Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

People, come on.

This is not helpful, necessary, constructive, or positive. There's a reason Obama has a strong vetting team for the VP slot - to find stuff that we don't know about possible candidates. I have no interest in second-guessing a process that I'm not a part of.

There are valid reasons for Clinton to be VP, and valid reasons for her not to be. I personally think Wes Clark is the best for the slot, but it's not my call. Nor is it something I should be getting invested in. Find a race or contest to get invested in where you can actually make a difference - there are lots of local candidates who could use some help.

Let Obama's team do its job, and lets stop fighting the primary wars. There are too many constructive subjects to write on that don't get enough attention - Congressional races and current policy issues, such as the Medicare vote that Ted Kennedy returned for.

Update [2008-7-10 12:43:59 by Falsehood]: - Added Clinton's name, and commendations for those in the comments who have been thoughtful. If you want another idea of an area for Obama to talk about, we can discuss the Party Platform that needs to be written. I've yet to see a diary on that. Thanks for the rec's - rest assured I know I don't deserve them, but that this diary expresses a common sentiment.

Tags: clinton, obama, Primary, VP (all tags)



Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

But didn't your hear, the 18 million people that voted for Obama are irrational, childlike cult members who live in their parents basement and the 18 million Clinton voters are rational, down to earth true Democrats here to save us from a). ourselves b).an inadequate black man c). our delusions of not listening to Fox news talking points.

by Dog Chains 2008-07-10 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

the 18 million Clinton voters are rational

I get you but let's not lump all Clinton voters together. Most of my favorite people on this blog are REAL Clinton supporters. The only ones who are acting like lunatic fringe zealots are PUMA's who are still holding out for the convention vote. These people do not represent Hillary or her other supporters. Most are naive political newbies who are caught up in the Obama hate. Sites like the racist NoKKKwarter say they are inspired by Hillary but all you see is are smears and crazy conspiracy theories (see SoCal Darlin and her search for Obama's REAL birth certificate) about Barack Hussein Obama.

I've always wondered how they manage to have a website up and running with only negative pieces about one candidate. Is Barack Obama really that interesting?

As for the primary wars that some want to keep on playing I'll just give them donuts if they are offensive posts or spam their comments with replies. The trolls around here aren't very bright so it's not as much fun as it was before. We need new trolls.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-10 06:26AM | 0 recs
There are enough No KKKwarterites

here to get crap on the Rec List.  Still.

(Yes, I stole your appellation for that hate site).

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: There are enough No KKKwarterites

The pathetic troll aliveandkickin is hitting my past comments again....


swithcingsides2.  That's rankles sockpuppet and they are both aliveandkickin handles.

I'll be losing my TU status any moment now for the 3rd time in a week.


So if you good folks could spare the mojo.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-10 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: There are enough No KKKwarterites

No, I don't think switchingsides is aliveandkickin. Switchingsides never even attempted to write coherent (if trollish) thoughts or diaries. It was more just "Obama is the suck! dKos is the suck! You are the suck! We're going to lose!"

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-07-10 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: There are enough No KKKwarterites

I still remember your last vile words here about Clinton supporters, words so vile they were deleted by some admin person rather than just hidden by the community's ratings.

I was warming to discourse with you again before that.  I'd like to think you have recanted on what you said about ALL of us.

This isn't about 'reliving' the primary, some of us don't do that.

But it is about the lack of respect that some folks show here for us, and the outright venom some have for ALL of us, and I would like to think you have given up on that.

by emsprater 2008-07-10 09:00AM | 0 recs
Clinton supporters now who

are behind the nominee--I got nothing but love for them.

But, all of this portrayal of Clinton and her supporters as innocent victims in the primary is really nauseating.  No Democratic site had more toxic hatred for either candidate than Mydd did for Obama during the primary (No KKKwarter is not a Democratic site).  

And, I dropped a potty word and was critical of admins, hence the deletion.  It certainly wasn't nearly as offensive than the one from a Clinton supporter that called Michelle Obama a "bl0w j0b queen" and was uprated by Susan Hu.  

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

I love Clinton and most of her supporters, those are NOT the people reliving the primary wars. I figured my response to talk in reference to the primary wars would make that clear. most are very nice people;)

by Dog Chains 2008-07-10 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

I personally am not supporting O because of the way the media treated Hillary. Nothing less than HRC being on the ticket will bring me back to the fold. This is NOT a childish attitude either; it's one based on principle.

by handsomegent 2008-07-10 07:06AM | 0 recs
Temper Tantrum

Because the media were mean to Hillary and it hurt your feelings, you're going to punish Obama, Democrats, and America?

Maybe if you hold your breath and stomp your foot they'll apologize?

This isn't about you and your hurt feelings. This is about protecting the right to choose and ending the war in Iraq and other core principles of the Democratic Party.

Hillayr Clinton supports Barack Obama. She got over herself. Why can't you?

by iohs2008 2008-07-10 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Temper Tantrum

Yes, it's not about any one person, but we sure can vote like it is!!!!

by Check077 2008-07-10 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

At least you're being honest about your reasoning.

The PUMA's that try to state somehow a vote for McCain is progressive vote are like those who argue slavery and the kidnapping of Africans was "good for them."

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Well, batshit-crazy, utterly irrational principle...  Let me rephrase:  "'The Media' was sexist/unfair/whatever to Hillary Clinton.  Therefore I will vote Republican/stay at home/whatever unless Clinton, who lost the primary, is selected by her party.  This is not childish.  Really."

by username 2008-07-10 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Insults are unnecessary and unhelpful. You won't get anywhere with them - if anything, you've made that person less likely to those of a different viewpoint.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?


by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

A vote for Obama is a vote for Olbermann, Matthews, Shuster etc. No way will I lower myself to do that.

by handsomegent 2008-07-11 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

" get you but let's not lump all Clinton voters together. Most of my favorite people on this blog are REAL Clinton supporters. The only ones who are acting like lunatic fringe zealots are PUMA's who are still holding out for the convention vote."

Well said, and very true.

It's a sad lunatic fringe, who are so far gone into trying to convince themselves SOMEHOW voting for the party of Dick Cheney is a progressive thing to do, I think the cognative dissonance has turned them not only irrational, but downright ludicrous.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 07:15AM | 0 recs
Trouble makers

For some, it justa ppears that being a PUMA is a passtime. Fair enough. But let us not kid ourselves that they represent a real minority.

by iohs2008 2008-07-10 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?
A. What does his race have to do with concerns regarding his qualifications?
B. I think the Faux news channel is jumping for joy that he is the candidate - if anything I have had to deal with links to GOP wingnut sites as substantiation for why Clinton is "evil" @@
by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

the 18 million Clinton voters are rational, down to earth true Democrats here to save us from a). ourselves b).an inadequate black man c). our delusions of not listening to Fox news talking points.

I can't believe you got mojo for this crap.

by Denny Crane 2008-07-10 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Okay, the point was that those are the people fighting the primary wars, sorry if it is taken out of context, but that is what I have seen.

by Dog Chains 2008-07-10 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

And B). was teken directly from words spoken on the front pages of Noquarter, hillary44, liberal rapture and various other PUMA sites, so don't put it on me:)

by Dog Chains 2008-07-10 07:51AM | 0 recs
Easy enough

As long as we're fighting the primary wars, we're not fighting Republicans.  That's the way the Right-wing saboteurs like it.

Also, this site is pretty dead when we're not fighting each other, since we really don't allow Republican viewpoints unless they're pretending to be Democrats.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-10 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Easy enough

Good point

by Politicalslave 2008-07-10 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Easy enough

I'm a centrist whose more than a little nervous whenever I post something that isn't in line with the liberal mainstream.

Sadly, I don't think there's a truly popular, non-partisan political forum out there.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Easy enough

There's folks on myDD that are fair. I've come up on them. Not to dispair. There are folks on all sides though that just want to fight. You're welcome on my blog.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy enough

Have ya'll seen Reaper bot's  bike thread. Man it was a lovely as going to a spa. Same for the what are you doing for the fourth.

When you take the personalities out of it and talk pure issue the "gettin' along" is remarkable.

People sharing ideas. Even the disagreement is mild.

Plus at the risk of repeating. I posted a thread about the VP vetting process and the comparing Sen. Clinton with Gov Sebeiius. None on the folks on there were at each others throats. Sure they disagreed maybe bit their tongues but none of the slug fest that I've seen else where.

It's really lovely because in both cases you could actually learn something. I think I remember hearing the words about folks being fair.

LOL I'll probably go in there from here and folks will be having a screaming match. Hope not.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 04:04PM | 0 recs
The irony

there is nothing but pure white hot hate for Obama on some so called 'progressive' sites, which seem to outhate the hate of the rightie blogs!

Which extreme groups show more hatred, the ones on the left or the ones on the right?

Right now, I'd give the 'hate site' of the year award to NoQuarter!

(That the 'liberal blog' TalkLeft still has a link to. Bizarre)

by missliberties 2008-07-10 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The irony

So why talk about it and give that site traffic?

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

There is no doubt that the primary wars are still going on. However, I don't think the Veep discussion is an extension of those wars. It's a natural subject of discussion during this stage of an election. Sure, it can and does fan the flames, but that's not all it does. Almost any discussion on here can be twisted to keep the fight going.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 06:27AM | 0 recs
Yeah, the VP process has nothing

to do with the "Hillary or McCain--NObama" morons and traitors.

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, the VP process has nothing

So I'm a moron because I don't support Obama and want to show the world what I think of the bigotry exhibited against Hillary?

by handsomegent 2008-07-10 07:08AM | 0 recs
Voting against every issue

Clinton believes in because you're mad at MSNBC makes you a moron, yes.

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Voting against every issue

A vote for Obama is a vote for the Clinton-hating media and I won't abide that.  It's not "myself" that's the problem.

by handsomegent 2008-07-11 06:19AM | 0 recs

Get over yourself and realize we're fighting a larger war here:

by iohs2008 2008-07-10 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Bigotry?

That's seriously messed up -- is it a real picture?  Good candidate for "self-hating black person of the year."

by username 2008-07-10 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Bigotry?

The T-shirt is real (Google search for Obama Curious George T-shirt).

I am unsure of the woman's ethnicity. I am also unsure whether the woman is condemning/condoning the design.

by iohs2008 2008-07-10 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bigotry?

Thoughtful reply. Mojo'd, and yes, the shirt is real.

We have yet to see the results of the GOP focus groups on how much they can bring up race without a negative backlash.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

It is natural to look at the vetting process for VP.And the primaries are going to come up because there are people who would be up for consideration who ran in the primaries.

Why wouldn't they?

No matter who you were for.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

by missliberties 2008-07-10 06:27AM | 0 recs
Answer: Because the PUMA

deadenders are still allowed to troll here and hijack the place.

The proprietor of this blog is perfectly cool with that, just as he was cool with the No Quarter reptiles turning the Rec List here into something worthy of St0rmfr0nt.

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Answer: Because the PUMA

I don't think the quality of discussion on this site would be improved by removing everyone who doesn't toe the Democratic party line. I mean, what's your definition of troll? Is there a "troll test" you can apply with high accuracy to determine if someone is a troll? Or is this just one of those "I know it when I see it" deals? Because those are lame.

I'm new here, but it looks to me like the only time the trolls get to "hijack" a thread is when people respond to them.  If you just ignore the posts you deem trollish, chances are the thread won't be damaged. Of course I realize everyone at the site would have to have similar self-control in order for a shunning policy to have an effect...but it's something to work toward, isn't it?

Also, how is it productive to insult the people who make this site possible? If you don't like it here, why don't you go elsewhere?

Your behavior really doesn't make much sense. Unless you are just trying to start fights. In which case...you're acting like a troll.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 07:07AM | 0 recs
When they start putting stuff

on the Rec List, it's a problem.

When they start dominating discussions, that's a problem.

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: When they start putting stuff

I don't really know how the rec list stuff works, but a couple people here have said it's not just "recommends", but also the volume of comments that gets a diary up there. If that's true, then by replying to trolls, engaging them in posting wars, you're actually helping the diaries get promoted. Which is yet another good reason just to quietly shun them -- it will help keep their diaries down, if people are correct about the way the Recommend list works.

And how can they dominate a discussion if no one is talking back? If they want to just throw anti-Obama comments back and forth to each other all day in a diary, let them -- everyone who's reasonable should just stay out. Remember, they're after attention. Don't give it to them.

Oh, and if there's reasonable discussion going on in the diary, then it's not trolling or hijacking, even if you don't like what's being said.

Really, just....don't feed the trolls. It DOES work. They can be starved to death. But pretty much everyone needs to agree to shun them and not engage or they'll get enough attention to survive. And expect them to get worse for a while as they start to starve -- in psych, it's called an "extinction burst", like a toddler throwing tantrum after tantrum before finally realizing it won't work and stopping the behavior.

Every time you get tempted to call out a troll, just think, "No food for you. You're already starving, and soon you'll be gone."

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: When they start putting stuff

Shunning? Well there's a blast from the past. Ever been shunned? Trust me it's not some pristine way to handle the worlds problems. Don't get me wrong there are those who'd have a fight at any moment but really shunning is so quaint and old fashion. Surly the notion that reasonable people can disagree is a much more progressive stance.

Shunning can be "ham fisted" and so old world. ~

Just as bad as "spoiling for a fight". A silent tandrom.


by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: When they start putting stuff


Shunning is a

"...A silent tantrum..."


by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: When they start putting stuff

I'm talking about dealing with people perceived to be trolls, not people who are having a reasonable disagreement. This is all about TROLLS. And there's nothing remotely old-fashioned about shunning -- ask OJ Simpson. Or Richard Jewel. Or the Ramsey family.  When society perceives, rightly or wrongly, that someone needs to be punished but that the "authorities" aren't doing it, shunning is what they do to exact their own punishment. And it can really be devastating, especially if you're innocent, like Jewel or the Ramseys.

So yeah. As a way to shut down trolls, shunning is definitely the way to go.  Fighting with them just makes things worse.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: When they start putting stuff

"I'm talking about dealing with people perceived to be trolls, not people who are having a reasonable disagreement."

See the thing is that notion of what is a "reasonable disagreement" and what is a "troll".

Trust me it can be highly subjective.

"When society perceives, rightly or wrongly, that someone needs to be punished but that the "authorities" aren't doing it, shunning is what they do to exact their own punishment."

"...to exact their own punishment?" Really?

You know in it's extreme that's EXACTLY what the vigilantes said before they hung folks.

I know.  You wouldn't dream. Hyperbole.

Thing is it's the same logic.

If you don't think the law is fair try to change it.

Maybe you are saying ignore the behavior but not the person. I'd add ask first because so much of internet depends on the writer's skill. The other behavioral clues are absent. So fair warning first and a chance to talk  out what could be a missunderstanding of cultures. Then shun the behavior not the person. Easy. We do that all the time. But social shunning? On the internet, I've seen already folks use it for power grabs and to intimidate others.  It changes behavior but it is not in anyway democratic. No day in court to plead your case. No evidence laws to standardize and make fair the process of the trial. Just somebody getting people angry and the next thing you know no ones talkin to ya.

Of course the more I've gotten to know the world the more I appreciate my dogs too. :D

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 03:50PM | 0 recs
To be fair

One argument keeping them active in the site is that by engaging them, of the utility of the PUMA appeal.

Really though, I think there are true believers who will not be fully convinced until the convention.  And that is is when they will be forced to make a choice.

by fladem 2008-07-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

i'm a former Clintonista who isn't going to war over anything other than the election of Obama.  I would greatly prefer he pick Hillary, but I'm not going to jump ship if he doesn't.  (well, maybe if he picked Lieberman)

I think the primary wars are still going on and it reminds me of those stories of Confederate soldiers holed up in the hills still fighting the war fifty years later.  There are still those folks who want their pound of flesh from Obama for beating "their Hillary" and there are still those loonies holding out for some cosmic realignment of Super delegates between now and the convention.  It doesn't matter what General Lee or JEfferson Davis say, they are determined to go down fighting, no matter the cost.

When it comes to the VP slot, you've got hold out Clinton haters and PUMAs who claim they'll bolt if she's on the ticket and others who'll bolt if she's not.  And at the end of the day, the reasoning on all sides seems convoluted and personal.  

On thing that continues to amuse me this season -- how many active interested people this year who don't understand politics, as usual or not.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-07-10 06:40AM | 0 recs
There are still people fighting the

civil war.

After Clinton and Obama are both dead and given heroes' burials, I imagine there will still be NObama sites.

by Geekesque 2008-07-10 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: There are still people fighting the

Heh. I imagine they'll be like us meeting someone these days who cannot believe that Stevenson got the nod twice against Eisenhower.

by ragekage 2008-07-10 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Because a handful of bitter dead-enders can't let go.

by Beren 2008-07-10 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Is there some reason a discussion about Obama's VP choices -- yes, Hillary Clinton included -- can't take place without insulting other users?

Picking fights isn't going to improve this site at all. I don't understand why people keep doing it. Simple boredom?

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Well, the dead-enders he's likely referring to are mostly not people found on this website. Alegre's still writing up a storm, albeit to an audience of about ten people who all write back and forth to eachother in a curious little circle jerk- I'd call that a real dead-ender. If, however, you're a former Clinton supporter with some real qualms about Obama, I can dig that.

by ragekage 2008-07-10 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Oh, if he meant "why are we fighting them again" in an all-encompassing sense and not just on this site, then I'd point a finger (just one -- guess which one) at the MSM, which really, really WANTS the nastiness to continue and does everything it can to encourage it.  That's why.  But we don't have to emulate them.

I sense this is a hot button question, but who's Alegre? (I'm new here.)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

She was a heavyweight Clinton supporter back in The Day, had about three diaries on the Rec list at any given time. Sadly, her fifteen minutes died when she burned all the bridges she had remaining for her and her credibility, and now she spews racial epitaphs and screeds against Obama.

However, we've got lots of Clinton supporters who now support Obama who have honest qualms, as I've said, but who are happy to stick around and talk about them reasonably. Those people are more indicative of real Clinton supporters, I'd say.

by ragekage 2008-07-10 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Thanks. I'm slowly catching up on the lingo and the references to previous events.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Yep like the notion of shunning also back in the day. :D

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Makes me sad, too. She wrote such strong positive diaries; I wish I could see her come back and do those for the causes Clinton stood for.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

"...she spews racial epitaphs...."  

Link please?

by Caldonia 2008-07-10 11:44AM | 0 recs
I beg your problem

I defy anyone to locate one comment by Al, let alone a diary, that contains the slightest racist element.  it's quite bizarre that after Barack has won some of you continue to blog about Hillary supporters. I guess you can't say anything ugly about Hillary, now that Barack needs her, but there is all that residual hate, that must be expressed, by making up ugly allegations against Al?  Weird!  

As usual, i suggest you blog positively about the candidate, and quit the hate talk.  You know it's a lie, who do you keep doing it?  Have you no idea that the primary is now over?  Silly you?  

Here's the rage challenge - find an example?  Just one?  Give it your best shot?  

by anna shane 2008-07-10 11:54AM | 0 recs
I beg your pardon

I defy anyone to locate one comment by Al, let alone a diary, that contains the slightest racist element.  it's quite bizarre that after Barack has won some of you continue to blog about Hillary supporters. I guess you can't say anything ugly about Hillary, now that Barack needs her, but there is all that residual hate, that must be expressed, by making up ugly allegations against Al?  Weird!  

As usual, i suggest you blog positively about the candidate, and quit the hate talk.  You know it's a lie, who do you keep doing it?  Have you no idea that the primary is now over?  Silly you?  

Here's the rage challenge - find an example?  Just one?  Give it your best shot?  

by anna shane 2008-07-10 11:54AM | 0 recs
spews racial epitaphs???

Give one example liar.

by owl06 2008-07-10 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Alegre has never used racial "epitaphs".  Never.  God, I hate people who can't even spell their insults.

This notion that anyone who doesn't support Obama is a racist is beyond the pale.  

by Tolstoy 2008-07-10 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Alegre has let many comments of that nature pass unchallenged in comment threads on her diaries on noquarter. She may not write them, but she sure doesn't condemn them either.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

I heard that she burns crosses on her lawn.

by owl06 2008-07-10 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

I wouldn't know. She's pretty much disappeared off my radar since she deserted this site.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Yeah, I never really got the Alegre cult of personality.

Linfar's dairies were WAY more personal, she is a better writer.

Texas Darlin' was way more vitrolic, she was fun to watch as she was almost always lurching into the ditch from answer to answer. Tight rope walking carrying dumbells.

Engels, well, no doubt the best sense of humor and just crazy ass posting?

Alegre was always the queen of cut and paste, she would talk the Clinton talking point of the day, and wrap it in some prose, and Voila! Instant Rec list!

My take was, she was actually better at Kos, at least there, she got some challenges and actually put up a fight? By the time she got here, she was just disdainful of anyone that didn't bow and scrap to her diarial brillance.

What she WAS good at was, sending out the message to her fans to get her to the rec list in nanoseconds?

But, the other thing that bugged me, was, it seemed once it was clear Obama won, and she wasn't going to be "queen of the diaries" she stole away in the night.

And, from the look at her ardent defenders, they still leap to her defense?

Never got what all the fuss was about.

OK, I'm guessing, Camp Skunk, Chelsea2020, the usual crew heading my way with the big unMOJO!

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-10 01:11PM | 0 recs
a discussion about Obama's VP choices

I was referring to the "primary wars" part of the diary. It's quite obvious that a few sad people just can't let go of the primary season and are still campaigning for Hillary by trying to hurt the nominee of the Democratic Party.

But for all practical purposes they're really campaiging for Bush/McCain.

by Beren 2008-07-10 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Oh, yeah, I'm with you 150% on that. (Don't nitpick my  math, I'm being symbolic here!) But I thought the term "dead ender" meant only Clinton supporters, so it sounded like an insult to me.

I've seen people on both sides trying to -- metaphorically -- rip each others' jugulars out with their fingernails. The fight fanatics on both sides need to be medicated and locked away until after November. Then they can come out again.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

There's no reason 'dead ender" can't apply to anyone still fighting over the nomination. But it should especially apply to any who still want to hurt Obama now that he is the Democratic nominee.

by Beren 2008-07-10 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Well, you might to consider using a less loaded term for your target, then. I like "fight fanatics" myself -- people who would rather rip up other Democrats than pay attention to the real enemy.  

I put people who slam the Clintons into the "harm Obama" camp for the simple reason that any pouring of fuel on the fire of the Democratic Divide can't do anything but hurt Obama's election chances. He needs every vote behind him he can get -- not just to win, but to win BIG, so he can rightfully claim a mandate for change.  Trashing the Clintons just alienates and pisses off people who like them or at least respect their abilities...of which there are quite a few out there. A little under 18 million at last count.

I think energy spent railing against the fight fanatics on BOTH sides is energy worse than wasted; not only does it not do anything to prevent President McCain and his Same Lame Game, but it damages the Democratic Party. Next time you feel like taking a fight fanatic of either team out to the woodshed for a beatin', maybe you could take that energy and use it to write something about how bad McCain would be, instead of brawling with other Democrats (or feeding trolls, whichever it is you think you're doing.)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Dead-enders are like McTrolls. They rely on not being challenged and exposed.

But feel free to live by your own advice and spend your time only going after McSame while leaving them free to go after Obama.

But remember, that's what happened in 2004 when Kerry ignored the swiftboaters.

by Beren 2008-07-10 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Who is the "them" you think are going after Obama? I don't really think it matters to the world at large what the bloggers say (or people would be a lot more upset about FISA, lol). Blogs are for discussion/ranting.  The "them" you need to worry about are in the MSM and the Republicker party -- they're the ones who can do real damage. I send my letters of comment to newspapers/newsweeklies, sometimes to individual politicians, and to a few web sites like Politifact (when I think they've done something a little tilted, which doesn't happen often. Bill Adair is wonderfully responsive, though.)

The only reason the Swiftboaters had power was because they had the backing to get on television. If the Republickers hadn't picked them up and showcased them, they'd never have been noticed.  It's probably reasonable to worry about the Republickers picking up on the PUMAs and giving them a national platform, but yelling at them in blogs won't stop that. In fact, it will encourage it -- because if the Republickers see how badly you react to PUMAs, they're going to want to plaster them all over the place to stir things up.  

Your response makes me think I should probably go back to writing letters to the MSM and politicians, but I wanted a more casual forum with actual discussion, not just letters. Most letters don't get a reply (except for Bill Adair at Politifact, who always responds, bless him).  Still, talking to you has made me realize that posting here may, in fact, be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere. After all, I could spend months suggesting that everyone in the Democratic Party play nice and support each other, and there would still be Fight Fanatics out there like you insisting that brawling in public is the only way to deal with the party split.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

A good point. Most everyone who reads you hear will vote. I post here to try to influence and talk with those who do the volunteering and the fundraising - Obama's campaign isn't helped by those who freely insult political opponents instead of listening and talking to them.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Thank you Falsehood.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Well you can come chat in my diary. I posted a diary about the VP Vetting process and comparing Sen. Clinton and Gov Sebeilus of Kansas. I have people who've posted and disagreed and agreed but not a fist fight in the house. In fact, they been really fair about it. Is there snark? Yeah. But I don't have the pyrotechnics that other folks do.

So come visit. People are getting along.

I don't view disent as a horrible sin though. I saw that in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Where folks who disagreed were told they hated the troops.  And I have lived where shunning was used to "put folks in their place".

You seem pretty nice and would be fair but you'd be surprise over what a person can and will shun folks for. They may have a reason for throwing that tantrum.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Sure, what diary? I won't be on much this week since I have a frantically busy schedule coming up, but I'll try to take a peek at it.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-12 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Hey Thank you. I'm sorry it took a bit to answer. Was else where Click my name in the by line (12 dogs and a blog) It's one of the diaries here. This is a good way to check a commenter's diary entries and learn more. People have by and large been kind. No fireworks on my blog. There are alot of folks who blog here nice folks. I probably won't be back in until Tuesday PM but I will answer. Take care and looking forward to chatting.  12 dogs

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-13 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Also Reaperbot has a diary up about bike riding to save energy. Good group. Saves energy. Good way to meet folks. Cya in a bit.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-13 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices

Oh, I already put up a long commentary on the biking diary. I have a lot of experience as a bike commuter and it's a topic dear to my heart. Go check it out if you like.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-13 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: a discussion about Obama's VP choices


I don't see your comment on Reaperbot's diary. You must have posted on her first bicycle diary.

Computer needs to be turned off due to fussy weather.

Will look for the other diary later after weather is stable.

I haven't been on a bike in a while. Road one to work when I was much, much younger. Had a combintation of rural and town riding.

Great experience.

Happy riding!

Cranky OLD feminist. 12 dogs

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-13 05:54PM | 0 recs
I want to ride my BI-CY-CLE

Yeah, it was the first diary (I think? I'm new, I lose track. Especially when I don't have time to visit for a couple of days or only just briefly.)

Anyway, my bike-commuting musings are here:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/7/7/21 653/09902/129#129

if you're interested.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-14 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to ride my BI-CY-CLE

Hey thanks. I remembered reading it before. Again thanks. I'm sorry about your friend. You're correct about improved biking conditions increasing bike use. I remember biking on two lane roads with the questionable shoulders. It was a slow go up some hills and nothing scared the heck out of me than having a car behind. Sometimes it was tough decision if the shoulder was grass covered rock.

Thank you so very much for providing this link.

I can't imagine biking in northern winters on icy roads. That's one good thing about living down south. Our summers may be hot but most of the year is quite nice.

Take care. 12 dogs

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-17 03:59AM | 0 recs
Who is the "them"?

Only you can take off your blinders.

by Beren 2008-07-10 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is the "them"?

And only YOU can prevent forest fires. Thanks, Smokey.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-12 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is the "them"?

A good analogy. Don't play with fire -- unless you want to get burned by another bush term.

by Beren 2008-07-12 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is the "them"?

LOL Now I know I'm looking forward to your visit.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-13 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

But the primary wars were just so darn interesting!

Good God, Kos has devolved into a fit of ultra-liberal hissyfitting. Perhaps the way it's always been, but it seemed like there was a modicum of common sense when I first encountered it. Yeesh.

by ragekage 2008-07-10 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

I found them very interesting.  It's the first time in my lifetime there's been anything at all interesting about the nomination process. It's just too bad it deteriorated into almost non-stop hate speech between the more...ah..."enthusiastic"?...members of the two camps. And it's never actually been as bad as the MSM made it look. They won't be happy until people on either side start opening fire on each other with real guns, you know?

Anyway, it got a lot of people involved in the process who normally ignore it, and it exposed some interesting issues about the nomination process that may result in major changes to the way the Democratic Party selects nominees in the future. I have to say I find that fascinating. I've been a Democrat all my life and I've learned tons of things about my party during this primary season I never had an inkling about before. I didn't like everything I learned, but it was still...yeah, interesting!  

If it wasn't interesting I wouldn't be here nattering along anyway. This is the first time I've ever ventured into the blogosphere, and it's been quite the strange and intriguing journey, I have to say.

(Oh, I'm assuming you meant But the primary wars were just so darn interesting! sarcastically, and am responding to that. If you were being sincere, then I apologize; it's hard to tell intentions from the posts here a lot of the time.)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-07-10 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Indeed. My first jaunt into the blogosphere was just a few short months ago, after the TX/OH primaries, in response to some of the vitriol I was starting to see. It makes for an interesting take on things, take it from me.

by ragekage 2008-07-10 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Ragecage are you from Texas. You sound familiar.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Look I am going to probably vote for Obama b/c I have hope that I am wrong about him. I KNOW there is absolutely no way I am wrong about McCain. It does kill me that we had more than one good candidate running in the primary & we wound up with what I believe is a very weak nomination.  It bothers me that I can't campaign this year for the party when I was set to. It disturbs me that I can't persuade others, based upon his merits, to vote for the Democratic candidate. I have NEVER had that experience before with a Dem. nominee.  

I was especially disturbed the other night when talking to someone who is entrenched in voting for the GOP, who hates Clinton but knows she is  capable & was actually going to cross over & give the Democratic party a shot since things are so horrible. This was a major step for her in changing everything she is about. And she was willing to set aside her personal dislike for Clinton b/c she had respect for her proven abilities. Obama hasn't proven himself in the same way & she doesn't like him either & cannot bring herself to vote for him. So if she does go out to vote it is probably McCain, however this year she may actually stay home. We had her & we lost her & I had no compelling argument to bring her back other then "well we could be wrong about Obama, but we know the bill of goods we are getting with McCain." Of course that is why she will stay home.

So I am not stuck on the primary; I am just disturbed with where we are at. I am hoping that with a Clinton VP nom I can convince people that she will be there to balance things out & I will feel better about my vote as well.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 07:32AM | 0 recs
" I can't campaign..."

"Can't camapign" is just an excuse for "won't campaign."

You control what you do.

by Beren 2008-07-10 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

How "can" a person with any sense of integrity go out and try to convince others to do something that they are not sure is the right thing. I guess you "could" if you have no morals, but then I "would" think no better of you than I do a republican and well that is pretty low. You know one step above a child rapist.

by RedstateLib 2008-07-10 08:55AM | 0 recs

a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

by Beren 2008-07-10 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

It is not within my moral compass to campaign for someone & lie about their attributes. I cannot do that.  I tell the truth when I advocate for a cause. I can only advocate the hope that I might be wrong about him & that is what I am banking on when I vote for him.  I don't believe in him; I never have. I did believe in some others in the primary stage.

I will not lie to myself or others - it is not within my moral fiber.

I will be voting for him for the reason I stated above. It is sad that someone who was ready to campaign is barred by their personal integrity from doing so now.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

"It is not within my moral compass to campaign for someone & lie about their attributes"

But you can lie to yourself without compunction. Amazing.

by Beren 2008-07-10 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

Uh no read above - I stated "I will not lie to myself or others."

Oh wait b/c I disagree with you I MUST be lying to myself - after all you can't be wrong can you - that's impossible @@

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

Thanks for thoughtfully writing.

I suggest you go back and look at what he did with the Death Penalty reform in Illinois - that's the hard accomplishment I refer to.

Count me as one of the people who completely disagrees with Obama on a few issues, but will still support him, because I think he will govern in good faith, something we haven't seen under the GOP.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:30AM | 0 recs
"I will not lie to myself or others."

Ah...but you are lying to yourself if you don't think you can tell anyone that Obama is better than Bush/McCain.

by Beren 2008-07-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
Thanks for changing what I said

I never said that - but thanks so much for re-writing my POV @@- I don't like Obama - I don't have much faith in him. My ONLY argument as I said initially is that he isn't the GOP & that we could be wrong about Obama's capabilities but with the GOP we KNOW things are bad.

It is still pathetic that that is all that I have (well he isn't the GOP...) especially considering the GREAT Democratic candidates that were running.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for changing what I said

If you can't think of anything good to say about Obama as a Democrat you would have been hard pressed to say anything good about Clinton either since their platforms were so similar.

No. This is all about personalities and bitterness over imagined wrongs.

by Beren 2008-07-10 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for changing what I said

WRONG again...

I don't believe Obama is capable & I don't know how he will govern. I know Clinton has the capability, I like her policy overall better & I know how she will  govern. I also believe that of others who ran as well.

The only thing I know for sure about Obama is that he is the nominee of the better of the 2 parties. I hope he will do a better job of carrying out those ideals then I suspect he is capable. That's it. End.Of.Story.

Of course that doesn't fit within your cognitive picture so my issues must be just imagined @@.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 12:06PM | 0 recs
You don't know anything.

Your opinions of Clinton are the same as your guesses about Obama. Have some more koolaid.

by Beren 2008-07-10 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

""Can't camapign" is just an excuse for "won't campaign."

You control what you do."

Hey now. That's not entirely fair. We are grown ups. If you'd asked me to campaign at one point while I was nursing I would have said the same thing. Logisically I couldn't.

You don't know a person's situation.

There are legit reasons why folks can't. Including that they're not 100 % behind the candidate. That would read to the folks you're trying to convince.

Could back fire don't you think.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

Umm so I'm supposed to lie and pretend I love Obama &  go around singing his praises when I don't agree with anything other then he isn't the GOP...

Yes of course my honest opinion of him comes through  - WTF..

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

"Yes of course my honest opinion of him comes through  - WTF.."

My reply:

Nothing wrong with being honest. Nothing wrong with an honest opinion at all.

Not a durn thing.

I would like to ask you why you feel that you have to defend yourself though.

Not being sarcastic or stupid here. I'm sorry because you may feel that what you've been doing all up and down this comment section makes the answer self evident. But other than Jrsygrl, I don't even know your name. So I'm asking you point blank answer. Not in an oblique way as that can cause misunderstandings.

Don't want to ASSume here.

This is a webpage where folks can talk issues but it's not supposed to be an inquisition.

Kindess is a virture. :D

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

I'm not sure I understand your question...

I will say that the implication (actually it has been stated several times) has been that I am somehow being dishonest to myself by not being an Obama proponent (versus just honestly saying why I am voting for him) & that the only reason I am not actively campaigning for him is b/c of some sort of bitterness.  So I apologize if I seem defensive - I think I've been repeating the same answer several times in this thread & been told in response that my answer is impossible...It  gets a little frustrating.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-11 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

You used the words "...defend your self..." here in the comments. I'm so sorry that I used the word "defensive". It can have shades of meaning culturally. But I am glad that I asked the question. For you it seems to be an analytical choice not an emotional reaction.

As far as I'm concerned? I don't see why you should have to apologize for this. What have you done to beg apology? None that I see. I understand your flustration. You are not for Sen. Obama based on the issues. Makes sense to me. You could have said the same about Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards or anyone else who is/was running for office.  Your business.  

I just wanted to make sure. Feelings are  personal and so easily miss understood on the internet.

Hugs to you. I've been surprised that folks haven't understood how this could turn off a voter not convince then to vote for your candidate. For what it's worth I had a similar experience earlier in the process. I asked a question as a voter and in response to a diary entry. It was about Sen. Obama and if he'd shifted position. This was way before last weeks events. While the diarist made statements? I asked questions. I really did want to know. To be reassured. Instead of answering, I was treated as if I were attacking the candidate. Nooooo I wasn't. Then I was told that I needed to defend my question which I thought was assinine. "I'm a voter asking questions," I said," I don't ahave to defend my question or possition. I have to ask my question and then hope for an answer. It just kept on and on. Flustrating. Luckily I'd met folks who did answer and were not combative. I told the combative group that they could loose my vote. Again I was told that I was a troll. Finally, someone asked the same question and got an answer. Then so did I.

These tactics to brow beat to submission just don't seem like a good idea in the Dem. party. Seems like chasing folks off not building a consensus.

Thank you for your response. This is abit wordy but I don't have alot of time. I'm writing in a hurry. Sorry

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-11 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

There was something else but until I can put it into words--

Something that a lady lawyer and wonderful teacher told me.

"Reasonable men and women can and will differ."

That's it for this evening for me. 12 dogs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-11 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: " I can't campaign..."

I assumed my meaning was obvious. But you point out correctly the real meanings and difference of "can't" and "won't."

by Beren 2008-07-10 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

This is not a flame aimed at you. Your comment made me think and I wanted to share those thoughts. You've posted some pretty harsh things about Obama in the past, but this comment was an honest look at the situation from your point of view. I will respond in kind.

The first is about the idea that Obama is a weak candidate. I don't understand this belief. He just beat one of the most powerful political machines of modern time in the primaries. You can only think he is a weak candidate if you believe his opponent was even weaker. That's a very negative way of viewing Senator Clinton and John Edwards.

The other thing that struck me was when you said it disturbs you that you can't persuade others, based on his merits. Is it possible the reason you can't convince them is because you aren't convinced yourself? It's kind of hard to convince a kid to eat their spinach when you are making a face and saying, "yuck", every time you take a bite.

Many Hillary supporters who are still finding it difficult to get enthused about Obama are finding it difficult, because they are only focusing on his weak points and how they felt about the way Hillary was treated in the primary. Try learning about his strong points instead of focusing on the areas where you think he is weak. Compare his stances on women's rights and the economy to McCain's. Do the same with the Iraq war, foreign policy, tax fairness, etc... It is time to stop comparing him to Hillary and start comparing him to McCain.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-10 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

A. I have resisted posting anything harsh about Obama even when asked about specific issues b/c I think it is only harmful to bash the Democratic candidate with specifics on this blog & I won't participate in a hatefest - it feels patently wrong.
B. I have posted these feelings many times before so I have been fairly consistent.
C. I believe Obama was propped/supported by the DNC, the MSM & even the GOP.  I don't believe he was a lone candidate who came in with a grassroots movement & defeated John Edwards (who refused to take lobbyist money & was ignored by the MSM) & Hillary Clinton who was treated horribly by the MSM, had people in her own party that for personal reasons sought to denigrate her. I believe the GOP feels more comfortable fighting Obama for many reasons that include 1. he has yet to be defined which makes it much easier to sway less determined supporters (Clinton supporters know her & are resolute in their support). 2. Clinton has been smeared for decades - they know how to fight the GOP - Obama is new at this. Without the MSM (who is controlled by the GOP moreso then the DNC) & the support of the GOP, he is left with just the DNC & his own campaigning abilities now. So no his win in the primary is not something he individually accomplished - he had alot more support then people want to admit.
D. My exact argument is that I cannot lie & say things about him that I don't believe. I am skeptical of his ability to win the election and/or be a good president. I am hopeful that I am wrong. I am hopeful that a VP nomination will help to balance things & that he will set aside ego in place of getting guidance as necessary if he does indeed win the election.
E. A Democrat's stances in general are better then the GOP - it is why I will be voting that way.  I already did the comparison. I can't say from a capability standpoint what Obama will achieve.  I  am hopeful he won't be a disaster - I have little faith in him but I know that the Democratic candidate from a policy perspective is better then the GOP. That argument won't work in swaying someone who is crossing over for the first time; they don't have a problem with GOP policy they are upset with the country's current state of affairs & need ability to bring us back.

Yes Clinton was treated horribly, but she wasn't the only nominee I would've been happy with. Back when there were other contenders I still didn't want Obama. For the first election I can't honestly advocate for the Dem. candidate.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Taking it point by point:

A: Thank you for your good judgment. I think constructive criticism is warranted and should even be advocated - we need to have these discussions. You are completely right that we don't need to throw names like "flip-flop-flim-flam man." (Courtesy Hillis44)

B. Can't comment, don't know, but I trust you.

C. I didn't really see the DNC doing anything. The credentials committee was balanced/unwieghted for him, I think, and their decision doesn't count as DNC favoritism in my mind. I don't think the GOP heled him out - they gunned for the frontrunner.

As for the MSM - Chris Matthews, sure, but I didn't really see it in others. The media went everywhere, and the Wright thing went on FOREVER.

Clinton was known - and had baggage, as she said. I think this would have made for a worse GE cycle. I understand where you might see this bias, but I think plenty of Obama supporters saw it the other way.

D. I suggest that you go back and see some interviews and Q&As from last summer or before. These cemneted my support, because he knew what he was talking about, so much so that he got flak for being too "professorly." This was also when he talked more about his faults, which was shown to not be helpful.

E. You can take some comfort in how capable his campaign has been (no leaks, no infighting), and how much he has brought in new donors and volunteers. He's not a candidate who focused on getting the attention of those who have been very involved - his rallies were designed to bring in citizens unfamiliar with politics.

Does that help?

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Thank you for trying but I patently disagree with you on your responses to C-E...Like I said I don't want to get into a full on mud slinging here which is where I usually bow out of anything more then a high level critique of Obama.

I'm not going to dissect how/why I think the DNC deliberately foisted Obama up b/c of their own personal issues; I don't care about the Clinton baggage we knew what we got with her - we have yet to see what gets thrown at Obama & I truly believe the GOP knew they had an easier time with Obama which is why they treated him with kid gloves during the primary...Once again the MSM had a love affair with Obama during the primary(& in response to that I was told it was ok to have a candidate for once that the MSM liked @@). Now  I have watched Obama speak for the past year often in an attempt to like him & was not swayed whatsoever - if anything I was unimpressed for various reasons & I'll leave it at that ( the rest of the critiques need not be stated). Suffice it to say I'm not low on information when it comes to Obama ; I just don't like him b/c I don't see what many others see. I don't see the ability or the experience & I did see more then one in the primary who could've done an excellent job as president.  So I am very upset by what we have here but of course I know if nothing else the work of the GOP will at least be halted if he gets into office. And there is a chance I am wrong about him. So those are my reasons for voting for him - he isn't the GOP which would be devastating.

And like I said I know the perception that has been floated is that he was a grassroots candidate of the people - I don't agree that was actually the case though for many reasons which I will not break down here b/c it doesn't help the cause at all. Perception does not always equal reality as the GOP has proven time and again.  I think alot of Democrats have been taken like in much the same way the GOP is able to deceive the low information voters; their perceptions have been manipulated but at this point what is done is done. However when I see diaries like this I can't just sit on my hands.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:16AM | 0 recs
Well, I wouldn't lose sleep
over your buddy. The notion that Hillary has "proven abilities" and Obama doesn't is hysterical and the fact that you didn't have a compelling argument  to convey to this alleged potential GOP crossover makes me wonder how familiar you are with his record and stances on certain issues. Are you even aware that Hillary and Obama are virtually parallel on every policy issue? This is the information age. I suggest you and your friend use it.
On second thought, let her stay home because there are roughly 218 million adults in this country. Minus his already supporters, republican diehards and felons who may have lost their privilege to vote, that's one helluva number that can be persuaded to support the democratic nominee.  Unfortunately, there are those who walk among us who, through their unsophisticated view of the world, will not vote for 'the black guy'... but most rational and grounded people realize that we don't need another Bush for eight years. For some, ignorance is bliss and denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
by april34fff 2008-07-10 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, I wouldn't lose sleep

Uhh Hillary has DECADES of proven experience. It makes me hysterical when people REFUSE to recognize that.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 09:37AM | 0 recs
Her so called

experience is greatly over exaggerated. But for arguments sake, before her senate term and being first lady what experience are you referencing?

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Her so called

Oh Give me a break I'm not doing this again - I always win but not before the most ridiculous mud slinging, baiting argument ensues.  You need to educate yourself - anyone who makes a statement like you just did is not capable of having any sort of functional discourse.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 10:13AM | 0 recs
Then educate me?

I have not seen one person explain to me what her "decades" of experience are.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Also, btw

I don't mean to mudsling, but if you are going to claim she has this experience, then be able to back up what you are saying.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:42AM | 0 recs
Again, All commedable

stuff but it is very comparable to BO's accomplishments. First black Harvard Law review, community organizing similiar to her work during Bill's administration. This does not indicate to me superior "experience". Besides, the original comment said she had "decades". I took that to mean more than the last 20 years.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, All commedable

Didn't Senator Clinton cut her "political teeth" as a lawyer during the Watergate hearings? That's been how long?

I've been told that a governor is a better pick than a Senator because of their voting records. I was told this in a conversation about VP vetting and comparing senators to governors.

So this got me wondering...

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 01:03PM | 0 recs
There we go

"Senator Clinton cut her "political teeth" as a lawyer during the Watergate hearings?"

Someone who responds to at least partially what I was asking.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Also, btw

I have done this COUNTLESS times with people & it has resulted in nothing. Sorry I can back it up but I don't have the energy to engage in this crap again. Honestly, if you really come from that perspective there is a serious cognitive gap here that can't be addressed.  I really don't know HOW to speak with someone at that level.  I guess start with something as simple as her wikipedia entry & go from there.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:17AM | 0 recs
No I agree

that she does not get enough credit for what she has done. But people are quick to credit her with experience with things that are comparable to what BO has done. But then they insist on denigrating BO's record as having no "experience". But I guess it all depends on what one considers "experience". I am not trying to pick a fight but am serious as to why you think she was/is the superior choice in that regard. Please don't try to act all defensive because there is no need to.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No I agree

Just curious. Does the fact that both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are senators at the same time and in the same governing body (US Senate) level the playing field?

They've both been voting on the same issues of the day.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 12:58PM | 0 recs
That's my bigger point

If we want to compare life experiences of course Hillary has more years on Barack. She is older than him and has had more time to accomplish more. If we want to compare "governmental" experience they are damn near the same. What I don't get is the constant notion that Barack was less experienced in this regard. If you want to compare years in gov't. Barack was also in the IL state senate for a decade whereas Senator Clinton has only served ONE six year term.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That's my bigger point

Good Freaking Lord Barack Obama has a little bit of political experience - Hillary Clinton has DECADES.  Yes I know she is older then him - damn aging gave her more time to accomplish things. Maybe in a few more years Obama will have a few more accomplishments under his belt!  He is not ready plain & simple but instead people choose to undercut Clinton's experience as though this makes his lack of experience a non-issue.  It isn't about her being older then him it is just that she has decades of amazing experience that demonstrate, without a doubt, that she would be an excellent president and carry us through these horrific times.  

And btw there ARE other candidates who I think would be excellent presidents (so I'm not a Clinton only person at all); I just don't feel that way about Obama.  

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 01:16PM | 0 recs
Once again

you make a fallacious argument without any links to back up her "decades" of experience. You are confusing life experience with political experience. Tell me this, how is Obama not ready when he beat the biggest and best political machine in the United States? Why is it with all the advantages institutional and monetary that Hillary was not able to crush this "not ready" nominee?

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 01:19PM | 0 recs
But don't worry about it

I am just going to drop it. Because obviously you can't have an honest discussion without presenting your obvious bias. I will give you full disclosure. Originally I was for Edwards, then switched to Hillary. But once she began her "kitchen sink" strategy I could not continue to support her.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Once again

Uh no I am bringing in political experience that she incurred over a lifetime...

Obama was not the underdog people perceive him to be either - I've discussed this often.

And full disclosure HERE - I was an Edwards supporter - tried to like Obama (since I was a member of daily kos & only posted there FYI - so you can't get more exposed to pro- Obama info then that!) but the more I learned the less I liked him and as a lifetime admirer of Clinton, her policies, the political impact she has had I went with my conscious. As a woman it burns me up to once again see her professional achievements be degraded in a fashion that a male equivalent would never see, but it is nothing new in this world.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 02:10PM | 0 recs
You win what exactly?

Your arguments can't be to persuasive since weren't able to provide your so-called crossover pal a coherent reason or reasons NOT to vote for McCain.

Like I said, this is the information age. Get acquainted with it.

by april34fff 2008-07-10 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You win what exactly?

Uhh she ISN'T voting for McCain she is staying at home - I can't convince her to vote FOR Obama...there isn't much compelling there except he isn't the GOP. Try reading again.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 01:17PM | 0 recs
excuse me???

What the heck are you talking about?

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that I could recognize and acredit my husband's qualifications and experience as my own. That will make for quite a colorful resume, but hey, thanks for the heads up...:

:rolls eyes::

by april34fff 2008-07-10 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: excuse me???

She does have experience that people didn't talk about much. Look at what she did in Arkansas.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: excuse me???

I never said that she did NOT have experience. I was responding to the poster upthread who remarked that HRC had proven her abilities and Obama had not.

by april34fff 2008-07-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: excuse me???

Right b/c she was just an empty dress first lady with NO other political experience.

My God get an education.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:18AM | 0 recs
...you're hilarious

jrsy, I think that you just enjoy hearing the sound of your fingernails on the keyboard because you definitely aren't saying anything worthwhile.

You stated that her abilities are superior to Obama's. How so?

Why don't you back up that assertion or admit that you're a tad confused.

by april34fff 2008-07-10 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: ...you're hilarious

Yeah next I'll back up an equally wild assertion like the sky is blue - seriously anyone who makes statements that you have made are so far away when it comes to be an information based voter that I might as well justify something as equally ludicrous and obvious @@

No I don't like even engaging in these types of discussions but when I see such outright ignorance expressed I can't just walk away.  

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: ...you're hilarious

I can understand why your acquaintance decided to vote for McCain after speaking with you. What you lack in facts you make up in absurdity.

And your childish insults are downright pathetic.
Think you need a nap, dear.

by april34fff 2008-07-10 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: ...you're hilarious

Once again the fact that you made the OUTRAGEOUS statement diminishing Clinton's qualifications as being someone's wife shows you are seriously lacking when it comes to actual having a factual basis for at least one of your major opinions.  Where does one even start in responding to that??? It is dizzying. Like I said maybe start with the basics - no joke - like wikipedia and build from there. I'm not teaching someone about 30+ years of history including Watergate, the changes of the Democratic party etc. b/c you make pointed jabs @@

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: ...you're hilarious


How in heck is that statement going to do anything but pizz jrsygrl off? Honestly. If someone said that to you, when you already felt you were on the defensive, do you think you'll feel all warm and loving and say, "Well heck I see the light. I can see where agreeing with you is just going to be such a good idea for me. Why I will spend the next four years __"

Fill in the blank, dear.

Where I'm from, that would get you a polite, "Bless your heart" and the short route to the door.

And I suspect you'd do the same. Honestly what part of a 50 state, inclusive party does

"...my way or the highway..."


Case in point. "Do what I say or I won't like you and I'll hate yer dog."

It's not quite that bad but I don't have to squint too much to get it there.

LOL. Sheesh.

She don't agree with you. You're both grown ups. Reasonable people disagreeeeeee. All the time. She didn't just kick your dog. She disagreed.

Ya'll are a hoot.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: ...you're hilarious

LOL April I'm sorry.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: excuse me???


Didn't she log alot of time around the world speaking on women's issues?

During President Clinton's administration.

Seems to have been a lot of times when she took her daughter with her too.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, I wouldn't lose sleep

And btw I didn't ask you to lose sleep; it just identifies a problem with some cross over voters.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 09:37AM | 0 recs

"it just identifies a problem with some cross over"

---No just one voter. I can also name dozens of people who are the same way but instead it was the opposite. I am not too worried.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

Yeah my experiences must be the anomalies - not yours @@

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

Never claimed that. Now you are making assumptions. I pointing out that you shouldn't be too worried because that type of logic went both ways during the primary.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

That's kind of an interesting comment.

Considering that there  are folks mighty angry about Sen. Obama's percieved move to the right.

I'm not fussing at you just interesting choice of words.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

I think he is doing that in an attempt to win over voters he doesn't stand a chance in hell with.  All that will happen is will just alienate more people. It is stupid on their part (at least I hope that is all that it is & not actual beliefs). This just goes to show God knows what he will do if/when he gets into office to try & support a certain perception of himself which doesn't exist.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

Jrsygrl, Do you consider yourself a Liberal or Moderate Democrat?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

I vary but overall I am more moderate then anything else.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

Read post above.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 12:50PM | 0 recs
I live in a very

Republican county with many moderate Republicans. Many have expressed an interest in BO because they see him as a change from the way things are going. They are disgusted with their party and with John McCain. Many have told me they would never vote for Hillary but they are for sure voting for BO. Also, I have got them to help me volunteer for the campaign. So no, it's not "interesting" at all.

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I live in a very

<shrug> I have lived in several Republican counties (grew up in one) have numerous die hard Republican extended family members (hell some of them even ran on local Republican tickets before!) & they ALL said they would vote for Clinton b/c while they didn't like her they knew she was capable & things are BAD right now.  But with Obama they don't like him AND they are skeptical as to his abilities as well.  So they are either staying home or voting McCain - I think I can get them to stay home  - there is NO WAY IN HELL they would ever vote for Obama - I am one of the few members of my immediate family (read parents) which are lifelong democrats (rebelled to familial GOP roots) who is going to even vote this year for Obama b/c I feel it is our only shot. They feel he isn't capable enough to even make the effort. That is the perspective given from both lifelong Democrats (who I have had members of this blog say "well then good riddance to them who needs them" @@ when this had been discussed)& some Republicans living in a blue state who might've crossed over.

It is neither here nor there though. This is our nominee right or wrong - now we have to figure out how to sell that and/or balance the ticket.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 01:26PM | 0 recs
Well hopefully there is still time to convince

them to vote for Obama. :)

by SocialDem 2008-07-10 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Well hopefully there is still time to convince

I'm doing what I can but this brings us full circle to my initial post which is that I will not promote something I perceive to be a lie. So all I can do is share why I have decided to vote for him- which we have now discussed ad nauseum (too tired to spell correctly).

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 02:06PM | 0 recs
If you don't believe in the candidate

You can't be an effective activist/advocate for them. In 1992 I had great difficulty getting over the primaries and found it hard to work actively for Clinton (although I ultimately was able to).

What I find interesting in this primary battle is how personal it is for people.  In the end there was very little difference between them on matters of policy.

by fladem 2008-07-10 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

"You can't be an effective activist/advocate for them..."


Sometime the most effective thing you can do is ask someone why they feel the way they do.

No expert but it's been kind of tough to see folks pretty much say," But I'm a Democrat. We just disagree on the candidate of choice. That doesn't make me less or more of a Democrat."

And after all we are all Americans. :D

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

LOL FlaDem.

That would include the southern Dems too.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

" But I'm a Democrat. We just disagree on the candidate of choice. That doesn't make me less or more of a Democrat."


Doesn't seem fair that with so many folks running for the nomination that folks should be told they are more worthy or less worthy of as a Democrat because of the person they chose to support. Still Democrats and all Americans.

Plus folks are told they have to like everything about this candidate of they aren't a Democrat.

Or if they don't want to campaign, they aren't a Democrat.

After the primary campaign it's not going to happen and telling them that they aren't Democrats isn't helping matters.

I'm wondering why when the vote was so evenly split that they didn't 'court' the Sen.Clinton supporter? With all the talk about including Republican cross overs and Independents why would you tell the other 1/2 of the party "put up or shut up". And then "court" the Republicans and Independents at the risk of alienating the 1/2 of the Dem Party that DID vote for you?

I don't understand. Wonder if that's why Sen. Clinton's folks are so angry about the days after the primary?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

Don't think I've ever seen someone have quite such an intensive argument with themselves. Kind of like watching a dog bark at a traffic light.

No dishonor to your handle in that analogy

by duende 2008-07-10 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

Well never thought I was arguing with myself. Kind of looked at it as folks were grown ups and didn't need met to run around telling them what to think.


Aren't you from England?

Slightly off topic but how is this percieved in England?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

I have to say I don't always agree with your argument but I do appreciate the fact that there are at least nuances present.  I think that is important & something I try to embody.  I see it less and less today, especially in these current times. Okay back to our regularly scheduled program.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't believe in the candidate

Our country is in dire straits. I live here in the middle of all this.  We are at a critical time here & we had EXCELLENT candidates & we wind up with this. Sorry this isn't an impersonal game to me; the lives of millions of people are on the line here. This is SERIOUS so yes, of course it is personal.

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 11:22AM | 0 recs
Heh :D

There are valid reasons for her to be VP,
Not once in your diary did you mention "her" name; that's funny.

by soyousay 2008-07-10 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh :D

To mention "her" name is to wave a red flag in front of the blind bullishness of a few.

by Beren 2008-07-10 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh :D

Thanks for a ridiculous statement.

by soyousay 2008-07-10 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh :D

Your ridiculous observation deserved no less.

by Beren 2008-07-10 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh :D

Are you talking about Sen. Clinton or someone else? LOL Sorry.

Beren as I mentioned up stream. I know of a diary that not only mentioned Sen.Clinton, the VP race, Gov. of Kansas AND Sen.Obama and Edwards and Gov.Richardson and Sen. Biden and....

People disagreed but no punches were thrown nor was any blood drawn. No chairs or bottles broken.

People were actually very nice and they disagreed all over the place.

But they were fair on all sides. You could see abit of tongue biting but even then no blood.

I get that you are worried about a fuss after some of the brawls I've seen.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Heh :D

If it really matters...

I can, but the point was to keep it short.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 08:40AM | 0 recs
I see

Apparently, I was wrong. Initially, I thought that you might be trying to make the point that you have no respect for Clinton. I also thought that it was possible that the diary was just poorly written, nothing more.

by soyousay 2008-07-10 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Because Obama is doing the Jimmy Carter thing- starting off with a 30 point lead as Someone Different and turning that into a 50.1-48.5 squeaker on Election Day.  Because he's gone from supposedly being a force for the longterm Democratic agenda to conforming to a third term of dealing with the Bush agenda.

Jimmy Carter's Presidency was pretty much over after two years.  Obama's trajectory is looking about the same.

by killjoy 2008-07-10 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Don't forget about JFK.  He also had a big lead on Nixon then won by less than a percentage point on election day.  What a lousy president he turned out to be, and Obama's on the same trajectory as JFK.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-07-10 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Wasn't a two term President, either.  Needed an LBJ to do the work he couldn't/wouldn't do.
by killjoy 2008-07-10 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Uh, I think there was this little incident in Dallas which shall we say, "forced" LBJ to finish the job?

by spirowasright 2008-07-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Who is your spiro and why was he right?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:45AM | 0 recs
JFK was not especially

effective as a president.  Sure, he was widely fawned over, and he did indeed learn while in office and would probably have had a much better second term, but he brought us close to atomic war through his inexperience and naivete.  His words and actions led the Soviets to think they could succeed in planting missile launchers in Cuba.

by Montague 2008-07-11 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

How did this get rec'd?

by jelyfish 2008-07-10 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?
The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:
by iohs2008 2008-07-10 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?


Because other people agree with me. It doesn't deserve the rec's on the merits - not a wonderful piece of writing.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Once you get a list of qualified people who are similar on the issues, the best choice is the one that's a winner, in my opinion.

by freedom78 2008-07-10 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?

Beacause you people would rather cry about the primarieis and hnag your Congressional leadership out for target practice than take on the other guys.

by spirowasright 2008-07-10 09:17AM | 0 recs
Why do you keep posting these diaries?

Who is fighting the primary wars?

by catfish2 2008-07-10 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep posting these diaries?

Seriously, of course when statements like this are made I am going to defend my position.  And we wind up arguing again & flaming the battle...

by jrsygrl 2008-07-10 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep posting these diaries?

Hopefully you saw my comment upthread - thanks for your responsible comments.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep posting these diaries?

The diaries on FISA on the rec list inspired me. They were fighting the same old primary battles.

by Falsehood 2008-07-10 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?


by QTG 2008-07-10 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we fighting the primary wars again?


Sigh. But that's the thing QTG we aren't children and this is a very grown up thing.

I'm too old for this worry but the younger set will be fighting should a draft be instituted. And they will be paying for this war in taxes too.

Especially if Iran comes into the mix.

Just a thought.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-07-10 11:50AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads