"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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

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.

Wow.

Just wow Jerome.

Wow.

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.  

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.

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

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" ?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

This is supposed to accomplish what?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

For a little sanity from time to time...

Thanks!

Sums it up perfectly well.  Kudos.

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?

Poor Jerome.  The facts just bounce off.

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.  

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Very sad and very embarrassing.

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.

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".

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

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?  

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?)