Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolute Dictatorship:

Enough already you Effing Obambots get lost! BTW I am not talking about Obama supporters. I am specifically talking about Obambots that oppose dissent and act like the Taliban's "moral police". They come out of wood work calling every one that disagrees with them "racists", "dead enders" and "Trolls". Haven't we had enough of Republican Taliban? Obambots seem to think that dissent of any kind is not acceptable. As a good Democrat I would do the right thing by Obama in November but if you think I would kiss his ass and express no dissent you may as well forget it.

It is a fact that Sen. Obama has flip flopped on NAFTA, withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Campaign finance. Sen. McCain has flip flopped on many more issues. The bottom line is I support Obama because he happens to be our SOB and not theirs. End of story. I do not need to rewrite Obama's biography every time I support him.

Tags: obama (all tags)



Concern troll is concerned

Got it.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-24 04:49AM | 0 recs
Rec'd by:

RonK Seattle
Ignored and Disgusted

Engels still has rate/rec privileges?  Yeah, I won't hold my breath for Jerome to remove these peoples' ratings abilities for rec'ing personal attacks and derogatory Republican nicknames ("Obamabot").  Obama supporters' rec privileges were pulled for rec'ing far less acerbic content back during the primaries, though.

by Shem 2008-06-24 07:44AM | 0 recs
I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

Read the Diary again.

by indydem99 2008-06-24 07:48AM | 0 recs
Go back to FreeRepublic.

by Shem 2008-06-24 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

Yeah - watch me write a diary about "Clintonazis" and see how well that's received.

Your diary, and mine, would work as a quick intelligence test; anyone who recs either is a moron.

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

btw, can anyone point out a decent diary to rec so we can get this pos off the front page?  I know, I'm acting like a total secret muslim, but I can't help it.

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

That sounds an awful lot like white supremacist "not all black people are n***s" line. Troll off.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

I was thinking the same thing.  Or "not all gay people are fags" or "no, I'm talking about bull-dykes, not lesbians...

Since Obama supporters are not a historically oppressed group, it's not really comparable but  for one thing - it allows people to use offensive words and engage in group smearing.

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

It's just weak-minded cover when you know you're shooting your mouth off but can't control yourself.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

I see that KnowVox is back, and in fine ratings-abuse form.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

Dead-ender, take your comments to hillaryis44.org

by stevens7139 2008-06-24 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not call Obama supporters Obmbots!

Not all Clinton supporters are dead-enders.

Now I'm going to go right a diary about how I can't stand dead-enders who come to this website, rec diaries, spread smears and leave, and if any Clinton supporter complains I'll just say I wasn't talking about them.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:47AM | 0 recs
I was going to ignore it, but ...

... the first few comments so strongly affirmed its premise that I ended up reccing it.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-24 09:00AM | 0 recs
Like you tolerate dissent

on your pro-McCain shitstain of a website.

Your kind ain't welcome here.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 09:35AM | 0 recs
Glad you brought that up.

1. The Confluence is not a pro-McCain website.

2. The Confluence is a refuge you and like-minded made necessary, through your totalitarian determination to dictate orthodoxy by repressing expression of divergent thought.

3. In order that we may continue discuss our own views within this refuge, it's necessary to enforce stie standards vigorously against trolls, vandals and insult artists.

4. As large numbers of more aggressive disrupters have taken interest in the site, using universally-despised tactics such as sockpuppetry, it has been necessary to apply increasingly low tolerance to suspect posts.

5. You're not authorized to determine who is or isn't welcome here, any more than you are to play Thread Boss at The Confluence ... are you?

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-24 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Glad you brought that up.

I don't mean to tell you your business, but shouldn't you be out collecting donations to free the political prisoner Larry Sinclair and examining Barack Obama's birth certificate to prove that he was actually a genetically enhanced suicide bomber created by the Taliban?  Come on PUMA, let's hear you roar!  Enough with this wussy blog stuff.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-06-24 11:25AM | 0 recs
Confluence's--and your-- one purpose is to defeat

Barack Obama and enable the election of John McCain as President.

That's it.

So, yes, people willing to screw the environment, the Constitution, and our soldiers in Iraq do face an incredibly hostile atmosphere in progressive circles.

Whether this makes you a loyal McCainiac or merely one of his useful idiots is immaterial.

You are supporting Bush's tax cuts.  

You are supporting the continuation of the war in Iraq, and the start of a war with Iran.

You are supporting 2-3 more Alito's on the Supreme Court.

You are opposing meaningful healthcare reform.

Your candidate lost a primary race, and you don't care if you have to punish the entire planet to exact your petty, pathological need for revenge.

You are the enemy, regardless of what sophistry-cated bullcrap you spew on behalf of it.

Your agenda is anathema to all things progressive.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 11:30AM | 0 recs
Baseless slander.

And from you, I would expect no more and no less.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-24 01:00PM | 0 recs
So says someone determined

to aid the cause of John McCan't this fall.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 02:22PM | 0 recs
Baseless slander.

Few of The Confluence's contributing writers -- and that includes the site proprietress (riverdaughter) -- would even consider voting for McCain.

You've spent a year wallpapering the internet with all kinds of accusations against people who dared disagree with you.

You mistakenly think this is how politics is done, and you're just doing your part.

You are just setting the stage for another Republican era.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-24 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Baseless slander.

Wow the guilt is setting in for you now.

Maybe you are regretting all the help NoQuarter and RiverDaughter have given.

I can't wait for next January, it will be a cold and lonely for all the "Democratic" traitors.

Because in the end the GOP will never really accept you.    You will be just like a minority GOP member, never part of the club.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 02:45PM | 0 recs
PUMAteers are sociopaths.

They don't care how many Americans die in Iraq.

They don't care about Americans without healthcare.

They don't care about global warming.

They don't care about Hillary Clinton.

They just care about trying to tear down the Democratic nominee so they can feel some base pleasure and wag their fingers at us.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 04:32PM | 0 recs
So says a de facto Republican trying

to help get John McCain elected.  The entire point of your little band of racists, rightwing whackadoodles, and narcissists is to defeat Barack Obama in November.

Oh, by the way:

The Confluence is a member of the Just Say No Deal coalition.

Other members of this noble coalition:

http://www.republicanfeminist.blogspot.c om/

What is their agenda?

just say no deal
action links ...partially activated
share what u c...

     >  E-sign these petitions for:

     Pledging to Vote NObama

we are a coalition of millions with
one thing in common: NObama

Of course, your pitiful pumaparty is lead by a piece of shit named Will Bower who is a Larry Sinclair supporter.

The whole damn lot of you are shit.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 04:29PM | 0 recs
Deliberate, slanderous falsehood

"Friends don't let friends vote Republican"

That's riverdaughter's byword. (rd is proprietress of The Confluence.)

Geekesque believes politics is a dirty business, and plays in only one way -- dirty.

Oddly enough, the entire conservative/Republican movement depends on the general populous joining in this beleif, which predisposes them to eschew the inputs, process and outputs of politics (civic engagement, electoral participation, public debate, taxes, regulation, programs, public works and public services) and leave collective judgments to apathy and/or the market.

Progressive political change, on the other hand, depends on reservoirs of popular trust in these same elements.

Geekesque is determined to win one race (or even one argument) by deceit and abuse, even if it means poisoning the wellsprings of progressivism.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-24 06:33PM | 0 recs
These are your words. Choke on them.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/11/1 805/48884/216

<Yes, I support McCain over Obama (none / 0)</p>

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/8/15 1450/1048/225

 For similar reasons, I'll oppose Obama for any office, any time, ever ... and McCain will have my vote IF Obama is the nominee.

You are a de facto Republican.  

by Geekesque 2008-06-25 04:53AM | 0 recs
Duck and dodge, cut and paste

As is your habit.

You left this out:

I support progressive politics. I believe Obama will do irreparable harm to progressive politics, whereas McCain will only be another horrible POTUS in another dreary interval of divided government.

Now, what does this have to do with your slander against The Confluence?

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-25 07:58AM | 0 recs
You're a McCain supporter.

The window dressing you apply to it is irrelevant.  One side sit Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, and on the other side sits Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay.

You're sitting between Newt and The Hammer.

by Geekesque 2008-06-25 09:10AM | 0 recs
Does this make your lies ethical?

You foul your own nest.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-26 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I was going to ignore it, but ...

Uh, guy, you've got 'ass' in you sig.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:48AM | 0 recs
Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

and lose the dogwhistle extremist tags.

I read this place a lot, and I have not seen any Obama supporter call anyone a racist (ever?  Certainly not in recent memory).

It is impossible to dicate an open forum, fortunately.  Speak your mind, but don't be surprised if you use "Obamabot", "act like the Taliban" and "calling everyone racist" that people react strongly.  Haven't you ever had a conversation with folks who don't already hold your posistions?  Did you shout at them, too, and if so how did that work out?

Sorry, while I am massively in favor of active discussion, there is no way I can call your shouting assertive name-calling dogwhistling an effort in that direction. I was here when it was a sin to support Obama, and I did not use your tone against Sen. Clinton's most fervent supporters (or "supporters").  It's no way to conserse whatsoever.

Pot, meet kettle.


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

I have not seen any Obama supporter call anyone a racist


oh, that's a good one.  tell me another!

by SoCalVet 2008-06-24 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Instead of this useless comment, you could have provided a link (or multiple links) to actual evidence (comments that call people racist) to support your position. If they're as plentiful as your comment insinuates, it should not be a particularly difficult task.

by TCQuad 2008-06-24 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Are  you serious there were continual charges of racism against the Clintons and their supporters all spring. Because I'm a democrat I'm going to be supporting Obama but spare us the hypocisy about the nonsense spouted here on his behalf. And as for the first amendment issue I agree entirely. The Obamanauts turned Kos into a little stalinist politburo and it's not needed here. If folks want to express their opinions they should  be allowed to without the Obama thought police jumping all over them. If they are completely stupid in attacking Obama and some of them are who is going to pay any attention.    

by ottovbvs 2008-06-24 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

I wasn't here all spring. As such, all I see is a claim of something being very widespread without proof of its existence in any form. I'm not saying it didn't happen, since I wasn't here to witness it, I'm simply saying that proclaiming "continual charges of racism" is only justified when you can back it up with evidence.

by TCQuad 2008-06-24 06:41AM | 0 recs
Otto, you know by now ....

that any person who posts anything that is not in rousing praise of Obama, even if they have proclaimed their intent to vote for him, they are considered a liar if they do not provide a link.  Hell, we can state that there was a moon out last night and be told that unless we provide a link, that it did not happen.

That's how sad the discourse has become around here for folks who weren't Obama cheerleaders from day one.

by emsprater 2008-06-24 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Otto, you know by now ....

Sources are for fascists!

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Otto, you know by now ....

really?  I think links are probably necessary when the charge is of that magnitude, dontcha think?  Plus you dont need links for things that everyone knows.  Like,  fire burns - no link vs  this person called 17 people racists in the past two days - yeah, need some links for that

by KLRinLA 2008-06-24 08:36AM | 0 recs

There weren't continuous charges of racism against the Clintons and her supporters on this site all spring. There were discussions of racial issues in the Clinton campaign. There were a shit ton of Clinton supporters who responded to these discussions by assuming that the discussion itself had as its goal to declare them racist. Over and over and over again a Clinton supporter would write "I'm tired of being told I'm racist because I'm not voting for Obama" and over and over again Obama supporters would ask for an example of that Clinton supporter being told they were racist for not voting for Obama. Examples were rarely provided, and when they were they usually involved the poster saying something, well, at the very least racially problematic.

The notion that all Clinton supporters were constantly being accused of racism on this site is one of the stronger collective delusions I've witnessed. It just wasn't happening. They would bring it up constantly, but I never saw a post accusing a Clinton supporter of being racist because they didn't vote for Obama, (rather than, say, because they wrote a diary about uppity black men). Maybe it happened once and then it turned into the "vietnam vets spit on in airports" of this primary campaign, where despite the lack of documentation people come to believe that the experience was common.

by Mobar 2008-06-24 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree

Hard core Clintonistas claim they hav been spit on this primary season by Obama suporters.

And BTW, I called Catfish2 a racist because she is one.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-24 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Only one, and I mean only one, campaign has used race in this election. That campaign is the agent of change, the new kind of politics, Barack Obama.

by Newport News Dem 2008-06-24 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Wow, thats deep man,  I never looked at it that way.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

That's right.  And you know who the real criminals are?  The police.  Oh can I get a hit off that?

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

...and Dog spelled backwards, maaaaannnnnn...

by fogiv 2008-06-24 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

That's not even remotely accurate.

Yes, Obama talked about race. Gave a whole speech on it.

But talking about "white working class voters" is talking about race. Race isn't just talking about African Americans and their issues. Talking about white voters and concerns that are stereotypically "white" is actually things along a racial divide, which by definition is using race in an election. This election was filled with discussion of ethnicities, whether it was Clinton's aforementioned white working class voters, to Hispanic voters and even to Clinton's talks to African American voters.

It's not racist, it's not bad, it's just the way politics works. We divide people based on easy to define terms (race, gender, income, location, occupation) and then try to address their concerns based on the issues most common to their particular group.

by TCQuad 2008-06-24 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

By "used race", do you mean "ran for President while black"?

by fogiv 2008-06-24 07:48AM | 0 recs
The facts...

...disagree with you.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-24 08:06AM | 0 recs
I'll match you reference for ref

if you want...

this one by redstatelib is a clear and resonable statement about wanting to rid the world of sexism, by one of the most vociferous folks claiming to have supported Sen. Clinton:

Let's face it if Obama had a Pair of Balls he would not have needed the sexism that was used against Hillary. But when a man doesn't even wear the pants in his family he has to act like a mans man when he goes out in public. He lapped up every word of it! They call it overcompensating.

Here's a direct "sexist Obama" comment.

Here's a direct accusation against Obama supporters - Obama supporters are sexist and violent.

Here's one against Sen. Obama himself

And another.

And another.

And another.

Your turn.


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

VENICIAN - IF you're dissent against Obama- You are a Racist (** "alive" - that's me he addresses below):

Venician quote: "I'm begining to think what "alive"  is really concerned about is a black man having all the power that has usually been reserved for white men. White men from the south appear to be running scared these day of just what will a black man do with all that power, and will he use it to exact revenge against the slave states."

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-24 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder
How much did you pay VENICIAN to write that?  This is bout the 20th time you have posted it.  
by Blue Neponset 2008-06-24 06:02AM | 0 recs
Wow, even when links are ...

provided, they are summarily dismissed by the folks who simply will not submit that reality is 'real'.

by emsprater 2008-06-24 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Gee, are you still trying to push my comment about your fears. I accused you of being afraid not of being a racist, and it was in relation to your entire posting history here and not on one diary. But you know that and are just trying to rile people up, AS USUAL.

by venician 2008-06-24 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

do the back stroke now. But you posted that about me in a dairy asking for FISA be filibuster by obama.

why don't you have the guts to stand by your intent i.e if you dont buy a set of knee pads for obama like you, you are a racist white man.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-24 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

I'll happily admit calling texasdarlin and teresain PA racists - but then, they are, as their subsequent deranged postings at NoQuarter and the like have proved.  

by interestedbystander 2008-06-24 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

But they are.

I want a link to where anyone anywhere called the Clintons racist.  I haven't seen it, but I've heard people complain about it.  Oh god do they complain.

Of course Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are constantly accused of sexism.  This isn't even the most recent example, but right after Larry Sinclair held his disastrous press-conference, NoQuarter, where TeresainPA and SoCal hang out and burn crosses were scrambling for more dirt.  The best they could come up with?

Barack Obama had copies of Maxim on his plane.

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

the diary that I was called out and was taunted by another poster here to call him a n**** was deleted.

but I remember it and several people came to my defense.

it was horrific.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-24 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

I'm sure it was.

Are you aware of the joke that "it's not racist unless you say the n word"?  Used when someone starts ranting about racial stuff and no one calls them on it or they're defended.  Think Harriet Christian - I might make the joke "hey, it's not racist.  She never used the 'n' word!"

(There's also "the Mark Fuhrman exception" - that's "It's not racist if there's any other even slightly plausible explanation.")

I know your posting history pretty well though; I can't imagine anyone accusing you of racism.  And I'm sure you understand why people think SoCal is, well, she doesn't think very higly of non-whites.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

Not a fan of objectifying humans, as I have diared and said often enough.

Even is someone does harbor biased thoughts, you cannot sway them by stamping them with a label.

Hate the sin, love the sinnner.


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 04:23PM | 0 recs

send me an email if and when you get a chance.  I have an idea that I would like to bounce off you.


by linc 2008-06-25 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

OMG - I was called that and the poster was daring me to call him a n***

and yes, that was within the last month of the primaries.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-24 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Good grief, get the chip off your shoulder

If it makes you feel any better I got called 'a misogynist' a bunch of times when I had a gender neutral username.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:55AM | 0 recs
Andwhile I am here

If you are such a strong Democrat, why haven't you or anyone else arguing your point made a single positive comment to future Congressman Welsh on his diary right here?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/23/2344 30/090

Here's a guy that can use our support, and he came here to talk to us.  If you care about MyDD like I do, then you would drop in, Rec him, and give him some words of encouragement.


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 05:03AM | 0 recs
Thanks for bringing to my attention!

I recced the diary.

by indydem99 2008-06-24 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing to my attention!

Thanks!  That kind of thing is what we should be about.

Mojoed. ;-)

by chrisblask 2008-06-24 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for bringing to my attention!

I'll take this as a tip jar for your crybaby diary.

by John in Chicago 2008-06-24 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

A flip flop is what George H.W. Bush did on taxes, or McCain did on immigration, and it's just not reasonable to argue as if Obama's conduct on NAFTA, Iraq, or campaign finance rises to this level (esp. since the first two allegations are sourced, essentially, to the comments of advisers which have appeared in unfriendly media, and the third is something we've known would happen for quite some time, and we could have an argument about whether Obama ever gave the pledge you seem to think he did).  

Of the three, the NAFTA story, to me, is the, well, funniest, because the whole accusation is grounded in Clinton's pandering gymnastics during the primaries.  It's a simple issue, really.  Do you think any Democrat would withdraw the US from NAFTA?  Will never happen (and to the extent Clinton held this out as a possibility to some voters, well, you got taken in, she would have never done this).  Should aspects of the NAFTA treaty be renegotiated, though?  This is boilerplate.  Obama has said nothing which should lead one to conclude he wouldn't do this.


by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-24 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

It appears that withdrawing from agreements won't be necessary to end the global economy.  High energy costs will do that for us.

I recently heard on the radio that a battery manufacturer in Ohio had moved most of it's operations to Mexico.  Well, it's back in Ohio.  Why?  They figured out that the high cost of transportation from Mexico to their market WAS NOT offset by low labor rates in Mexico.

Regarding shipping cheap goods from China.  In the year 2001, the cost to ship a container load of goods from China was around $2000.  Today it is over $8000.  If oil goes to $200/barrel, the cost will be $13,000.

High fuel cost is an unforeseen side effect of global trade, with business running anywhere and everywhere for cheap labor.  Among all these geniuses, none of them saw it coming.  Interestingly enough, an average idiot like me predicted it years ago.  And the investment houses are filled with fools that believe that the huge growth in these emerging markets will continue unabated while demand continues to skyrocket.  We'll see about that.

And on topic with the original post, I have pretty much stopped posting on blogs.  I got tired of being told by Obama supporters to not let the door hit me in the azz on the way out...

by Dave B 2008-06-24 05:34AM | 0 recs
yawn, you'll be back

that's what I believe ;-)

I know a friend who picked up some tool and die stuff for a song.

Now the real question is what we're going to do with all the subprime houses in the exurbs.

)the demand continuing in China/India is a question based on whether or not they have enough consumer power at home(

by RisingTide 2008-06-24 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

Of course we are not going to pull out of Nafta nor should we, but all year the Obamanauts have been proclaiming it as a pact with the devil by Bill Clinton which tainted his wife and his whole administration. And Obama claimed he was going to renegotiate it. Now it's apparent that was bs his supporters say it doesn't matter. It wouldn't if they hadn't used it as a smear against Bill C. just like all the racist claptrap they were wallowing in. Give me a break please. Stalin could have given some of you guys jobs rewriting history.

by ottovbvs 2008-06-24 06:30AM | 0 recs

Is that comment meant to be taken seriously? Stunningly prone to exaggeration, aren't you?

by sricki 2008-06-24 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

No, this is you being silly.  NAFTA wasn't a big issue in this election until the Texas/Ohio primaries.  Hillary Clinton turned it into one because she wanted to win over the working class vote in Ohio (while sending a totally different message to voters in Texas, where NAFTA is popular).  

I don't think it's clear at this point whether the whole Goolspee flap was fortunate coincidence or deliberate set up, but Clinton tried to campaign as if there were enormous differences between the two, and here's the truth--the two candidates had basically the same position!

You're holding onto talking points from the primaries (which the Republicans, amusingly, are trying to resurrect in order to portray Obama as a flip flopper, though I don't think this is going to work).

As for revising history, are you seriously going to claim that Hillary Clinton wasn't a strong supporter of NAFTA out of the gate, and played the usual politician's game during an election of telling voters what she thought they wanted to hear (I'm older than 20, btw, and followed the original debate on NAFTA rather closely, so I still find it kind of funny that she got away with as much as she did).

But c'mon, this is politics, and not at a very high level.  I'm not accusing either candidate of rank dishonesty.  If this was the worst sort of deception voters had to deal with I'd say there was no cause for alarm.

I'll sum up my position on all of this.  Yes, Democrats have a right, even a duty, to hold Obama accountable for his actions during the campaign and, if elected, in government.  But you have to drop the posture people adopted during the primaries, where the candidate who wasn't your first preference gets no benefit of the doubt.

On NAFTA and Iraq, Obama, clearly, hasn't done anything which constitutes backtracking.  Once he's elected these issues will come up again.  If you don't do this, though, you're basically doing the GOP's work for them.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

Wow, you totally just took the words out of my mouth.  That's pretty much how it happened.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:56AM | 0 recs
Your concerns have been noted


by libertyleft 2008-06-24 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy

"I'm going to compare some anonymous internet posters to the Taliban, and then decry their lack of perspective and objectivity WHILE COMPARING THEM TO THE TALIBAN."

by really not a troll 2008-06-24 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy

Heh.  Well done!

by fogiv 2008-06-24 07:55AM | 0 recs

I do not see these people of whom you speak.

by Mandoliniment 2008-06-24 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: SOB?

That's right leave His Mother out of this. The correct statement should read:

He may be a political whore but he is our political whore.

by RedstateLib 2008-06-24 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: SOB?

Ok I would make it sweeter! An adorable SOB that is "likable enough".

by indydem99 2008-06-24 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: SOB?

Nope, that's still really offensive.  I don't remember any "Obamabots" going that low against Hillary.  Sexism shouldn't be tolerated here, whether it be against Obama, Obama's mother, or Hillary.

by OVAH 2008-06-24 05:41AM | 0 recs
totally obvious

This type of post is so totally obvious in it's attempt to sow disunity, that I'm not even going to comment about it.

by pollbuster 2008-06-24 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: totally obvious
But didnt you just comment?
by anujtron 2008-06-24 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: totally obvious

But only to say I'm not going to comment, so it's not really a comment, even though it's a comment. i hope this comment clears up the issue of the non-comment-comment.

by pollbuster 2008-06-25 06:13AM | 0 recs
&quot;Son of a bitch&quot;?!?!

Sexism is still alive and well I see.

by HardWorkingWhitePerson 2008-06-24 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu


by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 05:49AM | 0 recs
this made the wreck list

with 5 recs.  fucking pathetic

Ignored and Disgusted

by annatopia 2008-06-24 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: this made the wreck list

Big surprise since GrlPatriot is a known McCain operative.

Funny how there was a day when McCain advocates were warned they would be banned.

Lotta respect for Todd, but they went soft.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

This made the rec list?

Can you please up the snark? I loved the bit about moral Taliban.

by duende 2008-06-24 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy

Yes It is ridiculous nonsense to respond to any post criticizing Obama with "dogwhistle." WTF is that? All the obamabots should stop it!

by whothere 2008-06-24 05:59AM | 0 recs
Respectufly disagree

We have to have a lexicon of some sort, and "dogwhistle" is a word that fits accurately and fairly, imho.

DogWhistles raise hackles.  There are sets of words/phrases that are sure to raise hackles, and the use of which is sure to kill honest debate.  I think I know which ones not to use with those who supported Sen. Clinton's primary battle, and with some exceptions those dogwhistles aren't blown very often. I can say from my personal perspective that there are a number of dogwhistles that are surefire hackle-raisers, and that these are used early and often.  This diary contains several.

It's like if I walked into the livingroom of a friend's house who was a southern hunting and fishing good ole fellow, all his buddies were sitting there playing poker, and I said:

"Hey guys. I was just wondering how you all felt about the fact that rednecks are such a bunch of hate filled racists?  Does it make you feel funny knowing that everyone understands that you are ignorant uneducated bigots?  I'd love to talk to you about your views on the failures your white-trash parents made raising you so I can avoid making them myself."

ummm...   Might not be the best opener...


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing

To the extent that some here have been, shall we say, overzealous in weeding out those who are here under false pretenses, fine you've got a point.

But let's not pretend you've been particularly warm and fuzzy yourself.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-24 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy

recced with 5 people.


That'll show the Baquack Obamailures

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-24 06:01AM | 0 recs
Just checking before I HR you

Was that snark or did you just manage to insult Sen. Obama and every single person supporting him?

by chrisblask 2008-06-24 06:07AM | 0 recs
The price of snark is eternal vifiliance ;-)

ok, just looked at your other comments. my bad.

"The snark in this one strong is."


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

It is a fact that Sen. Obama has flip flopped on NAFTA, withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Campaign finance.
It's a fact, huh?  Then you should have no problem linking me to the clear, unqualified, unarguable contradictions in his statements on those matters.  Anything that can be explained or understood in a larger context or nuance does not qualify, because you are making a statement of fact - and on matters like this, facts need to be things that are unarguable and objectively so.

Support your claims, retract them, or be known as a liar.  Your choice.

by mistersite 2008-06-24 06:09AM | 0 recs
How does this make the Rec. List?

Has MyDD been completely taken over by Republican Operaiton Chaos types?

by nightsweat 2008-06-24 06:23AM | 0 recs
well from the troll rating

That's one identified.

by nightsweat 2008-06-24 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: well from the troll rating

Yes pretty sad.

Watch out for GrlPatriot, she works for the McCAin front "PUMA"

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 06:35AM | 0 recs
I cut grlpatriot slack notwhistanding

her Alegre Cult membership card.

Think she is a sincere Offended Post Primary person.

Amazingly hard to tell the difference, though.  This whole Verifiying Veracity in the Blogosphere issue has me mulling bigtime...

by chrisblask 2008-06-24 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I cut grlpatriot slack notwhistanding

Dude, look at her post yesterday, she was confirming she was 100% with PUMA, and she is voting for McCain.

Now maybe she might be faking it, but I stopped at the former smear merchant of this site, TD and there was GRLpatriot, talking Puma strategies.   She does the same at Riverdaughter.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I cut grlpatriot slack notwhistanding

Yeah, the PUMA tag is accurate, thought after I wrote that I wasn't really clear.  I very much doubt she is a (is there a descriptive phrase yet?) "GOP PUMA?" (PUMA plant?  Fake PUMA?).

The whole topic is confusing.  I wobble back and forth between "well, you are working against me so take that!" to "maybe there is a conversation to be had with a possible positive outcome"...

In battle you in the end have to identify who is on your side and who is not, but it doesn't mean hating the other side's soldiers.  I have a hard time feeling personally negative about grlpatriot, but if it comes to an exchange of fire I won't be waving a white flag either.


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 07:41AM | 0 recs
TRed with no explanation, Xov Wonk?


by chrisblask 2008-06-24 05:06PM | 0 recs
Why is this on the rec list?

And don't you think calling people "Obamabots" is just as offensive as calling someone a "dead-ender"?

by sricki 2008-06-24 06:24AM | 0 recs
Thank you so much for your vote for Sen. Obama.

That's the right attitude to have if you dislike him.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-24 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Diarist's point aside, does anyone else find the term "Obambots" (or "Obamatons," etc.) EXTREMELY condescending and offensive?  What is this Free Republic?

I realize the diarist is trying to draw a distinction between the "good" Obama supporters and the big bad "Obambots," but I think use of the term at all should be considered trolling.

I'm all for a debate on the issues and heathy criticism of our candidate, but can we quit with the childish name calling?

by agl25 2008-06-24 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

For a diary that began with "Enough already you Effing Obambots get lost!" and ended by calling our nominee an SOB, you're being too kind.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 08:59AM | 0 recs
I don't necessarily agree with the way you

presented your case, but I do generally agree with your message and I do see that two of the most egregious offenders showed up in the comments pretty quickly.

by aggieric 2008-06-24 06:29AM | 0 recs
i wan just about to say the same thing.

by canadian gal 2008-06-24 06:33AM | 0 recs
Yea! I'm an agregious offender!

Better to be misread than not read at all, I suppose.



by chrisblask 2008-06-24 06:47AM | 0 recs
You weren't on my list, actually.

But I'll be happy to start keepin' an eye out for ya! :-p

by aggieric 2008-06-24 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into

I feel like I walked into the middle of an argument between a crazy person and a fire hydrant.

by rfahey22 2008-06-24 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into

The fire hydrant always wins those arguments.

by Black Anus 2008-06-24 09:26AM | 0 recs
Well, not if the hydrant is in argument with a

crazy dog.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 09:43AM | 0 recs
Sure it does.

It gets peed on, but it isn't the one that scampers off growling.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 09:53AM | 0 recs
And for those that don't follow crazy talk...

...here's an abridged translation:

1. I'm concerned that when I call people "effing Obambots" and tell them to "get lost", they neither obey my dictums nor acknowledge my rhetorical brilliance.

2. I'm concerned that my personal views and fantasies aren't blindly accepted as fact.

3. I'm concerned that my claims about their name calling aren't given much credence despite my own compulsive name calling.

4. I'm concerned when I can't refute just about compelling point deeply incisive comebacks like "youse guys did Hillary worse, so there!"

5. Mostly I'm concerned that whenever I come across fire hydrants, I just see RED.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots changing MYDD into Dictatorship
agreed 100%.
they already hiding most of my comments, they forced me to declare the writer strike - i did not publish any diary here since Hillary suspend here campaign - i value my time and i have better things to do.
Almost all diaries here now just dkos-like boring songs about how cool our Mao/Obama is and how great the victory in November will be.
i have no any wish to be involved with cult, so i let them talk their so called "progressive" wordstream.
mydd in my eyes lost purpose and traffic and if obamabots think that this is helpful - god (if he exists) bless them.
I kept repeating for ages that intolerance means cult and cult means end of any democracy.
I guess this is a ultimate goal of Obama Party.
by engels 2008-06-24 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots changing MYDD into Dictatorship

Yea, Engels is Back!  

Buddy, we like you so much we would never HR you, you are too entertaining.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots changing MYDD into Dictatorship


Sorry, couldn't help myself.  He's pathetic but his post deserved an HR.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-24 07:08AM | 0 recs

for the mao comment.  go away.

by annatopia 2008-06-24 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots changing MYDD into Dictatorship


Please write a new diary, As you can see with this diary, anti-Obama (anti-cult) works can get on the Rec.List.

I promise to rec. whatever you write!

MyDD needs you!

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-24 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamabots changing MYDD into Dictatorship

What's about this whole line of argument is the intense devotion which many of Clinton's supporters have to them on the basis of family (ie. the dynasty issue).  Wish I could remember who said it, but a commentator on NPR (and one who was generally sympathetic) said that Hillary Clinton's speech at the National Building Museum reminded him of events he'd seen in places like Colombia and Afghanistan--the warlord's turning out of the troops (ie. let me show how many are loyal to me and my family).  Have we reached a point where Clinton's supporters can acknowledge that for many this is part of their appeal? (and this isn't unique to them, eg. the Kennedy clan, the Bushes).  

The cult accusation is insipid--cults aren't large--the charge which might have some merit is that Obama is a fad (sort of like the Beatles in '64, and yet one wouldn't claim their music from that period had no charm or transcendent quality).  Since it's basically just an insult use of the word "cult", at this point, should be retired (or, by all means, join the Republicans, they're really good at this sort of talk, though you might have to bite your lip when your comrades in arms start talking about the "Hildebeast" and so on, but hey, small price, and in some other ways you'll probably feel more at home).  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-24 07:12AM | 0 recs
Oh, engels, you glorious troll


by Poor Yorick 2008-06-24 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, engels, you glorious troll

that's the worst you could find?

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 09:58AM | 0 recs
No, but it's the one that really matters

Saying "I won't vote for Obama" then sowing discord in a diary is qualification for trolldom.

And I'm saving it with the rest of my collection of quotables from some of our favorite drones at MyDD to be used as needed.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-24 10:07AM | 0 recs
Ask your mommy

To put your binkie back in your mouth and take your computer away for a week.  

This piece of shit made the Rec list?  Damn place has gone to the dogs.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
More recently, lobbying = trolling !
If you push for who / what you want, or dis who / what you don't want, in advance of a decision, it's immediately dismissed as trolling.  
It's bad enough when post facto dissent became verbotten.
Now, we can't even express an advance preference, but must silently await instructions from Dear Leader.
by kosnomore 2008-06-24 06:59AM | 0 recs

for comparing obama to bush.

by annatopia 2008-06-24 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

I can see that, but it's not so much that Bush and Obama are to be compared, but rather the type of political discourse put in place by the folks who believe in each politician.

Compare the way the folks who supported Bush early on reacted to any dissenting voice, or for that matter, any simply tepid voice, and you will see eerie similarities in the way Obama supporters now react to thos who dissent or those who are tepid in their discussion of Obama.

Its not the politicians themselves who are similar, it's the movement and the people they inspire.

I dare say of the "Dixie Chicks" made any disparaging remark about Obama, as they did with Bush, we would see the exact same movement against them put into place, just by different folks.

by emsprater 2008-06-24 07:22AM | 0 recs
Maybe we'd call the Dixie Chicks

Judas.  The contortions Clinton supporters put themselves through to ride that high horse look pretty painful.

by JJE 2008-06-24 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe we'd call the Dixie Chicks

Well, If you think I am being a 'Judas' by already declaring my intent to vote for Obama, then you can just go .... talk a barefoot walk in your local dog park.

I had a point, you obviously didn't like it, but it was there, and it was substantive, timely and true.

by emsprater 2008-06-24 07:30AM | 0 recs
No, it was stupid and false

The Judas reference was to Carville's comment about Richardson.  Sorry you didn't get it.

The larger point is that Clinton supporters like to flatter themselves by acting as though Obama supporters are intolerant Bushies, while ignoring that many Clinton supporters behaved just as egregiously.  If you ever tried commenting at TalkLeft, No Quarter, Taylor Marsh, or Corrente as an Obama supporter you'd understand that.  But acknowledging that the Clinton side was just as bad would hinder your ability to feel superior and self-righteous so I'm sure you won't.

by JJE 2008-06-24 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was stupid and false

The Obama supporters that won't let go of their hatred for all Clinton supporters continually bring up No Quarter, Hillary Is44 and the like to bash any Clinton supporter about the head with, even if we have bluntly stated on this very site that we do not visit and have never visited those sites, and I have myself here on this blog renamed the PUMA nuts "Selfish Obnoxious Whiners (SOW)", and yet you bash me for those folks.

I think you very dutifully and forcefully  showed a very great example of my very point.

I think 'self righteous' must be something in your morning fare.

by emsprater 2008-06-24 08:17AM | 0 recs
Nice dodge

But I'm not buying it.  I pointed out that some Hillary supporters are just as bad as you complain Obama supporters to be.  Rather than just admit you were wrong, you whined about bringing up No Quarter et. al.  That's not a responsive argument.

If you're going to insult all Obama supporters thusly:

I can see that, but it's not so much that Bush and Obama are to be compared, but rather the type of political discourse put in place by the folks who believe in each politician.

Compare the way the folks who supported Bush early on reacted to any dissenting voice, or for that matter, any simply tepid voice, and you will see eerie similarities in the way Obama supporters now react to thos who dissent or those who are tepid in their discussion of Obama.

you are going to get it thrown back at you.

I try to be careful to distinguish between the No Quarter crowd on one hand, and reasonable Clinton supporters.  That's because, unlike you, I am interested in actual discussion, rather than stupid insults directed at large groups of people that serve no purpose other than stoking your sense of moral superiority.

by JJE 2008-06-24 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was stupid and false

I appreciate the fact that you don't visit NoQuarter, TalkLeft, Hillaryis44, etc.

That's got nothing to do with anything though.  The point is that many Clinton supporters do, and as long as enough members of the set "Clinton supporters" do, other members of that group cannot claim the moral high ground on the question of whose supporters are the biggest assholes.

Which is a good thing, because it's a boring argument.  You recced the diary though, so welcome to it.  I, and many others will bash you over the head with Larry Johnson every time you make blanket assertions about Obama supporters.  The fact that you personally never visit those sites is irrelevant.

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: No, it was stupid and false

so what if "some" HRC supporters (or those who claim they are) go to those sites? How the fuck does that relate to anyone who does not except as a handful of poo for you to fling at people no matter if it really applies or not? All you reply does is show that you have no interest in civil discourse and in fact makes you seem very McLame-like.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-24 12:11PM | 0 recs
Taylor Marsh is one of the good guys


I'm not a fan of her primary work, but she's playing for the right team nowadays.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

You know I would agree with you htat it appears peole are sensitive about attacks on Obama here, but I htink it is the type of criticism that has been thrown at him lately that is supporters believe they need to correct or suppress.

For instance, most of the people that Recc'd this diary don't have valid criticisms of Obama.  THey come in and bring up primary stuff, which isn't based on fact but based on perceived emotional slights and sometimes things that didn't happen or were only briefly reported on Freeper sites.  And this is usually done with the effort to sow disunity.  When it comes to FISA, people were allowed their criticisms, however, I for instances would counter by saying we should wait to see what efforts he puts forth to strip immunity from the bill.  I am not supressing, I am entiteld to my point.  I was told by an ardent Obama supporter that Obama could have done more by advocating to House members and taking a "this bill will not stand approach"

If people diagree with anyones critcism of Obama they are allowed to do that too.  I think this diary is funny because it says "If you react or try to debate any criticism no matter of the content or veracity, you should go away"  Its like, how dare you smother my comments by speaking!"  Kind of ironic, no?

And yeah, I think the ardent Obama supporters would feel more comfortable with civil debate if these typical Obama criticizers directed some of their time and effort against our common opponent  once in a while.

by KLRinLA 2008-06-24 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

way off-topic post there. Considering this diary is not really about BHO but is about the bad behavior of some of the people who claim to support him who then proceed to plant division and push as many people AWAY from him and the Democratic party as you can. Now try to address the actual diary and you might find something to talk about.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-24 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

Umm, read the diary again, the first part talks about dissneting opinions and I give my take on it.  The last para gets in some nice flip-flop about Obama.

What were you saying again?

by KLRinLA 2008-06-24 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

that you are doing it again? taking stuff out of context, conflating situations and basically blowing out your butt? Would it be called a flip-flop if McLame did the exact same thing? Well, yes. So tha does make it an open question and a legitimate topic no matter what your feelings are. In any case it did not dwell on any of those topics and yes is aimed at ao-called supporters like you and a few others who continue to act as bullies.

Sorry to inject reality into one of your "discussions"

by zerosumgame 2008-06-24 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: HRed

Oh yeah, I forgot, I was trying to engage into a discussion with empsrater as well, we're allowed to do that right?  You are not trying to suppress my comments are you?

by KLRinLA 2008-06-24 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Hey Indydem, how about fuck you? Fuck you and your condescending, fact free, bitter, woe-is-me, pathetic diary.

You and your ilk are always just itching for a fight, aren't ya?

What kind of asshole cries and pisses and moans about being treated badly and at the same time accuses people of being robots and likens them to the Taliban?

Apparently, Indydem is just that kind of asshole.

by John in Chicago 2008-06-24 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Opinions are like Assholes, MYdd is full of both :)

du dun chhhh  (sound effects)

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-24 07:07AM | 0 recs
And both opinions and assholes...

... are frequently full of the same brown substance.

Take this diary, as a case in point.

by tbetz 2008-06-24 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Isn't that precious?  If someone gets mad and tells an Obama supporter to 'fuck off', they get HR into oblivion, yet tell someone who is making a point not so in favor of Obama to 'fuck off' and you get mojo out the rectum!


by emsprater 2008-06-24 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

John in Chicago actually said 'fuck you' not 'fuck off' to Indydem, so they must be good buddies.

Love the intended double irony of your rectum mention. I'm mojoing you both for managing to spin a fight out of such unpromising dross.

This diary is funnier than Ragekage's snark

by duende 2008-06-24 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

I can only speak for myself...

I gave him Mojo because I agree with him; this diary doesn't belong on the rec list.  The artful way in which he said it only made the rating easier to give.  You have to see the humor in it, I suppose.

Let's face it, most of us have tired of the bickering here.  And this diary only serves one purpose, to further divide us.  I'll Mojo anyone who calls out an obvious troll.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-24 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Shhh. Don't let on that you're aware of the conspiracy. Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get you.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-24 08:51AM | 0 recs
I am nicer to Obama than people of your Ilk

would been towards Hillary!

by indydem99 2008-06-24 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I am nicer to Obama than people of your Ilk


by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I am nicer to Obama than people of your Ilk

And how did you know that? Did you pull your head out of your ass long enough to peer into your crystal ball?

by John in Chicago 2008-06-24 08:59AM | 0 recs
I agree

with your premise. I don't agree with your use of the obamabot word and I don't like the flip flop term being used. Once again we are using the righties words - deadenders and flipflop both made popular by the rigties.

by kevin22262 2008-06-24 07:23AM | 0 recs
Have some cheese.


by JDF 2008-06-24 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some cheese.

pssst, lest you think I ingnored your question in an old thread:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/23/1 44151/602/23#23


by fogiv 2008-06-24 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some cheese.

Thanks for the heads up ;-)

And for the response.
I am sorry I didn't get to look at it sooner, but work has been a killer lately (and will only get worse as we get closer to election day.)

by JDF 2008-06-24 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Have some cheese.

No worries.  I have an irrational fear of leaving people hanging.  :)

by fogiv 2008-06-24 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

Diaries like this serve one good purpose. They draw out the trolls. The rec list and misuse of ratings in these diaries makes it clear who wants to see the Democratic party and candidate hurt.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-24 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

If the Mods actually took action, you'd be right.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-24 07:34AM | 0 recs
Let me tell you a thing or too.

It's not about Obama!  It's about getting a Democrat in the White House this year.  I have waited 8 years to be rid of the dishonest, greedy, sociopathic and incompetent Republicans in our government.  I didn't know until a month or so ago who would be the Democratic candidate but I knew one thing.  I would support that candidate in every way until that candidate got elected.

So get over any lingering anger you have from the primary battle because this is not the time for Democrats to start bickering among themselves.  It's the time to muster the troops to win the GE.

You have a quibble about the approach to this policy or that one or want to tweak something?  After we win in November, feel free to write a strongly worded letter or make up some placards and march around in front of the White House or write a diary on the blogs...whatever.

But now is not the time.  I repeat, our mission is to get a Democratic president this year...we must weigh everything we say or do publicly against that mission statement.  Does it help achieve our mission or not?  If not, don't say or do it.

by GFORD 2008-06-24 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me tell you a thing or too.

"Does it help achieve our mission or not?  If not, don't say or do it."

Shades of Ari Fleischer:

There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

I have substantive reasons for wanting a Democrat in the White House, I will not sacrifice those reasons for any man or mission.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 07:43AM | 0 recs
Now you are confusing me.

wanting a Democrat in the White House

Is that not our mission?

I will not sacrifice those reasons for any man or mission

You will not sacrifice our mission for our mission?  That's where you lost me.

As for sacrifice the mission for the man...the mission precedes the man and the mission overpowers the man.  It might have been Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or even Gravel who became our candidate.  Our mission would still be the same.  It is Obama and it still is the same.

I realize that our long-term mission goes beyond November.  In the long run this election is simply a stepping stone to achieve the long term goals.  But in the short term winning it becomes our mission and we can't proceed onwards until we achieve it.

by GFORD 2008-06-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Now you are confusing me.

The ends do not justify the means, the means must justify themselves. I am not willing to abandon free and open discourse for the sake of electing Barack Obama, just as I am not willing to sacrifice free and open discourse for the sake of fighting terrorism, as Ari Fleischer implied we should do.

"don't say or do it" implies a sacrifice of more freedom than I am willing to give up.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 08:19AM | 0 recs
you don't care about free and open discourse

you just want to be able to say whatever stupid and insulting thing you please without getting called on it.

by JJE 2008-06-24 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: you don't care about free and open discourse

I don't think he wants to say anything.  He never posts.  

by Jess81 2008-06-24 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: you don't care about free and open discourse

Bingo. Multiply that by however many recs this diary gets.

by BobzCat 2008-06-24 09:41AM | 0 recs
You have missed the point.

The mission began at the very least in 2004 but for me it began in 2000.

 I am not willing to abandon free and open discourse for the sake of electing Barack Obama

It looks to me like your dislike for Obama is greater than your desire to win back the WH.  If you look through my arguments, I never mention Obama for a reason.  I have wanted to win this year long before I ever even heard of the man.

As flawed as you may think our candidate is, look at it this way.  The Republicans are forced to defend John McCain in order to hang on to the WH for their party.  This is a clash between two political parties, two distinct political ideologies.  And I want ours to prevail.

by GFORD 2008-06-24 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: You have missed the point.

The "mission" in your sense began for me in 1990, when I first worked for the Democratic party. But I've been fighting Republicans since Nixon. That fight has never prevented me from criticizing Democrats when I think they are wrong, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in this election cycle.

Self or group censoring is stupid because it interferes with our ability to understand how to win, that is what I take to be the diarist's point. But regardless as a private citizen I will never abandon free and open discourse for the sake of any candidate, party or mission because it is a fundamental principle for me, it is part of why I am a Democrat. My desire to win does not overwhelm my principles.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You have missed the point.

Was their anything that prevented you from writing what you just wrote?  I don't think you understand what censorship is.  I don't even think you understand the difference between "being able to talk" and "not being able to talk".

This has nothing to do with censorship.  This is all about a desire to say whatever people want to say and not have it be argued with.  Which is never going to happen.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You have missed the point.

GFORD's standard is "our mission is to get a Democratic president this year...we must weigh everything we say or do publicly against that mission statement. Does it help achieve our mission or not?  If not, don't say or do it."

To me that is a call for self-censorship. It is in response to this diary, which is opposed to group censorship. Obama has taken and will take positions I disagree with in this election, and I will criticize him for those positions. My criticism may not help elect Obama, but I will not keep silent about issues that are important to me and, I believe, important to Democrats.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 10:28AM | 0 recs
I really do appreciate your position.

You have a right to express yourself.  But if what you have to say seems like its intent is to sow dischord in our party at a time when we need to be pulling together, expect me or someone like me to call you out for it.  Some of us are hell-bent on winning this year.

by GFORD 2008-06-24 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I really do appreciate your position.

Thanks, and I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I've been as hard as anyone on 2000 Naderites, but that didn't prevent me from criticizing Gore during the election.

I'll do my best to criticize from within the party, but I can't promise to swallow my tongue. I have very deep reservations about Obama, recent reports from his CBC meeting have only exacerbated them.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 04:31PM | 0 recs
In other words you want us to be like Republicans?

by indydem99 2008-06-24 07:53AM | 0 recs
No, I want us to beat the Republicans.

To be like the Republicans we would have to have the goals of bankrupting the Treasury, achieving global hegemony and creating a permanent wealthy elite class.  They use completely different tactics to get there.

They pretend they have Family Values and that they give a damn whether abortion is legal or not or whether gay people get married.

They pretend that they are for letting the free market correct itself and that giving tax dollars collected from hard working Americans to wealthy people who have bank accounts and residences all over the world is somehow good for the hard working Americans.

They pretend that they care whether countries in the Middle East or South America or Asia have dictators or democracies, so they can use this concern to attack them using and line the pockets of wealthy Defense contractors and mercenaries.

No, I don't want us to be like them.

by GFORD 2008-06-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me tell you a thing or too.

Exactly right

by wrb 2008-06-24 08:15AM | 0 recs
The PUMA punk ass whiners still

insist on hanging out in enemy territory and recommending stuff.

Note to PUMA punks:  You are the enemy.  Go play with your buddies at Red State.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The PUMA punk ass whiners still

What brought you over from DKos? Not getting enough kicks beating people up over there?

by souvarine 2008-06-24 07:48AM | 0 recs
Mydd is now a pro-Obama, pro-Democratic


As someone who supports the party and its nominee, I belong here.

The traitorous pondscum vermin who are supporting McCain so that they can say "I told you so" do not belong here.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Mydd is now a pro-Obama, pro-Democratic

I can't tell you how happy I am to see your brand of political discourse migrating over here. Your selfless zeal to bring order and discipline to the hinterlands is so valiant.

by souvarine 2008-06-24 08:40AM | 0 recs
You recommended a

diary calling Obama supporters robots and comparing them to the Taliban.  You have no standards.

But, at least I throw elbows in support of the Democratic party and in opposition to Republicans.

PUMA=Republican=not welcome.

by Geekesque 2008-06-24 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Mydd is now a pro-Obama, pro-Democratic

I agree with the other poster on this one... you can't lecture people on lowering the political discourse here when you are actively promoting diaries that compare Obama supporters to the Taliban.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-06-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Two points

Two points, for the record:

1.) Nothing wrong with dissent, and to Hell with those who can't take a little criticism of our nominee in the hopes of making him a better candidate.

2.) There ARE racists, deadenders, and trolls about.  But these labels shouldn't apply to anyone who isn't yet on the bandwagon or who criticizes a portion of Obama's platform.

Oh...and be nice, people.  

by freedom78 2008-06-24 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Two points

There is nothing wrong with dissent. In fact, I'd go so far as to say dissent is vital to a functioning democracy. However, what people complain about on this site are those posters and diaries that go beyond dissent. Many people on this site have no other goal than to sow discord among Democratic voters.

It's one thing to complain about a policy stance of the candidate. That's not the same as constantly digging at the candidate over every little thing.

When someone comes on here and slams Obama for anything he says or does, no matter how innocent, then it's obvious they have no love for the Democratic party. When they parse his words, and the words of his supporters, to find something to complain about then they are only out to cause mischief. When they post talking points that can be found on red state or town hall, they are probably McCain backers trying to cause trouble. When they use Democrat party instead of Democratic they are really obvious. When they mention flag pins or the pledge or some other silly complaint then they are trolls. When they come to McCain's defense they are trolls (I've noticed a pattern emerging on this one). When they post diary after diary trying to drag down Obama, they are functioning as trolls. They might be redstaters, puma, or simply anti-obama for any of a number of reasons. It doesn't matter why they do it. Their intended effect is to turn as many voters away from the Democratic party as possible. Is that what this site wants to encourage?

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-24 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots

Two paragraphs. That's how much you care. Two measley paragraphs. Sheesh. There used to be much better rants in the old days.

by X Stryker 2008-06-24 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Dem

How is there still such a multitude of people rec'ing this kind of useless, substance-free crap.  The admins should be ashamed of what they're promoting.

RonK Seattle
Ignored and Disgusted

by campaignmonitor 2008-06-24 07:52AM | 0 recs
obviously the admins do not give a fuck

i have tried to be patient and wait this out, but obviously nothing is being done to revoke the priviledges of users who have pledged to help tear down the presumptive democratic nominee.  normally i would oppose censoring, but in this case there is no other purpose than to continue to divide the party and deliver an election win to mcshame.

i am done with this blog.  see you guys elsewhere.

by annatopia 2008-06-24 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: obviously the admins do not give a fuck

It's a pain in the ass, isn't it.

a good 80 percent of the people who recced this diary never post ANYTHING, are not interested in the presidential race, aren't particularly interested in democratic politics, and are here only to disrupt people who are.

It's not worth it.  Either cede the field to them, go to places where people actually do care about progressive politics.

Or return the favor and disrupt all conversation at The Confluence, Alegre's Corner, and the other PUMA sites.  I like the first option better, myself.

by MeganLocke 2008-06-24 10:17AM | 0 recs
Looks like...

...the "gang" still "knows what to do!"

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-24 08:21AM | 0 recs

Nice flashback!

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-24 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obambots changing Direct Democracy into Absolu

So when does the name officially get changed to MyAD?

by thatpurplestuff 2008-06-24 12:36PM | 0 recs
LOL /eom

by GFORD 2008-06-24 02:38PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads