Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?


Back when this race was getting underway and no one had yet dropped out, I wrote about Barack's style of negative campaigning, in a diary published at kos called "Maureen Dowd, Not," which was a parody of Dowd's column championing Barack for stepping out onto the low road.  He'd made a joke that made Michelle laugh, alluding to Hillary's experience, married to Bill, and he wondered, in his now trademark style, how that qualified her to be president.  

I was astonished; he'd used sexist memes to get his audience to laugh at Hillary?  I had thought he was the nice guy, the one who would elevate the political discourse and treat all candidates with respect, as indeed he had suggested he would, with his words of praise for Bush and his admiration for how Rumsfled had managed the war.  So, months later, when he promised her some Chicago Smack Down, I thought, well, he's at least admitted it and now the media and his supporters will have to admit it too.  Like, right.  

I then saw his strategy as searching out anything in Hillary's or her surrogate's words that could be `understood,' (read misunderstood) to mean something offensive to African American citizens and then to express his manufactured outrage.  I said then that he was predictable, in that he would pass up no opportunity to smear her with the implicit charge of racism.

Although I thought he could probably convince some white people she was `using' veiled racism (for what, to turn off her supporters?), that black people would see right through it, and possibly fear some backlash, but essentially forgive him, because he was a new guy and he was trying to win.  Even I could understand, sort of, I mean new immigrant groups have long used fanning racism against African Americans to `identify' themselves with white Americans, who feared the `Otherness' of black citizens far more than they feared any immigrant `Others,' so they could `bond' over home-grown and common ugly racial prejudice, with the `the enemy of my enemy is my friend and makes a more acceptable neighbor' idea.

But my prediction that Barack himself knew better, and was being only as calculated and cynical as most other presidential candidates before him in `demonizing' his opponent, and so would stop when it no longer `helped' has been proven overly optimistic.  Bush did that to McCain, with his claim that John had fathered an illegitimate black daughter, which could apparently still offend enough racist pugs to sink John's dream. Outside the question of why this would be a big deal even if it were true (is it the illegitimate part or the black part?) it certainly showed what might be seen as `prep-school racist smack down sneer and jeer.'

John Kerry was `taken down,' over the flip flop metaphor, and he was jeered and sneered at on the floor of that now infamous GOP convention, that showed America a mob of fools slapping rubber flip flops every which way and jeering their blockheads off.  That was a smack down for sure, and the fact that racism wasn't involved was the only bright light in an ugly campaign.  

My prediction was wrong, because Barack has kept up his `game,' long past time when it `helped' him win over undecided Hilary Haters, and into overtime, where he's losing support over it, so much so that he's enraged many of Hillary supporters with the disrespect he shows her, so much so that he may have sparked a grass roots mainstream Democratic movement to bring professionalism into our party.  Had he `closed the deal' early on, likely no one would have noticed or cared about his jeers and sneers, and had he realized, in a cynical calculation, that this was no longer helping and stopped, he would have shown himself to be an adept politician, able to shift modes as the race goes on toward the goal of `winning.'  

Had he seen himself as the clear winner, surely he would have stopped jeering and sneering at her, and would have reached out to her supporters in a way that would show us he never really meant it. Surely if his purported style of bottom up governing were his truth, he would have listened to the 70 percent of Democrats who want a unity ticket. He would have used her strengths, asked that she be in charge of agencies like homeland security, for example, that have long needed a professional and expert head.  How nice would that have made us all feel, we'd see him as a big man who knew what it takes to unite and to bring real change to our government.  

But Barack went `a bridge too far,' when he `responded' to an analogy she used that had nothing to do with him: She's been asked countless times by reporters why she hasn't dropped out already for goodness sake, why she keeps dragging out the primary season with her obstreperous refusal to `admit' she can't possibly win even though she's `harming' Barack's chances in the GE by showing it's not yet over, and that she has at least as much support as Barack from Democrats expected to vote in the fall. To this constant, how dare you, she answers with history, other races went on even longer, this isn't new, remember, this primary and that one? And in the end the party will come together, because she'll unite behind the winner.

Barack's response is now the stuff of legends.  He pretended her only hope to win the nomination would be if he's off'd. Since the fears of African Americans that he might be killed have been often expressed, and deeply felt, his unveiled charge was if possible even more ugly.  For a man who attended a church where his pastor and at least some of his fellow parishioners believe AIDS was a government plot against African Americans, Barack well knows that ugly rumors can be accepted as fact, no matter how incredible. Indeed, some citizens hold equally incredible `beliefs' about Barack's background and his agenda should he win the highest office in the land. There are always some who will believe the most offensive and incredible of charges, and Barack must know that.   The only `political' spin I can give him is that this gives him an ugly argument against asking her onto his ticket; `she wants the presidency over his dead body; no wonder she'd like to be a heartbeat away?'

This will be known as his `bridge too far,' in that he's exposed himself, as an unpleasant man, not so smart after all, who will never stop creating `meanings' to smear Hillary (and who else) with the ugliest of motivations. It now seems likely that Barack isn't just a politician; he really hates her, and `believes' she's some monster out to get him.  We can't say that he'll do anything to win the presidency, but may say with some evidence that in his `paranoia' he'll charge anything, even when it hurts him the most.  That's the `fatal flaw' psychologists have noticed in some candidates who can't win the biggest cheese: for some psychological reason they have to be `true to themselves,' even if `themselves' isn't worthy of being true to, and even when it means they reduce their chances. One thinks of Al Gore selecting the impeacher Joe Lieberman as a running mate and excluding Bill Clinton from his campaign.  Fervently held so-called high roads, as much as fervently held ugly low roads are equally stupid in presidential races. Statespersons see themselves as representatives of something bigger than themselves.   (To paraphrase Barack, I'm not against politicking; I'm against stupid politicking.)

But on a cheery note, Barack has shown us all how to play jeer and sneer. Some of us remember this `game' from elementary or `primary,' school, when many little boys still see little girls as scary or creepy `Others' who must be warded off with incantations and spitting at and the like.   I recall a survey taken in a fourth grade classroom, where the children were to choose which children they most wanted to sit next to and which ones least.  There was one little outcast boy named Leslie in that classroom, who was sensitive and bad at sports, and was the scariest `Other' to the rest of the boys, judging by how they taunted him. One little boy answered in the survey that he'd least like to sit next to "Leslie, and all the girls." 

The tried and true way to bond with `the popular group,' is to taunt the common enemy.  It's the stuff of bullying and the making of outcast children, some of whom grow up to be dangerous.  

Thanks to Barack, and with help from Marc Rubin at Tom Paine, we can now all learn how to play this `uplifting and inspiring' game of Jeer and Sneer.  Rubin noticed that after Barack first `assumed' she meant she hoped she would win because she hoped he'd be killed, he called her remark "unfortunate." He then accepted an apology from Clinton that she didn't give him "because he didn't have one coming." Rubin sees this as "the equivalent of hitting the ground after you sucker punch someone so the person can't hit back, and if they do you scream that you're being attacked." How many times have we seen bullies do that with weaker kids, to get an `excuse' to beat up on them, and if not in person, then in movies?  (If any sixth graders who don't know this are watching, that's how it's done.) The real fun part of this trick is the audience who does see through it, sees that she didn't hit him but he acted hit, and then played her victim, and made a weak fool of her, to their delight or dismay. When he pretends to take the high road, and `accepts' her apology, he's taking his bow.  

Then, when it's supposedly over, he must enjoy it more; he takes Keith Olberman's insane rant and sends it out to all newspersons. See what she is, Keith knows, she's a cootie girl. Ick.  It's jeer and sneer.  

On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that "The Clinton's" are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit.  

I've often had the strange sensation in this campaign that there are two alternate realities.  Hillary's campaign is old fashioned: reach out to the voters and ask for their votes.  She's cheery and upbeat and optimistic about the future of this nation. It's like a remake of Rogers and Hammerstein's, State Fair, updated with representation from all of America. She's the American Girl candidate, running against Bush, pledging to reverse his policies and bring efficiencies and professionalism to Washington. One of her big applause lines is `it's a tough job, hire me, and I'll clean up the Bush mess." 

Barack's case seems mainly to be about her, how bad she is, how wrong she's been, how awful she is, how racist and selfish and horrid she is.  His campaign is more like Neil La Bute's, In the Company of Men.  

So now we may be delivered a seemingly flawed human being as our candidate, and we'll have to support him, and how much will he enjoy that, because John McCain wants to expand our nuclear arsenal to include more so-called tactical nuclear bombs. John is on the crooked talk express, a nice guy on the outside, and bent on the inside.  Between Barack and John, there is a clear worser.

But we still may get our American Girl, ready and willing to work her buns off to achieve a better nation.

Go Hilary!!

UPDATE: I got this from a commenter, seems I heard the statement incorrectly and here is the correction: his is a follow up to this comment by kasjogren What Anna Shane heard: On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that "The Clinton's" are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit. What was actually said: TONY COX: Hurricane Katrina aside, for the moment, what do you think are the main Republican platforms that make minorities shy away from the party, Debra? Ms. DEBRA DICKERSON: Interesting. I think that the - their orientation against considering race to be a prime mover in a lot of situations. That basic disagreement that race is still a big problem for people who are not part of the white race, that's the major stumbling block. I think entrepreneurship in that sort of thing is very appealing to blacks, but it's that we don't want to talk about race, and we believe ourselves to be color blind and it's all just about paying attention and working hard. That is the entry point until the party can understand that we still- that many black people still see race as a major issue and it's not a comfortable place to bring up things about race. So that's the major stumbling block and race is so far down on their list, and I think a lot of black people have a lot of affinity for a lot of Republican ideas. Again, we are a very conservative people. But many of us still agree that race is still a stumbling block. And when they say no it's not, that's your basic problem right there. Mr. ERIC BROWN: And I find it interesting, because this present election cycle has really shown - or should have shown a lot of blacks that, does race really matter with the young Democrats? I mean the Clintons have gone out and their surrogates have gone out to prove that, you know, race doesn't matter. Look how they have gone on to treat the people of South Carolina. Look how they have gone on to talk about how the, you know, working-class white person is more important than a black person, that's who we are going after as far of votes. COX: Yeah, but the counter-argument to that, obviously is Barack Obama, the fact that the party has embraced him and is supporting him.

Tags: Barack Obama, Chicago Smak Down, Hillary Clinton, Jeer and Sneer, John McCain, pastor wright (all tags)

Comments

260 Comments

So bitter, so sad.

Barack's case seems mainly to be about her, how bad she is, how wrong she's been, how awful she is, how racist and selfish and horrid she is.  

Barack's about to become the nominee of your party. I suggest you take a new look at his "case".

by Firewall 2008-05-29 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: So bitter, so sad.

his other case is that he isn't McCain,  Works for me.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Your comment...

says absolutely everything.  Pity I can only give 2 points I'd like to turn up the volume to 11.

by tonedevil 2008-05-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Your comment...

hopefully some BHO'ers will learn to be as classy as anna, someday

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 03:07PM | 0 recs
"Barack's about to become the nominee"

Albeit a very flawed nominee.

by izarradar 2008-05-29 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: So flawed that ...

... he is on the brink of pulling off one of the biggest upsets in modern American politics.

by Brad G 2008-05-29 10:50AM | 0 recs
Just because someone wins

doesn't mean they can't be flawed.  

by izarradar 2008-05-29 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: On that, we agree

The poster was commenting that Obama was seriously flawed.  A seriously flawed candidate does not accomplished what Obama is about to do.

Obama is mortal; so is Hillary.

by Brad G 2008-05-29 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: On that, we agree

uh, try JFK or WJC, seriously flawed winners...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: On that, we agree

Oh and Thomas Jefferson, a very flawed winner

by trytobereal 2008-05-29 05:42PM | 0 recs
That'd be true regardless of the nominee

by Djo Dos 2008-05-29 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: So flawed that ...

primary only

by Montague 2008-05-29 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone's a sore loser. n/t

by Brad G 2008-05-29 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone's a sore loser. n/t

You're right.  That will be YOU in November.  Enjoy.

by Montague 2008-05-30 08:58AM | 0 recs
Hmmm... Yeah

What's that old saying about not counting chickens before they're hatched?

Oh yeah - that's it :)

by alegre 2008-05-29 10:46AM | 0 recs
Are you going to support our nominee

if our nominee isn't Hillary Clinton, alegre? I've asked you several times, but you never seem to have an answer.

by Firewall 2008-05-29 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Campskunk - why would you downrate that comment?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Ratings abuse. Reported.

by Artemis Jax 2008-05-29 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Is it not spamming Alegre when you are asked the SAME question every diary you write and you ignore?

Why do you ignore.

Until you answer I must assume your answer is no, in which case I wonder why you are here.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

she has answered it.

by canadian gal 2008-05-29 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

What was the answer?

by bottl4 2008-05-29 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/9/23 3114/8698/47?mode=alone;showrate=1#47

and i have posted this MANY times now - yet keeps being asked.

by canadian gal 2008-05-29 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

yes when it has been answered and you simply spam the same question over and over to try to pretend it was not. That is not just spamming it is pure Rove-tactics and lying.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

politicsmatters -what happened to your shame diary?  I was just reading it and it disappeared?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

I decided to delete it because I wanted to keep in the spirit of Chill - the spirit of the top diary on the Rec list now.

Oh, and also there were some very nasty comments that were getting me mad.  I'd rather feel mellow right now.

But if you want to see the link I posted on that, it's here: http://www.89infdivww2.org/

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Good move, I guess.

If one is still on the exploit "X" group of people no matter how heinous it seems ticket then there is nothing we can do to save them.

Your diary just gave them another platform.

Good removing it, lets move on....

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-29 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

WTF? Why did it get removed, it better not be over some "double posting" nonsense.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-29 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

No, I deleted it. See above.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Oh, and -- thanks for asking.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you going to support our nominee

Pleasure - didn't get far through the comments, but the link was awesome.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:01PM | 0 recs
Commenter stalking violates site rules

and merits a TR.

by catfish2 2008-05-29 12:51PM | 0 recs
Why do people ask alegre personal

questions?  It is grossly inappropriate to do that on the open internets, as everybody here knows. And the Constitution promises that our votes are nobody's business but our own, no matter who or how many times a person asks this taboo question or how loudly or often they DEMAND an answer.  Amemricans have the protection of a private ballot.  Even superdelegates and alegre.

When someone asked, inappropriatly this question of Geraldine Ferraro, she answered something like:

"I am going to do exactly what Michell Obama said she would do if Barack is not the nominee.  Would she vote for Clinton.  Michelle answers. 'I'll think about it'!"  

So lay off.  If anyone here wants to help people vote a winner to the White House, vote for Clinton.  Then nobody will have to work so hard to stop the race and not count the votes and threaten the opposition.  Who want's to be bullied into a vote?

Democrats could select a nominee that nobody has to be pressured into committing to.  Maybe that would help put a Democrat in the White House.  Just a thought.

Has anyone wondered how we got this far away from being fair and respectful and interested in equal treatment and democratic values?

If a candidate comes across to some voters as misogynistic, manipulative, dishonest and not into doing the work of the job, by what reasoning should those voters be forced to vote them in?  Maybe the candidate and their campaign should be paying attention to the problems voters have with the candidate  and actually do something to earn the votes he needs.  Or maybe he is just the wrong candidate to choose.  I would suspect anyone whose supporters tried to stop the race and cut out voters.  Nancy Pelosi, who has not well hidden her preferance for Obama, comes out today and demands that the superdelegates who legally have until August to decide their vote, and have the total right for it to be private forever, should come out now and delcare themselves.  It is so outrageous as to be unAmerican and certainly undemocratic and totally outside her role.

This is one of many attempts to manipulate the election.  It use to be wrong.  Whoever made this seem right cannot be good for us.

I didn't know that the party's goal was to get Obama nomminated and to do it without regard to how many voters they got rid of. Ignore, deny and fight off and shut out any data or person or rules or clear signs that say that this is not a good idea.

It looks like some party leaders have lost sight of the goal, picking a nominee voters want to see in the White House.

Don't ask alegre or anybody else who they are going to vote for.  If you want their votes, earn them.  Behave in such a way as to make your candidate look good to someone who is looking hard.  Don't waste everybody's time trying so desperately to keep people from seeing, from saying, from studying, from knowing what's wrong with Obama. And don't treat Hilary like a piece of garbage!  For starters, that will make Obamaworld less unattractive to millions of voters.

If you really want to help us get the White House and restore the party, help get someone more qualified and suited for the job and more favored by more of the actual voters nominated.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-29 06:13PM | 0 recs
What's that old saying

about not bringing a knife to a gunfight?  Oh yeah, that's it.  :)

by JJE 2008-05-29 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... Yeah

You are so right.  Clinton thought she would have this thing wrapped up by Super Tuesday.  I hope she learned her lesson.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... Yeah

Or dream up insane paranoid plots before they're "hatched" at Tinfoilis44.

by catilinus 2008-05-29 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... Yeah

At the risk of mixing metaphors, the chickens have hatched and the fat lady is warming up for her performance.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... Yeah

Yeah, he's only winning in the only measure that actually matters.

GIVE.

ME.

A.

BREAK.

by Artemis Jax 2008-05-29 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: So bitter, so sad.

Troll diary?  Puhleeze.

by Montague 2008-05-29 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: So bitter, so sad.

Maybe we can agree the sour grapes diaries should end. Remember our daughters are watching. As feminists show some class and don't tarnish Hillary's gains for women.

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-05-29 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

So now we may be delivered a seemingly flawed human being as our candidate

Are you suggesting that Clinton is not a 'flawed human being'?

I doubt it, but that's how it comes across, not only in the above statement, but in the entire diary. I know I'm on the other side, so I won't try to convince you that you WAY overstate the 'dirty' nature of Obama's politics. But aren't the Clintons the ones known for rough and tumble politics? Isn't Hillary the one who said, 'this is the fun part?' Isn't she the one who said something about fires and kitchens?

Come on now . . .

by vadasz 2008-05-29 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

whoops,

that should say 'heat and kitchens.'

by vadasz 2008-05-29 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Oh
my
God.

This time we are actually going to nominate a flawed human being?

How could we do that?!!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I have no flaws, so, umm... CrazyDrumGuy for President! I'm taking it to the convention, baby!

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-29 12:23PM | 0 recs
I need more convincing

Sometimes our perceptions are not backed up by empirical data.

Happens to me all the time.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/29/1417 35/976

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-29 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I need more convincing

Excellent link.  Thank you.  

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 12:01PM | 0 recs
Falsehoods, innuendo, distortions, and straw men

I'm confident you can do better than this.

by JJE 2008-05-29 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Falsehoods, innuendo, distortions,

You're just upset because your guy is bad and Hillary is winning this thing. GO HILLARY!!!!  STRAIGHT TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

PS:  Send money!

by rf7777 2008-05-29 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Falsehoods, innuendo, distortions,

Don't hold back either!  What's a poor fourteen year old going to do with a new bike anyway?  Especially when he can serve his country by bailing out a failed campaign!

by lollydee 2008-05-29 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Falsehoods, innuendo, distortions,

oh, that child is now party of history, she humbly accepted his donation and she spoke of him and respected him, even though he's young. It would have been cruel to refuse his offering, being young and poor doesn't mean you can't be part of history.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I'm proud that Obama has taken the high road in this campaign. He has often been more gracious than he should have been. We should all be proud of our nominee. Now let's get to work beating up on McCain.

by fugazi 2008-05-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
The High Road???

Did you even see him strutting for the camera in those jeans?  OMG!  It made Bush's codpiece moment seem tame.

by izarradar 2008-05-29 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The High Road???

Yeah, cause posing in jeans when stuck on a plane with the press for 10 hours a day is exactly like Bush's Mission Accomplished moment.  The stupid never ends around here.

by map 2008-05-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The High Road???

i thought he looked fine.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Barack's response is now the stuff of legends.  He pretended her only hope to win the nomination would be if he's off'd.

Someday you'll realize just how few view the situation this way.  I'd be shocked if they  number in the hundreds, and I strongly suspect it is fewer than even that.

The fact is that Obama's campaign issued one tepid response when the RFK nontroversy broke that was totally in line with language used by every campaign.  Hillary issued a similar response when the right wing attacked Kerry over his botched joke in 2006.

The Obama campaign did make a mistake when they sent an email to the media list linking to the KO Special Comment, but it does not come close to rising to the level you want to make it.  It just doesn't.

The "outrage" over this seems totally contrived and over the top.  It looks like someone searching for reasons to hate Obama manufacturing yet another reason.

by map 2008-05-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Obama's gracious response to her RFK assassination remark is just one of many instances where Obama acted graciously, and refused attack Clinton when he could easily have done so.

by fugazi 2008-05-29 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

You mean you didn't see the TV ads, the speeches, the fundraising material, the banners, and the stickers that exploited this issue?  Oh wait... that was HRC and bitter.  It all gets so muddled.

by map 2008-05-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

And then there was when Obama said he's not sure but he'll have to take Hillary's word for the fact that she's not a Muslim. Oh wait, that was her again.

by fugazi 2008-05-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
No No No

Hillary's campaign is old fashioned: reach out to the voters and ask for their votes.  She's cheery and upbeat and optimistic about the future of this nation. It's like a remake of Rogers and Hammerstein's, State Fair, updated with representation from all of America. She's the American Girl candidate, running against Bush, pledging to reverse his policies and bring efficiencies and professionalism to Washington.

You remember the "professionalism", the cheeriness, the upbeat nature of the "the sky will open up, a chorus of angels will yada yada kumbayah this and that" right?

That's the professionalism we need.

Why, I clearly remember the scene from State Fair...

Abel Frake starts waving his arms and childishly mocking the other pigs in the fair competition.

It's right after Melissa sends out mailers questioning the bona fides of her opponents mincemeat -- but before she starts ranting "Shame on you" to all the other contestants.

by zonk 2008-05-29 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

clever, wish you were on my side.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

But that's just it.  We ARE on the same side...Aren't we?

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

not yet

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

Well then what can I say?  I don't feel like you are "on the other side."  But that must be because I support such an obviously negative candidate.  Go figure.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

or I see it as still possible for either and I have a first choice for our nominee?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: No No No

It is perfectly legitimate to prefer a different candidate, but it doesn't pit us on opposite "sides."  The opposite side wants McCain to be the next President and I hope to a non-existent god that you aren't on that side.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

When things get confusing like that, it often helps to restate your assumptions.  Or maybe just reach for the rosary beads...  

Hail Hillary, full of grace...

by guazatragicness 2008-05-29 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

we need to hide rate the above, his signature is deceptive.

by anna shane 2008-05-29 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

That seems like ratings abuse to me.  /shrug

by map 2008-05-29 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

considering that it goes to youtube and not to where the link title pretends it is then it should be considered malware and a possible attmept to infect peoples PC's. The only abuse is the sig, and you.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-29 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Ha! This comment is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

by fogiv 2008-05-29 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Malware?  On YouTube?  I think this is just an attempt to hide comments of a poster with a signature you don't like.

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-05-29 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

it's deceptive, and you don't find out where it leads until it's too late?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:06PM | 0 recs
I've got your malware

right here. :)

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-29 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I've got your malware

Ow, my sensory organs!  We must hide-rate you into oblivion!

by guazatragicness 2008-05-29 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Do you know what Malware is?

You tube can "infect" someone's PC? Wierd. I work for Kaspersky and I am fairly sure we don't have that on our list..

by Darknesse 2008-05-29 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Uhh, no.  It's not remotely HR worthy.  UPRATED.

by fogiv 2008-05-29 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?
"we need to hide rate the above, his signature is deceptive" Royal "We"? The Black Night is invincible. This video hits the nail, doesn't it? Let's call it a draw!
by french imp 2008-05-29 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Oh, get over it.  It's Monty Python -- mild stuff by internet standards.  And if you expect links to always take you to where you think they should point, then the web is a dangerous place.

by guazatragicness 2008-05-29 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

"Someday you'll realize just how few view the situation this way."

There's an actual number: 310 people.
The last 100,000 posts at Tinfoilis44 were made by 310 users. Some of our very own here at MyDD are proud to be part of that 310.

310 People making 100,000 posts....

by catilinus 2008-05-29 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

A(n admittedly tiny) chorus of cynics that only grows louder and more (irrelevant) dissonant...

by Firewall 2008-05-29 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

On one site their cynics, on another they're crickets.

by catilinus 2008-05-29 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Yep, saw that.  Person did a lot of work crunching those numbers.  310 people, 100k posts over 18 weeks.  The definition of a fringe.

by map 2008-05-29 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

But think of it: these people could not-vote 100,000 times in November and totally make Obama fall short!

by guazatragicness 2008-05-29 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Ratings abuse anna - this is snark, get over yourself.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

it's the  sign line, click on, if you dare. It doesn't go where it claims to, and that's deceptive.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Site Guidelines:
"Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned."

I missed the part in there about downrating for "deceptive" sig lines. Admittedly, my vision's a little off nowadays....

Can you point it out please?

by catilinus 2008-05-29 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I know - it's a joke.  I think most people get how it works.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

310 People making 100,000 posts....

This is Sparta! No wait, um, I mean...

by looty 2008-05-29 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Hey  Map, read this quote:  

When asked about her husband's security in the White House and Clinton's RFK remarks at a Phoenix fundraiser Tuesday, she reassures the crowd saying:

"Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."

And you think I'm overreacting?  This is a very sad thing, indeed.  
 

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I read the entire article including the question she was asked.  You aren't fooling anyone.

by map 2008-05-29 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

then I'm fooled too, put it in context for me? I'd like to be wrong on this one.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:12PM | 0 recs
And you think I'm overreacting?

Yes.

by batgirl71 2008-05-29 12:20PM | 0 recs
You spelled Hillary wrong and yes

Obama is flawed, just like all of us.  I would suggest some self-reflection and reflection into the candidate of your choice as well, you make it seem as if she wasn't fighting with all her heart, warts and all.  

Point being, is you are going to have to get over the fact that your candidate is losing/lost and it's not Barack's fault.

by KLRinLA 2008-05-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I'm taking rage's advise, and trying to empathize with the disappointment you must be going through, so I won't comment on your opinions, I do wish you well and hope you can come around to supporting the democratic nominee in the fall.

by venician 2008-05-29 11:03AM | 0 recs
Well one positive thing i can say

about this diary is that it is very well written.

The only Democratic candidate to demonize Hillary Clinton, is Hillary Clinton.  Obama has run the most positive political campaign I've ever seen and she has consistently responde with vile kitchen sink tactics.

Hitting back when attacked unfairly is not ditry politics.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-29 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

"claws come out"<---yeah positive.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

More like descriptive.  

And exceedingly mild.

It is a political campaign.  

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-29 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

It is a political campaign.
That it is...It's nice to see an Obama supporter realize that Obama has not won the primary.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

Not yet.  Soon though.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-29 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

Maybe, maybe not. It may be a convention moment in August.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

LOL. Care to put a side wager on that?

by PhilFR 2008-05-29 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say
What is so horrible about "claws come out"? Perhaps some subtlety of the english language is escaping me here. To me this just means 'my opponent is getting agressive'.
by french imp 2008-05-29 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Well one positive thing i can say

And when he called her "disingenuous" and said that she would "say anything and change nothing" and refused to give "straight answers to tough questions," he was being very positive.  I thought his depiction of her years as first lady as Hillary "holding teas" in the White House was also very positive.

by psychodrew 2008-05-29 01:27PM | 0 recs
Thank you Anna -

This is an absolutely brilliant essay.  Shame many here won't get it.  They've already bought Extenz and really believe it's made them bigger.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-29 11:33AM | 0 recs
Great Diary

My prediction was wrong, because Barack has kept up his `game,' long past time when it `helped' him win over undecided Hilary Haters, and into overtime, where he's losing support over it, so much so that he's enraged many of Hillary supporters with the disrespect he shows her, so much so that he may have sparked a grass roots mainstream Democratic movement to bring professionalism into our party.
That's exactly what happen. The disrespect for the Clintons astonishes many of us that actually saw the good that a Clinton administration did. This behavior is extremely damaging to the Democratic party.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

You know what is more damaging to the Party?  

Not voting for the Democratic nominee for President.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-29 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

Actually, not voting for the Democratic nominee is a great wake-up call for the party. They may start listening to the people rather than insiders/supers.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

trying

not

to

take . . . troll  . . . bai--

okay, you mean like the 100+ 'outsiders' that had lined up to vote for Hillary before the campaign even started?

Or the last Democratic president?

Or virtually the entire DLC establishment?

by vadasz 2008-05-29 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

(doh! now I've got hook-in-mouth syndrome again)

by vadasz 2008-05-29 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

FYI; those who do not support Obama are not trolls. This is not MyddObama

by soyousay 2008-05-29 11:52AM | 0 recs
truedat

but sometimes it seems like myDDHillary.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

It's not your support for Clinton, it's your repetition of the falsehood that Obama is and has been the candidate of the insiders. It's just flat out untrue . . . and if I were wise I would have left it uncommented upon . . . which I will do henceforth.

by vadasz 2008-05-29 12:05PM | 0 recs
It's a disagreement, nothing more

Obama has the majority of the supers. In my opinion, that is the support of party insiders. The fact that you don't agree with me does not make me a troll....or does not make you a troll, for that matter.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's a disagreement, nothing more

I agree.  Let's eliminate the SD's and whoever is ahead wins.

by map 2008-05-29 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

he's the candidate of Kerry and Dashele and Kennedy.  She has some insider too, but Dean's thumb is on his ballots, as is Donna's. I don't care about that, KDK hate Bill and don't want him back in Washington in any capacity and so of course they'll do whatever they can to bring in a candidate who could reduce her appeal. What I don't like is the same lack of leadership that couldn't impeach the war criminal Bush.  Isn't Scott's book funny?  The best kept secret everybody knew.  They allowed this sexism and over the top racist charges to stand.  Just a little leadership would be nice.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

So you want to talk about Scott's book?

Good.  

So why did Clinton get fooled by the propaganda? Obama didn't.

And, as my husband pointed out to me last night, neither did we.  We could see through the Bush BS, but somehow the oh-so-experienced junior Senator from NY could not.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

she didn't, that's why she voted for inspections.  She knew, but she also knew there would have to be proof of no WMD to stop bush from bombing without additional authorization as he claimed he already had the right to do.

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary
I don't buy that! Not only did she vote for the law which allowed GWB to make war, but she also voted against an amendment which would have forced GWB to obtain a specific vote from the chamber to actually start the war. Some democratic senators percieved the trap, warned their colleagues and tried to stop Bush. And she deliberately voted against their initiative. She knew perfectly well what she was doing. She didn't want to oppose this war because she thought it was too dangerous politically. She carries a huge share of responsibility for this war.
by french imp 2008-05-29 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

then you have to believe she's lying, she's been very consistent.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

Anna, do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that Dean and Brazile have their "thumb on the ballots" in any meaningful way?

Really?

Really?

by Koan 2008-05-29 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

of course, Donna talks in BO talking points, she worked for Gore, ran the campaign that shut out Bill. She's very obvious.  Dean is mainly wishy washy and it's sometimes hard to tell if he's for Barack or is just a dumb hack.  i was one of his first supporters and I supported him as head of the party because I thought he deserved it. But then I gave money to Kerry and he passed personal information about me to Barack so I could get bullied on the phone.  The line ups are changing.  Donations to the party are down, at least by what I used to give.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

I didn't mean whether or not you believe they're closet Obama supporters but whether you believe they're actively screwing with the system in an underhanded manner, which is what I believe you implied when you wrote "thumbs on the ballot."

by Koan 2008-05-29 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

I'm sure they justify what they're doing as in our best interest.  If your asking if they're sincere, that I don't know.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

Fair enough.

by Koan 2008-05-29 12:32PM | 0 recs
BECAUSE YOU'D RATHER HAVE CARVILLE

as DNC Chairman.

yeah, like that wouldn't be putting a finger on the ballot.

Clinton would have won with Carville at DNC. Sure as Sunday.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

wow, who, i want to thank her. I mainly hear from politicsmatters, I think i've been assigned to her.  It's okay with me, some of the comments are thoughtful and it keeps me on the rec list longer.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary
And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? The overwhelming vanity and arrogance of Hillary's campaign and her supporters demonstrated in that single statement. It's all about you and keeping you on the rec list. You and Alegre, and SoCalDarling. Bravo, thank you for making it far more clear than I ever could.
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-29 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

you nailed me, being on the rec list is my dream come true.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary
hey, if the shoe fits...
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-29 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

You are characterising the Obama campaign as insiders?  Compared to the Clintons?  Really?  And who had all the supers before voting even started?  You have lost all ability to be rational when you post this nonsense.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

Superdelegate really aren't the way to go in my opinion; no matter who has the majority of supers. I realize that this is the system that is in place now. That being said, conflict often leads to change, I hope so.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

Are you going to defend your assertion that Obama is the insider in this race?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

WTF? I have no idea of what you're talking about.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

"They may start listening to the people rather than insiders..."

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

You know the voters rather than supers deciding. Is that clear enough?

by soyousay 2008-05-29 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary
But aren't you the ones whining that supers have to choose to do what's better for the party which in your opinion is give it to Hillary?
by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-29 12:57PM | 0 recs
Nailed it

 and crickets

by KLRinLA 2008-05-29 01:39PM | 0 recs
Exactly....

It is what it is...a primary system that is undemocratic. After this election, the system WILL change....you will see.

by soyousay 2008-05-29 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly....

I'm all for that.

After

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-29 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary

I believe damaging the Democratic party is exactly what some of these people aim to do. Pretending to be an Obama supporter is the best way for right-wing Clinton-haters to get a bunch of Democrats to listen to their revisionist history.

by LakersFan 2008-05-29 01:44PM | 0 recs
Can we stop with this?

To this constant, how dare you, she answers with history, other races went on even longer, this isn't new, remember, this primary and that one?

They did NOT "go on longer".

This was far and away the earliest starting primary in history.

The 1968 contest?  I believe the first contest was held in March.  I believe there were about a dozen total contests that allowed electorate participation.

You know why folks turn on Clinton so harshly?

We hate having our intelligence insulted.   Clinton KNOWS these inconvenient truths.  So does Harold Ickes - fer chrissakes, when it comes to process history, Harold Ickes is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject in the entire country.  If we were playing campaign nuts and bolts trivial pursuit - I'd sure want him on my team.

So why draw the false parallels?  Why INSULT our intelligence?

by zonk 2008-05-29 11:05AM | 0 recs
Atrios said it best

last week

Stop Sticking Finger In Brain

Like Scott, I think the Bobby Kennedy gaffe was less of a big deal than some are making, but it has finally gotten some people to point out that the various historical comparisons the Clinton campaign is making are in the "isn't it great that people are so stupid that they'll swallow this horseshit" category. It did not take her husband until June to effectively have the nomination, and the 1968 primary season started much later than this one.

We've had little but dumb arguments like this from the Clinton campaign for some time. I'm not entirely sure if they're stupid enough to believe them, or if they just assume we're stupid enough to believe them. Either way I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted.

That's precisely it.

You know why Obama supporters get so pissy and turn so nasty?  Because we have start from the discussion from these utterly false, completely ridiculous, and logically offensive places - by the time we get to any meat or substance, I'm so pissed, worn out, and tired - that it's inevitable things get less than courteous.

Quit insulting my intelligence and we can discuss things rationally... but when we always have to start with basic history lessons - the same damn history lessons, over and over and over and over again....

by zonk 2008-05-29 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Atrios said it best

Well said.

Please enjoy some pretend mojo.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-29 11:17AM | 0 recs
1968

Just to be clear on the historical record WRT 1968:

The NH primary took place March 12, and was between incumbent LBJ and challenger George McGovern. RFK entered the race a few days later, and then on March 31 LBJ dropped out, which cleared the way for Humphrey to enter right after that.

It's hard to imagine a race less like 2008...

by ipsos 2008-05-29 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

It sure reads like snark. It's a diary filled with broad characterizations with virtually no evidence.  

I have no idea what you're talking about, diarist. What jeering and sneering? What names to make people laugh at Clinton?  What are you talking about?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

I know.  The "greatest" part is that it uses sophisticated schoolyard psychology AND includes references to multiple realities.  I especially love the discussion of reality.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

"What's that old saying about not counting chickens before they're hatched?"

The chickens hatch next week..
I can wait until then.

by nogo postal 2008-05-29 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Me, too.  I am hoping that they will have a big event on Capitol Hill with all the congressional superdelegates and Obama on the steps.  

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
Me three.

I can cheer for hillary in the meantime.

gotta love the underdog, that's the american way.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

But we still may get our American Girl, ready and willing to work her buns off to achieve a better nation.

Could you explain this comment?

An American Girl is a type of doll.* Is that what you meant?

Or should the emphasis be on American, as if Obama is not truly American?

Please explain. Thanks. :}

*http://store.americangirl.com/agshop/sta tic/dolls.jsf/uniqueId/2/nodeId/11/webMe nuId/5/sName/Dolls

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I think you have to have seen State Fair to get the reference.

I'll synopsize it for you:

This darling family - the Frakes, who've never, ever done anything to undermine their opponents and are interested only in a fair, clean, above the board contest -- enters their various wares in a state fair competition.

Unfortunately, other contestants also show up and have the temerity to actually compete.  They start up website (yes, in the 1930s) like "myboaris44.org".  They send mailers about other contestants in the mincemeat contest voting 'present' when it comes to being for or against preservatives.  They mock the other families at the fair with caricatures, with full-on arm-flailing.  They question the religion, the background, the substance of the other families at the fair.

The end.

It's a frakin' good movie.

by zonk 2008-05-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I guess it's now considered unAmerican to compete!

:}

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

of course not, one can make the case that his candidacy is even more american.  :}.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I was astonished; he'd used sexist memes to get his audience to laugh at Hillary?

How is this sexist?  If Margaret Thatcher's husband ran for P.M. and used his time as first gentleman or whatever it would be called as a reason and someone pointed out that it doesn't really count would it still be sexist?

Would it be sexist if John McCain told people he knows how to run a beer empire cause of Cindy and someone called BS.

There may be real sexism in the campaign but just because you attack a talking point told by a woman doesn't make it sexist and, in fact, it only deludes real sexism.

by kasjogren 2008-05-29 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

And one of her main arguments was that she should be elected because she had so much more experience than him.  35 years, remember?  Never mind that most of that experience consisted of being first lady and a community activist.  Why are her years as a community activist worth more than his?  

I think she's qualified to be president, but the "she has 35 years of experience and he has 2" meme was, and is, absurd.

by sneakers563 2008-05-29 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that "The Clinton's" are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit.  

Oh and cite this please, cause frankly I don't believe you.

by kasjogren 2008-05-29 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

yesterday on NPR. find it if you like, or don't and doubt it, I like it that you doubt it, that's nice, wish I hadn't heard it.

by anna shane 2008-05-29 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

On a completely unrelated note, that actually had a rhythm to it.  I ended up saying it out loud after I read it cause it caught me as rhythmic.

by kasjogren 2008-05-29 11:52AM | 0 recs
You want the NPR guy to cite sources?

... have you been reading any of the black blogs lately?

BTW, Field Negro issued a call for a Hillary supporter like yourself to go defend her (about that RFK nonsense -- which will continue to be nonsense).

Why NOT TAKE him up on that?

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You want the NPR guy to cite sources?

since her comment had nothing to do with him, I'd guess they won't get any takers.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:48PM | 0 recs
actually, he was being serious

and since you're a dedicated supporter, I figured you might drop by ;-)

'sall.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: actually, he was being serious

ah, that's what you meant. Okay.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Do you remember what show it was?

by map 2008-05-29 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I can't remember the name, but the subject was black leadership, I came and left in the middle of it, and it was mainly about the promise the pugs gave AA to reach out, and then they have no one of color running.  Katrina was discussed, as the reason, because they were saying that many AA are conservative and would have more in common with the GOP, except for racism shown by Katrina. And then this guy says this thing about "The Clintons" and then someone says that the fact of Barack's candidacy says the party itself isn't racist.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

BTW, why do you call Republicans "pugs"? That seems like jeering and sneering to me.

I don't like Republicans' views but I would never use a nasty name to refer to them.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

yes, I don't mind when it's against pugs. go figure?

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?
I agree with politicsmatters. Using that kind of terms doesn't make your point any stronger. And it's not respectful to fellow human beings.
by french imp 2008-05-29 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

...so now we may be delivered a seemingly flawed human being as our candidate...
Damn.  And I was so hoping we'd find an unflawed marmoset to run.  

by juliewolf 2008-05-29 11:48AM | 0 recs
I can't believe this made the rec list

good lord

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-29 11:51AM | 0 recs
err... my response follows yours

cheers! (and I agree with you.)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: err... my response follows yours

but now you're going to rec it too?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe this made the rec list

What do you expect from one of the NoQuarter crowd?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe this made the rec list

Apropos. Have some mojo!

by futbol dad 2008-05-29 12:49PM | 0 recs
10% &gt;&gt; 5%

Shame on you, Anna Shane.

It ain't just BLACKS so fucking worried about assassination. I'd wager anyone who lived through FDR is worried. Attempted coup ring any bells? Yeah, we know who Hillary's backers are, and yeah, we're worried. They'll back McCain as a poor substitute (just as Obama is a poor subsitute for Edwards). Anyone who lived through the 1960's, Rabin's Assassination.

I know someone who had the pleasure of saving a world leader from assassination (not a very well liked world leader, let's just say).

He's worried about an assassination. Gives it about ten percent odds. That's double what he puts on McCain getting elected.

So, shame on you, Anna shane, for saying that it's only blacks who are worried.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, thank G-d Hillary is a former first lady. Obama's not the only one those backers can make disappear -- and they aren't necessarily too forgiving of people who disappoint.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 10% &amp;gt;&amp;gt; 5%

One thing that was odd about Clinton's assassination remarks is that just that morning I had conversations with two people I know who support Clinton and they both mentioned that as a possibility.  One of those people has a friend in the Secret Service who told her that they are very concerned about someone trying to kill Obama. And I've had people mention that possibility to me when I phone-banked, too -- from people supporting both Obama and Clinton.

I've had so many people bring it up to me that I just assumed that almost everyone had thought about it as a possibility, that everyone was concerned about it happening.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:01PM | 0 recs
Hillary's too smart to have not seen the Veep

noose beginning to encircle her chances.

Once Obama names a veep candidate, she is out for the count. She will not win in August, even if he is assassinated (which is a quite likely prospect, and more so before he is elected than after).

Fact is, I'm pretty sure someone talked about that inside Hillary's campaign.

It was on her mind, and Freudian-slipped out.

No, of course she didn't do that intentionally!!@

But she should have apologized immediately. Both to RFK and to Obama.

The proof is in the pudding -- Hillary keeps on fighting because she knows this is her last chance at the presidency.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's too smart to have not seen the Veep

And I'd be very surprised were she to get the vp slot.

For one thing, I don't think that you can put someone in that office who benefits from having the president killed after you've mentioned assassination as something that changed the course of history.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:15PM | 0 recs
She did that only after...

showing up, and telling Obama, "You have to make me the Veep nominee." (a bit overplaying her hand, but she wanted to be the strong one) He, very nicely, said no, and the next thing we know, Florida == Civil Rights.

Hillary would not be the true beneficient of an Obama assassination -- that would be Hillary's backers (both republican and democrat).

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's too smart to have not seen the Veep

you make my point, I'd thank you but it's too sad.  Some really believe that.  How you must hate her, how awful she must be to you.  I don't know what to say, you're going to believe what you're going to believe.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:36PM | 0 recs
Hillary's a damn fine woman

who I would have been proud to have be my president.

She would have done a decent job, too!

Do I hate HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON? No way in hell.

I'm told that she's nice, warm and friendly in person -- and I believe her, because she didn't need to be acting all nice on Halloween.

Trick or Treat!

I will say that Hillary can be ruthless -- but that's a compliment. She doesn't do shit like that on a whim, ya know?

She's a damn fine senator for Wall Street. She represents her constituents extremely well.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's a damn fine woman

she'd used the same analogy before. My 'paranoia' tells h=me he was keeping it to release before the next primary and lucky for her it got picked up in time, and too bad for him that he had to take such a very very low road.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:51PM | 0 recs
Just let it go before the general, gal!

;-) I can still be bitchin' at Obama for some of the dirty shit he pulled on Edwards, but I'ma still gonna get off my lazy ass and vote for him!

*switching topix ---

I do know a black guy who didn't vote for Obama in the primary. He still called out Hillary for playing to the racist vote. You might enjoy his blog (might help with the paranoia ;-) http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/)

I know, we all invest ourselves into candidates, and your diary got more than a little over the top. I know I've said some things I really regret around here, too!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Just let it go before the general, gal!

I doubt it, it's an ignorant opinion according to me, and gives unneeded cover to real racists.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:11PM | 0 recs
Who is a real racist, really?

I think the demonization of the term is kinda counterproductive to a good dialogue.

The man who says "blacks are lazy" -- is he a racist?

How about the one who says, "those blacks need a role model like Obama"?

How about the person like me, who might say, "blacks are generally more articulate than whites. it's a cultural value" (I cite Noam Chomsky on that one, and he's a highfalutin' linguist)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is a real racist, really?

how about blacks are less likely to be snookered by snake oil salesmen?  Or less likely to believe in a free lunch?  why do you suppose so few black kids join cults?  There are prejudices that don't harm anyone, and some that do. the idea that women are too bitchy to lead, that hurts women heads of households. Blacks lazy, that hurts black people who need to eat.  It's economic racism that hurts most, and for black people so-called criminal 'justice' racism.  I'm white and I've never been stopped for driving while black, once at a sobriety check point after I'd been drinking (don't know if I was over the limit) I was not tested and given a free pen that said I'd passed a sobriety check point.  But I got run out of a well-paid job because a new man wanted it, and he played smack down jeer and sneer, and a lot of girls who owned me their jobs joined in.  I have no illusions about the consequences of sexism, which affects all women.  We're the main target of hate crimes, and sometimes they're not even classified as crimes, much less hate. Hey, being a second class citizen sucks?  

Hillary has some great plans for investing in disadvantaged communities, she sees no reason why you can't make money in any community, she sees that as 'moral' racism.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's a damn fine woman

And Obama is a fine community organizer.  

by Montague 2008-05-29 01:27PM | 0 recs
fo sho

but without Axelrod, he wouldn't have gotten this far!

I'll be smiling when Obama's president. He may even turn out to be great.

But his powder is wet, and the trail's gone cold. When you can't push a string, what's left?

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: 10% &amp;gt;&amp;gt; 5%

now, how was that offensive again?  the job is dangerous whatever your color. I accept that as a possibility, Reagan was shot, JFK and RFK were killed, but I don't tend to worry about it. My friends who are black actively worry, it's a real concern for some of my friends.

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:34PM | 0 recs
It is a real concern for ME, Anna shane

and I'm spotted, not black. ;-) So forgive me, when you need to separate the coloreds from the vast white nation, it sometimes rankles a bit (could you maybe change it so that you're a bit clearer that you are referencing personal experience?)

Hillary's got less to worry about (not nothing, of course) if she gets to be President than Barack Obama. Limbaugh knows she's a cash cow, no reason to go off HER.

Now obama and his fairness doctrine ... well, let's just say we all know white supremacists are batshit.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It is a real concern for ME, Anna shane

and what in my comment indicated I assumed anything about you?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:52PM | 0 recs
not your comment... sorry, I was unclear

(that's a problem with me)

I meant your diary. When it says that blacks are concerned about Obama's safety...

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: not your comment... sorry, I was unclear

it's a very big deal in the African American community. You have to understand how dangerous it is in this nation for any African American man, no less for a high profile African American. Cab drivers who won't stop for black passengers don't differentiate between regular people and rich people.   I have no doubt that ugly racists might want to harm him, if they had the opportunity.  Racism has diminished but it's far from gone, and there are 'crazies' who focus on high profile people, like movie stars. Granted in the high profile arena it's more likely some woman, but it isn't at all a stretch to think the first black man who has a credible chance for the presidency would be targeted.  It's a real fear and one that black citizens are more in touch with. Do you have any idea how many black males are murdered?  It only takes one crazy.  Why do you think he was given secret service protection early on?  It's not hard to read between the lines and realize there were some threats they took seriously.

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:18PM | 0 recs
damn, girl

you're making arguments so good I gotta lay off.
;0)

I'm gonna try not to worry you like a bone!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: not your comment... sorry, I was unclear
Yes, OK. One question then. When Clinton made this assassination comment. She didn't mean she wished BO assassinated. I'll take her word on that. Still: she did acknowledge that her words could be misinterpreted. Didn't she? She did apologize to the Kennedy family. How could in not occur to her that her comment could have been interpreted as a reference to Obama's possible assassination? After all you do acknowledge that for many people this fear exists; that it is not an irrational fear. So, why didn't she apologize to Obama? Why didn't she adress that possible misinterpretation? By not doing it, she did give the impression that, consciously or unconsciously, she intended to float the idea that 'anything could happen'. Does this seem crazy to you?
by french imp 2008-05-29 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: not your comment... sorry, I was unclear

Well said. But why continue to focus on this as a black community fear?

There are some of us that see a historically unprecedented leader in Obama, one that we'd be hard-pressed to replace. When Huckabee started on his ill-conceived little assassination fantasy, I guarantee you it wasn't just the black community that was horrified. Does "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" strike a bell?

I believe that Hillary's comments were more of a freudian slip, borne of exhaustion, rather than a deliberate call to violence. But it would be naive to believe that this possibility was never discussed in her campaign circles. The issue was always about her contributing, inadvertently or otherwise, to these horrific projections - and I don't see how it was at all unjustified for his campaign to call her on it.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-29 02:20PM | 0 recs
Strike a bell?

Strike a chord. or ring a bell. Call it the unity idiom.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-29 02:55PM | 0 recs
Have you talked to a black person since...

this race began?  B/c your thoughts on their attitude toward Hillary and Barack is so incongruent with every person I've talked to and every black person I've seen in the media that it seems to me that you have not.

by nklein 2008-05-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
Didn't you know

that a single black person making a single comment on a radio show represents all black people?

Heck I can understand why he feels that way anyway. I was a Clinton supporter until the campaign decided its best strategy to win was to manipulate Americans conflicted feelings about race. Whether the Clintons' use of "race" becomes the Clintons are racist is not a line I'm prepared to cross but I understand why others might.

From a purely hypothetical, political standpoint, if Hillary received the Dem nomination, the Repubs should put Huckabee on the ticket. Huckabee has had a lot of African-American support. It could be a chance to shut down the overt racists in the party and make inroads into the community.

Lastly, while Hillary supporters can make a rational and intellectually honest argument for NOT voting for Obama, they completely lose all credibility to me and loyalty to Hillary and her policies when they say that they WILL VOTE for McCain.

by batgirl71 2008-05-29 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't you know

good point, unfortunately some comments here indicate it's more than one.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:53PM | 0 recs
yeah, sure.

and there are a coupla blacks who think that Jews are the master race.

there's a coupla anythings thinkin' something bad about anythings (including their own anythings).

That's life.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, sure.

did you read my diary?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I think I'm going to have to listen to Obama's Iowa speech again tonight. That's when I decided that I was going to switch from Clinton to Obama.  I had thought about it awhile, but the speech was so moving, I realized how much I wanted that emphasis on progress and community again.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 11:58AM | 0 recs
defining himself

As the campaign has gone on, Barack has begun to define himself.  So far this amounts to:

1.  I am not Hillary Clinton

  1.  I am not John McCain
  2.  I am not GWB
  3.  I am a new person on the scene--a "fresh face"

Did I miss anything?

I'd like to hear more of what he stands for.

Thanks, Anna Shane.  We need to continuously raise these issues, in case he is the nominee, so that he has a chance to redefine himself and to show us that he is not always about "anti clinton".

by 4justice 2008-05-29 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

Listen to the Iowa speech, the NH speech, and the speech last week in Miami. Take some time to educate yourself.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 12:02PM | 0 recs
Please take another look...

he has in fact done an excellent job of being a Negative Candidate -- but over time he has defined himself pretty specifically.

Pro-Appalachian Mountains
Anti-Executive Orders that Override the Congress

etc. etc. etc.

Sad to have to say it, but I trust him and his supporters more than I trust Hillary and her backers. Especially her backers -- those people are creepy (not supporters. y'all are okay)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-29 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

Politicsmatters was generous in offering you some places to start to educate yourself.  But I am truly tired of people being willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest about what Obama stands for.  He has been campaigning for months and months.  He has given amazing speeches in various settings and occasions during that time that offer important insights into what he stands for.  He has written several books and has a website devoted to explaining his candidacy.  There are plenty of reality based blogs and political discussion sites where you can get a better sense of what he stands for.  

The thing that angers me most is that YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.  You know that he stands for more than what you outline in your post and yet you threw it up in all of its pettiness, perhaps hoping for mojo from the diarist.    

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

I've been listening and it looks like that to me too. The change he's talking about is him.  He wasn't in washington when bush took us to war, he's new, that's the newness. His policies aren't new, his positions aren't new, he's supposed to be the new JFK which makes him not new by definition?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

And here is another version of that disingenuity...You take what is a breathtaking sentiment that WE are the change that we have been waiting for - obviously calling us to recognize our own roll to play in changing the way Washington operates - and twist it (entirely dishonestly) into making it about HIM.  He didn't say that.  That isn't the spirit that motivates so many of us to contribute, call, knock on doors, vote, register others, etc.  

Instead of recognizing that you prefer to make shit up and suggest that everything in his campaign is about him.  That is pathetic and it is just as intellectually dishonest as saying that he doesn't have ANY positions.  

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

as fun as this is...I have to run.  If you don't hear from me in a bit, it is because I am busy, not because I have been vanquished.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-29 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

cool, I don't demand replies.  My only problem with him is the way he jeers and sneers at Hillary, other than that she's just my first choice.  I'm more lefty than he is, and I don't fear his associations or his wife's discourse.  To me he's a fine candidate and she's over the top great. So, for me there it isn't even close.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

He didn't start out that way. But he's a human being too. When you've had the kitchen sink and then some thrown at you, rejoinders are inevitable. You can't expect to start a food fight and not expect the occasional pie to come flying your way.

His campaign has made it's share of mistakes - the clumping of the Clinton years with Bush still irks me. But it's no different from her campaign's attempt to cast him as a Hannah Montana running against Churchill (with a nod to lettuce for that analogy).

Both premises were equally outrageous, but both campaigns were seeking to differentiate themselves along the most effective lines. You may indeed regard him as a fine candidate, but your polemics in this diary posing him as the antagonist to Hillary's martyr/saint character argue otherwise.

Which is regrettable, because outside of the well-crafted slants and innuendo, yours was a remarkably well written diary.  
 

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-29 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: defining himself

I don't accept that as an excuse, but might have if he'd stopped sooner.  But I appreciate it that you're acknowledging it.  He's made me fear that he has one of those fatal flaws, that kind of hubris that losses us the white house.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 04:01PM | 0 recs
&quot;Something I was &quot;wondering&quot;
What's the "deal" with all the "quotation marks" in this "diary" "?"
I mean, "sure", "quotation marks" can be "helpful", but one can go "overboard" with them "sometimes".
Just "something" to keep in "mind".
by Mumphrey 2008-05-29 12:16PM | 0 recs
&quot;No&quot;, I'm &quot;not&quot;.

I was just "poking" a little "harmless fun" at the "writer's" "overemphasis" on said "quotation marks" "."

by Mumphrey 2008-05-29 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

The only jeering and sneering I hear are from Hillary supporters determined to sabotage Obama's candidacy out of revenge.

by LordMike 2008-05-29 12:23PM | 0 recs
The cognitive dissonance brigade is at it again!

Same folks on the Rec list and same folks Rec'ing them no matter what tripe they spew.  They may look like your average MYDD-er but they've become little more than trolls.  

They write these diaries not in support of "their girl" but rather against the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.  Their sole purpose is to sow the seeds of discord amongst a party that should be trying to heal.

It's not about their candidate anymore. It's an absurd attempt to take the party down with them, because they've lost and they won't accept it.  That's inherently trollish.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 12:25PM | 0 recs
What Anna Shane heard

This is a follow up to this comment by kasjogren

What Anna Shane heard:

On a depressing note, I heard an African American man, who was on a show about the lack of color in the GOP, state that we now know that "The Clinton's" are racists, and no one told him he was full of shit.

What was actually said:

TONY COX: Hurricane Katrina aside, for the moment, what do you think are the main Republican platforms that make minorities shy away from the party, Debra?

Ms. DEBRA DICKERSON: Interesting. I think that the - their orientation against considering race to be a prime mover in a lot of situations. That basic disagreement that race is still a big problem for people who are not part of the white race, that's the major stumbling block. I think entrepreneurship in that sort of thing is very appealing to blacks, but it's that we don't want to talk about race, and we believe ourselves to be color blind and it's all just about paying attention and working hard.

That is the entry point until the party can understand that we still- that many black people still see race as a major issue and it's not a comfortable place to bring up things about race. So that's the major stumbling block and race is so far down on their list, and I think a lot of black people have a lot of affinity for a lot of Republican ideas. Again, we are a very conservative people. But many of us still agree that race is still a stumbling block. And when they say no it's not, that's your basic problem right there.

Mr. ERIC BROWN: And I find it interesting, because this present election cycle has really shown - or should have shown a lot of blacks that, does race really matter with the young Democrats? I mean the Clintons have gone out and their surrogates have gone out to prove that, you know, race doesn't matter. Look how they have gone on to treat the people of South Carolina. Look how they have gone on to talk about how the, you know, working-class white person is more important than a black person, that's who we are going after as far of votes.

COX: Yeah, but the counter-argument to that, obviously is Barack Obama, the fact that the party has embraced him and is supporting him.


by map 2008-05-29 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

Kudos for the find.  You have to be pretty narrow-minded and have preconceived notions to have heard that Eric Brown say that the Clintons were racists.

Selective memories can be a pretty useful thing.  I wonder if the diarist was being intentionally enigmatic about where she heard the story.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

thank you, I heard it differently than that, but I like this transcript much better than what I heard.  One great thing about blogging, there are some very tech savvy bloggers.  I hope this means that I heard it wrong, but even if it were edited out, it should have been edited out, and that's a good thing.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:01PM | 0 recs
It is highly unlikely NPR edited it out afterward.

They wouldn't have needed to.  If you've ever listened to On The Media they thoroughly explain NPR's editing process.  All of it happens before the shows ever go on air. That's why everyone (well, mostly)sounds flawless and well-prepared.

It's doubtful they would have edited out opinion in the first place.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

Thanks for that.  Sincerely.  Not everyone would come out and say they were mistaken.

That's an unedited transcript from Lexis.  Not the entire program, of course, but the only part that mentions the Clintons.

by map 2008-05-29 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

I put in in an update, but I didn't change my diary, I tried that once and lost the whole damn thing.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

Very classy.  Thanks.

by map 2008-05-29 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

I repeat my earlier comment - what do you expect from a poster at No Quarter?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-29 01:03PM | 0 recs
What did the Clintons DO TO

the South Carolina voters? You do realize the Obama campaign's memo designed to call the Clintons racists was distributed before Bill Clinton said anything about Jesse Jackson?

by catfish2 2008-05-29 12:55PM | 0 recs
Eric Brown never called the Clintons racists.n/t

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 12:59PM | 0 recs
Implied with this statement

"Look how they have gone on to treat the people of South Carolina. Look how they have gone on to talk about how the, you know, working-class white person is more important than a black person, that's who we are going after as far of votes."

How have the Clintons TREATED the people of South Carolina? Please answer. That right there is race-baiting.

by catfish2 2008-05-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
So I need to address your inability to see nuance.

They and their surrogates have said racially insensitive and divisive things.  You can argue the spirit with which they said it, but you can't argue that it was said and that people harbor bruised feelings about it.  That's just a fact.  It's not calling them racists.

My personal view is that the Clintons are career politicians. The only logical reason for this consistent racial insensitivity would be that the campaign considers it a benificial rhetorical technique.  You see, I accuse them of being egomaniacal opportunists and not racists(decide for yourself which is more distasteful).  I think the majority of Obama supporters feel that way.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: So I need to address your inability

It was just nuance, until the bridge too far.  Implying racism isn't the same thing as stating the Clintons are racist, which is why I posted that update, but the message was heard. The question that has never been answered is how appealing to racists could possibly help Hillary and how implying racism by Barack's campaign helped him.  One must think.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: So I need to address your inability

So this is a clever way of pulling a Geraldine Ferraro, and claiming that Obama is the affirmative action candidate.  Because really the only way Obama has implied racism is just by being black.  Obama chose never to talk about race until it became an imperative.  Even though Hillary brought up her gender everyday, knowing her gender would benefit her with Democratic voters.  He knew his blackness would harm him with certain whites (specifically appalachia).  Hillary knew this would be his Achilles' heel but she overplayed her hand.

Racism exists in this primary.  Whether Obama ever legitimized or denied it is inconsequential.  The supporters of Hillary that moved away from her over the course of this primary would have moved away regardless of any comment anyone could find by the Obama campaign. That's just another way of saying that Obama supporters can't think for themselves.  Which is stupid and offensive.

I don't think anyone could be faulted from benefitting from anything they didn't actively contribute to, especially since in many cases the harm outweighed the benefits.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-29 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: So I need to address your inability

no, where did you get that?  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:20PM | 0 recs
We know that's the Obama claim

but we also know that he painted them as racists so he could get the nomination.

It does not YET appear, as is laid out so vividly in this diary, that he has a plan to clean up that mess for the General Election.

by catfish2 2008-05-29 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What did the Clintons DO TO

Stop. Lying.  If you can back up anything you just said I'll recind that request.

by map 2008-05-29 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What Anna Shane heard

Nice work. It was not your responsibility to find, but you gave the extra effort. Normally, when I cite someone, I find the quote and show the source.

by futbol dad 2008-05-29 01:00PM | 0 recs
What she said.

Map has done it again.  This diary?  Very sad and very much in some sort of weird delusional state of understanding.  I hope the diarist recovers from the hatred she feels regarding someone she doesn't know from jack, someone she's characterized as evil simply because he beat her candidate of choice.

by lollydee 2008-05-29 01:51PM | 0 recs
Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Jeering and sneering all the way to a McCain run White house is where we're headed with that attitude.  

Certain Clinton supporters just aren't going to vote for Obama no matter what.  It would be the same with some Obama supporters.  They're a bloody bore.

by venavena 2008-05-29 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Personally, I'm not worried at all. We will have a Democratic President.

by futbol dad 2008-05-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Excellent diary

thank you. I hope some people really read this and take it in.

by catfish2 2008-05-29 12:53PM | 0 recs
The format and writing style of this diary.....

make it difficult and tedious for me to read, but I really want to focus on one theme I'm seeing that just drives me bonkers:

Women who whine and make up shite about how that dastardly Obama's  been treatin' poor lil' Hill.  Yet... none of these bitter, angry women, including this diarist say one word about how Hill's HUSBAND, old rovin' eye Bill, treated his life partner all those years - cheatin', lyin', humiliating, and gettin' some right under her nose... over and over and over again.

Let's try to put things in perspective please?  It's REALLY DIFFICULT to warm up to the "Hillary is a victim" meme when hubby gets a daily pass.

Thank you.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-29 01:28PM | 0 recs
The Opposite of Feminism

"Women who whine and make up shite about how that dastardly Obama's  been treatin' poor lil' Hill. "

Thats the key right there.  It's a freaking ELECTION.  He's treated her as an equal in this election.  She's thrown a lot more low blows than he did and he frankly held back too much for my taste.

by lollydee 2008-05-29 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

If any posts...or
Diaries meant anything to
SD's...would not there be
a movement away from Obama
toward Clinton?

If anyone can link to any post
that demonstrates a  serious move by
SD's to Clinton v Obama
please post.....

If Clinton's message means anything..
then should we watch for SD's land slide for Clinton next Wed?

by nogo postal 2008-05-29 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?
Jerome loves these people
DaveOinSF
Gabriele Droz
souvarine
nonwhiteperson
bobswern
campskunk
alegre
bluemoon
devil
LindaSFNM
izarradar
psychodrew
linfar
grlpatriot
Montague
zenful6219
mtnspirit
TexasDarlin
environmentally blue
Tolstoy
PJ Jefferson
soyousay
Justwords
pan230oh
twinmom
4justice
Ignored and Disgusted
thebluenote
alyssa chaos
by nogo postal 2008-05-29 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

are these the wonderful people who rec'd my diary? thank you so much for listing them and thanks to all of you for rec'ing my diary.  Mid afternoon on a Thursday you took the time to read my diary and recommend it, my humble thanks.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Two words:

Sore.  Loser.

That's supposed to be the other party's position.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-29 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering

no one's lost, yet?  Wait if you want to judge me.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering

When Hillary wins a non-state that has no voice in November, while Obama wins another couple states by double-digit margins, will it be over?

Or did PR suddenly become relevant?

Seriously--and no insult intended--how long are we going to "pretend" that there's any "uncertainty" about this?

Perhaps more importantly:  how deep will the grudge be, and how long will it be carried?  Not to November, I hope...

I've voted for a candidate who was not my first choice more times than I could count--and never trashed the winner as hard as I've seen folks go after Obama.  NEVER.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-29 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering

humm, I guess I'm waiting for it to be over?  Until then I'm backing my first choice, and with any luck after it's over I'll still be backing my first choice.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

how about next WED?

by nogo postal 2008-05-29 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

The Clintons aren't racists!

Everyone against them is sexist!

Do you see the problem with that sort of thinking?

by map 2008-05-29 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

Jeering and sneering?
You bet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK 4U

by nogo postal 2008-05-29 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

So now we may be delivered a seemingly flawed human being as our candidate

No, thank god, because Hillary is still in the race! Oh, she has her faults too, but damn if she isn't whipping the pants off McCain in the polls and in the swing states.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-29 03:44PM | 0 recs
uh, no, but, ok, maybe you

just Have to see everything distorted through the Hillary Lens, for whatever reason.

by hope monger 2008-05-29 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

I still don't why it's sexist to ask how being First Lady qualifies someone as president.

Could you please explain that?

And why would that qualify as sneering or jeering? It's a perfectly reasonable contention.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

if you're not on strike from kos you can go there and read my old diary, Maureen Dowd, Not. You'll get it.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

One of the examples of his jeering and sneering that sticks in my mind was his rally after the abc debate.  Watching him brush is shoulders off and smirk and somehow combine snearing at the questions abc asked him with talking about Clinton and having a good old time acting like a high schooler in with the incrowd, just he and his rally buds, was a turn off to me.  No wonder some thought he gave the bird to Hillary during that rally, he may or he may not have, but he set set the stage for people to think he was capable of it.

by Scotch 2008-05-29 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

there are too many examples, i remember him denying that he had avoided shaking her hand at the SOTU when he was hanging with Teddy, and one of his super-delegates supporters was laughing her head off. He's proved that he's a great liar, maybe a good skill but not one to 'show' too clearly.  

by anna shane 2008-05-29 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

He definetly did not give her the finger unless you only visit this site, Taylor Marsh or Noquater.    They wouldnt show the reverse angle which other sites did and he had two fingers to his face.   Get a grip.

by realistdem 2008-05-29 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

You miss the point.  The notable thing is not whether he gave it or not, it's that he created an atmosphere surrounding himself that enabled people to even consider the possibility.

by Scotch 2008-05-29 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

This diary actually makes a lot of sense, if in many passages you just substitute Hillary Clinton for Barack Obama.  For example, here's a passage from the diary in its original form:

I've often had the strange sensation in this campaign that there are two alternate realities.  Hillary's campaign is old fashioned: reach out to the voters and ask for their votes.  She's cheery and upbeat and optimistic about the future of this nation. It's like a remake of Rogers and Hammerstein's, State Fair, updated with representation from all of America. She's the American Girl candidate, running against Bush, pledging to reverse his policies and bring efficiencies and professionalism to Washington. One of her big applause lines is `it's a tough job, hire me, and I'll clean up the Bush mess."  

Barack's case seems mainly to be about her, how bad she is, how wrong she's been, how awful she is, how racist and selfish and horrid she is.  His campaign is more like Neil La Bute's, In the Company of Men.  

Now, read the passage again, except with the names switched. I left the rest of the passage mostly unchanged, with just a few minor gender related changes and a deletion of a reference to a statement made by Clinton:

I've often had the strange sensation in this campaign that there are two alternate realities.  OBAMA's campaign is old fashioned: reach out to the voters and ask for their votes.  He's cheery and upbeat and optimistic about the future of this nation. It's like a remake of Rogers and Hammerstein's, State Fair, updated with representation from all of America. He's the All-American candidate, running against Bush, pledging to reverse his policies and bring efficiencies and professionalism to Washington.  

HILLARY's case seems mainly to be about him, how bad he is, how wrong he's been, how awful he is, how sexist and selfish and horrid he is.  Her campaign is more like Neil La Bute's, In the Company of Men.

Which version is most consistent with reality?  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-29 04:35PM | 0 recs
This is very one-sided

You can't cherry pick the actions of the candidates most out-of-it supporters and pin them on the candidate.  

As to whether Obama's campaign can fairly be summed up as sneering and jeering?  I don't think anybody who comes to the question without a strong, strong bias could reach that conclusion.  It's about a great deal more than that, and it all started with Obama going door-to-door in Iowa, for months.  

And it's very odd to fault the tone of Obama's campaign while claiming that Clinton has been engaged in a "traditional" campaign of kindly asking for people's votes.  Over the past two months, the exit polls in state after state have shown the same thing.  When asked which candidate has run the more negative campaign or launched more unfair attacks, the voters by a wide margin say Clinton - including people who voted for her.

When the other candidate is someone you can't stand and your candidate can do no wrong, you've probably lost your objectivity.

by TL 2008-05-29 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where?

If Hillary was dreaming of an assassination the night I saw her in Madison, she sure didn't show it. Here we are, in the sixth year of a cruel and pointless war that looks as if it will go on forever. We were lied into the war by men, the war was started by men, bungled by men -- and now the guys can't agree on how to stop it. So who is accused of harboring dreams of violence? A woman who wants to end it. Hillary Clinton, of all people, is the person accused of hoping to benefit from the violent death of someone else. Go figure.

by Madison Guy 2008-05-29 07:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads