Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly

It has nothing to do with traffic.  It has everything to do with respect.  When those who should be treating you as a partner withing the Democratic Party, or any other partnership, refuse to show you respect and are continually abusive, moving on is the most sane thing one can do.  

Now what does this mean in terms of the Democratic Party?  Some of those who have drawn attention to the strike have agendas that are not helpful to the Democratic Party.  Republican operatives are gleefully talking about the division within the Democratic Party.  But those of us who are striking from dKos want to point out that we are loyal Democrats and that when the primary is over the party will again be united.

One thing this strike has accomplished is to highlight that the handful of white men who control most of the progressive blogosphere are mostly for Obama.  And it has given a chance for their excuses for supporting Obama to be addressed in public  and seen as lacking in strength.  (Case in point here.)

The main thing being pushed by the pro-Obama forces within the blogosphere is that Hillary has little chance of winning.  This of course all depends on MI and FL not counting.  The strike allows us to draw attention to the fact that a small handful of mostly white men who control the blogosphere are now endorsing the disenfranchisement of two important states in the general election aka cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The strike gives us a chance to bring these arguments into the mainstream media and give a rational voice to challenge the often ridiculous and almost always irrational opposition to the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton.

Nothing about the strike is silly.  



Display:


no its definately silly. (1.87 / 8)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:38:02 PM EST

Re: no its definately silly. (2.00 / 11)

I agree completely.  It is silly to say Senator Clinton cannot win.  Popular demand and electoral sanity will see to it that MI and FL get to have a voice in the primary election.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

doubt it. (2.00 / 1)

if theres no revotes, they wont decide the nom.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: doubt it. (2.00 / 11)

If FL and MI don't get to have their voices heard, the Democratic Party will have cut off its nose (disenfranchised voters) to spite its face (pretend that one candidate really won the popular vote fairly).  And it will cost us in November.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good arguments. (1.50 / 2)

still not gonna happen.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (2.00 / 1)

...after Obama made so much noise about the Culinary Union.

It's just not going away, FL and MI have to count or we will not win the election.

And it will be Obama's and your fault-- the nightmare scenario for Dean, Obama, Pelosi and Party elders.


by chieflytrue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:35:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (1.50 / 2)

No, that'd be MI and FL's fault for breaking the rules, and Clinton's for not raising any concerns about it before the primary season was in full swing (and going so far as to say that "everyone knows that they don't count").


by leshrac55 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:42:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (1.50 / 2)

Agreed.... and for the millionth time... we are not disenfranchised.

It reminds me of the Princess Bride line about the word inconceivable ...  you keep using that word (disenfranchised), I don't think it means what you think it means...

We were able to vote for every race on the ballot and every issue just not the primary.  We are able to vote in the general election.  We are not disenfranchised.

Should SCOTUS rule in the GOP's favor on the Indiana voter id issue, you will see disenfranchisement for real.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (2.00 / 1)

Other Floridians disagree.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (1.00 / 1)

The majority of Florida Democrats weighed in with the party bosses against a revote.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (2.00 / 1)

Party leaders against it yes.  Voters unsure.
(link)
by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (1.50 / 2)

The Chairwoman of the Democratic party came out and said that the majority of Democrats who weighed in on the matter when she asked them to opted against a revote.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (2.00 / 1)

And who did she ask?  Certainly not the voters.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (1.00 / 1)

She asked for all Democratic voters in the state to weigh in on the matter at floridadems.com.

So, yeah, she was asking the voters....


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (2.00 / 1)

OK, why is her statement in disagreement with the polls then?  It doesn't make sense.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not going to Disenfranchise FL and MI (none / 0)

you got me there... maybe the people who responded negatively to the pollsters couldn't be bothered to respond to the Chairwoman of the state Democratic party...?  


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe so (none / 0)

They still aren't going to be revoted, or count in the fashion they currently exist.

I'm not afraid of November, and you shouldn't be either.  It's a long time from now.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe so (2.00 / 6)

Floridians in particular are sensitive to being stripped of their voting rights by one means or another.  I wouldn't dismiss this problem too quickly.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right, they were stripped in 2000 (2.00 / 1)

and promptly voted en masse for the person who stripped them (Jeb Bush) and the person he stripped them for (George W. Bush).

Are you arguing that stripping Floridians of their votes will win us votes in Florida?  Because that has been what happened in the past.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:46:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll: 24% less likely to vote Dem if (2.00 / 1)

WSJ:
According to a Miami Herald poll earlier this week, 24% of Florida Democrats say they are less likely to support the ultimate Democratic
candidate if their votes in the primary don't count.

by catfish1 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe so (none / 0)

Yeah, you're right, let's just disenfranchise MI and FL. Who cares about them? It's not like they matter in November or anything.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe so (2.00 / 1)

I don't think the talking heads of the Democratic Party -- people like Donna Brazile and Howard Dean and the little boys and girls at DailyKOS and MoveOn -- have a clue to the storm that's ahead in November.  They are out of touch with the country.


by PlainWords on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please read the searing letter (2.00 / 2)

on TPM tonight from a disenchanted Democrat

Not everyone is joining the Obama parade.


by Radiowalla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please read the searing letter (none / 0)

Heh, Josh doesn't realize that most Clinton supporters have given up reading him.


by souvarine on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't quite given up on Josh (2.00 / 1)

but he's on probation..


by Radiowalla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll let him know (none / 0)

I'm sure he'll be chastened about the loss but hopeful about earning your trust back.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll let him know (2.00 / 1)

Trust me, he knows he has lost a lot of readers.  And he knows that his position on the AUMF in 2004 runs contrary to his support for Senator Obama.  I know he is concerned because of an e-mail exchange I had with him.  I pointed out, with links, that people were leaving his site because of the way he was handling information.  Polls were my specific example.  He strongly argued against my points in his e-mail responses but spent the whole next day talking about polls in a way that showed he thought I had a point.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll let him know (none / 0)

By the way, Bigtentdemocrat over at Talk Left can confirm that the e-mail exchange happened.  He has seen the e-mails.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe you about the emails (2.00 / 1)

because I've had several exchanges with Josh over the years, although not recently.  I was an early fan and donor but since he "upgraded" his site with all those bells and whistles, I've lost interest.  Not to mention his fawning over Obama.  


by Radiowalla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please read the searing letter (1.00 / 1)

If by searing you mean searingly hilarious, then yeah.


by leshrac55 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TPM Muckraker Would Love The Clintons (1.00 / 1)

They have multiple financial scandals just from the campaign


by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:17:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please read the searing letter (1.00 / 1)

I have a plan B too....  when all the people on either side who are experiencing sour grapes decide to f*ck the country over and vote for McCain, I'm headed elsewhere.  I hear Grand Cayman is nice.  

Describing McCain as a liberal Republican...???  The guy thinks Antonin Scalia is a model Supreme Court Justice.  The idea of penalizing the down ticket Democrats is also ridiculous.  

Honestly, can we get past the "me" generation...?  Especially its current incarnation, "If I don't get my way I'm going to screw all of you over".....


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I completely agree with you! (none / 0)

As I have frequently stated, I'd rather drink Drano than vote for McCain!   At this point in our country's decline, it would be unpatriotic to refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate in November.  

I think the letter on TPM does indicate a level of frustration and anger that ought to be acknowledged, however.   I agree with some of the points in the letter, but I would never, ever, abandon the Democratic nominee.


by Radiowalla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama should not win illegitimately (1.75 / 4)

If he ends up with more delegates by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan that would be considered illegitimate by millions of Hilalry supporters.

It gives them an easy excuse to not vote for Obama in the GE.

If this is the path Obama chooses, the party will split and there will be a floor fight at the convention. If that happens, regardless of who is the nominee they will lose in the GE.

You cannot sweep aside millions of Hillary supporters and voters from Michigan and Florida and expect to win the Democratic nomination. It won't happen.


by BigB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI and FL Are All Obama's Fault? (2.00 / 2)

Really?


by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL Are All Obama's Fault? (1.66 / 3)

Not solely responsible I think, but certainly standing in the way.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So what? (2.00 / 1)

Can you describe a scenario in which Michigan and Florida revote and it allows Hillary Clinton to win the pledged delegate count?  

Slate's calculator is rough, but if Hillary won 75% in both those contests, she still would not have caught up to Obama.  Hillary would have to win those states by 60% and then essentially win every remaining state by nearly 20% to make it a contest.  In reality, she can't break 55% without Obama even on the ballot in Michigan, Obama will almost certainly win North Carolina and Oregon (and likely Indiana and SD) and the delegates won't make a difference.  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary can be ahead in the popular vote (2.00 / 2)

Delegate count is not the only indicator of legitimacy since neither candidate can win the nomination without the help of the Super Delegates.

For super delegates, pledged delegate count is not the only indicator of legitimacy but also the popular vote count. If Florida and Michigan are included, by the end of the primary season in June, Hillary has an excellent chance of being ahead in the popular vote.

Then the SDs will have to decide which is a better indicator of popular will, popular vote or number of delegates based on byzantine rules.

Who did you think won in 2000? Gore or Bush?

By accepting a revote in FL and MI, Obama has a chance to win this nomination legitimately. He is being short-sighted and blowing his chances to be a legitimate winner and in the meantime looking afraid to face Hillary in FL and MI.

Mark my words, come June Obama will regret his decision not to support a revote in Florida and Michigan.


by BigB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary can be ahead in the popular vote (2.00 / 1)

2000 has NOTHING to do with the current situation... absolutely nothing.

In 2000, a valid vote took place in FL, there were some shitty (but previously ruled valid) ballots which cost Gore roughly 2000 votes from older voters who unfortunately were confused by it, and the conservative Supreme Court stopped the recount which very likely could've given the state, and the election, to Gore.

And cry as we might about the popular vote going to Gore but the election to Bush, the popular vote then meant absolutely nothing (as far as the consequences of the election went) because that's the system we had then and still have now.  It wasn't even unprecedented, as it had happened before in previous elections.  The moral is, if we want to change that system, we have to do it BEFORE THE ELECTION.

So, perhaps I misspoke slightly.  The similarity between 2000 and now is that if we don't like the rules of the primary system as it's setup now, then we have to change them BEFORE THE ELECTION.


by leshrac55 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary can be ahead in the popular vote (none / 0)

Well, there is nothing in the rules that state that the pledged delegate count means squat in determining the nominee unless that person can get the 2000 plus pledged delegates needed to win the nomination. The super delegates are free to pick whoever they want for president using whatever basis they want for that decision, be it pledeged delegates, popular vote, or just a whim. And even the pledged delegates are under no strict rule to vote for the person for whom they are pledged. So if you're trying to use the rules as they are written, there is absolutely nothing to prevent Mike Gravel from getting the nomination if that's how the delegates decide to vote, and it would be perfectly within the rules.


by bouvougan on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary can be ahead in the popular vote (none / 0)

I agree... Super Delegates are free to do what they want... so are Pledged delegates for that matter.

But they do take things into consideration, like, what the effect on the party of their vote would be.  Choosing Gravel would obviously piss off a lot of people, and choosing Clinton in the face of a media who will report it as basically "stealing" it from Obama would do more harm than good as well.


by leshrac55 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Don't Compare Hillary To Gore! (1.50 / 2)

It's Obama that is getting smeared the same way Gore was.

If Hillary invokes Gore, Al will come down on her like a ton of bricks.


by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Don't Compare Hillary To Gore! (1.50 / 2)

hahahahhaha  So Obama is the one in Gore's position eh?  The media has been so biased against him in favor of Senator Clinton and he is definitely the popular vote choice if all the votes are counted....

You must get dizzy with all that spinning you're doing.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what? (2.00 / 2)

Gee, so I wonder why Obama would be stonewalling on FL & MI? They seem like pretty big important states in the general election, you'd think he'd be all over having them vote for real...

Maybe you aren't seeing what is right in front of you.


by souvarine on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what? (2.00 / 0)

Considering Michigan voted on January 15 when most of the Democratic candidates (certainly Edwards) were still in the running, a 55% victory in Michigan is actually quite huge.

Really it would be a gift to allocate 40% of the Michigan Delegates to Obama, since sure a strong percentage of those "uncommited" votes would have gone to Edwards.


by jaydub799 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (1.50 / 2)

If the dKos "writers' strike" is about respect, then here's my take, as someone who has read MyDD and Daily Kos since 2002:

I respect diarists and posters who make sound arguments.  I respect honest, vigorous debate.  I also respect the anger of progressive Democrats who perceive hypocrisy.  And I respect the rights of supporters of every candidate to offer a positive message about their candidate without derisory, drive-by comments from those who support another candidate.

Thus, I did NOT like wholly positive Clinton diaries getting bombed by those who don't like Clinton.  When I saw them, I asked them to stop (not that I have any standing or pull in the matter--just as a member of the community).  And I saw plenty of that.

But I also have seen plenty of rude comments from Clinton supporters directed at Obama.

Overall, I don't mind when the dialogue at dKos gets a little rough.  If you can't take the heat and all that.

What absolutely drives me crazy is weak arguments made by posters who are deaf to substantive rebuttals.  I've seen plenty of that from supporters of both senators' camps, but it was the Clinton supporters who took such great offense while most of them completely ignored the holes in their core arguments.

For example: Back in October 2007, Clinton stated that she knew the MI primary wasn't going to count.  She explained that she was keeping her name on the ballot solely to avoid offending MI voters.  If you don't believe me, Google "clinton new hampshire public radio michigan october."  Yet ever since the South Carolina primary she has been calling for the MI primary to count.  Hypocrisy!  I've quoted her here and at dKos multiple times, and never once has ANY Clinton supporter responded.  No "gosh, she's changed her rationale about Michigan."  Nothing.

I could offer a slew of other examples.  And while I have seen the occasional Clinton supporter respond honestly to a powerful rebuttal, far more often I've seen complaints about "those rude Obama supporters" piling on poor Senator Clinton.  

In short, I have lost respect for the ability and/or willingness of most Clinton supporters to engage in honest debate.  Given my high respect for the writing skills of many, many dKos diarists, I'm somewhat more pleased with the overall quality of what I read there.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (1.50 / 2)

At the end the volume of attacks was deafening.  Maybe you didn't notice the changes but we did.  And it wasn't all the dKos users but enough to make a difference.  Of course there are also supporters of Senator Clinton who have attacked Obama supporters, but not near the same volume.  As for Hillary supporters not giving substantive responses, at the end nothing was acceptable to the attackers at dKos no matter how rational.  I have been writing for over four years there and went through the Dean Clark war which was a walk in the park in comparison to now.  From July of 2005 throught the 2006 election and beyond I worked with Eric Massa doing research and helping with writing and the diaries our team put together were widely acknowledged as substantive and often topped the rec list.  Now that I am the same person doing the same type of research and writing in support of Senator Clinton, suddenly everything I write is called a lie.  And I just refuse to deal with that utter BS, irrational behavior and namecalling.

As for Hillary once having said MI and FL wouldn't count, ok this is politics.  People change their minds sometimes.  Back then no one thought the primaries would be so close that the votes from those two states could make a difference.  Now it is obvious that they can.  

Now that their voice could make a difference, Obama doesn't want them to count because he might lose if they do.  That's even more important than Hillary's change.  Hillary has the good political fortune to be on the right moral side of the issue at this time.  Obama is for disenfranchising voters, not a moral point that is easy to sell.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (1.00 / 1)

First, thank you for your response.  I think both Obama and Clinton are playing politics with MI and FL.  However, given that Clinton acknowledged that MI wouldn't count -- she gave that as her sole excuse for keeping her name on the ballot -- I cannot see how she now has the moral high ground.

As for disenfranchisement, there are multiple levels; most Clinton supporters only acknowledge the most obvious.  It's quite common to see Clinton supporters say that it's "tough luck" if would-be Obama supporters voted already in the Republican primary and wouldn't be allowed to vote in a re-do primary.  I heard a Clinton supporter on NPR yesterday say that the FL primary should stand and count -- and she couldn't care less that many voters stayed away because they were told it wouldn't count, or that neither candidate had the opportunity to make their cases directly to FL voters.  I come away feeling that this much-vaunted moral high ground of Clinton and her supporters is selective and self-serving.

With all due respect, by way of acknowledging Clinton's hypocrisy, you excused it as "ok this is politics."  For the record, Clinton made her statement that "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," in response to someone who doubted her motives:

Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

Clinton brushed aside the comment.

(LINK:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859. html)

She didn't change her mind, Mike.  She lied.  And if she even cared about an appearance of integrity regarding her views on Michigan, she would take pains to explain her change of heart.  

Instead, she has argued for months that the original results should count, even though her opponent's name wasn't on the ballot, and even though she said she only kept her name on the ballot as a symbolic gesture to the voters, since she knew it wasn't going to count.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (none / 0)

"She lied."  As if Obama hasn't repeatedly lied.  We need for those votes to count to give legitimacy to whomever wins the nomination.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (1.00 / 1)

This is exactly what I mean about Clinton supporters not acknowledging ugly truths about their candidate.  If you want to make an argument about Obama's dishonesty, then by all means, do so.

I was making an argument about Clinton's dishonesty and hypocrisy in re the MI primary.  I presented you unequivocal proof with citation that she has lied about the MI primary.  In both your responses, you've avoided acknowledging what Senator Clinton has done.  Instead, your responses have been "ok this is politics" and "As if Obama hasn't repeatedly lied."  

Is there a Clinton supporter out there with the stones, the integrity, or simply the dedication to honest debate to say, "You're right.  She lied about MI"?  

I had thought it might be you, Mike, who would do so, but so far I'm wrong.  Meanwhile, in response to another post of mine, you imply that I'm abusive because I say that Clinton's words and actions have led me to lose respect for her.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (none / 0)

hahahaha She had a different position earlier so she has to have been lying then.  And if her supporters don't admit she was lying then they don't have "stones."  hahahahahahahhahaha


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "It's about Respect" (none / 0)

Okay, lost cause.  I'll move along.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no its definately silly. (1.90 / 11)

No, you're being silly.  It worked just great, and its repercussions are still circling around the blogosphere AND the MSM.

The point of hate-speech on DKos has been brought up to hundreds of thousands of people.  Mission accomplished.

And don't give us the sad song that it's dividing the party.  You Obama folks set the tone, and were unable to restrain your own words in your comments and diaries.  We acted far more civilized than you (except for a few brave, fair Obama supporters) ever have.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Mission accomplished." How fitting (2.00 / 1)

By the way, you understand that, if you sent a message at all, the message you sent was "the liberal blogsphere is uncivilized and intolerant" right?  Not just DK.  The whole lefty sphere.

And you view this as a victory.  

Congratulations.  Or "Mission Accomplished" or "Megadittos, Rush" or "Heh.  Indeed."  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.66 / 3)

Thanks for belittling our effort and twisting the meaning of what we are saying beyond all recognition, it is so helpful of you and so constructive.

Seriously, dKos has become the most onesided in favor of Obama of all the big blogs. And everyone paying attention, who doesn't have their head in the sand, has noticed.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.50 / 2)

dKos was always "extremely one-sided" against Clinton.  A year ago, most support went to Edwards and Obama.  Now it has largely coalesced around Obama.

Why is that?  Why would a large online community, comprising many thousands of well-informed, highly intelligent progressives, be so one-sided against Senator Clinton?  I can think of about fifty reasons.  If you cannot, you'll see dozens of them cited daily.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.50 / 2)

When all the votes are counted that have been cast, especially the Democratic voters, this primary election is not near as one-sided as dKos.  So why is that?  One reason is that lots of people are no longer posting there and are elsewhere now.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.00 / 1)

Certainly, some posters have left dKos.  I have no idea how many.  But I cannot remember a straw poll anytime in 2007 when Clinton got much better than 10% of the community's support.  Do you?  I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong here.

But we both know that dKos tends to be far more liberal than Democrats in general.  If for nothing other than her initial vote on Iraq, Clinton lost a lot of dKos votes.  Not mine.  I was prepared to be excited about her presidency last fall.

But until I see evidence to support it, I won't buy the claim that dKos used to be more "balanced" in its support of candidates (especially Clinton) and suddenly went overboard on Obama.  Rather, it seems to me that Clinton has infuriated a lot of folks there who already didn't support her.  I count myself in their number.  I'm deeply disgusted by her attempted parsing of primaries that are significant or insignificant, her attempts to discredit caucuses generally, what I perceive as demagoguery around FL and MI, her cozying up to McCain about who's qualified to be CinC, etc.

We didn't see the same sorts of sneering, piling-on of posts when Edwards left the race, because he hadn't lost the respect of most of the community.  


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (2.00 / 1)

"It's Hillary's fault that we hate her so."  Spoken like abusive people everywhere.  They always want to blame the one they are abusing.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (none / 0)

Are you calling me abusive, Mike?  I'm uncertain, because the quotation above isn't from me.  

More generally, I'd like to believe we can all agree that, sometimes, people earn the dislike or disapprobation of others.  I certainly feel that way about President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  And no, I am not equating Senator Clinton with them.  But it strikes me as a weak argument to suggest that:

(a)Some dKos posters are abusive in their posts about Clinton.

(b) Abusive people blame the targets of their abuse for "making" them be abusive

ergo

(c) Clinton did nothing wrong.  She's just the target for abuse.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (2.00 / 1)

For most people it is not out of bounds for a candidate to talk about their credentials vs the other candidate in a primary and about what credentials will be needed in the fall.  Why is it Obama supporters think that is out of bounds.  Why is it that Obama supporters think votes of two states should not be counted even if those votes can make a difference in who wins?  Why do Obama supporters think it out of bounds to talk about who can win the states that Democrats have to win in the fall?

I do not doubt that you are upset, but I would question why it is that you are upset?  Is it that Senator Clinton has objectively gone out of bounds?  It seems that only Obama supporters think she has gone out of bounds.  Make of that what you will.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.00 / 1)

I'm all for candidates promoting their credentials.  I believe Clinton has systematically aggrandized, misrepresented, or flat-out lied about many of hers.

I'm not at all against political opponents offering cogent criticism of each other.  I think it wrong for any Democrat to say "our Republican opponent is more qualified than you."  

I'm all for a practical approach that acknowledges the realities of the Electoral College.  Clinton cherrypicks this issue.  If she didn't, she would acknowledge that states like MN, WI, IA, MO, WA, VA, and CO may actually be significant in November.  She tried for a month to make people believe that Obama might have trouble winning NY, MA, NJ, and CA before realizing that many of us have more than a third-grade education.

As for only Obama supporters believing she has gone out of bounds, I don't know.  I've seen and read comments from Democratic party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson saying she's gone too far.  I've heard political commentator (name escapes me right now) refer to her 60 Minutes response about the Obama is a Muslim smears as "brilliantly Macchiavellian."  He was absolutely disgusted.

I don't mean this as a smackdown, but in reference to our other thread of responses--about Clinton's contradictory statements regarding the MI primary:  I view her statements as grossly dishonest, while you wrote "she changed her mind -- ha ha ha ha ha."  So I'm not surprised that you question why I'm upset.  We're clearly on very different wavelengths here.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (2.00 / 1)

I've seen and read comments from Democratic party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson saying she's gone too far.

Are you sure those aren't all Obama supporters who might be saying things for political reasons?  At this point, Nancy Pelosi is the only one of that group I would even consider as on the fence.  And her most recent comments all seem out of place for a neutral observer to me.  Lots of party leaders are playing politics more than usual in the primaries this time.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (1.00 / 1)

That's why I said, "I don't know."  I do know that Kerry supports Obama openly, and clearly Richardson does too, as of Friday.

But as I tried to make clear in earlier posts, I have for years had great faith in many, many dKos regulars.  I think it's extremely telling that there is no dKos front-pager, for instance, who has studied Clinton's positions on Iraq, NAFTA, or "experience" and believes they stand up to scrutiny.  Nor does any of them believe that her conduct of her campaign has been good for building the Democratic Party.


by deminva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Mission accomplished." How fitting (2.00 / 1)

There are lots of other intelligent people scattered around the blogosphere.  Jerome Armstrong supports her and he cowrote Crashing the Gate with Markos.  Armando/BigTentDemocrat is a former dKos frontpager who defends her over at Talk Left.  Todd Beeton here at mydd is a Hillary supporter.  Digby, whom almost everyone acknowledges as one of the best bloggers, defends Hillary on a regular basis.  Eriposte at the Left Coaster is a Hillary defender and is a brilliant writer.  And there are others.  

The dKos frontpagers do not represent the variety within the Democratic electorate.  More than half of the Democratic votes in the primary support Hillary.  More Democrats have voted for her than Barack.

I didn't like Hillary before I got to know her better either.  I only took a closer look because General Wes Clark asked me to.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no its definately silly. (none / 0)

Hey Kiddo, you are very close to troll territory, with stuff like "taylor hussain marsh."  And your comment has no text.  If you have nothing to say, then shut up.


by PlainWords on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

greetings plainwords. (none / 0)

troll territory eh? thats funny- i've been posting on this site for a full year, you've been here since the day after supertuesday (aint that coincidental?)

btw- we are all hussein, even ms. marsh


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 9)

Well said Mike.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:40:36 PM EST

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 10)

This goes beyond politics.  Cyberabuse should not be allowed in any forum.  If the people who create the space don't take repsonsibility for the space, then it's time to find a more conducive space for discourse.


by izarradar on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:41:52 PM EST

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 8)

Yes this should be standard all over the blogosphere.  And civility should be a key part of all political discourse, especially between those on the same side of the aisle.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely (2.00 / 6)

Honestly, I don't know how we will heal as a Party.  I know that we must, but that seems something that will take a lot of time to accomplish.  It's sad too because the 2008 election should have been a no brainer.    All this drama has hurt us, I fear.  We need a real leader in this Party to step up and cleanse and mend the wounds.  Maybe this is a role Gore will play.


by izarradar on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely (2.00 / 10)

Hillary is a healer.  She has been at that for forty years, starting in 1968 when the country was coming apart at the seams.  She went to the board of Wellesley and helped implement recruitment of black professors and students. (link) And she has worked as a civil rights enforcer.  And much much more.  (link) She is a healer and she will heal this party.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely (2.00 / 9)

Hill's already got my support for President 100%, but if she can heal this Party, I'll start calling her St. Hill.


by izarradar on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 2)

I agree that civility is important...  I would like to point out however that not all of the Clinton supporters who posted at Kos were the angels you seem to be making them out to be...

I am supporting the Democrat nominee and have a habit of saying that, but any slight criticism of the way her campaign is being run (both valid and benign criticism) was met with outright vitriol by some Clinton supporters who saw any criticism of their candidate as an outright assault.

Is that also true of Obama supporters...?  Absolutely!  But to imply that Clinton supporters were somehow just innocent victims is just not true.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 2)

There is plenty of abuse here for Obama supporters, even among some who could not abide that other place.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 7)

Is it too much for us to retain a place where we have found some posting freedoms formerly not allowed on the other thing?  Should we just be constantly the "lambs" that set the example for slaughter, just to appease Obama supporters, who seem to follow us around no matter where we go?

Is it allowed for us to fight back, anytime, ever, without being accused of "not discussing the issues"?

Gimme a break, gimme two breaks, hell, gimme a hundred breaks.

I keep my dialogue far more restrained than anything I see on the other side.  And yes, it is another side at this point.  Don't whine to me, please.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 2)

So it seems you are implying that you wish this to be a Clinton-only site? How about you ask Jerome to have everyone sign a loyalty oath to keep "those people" out.


by zep93 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:15:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 1)

Go back to where you came from.  Why hand oug here, just like we don't want to hang out there.  It looks to me that you guys just can't let go of us, and now that we're somewhere else, away from you, you still need to follow us around to make things unpleasant.

Okay, that's your game, apparently.  But we are not doing that to you anymore.  So lay off, and leave us alone.  If you don't like the dialogue here, just go back into your orange place, where now you seem to be picking on each other, since we're no longer there.

Good night.  And quit following us around.  We're trying to get away from you.  We're not haunting you wherever you go.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:24:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but I'm relatively new to blogging, although I've been a long time lurker. I just hate the whole "this is my playground" mentality that prevails at both sites. Where the hell can I go to find balance, because it doesn't seem as if any political blog has it?


by zep93 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.66 / 3)

If you are interested in open honest discussion supported by facts there are all sorts of places.  Some of that happens here.  Less so at the moment at dKos.  But there is a big blog roll here you can try.  A lot of people who post here also post at Talk Left for example.  And tastes vary.  The blog roll is on the left.

After the primaries are finally over and less emotion is involved conversation will probably be more tolerable everywhere.


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (none / 0)

Thanks for the information and rec'd.


by zep93 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly why did furiousxgeorge rate this a 1? (none / 0)

He's rated eleven people with 1's today.


by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.66 / 3)

What a ridiculous post. I've been on here since 2003 or so, and I've never even had an account on DailyKos. This place is as much mine as it is yours. And I'm going to respond to negative attacks on my candidate whether you like it or not.

The Hillary club here is increasingly becoming very Ron Paul-esque in its treatment of dissent - the response in the last few days has been just to plug your ears and yell "I can't hear you!"


by amiches on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.66 / 3)

This is a democratic party forum.  If Hillary loses the nomination, will us Obama supporters be allowed back then, or will this site just whither and die?


by interestedbystander on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AS IF (2.00 / 1)

A little gaming of the ref?  Or just not familiar with the place.  MyDD is hardly Hillary Paradise.  

Why begrudge Hillary supporters what few places there are where they can blog without abuse?


by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen izzaradar! (2.00 / 3)

You nailed it.


by durendal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing Silly (1.93 / 15)

this is right, it is about respect. In the same way Obama's attempt to bully Hillary out of the contest before everyone gets to vote isn't silly either, it's mean spirited and unpleasant. I think we should all work together to push both our candidates to come out for voters. I'm glad there are two more debates and that it may be a chance to see differences in their positions.  I like her clear and realistic plans to clean up the Bush mess. But like Hillary I think the candidate needs to represent us all, and so it's no time to game the system and keep out real votes.  If Obama had shown as much empathy for Hillary and his supporters as he does for Bush Republicans, the Koz KIdz might have listened and learned to disagree without cursing out girls.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:43:27 PM EST

Re: Nothing Silly (1.00 / 1)

If Obama had shown as much empathy for Hillary and his supporters as he does for Bush Republicans, the Koz KIdz might have listened and learned to disagree without cursing out girls.  

Kos kids, huh?  A nickname taken right from Little Green Footballs and Free Republic.  You Hillary supporters look more and more like them every day.


by furiousxgeorge on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 12)

in real life, if i hear someone talking that kind of sexist garbage, i get up and walk out of the room. i don't use that kind of language myself, and i make it a point not to associate with people who do. why should the internet be any different?

it's about self-respect.


by campskunk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:47:29 PM EST

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.75 / 4)

Hey, if people backing Clinton want to make sure their audience is smaller, go right ahead. The strike is silly - because it is self-defeating.


by mattw on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 11)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but our strike has been on all the major networks and on big name political blogs.  Hell, Wollcott even gave us a thumbs up.  


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 4)

And where did the links about your strike go? (dKos?)  And now that the 30 seconds has passed, and what are you left with?  A site with 1/15th the traffic to post on, and an ironic dilemma - to end that self-imposed isolation, you have to break ranks with the 'strike'.


by mattw on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 12)

Let's put it this way.  MyDD traffic is up since the strike.  DKos is down.  Check out the alexa ratings.  But this is not about ratings.  It is about respect.

We are also leveraging the attention we have gotten to get our message out.  We are doing just fine without dKos.


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.33 / 3)

Well, I don't wish the strikers any ill will. /shrug

In any given month Kos's traffic see-saws twice as much as 100% of dd's traffic, so I'm not sure it has much to do with it. My point, however, is that there's a heck of a lot more Dems there, and they aren't getting your message. (They certainly got your strike message; but if you have something to say after that, you're pretty much stuck in the echo chamber now.)


by mattw on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.83 / 6)

Colbert has more eyeballs than dKos and mydd put together.  


by Mike Pridmore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 2)

So, basically what you are saying is that the bully always wins, and it's a good thing?

That is what I'm against.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (2.00 / 6)

Your belittling us does nothing for you or Obama, the great uniter.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.66 / 3)

Our audience consists of nearly half of the American people.  They voted for Hillary, and it looks like a majority of them will vote for her in the next primaries.

Are you really saying that all of these people who believe in her, should be thrown out with the bathtub?

Unless Obama (and all of you) can unite us, you're going to be up against a wall of resentment.

Obama, with his recent "not-so-uniting" attacks against Hillary, doesn't seem to be living up to his name as the Hope/Change/Uniter image he's put forth.

As a matter of fact, that image is melting, rapidly, as it becomes clear that he is just another political opportunist.

Hillary, on the other hand, has withstood the right-wing attacks, for 17 or so years, and she's held up.

Given all the media slams against her, and the totally unfair reporting, it's a wonder she's still so close in the vote count.

I do think that at this point, many previous Obama Primary voters are having head-aches about their vote.

Let's see what happens.  But the game is not over yet.  Obama has NOT been vetted.  It's only started for him.

I wish all of us could look long-term, instead of minute-to-minute.  That's all.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 2)

Not sure what that had to do with the comment. I was just saying that people who only post here and not there will have an audience 1/15th the size. Half the American people do not know or care about the writer's strike.

The whole "unless X unites" argument, frankly, just goes both ways. It's that simple. The contest will end with a very, very close race among Democrats, with probably at least 48% of voters on the "other side".

Obama has been absolutely raped and pillaged by the media in the last month.

Hillary has not been vetted either. She has had 12 years since she was connected to a national election to amass new dirt Republicans will be eager to uncover. She may be fine; she may not be. Obama may have more issues; he may not. There's simply no evidence to show either one is safe... nor do I think it matters. Some of the most effective smears have no basis in truth.


by mattw on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (1.50 / 2)


well, MYDD isn't the ONLY place we hang out, in case you haven't noticed.  Several other blogs have their  visitor ratings skyrocket since the strike.

Just keep saying dumb things if you must.

We're in more places than one, because that's a good strategy.  And our blood-pressure is down, while our  excitement is high and active, now that our brains are liberated from the depressing place.

Thanks.  Now go back, please.  You're wasting your time.


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:31:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing about the Writer's Strike is Silly (none / 0)

Sometimes having a smaller audience is quite rewarding, a rec'd diary here might have a 100 to 200 comments, one on DKos could have three times that many, and many of those comments are by people who haven't read the diary, haven't scanned the comments and repost what has already been said 50 times, and, especially in the candidate diaries, a lot of backslapping and high fives. So the long threads get pretty boring fairly quickly.
I don't even look at the rec list diaries at DKos anymore, I scan the recent diary list and if there's nothing interesting, I move on to Glenn Greenwald, Digby or here or other blogs.
I must say, though I'm not one of the strikers, I certainly have enjoyed spending more time at Digby's blog, she is an incredible writer and analyst.
And truthfully, saying that Obama has been "raped and pillaged" by the media lately is rather lame- all one has to do is look at the last 4 or five presidential elections to see how nasty the media can really be. I said this three months ago when the Rezko thing broke- the media is just getting warmed up. Wait until the Republican 527s get going.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, half of America did not vote for Hillary (2.00 / 1)

She's gotten over 60% of NY voters in her Senate races and slightly less than half of those voting the Democratic primary elections so far.

And half of America didn't vote for Obama either.  He got over 70% of voters in his Illinois Senate race and slightly more than half of those voting in the Democratic primary electios so far.  

Sheesh.  Some relation to reality would be nice.


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why did you follow us into this diary? (2.00 / 1)

If we're so small in number, why bother to leave a comment?


by catfish1 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not silly, but maybe self-defeating (1.50 / 2)

i admit i'm an Obama supporter, but i have seen Clinton supporters unfairly attacked on Kos. but i'd ask the Clinton supporters to go back and fight. no one ever won anything by quitting.
if DailyKos is an Obama site, how better to win voters to your side than to go there and refute the arguments you think are wrong?

(but i do agree that no one should stay anywhere they aren't respected, in politics or life. everyone deserves respect, unless they don't show it for others.)

again, as an Obama supporter, i apologize to anyone who