with Dole.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 02:38PM | 0 recs
ROFL

Take your pills. You sound hysterical.

I voted for Clinton twice. I've spent years defending both Clintons. I don't hate anyone.

Bill never got a majority vote. Period.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 03:34PM | 0 recs
yea. so whats you point?

I'm only spewing the facts and against the spin, and that in 3 way races, usually you never get 50 percent. Look at countries with Parliaments, they NEVER get a "majority" of votes, because there are more than two parties, 3 or more real contenders, to be precise. Even in "landslide" elections there, the victor doesn't get a majority of votes. Look at the  1997 UK election, considered a Labour "Landslide" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_UK_gen eral_election#The_Campaign and THEY didn't get anywhere near 50 percent of votes. But, like with the Presidency, they got the most seats, as CLinton got the most, and most of the electoral votes and the White House.  Even in 1994, the GOP didn't get a "majority" of votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat es_House_of_Representatives_elections%2C _1994  With Clinton, perot acted like the Lib Dems do in the UK, or other blocs in other nations parliaments act: he, like them had a ton of money, and was viable for similar vote percentages 3 parties get in parliaments. He had wide appeal, and there is evidence, which I showed you to prove it. The point is Clinton never got a majority because he always had 2 opponents, both extremely moneyed, not one like Carter had, or LBJ had or Bush I or II. His wins were still impressive, and evidence shows he would have won in 2 way races. Even if there were runoffs, in most countries who have Presidential runoffs, the 1st round winner usually wins the 2nd, and seeing as Clinton was an amazing camapaigner, I'd bet my family on him winning runoffs.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: yea. so whats you point?

If we'd had a runoff in 1992, George Sr. would have taken it, because Perot pulled more conservative votes. The "spoiler" in that election was a conservative, and it favored Clinton, the same way Nader's run in 2000 hurt Gore and helped W.

1996 had record low voting levels, and Dole was about the most uninspiring candidate they could have dreamed up.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 07:08PM | 0 recs
what the hell are you talking about?

can you actually back that up? Conservative votes, as in pro-choice, pro gays in military, and raising taxes to cut the deficit? Conservative? You just hate Clinton. you myth peddlers always spew the myth, have no factual backup or statistical backup, you parrot Limbaugh and the kicked off air Randi Rhodes. Bush had approval ratings in the 30s and 40s the whole fucking year, no party gets reelected with them. Exit polls showed he siphoned evenly, and for Bush to have overcome Clinton's lead, assuming all Perot voters voted without him, he'd have to get 63 percent of his voters, which is not likely. Not to mention, when Perot was gone from the race, Clinton led Bush in the high 50's, while Bush polled where he was the whole year, and continued when Perot came back: the upper 30's. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/17/1952 41/633 if you wanna see facts.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I believe in the 50 state thing

To say the Clintons only focused on big states is bullshit.

Yeah, I mean, their strategy in this campaign wasn't all about big states at all.

by you like it 2008-04-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
They are not even radicals.

Some Clinton supporters liek to scream that Kos is a Naderite.  Bullshit.

Edwards was too left of center for him and others there.

Obama is a centrist, just like Clinton.  

by TomP 2008-04-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
I think it was more on the grounds
that he thought Edwards was incompetent to win the general election.  He was correct, as it turned out, although as I'm sure you're going to say, Edwards never got a fair shake from the media.  But that is the hand we're dealt.  You have to cultivate the media, not blast them at every turn.  As well, Kos saw that hanging your campaign on the premise that America is all screwed up is not a winning message.  Americans have never and never will elect a candidate to any office who carries that message, true though it may be.  
We need to be all about winning this time, and thank dog we have the man for the job!
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:46PM | 0 recs
Kos himself is a Naderite

but he, like Obama supporters wants to deny Obama is a DLC Centrist. He is for the death penalty, but to pander to the fringes, just wants to "reform" it, he is for NAFTA and free trader as he says he doesn't even want to pull out, just "reform" or "renegotiate" it, and he just campaigns against it for political points with the Kos and other blogs, and it IS a convenient punching bag, he isn't against ALL preemptive war, just Iraq, but gives off the impression he is to appeal to Kos' crowd, he was also for ending welfare as we knew it, which made it a second chance, not a way of life as he knows reforming welfare saved the party, as it was THE issue with which the GOP wrecked us in 1968, 72, 80, 84, and 88, along with crime. And Obama is AGAINST gay marriage, because he knows thats what cost John Kerry 2004, after Bill Clinton warned him, and he didn't listen.

What I can't wait to see is how the whole Dkos and DU crowd will turn on their heads when Obama is signing more free trade agreements, or if he should lose Congressional seats, or he should sign something like the DOMA, or he doesn' succeed at everything. Oh wait, they'll just make excuses that he's not a Clinton, or he's a minority, so he deserves special treatment.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-17 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Josh Marshall has been divisive?  That's news to me.

by the mollusk 2008-04-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
Don't forget

The author of this flame-war inviting post.

by nwgates 2008-04-17 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Josh Marshall?  a radical?  What a hearty chuckle that gave me!!

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-04-17 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I've consistently said that Hillary Clinton would make a fine president and that I will work to get her elected if she somehow pulls out the nomination.  At the same time, I think it's pretty ugly to watch one Democrat essentially take the GOP's side while making culture war arguments against another Democrat.  Politics is a contact sport, and I'll get over my distaste for the campaign HRC has run if I have to, but lets not pretend that all criticism of Clinton's recent attacks somehow means that we Obama supporters are trying to kick Clinton out of the party.  

A handful of comments, like the one's you're siezing onto, do not establish a pattern.  If they did, I would have concluded that all Clinton supporters think Obama is a racist, unpatriotic, elitist who is simultaneously too liberal and too conservative.  The rec'd diaries on this site consistently make all those arguments, after all.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-17 01:19PM | 0 recs
Why keep stoking the flames?

Is such a comment really necessary?  Are there THAT many bloggers who support Obama who think Clinton is not a real Democrat?

The number who truly believe that is miniscule.

by you like it 2008-04-17 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Why keep stoking the flames?

I think there are more people out there who feel that way than you imagine.

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why keep stoking the flames?

I think that the majority of Clinton supporters want overturn Roe v Wade.

See how easy it is to make stuff up and put "i think" in front of it.  You need to get off the internet if you think their is this vast pool of people that think Hillary isn't a democrat and listen to everything a commenter says on a website.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why keep stoking the flames?

I don't think a vast majority of Democrats think Hillary isn't a Democrat.  I think quite a few Obama supporters would repeat that meme to hurt her though.

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why keep stoking the flames?

I think you want to believe that.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why keep stoking the flames?

No offense, and I really do mean no offense, but we don't need to hurt Clinton.  Most of us don't think she has a shot in hell at getting the nomination except in a way that tears asunder the party.  We are however, getting a little flustered with the fact that we can't turn our sights on the real opponent though.  Which is John McCain.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

No, this is wrong.

This is not about hatred for the Clintons. We are just sick of Clinton supporters and until last night, Clinton herself, telling us Obama can't win. It is insulting and demeaning to suggest that we can't evaluate our own candidate's chances.

How about a front page post about how Clinton supporters are so damn happy with themselves when they state over and over again that Obama is doomed.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I have certainly seen multiple commenters on this site within the last 24 hours carrying that message, even before Kos made his infamous statement.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I would like to point out that Markos didn't make that statement.  He linked to it.

by kasjogren 2008-04-17 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Thanks for the correction.  However, the rest of what I said stands.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 02:23PM | 0 recs
That's odd

I could have sworn it was Clinton supporters who were more likely to refuse to support Obama when asked by pollsters. But it must be Obama supporters that are the haters, cause Jerome say so.

Also odd that Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly thing Barack Obama is more electable. And odd that Clinton has much worse favorability ratings. And odd that Obama polls better nationally vs. McCain. And odd that he does better in electoral vote projections based on current state-by-state polling.

But Jerome says Obama supporters are blind to the unelectability of their candidate, blinded by their hatred of Clinton.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-17 01:23PM | 0 recs
When you're at 54% hard negatives

and rising, to go along with an untrustworthiness rating of 61%, it would be hard to escape the sense that your own party is closing ranks against you, even if (as is the case) it's of your own doing.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
I only wish

that I could rate this comment higher than 2.

I'm not sure of how to answer the question of whether the Clintons are still Democrats.

On policy positions, there's no doubt, they are still in the mainstream.  But their me-first determination to open the Republican playbook against Obama is something I would never expect from someone who self-identifies as a Democrat.

What really rankles - beyond the insincerity of the elitism attack coming from a couple that is awfully comfortable at Davos - is the idea that it's just fine for a Democrat to lend credence to Republican attacks.  Take a quote out of context?  No problem.  Demean and besmirch a life spent as a civil rights lawyer, a community organizer, a state senator?  No problem!  The idea here seems to be - all Democrats better walk around on eggshells, and make sure they never say anything that might be construed as too librul.  Because that slip makes everything else pale into insignificance.

It's maddening that HRC doesn't see (or care?) that this is exactly the crap we are ALL fighting against as Democrats.  

And it's NOT alright to say this is just what the GOP is going to try in the fall.  It matters a great deal whether this is the kind of stuff that only the Sean Hannitys of the world are saying, or whether Dems are embracing the idea as well.  How thrilled would you be if some mainstream Republican - not an apostate like Lugar, but a real mainstream Republican with status - maybe H.W. Bush? - began insisting that McCain was a warmonger who was out of touch with American values?  Or if Lindsey Graham started insisting that John McCain shouldn't be Pres, because he associates with right-wing figures like Pastor Hagee?  That would be fantastic!  

Flip it and you have what HRC is doing to BHO.

Leaving aside the strategy, though, this is making Obama supporters (and the polls seem to show, some previously uncommitted Dems) furious because we think it's fundamentally unfair.  You may not like Obama.  But he has shown a lot of dedication to the causes that Democrats care about - every bit as much as the Clintons.  There's a lot of there there, and a lot of think he's a fundamentally good man.  To try to turn him into a cartoon version of a liberal, the way the Republicans will try turned him into?  

Not OK.

by TL 2008-04-17 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I only wish

I mean, isn't that exactly why Joe Lieberman is Fox News's favorite (former) Democrat?

When stupid right wing smears come from right-wingers, people generally recognize that it's "just politics" and take it with an appropriate grain of salt. When they're repeated by Democrats it gives them undue credibility.

That's why people are pissed at Hillary Clinton. She's doing the same thing Joe Lieberman has always done. And it hurts all Democrats.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: That's odd

Look the dailykos faction was talking about not voting for Hillary starting in 2004

Obama himself said his supporters wouldn't vote for Hillary back when Hillary was oh so positive.

That was before I started even THINKING about voting for McCain.

You all ACTIVELY split the milk, don't cry about it now.

If you really care about the democratic party start focusing on why we should be voting for a party that does us like this in 2010.

2008 is lost if Obama is the candidate.

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: That's odd

2008 is lost if Obama is the candidate.

Evidence? No? I didn't think so.

Just look at the polling. It's the Hillary supporters who are only conditionally supporting the Democratic candidate in the fall, not the Obama supporters.

Talk about your tiny tent dems.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: That's odd

"2008 is lost if Obama is the candidate."

If there's anything you can do about it, you mean.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Wow.

Just wow Jerome.

Wow.

I cant believe the guy that runs a blue colored hillaryis44.com has the nerve to post this.

by beermeister 2008-04-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Prior to OH and TX, I was riled up against Clinton and started considering McCain.  Then the whole Wright affair happened, and Obama's speech, and then I realized why I was a Democrat in the first place and felt ashamed I had ever even considered McCain.

No matter what Clinton (or her supporters) say or do from here on out, I will be voting Democrat in November.  I'm confident most people will feel the same way by November after months of concentrated negative attacks from the Republicans.

by direwolfc 2008-04-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

It is really sad to see people try to steal our party for themselfs and then pass judgement on who is and is not a democrat.  The great thing about the democratic party is it is diverse.  While, black, brown, and anyone else.  One of the reason i cant be a republican is i feel it is the pary of exclusion.  

The sad truth is that some in the BO crowd and David Alexlord what to run the show and take over.  That just is not the democratic party and it is really sad.  I have only ever seen one democratic president as an adult and that was Bill Clinton.  To see democrats attack him like i have seen BO supporters kills me.

david

by giusd 2008-04-17 01:25PM | 0 recs
Read a biography of FDR sometime

or JFK or RFK or even LBJ to find out what a real Democrat should be.  (Hint, it has nothing to do with welfare reform or NAFTA or DOMA, or taking bales of cash from dictators or outsourcing companies.)  Bill Clinton was always an enabler of corporations.  Many felt he was the best Republican president in the last few decades.  He raised the defense budget dramaticaly, too, which if you get right down to it is the source of everything that ails this country. We have more money than we can spend, and yet year after year it goes into the insatiable maw of the defense industry.  Come to think of it, here's what a real Democrat would sound like if there were such available today.  Can you guess which Democratic president said this?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Read a biography of FDR sometime

So there have been no real democratic presidents in most of our voting lifetimes huh?

wonder why?

28 years thats 0 for 8

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Read a biography of FDR sometime

I'm going to assume your question is serious, because there's an obvious answer: the Civil Rights Act.  Even LBJ knew what it was going to do to future Democratic nominees.  It took freaking Watergate to get the next one in.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:39PM | 0 recs
And now we have a president

and a party with very Watergate-like numbers.  On the repug side we have a literally weak Repub candidate who has promised us 100 years in Iraq and maybe an attack on Iran. On our side, a hell of an orator and all around smart cookie in Obama.  We don't have to settle for a DLC hawk this time.  Even the newly minted populist Edwards would have won this time around, as inept as his campaign was.  Bill Clinton never won a majority, by the way, not in his first or even his second term, it was Perot's providential candidacy dividing the libertarian and the crackpot vote that got him in in 1992.  In 1996, even the pathetic Dole/Kemp ticket got as many votes as Clinton when combined with Perot's 8.8%.

Such are the conditions that I fully expect Obama to win at least 60% against geezer McCain, and you can quote me on that in November.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Capo di tutti capi: "Yup."

Now, what would Capo--a relatively recent convert to the Democratic Party--know about who qualifies to be "a Democrat?"

As a member of the majority in this party--who voted for Hillary Clinton--I believe the grandiosity may be contagious in the TINY Tent wing of the Democratic Party.

Yup.

by Tennessean 2008-04-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Hard-nosed campaign? Oh give me a fucking break, I suppose you'll be telling me that the swift-boaters attacks against Kerry were completely on-the-level...

by TheNewMexican 2008-04-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Oh please.

Kerry joined in an paid for an ad that morphed Howard Dean into Osama. He got swift-boated because Karma had his number, just like it has Baracks.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
Source of that scurrilous allegation

please?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Source of that scurrilous allegation

Just call him a liar, because you'll never get that source.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Source of that scurrilous allegation

Hmmmmm.  No, I'll not call him that, as I've been trying to raise the civility level around here.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Source of that scurrilous allegation

Howard Dean is the source:

On November 7, 2003, a strange new group no one had ever heard of called "Americans for Jobs & Healthcare" was quietly formed and soon thereafter began running a million dollar operation including political ads against then-frontrunner Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The commercials ripped Dean over his positions or past record on gun rights, trade and Medicare growth. But the most inflammatory ad used the visual image of Osama bin Laden as a way to raise questions about Dean's foreign policy credibility. While the spots ran, Americans for Jobs-through its then- spokesman, Robert Gibbs, a former Kerry campaign employee-refused to disclose its donors.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lewis0306200 4.html

by skohayes 2008-04-17 04:10PM | 0 recs
Probably too late

to reply but you can see that someone here gave you the link and source.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-18 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

The chances of Obama supporters being needed to support a Clinton run for the Presidency are miniscule, at best.  She has no mathematical shot at the pledged delegate count, and the superdelegates have been flooding to Obama since February.  It will be incumbent upon Clinton supporters to get behind an Obama run for the Presidency, not the other way around.

In 2008, at least.  

by Wayward Son 2008-04-17 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

If you count all 50 states reality is very different...

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
most primaries don't..

..but a fair counting would require a full and fair re-vote, not penalizing voters who stayed home, a stipulation Hillary wouldn't agree to.

And aren't you the guys pushing for SD's to override the pledged delegate vote?

So stop pretending you give a damn about the voters.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:16PM | 0 recs
Cite please

I don't recall Clinton making any stipulations at all.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Huh? He leads by seven to ten points in virtually every national poll of Democrats for the last two weeks, and has a larger lead over McCain in California, which I know some of you like to wave as some sort of trump card because she won the primary.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems
The nerve of folks who actually believe this is not our Party
http://www.dlc.org/
by nogo war 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

What the hell happened to you Jerome? I'm a Obama supporter and I would vote for Hillary in the general. Why would even say something like this? "Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November." What bullshit, you should know better Jerome, I'm glad Todd is still posting here or I'd be gone also.

by anujtron 2008-04-17 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I have a consistent problem with the Hillary beat the drum hate I've seen. This has been from day one in the Obama campaign; it's simply logic. There's no way Obama could have taken some of Hillary's support without going negative on her--bottom line. Completley trashing a Democrat who has given her life to the party--and then getting Dean and Brazile and the MSM to continue on the beating, now with the help of party elites, is disgusting. It's the reason I changed my voting registration to Indy and why I would have no qualm if Senator Clinton leaves the party--but simply put, she's too classy to do that. It's something I would only expect from a newcomer like Mr. Obama

by zcflint05 2008-04-17 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Jerome, even if you believe this to be true, what does posting this on the front page do besides provide another place for Obama supporters and Clinton supporters to just go at it.

I don't think there's a point in calling Clinton a Republican, but is it any better to call Obama supporters "small tent dems" ?

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-17 01:31PM | 0 recs
Which is, after all, the furthest thing

from the truth.  Obama has inspired many MILLIONS of new voters, especially young people, who we will need to beat McCain.  That increase in voter turnout is an indisputable fact, and Hillary had nothing much do with it.  I've been around a long time, and I've never seen anything like this level of enthusiasm.  In Washington and Oregon, Obama is swamped with volunteers, thousands of them.  Here in Washington State, we had to have several precincts caucus outside the building there were so many hundreds of people there, almost all for Obama.  We had one young kid get up and give a little speech that had the whole lot of us sniffling like babies.  Unheard of!

So Jerome, give the tiny tent stuff a rest.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Well, this is true for some I am sure.  But don't engage in these sorts of generalizations.  I am an avid Obama supporter, but I would wholeheartedly support Hillary in the general.  I have both of her books on my bookshelf, and a campaign sticker from her Senate campaign in my window.  I still like her, and I was leaning her way for part of the election.  Obama simply won me over with his great message, detailed policy positions and the amazing campaign he has run.

It is obvious to any neutral observer that he out-maneuvered her and out-campaigned her.  She had almost every advantage, and he simply beat her.  Once it was clear that he had done this, she turned to attack politics to try to turn it around.  I don't think any of her attacks have been that bad aside from suggesting McCain is more qualified to being Commander-In-Chief than Obama.  We Democrats know better than that.

Obama has proven he is the better candidate and would make for a great President.  That's why I am for him.  I'd love to see Hillary as Secretary of Defense in Obama's administration...she'd be great.

by gorebeatbush2 2008-04-17 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Funnily enough, Obama has lead among Democrats in the daily polls by a fairly healthy margin for most of the past two weeks, at least.

by rfahey22 2008-04-17 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Ya and according to the polls he won california and texas...

Polls seem very biased this year.

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

And New Hampshire

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:09PM | 0 recs
Thanks for saving me the ink

on that misconception.

Wapo poll, yesterday:

"Sen. Barack Obama holds a 10-point lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when **Democrats** are asked whom they would prefer to see emerge as the party's presidential nominee"

As a side note:

Just got a robocall from my congressman Brian Baird to remember to show up this Saturday as an alternate delegate to the Washington State convention to help Obama keep or increase his pledged delegates.  Apparently several of the precincts are on the bubble to swing another delegate to Obama.  This outfit is organized to the hilt, I'm telling you.

Don't worry, Congressman, I'll be there!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

GALLUP and Rasmussen - which are titled toward Republicans.

Now go to SUSA anbd the state matchups....you won't see that at all.  You will see the reverse....

by sas 2008-04-17 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Gee, how does that fit when you see their leader is always praising Republicans and Republican presidents instead of Democrats?...hmmmm????

by LindaSFNM 2008-04-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

This Obama supporter knows that Clinton is a loyal Democrat.  PERIOD.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-04-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

As do I, though I don't always know that about some of the diarists around here.

by rfahey22 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Hard nosed is one thing, calling another democrat an elitist is another.  I really don't know the history behind the labeling  of a candidate as an elitist, but has one democrat ever labelled another democrat an elitist before bitter-gate?  If I'm wrong, can someone, either an Obama or Clinton supporter, tell me when such dem on dem violence was used.  I always thought the term elitist was a made up political term used by republicans to  distract voters from the real issues at hand. Example - Almost all of Bush's policies shit on the typical middle class American, but he's a guy I can have a beer with so lets vote for him.   By Hillary calling Barack an elitist, isn't she only propagating the use of term and solidifying the republicans representation such a term.  I believe Hillary has every right to attack Barack on his San Francisco remarks, but isn't calling him an elitist going over the top for a democrat.  Am I wrong?

by reggie23 2008-04-17 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Yes you are wrong.

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Can you elaborate please?

by reggie23 2008-04-17 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

First you tell me when a major Democratic candidate called another a liar who would say or do anything to win--because Obama and his campaign said that about Clinton scores of times before she said his comments were elitist.

by Trickster 2008-04-17 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

"By Hillary calling Barack an elitist, isn't she only propagating the use of term and solidifying the republicans representation such a term."

Obama has been calling Hillary "divisive" and "polarizing" and "hugh negatives" from the old right wing smear machine since the start of this, and then to start calling her and Bill and other supporters racist is just so destructive it is unconscionable.

Obama is an elitist who reinforced it in last night's debate when even when confronted he repeated his argument that religion and guns were "wedge issues" rather than legitimate and long term voter concerns, he perpetuated the indignity of the "we know better than the stupid voters with their false consciousness who don't believe what we think they should." This is a sure fire way to lose elections and destroy the party, by insulting voters heartfelt concerns. His veneer of superiority and disdain for working class voters is palpable and noxious.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 04:14PM | 0 recs
That looks like classic projection.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Jerome ...
Come on. There are just as many, if not more, Democrats out there who are Hillary supporters who absolutely cannot vote for Obama. I live in Louisiana, and I know quite a few of them. Just because you read or see a lot of them on the blogs doesn't mean jack. The real world is a WHOLE lot bigger than the blogosphere.
by DailyKingFish 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome ...

Has Jerome ever addressed Taylor Marsh?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-04-17 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems
It's true that Clinton has waged a hard-nosed campaign. I like some of Obama's new politics. However, if Obama wins the nomination, hopefully he's learned some things from Clinton because the Republicans will pull out all the stops.
by zenful6219 2008-04-17 01:35PM | 0 recs
Hopefully

he's learned to expect the worst. Hopefully, prayerfully, he won't adopt the same empty, swiftboating knife-fighting tactics. There's far too much of substance to nail McCain on.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
Basically A Troll Diary By Any Standard

This is supposed to accomplish what?

by bernardpliers 2008-04-17 01:36PM | 0 recs
How does Hillary "lead" again?

Hillary "leads" among Democratic voters? Can you quote that source? Because all the ones I've seen lately have Obama preferred by 10%, Hillary's negatives are WAY higher, people don't trust her, and um, he's beating her in the race.

A "hard nosed" campaign is different from an empty, swiftboating, non-issue, hypocritical ("elitist"? please) campaign. There are plenty of substantial things Hillary might have gone after Obama for.

But no, she chose to follow the right wing  into the gutter. And yeah, people who used to defend and believe in her are disappointed and disgusted with her. They'll still vote for her (unlike the brats who will go McCain if Hillary doesn't win), because the right wing is worse, but she's played it WAY too dirty to have any respect.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: How does Hillary "lead" again?

Hey, if exit polls were accurate, we'd be heading towards the end of Kerry's first term right now.

by rfahey22 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: How does Hillary "lead" again?

So, you're counting Michigan exit polls, where Obama wasn't on the ballot?

And TX and OH exit polls, where Operation Chaos was pulling a good 125K GOP voters who will go McCain in the fall?

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 01:56PM | 0 recs
The same thing has been said

here over and over by Obama supporters. One person in particular was saying there was no room for the "Clintons in the new Dem party." Well I'm glad there isn't room for them and I'll leave with them because the new Dem party looks like the old Republican party.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-17 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The same thing has been said

One person?  Wow, that's scary.  

by interestedbystander 2008-04-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The same thing has been said

Adios amigo.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The same thing has been said

I am with you.

by DTaylor 2008-04-17 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

HRC is not winning a majority of Democrats by any measure or metric in this race.

You can make the point you want to make without making false assertions. I don't understand why you would undercut your own argument this way?

As others above have already pointed out, the Clinton's have alienated large numbers of Democratic voters (including the base, including AA's), as well as many of their own former cabinet members and advisors. Do you think all of these people are delusional or have been duped by the media?

I respect your support for Clinton. And I more than understand why so many Dems have voted for her and continue to support her. I'm more than happy to engage in debate and discussion with any Clinton supporter. In fact, I wish we had more debate/discussion and less name calling. But you are not making a credible argument here.

by DrPolitics 2008-04-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Sorry- she HAS won the self identified Dems over and over.  He's won more Independents and Republicans...

by sas 2008-04-17 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

"because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama"

I think this is a bit euphemistic.

The dishonest and distortions of CIC Threshold, the Wright smears, the professor flap, "bitter" and now Ayers guilt-by association are beyond hard nosed, and they are quite likely to cause the Republicans to retain the White House. A few months ago I was neutral but Hillary has sickened and enraged me.

I see no way she can now win-- she's played too hard into her pre-existing negative narrative-- but she seems determined to deliver the presidency to McCain.

That small tentish-- and horribly, horribly tragic-- to me.

by wrb 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

She doesn't have to deliver the Presidency to McCain....Obama is doing it ALL by HImself.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Don't be overly modest.

Your help is major.

by wrb 2008-04-17 06:20PM | 0 recs
we aren't sweating it
Hard-nose attacks? Dirt off the shoulders baby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqG D4&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatl antic.com/
by Bargeron 2008-04-17 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Obama leads in voter who voted in the democratic nomination contest.  He brings in new voters and wins back some of the moderates the party has lost.  He grows the party.  

Meanwhile you talk like voters from the same old coalition that hasn't been quite enough in recent history somehow cast a more valid vote than the new people that we will need if we're to win. Yet, you want to call us tiny tent dems for getting angry at your candidate for running as a McCain surrogate and giving some of those moderates a distaste for the party in general even after her chances of making a comeback have diminished so far that it's not worth the risk to the party as a whole for her to keep running.  

This could have all been over a long time ago with no risk to shrinking the party is the candidate that has lost would just realize that she has.  You want to blame someone for this contest dragging on and getting destructive, look at your candidate.

by lockewasright 2008-04-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Too funny

I didn't even dislike Hillary Clinton demagogued on NAFTA in a last ditch effort to salvage her campaign in Ohio. Now she and Obama both trail McCain in Ohio, HRC is trailing him in Michigan, where Ralph Nader is pulling ten percent. Looks like the scorched-earth policy (AKA, peeing in your own pool strategy) doesn't work.

"No one could have predicted...."

Last night Hillary Clinton twisted herself into a pretzel to use the worlds "Louis Farrakan" and "stamp of a approval" in the same sentence, and performed some similar mental gymnastics to try to Giulianize 9/11 in her favor through some old hippie nobody's thought about in forty years.

Yeah, that Obama campaign sure is terrible.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
huh?

To act like that sword doesn't cut both ways seems a bit like the "my shit doesn't stink" attitude that I think reasonable people supporting either candidate are getting sick of. On top of that, could you point to one recent poll that says dems prefer Hillary over Barack? Get this crap off the front page. MyDD is going down the drain.

by Djo 2008-04-17 01:45PM | 0 recs
Memories of the Fifties

I have never questioned Hillary's Democratic credentials until this morning.  I was not bothered much by the back and forth from the campaigns, Tuzla, Wright, all that stuff.  Penn bothered me but I figured it was a poor decision, and every campaign makes those.  I have supported Obama but was feeling increasingly comfortable with the idea of Clinton and would have been happy to vote for her.  I got to "know" and like many of the decent Hillary supporters on this blog.

Then this morning.

The press were jackasses last night.  They are entitled, though it is a dumb thing to do, to throw whatever slop they want at the candidates.

The very LAST thing in the world I expected her to do was to pick up on the Ayers thing.  To do that goes to the heart of what this party has had to defend itself against through McCarthy, through the Cold War.  It is worse than Swiftboating Kerry.  I know what the Weathermen did.  They were the sixties version of domestic terrorists.  For a Democrat to in any way imply any link there, yeah, I don't believe anymore her first loyalty is to the party.  She would have to apologize for her staff, if it was indeed them, and disown those questions, for me to feel sanguine about her candidacy again.

by mady 2008-04-17 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Memories of the Fifties

"She would have to apologize for her staff, if it was indeed them, and disown those questions, for me to feel sanguine about her candidacy again."

I think you are totally missing her point, which is that Obama is going to HAVE to answer for these associations when the Republicans attack him for them. It is unavoidable. Obama should not have run with this kind of baggage.

