Put he words Clinton into your sentence and it is also true.

"Crime against humanity" is awfully hyperbolic, but I see your point.

I think the difference is that Obama supporters (of which I am one) have less problem with things HE does/says (Bittergate).  We DO have a problem when he gets attacked because someone who happens to like him says or does something idiotic or spiteful (and yes, Randi Rhoades fits in there on both counts).  

That being said, the Geraldine Ferraro thing was not, and should not, have been as big a deal as it was.  As an Obama supporter, I think that got totally overplayed by the media and to some extent Obama's campaign.  

But I have no problem with eiter candidate getting attacked for their own actions (Hillary claiming more credit for things as First Lady than she actually did, the Bosnia thing, Bittergate) or for close/paid surrogates (Mark Penn, Bill, and for Obama the NAFTA thing and Rezko).

I'm not sure if other Obama supporters make the same distinction, but that's where I draw the line.  The candidate or a close adviser does it = fair game.  Some random person does it in the name of the candidate = non-issue.  

And the fingergate thing is ridiculous and makes (some) Clinton supporters look like crazy conspiracy theorists, just like Obama supporters who capitalized on Hillary's "cackle" or her pantsuits are ridiculous.

Where is Hillay's flag pin????

I like any REAL Democrat would and should object to that kind of question implying that Democrats are less patriotic. How many times did StepOnTopOfUs question McPain's patriotism on This Week? 6? 4? None?

The issue isn't that the questions were hard, it's that they were inane and it took the moderators over 45 minutes to get to the first substantive issue. And this was the first debate where Sean Hannity had the moderators' ear.

Gibson said the economy is the number one issue on voters' minds, but ABC focused exclusively on sensational questions for the first half of the debate. That hasn't happened before in the other 20 debates, and it's why ABC is being criticized by supporters of both candidates.

I'll point out that the moderators twice tried to get Obama to hammer Clinton on Bosnia, but he wouldn't take the bait. Clinton wasn't so generous, instead using her follow-ups to raise additional questions about Obama's church and furthering the guilt-by-association nonsense.

Regardless, I haven't heard Obama complain that the questions were too difficult. In fact, he's said the questions were fair game. He's not whining about media bias or unfair treatment, he's saying that we have better things to talk about than flag pins.  

"Good for our side, we still have a candidate who knows how to win without the press on her side."

If it wasn't for the fact that she is LOSING, you might have a point.

That's a wrong way of thinking...Just because you and I may have tuned in to see the first 22 debates, most have not.  Many people may have been viewing for the first time, especially from PA, and ABC turned it into a "Gotcha" game...As shown by the ratings many people tuned in but after first 30 minutes almost half left....I do not mind character questions and I believe Barack wasn't as strong as he was in previous debates.  However, to allocate the first 50 minutes on such talk was a mistake. Split them up.  Ask an issue question followed by  character question...IMO

I would have liked to see more balance....  by that I mean, it's fine to ask whatever questions you want to ask...  but repeatedly....?  For the first half of the debate to be focused on this...?  I pity the people who tuned in expecting to learn something... Mixing substantive issues with the character questions would have been a relief.

Why is that funny? These are good democrats who are supporting Obama (just like the good democrats who support Hillary). Why do you people think they're a cult?

Tom Shales
George Soros

Sounds like some trick turning Obama supporters for the left to me there, friendo.

Hillary/Obama supporters. Reread the diary.

When Hillary or John McCain have shady people backing them and  when they commit a slip of the tongue it's ok to pile on them?

I've seen this kind of slip of the tongue before: this is partially a defence of MCCAIN. Until proved otherwise, this diarist has just outed themselves as a republican troll. Don't let these freepers succeed in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. They don't want to see us unite around any candidate in the fall.

Unlike that previous commenter, I don't want the Obama campaign "scratching and clawing" our way to the nomination.  I'd like it to do the absolute minimum amount of vicious fighting it takes to win the nomination and the general election.  I'm not sure exactly how much that is, but hopefully someone knows.

Hahah we are happy, you guys are the ones who are insufferable with your whining.  We are going all the way to Denver with most states won, popular vote, and pledged delegates; it doesn't get better than that! You guys just think if Hillary asks people nicely to vote for her she is going to win?  Where is the tenacity or toughness she used to portray before the election started? Don't get jealous because we defend our candidate.

/I love the primaries, it weeds out the weaklings among the strong!

Hillary is the cult-master.

She has far more people ready to vote McCain if they don't get their way. The polls have clearly shown this.

End of story.

"Cult like camp," "mass suicide," "don't shoot up the convention," "don't bomb ABC's headquarters."

Just let it go. Obamanites don't play with a full deck if you know what I mean.

Ah yes the oldest talking point of them all... Obama is going to lose!  Stop whining and do your candidate a favor and fight for her.  This is sad

HA!  When McCain and Hillary start using the same talking point, I find it hard to respect that women.  She knows there is no chance in hell she will win the nomination so her strategy is to paint her fellow democrat useless in the GE.  She decided to use republican talking point to attack him and it took the 21st debate for her to publicly admit Obama would win the presidency against McCain. Her tactics are so transparent and that is why her negatives are the highest since 2001!  

Way to go Hillary to remind the public who you really are.

Pastafarians Unite!

If you show me some hypocracy I'll be convinced. But this hardly does it.

And I'm getting plenty of air (mostly hot) here at MYDD. And you're welcome.

Why is the words of Obama's Rev., spoken years ago, a bigger story than Hillary Clinton telling a blatent lie only weeks ago? See the difference?

Why is the words of Obama's Rev., spoken years ago, a bigger story than Hillary Clinton telling a blatent lie only weeks ago? See the difference?

Strange, maybe. I don't deny there's some kind of Beatlemania about Obama's presence. Big crowds and a cool guy make some people hysterical.

But I'm in hysterics over your source. It's not strange, it's outright perverse. Are your only supporters now republicans?

One of the biggest signs for a democrat how big Obama will be in the fall is the way that McCain is attacking him already, tag teaming with Hillary.

They're both so scared, they're excreting hot bricks.

Way to go with the source. Another great diary today celebrates Scaife's endorsement of Hillary.

Some people's moral sense has gone haywire, and their political bearings kaput

But don't liberals vomit? I vomit. All humans vomit. What do you think I meant?

Shall we both contact the admins?

Yeah, I know.  That alone probably isn't enough to "out" our friend, but it does make the job easier when the person just goes off the rails in a new diary.

Sorry.  Didn't see your post when I posted mine.