Yeah, real frikkin' easy for you to command us to be "calm." Each and every day this goes on is a day that our dollars are spent tearing our own party apart, while McCain utters stupid shit and gets a free pass on it.
You command calm because patience is the only way your preferred candidate can possibly win the nomination. You would like us to watch for six more months while you proclaim as loudly as you can that Obama cannot possibly win the general election. What a little dance you'll do when your prophesy fulfills itself.
Here is where you are most wrong: it is not "very likely that both of the candidates will be able to point to scenarios whereby they lead by either the popular or the delegate count." Clinton cannot possibly find an intellectually defensible claim to either of those. Impossible is the opposite of very likely.
The civil war in this party will not be at the convention. If it comes, it will be after the general election, when your faction will say "I told you so" while the rest of the party blames you for condemning us to four more years of Republican insanity.
What sweet irony it will be that you worked so hard to wrest the party away from Clinton's DLC only to help her destroy it anyway.
Oh, and in case I didn't make it clear:
Issuing the one word command "Calm" is the most prickish thing I've seen written at this site, and there have been quite a few contenders.
Calm, don't take down this post.
More calmness and reason are exactly the things I was seeking when I started coming to this site, and it's the thing that is keeping me here.
Unfortunately, with each passing day, the hysteria and twisted logic spreads further, as evidenced by the first string of comments in this thread.
The echo chamber needs silence from the audience to work effectively.
They are "saving" us from Obama the same way they "saved" us from Gore.
Has there been any discussion of whether or not Jerome is on the HRC payroll just like he was on the Dean payroll?
I stopped blogging while I worked for Dean (Markos did blog but had a disclaimer), and have repeatedly had to stoop down to the level of your likes to state again that I am not in any way working for the Clinton campaign.
Hate to say it but it really isn't apparent that you are not. Not only what you choose to post but the way that you frame every issue seems to come straight from the Clinton talking points. I take you at your word that you are receiving no compensation from them but I would like to know whether or not you coordinate message with them.
Jerome,
I wouldn't even answer these charges. Your track record on disclosure is above reproach.
This is simply a KOS operative trying to stir trouble.
Get back on message: Obama is destroying our party unity.
HILL AND BILL 2008
"Stoop to the level of your likes..."
You mean your readers? Even if we disagree, most of us still respect you...
Well...
My big point here is this: You have railed against Obama using wide platitudes and meaningless broad terms to inspire...
In his speech on race he did not do that. He spoke in sincere specifics or real-world problems as if we were adults.
To merely talk about "getting beyond race" would truly be a fairy tale, if the 150 years since the Civil War have been any indication.
To critique Obama for doing just what every Hillary supporter has accused him of NOT doing -- that is, providing substance to his words (something I've personally thought he always did, even when I supported Hillary) is disturbing.
Not as disturbing as that "likes of you" comment, which, given your experience (and Kos') is, in fact, something you will have to answer for in some way or another for the rest of your media career -- just as Carville, Begala, Steph -- Snow, Rove, Kristol -- will have to do. If you've worked for a campaign in the same function you now work, people will want transparency. You shouldn't be offended, rather glad for the opportunity to make clear that your passions are your own...
yea, i too would like to know what you mean by "stoop down to the level of your likes"... ? not everyone reads every single comment on every post here. i had no idea if you were paid by a campaign or not, but i assumed you were NOT.
You know what... I don't like Jerome's stances either. That doesn't give you, me, or any of us, the right to level such accusations at the man. He has consistently been a voice for progressivism and has consistently been above board in his support for candidates.
I don't know the man personally, and have found that I often vehemently disagree with his rhetoric and the specific positions he takes (particularly in regard to Obama,) but there has never been a reason to doubt his integrity in this regard and you saying there is cheapens this whole site.