Someday he may also be as vetted as Clinton, and will be viable again, but not now, and not until he has a record and experience to run on to counteract his baggage. His run has been premature from the start.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is much more dirt to be uncovered here with Obama, Clinton is holding back from saying it all. She is only using the most minor stuff, perhaps hoping not to damage him permanently. It's a tricky business, trying to gauge what to use and what not to, but if he gains the nomination it will all come out when the Republicans go all out on him, and he cannot withstand the slaughter. Only having a substantial record of accomplishment, and a relationship of trust with the voters can withstand the attacks, and that will take him years to achieve. There are no short cuts.

by 07rescue 2008-04-17 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Memories of the Fifties

I think you missed my point; this was not a minor thing.  In the political history of the second half of the last century that kind of guilt by association destroyed people's lives.  That is not the kind of "vetting" one would expect from any Democrat towards another.

by mady 2008-04-17 09:39PM | 0 recs
When did Markos become the moral compass of

the Democratic Party?

Seriously, everyone needs to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

I am no Hillary fan, but she and Bill helped wake up a slumbering party in the 90s. She has always helped  out her fellow Democrats in fundraising and campaigning, and was just this close to being our first female President (I'm a big fan of math, I know what is possible).

Now, if you want to use Markos as your talking point, you are just giving power to him and his message.

You're fucking Jerome Armstrong, I read your books, I lurked here forever just to read your front pages and I respect your opinion.

And I knew Markos, and you Jerome, are no Markos.

You are better.

Now get back out there and show ever one else what I already know, that you know your shit about policy and campaign dynamics.

Set Markos to ignore like the rest of the country.

by pinche tejano 2008-04-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: real dems

Real Democrats support universal health care.  A Dem who doesn't support a mandate is only half a Dem.  (and we know who they are.)

by moevaughn 2008-04-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: real dems

under your logic, neither candidate is a "real democrat". Hillary's plan might cover more people but it sure the heck won't be "universal".

in my world view, a good politician is someone who supports a single payer system (and mandates government to cover people, not the other way around). There's nary a Democrat advocating for the right approach to our health care system.

by alex100 2008-04-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: real dems

My top choice is single payer too.  Hillary's plan does come closer to that and does require that everyone participate.  My half-Dem statement is a play on Elizabeth Edwards's own recent statement that "a health plan without a mandate is only half a plan."

by moevaughn 2008-04-17 03:06PM | 0 recs
I support and voted for Obama and i do not hate

Senator Clinton. I really do admire her tenacity. You have to hand it to her to be standing tall against all odds and against all this cry baby senators who are just grandstanding. I know of very few men who would be able to do what she has been doing and i tip my hat to her. Tenacity is an admired and sought quality in a commander-in-chief.

I also have grown tired of my fellow Obama supporters. They have showed a tremendous lack of political savviness. Some of them think that from 1992 to 2000 we were led by some kind of a nazi or something. They forgot the Bill Clinton was the only democratic president to serve two consecutive terms in WH after FDR.  To them former president Clinton has become some kind of an enemy, which total nonsense. They think they can win the WH without bringing the coalition of demographic groups that Senator Clinton has put together and that is because they are not looking at the electoral map.

I wrote a diary on this topic and i urge you to read it; its title is "United Ticket Is the way to Go". If women, elderly, latinos, and rural folks stay home or do not turn out to vote in large numbers, the road to the WH will be extremely difficult for Senator Obama.

I don't know about you folks, but i want to win and if this means that Senator Clinton has to be on the ticket, well, i wholeheartedly welcome and support that.

by likelihood zero 2008-04-17 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

It's pretty clear to me that Jerome has lost his ability to give a reasonable assessment of the lay of the political land. I don't care which candidate he supports, but the quote he thinks nicely sums things up is just absurd.

To suggest that Democratic Obama supporters are motivated by their hatred of the Clintons is asinine. That's probably true of some Indys or Repubs, but so what?

I prefer Obama for a wide variety of reasons, none having to do with hating Hill.

In fact, like many fellow Democrats/liberals I felt happy about either choice until about January or so. Couldn't stand Clinton's team of arrogant fools, but still...But since Jan. I've lost virtually all respect I had for both Clinton's. But never mind that, who cares about whom I respect? Fact is, Clinton has run a terrible campaign and allowed herself to slip from having a mythical inevitability to her current position.

To suggest that Obama is unelectable in the GE is just Clinton campaign rehash barely worth addressing. That said, among the many reasons I prefer Obama to Clinton is that I think he stands a better chance against McCain.

Jerome, I'm sorry that your jet-lagged mind can't quite wrap around this fact, but let me reassert it anyway. Half or more of the voting Democratic party prefers Obama for entirely legitimate reasons, none of which have anything to do with CDS. When will you get this. Sheesh.

by abrxas 2008-04-17 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

And half of the voters prefer Clinton for entirely legitimate reasons.  And since, at this point, your team is winning your side gets to be the one who has to come up with a way to bring us Clinton voters to your side.  Not the other way around.  Any ideas?  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I'm an Obama supporter who's fine with Hillary as VP if he's the nominee, but some Hillary supporters have said they'd be offended by Obama naming her VP.  So I dunno.

by bosdcla14 2008-04-17 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

eh. As an Obama supporter, I'd have serious issues with Hillary as a V.P. at this juncture.

the campaign has gone down a path that's a bit difficult to reconcile and I'm not one for politicians having to eat their words at every corner.

In any regard, I'm curious to see how "progressive" Hillary can be with a relatively solid Democratic majority in the Senate. She can be a great asset for us back in the senate.

by alex100 2008-04-17 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Do you care more about your candidate? Or your country?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-17 02:11PM | 0 recs
Obama's Chances Of Winning

Jerome, your own website's electoral vote map suggests Clinton could win Ohio and Florida and Pensylvania and still get destroyed by John McCain! How the hell can you or BTD or anyone else argue that Clinton has a better chance of winning when current polls suggest Obama could lose two out of the three and STILL beat McCain? Unless you're crazy enough to believe that Obama would lose in New York, which is not even remotely possible...

by Hatch 2008-04-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Chances Of Winning

he's just aggregating polls to be fair.

but the question of who's more "electable" or who has a better chance to beat mcCain is impossible to gauge at this point.

by alex100 2008-04-17 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

ya know Jerome
This is YOUR house.
If you can find  widespread "hatered" of the Clintons Here fine.
Go through the Diaries and comments HERE while you were gone.
I think a brief review...especially last weekend with the multiple pro HRC posts concerning "bitter"
you just might..just might have second thoughts.

if you can find where folks hate the messenger(Clintons)more than the message widespread HERE, fine. I do not think that is the reality.

by nogo war 2008-04-17 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

As an Obama supporter, and as a fan of President Clinton while he was in office, I would say that it is not hatred of the Clintons that is permeating through the Dem party but hatred for their tactics. I do think that is an important distinction. No one diagrees that politics isn't a tough business but I would also think that cannibalizing a member of your own party is unseemly even if you are forced in to the postion that you must do it.

What I think is at the very root of peoples misgivings of the Clintons is that Hillary has been received the best and with the most admiration when she sheds the mask and acts like a real person. We remember NH and when she said she was honored to share the stage with Obama at the debate in Ohio, I believe. I also beleive that last night at the debate she would really had made waves had she taken Gibson and Steph to task for the ridiculous nature of their questions. I think what people want to see right now is a genuine show of unity and of coming together. That is an option that is seemingly off the table to Clinton because she doesn't believe that it will help her win in the end. Maybe that's true but what she is doing now is certainly not helping and it is driving the party apart. FOr me though, it matters not I would vote for either of the candidates that were on the stage in Philly last night, whoever is the nominee. I wish more people shared that sentiment.

by AHunch 2008-04-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

At what point did Obama take questioners to task in the many debates that have occurred where Hillary was the target of such questions...somehow I missed that defense...

Where was Obama's complaints about the trivial nature of some of these gotcha issues when he was berating Hillary for actions allegedly taken by a mystery staff member as reported by Bob Novak...Bob Novak for god's sakes...

It doesn't seem to bother him when he is not  the brunt of the attacks...now that he is the front runner, all of a sudden it is a trivialization of political discourse...

It is really hard to take his complaints seriously when he was perfectly content to let them go by as they were directed at his opponents...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-17 02:19PM | 0 recs
Obama is a real piece of work

He brushes off his controversial associations as if its no big deal (it will be in the fall), then he says that all these personal attacks are wrong and counter-productive. Mean while, his campaign manager is throwing bombs at Hillary saying she can't be trusted.

Obama's supporters and much of the media is letting Obama have it both ways. He is attacking Hillary every bit as much as she's attacking him, yet only she gets blamed for a tough campaign.

I would say that implying that the Clintons are racists is pretty tough politics. Saying that she will say or do anything to win is pretty rough as well. It's a personal attack of her character. Obama started making those attacks when she was the front runner and hasn't stopped. But she's the one out of line. Nonesense.

If I accomplished what Bill Clinton has as a two term president and what Hillary has as a two term senator and was treated the way they have been I would be running on a third party ticket.

Many Obama supporters are the biggest hypocrites in the world. I wouldn't mind the critisisms leveled at Hillary if the same ones were leveled at Obama, like the low blows thrown by BOTH campaigns. But to act like one is a saint and the other is evil is beyond childish and demonstably wrong.

McCain is going to be merciless against Obama. He is going to ask Obama what the hell was he thinking when he spent time in the home of known terrorist who killed American citizens and plotted to kill American soldiers.

I think Obama supporters believed the hype about Obama's cross-over appeal or that he is a "transformational" leader. Bullshit! He will need all the support from Clinton and her supporters as he can get to have any chance. Democrats will desert him in droves.

If he was transformational then he would not be losing to McCain as bad as he is in all of these swing states. The transformational leader has the ability to out spend Hillary as much as 4-1, with outside help, and can't buy a big state victory. And you Obama supporters want to kick Hillary to the curb in a cocky fashion? You must be starving for defeat in November.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a real piece of work

Did you read my post?

The argument I was trying to make was that Hillary would actually have a better chance of overcoming the odds that are decidely stacked in her favor if she were to extend an olive branch and change the dynamic of the discourse. I believe it would actually help her, to take the high road. And you simply come back at me like I am a hypocrite and devoid of any reason. Your response is a knee jerk reaction to an overarching point that I didn't make. This proves only that you are not open to nuance in the discussion. you are simply rehashing the anguish you feel because Hillary has been beaten for all intents and purposes. and from your logic here she ahs been beaten at her own game as well.

by AHunch 2008-04-18 05:23AM | 0 recs
Nice coming to MyDD...

For a little sanity from time to time...

Thanks!

by SaveElmer 2008-04-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Sums it up perfectly well.  Kudos.

by bobbank 2008-04-17 02:09PM | 0 recs
Whoa

Jerome, what have you inhaled?

The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle.

Last I checked Obama leads in delegate count, number of states won and the popular vote.  

How is it you think that Clinton is leading?

by vbdietz 2008-04-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

Among Democrats she is leading...throw in indies and repubs voting in Dem primaries and Obama is slightly ahead overall

by SaveElmer 2008-04-17 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

Oh, you're talking about all those wholly reliable polls.  

Right.  God's truth and all .... not.

by vbdietz 2008-04-17 02:19PM | 0 recs
What ARE you smoking?

Operation Chaos, Limbaugh's crusade, is telling his demons to vote for Hillary, not Obama. The GOPs crossing over for Obama intend to stay with him.

But do please link to a real source about Obama being the preferred Dem among Democrats.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

What did everyone who voted have to swear that they were Dems.? You know not what you speak.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

Sure in states where you have to be registered by party...right?

Exit polls in other states where there isn't registration by party have shown a narrow but consistent lead for Hillary among self-described and/or registered Democrats...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-17 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

What pople don't lie in exit polls? Talk about grasping at straws. This whole more democratic votes is just another tactic of a very desperate campaign.

by venician 2008-04-17 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

That's a funny claim Hillary's fans make since from the other side of the mouths they say the Democratic nominee will need the votes of Indys and even Repubs to win in November.

Getting votes from a broad cross section is why 60% of Democrats think Obama is more "electable."

The've also never complained about Limbaughtomy exhorting his legion of idiots to cross over and vote for Hillary.  Who knows if it worked, but you'd think they'd complain about it  just to avoid the stench of hypocrisy.

by Kobi 2008-04-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

by rhetoricus 2008-04-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
And up is down.

Poor Jerome.  The facts just bounce off.

by McNasty 2008-04-17 02:18PM | 0 recs
this is so stupid

Go to TaylorMarsh and you'll see the same attitude against Obama.

The Clinton's drop in popularity has to do with a lot more than just some pro-Obama bloggers.  

by highgrade 2008-04-17 02:21PM | 0 recs
Jerome

So people who vote in democratic contests aren't democrats.  Good to know.  I guess that I can be sure of being a democrat since I caucused in 2004 and 2008.

Jerome this is your house (along with the other FP'ers), you can make it a good place by checking your bias (we all have a bias) at the door with your posts.  Todd seems to do that very well, Jonathon does an okay job of it.

by Student Guy 2008-04-17 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

Many of the people who voted didn't even have to change their registration from Republican to Democrat. Yes, they voted in the Democratic primary as registered Republicans.

In fact, Obama sent out flyers telling them they could vote in the Democratic primary. Obama won some primaries with less Democratic votes than Hillary.

Many of the Republicans and Independents that have voted for Obama have since soured on him. Some Republicans voted in the Democratic primary just to screw with the results and they told the polsters this after their votes.

Yes, its a fact, Hillary has received more votes from Democrats than Obama. The Republicans don't win so many presidential elections because they are lucky. They know how to play the Democrats pretty well. We have chosen another loser.

Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win two terms and have a sucessful presidency in the last 60+ years and now the Democrats are trashing him. We deserve to lose bases on that assinine behavior.

by mmorang 2008-04-17 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I'm going to vote for the Democratic nominee, be it HC or BO.

My preference is for BO.

Jerome, I'm underwhelmed by your attitude and your shallow insight.  In the week you were gone, I felt mydd conducted themselves very well indeed, moving away from the HC/BO controversy (a little, at least) and covering many other issues important to ALL democrats that we can ALL get equally behind.

That's what I want, that's what the BO supporters want, and forgive me for speaking for the HC supporters but I'm sure that's what they want as well.

STOP DRIVING A STAKE BETWEEN THE TWO CAMPS!  A very wise man once said, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  Let's all choose to be part of the solution.

Let the candidates do what they will; in a few weeks, we'll most likely have a nominee and it will be time to regroup and take a run at November.  There is no reason we shouldn't have tremendous gains in the House and Senate.

What I hope doesn't happen is that one candidate's supporters don't just pack up and go home if they don't get their way.  It would be easy for me to say that HC is at fault for all of this--the writing was on the wall back in Feb, when she lost eleven consecutive contests, all by very significant margins and many in stalwart democratic country (Wisconsin, Maryland, and Washington, the first two being primary states).  At that point, having spotted BO a discernible lead in what is admittedly a close contest, all she had to do was follow Mitt Romney's lead and realize she was forestalling the launch of BO's National Campaign.  Instead, she is chasing that very small margin and promises to carry this fight all the way to the convention floor in Denver, irrespective of any resulting damage to the party.  I can't speak for you, Jerome, or any other HC supporter, but I absolutely refuse to believe you would not being call every day from up high for BO to stand down his campaign and accept that which is inevitable, were the roles reversed.  I promise you that is what I would be doing if BO trailed by nearly 200 pledged delegates and looked to, at best, split the delegates in the remaining contests.

Posts like this one by you today, and the ridiculous hyperbole I see at Hilaryis44, make me wonder if democrats really aren't just totally schizophrenic at heart--and deserve whatever happens to us at the polls in November if we can't find a way to come together and take advantage of this tidal wave of opposition to two terms of Republican White House control.

The power to affect positive, long-lasting change is there, we just have to all get on board and seize it.  The campaign-that-never-ends is contrary to that goal.

by Ray in AK 2008-04-17 02:24PM | 0 recs
After 20 years of...

self-imposed exile from the Democratic party I was beginning to consider a prodigal-son-like return. That was before Barack Obama.

by JimR 2008-04-17 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: After 20 years of...

That's OK. The GOP still needs you more than the Democratic Party ever did.

by Kobi 2008-04-17 02:32PM | 0 recs
Actually, I've been independent...

that entire time. It's only now, thanks to people like you, that I've even considered making the final step.

by JimR 2008-04-17 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, I've been independent...

Good fucking riddance.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-04-17 05:21PM | 0 recs
My thoughts exactly.

;)

by JimR 2008-04-17 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, I've been independent...

Home is where the heart is.

by Kobi 2008-04-17 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: After 20 years of...

Haha, so Dukakis was the last Democrat to truly inspire you.  I'm sorry that Obama doesn't do it for you and only Hillary could hold a candle to the Dukakis magic.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 02:42PM | 0 recs
Dukakis was the reason I quit.

by JimR 2008-04-17 02:53PM | 0 recs
Talk About Bitter!

This diary is embarrassingly shallow and nothing but divisive bile from a bitter Clinton dead-ender.

The diarist is like one of those Conferderates who refused to admit the South lost. They went into exile in Mexico.

Whither Jerome? He's making sure he'll have no standing  or input in the post-clinton Democratic Party. Why is anybody's guess.

by Kobi 2008-04-17 02:30PM | 0 recs
False Metric again

Why are we again hearing about the metric that "Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle".  Beside the fact that it is really hard to quantify it does seem to ignore some other facts

1.  Obama is ahead amoung Democratic Voters polled.  The last four polls taken gives Obama anywhere from a 7 to 13 point lead over Clinton

2.  The Washington Post poll release yesterday of Democratic voters showed that by a 2-1 margin (62-31) Obama has the better chance in the fall.

3.  If Democratic votes are the only ones that should be counted, then why aren't all the primaries closed.  It would seem that it would help a candidates chances if they appealed outside of the party.

The point of all the primaries and associated hoopla is to take the White House in 2008.  How is that accoplished if the one with the most elected delegates, states won and popular vote is not the candidate?

by xenontab 2008-04-17 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I don't hate the Clintons...

Just the tactics ginned up by Penn, Wolfson, and the rest of the "Kitchen Sink" crew.

And, I agree, She WOULD be winning, if they didn't try to make her something she is not.

Take last nights...er..I hate to call it a debate, let's call it "Personality Fest"....

When she was piling on with Charlie and Steph, she looks uncomfortable, forced, reading the talking points..

When she is doing the policy wonk thing, well, and I am as big an Obama supporter as there is, she kicks his ass?

But, they keep TRYING to make her..What?

She should have done NOTHING but open forums, answered ever question for hours and had Chelsea there more then Bill?

When she is with Chelsea, she postively GLOWS, you can see it, it's her best moments?

But instead, Penn said "Attack, Attack, Attack!"

And, sure, Obama's numbers dip..but, then they seem to come back?

What have HER numbers done, especially her negative numbers?

The only one whos numbers keep climbing because of this? Teflon John McCain!

And, the Bosnia thing? CLEARLY that was because Penn et all told her to "Ride the "you are more experienced to be CIC"" horse...

But, Wolfson, McCauliffe, et all kept running out Bill time and time again....who kept putting his foot in his mouth?

Sure, there are wackos at Kos that hate her?

But, come on Jerome...You have seen the kind of tripe posted here about Obama?

It's a push IMHO.

Hillary ran a bad campaign, Penn told her it was going to be over after Super Tuesday, and they ALL believed it...

Doesn't that remind you of something?

Who else went into a battle, with the idea it was going to be over "in 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months" with NO back-up plan?

So, Obama vs Clinton, in their FIRST really big test, Obama was smarter, more consistant, and had a better plan.

He won, or he is on the verge of it?

But, unless you want President John McCain replacing Stevens and Ginsburg, ginning up more antipathy inside of the democratic base is really suicidal....

So, the counter argument to:

"Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

Is this from the Obama side:

"Hillary and Bill would rather destroy Obama, have him lose to McCain, if they can't have the WH..."

For the vast majority of us, both statements are complete dribble.

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-17 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

No respect or loyalty for two great leaders of their own party.

Very sad and very embarrassing.

by gotalife 2008-04-17 03:10PM | 0 recs
Losing the Election...the Blogsphere's Fanatics?

I wonder if we aren't seeing the result of the rapid growth of the liberal blogsphere audience and diarists. I think we see the leaders of a few very popular sites believing that their sites and followers have the magic bullet to win elections.

If they lose the election, ie: if Obama wins the nomination and loses the election (Remember Gore and Kerry), it won't be the nominee's fault. It will be the fault of the system, a TV network or some third element. Personal responsibility isn't part of the landscape as far as I can see.

This crowd is as fanatical as many of the right-wing people they are trying to beat. Only problem is that the fanatical left is less pragmatic and less election experienced than the Right. This may show up and lead to the disaster of a McCain Presidency with Condi Rice as VP.

I can't imagine how it came to this idiotic a point in time.

I frontpage at The Democratic Daily where we try to allow all viewpoints and stay civil at the same time. Too bad some other larger sites don't do the same thing.

PS: Jerome Armstrong is the Political BlogFather of us all. For him to be directly attacked, as I've seen several times, is ridiculous.

by BigDog 2008-04-17 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Actually, I think many Democrats and Independents are just sick and f'n tired of BS politics.

Obama marks a change in direction of the Democratic party.  A direction where we don't have to be afraid of having an opinion that may not be in step with what is perceived as "correct".

by RussTC3 2008-04-17 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

s long as it agrees with the Obamabot version of "correct".

by sas 2008-04-17 05:30PM | 0 recs
Sharp criticism, no substantiation

Jerome, you're turning into some guy named Vinny in a bathrobe.

by RT 2008-04-17 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

A few simple questions....
In the past five years what Dem/Progressive web sites have you gained information?
How many of these in the past 3 months have turned against Sen. Clinton?
Is this a vast left-wing conspiracy, or perhaps something more substantial?

If you believe these places that you used to turn to for the truth have sold your out...do you find yourself finding refuge in the gutter that is Hillaryis44?  

by nogo war 2008-04-17 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

Moulitsas ain't here. And like Armstong, he only speaks for himself.

(They're both too full of themselves and their roles as rabblerousers for my taste. Is that elitist?)

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I have nothing more to add.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-17 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

What do you expect Jerome? Obama,personally attacks the Clinton Administration and thereby Hillay and also disparages President Carter...his supporters assume it's 'the new kind of politics' but think Hillary should shut her mouth, drop out of the party, go home and lick her wounds and let Obama do his thing. We are still in the primary race for the democratic nominee. How dare Hillary try to win it.

by Justwords 2008-04-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
When the History Is Written...

Bill & Hillary are great Democrats but they lost the race in the runup to South Carolina and by failing to plan post-Super Tuesday.  Hillary let the big New Hampshire comeback just melt away.  In the runup to South Carolina the Clintons alienated African-Americans, the keystone Democratic constituency.  Hillary was out campaigned and Obama reflects what more Democrats are seeking.  It's not about experience or the past, it is about change.  It's not about who can pay consultants the most either.  In the immortal words of Marion Barry, "get over it."

by howardpark 2008-04-17 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

How did this happen?

By thinking we could have a "new kind of politics" that actually discuss issues and left behind the buzz words and wedge issues-within the Dem party?  I thought that behavior might happen in the general election-but not the primary!!

For myself, it was when Hillary started talking about McCain.  At first it was just a slight, then it was full steam ahead-she really crossed over a line with me.  

Since then, the Clintons have taken the "Old Politics of Rove" and pushed ahead, no matter what the Dems want-it was only about what Hillary wanted.  After working hard to support Bill Clinton during his administration, I found myself wondering if a second Clinton Presidency was best for the country?

I decided No, the Old and generally accepted way of doing things in Washington is treadbare, we need some new clothes and new occupants in the WH!

She will continue to be a good Senator, maybe run for Gov in NY, but  she has dissed the American voters, with her storytelling, mis-speaking, Rove tactics and a general feeling that we don't know if we can trust her now?

Obama will reach out to Clinton supporters no doubt, he takes the high ground and seems not to carry grudges.  Hillary will have to show her true self and ask her supporters to support Obama!

That will be the test!

by lja 2008-04-17 05:04PM | 0 recs
Bill and Hillary leaning right of center isn't new

Tim Robbins is quoted a decade ago as saying that Bill Clinton is the only Republican he has ever voted for.

Many who are, at the moment, calling Hillary a DINO have had these feelings about Hillary for years now.  The DLC connection is probably the biggest of her problems on this issue.

Seeing Hillary and the media working hand and hand to beat down your candidate can cause some serious bitterness.

As Bob Johnson says, the more negative she goes, the worse she does.  You are seeing this principle in practice right now.

It's not short sighted partisanship; it's a genuine reaction to the gutter politics of HRC.  

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-17 05:10PM | 0 recs
Hey Jerome

Who is the tiny tent dem now, your comments on the diary you bumped could certainly be viewed as insulting Obama supporters...

I am not in either camp anymore.  Both are flawed and by infighting we only help McCain who has the press as his base.

by Student Guy 2008-04-17 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

You could easily rephrase this by saying "their thirst for power and getting back to the white house has become more important to them then a Democrat winning this election."

Hillary's recent attacks and willing to sling mud last night is doing nothing to help our party in November.  I have no issue with her staying in the race, even though her chances are slim.

With that said, 1990's under the Clinton Administration were some very prosperous and to say their not Democrats is ridiculous.

Even though I support Obama, I've grown tired of the all day, all Obama diaries on Dailykos.  There's a better debate here.

by chewie5656 2008-04-17 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

It's a shame that you felt the need to put THIS on the front page.  

Many try daily to make some peace and mend some fences, and then this is given the credibility of being one of the main stories people see...that Obama supporters SO hate Clinton that she's not even a Democrat anymore.    

by freedom78 2008-04-17 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

>>>>>>Many try daily to make some peace and mend some fences<<<<<<

I can't speak to what you do and there might a FEW, but not many who are trying to mend fences but it's not what I'm seeing all over the threads in MYDD the last month.  

Anyone who isn't absolutely convinced, right now, today that Obama is the winner and gets your vote in November is not a democrat. The older white women, older white men, latino's are somehow outnumbered by the 'new democrats...who say they are the majority but don't identify what that is...but they are not even politely asking lifelong (old democrats) to step aside- just get out of the way and vote OUR way.  

Personally I might be giving up the democratic party after 43 years because I had the audacity to think Hillary is a great lady, agrees with the issues I'm concerned with 100%, has well thought out plans and ways to pay for them,  with the experience and knowledge and connections to get things done as the next president- but I've learned that unless you tap dance for Obama- you aren't welcome in the party. At least not here.

Pretty fed up with the democrats I've been meeting lately and don't think they share the values that gave me the pride in being a democrat.

As a veterans advocate for 30 years I've had to bite my tongue and listen to Republican Vietnam Veterans ranting and blaming the democrats and anti-war activists (for what the government and public did to them after the war) and you know what? They aren't nearly as obnoxious and hateful as many or most of the Obama supporters I've met here and Huffpo. They know I'm democrat and they respect me for helping and I respect and understand their anger and their situation, even though I think they have misdirected anger. I prefer dealing with the democratic Vietnam Vets- but a vet is a vet.

I think I'm going to take a long hot shower and rethink what it means to be a democrat in today's world.

by Justwords 2008-04-18 02:24AM | 0 recs
Re: tiny tent dems

I'm sorry if that's been your experience, but everything is relative.  

I came here because I had heard it was venomous toward Obama and you know what I found?  Just that!  Daily, on the rec list, 4/5 diaries will have something negative to say about Obama.  Diaries written, supposedly, by Democrats/liberals/progressives, I might add, which is why it's so disconcerting to me to see THIS article on the front page.  

I'll agree that there are a few who say the things you mentioned.  But there are many more who are supportive of this campaign, of Hillary's right to
be in it, of pro-Hillary diaries (NOT anti-Obama ones), and so forth.  But I see many, many anti-Obama hit pieces posted daily.  I've been called stupid, ignorant, a cultist, a worshiper, a sheep, and other various things on many occasions.  

Are those things Democrats should be doing?  Probably not.  There are passionate supporters on either side, and I won't claim that anger has never gotten the better of me in my posts on here, but if we TRY to be reasonable toward one another, I think everyone would benefit.  

by freedom78 2008-04-18 07:20AM | 0 recs
Its not hate for the Clintons

Its hate for aspects of the campaign and their statements.  I wont list the the specifics that get me going because as someone rightly pointed out a while ago, I tend to ramble.  Sufficed to say, its the anti-dem stuff that gets me.  

The problem they have is they are no longer the unknown little battlers from Little Rock fighting the big bad establishment.  They are the establishment.  They are the dem party, dem royalty.  Yet they try and win both ways - as party elders and as street fighters.  The problem is, they cant have it both ways and expect to come through unscathed and unchallenged.  They arent David anymore and unfortunately for them, they dont seem to know this and dont seem to be able to change their tactics to fit that reality.

Whether they like it or not or accept it or not, they bear a great responsibility and they either rise above it like royalty or take the punishment that goes with wallowing outside their status.

But no matter how much some of these tactics disgust me, McCain disgusts me so much more as a human and for what he stands for - more death - than I will quickly sweep these feelings aside and happily vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

by pattonbt 2008-04-17 10:22PM | 0 recs
Clintonites small-tent politics

The last time I saw a poll on this subject, Clinton supporters were more likely to bolt the party and vote for McCain if Obama won than were Obama supporters if Clinton won.

If this is still so, it would tend to deflate the central point of this post.

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-19 10:37PM | 0 recs
You keep repeating this Kos allegation

about the Cato institute. How about a link to prove it, assuming it's not a willing falsehood.

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-19 10:39PM | 0 recs
Kos not a cato fellow

As noted above, neither Wikipedia nor the Cato Institute site lists Kos as a Cato fellow. Stop the mudslinging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Instit ute
http://www.cato.org/people/fellows.html

by AdrianLesher 2008-04-19 10:50PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads