prove that DKos is insane

by engels, Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST

Markos published new Diary with poll "Tomorrow, I'm rooting for Obama or Hillary". As of 5:55pm it was 7741 votes, 7006 for Obama, 319 for Hillary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/5/0 3141/00899/321/509190
Obama got 90% in this poll, like he is getting from blacks everywhere.
I cannot assume that most dkos visitors are black, and I doubt that all of them just crazy college kids with no life and nothing else to do.
The only other explanation I can get that dkos just insane and it is irreversible, given that at least half of democrats supporting Hillary.

I also noticed that DKos people often (like ancient normans or mongols or like cancer cells) trying to invade other blogs and made them insane too.

I really hope that MYDD can withstand such an invasion and stay sane and reasonable and avoid joining Obama Cult.




Tags: Clinton, Dailykos (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 105 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 4)

And what do you think the poll would say here?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:06:42 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

I think it would be about 50-50 or 60-40 here.  What do you think it would be?


by markjay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it varies depending on how many of 'them' (none / 0)

are here.. They tend to coordinate somehow..

the server logs might reveal much..if parsed properly..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it varies depending on how many of 'th (none / 0)

LOL


by futbol dad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it varies depending on how many of 'th (none / 0)

Are parsed server logs -
Anything like boiled brussles sprouts?
by johnnygunn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 5)

Or Obama is the non-DLC candidate, and Dailykos was founded and is frequented by people who deeply dislike and distrust the DLC.

But whatever, ad hominem attacks work, too, I guess.


by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST

That's not a good assumption (2.00 / 5)

What it is is proof that Obama is the candidate favored by DailyKos users.  Considering that it's a site dedicated to electing progressive grassroots candidates and Obama is the remaining progressive grassroots candidate in the race, it's fairly easy to make that determination.

Further, most of the Clinton supporters moved on because it was getting contentious there (which I blame both sides for).


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:08:51 PM EST

so, are you implying that hillary is not progressi (none / 0)

not progressive, Dracomicron?

Why?

you are also implying that resistance is futile, Obama is inevitable.

Why?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, are you implying that hillary is not progr (2.00 / 2)

As for your first question, she regularly uses Republican memes, talking points, and attacks against her opponent; she has supported Republicans this cycle; and she is quite hawkish on the military, not progressive in the slightest.

As for the second, Hillary cannot come back to win the election without the defection of hundreds of s-d's who have already pledged to Obama.  To date, the number who have done so stands at: 0, or, more accurately, about -7, as the only movement of Superdelegates has been from her side to his.  So it's farcical to imagine that he isn't going to win; he clearly is.


by Lawyerish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In other words, (none / 0)

She is the type of Democrat who might actually get elected over John McCain.


by lombard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (none / 0)

Not really.  There's no reason to vote for her instead of McCain, if you care about the stuff that I listed above.

Not that it's going to be an issue; her campaign is dead walking.  You bunch just refuse to let her lie down in peace.


by Lawyerish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (none / 0)

That is a patently false statement.  Try to maintain some credibility.


by Mags on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In other words, (none / 0)

There are other ways to victory besides triangulation.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Triangulation was just fine with me (2.00 / 1)

The Clinton years featured the best run federal government of my lifetime.  I've learned that I shouldn't expect more than that.


by lombard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why sell yourself short? (none / 0)

Sure, you'd be okay with a triangulator, but why not take a shot at a better government that doesn't need to do that?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because when you expect much more (none / 0)

you usually end up with less


by lombard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't expect anything (none / 0)

I hope and I work to obtain it.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, are you implying that hillary is not .. (2.00 / 1)

It wasn't Hillary praising Ronald Reagan and claiming that the republicans had all the ideas, or that she would model her foreign policy after that of Ronald Reagan and Poppa Bush!

It wasn't Hillary encouraging republicans to become "Democrats-for-a-day".

I know love is blind but you should take a very close look at Mr. Empty Suit before hanging the big "R" on one of the most faithful Democrats of the past 30 years.


by wblynch on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so, are you implying that hillary is not .. (none / 0)

That's funny, Obama did none of those things you listed either; and I'd love to see you link to some sort of proof that he did either.

Now, praising Ronald Reagan - there's nothing wrong with talking about the successes of past administrations, be they Republican or Democrat.  Not if you ask Hillary, anyways, who is quite the Reagan admirer.


by Lawyerish on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not a good assumption (none / 0)

What it is is proof that Obama is the candidate favored by DailyKos users.
Oh please, let's not go interjecting reason and logic into this.  You can get banned for that, you know.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hilarious isn't it? (none / 0)


by lombard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hilarious isn't it? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, in a cringing, "funniest home video" sort of way.  Kind of like watching an entire cohort of political supporters collectively getting hit in their figurative nuts.  I'd give you some mojo, but I got stripped of that option.  


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, sorry (none / 0)

I forgot where I was for a minute.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not a good assumption (none / 0)

Daily Kos started out as a site dedicated to electing Democrats.

Who really knows what it has become?


by wblynch on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's right there, check it out. (none / 0)

It's not some great mystery.  Just go there and look.

It's a site devoted to electing progressive Democrats, like Obama.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

What did you expect?  DailyKos long ago became the premier Hillary hate site on the internet.  RW sites pale in comparison.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

They RW has been a bit silent on the Hillary-hate lately... just why is that do you think...?

Don't worry, they will be back to calling her PIAPS in no time... by the way, that stands for Pig in a Pantsuit and is used instead of her name at lucianne.com among others....


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

I haven't voted in that poll yet so Obama's number will go up by one. Nope, not all kids or black. I get the impression there are all ages and genders.


by Becky G on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST

Um, it's really quite simple (none / 0)

Edwards supporters and Clinton supporters were pushed away from DKos leaving only Obama supporters...and even they are only a miniscule number of them.

I made a few friends over on kos who didn't support Obama, and even some who did...most of them have been banned, they can't comment, they can't write or rec diaries, so they gave up...all because they had some criticism of Obama.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST

I never felt that Edwards supporters were (2.00 / 2)

pushed away.  I used to be a big fan of the EENR, which had a huge following on dKos.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)

DKos only got politicized when she started using attacks they didn't like, and when the math started to turn against her.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, it's really quite simple (2.00 / 2)

Edwards supporters dominated at DKos for a long time.  Obama simply won over their support.  As far as numbers, even a cursory comparison of the number of comments and diaries at DKos and MyDD show DKos is alive and thriving while MyDD is, er, not.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, it's really quite simple (2.00 / 1)

I agree...  that place was Edwards dominated for quite a while...  Clinton supporters like to claim it turned unfriendly against Hillary because of Obama, but truth be told, it was never solidly in her corner to begin with...

I like Kos still... there is a lot of emphasis on downticket races and other issues besides the primary... Those diaries die on the vine here..  There, hey wind up on the front page or the rec list...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 6)

Two things:

I'm an Obama supporter, fervent, but I like it here because it's not a monolithic viewpoint.

However,

I really do not like being called a cultist for my reasoned support of my candidate.

So, if you like this site because it is less "insane," you might want to avoid making it more insane by throwing around the cult word.  


by mady on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

That describes me, too...


by tomchaps on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most Obama supporters dont bother me at all.. (2.00 / 2)

but there are a few that make the whole bunch look bad.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, (2.00 / 2)

on both sides.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, (none / 0)

Well the Clinton side doesn't propagate phony smears without checking them out.

The "voter suppression smear".
The doctored video.
etc.

That is what separates the Clinton supporters from the Obama supporters.  Many Obama supporters are really Hillary haters rather than supporters of any kind.


by Sensible on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, (2.00 / 1)

Oh come on....!  As usual, that description fits both sides... let's not play pure and innocent here...

That video with the clip from the War Room...?  How many Clinton supporters here were tying that video directly to the Obama campaign...?

There are people here who hate Obama more than they like any candidate... close to more than they like anything.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

"prove that DKos is insane"

Sorry, no can do because it is not true.


by My Ob on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:25:18 PM EST

I like it (2.00 / 2)


    you blindly support Clinton and you're a supporter.

   Someone blindly supports Obama...and they're a cultist.

   Jesus Christ Almighty! How did the mighty Clinton juggernaut fall so low so fast?


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:30:50 PM EST

Re: I like it (none / 0)

Dumbfounding, isn't it?

*looks around nervously*

Gosh...I hope Michelle doesn't find out that I'm drinking beer instead of the mandated wine, lattes, and Kool Aid!  She'll have my ass!

Must....be....blind elitist!  Must...resist beer!


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 4)

Hmmm, DKos's posts support Obama more than Hillary, so it's readers tend to support Obama more than Hillary.  Meanwhile, MyDD's posts tend to support Hillary more than Obama, so it's readers likely tend to support Hillary more than Obama.

Perhaps that's a bit more reasonable than concluding a site's readership is "insane"?


by ThinkerT on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 4)

Well time for me to head over to dkos and place my vote for Barack!!!
Hey, thanx for the heads up.
"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale
by april34fff on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 4)

The only thing your diary proves is that you need some lessons in grammar.

Could you write a more inflammatory diary?  Oh, I guess it's only offensive if it bashes Hillary supporters.  Making blanket statements about Obama supporters is completely acceptable.


by The Distillery on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST

Proves beyond a doubt that Daily kos is (none / 0)

an echo chamber.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:41:36 PM EST

Or, of course (none / 0)

That Daily Kos is all African-Americans. Must't rule that out.

Then again, I've met Markos.....


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Dailykos is home base for neo-liberals.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:44:17 PM EST

What? (2.00 / 2)

Neo-liberals.

A few Clinton supporters like you make her look bad.  Last I saw, Clinton has the best (most far-reaching) universal health care plan.  When I see right wing talking points, it makes me wonder.

Neo-Liberal?  Try faux progressives.  The truth that cannot be spoken is that Clinton and Obama both are centrists.


by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

neo-liberal actually means something completely different, as in far right on trade and economics. George Bush is a neo-liberal, as was Reagan. Instead, I'd call DailyKos neo-socialist, not because they support a different candidate, but because anyone and everything not the far far left, they go absolutely apeshit and turn on whoever does it extremely venomously.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

I REALLY don't think DKos has the groupthink you describe. It's not a massive conspiracy, you know.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

neo-liberal actually means something completely different, as in far right on trade and economics. George Bush is a neo-liberal, as was Reagan. Instead, I'd call DailyKos neo-socialist, not because they support a different candidate, but because anyone and everything not the far far left, they go absolutely apeshit and turn on whoever does it extremely venomously.

Not true. In fact, if you look at some of the candidates Kos supports, you can see that there's very little concern for traditional leftist social issues such as guns and abortion. If anything, DKos is more libertarian in nature than many liberal blogs. What is not tolerated, however, is the crime that Hillary Clinton is most guilty of: knuckling-under Republican proposals on national security for fear of looking weak.


by RP McMurphy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

oh they do, and the "crime?" but what about all of those other Democrats who went with the GOP on security? Anyone who is named Clinton gets a scarlet letter, while Biden and Edwards got a pass. Because Hillary didn't "apologize?" That would be opening up to flip flop charges. She shouldn't have done it in the first place, but she at least is gonna keep where she put herself instead of being a flip flop sounding like person like John Kerry.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Gratuitous smack down of John Kerry...?

Democratic nominee from 2004, current Democratic Senator from MA...?

Really....?

This is because he endorsed Obama isn't it?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

oh they do, and the "crime?"

Voting for the AUMF was a crime. It was negligent homicide and it resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Those who voted for it are partially reasonable for those deaths and will have to live with their crime for the rest of their lives.    

...but what about all of those other Democrats who went with the GOP on security? Anyone who is named Clinton gets a scarlet letter, while Biden and Edwards got a pass.

I'm not giving any of them a pass and I've supported Obama throughout the primary season largely because of the others' support for the War.

Because Hillary didn't "apologize?" That would be opening up to flip flop charges. She shouldn't have done it in the first place, but she at least is gonna keep where she put herself instead of being a flip flop sounding like person like John Kerry.

That's even worse. She made a grave mistake that resulted in the deaths of thousands but she's unwilling to apologize for fear of appearing inconsistent? Sickening. No decent person would ever put his or her political career ahead of atoning for such a sin.


by RP McMurphy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

wouldn't putting a Republican in the White House be a bigger sin? She shouldn't have voted for it in the first place, but she did, and she did for the same reason Kerry, Biden, and most other Dems did. Because they thought it would succeed like Desert Storm, and they'd look like idiots if it did voting against it. What they should have looked at was that this was not desert storm, but more like Nam. but with the media coverage, how woudl anyone know that? Phil Donaghue even excused Hillary, on the basis of media coverage. THAT is why Dems voted for it.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

wouldn't putting a Republican in the White House be a bigger sin?

We don't need Hillary to save us from ourselves. In the minds of many people, her vote disqualified her from the presidency. We have a candidate that opposed the War, and if Hillary were so concerned about a Republican in the White House, she'd kindly step aside and allow us to focus all of our energy on the GOP.  

She shouldn't have voted for it in the first place, but she did, and she did for the same reason Kerry, Biden, and most other Dems did. Because they thought it would succeed like Desert Storm, and they'd look like idiots if it did voting against it. What they should have looked at was that this was not desert storm, but more like Nam.

You're absolutely right, but I'm not interested in electing someone who puts his or her political career ahead of the lives of thousands of people. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton was four years away from her next election -- as far removed from the political consequences of such a decision as anyone could possibly be. She was the senator of NY, moreover; She probably could've voted against the AUMF and retained her senate seat. But even that wasn't good enough -- no, she needed to increase her power and voting "nay" might have prevented her ascension to the presidency.

My senator, Paul Wellstone, was up for reelection that very fall. He told Dick Durbin that it didn't matter if he lost so long as he did the right thing. Paul Wellstone voted accordingly and is now lying six feet underground while Hillary Clinton campaigns for president. In a perfect world, their fates would be reversed. Barring such contingency, however, I nonetheless have the opportunity to inform our elected representative of the consequences of their malfeasance. I'm taking that opportunity.    

but with the media coverage, how woudl anyone know that?

23 Senators did. Bob Graham, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said reading the NIE compelled his "nay" vote.


by RP McMurphy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Obama didn't actually have to take a real stand, ie voting, and was just another brick in the wall state senator at the time. His "opposition" meant nothing, until now. Hillary and the some of the Dems may not have know Bush was actually gonna go to war, because people thought the weapons inspectors would work, because its not like Hillary actually signed that 1998 PNAC letter. The fact she was from New York actually made her more likely to vote FOR the war, because as the media linked it with the war on terror and 9/11, being that New York was the state hit and hit extremely hard, she may have thought that she would be risking her seat, and from that media coverage, she could have been. If one just watched the media, it wasn't completely apparent that the mission would be a complete failure, as there were no opposing view points on it anyway. That is why Donahue got kicked off in the first place. Hillary had just been elected, so its not like she had the clout to have voted no in those circumstances at that time, thinking it would have been the right choice. Wellstone was established, not to mention, from a state which voted more Democratic than New York, which went for Nixon in 72, barely went for Carter in 76, went for Reagan twice, and barely went for Dukakis. Clinton and Gore were the only recent ones to carry it in landslides. She was in a tough political bind, but I still think there was a fundamental mistake behind the effort as a whole on both sides. But being that the debate was dominated by the GOP Congress and media, it wasn't as easy for a freshman senator from the state hit by terror which the media linked Iraq to to say no. She should have, but she didn't. I wanted Gore to run in the first place, because unlike Obama, his opposition meant something because he proved himself for 8 years and won the most votes in 2000. He also had what Obama didn't have:experience. But he didn't run. We don't need another Jimmy Carter/George W. Bush type inexperienced presidency. They both were disasters.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Obama didn't actually have to take a real stand, ie voting, and was just another brick in the wall state senator at the time. His "opposition" meant nothing, until now.

For a public figure to come out in opposition to a war supported by 70% of the American public is taking a real stand. Being one of a thousand anonymous protesters marching in the street is taking a real stand. Senator Obama was not obligated to publicly voice his disapproval with the War, nor was it the politically prudent thing to do. Had Hillary Clinton been in his position, I'm sure she would have acted much differently -- and that's why I'm not supporting her.

Hillary and the some of the Dems may not have know Bush was actually gonna go to war, because people thought the weapons inspectors would work, because its not like Hillary actually signed that 1998 PNAC letter.

I don't believe that Hillary doubted for one minute that Bush was actually going to go to war. If she had been skeptical, however, she had several months in which to voice her opposition after her vote and prior to the invasion. She said NOTHING.  

The fact she was from New York actually made her more likely to vote FOR the war, because as the media linked it with the war on terror and 9/11, being that New York was the state hit and hit extremely hard, she may have thought that she would be risking her seat, and from that media coverage, she could have been.

I still think the fact that NY is a pretty liberal state would've outweighed the fact that it was the target of 9/11. If I had to choose between voting against the War and running for Senate in North Dakota (Conrad), New Mexico (Bingaman), Florida (Graham), West Viriginia (Byrd), or New York, I would've chosen New York.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that I don't really care about political expediency when people's lives are at stake. Hillary should've fallen on her sword (which, in hindsight, fate would've rewarded her for) and saved her immortal soul.

Hillary had just been elected, so its not like she had the clout to have voted no in those circumstances at that time, thinking it would have been the right choice.

But many other experienced senators with considerable clout voted 'no' (Byrd, Kennedy, Levin, Leahy, Bingaman, Graham, etc.). Why didn't Hillary follow their lead?

Wellstone was established...

He had been elected twice, both times by smaller margins than Hillary had won by in New York. His seat was far more precarious than hers, and he voted 'no' in the midst of a tough reelection campaign.

...not to mention, from a state which voted more Democratic than New York...

In the past, yes. At the time of the vote in 2002, however, it was pretty clear that NY was a more solidly-Democratic state than MN.

I wanted Gore to run in the first place, because unlike Obama, his opposition meant something because he proved himself for 8 years and won the most votes in 2000.

A person's opposition "meaning something" does not hinge on how firmly ensconced they are within the political establishment. To think otherwise seems, with all due respect, 'elitist.'

We don't need another Jimmy Carter/George W. Bush type inexperienced presidency. They both were disasters.

What about LBJ's experienced-full presidency? How did that one turn out? Or James Buchanan's? Jimmy Carter had no less experience in elected office than FDR, and GWB had more experience than both of them. Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was also our least experienced. The reality is that "experience" doesn't correlate with competence in any meaningful way. If it did, then a certain former first lady and senator from NY would've voted against a disastrous war and been well on her way to securing her party's presidential nomination in place of an obscure state senator from Illinois.


by RP McMurphy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Obama's district in which he gave the speech, the liberal city of Chicago was very friendly ground to give a speech, especially considering his state senate district is there, and being against the war there for him was very expedient.

Hillary DID say that she didn't wanna go to war. She may have thought Bush was gonna be like her husband, who contained but not invaded Iraq, and containing them is what kept Saddam tame in the 90's as Bill did.

The other senators you mention had been reelected numerous times. my point with the clout was that the more clout Senators had, the easier to justify their no votes. Being elected twice by small margins is higher on the totem pole than a freshman like Clinton was.

With respect to Johnson's presidency, his experience is what got civil rights and the New Frontier/Great Society passed and enacted, as Kennedy could never do so. LBJ did pretty well domestically.

Experience in "elected office" alone isn't the only experience which counts, overall experience, elected and unelected means something. FDR had 7 years as assistant Sec of the Navy under Wilson, and that is damn significant. he then had 4 years as Governor of a state, NY. Bill Clinton had 4 years Arkansas AG, and 12 years as governor. The "only elected office matters" argument is a one meant to undermine Hillary, as sure as anyone knows, First Lady's live with their husbands. They have the most access and they live personal private lives, and knowing the Clinton's marriage, and that Hill wanted to be prez, they def talked a lot, not to mention her west wing office. And they know more than state senators. Hillary not only has 8 years as Senator, she has 8 years as First Lady, and then you can count her in Arkansas, and you can count it because she was appointed to counsels ,like the one with health care, but they mostly worked, so she had experience.

All Jimmy Carter had was 4 years as governor. George W Bush had 5 years. Those are roughly the same, and both disasters. We don't need another one.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

Read your, uh, "diary".

Just one question:

What?!?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:44:32 PM EST

You guys need to chill out on Kos (2.00 / 1)


   y'all haven't said one thing about him that couldn't also be true of Jerome's support for Hillary Clinton.

  So knock it off.


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:44:44 PM EST

Re: You guys need to chill out on Kos (none / 0)

Yea look at Jerome's current post.

He states that Hillary clobbered Obama with Gas tax issue.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys need to chill out on Kos (none / 0)


   Jerome is just as biased as Markos is, yet I don't see anyone calling him a cultist, or getting pissed off that he's not blindly supporting Obama.

  I'll wait for them to condemn Jerome for being so blatantly partisan on his own blog. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for quite a while.


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys need to chill out on Kos (none / 0)

Jerome doesn't jump the shark the way KOS does. KOS has a really bad case of CDS.


by Sensible on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys need to chill out on Kos (2.00 / 1)


   then criticize his methods. That's fine. But several people here are going after the man, calling him a cultist, backstabber, elitist, egotist..etc..

  Criticize his methods, fine..no problems with me. But many on this site (virtually all of them are Clinton supporters) are simply attacking him in incredibly bitter and personal tones.

   He didn't support Clinton. That's no reason to launch such bitter insults.


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys need to chill out on Kos (none / 0)

well Jerome doesn't name his blog "DailyJerry" or something like that. He doesn't need his name on the the web address and media apperances and smears to prove his importance


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 2)

Seriously?  Are you suggesting that if a poll on MyDD deviated significantly from the national polls that would be proof that MyDD is insane?

Does the concept of biased sampling mean anything to you?  Are you saying that people who don't support HRC are insane?  


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:03 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (1.00 / 1)

This is truly one of the worst diaries I've ever read on this site.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:19:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not even in the top ten here. (none / 0)

Sadly.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

given how much competition there has been, it's sad that I agree...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here's the truth (none / 0)

they are not "just crazy college kids with no life and nothing else to do" they are "just naive college kids with no real problems in life because republican daddy still pays their rent and tuition and they aren't living paycheck to paycheck like we Hillary supporters are, that's why they don't relate to or appreciate her"


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:55:06 PM EST

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

Your not sayin Hillary lives paycheck to paycheck are you?


by parahammer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

no but she understands and resonates w/ us that do, you know, a huge chunk of the base BHO needs not to defect if he has any shot against McCain.....


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

Where would that base defect to.
I would think they would be smart enough not to vote McCain.
by parahammer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:15:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

well enough certainly defected from Dukakis, Gore and Kerry didn't they?  I mean even if Al Gore had just won his HOME STATE we would not be mired in the Bush-led nightmare we are today.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, she balances her checkbook right after she pumps gas.


by futbol dad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

got data to support this? (2.00 / 2)

Among the people I know, the strong HRC supporters are women who are 50+ who are quite comfortable financially.

The people I work with--a number of them who do live paycheck to paycheck (one just borrowed bus fare to get to her second job 15 minutes ago) are all hard in the Obama camp. Younger workers tend to carry significant education debt. I strongly suspect that Obama's younger supporters fit this pattern. And HRC's older supporters--especially the retirees are at least comfortable, if not rich.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: got data to support this? (none / 0)

do i got data? BHO losing the white working class huge in OH & PA isn't proof enough?


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: got data to support this? (2.00 / 1)

HRC is winning "White" women and seniors.

Once you look at "White" guys under 65, I think Obama is at least holding even, if not winning.

The advantage HRC has among "Whites" doesn't especially correlate to her winning the paycheck-to-paycheck vote.

As I pointed-out, a high percentage of recently college grads with student loans does live paycheck-to-paycheck. And this block is solidly in Obama's camp.

The seniors with steady money from the gov't are a strong block for HRC. So, it's a bit unseemly for HRC supporters to characterize Obama supporters as being subsidized by rich parents when one of HRC's stronger blocks are children of the New Deal sugar daddy.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: got data to support this? (none / 0)

so what DOES correlate for her winning the paycheck to paycheck votes in PA, OH, TX, TN, OK, PA, etc., while being outspent 3 to 1?  this conversation started w/ how spoiled college student bloggers are in the tank for BHO over at Kos, but if you wanna argue over specific demographics and obstacles, many senior men refuse to vote for a woman, so that isn't exactly her strongest suit.......


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blacks don't live paycheck to paycheck? (none / 0)


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blacks don't live paycheck to paycheck? (none / 0)

so do many hispanics and asians, and they go heavily for HRC. identity politics and anger over Bill's fat mouth no doubt help that near-unanimous support for BHO.  not that that's bad, they have every right to support whoever they want and Hillary will have to do a lot of outreach to win back this crucial part of the base if she gets the nom.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: got data to support this? (none / 0)

Losing the working class doesn't mean NO ONE in the working class supports him. It's not black and white.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: got data to support this? (none / 0)

i didn't say NO ONE did, just not enough to beat McCain, especially w/ his problem winning over hispanics, a constituency alone that could cost him winnable NV & NM.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some data (attn. Obama supporters) (none / 0)

Obama has won in the north, south, east, west and a great big swath across the middle (31 states so far). Let's take a look at Kansas according to ths US census bureau 06:
White persons 89.1%
Black persons 6.0%
Sen. Obama carried Kansas by a whopping 74%
or Wyoming:
White persons 94.5%
Black persons 0.9%
Sen. Obama carried Wyoming by 61%
Iowa:
White persons 94.6%
Black persons 2.5%
Sen. Obama carried Iowa by 38% running against Edwards (a popular populist white male) who took 30%. Hillary took 3rd place @ 29%
Georgia:
White persons 65.8%
Black persons 29.9%   
Sen. Obama carried Georgia by 67%
Illinois (big state):
White persons 79.3%
Black persons 15.0%
Sen. Obama carried Illinois by 65%
...there are more...
Sen. Obama has proven that he can win white, black, brown, beige, peach, working class, elite, latte, coffee, beer drinking Americans. To indicate otherwise is patently false.You should not have to lie and risk deepening racial/socioeconomic divides in this country to build up your faltering candidate, because that would be insane.
by grasshopper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yawn (none / 0)

yeah the 15,000 democrats in WY, ID, UT & KS are really crucial this fall (that's 1 city block in NYC). IL is BHO's senate state, from where he bussed in tons of students into IA who terrorized the HRC supporters like they did in the TX caucus and she didn't have the resources to compete in GA. bottom line: the GE is not a caucuses and BHO is not a viable GE candidate otherwise.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1 207/Clinton_aide_Obama_trying_to_manipul ate_the_Iowa_caucuses.html
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/2/22818 /72392

don't forget about the revotes HRC offered to pay for that the cowardly BHO killed in MI & FL.......
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/5/1 2623/93695


by BlueDoggyDogg on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yawn (none / 0)


by grasshopper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (1.50 / 4)


   With that statement, you just prove to anyone with the intelligence God gave to an oyster, that you are ignorant of pretty much everything.

  Most people on Kos are not rich, most are not black, most are hardworking people who happen to disagree with you on which person would make a better President.

   Your comment is truly pathetic and a disgrace to honest political dialogue.

    And, if you must know, I work for $2.75/hr plus tips...and I'm a solid Obama supporter. I owe about $50,000 in student loans. Nice stereotyping.


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (2.00 / 3)

Your comment does a disservice to those who are struggling and support Obama. Go ahead and stereotype, but you only make yourself look foolish.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

i'm glad it does a disservice to Obama supporters, i'm trying to convince people that HRC can beat JMC while BHO cannot.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (2.00 / 2)

And you won't change my mind while you are demeaning me.


by Falsehood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (2.00 / 1)

your argument is not working...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's the truth (none / 0)

going down w/ the Titanic then ay?


by BlueDoggyDogg on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

they are insane the same way Free Republic users say in over 90 percent they'd vote for George Bush or John McCain in the general election


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST

HRC was always weak in dKos polls (2.00 / 1)

Activists who didn't have a personal connection to the Clinton administration (meaning, expectation of getting ahead if she was elected) never liked HRC much.

This phenomenon predates Obama and HRC emerging as the two possible nominees.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:07:10 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (1.66 / 3)

we from Dkos are here to see what the CULT of MYDD looks like


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:27:00 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Are you aware that you diary implied all Black people are insane?  I understand that the "new left" / neo-liberal / extremist thing can be frustrating, but you should still be careful with your words.


by bobbank on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

I hate DKOS - they are just mouth pieces for Obama - so what's the point of voting there as a Hillary supporter?

I prefer the weekly AOL polls that consistently show Hillary beating Obama.....


by nikkid on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)


   LOL...that's great. You prefer polls that show Hillary ahead.

  You would make a great staffer for clinton. Simply deny reality and keep moving til you find something that agrees with you.


by southernman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

There is no sanity over there.  They are like the virus infected undead of "Resident Evil", stalking live humans for nutrition.


by wblynch on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 1)

TINS will say the poll is proof that Obama is really winning the primaries by 90% and the rest is due to Hillary theft.


by Sensible on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:03:46 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 4)

If any of you were members of dailykos longer than this primary season, you would understand why the community had gravitated heavily towards Edwards and Obama, and that once Edwards dropped out most of his support went to Obama.  Most of the frontpagers there and rec-list diarists support Obama, with a few exceptions.

Here on mydd, the site had minuscule traffic until hillaryis44 drones decided to take it over, after which dailykos users responded in kind (many of them who just logged back in to their years-old accounts here).  The vast majority of active mydd users registered within the past few months.  Move your mouse over usernames when checking ratings and you can see the userID, most of whom are over 30,000.

On dailykos the equivalent is users being over 150,000.  However you can see that most users there are not recent signups, just longtime progressive Democrats who joined mainly to oppose the policies of Bush and his DLC collaborators, and want to support the most progressive candidate left in the race.  Most of their rec-list diaries are written by people who have been on the site for years, not so much here.

Hope that answers your question.


by Skaje on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM EST

Re: prove that DKos is insane (none / 0)

Ah, retaliatory zero-rating I see.  You made a personal attack on another user, that's a legit 0 under Jerome's guidelines.


by Skaje on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: prove that DKos is insane (2.00 / 0)

I'm uprating your comment...

I did no find it hide-worthy no matter how much LuvingDem may disagree with it...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: