I Just Don't Get It

So this has been bothering me.  Huffington and Moulitas.  Both run blogs that have declared open war on Senator Clinton.
Arianna was a right wing mouth piece during the Clinton years, was married to a conservative, a man who was a republican appointee of Reagan's and eventually a congressman.  She had a blog during to 90s, a rallying place for Clinton haters wanting to get Bill Clinton out of office.  Her ex was a multimillionaire and this is where she got her money. She admitted to being friends with Newt Gingrich.   So we have a Reagan lover, a multimillionarie who hated the Clintons as a part of her everyday life and NOW, suddenly she a populist progressive who is shilling for Obama to defeat Hillary.  She is a hero of the new left while a true liberal like Senator Clinton has been demonized because at 15 she was a republican (nevermind that overwhelming young kids identify with the party of the parents). I don't get it.

dkos is owned  by his own admission as former young Reagan lover.
Maybe he was a kid like Hillary. Yet her young teen years as a "Goldwater Girl" gets her demonized but his young years are OK?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm....now he hates the Clintons, and has created a blog that helps destroy her, a blog  where using the "racism" attack against the Clintons is acceptable. Yet he once supported Reagan, a man who went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, and used coded racist words to win his presidency.

Suddenly, people like me, an old white woman like Hillary, (we are within a year of each other age-wise) are painted as racists by the like of dkos and Huffington; she because of spin, me because I support her over Obama.  We (old liberals like Hillary and our peers) were working for civil rights way back when; working for women's rights way back, protesting Reagans' policies in the 80s while they were supporting Reagan; while Hillary was opening clinics for poor women and children in Arkansas, Arrianna was supporting Reagan's hate policies in Central America and the middle east.
While Moulitas supported Bush I's war, I was angry as hell at the  results of the Reagan economy that was destroying the middle class.  

Reagan's trickle down of the 80s was taking a toll on us as the Bush I administration started.  Some of us had been screaming for a decade about the destruction of unions under Reagan.  But we were drowned out by the yuppies screaming for more, more, more money for themselves.  Bill Clinton came in and restored the economy.  Hillary tried to get the American people to pay attention to the health care crisis but was drowned out by Arianna's friends in Congress.  She took the blame.  She was demonized by the right.

But NOW, Arianna and all the former yuppies (many of them now regulars at dkos I am guessing), are spewing lies and hatred toward Hillary.  Her blog has been pushing Hillary hate all along. dkos was a late comer to the game but it is clear.  The so called "former" Independents and Libertarians and former Reagan lovers now have a common cause: their hatred of the Clintons.  They are aligned with people like Matthews etc who became millionaires thanks to right wing billionaire icons like Jack Welch, former CEO of GE.  

Hillary has been successfully demonized by the right wing republicans.  And yet on the Net, new dems, newcomers to political work, demonize Senator Clinton by calling her a republican get away with it.  During the years when too many bought Reagan's "morning in America" hook, line and sinker, Hillary was working for liberal causes.  
Hillary worked with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangle, Barbara Jordan, Marian Edleman to improve things for women and minorites but somehow SHE, according to former right wingers like Arianna, is a neocon, war mongering racist.
Now it's a racial slur to compare Obama to an African American hero like Jesse Jackson but then again the Reagan yuppies HATED Jackson and Sharpton and STILL DO. Why? Because Jesse made them uncomfortable.  There was none of this "unity with the right wing" who was encouraging the status quo of an unfair justice system that STILL punishes African Americans unfairly.

But alas, here on the NET, the right wing sanctimony has been adopted by the neo left.  Unfair blogging is acceptable.  Arianna's blog UNFAIRLY gives voice to the Obamaloving, Hillaryhating left.  The numbers of "Hillary is a liar, Hillary is a racist, Hillary is evil" blogs on Huffington is overwhelming. And anything anti Hillary is printed in BOLD RED LETTERS.

So how does a former right winger who was by marriage in the Reagan administration, and how does a blogger who admitted to being a Reagan lover,  get to be the icons of the left?
How do long time democrats who have consistently worked for liberal causes get demonized and trashed by the left.

I am still scratching my head. I am frustrated, disappointed and stunned.  I will, and have said from the beginning, vote for whomever the dem nominee is.  I am a yellow dog democrat and could never ever vote for a party that has pushed and encouraged  plutocracy; could never vote a party that has a "me, me, me" mentality; a party that still elects racists to office. And yet, I have been pushed out of my party. I have read bloggers (even here) announcing the unimportance of older voters, women voters, white women voters (obviously because we are pro Hillary). And that hurts.  Suddenly people who loved and worked for Ronald Reagan are heroes; and people, like Hillary, who worked against the right wing machine since the 1970s are demonized. I don't get it.

I call myself a liberal. I have never been ashamed to use the word liberal, even in the 80s when the word was mocked, dissed and twisted by the right. Maybe I am not a "progressive" because I do not identify with people like Arianna, or Markos, or Matthews, or Randi Rhodes (whom I believe is the antithesis of liberal).  Maybe I will never get it.  I do not know how people who have worked decades for civil rights, equal rights, and the betterment of society can be demonized by people who supported the right wing ever. When a consistent liberal journalist, one of the few, Paul Krugman, is demonized for criticizing Senator Obama, I don't get it.

My guess is this: some/many maybe of the bloggers now shilling for Senator Obama are probably former Reaganites who "saw the light".  I believe this to be true because many seem to embody the same kind of paternalistic hero worship that dominated the Reagan right.  Anything against him is demonized; he has that Teflon thing going with his followers; and he "inspires" hope which to me is no different than the "inspiration and adulation" given to Reagan. Hope does not feed the poor; never did; I did not get it then; I don't get it now.

Tags: democratic values, liberal, progressive, senator clinton (all tags)



Re: I Just Don't Get It

I totally agree with your diary.  I am considered to be an "old white woman" even though I am younger than Michelle Obama.

I do think a lot of the hate from certain Obama supporters are from ex-republicans or youth voters who were not really aware of the Clinton years and just read all of the right-wing press on them today.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-04 07:53AM | 0 recs
I think Kos went for the $$$
During the early primaries, Kos wrote a piece about wanting either Hillary or Edwards, but that he did not like Obama.
A couple of days later, DailyKos became the DailyObama, and Clinton supporters were harassed and razzed and purged.
by internetstar 2008-05-04 10:25AM | 0 recs
This site is absurd

you get 4 people giving your wild accusations of fraud and conspiracy mojo, claiming markos is taking money for his Obama support.

Yet I get three comments removed when I question the veracity of the writing produced by people here that have been caught misrepresenting and making things up whole cloth.

This diarist claims Hillary is a 'true progressive', but would a real progressive make a politically calculated vote sending 4000 of our troops to their deaths without even being decent enough to read the National Intelligence Estimate? Ask Russ Feingold. Or Barbra Boxer.

Clinton was in as safe a seat as those two 'true progressives'.

This number one recommended diary also has absurd logical fallacies beginning with comparing markos/huffington to an elected Senator who is running for president.

Do you honestly believe anyone would hold two bloggers to the same standard as one who presumes they are the best person to run our country?

Looking at the ratings I have received here it looks like a lot of long time mydd users that happen to support Obama are suffering from the blog equivalent of battered spouse syndrome.

The mendacity and intellectual dishonesty promoted on these pages by a small group of Clinton bullies   needs to be fought.

Not with platitudes, not with sycophantic hand wringing about civility from the site owner who obviously only thinks calling someone an idiot is uncivil when you actually use the word idiot.

Instead we get emotional blackmail and appeals to popularity woven into their relentless assault on the principles we democrats have fought for ever since we first pulled the lever for the D. on the ballot.

After 8 years of having been called a traitor for holding views no less than half the country holds, I'll be damned if I will be nice to those pushing the same crap in my own party.

by ameridad 2008-05-04 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: This site is absurd

Well said.  Unfortunately, I think a lot of people just come to this site to laugh or get themselves riled up by reading the nonsensical diaries on the rec list.  You're probably in the minority of people who actually care enough to try to balance the site. The echo chamber that is the rec list is just too ridiculous to take seriously.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-04 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This site is absurd

Your wrong.  Several Pro-hillary diaries have also disappeared from this site...for some unknown reason.

The administrator of this site is being fair to both sides; one reason why some pro-Hillary supporters like to post their diary here instead of DKOs.

by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: This site is absurd

The reason is not unknown - Fleaflicker, texasDarlin and linfar all had diaries pulled because they were blatantly racist.  And you know that because you rec'd them.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Iraq war.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 12:05PM | 0 recs

it's the kool aid and liberal white guilt.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-04 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: nonsense


by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 12:31PM | 0 recs

Who could possibly be upset about an illegal war that killed over 4,000 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and greatly worsened our national security situation and our standing in the eyes of the world?

No, it's all just kool-aid and white liberal guilt. Christ, that's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever read.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-04 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

This is just an aside...but please enlighten me.  What illegal about the war are referring to?

by TxDem08 2008-05-04 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

The Iraq war was a war of aggression against a country that had not attacked the United States and presented no threat to us; as such, it is illegal under international law.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-04 07:59PM | 0 recs
Why has Obama voted the exact way Clinton has

on Iraq since he's been in the senate? Because he makes political calculations like every other politician.

Did he organize any protests when he was in IL? No!

Has he organized any protests since being a U.S. senator? No!

Did he say, long after the war started that he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the senate? Yes!

Did he say in 2004 that his position and George Bush's position on Iraq is the same? Yes!

Why is former Embassador and Iraq war whistle blower Joe Wilson supporting Hillary Clinton? Because she has a great understanding of foreign policy as well as domestic issues. Wilson also doesn't think Obama is up to the job.

by mmorang 2008-05-05 01:54PM | 0 recs
Disgusting comment

by ameridad 2008-05-04 01:01PM | 0 recs
No, IMO, like Howard Dean did in 2003,

Obama strikes a certain chord of idealism with voters (dems, progs and dem leaners). What Obama has been able to do (with the internet being 4 years more evolved) is to channel the resulting enthusiasm and energy into electoral victories and a powerful movement/organization that will help Dems for a LONG time to come. I suspect that our common hero Howard Dean would agree with me on these points (if he weren't obligated to be neutral in the nomination race).

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 01:42PM | 0 recs
No, Obama gives speeches that

appeal to the emotionalism of those without any real understanding of what it takes to get this country back into recovery.  He doesn't have a clue and those who drink the Kool-Aid drink it because it makes them feel good.  It is precisely like those who supported George W. Bush because "any man who is man enough to get down on his knees and pray" is the right man to be president of this country.  There is no concrete logic involved.  If it makes Kool-Aid drinkers feel good then they want to keep on doing it.  If somebody points out that it is illogical they want to scream out angrily against those who disagree with them or want to type in all caps.  Their accusations against Hillary are precisely like the accusations by the Bush supporters who claimed that the Clinton Administration stole all of the "W"s on all the typewriters at the White House when they left.  It is the same mentality and Obama works hard to appeal to it.  We cannot afford to allow that kind of immaturity to have any authority in this country any longer.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Your comment is pure ad-hominem.

As for: "real understanding of what it takes to get this country back into recovery. He doesn't have a clue"

The primary reason we're in the mess we're in today is the W.A.R. Hillary Clinton enabled and cheerled the war. She was either clueless or made crass political calculation in supporting the war; further evidence (such as voting for Kyl-Lieberman and now talking about obliterating Iran) tells us clearly that it's the latter.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
You need to take some remedial reading lessons.

Then you need to read the specific bill that Hillary voted for which was to give Bush the authority to threaten Iraq and force Hussain to allow the Inspectors back into the country.  Once you read it, you will see that you are completely mistaken and are falsely accusing Senator Clinton.  Of course, it may not matter to you but it does to those of us who know the truth.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 03:14PM | 0 recs

"Then you need to read the specific bill that Hillary voted for which was to give Bush the authority to threaten Iraq"

Congressional war authorization, by definition, enables a President (a properly elected one or a whitehouse occupant as in this case) to wage a war. First, from the very title of the IWR/AUMF HJRes 114

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

it's clear that it's an authorization to use Military Force, not an authorization to "threaten Iraq."

Next, specifically, clause 3(a) below handed over Congress' prerogative to Bush (congress holds the power to declare war per the constitution or it can give the authorization to a President, i.e. enable him or her, to wage one per the war powers resolution. The latter applied in the case of the Iraq):




(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Clause 3(b).1 is a dummy non-binding clause because it left the determination (of whether the conditions there were satifified) up to Bush and not in the hands of the congress.

In other words, the IWR gave Bush a blank check war authorization. That's the truth. Read it yourself.


"and force Hussain to allow the Inspectors back into the country."

That's a rhetorical, primary-time voter-fooling excuse Clinton uses to try and justify her vote to a generally anti-dumb-war, and upset/unhappy, Democratic voters.

First, it's a false excuse as the IWR is written (the IWR IS, indeed, an authorization for war).

It doesn't hold any real water as an extra-legislative excuse as well because once after the UN inspectors did go in and were reporting the following:

March 7, 2003
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA: After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief U.N. weapons inspector: How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Hillary Clinton continued her hawkish stance in March 2003, in the days leading up to the invasion:

and then on March 17, 2003:

    March 17, 2003

   Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President's Remarks to the Nation

   When the President of the United States addresses the nation about possible military action, it is a solemn occasion for every American. Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.

The Bush ultimatum that Clinton was refering to was this:

Bush: 'Leave Iraq within 48 hours'

   Monday, March 17, 2003

   All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

"Once you read it, you will see that you are completely mistaken and are falsely accusing Senator Clinton."

I have read the IWR at least half a dozen times. I know exactly what I am talking about. You can educate yourself better too by reading the documentation at this blog.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Nonsense.

The Iraq war is Bush's fault. Again, the war is Bush's fault! If someone, like Ariana Huffington, were a so-called former Republican, you're natural instinct would be to blame anyone BUT Bush.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 04:16PM | 0 recs
It's Bush's and the then Congress' fault.

Congress' because it handed the authority to wage a war to Bush.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain were among those members of that congress that voted to pass the authorization. Those 77 senators and over 250 members of the house all share the responsibility for war materializing along with Bush (, Cheney and others).

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Bush's and the then Congress' fault.

And, if Obama had been in the Congress he would have done the same thing. But, I digress, the war in Iraq is Bush's fault.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Bush's and the then Congress' fault.

"And, if Obama had been in the Congress he would have done the same thing."

In addition to his Oct'02 speech, he repeatedly said he would've voted against it:

And see: Russert misleadingly cropped Obama comment to claim he wasn't 'firmly wedded against the war' link

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Your comment is pure ad-hominem.

I don't know about you, but I don't belong to any W.A.R., and don't think Hillary Clinton enabled or did any cheerleading for them.

Now if you're talking about the war in Iraq, please explain to me how she cheeled the war?  Exactly how did her specific individual comments get over 4,000 soldiers killed?  Also, what exact piece of legislation and/or Presidential executive order gave her command authority to initiate and execute the military Operations plans for Iraq?

And now your trying to insinuate that her comments in reaction to a hypothetical debate question that would deal with how Iran would be dealt with if they launched nuclear weapons upon Israel is crass political calculations?

These are the reasons were in the mess we're in today?  Funny I thought that the high cost of gas, the sub-prime mortgage crisis and foreclosures, the falling dollar, the loop-holes that allow corporations to move to another country and the jobs with them...yet still recieve tax breaks, as well as the sluggish economy were the reasons were in the mess we're in today.

Wow.  I see the 'irrational exhuberance' is not just applicable to financial models.  

Good grief.

by TxDem08 2008-05-04 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Your comment is pure ad-hominem.

War did a LOT of damage to the economy which when coupled with reckless and brazen economic policies of Bush (deficit splurging on the war and reckless tax cuts, not enforcing trade regulations, not working towards green technologies and thus losing global competitive edge etc) can be argued to have brought the economy down.

On the issue of war resolution/authorization, please see my comment above and this blog. Thanks.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: No, Obama gives speeches that

"appeal to the emotionalism of those without any real understanding of what it takes to get this country back into recovery.  He doesn't have a clue and those who drink the Kool-Aid drink it because it makes them feel good.  It is precisely like those who supported George W. Bush"

this is an absolutely ridiculous comment, and wrong on so many levels. tell me: which candidate performs better among well-informed voters (and yes, intellectuals)? which performs better among low-info voters?

the high-info voters, in your view, "drink the Kool-Aid drink." but the low-info voters "get it" because, shit, they vote for hillary i guess.

btw, oh clueless one, bush won by campaigning against intellectualism, especially in 2004. he campaigned FOR the votes of low-info voters via things like the gay marriage ban and other assorted wedge issues. wedge issues are designed for low-info voters.

by jbill 2008-05-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: No, Obama gives speeches that

Excellent points here and quite obvious upon reflection.

by oliver cromwell 2008-05-05 08:46AM | 0 recs
Clinton lied to the American Public

To 'get our economy back on track'

Fuck him.

Bring back the M3, and maybe i'll be civil.

Got hillary to give me a committment on that? Maybe i'll stop beating this dead horse.

(for people wondering what the fuck an m3 is, and how it has something to do with the economy, there's a reason for wikipedia).

by RisingTide 2008-05-05 10:23AM | 0 recs
reason for wikipedia

what, so Obamatons can make up lies and have a repository for said lies to use as a cite, then claiming that the wiki somehow is a valid source?

That reason?

by switching sides 2008-05-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
well, excuse me for my laziness!

my word, sometimes you'd figure that Hillary supporters are so feeble as to be unable to understand widely used terminology.

I'm not going to quote you propaganda sources, so if you're looking for something in press, you ain't gonna find it.

But here, honey, since you don't trust those evil men at wikipedia.

http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.h tml

by RisingTide 2008-05-06 05:31AM | 0 recs
Five words:

He wasn't in the Senate!

by Xanthe 2008-05-04 01:15PM | 0 recs
Yes, but

he did all he could to oppose it, even into March of 2003. Please see here.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 01:43PM | 0 recs
And he has ended it since 2004. Right?

He went right into the U.S. Senate and the first piece of legislation he sponsored and fought with all his might for was to end the Iraq War NOW.

God, what where would we be without him.

Such a hero.


by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-04 01:56PM | 0 recs
We should not have invaded in the 1st place

But once we did invade, we assumed certain moral responsibilities to the Iraqis as well as our own reputation and standing in the world. Which is all the more reason why his opposition speech was prescient and wise:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

-- Obama, Oct 2002

Those that pretend that things do not change completely once we invade and wreck another country's capacity to fend for itself are just plain dishonest.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Oh, so now he's for this war?

I wonder if everyone who has bought into his BS about getting out of Iraq knows this.


by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-04 02:22PM | 0 recs
He's for a RESPONSIBLE but CERTAIN exit.

He's also against waging illegitimate preemptive invasions in the future.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 02:29PM | 0 recs
He firmly opposed permanent bases

He introduced legislation against permanent bases in Iraq.

OTH, not long ago, HRC was channeling McCain (and Lieberman) on staying in Iraq for decades on end:

Hillary Says.. In Iraq 50+ Years...On Face the Nation

Febuary 20,2005
Sen. CLINTON: If I could just add to what Senator Graham said, because I think it's really important we underscore this.

Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this.

But it is a question of casualties. We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have.

We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II.

You know, we have been in places for very long periods of time.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: He's for a RESPONSIBLE but CERTAIN exit.

Well, except for Pakistan.  But maybe by you that's OK country to threaten.   Who knows?  

by Jjc2008 2008-05-05 01:08PM | 0 recs
Ensuring relative stability of the region

post-invasion and in the long-run (which required/requires Iraq not to implode or collapse completely) is also an important factor that became a factor by virtue of invading in the first place.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-05-04 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: We should not have invaded in the 1st place

Now that's progressive!

by Politicalslave 2008-05-04 02:49PM | 0 recs
You can't be serious

I'm 40.  I was born a Democrat - from Massachusetts, no less - and still am.  I remember the Reagan years vividly - those were the years I started paying attention to politics - and I was never tempted by the right - only saddened to see so many of my friends and their families becoming "Reagan Democrats."

I also support Barack Obama.  I don't think all - or even most - of Sen. Clinton's supporters are racist, in part because if Obama were not running I would be supporting Sen. Clinton.

I support him because I think he's a good man.  Someone with the right temperament and judgment to make a fine President.

And I know a lot of Obama supporters who you could describe in more or less the same terms.

by TL 2008-05-04 02:46PM | 0 recs
I remember Ariana Huffington

She was the right's 'go to' girl during Reagan and Clinton.  Ronald Reagan was the second coming in her eyes.  And she's hated the Clinton's for years.  Now she reinvents herself as a 'progressive' voice and people conveniently forget all the dreadful things she said.  It's OK.

I think she's still right wing.  I think she saw a money opportunity and took it.  If a Democrat gets elected (especially if it's Clinton) - watch her turn yet again.  As for Moulitas - he got what he wanted - a seat at the table.  Who knows why he picked Democrats?  Maybe because that seat was easier to obtain.  Democrats can be manipulated much easier than Republicans.  It comes from giving a damn.  And I don't consider him now Daily Kos to be particularly liberal, frankly - not really.

Hillary hate has become a religion - as has Obama racism and ageism against Hillary supporters and McCain in general.  No more discussing policy - it's gender, race and age.  Pop culture, baby!  And you can be sure opportunists like Huffington and Moulitas will jump on board whatever train seems the fastest.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-04 04:57PM | 0 recs
I don't. you do remember

91 zillion kos diaries about "I was a republican, but now my honor won't allow it"?? ;-)

Seriously, people are allowed to change.

My only problem with Hillary's college years is that she seemed prone to hissy fits.

by RisingTide 2008-05-05 10:26AM | 0 recs
So - Arianna can change, and that's brilliant -

but Hillary does and that makes her terrible (or suspect)?  Just think about that for a few moments.

And yes - people can change - but Arianna's hatred of everything Clinton has remained steadfast.  It affects her commentary.  Thing is - she still tries to pretend she has no personal agenda - that, and her excoriations of the Clinton's sound no different now than they did back then.  Matter of fact - she says much the same things in general - only now she replaces the word 'Republican' with that of 'Democrat'.

So she's allowed her epiphany - I'm just saying that conversion sounds a bit scripted to me.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-05 11:05AM | 0 recs
I don't subscribe to the ideology

that says hillary changing is bad.

A little birdie says that Arianna is salt-of-the-earth. But you never heard that from me.

(thanks for taking a bit of time to explain a bit further, it really does help clear your position up.)

by RisingTide 2008-05-05 11:10AM | 0 recs

Interesting.  And yes - how people are in real life does affect whether or not we accept what they say.  I used to work in film and theatre - I could burn your ears with stories of whose nice and who's not.  The old studios were wise to hide the peccadilloes of their stars.  Politicians and their televised critics are no different.  It's still partially about visual style and perception.  One of the reasons Martha Stewart had do few supporters was her own personal history in dealing with associates (a rather well-documented history, unfortunately for her).  

But I digress.  Perhaps Arianna's change of heart does indeed come from the heart.  I only wish she'd identify personal animus when that's the case.  I'll tell you flat out I think George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be in prison for breaking the law.  And I think McCain should have preceded them for the Keating Saving's and Loan disaster.  That colors my opinion - but I'm up front about it.  I just wish every 'color commentator' would do the courtesy of stating the same.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-05 11:47AM | 0 recs
She's on the up and up , or so i'm told

But hey, look at Dean. If he hadn't been so scrupulously neutral, Hillary would have won by now.

Me, I like Dean, he's managed to do a remarkable job of being neutral, even when it's fairly clear who he'd like to see win.

by RisingTide 2008-05-05 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Actually, we are people who think that HRC is a rightwing tool, too much of a war monger, moved WAY WAY WAY to the right of Hannity and Billo and Fat Rush, her new boyfriends!!!

by Hope Monger 2008 2008-05-04 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

And you have confirmed everything I feel.  Your hateful diatribe is typical of the neoleft. You scare me.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I do agree with you that there are some vile voices among Obama's supporters.  There are also some pretty bad ones speaking out for Clinton.  I don't think they are the majority in either campaign, and I do think the SUPPORTERS of each candidate really should police their own idiots so they do not spread this stuff around.  

by mady 2008-05-04 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Some people do try to "police their own idiots" on this site - both sides.  But I think the inmates are running the asylum - especially here on MyDD.  There are not enough hours in the day to address every inappropriate comment.  

I am an Obama supporter but I really don't have anything good to say about the juvenile statement by Hope Monger a few entries above me.  It's out of bounds and unhelpful.  

I think the healthier thing to do is focus on the two candidates and not attribute everything that any supporter says to the candidates.  These are respectable, good Democratic candidates who have been made into characitures by numbskulls in the MSM and the blogs.  Take responsibility.  Filter it out!

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I took a month long break from the bogs (well, I did still read them and make a few comments here and there but this is the first diary I have written in a long time).  I read them less often, and I stopped watching cable news totally.

I felt resentment and anger and I knew I did not want it to come out against Senator Obama.
I have said always here, or on dkos or on Huffington, that I would vote for whomever the dem candidate was.  I said it back when all the candidates were campaigning; I said it when I was giving equal support for Edwards and Clintons, my first two choices from day one.

But as Huffington and dkos became more and more nasty and shrill in their Hillary hate, I became more and more resentful.  
I do not get how any blog can do what Huffington is doing (blatantly putting anything negative about Senator Clinton  in bold red letters, stacking the deck with pro Obama writers) and call itself anything but a right wing blog.  This is what they do...promote hate and dissension.  Unlike dkos and this blog, they have upfront control of who writes what. At least here and on dkos it's after the fact control.

But I continue to lose respect for dkos. Their actions helping to libel and insult a lifelong democrat like Kantor should have us all hanging our heads in shame.  That was race baiting at its worse.  Disrespecting Jesse Jackson and his candidacy was an insult to those of us who supported him yet the new left calls comparing Obama to him a racist insult?  Jesse was and is a hero to many of us.  However, unlike the new left, it was never hero worship.  Jesse is/was flawed. So was/is Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton.  So were the Kennedys.  
I don't get and will never get the worship/demonize mentality.  

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Their actions helping to libel and insult a lifelong democrat like Kantor should have us all hanging our heads in shame.

I mentioned this yesterday, and no one bothered to respond.  I'll mention it again.

There's one problem with posting it here, which is that I am apparently not allowed to provide hyperlinks to Kos diaries here.  I am serious.  So, anyway, the first one is at this URL:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/2/1 25635/1207/735/507783

The second is at this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5 /2/115731/7914/758/507744

Exactly two diaries about that issue made the rec list on Kos.

One was titled The Video Clip is Bait (see first URL above).  It references how the video clip is a useless distraction and doesn't deal with the issues.

The other, found here (see second URL above) documents the original video, the counter-video, the questions about the authenticity of the first, and concludes with an update about how it's best to drop the story given all the questions about it.

I didn't see any front-page posts about it.

Do you actually have a problem with either of these diaries because, if so, you probably should have a problem with some of the MyDD diaries about the subject, too.

I have to ask: are the people making these claims about Kos actually bothering to check the facts before posting about this stuff, or just making things up to suit their expectations?

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 01:58PM | 0 recs
Do you go to DKOS?

If so, then how can you even imply, much less say:

"But I think the inmates are running the asylum - especially here on MyDD."

I quit going to KOS several months because of the hatred and vitriol.  I quit before John Edwards got out of the race and my husband and I both supported both/either Edwards or Hillary.  It was disgusting there.

When I came to MyDD things were much better.  Now that the Obama supporters swarm here, it is frequently like DKOS and it never was before they began to swarm here.

by macmcd 2008-05-04 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you go to DKOS?

You probably like it here better because you like Hillary.  It's a more comfortable place if you like Hillary.  

Here's my honest assessment.  The rec list here tends to include mostly Obama smears, which I tend to find distasteful.  The rec list at DKos tends to include mostly pro-Obama stuff, with the occasional Hillary smear.  It's fluctuated at times at both sites.  

That said, the Obama folks at DKos tend to "pile on" worse than the Clinton folks do here, I suspect because there is much more of a balance here between Clinton and Obama supporters, and therefore more resistance from Obama folks.

When I say the inmates are running the asylum at MyDD, I am talking mostly about the rec list anti-Obama diaries.  Those are probably not as jarring to you as a Clinton supporter.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It


So Arianna Huffington is a Certified Democrat & Hillary Clinton is not?

So Markos, the blogger, is a more credible & certified Democrat compared to Hillary Clinton ?

Do you understand the stupidity of your logic?

by libdemusa 2008-05-04 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

^^^  Can someone ban this person?  I am convinced s/he is only here for purposes of Operation Chaos (TM).

by daria g 2008-05-04 10:00AM | 0 recs

I mean "Hope Monger 2008" not the poster immediately above!

by daria g 2008-05-04 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"My guess is this: some/many maybe of the bloggers now shilling for Senator Obama are probably former Reaganites who "saw the light"

Obama supporter.  White.  Female.  60.  Jewish.

My family has a long history of support of progressive causes.  Barack Obama exemplifies my beliefs in a way that Hillary Clinton never could.  Reaganites?  I've supported the most progressive candidate in every Democratic primary and this is the first time my candidate has had a good shot at winning (supported Fred Harris for God's sakes).  I don't call myself a liberal.  I always have thought of liberals as more concerned with social issues, less concerned with class divisions in this country, and having become spokesmen for the cold war establishment during the 60s.  It's why I use the word progressive, or populist, or anything that focuses on economic and class issues.  Obama stands for the kind of change that will unify people in dealing with these real problems that confront us.  Furthermore, if he attracts independent-thinking Republicans (Julie Nixon Eisenhower, for instance, has come out in support of him), who are thoughtful people and support him for the right reasons, more power to him.

by mady 2008-05-04 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

please explain how he "exemplifies my beliefs in a way that Hillary Clinton never could."

by jentwisl 2008-05-04 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Iraq War.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 12:06PM | 0 recs

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-04 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: spam

I note that you have yet to substantively respond to "Iraq War," which is one of the major caveats that many voters seem to have about Sen. Clinton's record, not to mention character and intestinal fortitude, and her suitability for high office.

You might want to address it.  Got anything?

by Koan 2008-05-04 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama doesn't get a pass on the Iraq War. He was asked point blank by Russert in 2004 when he ran for the Senate how he would have voted and he said he didn't know. What exactly does that exemplify?

by bowiegeek 2008-05-04 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

He said he didn't have access to the same info the Senate had - and that without knowing the evidence they saw, he couldn't say for sure how he would have voted.

He was utterly clear that from his vantage point at the time, the case for was "was not made." His lack of support was never in question, since it turns out that unless something is still clasified, the Senate didn't have any special info.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Yes he said from his vantage point back when he was a state senator from Illinois, the case was not made. Notice how yet again, he avoids the question he was asked. On the question of what he would have done in the US Senate, he "doesn't know." And this is someone with leadership we need to be prepared to handle the unpredictable...

by bowiegeek 2008-05-05 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"As a State Senator, I would have voted against the war." That quote doesn't really work either.

I don't see how this reflects a lack of leadership - he gave a very public speech, and chose language less critical of Kerry/Edwards in the convention.

by Falsehood 2008-05-05 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You just admitted yourself that he said based on what he knew in Springfield, he'd have voted against the AUMF. Not once did he give an unequivocal answer about what he'd have done in the US Senate until his ran for president. It's not really that inspiring. Anyone could have given a bombastic speech at a local political campaign event for a liberal colleague...

by bowiegeek 2008-05-05 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

It's not a relevant question - he didn't support the war. Yes, he hedged on how he would have voted since there could have been some intel we didn't know about. There was no hidden intel, therefore he would have voted against.

He was very clear that he was against the war - I think that and the vote are the same.

by Falsehood 2008-05-05 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

He wasn't in a position to do anything about the war, so his position was rather empty. Of course when it came time to do something as unequivocal as he claims he was in the past, there was nothing there.

by bowiegeek 2008-05-12 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Hillary Clinton's vote didn't matter either - the war was being passed anyway. That seems an odd standard for which positions count and which don't.

by Falsehood 2008-05-16 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

his run*, even

by bowiegeek 2008-05-05 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I'd like Teresainpa to explain why above comment was troll-rated.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-04 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

If he stands for that kind of change, why hasn't he done anything about it? He spent all those years working for a civil rights law firm in Chicago and never led on  a single case. He never used that amazing resource to make life better for other people. He was in the Illinois state senate and did absolutely nothing for five years. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Why wasn't he taking an issue and running with it every year in the senate?

Go ahead - give us examples of Obama actually DOING SOMETHING that doesn't involved Emil Jones gifting him with legislation that exemplifies change. Show us an example of him leading on a few issues in the senate that exemplify that kind of change. And actually leading - not tagging on with someone like Feingold. Carving out his own territory and fighting the battles. And making lobbyists stand up when they eat doesn't fit the bill.

And how do you square him being unwilling to pursue universal healthcare? And lying about it? How does lying about Clinton's healthcare plan exemplify this kind of change?

How does not distancing himself from the 1984 ad or Randi Rhodes' diatribe exemplify change?

I'm not interested in voting on faith that someone who hasn't gotten much done in his life that benefits other people will sunddenly, in their mid-forties, get to work.

by Little Otter 2008-05-04 08:53AM | 0 recs
Get to work!

You might try to paint Obama as lazy, but you can only do that by being lazy yourself.  Here's some reading for you -

He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.

Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable.

"When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it's not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly," said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. "And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

Obama forged political mettle in capitol

Now, I'm sure you're going to say "But..but..Emil Jones!"   Who cares, really, legislation is about compromise, not a creative writing assignment.  

How about as a U.S. Senator?

In the 110th Congress, Obama has so far been the primary sponsor of 55 bills, including:

   * The Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007 (S.117), "to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism."

   * The American Fuels Act of 2007 (S.133), "to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology."

   * The Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 (S.737), "to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States."

   * The STOP FRAUD Act (S.1222), "to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development."

   * The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), "to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology."

media matters

by clad 2008-05-04 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Hillary is a member of the DLC... one of its most prominent members in fact, so you're point is a little lost on me....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Hillary is one of the leaders of the DLC

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=137 &subid=900111

Obama is not. Get it straight.

by Lost Thought 2008-05-04 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Please name an issue which Obama is to the right of Hillary on.

by Brannon 2008-05-04 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Universal health care.

Social Security privatization.

Deregulation of the markets.

by splashy 2008-05-05 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Liberals are more concerned with social issues????

Yea, we are. Always have been.  Things like poverty, racism, sexism are always bothersome to liberals.

But whatever.  I explained my feelings. You see "hope" as the answer. I see hard work as the answer.
Reaching out is evil when Hillary does it; saintly when Obama does it.  Thank you for confirming my impression and yes, there are exceptions to every rule.  

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

No, reaching out is always a good thing.  I was not speaking against Hillary, I was just stating that my support of Obama and his support by most of my friends and family, has felt like a good fit to our progressive roots.  My mother does support Clinton, however; my friends with one exception, Obama.  

As far as the term liberal, I think that is a semantic thing.  I grew up with the understanding that a liberal was someone who was sort of leftish but had caved to the cold war machine.  You had to be both pro the kinds of issues you mentioned but totally anything like universal health care (too socialist), or any kind of internationalism.  I think that is just semantics.  

by mady 2008-05-04 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Well, that's fine.  All my peers that consider themselves democrats are for Hillary.  This includes all of my Latino friends who have worked with causes from poverty in their community to ending all racism and sexism.  
My family is split.  The ones my age are for Clinton.  The younger ones, all former "independents" and some former republicans are for Obama.

My view of "liberal" and why I embraced it was because for me it meant "open minded.'  One could disagree with the tyranny of some governments (including my own) and still embrace the people.  Regardless of how hard the right wing tried to demonize the left for embracing the people of the USSR, the people of the Cuba, the people of many nations under tyrannies, we, liberals, knew that just because we did not blame the people did not mean we did not disagree with the tyrannical despots that ruled them.

I don't understand your "caved to the cold war" machine.  But then, I have always believed that the tyranny of the left is no better than the tyranny of the right.

I may not believe in war, but I am no absolutist.   Just because I support the people of Iraq having the right to their own destiny has not blinded me to the fact that Saddam Hussein was a sadistic tyrant; just because I think that the people of Iran deserve freedom and the right to choose, does not mean I excuse their governments overt sexism.
I dislike the paternalism of Christianity, Judism and Islam equally and believe none of them are innocent in promoting the notion of enslaving women to a standard that goes against their own self interest.

But I see the world as complex.  I remember asking early on why the people of the USA ignored the things Hitler had been doing to Jews for so long.
But no one seemed to know.  Some people still believe the USA was wrong to go into WWII; absolutists who believe war is ALWAYS wrong. I am sure some people would consider me a war monger because I believed we, the USA, were wrong to leave the poor women of Afghanistan alone to face the Taliban after we had given the "freedom fighters" of that country (some who turned into the Taliban) aid and arms in fighting the Soviets.  
Yet, when the Soviets invaded other countries we did nothing. I never quite got it.

None of this is black and white, good or evil.  There are shades of gray all over.  But that mentality that demonized, that said it's all about good vs evil used to be a right wing mentality. Now I see it heavily on the left and I am stunned.

I prefer Senator Clinton because I agree with her health care.  While single payer is my eventual goal I understand why in a democracy one must cajole and convince. This country is split in half and democracy is hard.  It requires the skills of compromise.  When Senator Clinton tries to compromise she is accused of pandering and triangulating.  When Senator Obama tried to compromise he is admired for his desire to "unite" and get away from the red vs the blue.

I don't get it. I really don't.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Very eloquently stated.  Thank you.

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Jjc2008, I disagree with your diary, but...your response paragraph above is so intelligent and well written I have to admire you. You are so right about Afghanistan. What's happened to the role of women in Afghanistan and Iraq? In pre-invasion days, Iraq's universities had unveiled female professors lecturing to mixed classes.

As an Obama supporter, I really respect the way you advocated for your candidate in the paragraph above. in a sense, that's why I'll vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination.      

"and he "inspires" hope which to me is no different than the "inspiration and adulation" given to Reagan. Hope does not feed the poor; never did; I did not get it then; I don't get it now." Ah, that's just it. Reaganites were inspired to do their thing. Obama supporters are inpsired in the opposite direction.

Inspiration isn't bad. You wouldn't be supporting Hillary if she didn't inspire you. No one I know is inspired by Ariana or Markos: people are inspired by Obama's campaign.

And since you and I worked with Jesse back in the day, you know the value of hope.

"Keep hope alive." Remember who said that?

by catilinus 2008-05-04 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Using a broad brush leads to very messy painting...

I hate to break this to you, but some people just PREFER Obama to Clinton.  They are not looking for a "father figure" to worship and adore...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

The reverse of that is also true...

I have asked Clinton supporters about her voting record and have been dismissed as a troll.

Again with the broad brushes....  I hope we are picking pretty colors though....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"When Senator Clinton tries to compromise she is accused of pandering and triangulating."

How is the gas tax "holiday" not pandering?  My problem w/ Clinton is the same as my problem w/ 80% of the Democratic party in the early/mid 2000's.  On issue after issue they rolled for Bush.  Many were too lazy to define themselves, opting to let Republicans do that for them.  Why did Hillary vote in favor of the Iraq war?  What was she doing on Meet The Press a few years back w/ Senator McCain?  The answers to these questions are crystal clear - she thought she had to compensate for some imagined weakness on foreign policy.  She fully accepted Republican framing on these issues and tried to operate within said frames.  She lives in a DLC world - where Democrats are weak on foreign policy and thus must puff out their feathers and out war-monger their Republican opponents.  I for one refuse to accept this frame, and seriously appreciate the fact that Obama doesn't either.  Would someone w/ a foreign policy inferiority complex suggest we speak w/ the leaders of Cuba and Iran?  Never.

by alb 2008-05-04 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama's a politician.  Clinton's a politician.  I don't find myself having huge amounts of trust for either one of them.

That said, I think they'd both be far better for this country than McCain would be.

I furthermore think that if Obama receives the majority of the pledged delegates and the superdelegates override those votes and install Clinton as the nominee, that we'll lose the black vote for a generation, and it will be the death of the party.

So, personally, I'd prefer that Obama be the nominee for the good of the party.

But that's just me, and I fully expect to be troll rated for this.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I've been troll-rated a few times here over political comments I've made, and I've been attacked on a personal level multiple times, entirely by people who didn't like what I had to say about Clinton.  I see this blog as fairly intolerant of people who question the behavior of Clinton's campaign staff and supporters.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 03:22PM | 0 recs

because the way I remember things, Neocons have dictated the foreign policy of our country for the past eight years.  I also don't remember the neocons wanting to invade Pakistan - instead they coddled General Musharraf.  As such we are no better off today re: the Pakinstan/Afghanistan border region than we were eight years ago.  Now I'm not suggesting we invade Pakistan and I'm pretty sure Obama didn't either.  However, if we have actionable intelligence that the planners/perpetrators of 9/11 have found safe haven in Pakistan and the Pakistani government won't take action (most likely due to an inherit conflict of interest), like most Americans I have absolutely no objections to a targeted strike against said suspects/criminals.      

by alb 2008-05-04 03:15PM | 0 recs
One more point re: Neocon...

like you, I'm not a big fan of the "Neocons".  But imagine for a second that somewhere at some time, a neocon had a good idea re: foreign policy.  Would we  have to be against it simply because it was a "neocon card"?  My point is, this is yet another example of letting the opposition define us.  We shouldn't confuse the idea/policy w/ the perpetrators of said idea/policy - it's an easy way to ultimately get boxed into defending positions we may not support.  Just my two cents... take it or leave it.

by alb 2008-05-04 04:05PM | 0 recs
I think this is the issue

You write: "All my peers that consider themselves democrats are for Hillary."

I'm not sure where you live or who your peers are, but that strikes me as odd.  If the recent elections teach us anything, it's that each candidate has a lot of supporters in the Democratic party.  We can debate endlessly about who has more, but it's fruitless to deny that Obama and Clinton each have a lot of supporters within the Democratic party.

If you knew some of us in the flesh, I don't think you'd have such a negative view of his campaign or its supporters.

I do think, as a lot of other have commented, that the internet tends to draw out a lot of the most negative, inflammatory behavior from people.

by TL 2008-05-04 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You have a strange definition of liberal.  Liberal means very leftish in my book.  I've been a proud liberal for decades and in 1992 I was 100% in favor of single-payer health.  Even when the word got demonized, I still argued in favor of it and was unafraid of telling people that I call myself liberal.

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama doesn't support universal healthcare. Clinton does. Clinton expands Medicaid to cover adults with no children, so that low income families and individuals receive healthcare free of charge. She provides tax credits for middle income families and caps the amount that can pay to a percentage of their income. and she provides a public insurer which is mandated to provide the same level of care as private insurers but with no profit margin - thereby tilting the playing field towards single payer - and opens it to everyone who wants to pay less for high quality care regardless of age, health or income.

Obama's plan is less aggressive about driving costs down than Clinton's is, has no public insurer, doesn't expand Medicaid and doesn't mandate coverage for everyone.

You're supporting the less progressive version of healthcare and one that would, should it unfortunately pass, pollute our ability to achieve real healthcare reform.

You're support of obama is at odds with your principles. Thank you for proving our point.

by Little Otter 2008-05-04 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"Obama doesn't support universal healthcare. Clinton does."


You do realize that Clinton's plan will leave millions out as well?

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

actually, her own campaign has conceded that some people will be left out of her universal health covereage...

Just as some are left out of the Massachusetts model

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama doesn't support universal healthcare. Clinton does.

Has Clinton ever introduced a universal health care bill in the Senate?  Has Obama?  

I don't think either of them have, and I'm not satisfied with either of their plans as outlined on their websites.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Do you think only HRC does "hard work"?  I would say the fact that Obama has campaigned in every state, set up a ground organization in every state, and is doing far more work to register new voters and grow the party is evidence of hard work.  He is leaving behind a GOTV organization in every state that will benefit either candidate.  But you characterise his campaign as just hope.

This is one of the reasons progressives are firmly behind Obama - he is a game changer, Hillary just isn't.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama didn't set up that ground organization - he paid people to do it.  I believe what is meant is that Hillary HERSELF does the work of reading, listening and learning about issues, policies, etc.  You can ask her a question on nearly anything and you'll hear amazing details and in-depth analysis.  Obama hasn't come anywhere close to her in knowledge, acumen, or analysis.

That's what is meant by hard work.  I realize both of them are doing huge numbers of campaign events, which is another form of hard work, but even then, Hillary just seems to have more energy than Obama does.

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

We'll have to disagree about knowledge, acumen and analysis - seems only Obama did the "hard work" of reading the NIE and having the acumen to oppose the war.  I find this "hard work" meme ridiculous, unless you happen to have some facts to back it up?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama didn't read the NIE.  He just realized his constituents were against it and made a speech.  But he gave his buddy John Kerry a big pass for voting for AUMF.

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Great argument!

If only Hillary had listened to her constituents instead of Bush.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

The AUMF vote is actually my biggest beef with Clinton.  That said, those in the Senate who had viable presidential aspirations all voted for it at the time.  None of the Democrats were listening to Bush, but they were being careful about the political climate.  I am convinced that Obama, since he has admitted having kindergarten aspirations to the presidency, would also have voted for it.  He's an ordinary pol with an ego and a talented (so far) campaign team.

by Montague 2008-05-04 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It


If he had kindergarden aspirations for the presidency, then he would have been more "careful" about opposing the Iraq war, like all of the other future presidential candidates, right?

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

actually, I believe he did read the NIE although he certainly did not have to...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Nice to know he reads something other than his own press releases.

by Montague 2008-05-04 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I don' even know what to say as I sat here shaking my head over your comment....

Half of you think he is an Ivy League intellectual elitist and the other half think he's an idiot who knows nothing, has done nothing, and will do nothing... which is it really?

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-04 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

He is a person of above average intelligence but far from the genius range.  It would be hard to describe just how many mediocre thinkers wind up in Ivy League schools.  I know because I have my own Ivy League degree.  Some of the students are extremely bright, but I've also tutored students at state universities who could kick the asses, intellectually speaking, of most Ivy Leaguers without breaking a sweat.

by Montague 2008-05-04 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

There sure are some touchy people out there, TRing a comment like this.  I complimented Obama.  What's the problem?  That I believe there are extremely intelligent students who go to state schools?

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

upon what do you base your judgment about his iq? i would argue that the editor of the harvard law review is probably a pretty bright guy, and probably as mensa-ready as politicians come. that said, i have no insight into his iq scores, or hillary's, or shrub's for that matter... so it's all just a guess

by jbill 2008-05-05 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Nope.  The NIE was available to Senators; not even their staff could go into the room where it was kept for them.  Barack was still in the Illinois State Senate at the time, and would have had no opportunity to read the NIE.

by Progressive Witness 2008-05-04 01:06PM | 0 recs
Not that easy

You have half a point.  We can't know for sure what Obama would have done if he had known he was going to be President.  Maybe he would have voted the same as Hillary did, just as some others with national political ambitions did.  Impossible to say for sure.

Except that we do know how the candidates have talked about foreign policy since then, in this campaign.  And Sen. Clinton seems to be continuing to position herself for the general election by making sure she can't be outflanked on her right.  Which is why she ridiculed Obama for saying he would meet with foreign leaders, why she voted to brand the revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, and why she is making comments over the past few days about "obliterating" Iran.

This is a pattern, and it's one Sen. Obama seems to stay away from.

by TL 2008-05-04 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Yeah, that was odd.  Class issues ARE social issues, so I'm not sure what mady meant by separating them.

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

This is what I think, though I may be wrong.  I think Obama supporters like me see him as much more progressive than Hillary (except for health care).  Whether that's fair or no, that's the perception.  We think a more cooperative foreign diplomacy might have huge global impacts.  We think Obama is more likely to push for a total education overhaul.  We think Obama is more likely to make inroads into all 50 states.  We don't want 4 more years of 50%+ of the country hating our president.  The irrational hatred of Hillary is not fair, but for whatever reason, that's what most conservatives feel.  

We certainly don't want saber-rattling about Iran and we want a new plan for Israel.  We tend to think that an Obama election is a pro-DFA election.  

As an Obama supporter, I'm not positive all these things are true.  I am quite willing to admit that Obama might be another Dukakis/Carter: right on all the issues but a little too far ahead of his time for most people.

I think that's the big issue.  Obama supporters who acknowledge the Dukakis possibility are willing to take that risk; Hillary supporters, who are generally older and remember Dukakis better, are totally unwilling to take that risk.  I think some Hillary supporters would rather have a less-progressive candidate with a very good chance of being elected (as Hillary supporters believe) than a more perfect candidate with a more ambiguous chance.  

I'm willing to take the risk of McCain in order to get a more perfect candidate.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 10:31AM | 0 recs
I Hate To Break This To You

But Obama is going to be hated by Republicans every bit as much as was Dukakis, Carter, Mondale, etc.  

Does the GOP hate Bill Clinton even more?  Sure.  But that's because he had the audacity to be elected.

He and Hillary's disapproval ratings are the ceiling; Obama's are the floor.  I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but folks, let's not kid ourselves.  If Obama gets the nod, the rage and hate from the Republicans are going to make Clinton's impeachment look like a love-in.

by Blue Jean 2008-05-04 03:55PM | 0 recs
Credibility is lost

as you point out, it is clearly obvious that these two individuals hate (and I don't use that word lightly) HRC....and ironically the more shrill they get against HRC, with often unfounded slime, the less credible they become as "voices of the left".

Now we'll see what happens if HRC is the nominee...will they then shed their "democratic" principles and start working against her and for McCain?  This will be a test.

by 4justice 2008-05-04 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Credibility is lost

Actually Markos initially rated HRC higher than Obama - she turned him off with her campaigning.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 08:29AM | 0 recs
what does that tell you?

issues or personality?

by 4justice 2008-05-04 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

It was her willingness to adopt typical right wing talking points - I dunno, do you categorize that as issues or personality? My guess is both.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

We all know that Hillary's campaign has been accused of using right wing talking points.
But here's the thing.  It is spin.

Calling Hillary a liar is a right wing talking point. (she embellished a 12 year old incident and his fans went ballistic; he has embellished his ignorance of the beliefs of someone he has known for 20 years and that's OK).
Calling Hillary a "b*tch" is a right right wing talking point.
Attacking Hillary for not leaving Bill is a right wing talking point.  
Implying that the Clintons are racists is a rove tactic.  Attack the strong point is out of Karl's playbook.  It's what they did to Kerry.  W was a deserter so attack Kerry's military service.
Hillary Clinton was admired, respected and loved in the AA community so imply she is a racist.  Axlerod KNEW he had to turn to African American community against Hillary Clinton in order for Barrack to have a chance.  And he succeeded by implying anyone who spoke against Obama was a racist and if they were NOT Obama supporters, they must be Clinton and therefore Clinton are racists.
That was the tactic of the Obama campaign and yet the sanctimony of the Obama supporters about how good and kind they are is all over the net.  This is how the Bush campaign worked.  Kerry and his supporters are not patriots.  Bush and his supporters of God loving Americans.  
Now we have Clinton and her supporters are racists and Obama and his supporters are true colorminded, high minded lovers of all that is good and holy.
And people are following that thinking en masse and it scares me.

I have heard these things from the Obama camp in person here in my state, and read them often on the Obama blogs.

But if Hillary talks about her stance on terrorism she is accused of promoting fear.  HER state was one of the targets of terrorism.  HER stance reflects her state.  But she is called a right winger for reflecting the voice of who she represents.  

If I called Senator Obama a libertarian for his proposal on health care, I would be accused of being a right wing shill.  But instead I simply say I disagree with him because I believe his "no mandates" will hurt women, children and the elderly.  But if Hillary says something the Obama camp disagrees with.....she is accused of being a right winger.

Markos whole Hillary hate is based on her Iraq vote.  That is his issue.  Ditto for Arianna,  But they will never have to worry about health care will they.  And because some of us put the everyday bread and butter issues, feeding our children and taking care of elderly parents ahead of the Iraq war vote, we are deemed "right" wingers by the Obama camp.

Maybe they feel guilty for having supported war and destruction all through the Reagan and Bush years and their guilt is driving them.  But to call Senator Clinton a right winger just shows nothing but ignorance of the facts.  She and Bill sure as hell were not supporting Reagan in the 80s.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?



not spin.


That to me is substance.

Are we to be able to have real dialog about complex issues our shall we never rise from the Rovian/Fox/soundbite sewer?

This is the problem that underlies all the other problems.

Clinton has show that she is on the wrong side on what I see as the most fundamental issue.

Why should we believe that her health care program would be any less gimmicky than he fuel tax proposal?

Is she dedicated to sound policy, or does she pander?

by wrb 2008-05-04 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

You've misunderstood my point.  I didn't say she was a right winger, I said it was adopting the talking points that have put people off - you know, elitism, 3am phone calls, 9/11 images, all the kinds of things we expect from Rove.  You are also conflating some comments from supporters with the views of Markos and Arianna - have they called her a bitch or criticised her for not leaving Bill?  I would be very surprised if that is the case.  The Bosnia flap was her own doing - the Obama campaign was slow to join the bandwagon - it was not driven by Obama supporters.

One things is certain - either Hillary is running a very negative Rovian campaign, or a very inept one - because the polls consistently show people beleive that is what she is doing.  If she isn't, she's more incompetent than I thought.

As for racism allegations - we could argue back and forth forever.  Whatever the merits, the Clintons have again been incompetent for allowing the appearance of making insensitive comments.  And as for Bill's laughable allegations that he then denied making - well you can see why people are suspicious can't you?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

I can argue everyone of your points.  But why bother?  You have adopted the personal attack of the Clintons mode just like Axlerod and you can't see it.
   The Obama campaign's used "racism accusations" in the same way the Bush campaign used "coward accusations" against Kerry.

I know exactly what Bill Clinton said on Charlie Rose and was absolutely stunned that at the accusations made by the Obama campaign the next day. I read and heard the entire transcript of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark that Axlerod and Michelle Obama used to play "he's a racist."  It was a spin and a lie.  
I read what Shaheen said and to this day totally understood what he said: that the right wing will use Obama's own words against him.  But it was ill timed and stupid knowing the Axlerod mentality.  Still Hillary immediately dumped him.

I do not think saying Barrack's middle name is an insult.  By using his name proudly, he and his campaign could have defused the right wing.  Instead they played the role of the right wing. If I were a Muslim, I would find it insulting to think someone is ashamed of a "Muslim sounding" name.  It reminds me of all the years when certain ethnic groups changed their names to not sound Jewish or Italian.   I have little respect for those that go along with that kind of bigotry.

As someone who supported Jesse Jackson's candidacy in the 80s, I found it insulting when people said comparing Obama to Jackson was a racist insult.  I think being compared to someone I consider a hero of the civil rights movement is an honor.  

But the neoleft has adopted the right wing mentality of blame and demonize.  

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

I was referring to BC saying Obama played the racism card on him, then the next day denying he said it.  

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

Please show me where I have made personal attacks on the Clintons.  I have pointed out my unhappiness at their willingness to adopt rightwing negative style campaigning - is that a personal attack?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

You are being intellectually dishonest by claiming that the Jesse Jackson comparison was meant to be a compliment.  Both you and I know the comment was meant to paint Barack as a candidate who can only win where Jackson won.  This doesn't mean the Clintons are racist, it was just an inappropriate comment that negatively affected her campaign.

by catalysis 2008-05-05 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

on spin:

"Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers --" continues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-drei er/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.htm l

by wrb 2008-05-04 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

And because YOU believe it, it must be a fact.

Your remarks about Wellesley in your signature tell me all I need to know to discount your words.  Any mentality playing that game is into the demonization game.  No thanks.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

Just making a joke about the "elitist" nonsense.

So you just don't believe it, thus it isn't true. Has Blumenthal denied it?

Why would a well know writer and "opinion shaper" just make up something easily disproved?

Methinks perhaps your faith blinds

by wrb 2008-05-04 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

btw- my mother went to Wellesley.

She's a lousy shot though

by wrb 2008-05-04 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

No offense, but New York is my hometown state (I now live in PA).  New York was NEVER "her state" and certainly not on 9/11.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: what does that tell you?

As an Obama supporter, I think that's not quite fair. She was NY's senator, and she's represented NY for a while now.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Your use of the word "shilling" is interesting - do you shill for Hillary, or is it only Obama supporters who are shills?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

There are people who shill on all sides of the game...from right to left.  I know that.  You know that.  But I do believe that the real shills are the ones with power of the press behind them.....like dkos and Arrianna.

I have seen some Hillary supporters called shills here and elsewhere.  But from a blogging point of view only, what other bloggers have gotten regular time on the media besides Markos and Arianna.

I have never seen Alegre as a guest on MSNBC or Maher's show.  Did I miss them?   Yet the two so called liberal blog owners that happen to hate Hillary Clinton are regular guests on television.
I know that the gay and lesbian community by the numbers leans more to Hillary.  Yet the only acknowledged gay/lesbians I have ever seen on the tube are pro Obama and at least one is a well know Hillary hater from way back (Andrew Sullivan). From Rachel Maddow and the gay man (can't think of his name) who is a constant guest on Bill Maher's show, to John Aravosis, these pro Obama bloggers/radio folk get heard by a national audience.
So when it comes to bloggers who get their faces out there to shill for their choices...I would say Obama's shills are winning.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Why does where you appear make you a shill?  When do you stop being an advocate and become a shill?  If Jerome were to be interviewed on TV would he be an advocate or a shill?   Seems to me you are just whining about their exposure being unfair.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Call it what you want.  When I see Jerome or Alegre on the tube in front of a national audience using racist, hate filled language against Obama and given a pass for it the way Sullivan and others have used sexist and hateful language against Clinton, we can talk about whose a shill.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What sexist or hate-filled language against HRC have Markos or Huff used on TV?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I'm curious about that one myself.

by Brannon 2008-05-04 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Pay no attention to the Straw Man behind the curtain!

by Lettuce 2008-05-05 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

So I must be a former Reaganite eh? Too bad I was 2 years old when Reagan left office.

I was 6 when Bill Clinton was elected president yet I am given equal judgment as a 60 year old to judge the Clinton years and vote with that in mind.

And if anyone dares say that is not fair then they are foolish. I have just as much insight and understanding of politics as anyone twice, or three times my age.

by Cheebs 2008-05-04 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You can make your own judgements and vote as you will.  No one is arguing that.  But to think you have as much insight and understanding as someone three times your age is folly.  It's the individual that counts, of course, because at 20 I was smarter than many of my Ivy League professors.  Even so, I'm older now and I realize that wisdom grows with time.  Being smart and being wise are different forms of intelligence, and not everyone grows wise with time.

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

A translation of the above post:

"No, you're not as smart as people who are older than you.  I was when I was your age, but you're not."

by Frood 2008-05-05 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Well, you do reflect the views of someone who came of age recently. You know it all now.  Wonderful you.  No experience needed for insight.

Here's a clue.  Most of us thought we all knew it all when were your age.  Most of us learned how ignorant we were as we aged.  And hopefully you will too. Then again you could be like W and be so sure of yourself that you don't need no experience, you don't believe with age comes wisdom.
There are exceptions to every rule.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I appreciate your desire to feel important and your display of the human instinct to mismatch.  However, I don't see where anyone disdained you personally.  It might be beneficial to your mental health if you take things less personally.

by SuperCameron 2008-05-04 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"So I must be a former Reaganite eh? Too bad I was 2 years old when Reagan left office."  

Really?  I would have guessed you were about 13 years old.  Please don't mistake your thin-skinned myopia and know-it-all drama-queenism for insight or understanding.  

by KathleenM1 2008-05-04 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Good one and quite insightful.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:35AM | 0 recs

Nice ad-hominem.  How adult of you.

by you like it 2008-05-04 01:43PM | 0 recs
Very good diary

You ask the key question: Why are these two former Reagan fans now seen as icons of the progressive left?  It's bizarre.  I've never thought much of the intellectual abilities of either Markos or Arianna, but I used to hang out at DKos now and then because there were many good posters.

Sometimes the people who have extreme views are the most likely to flip.  Think of Reagan, originally an FDR Democrat who became an arch-conservative.  Eldridge Cleaver went from Black Panther to conservative Rethug.  It can go the other way, too.

Like you, I've always called myself a liberal and always will.  This Obama nonsense will not be here forever.  For now, I'm supporting Hillary and looking for her to do well in the next primaries.  

by Montague 2008-05-04 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary
Interesting points.  Never thought of it that way.  Maybe extremists are always disposed to going extreme no matter what end.  
But then I always have said and believed that the tyranny of the left is every bit as bad as the tyranny of the right.
After all the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries that opposed the tzarist mentality and then ended up as tyrannical as the tzars.
Many of the French revolutionaries became what they hated.  
There are examples all over the globe of both left wing and right wing autocrats.  This is why blind adoration of candidates and movements scare me.  
by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary

Exactly what I was trying to say.  People who think in extreme ways are more likely to flip to the opposite extreme.  Actually I think this has been studied in psychology and neuroscience.

Again, like you, I agree that blind adoration of ANYONE (or any movement) is alarming.  I am liberal, but I am also pragmatic.  I am not a socialist - that is, I find the ideals of socialism to be valid, but I don't think humanity can sustain a socialist system.  Thus, I favor capitalism WITH REGULATION as the system that is most likely to allow the greatest amount of individual freedom while also supporting a strong and large middle class.

by Montague 2008-05-04 09:17AM | 0 recs
Care to back this up?

Exactly what I was trying to say.  People who think in extreme ways are more likely to flip to the opposite extreme.  Actually I think this has been studied in psychology and neuroscience.

When you say "people who think in extreme ways," what do you mean?  When you say it's "been studied," what sort of studies are you discussing?

This isn't about Clinton or Obama, but is is about something I care about much more deeply than presidential elections: the invocation of research that may not exist in order to score points in an argument.  This is nothing personal; as a teacher, it's a major pet peeve of mine.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Care to back this up?

I'm thinking that those extremists are authoritarians, either on the right or left. See the Political Compass for more information.

by splashy 2008-05-05 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Care to back this up?

In other words, no one cares to back it up.

by juliewolf 2008-05-06 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary

"This Obama nonsense will not be here forever"

Yep. Probably only 8 years.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 12:10PM | 0 recs
Welcome to the new landscape

Our party is having an identity crisis.

The sides:

(1) The far Left, so called neo-liberals

(2) Moderate dems, centrists

The sides are not getting along right now.  And each claims rights to the titles "populist" and "progressive."  (Truth be told, I don't see how one could possibly make a case that Barack is more progressive than Hillary, on the merits of their plans.)

by bobbank 2008-05-04 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

You appear to contradict yourself.

Which only makes since I think, because you misidentify the division.

I see it as between those who see themselves as realists, who others of us see as unethical, and doomed to endless ugly war with the enemy v. those of us who believe that the how matters, and who know that there are many good people on the "other" side with whom bridges can be built if we behave honorably and try for real understanding.

Being a product of Ivy league professor/ physician parents & Stanford who then spent much of his life among loggers and fishermen, and came to know the extreme high quality and high ethical standards of these "red" people my reaction to Obama is "at last"

by wrb 2008-05-04 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape
And yet you use perosnal hate and negative spin as a signature.  You are the contradiction. I suspect you view yourself as the "Ivy league product" who see the value of the disadvantaged, the mislead rednecks, and the right wingers who just need an intellect like you to "convert" them.
Interesting pov.  Missionary in your understanding of those poor people who just don't have the advantage of your insight and intellect.
Want to see an elitist.  Look in the mirror.
by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

what hate?

The attempt to brand Barack as more of an elitist is simply funny, and deserves to be poked fun at.

by wrb 2008-05-04 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

You have no sense of humour - his sig is funny, not hate speech.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

To be honest I have a lot of trouble understanding your reply.

You see this as a division between those who see themselves as realists and those who know there are many good people on the other side?

I guess by this you mean to imply that Clinton supporters are more hostile toward Republicans than Obama supporters.  But the very opposite is true.  That is what makes a moderate, well, moderate.  That is what it means to be centrist.  It means you have a respect for the other half of the country and you try to balance what you want with what is practical.

Barack Obama frequently talks about bipartisan efforts.  But he doesn't walk the walk - he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  It's one thing to say nice things about Republicans.  It's another matter entirely to work with them and get something done, as Hillary did with Sen. Graham when they expanded TRICARE to make sure that all our reservists had healthcare, for example.

What I've come to realize is that when Obama supporters, and when Barack himself, say "come together", what is meant is "come to me."

If Barack's supporters have such great respect for the other side, why do they label Hillary as "republican-lite", using that as an insult?  Why do they say "traingulation" like its a dirty word, when in fact it means the same thing as "come together" and "reach across the aisle": compromise?

I see no logical consistency between your words, which sound good to me, and the actions of your candidate and his supporters.

by bobbank 2008-05-04 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

There are many fine examples of what I am referring to throughout this thread, and even a diary was made in case you had any confusion about what I mean. :)

by bobbank 2008-05-04 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

As always, a coherent and logical analysis.  Thank you.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

Both Obama and Clinton supporters describe the others as too moderate and too leftist.

I don't see much difference on policy.

I see significant differences on tactics, however.  Whether the Rovian game is the way realists must play the game, or if we can do better- and that tactics and the quality of the dialog are of the essence of the problem.
And- acknowledging that it is hard to avoid infection such simplifying phrases as " doesn't walk the walk" and "say "come

I don't think triangulation is quite the synonym that you describe. I think it is used to mean "modifying you stand in ways that will best help  gain power", v. "find our true common interests and find ways of realizing them"

I think we shouldn't mirror and validate Fox/Rove- we should defeat them.  We we act like them those good people who are disgusted by both- those with whom we should be building bridges- are lost.

Insisting on honesty and courtesy is a first step.

by wrb 2008-05-04 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

Is slandering the Clinton's as racist an example of this honesty and courtesy?

Is calling your opponent dishonest, secretive, pandering, and literally willing to say and do anything to win and example of that behavior?

How about when Axelrod and campaign legal counsel worked hard to try to turn the volume up on the Facing South smear campaign or the War Room smear campaign?  Honest?  Courteous?

How about telling your supporters that no meeting with Canadian officials ever happened?  Or saying that you didn't know your pastor had any of these controversial views?  Or promising that you will not raise taxes on the middle class, and then describing two new taxes on the middle class, within minutes?

I guess my response to you is the same as it was before - I have no objection whatsoever to your words.  They sound good to me and we agree in principle.  But unfortunately, these words do not even resemble the campaign you are supporting, to me.

by bobbank 2008-05-05 09:28AM | 0 recs
That's not the campaign's theme at all

"I guess by this you mean to imply that Clinton supporters are more hostile toward Republicans than Obama supporters.  But the very opposite is true."

Isn't the campaign's theme that people should vote for Hillary because we need a "fighter"?  Because you can't just give speeches and get everybody to compromise - she's been tested by battle and knows how to beat the Republicans?

I thought that was her central message.

by TL 2008-05-04 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

I know this is an example from his state record.  His legislative efforts, in getting videotaping of suspects when they are interviewed in Illinois, weren't popular at first.  However, this legislation ended up passing unanimously after Obama worked with Law Enforcement and others from across the isle to produce very good legislation in the state of Illinois.  There are numerous other examples of this sort of crossing the isle effort (while not compromising his core beliefs).

So your point about walking the walk being difficult, I agree with, but I see Obama as one of those who have walked the walk.  

The rationale for the "Republican-Lite" phrase is based upon compromises that we find unacceptable.  Compromises such as the AUMF vote, NAFTA support, and even this "gas tax holiday".  These efforts are efforts that democrats should not be embracing since they work against the interest of the lower and middle classes.  This war has cost this country a fortune, and increased the cost of oil around the globe.  NAFTA helped to destroy unions and ship good jobs overseas.  And this gas tax holiday (in the only form that will pass the congress and be signed by Bush) is as ineffective in lowering prices as it is helpful to the oil company's bottom line.

None of these policies are what progressives want, and as seen by the support of the far right wing of all three of these policies they can accurately be described as Republicanish, or even "Republican-Lite".

"Triangulation" is a different story.  It is playing into the image that exists of Clinton "willing to do whatever it takes to be elected".  Rightly or wrongly this impression has been pushed into the public conscience and every time Clinton does something that looks like it will do exactly that this image is reinforced.

What the Clinton camp needed to do on this issue is what they were unable to do which is to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety.  This means they would have had to think about how the message they were putting out was going to affect the electorate, and decide against attack ads such as 3AM, Wright, Race, and other such attacks.  What she needed to do was to win on the merits of her arguments (not implausible) and tried to stay above the fray as Obama has (at least in principle).  Clinton could have out Obamaed Obama, but alas that was not what she chose to do.

People around here mock the idea of being for a new kind of politics, but this is exactly what this country needs.  We are in this mess because of the old (polarizing) ways that were employed (not the ones that weren't so don't say that these are not new ideas are therefore not new politics.  That is a logical fallacy.)

by Why Not 2008-05-04 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

Honest question: if Barack's "new politics" are so successful at defeating polarization and unifying people - why is our party more divided than ever before in the wake of his campaign?  If he can't convince half the Democratic party to come to his side, how do you suppose he will convince Republicans?

by bobbank 2008-05-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

he HAS convinced half of the democrats to come to his side. that's why he is, you know, winning.

the polarization has little to do with him. i think part of the clinton strategy has been to marginalize him as "the black candidate". (that's my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.) that accounts for some of it, primarily the way the black community coalesced around obama (it's part but not all identity politics).

hillary is also a dynamic politician, and one who started with universal name recognition, a popular spouse, wads of money and the establishment behind her. she had a huge head start on obama, but he ran ahead of her anyway. still, she is also a precedent-setter, and she's enthused women, especially white women, as well she should. i'm sure if my grandmother were still alive, she would be jumping at the chance to vote for hillary clinton.

but the polarization also stems from how the two campaigned. circa ohio, hillary realized that her only chance to win was to become the new populist, and rally support among lower-income whites in penn and ohio to pull off victories. i'm not saying that's racist, i'm just saying it's a fact. so she began to target that demo, which in the process began to carve a line between obama and clinton supporters.

there are racial and gender overtones to the polarization, which in part happened because no one has ever seen a campaign with such identity issues at play.

by jbill 2008-05-06 07:03AM | 0 recs
That's not what neoliberal means at all.

Neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal, but only as a starting point) is basically a continuation of 19th century or "classical" liberalism, and as such there is nothing "left," far or otherwise, about it.  Neoliberalism is mainly about economics, and emphasizes open markets, free trade, fiscal discipline, and industry/market deregulation.  As such, it is a rejection of Progressive and socialist ideologies that have arisen on the left since the 19th century, and can best be described as centrist or center-right.  Influenced by Milton Friedman, the economic policies implemented by Pinochet, Thatcher, and Reagan are essentially neoliberal.

I get the point you're trying to make, but the divide in the party isn't what you say it is here, and I'm sorry, but to a political scientist (I'm a network jockey, buy my highest college degree says "Political Science" on it), these are words that have particular meaning, and your use of the word flips its meaning on its head.

The divide in the Democratic Party has essentially been one between a Progressive/left wing and a Neoliberal/center wing, and has been for nearly a century (just look at what factions were vying for the 1932 Democratic nomination).

by Progressive Witness 2008-05-04 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to the new landscape

That is pure silliness. There is no "far left" in the Democratic party.  Furthermore, both Obama and Clinton are centrists.

by TomP 2008-05-05 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Get It

Thank you for this excellent diary.  The "neo-liberals" do seem just a re-incarnation of the neo-cons in some ways.

One difference between a neo-liberal/neo-progressive and a real liberal/progressive is health care.  Any real Democrat would support universal health care. Period.  When I hear the Obama people complaining that they don't want the government forcing them to have health insurance, it sure sounds like the right wing to me. The right has infiltrated the left now in some ways and a lot of the more gullible lefties are falling in with the RW smear machine.  It's downright creepy.  I wish those neo-libs would go back to where they came from.

Blaming Hillary and other Dems for Bush's war is another point where the neo-libs fell into the RW trap.  It was Bush himself who started this one -- hey, don't blame me; those Dems gave me a blank check.  Anyone who checks into the facts knows there was no blank check.  Even Sandra Day O'Conner said so.  The neo-libs are letting Bush off the hook by shifting the blame to their own Dems.  Rove and Bush love it, I'm sure.

by moevaughn 2008-05-04 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Get It

I do support universal health care, and I freely admit I like Hillary's plan more than Obama's.  But it's not the only issue (or even the primary issue) that I am voting on.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: health care

I'm really glad you support universal health care. (Maybe you're a former Edwards or Kucinich supporter?)  If your guy is the Party's nominee, I hope you'll push him on the health care issue.

by moevaughn 2008-05-04 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: health care

I admit that I didn't get to see enough of Edwards to make a decision about him.  In retrospect, I think I would have liked him a lot.  I didn't support anyone in the very beginning, though I liked Obama (the little I knew) and I liked Hillary (though I was nervous about her high negatives).  I even listened to Ron Paul's ideas before I realized he was crazy.  I still like Obama and I still like Hillary.  In some ways, I wish Edwards had gotten more of a chance by the media and polls.  But really, what chance did he stand when he is going up against two great candidates who happen to be a black man and a woman?  He got painted unfairly as the status quo and there was nothing he could do.  

I actually don't dislike Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts, as I was on it for a year after paying $300+ a month for COBRA for two years.  I'm not sure that is the solution for the whole country, and I'd prefer universal insurance, but something similar to Romney's proposal is the bare minimum I would accept.  

As far as Obama's proposal goes, if he would mandate that everyone have insurance (like car insurance), I would be much happier with it.  Hillary's idea of tax credits to subsidize it for certain income levels is good, but I like Obama's subsidy version more.

Essentially, if you could combine Obama's subsidy plan with Hillary's mandate, I'd find that the most appealing.  I hope that's the kind of plan that eventually gets passed.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Get It

I beg your pardon, but I don't think you should define what "real" Democrats should/should not think. It's polarizing.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Get It

As I see it, Hillary doesn't offer real universal health care, which would be a single-payer plan funded by taxes.  Instead, she will create an entire framework of laws and regulations, including an unprecedented expansion of government power over the individual (which I personally don't think will ever pass the Roberts court), serving as a life support system for a health insurance industry that needs to die.  And, frankly, considering the massive contributions she has received from the health care industry, I don't trust her to choose a better plan if given the opportunity.  Obama I trust more than most.

And this "the war is Bush's fault and only Bush's fault" talking point is really demonstrative of the difference between an Obama supporter and a Clinton supporter. Clinton supporters (apparently) see the war as entirely Bush's fault, and therefore think that all that is needed to correct it is president guaranteed to be both competent and not-evil--and with those priorities, HRC is really the best choice.  Obama supporters, though, see the lead-up to the Iraq war as a total system breakdown.  Congress, the media, the bureaucracy all failed to stop something that was clearly insane.  Something extra will be needed to fix these problems, and Clinton doesn't even seem to realize they exist.  Obama has made them the focus of his entire campaign.

by leftneck 2008-05-04 09:45PM | 0 recs
Neoliberalism = conservative economic policy

If you're looking for a term to classify left leaning Democrats, you may want to try again, that term is already taken.

by Renie 2008-05-04 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You hit the nail on the head.  Some of the neolibs are kids who are really prone to the American Idol mentality.  That scares me.

I admire Hillary Clinton. I don't agree with her on everything.  Did not agree with Bill on everything. Disagreed with Nafta but I also understand that people in the world also have issues of poverty etc.
I am a union supporter who understands why some union people oppose immigration.
The difference is that I do not see these issues as simplistically.

Some see using the term terrorists as invoking right wing fears.  But I see the reality.  There are extremists all over the world who believe there is only ONE belief system and that all others must be destroyed.  Some of those people are Muslims, some of them are Jews, some are Christians.  But they exist.
There are crazy people, like North Korean leaders, who are despots.  There have alway been the Caligula types only now some of them have access to WMDs from nuclear bombs to hijacked airplanes.
Because I believe they exist makes me a fear mongering war lover??????

The world is complex.  The problems are all interrelated.  When I was 20 maybe I believed singing kumbaya and making love, not war was the answer.  Now I know better.  Solving the problems of war and peace, the sharing of limited resources and the understanding of the difference between what we need and what we want is not and never will be an easy task.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Its really hard for me to take this diary seriously when Hillary did the exact same flip-flop.  You can't rant on and on about these people during the Reagan years when Hillary was president of the college republicans.  People change.  I have no doubt that that Hillary is a progressive/liberal no matter how much she tries to move to the middle and use the culture card with Reagan democrats.  You have every right to bash bloggers because they are a over the top in their hatred toward Hillary.  But don't bash them for once being repugs when Hillary comes from the same camp.  I find it funny that you believe it unfair to demonize Hillary for her younger years, then demonize people for the same exact thing.  

And one last thing, its peculiar that you blame yuppies (Obama supporters) for the Reagan years.  Middle/lower class, non-college, white voters are called Reagan democrats for a reason.  

by reggie23 2008-05-04 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Thank you for making my point.

But Hillary being a college republican and THEN switching is believable.  Tons of college age people  switch away from what they were raised with.....
but she has been demonized by (some of) the Obama folks for being a teen republican.  Arianna is hardly in the same category having worked for and with the right as a powerful, monied adult.

All people grow and change. I have no problem with that.  You missed the point if you think I have a problem with changing.  What my diary was about was the actions of people who were right wingers that demonize someone from the left, with a lifetime of credentials and documentation of working for left wing causes like civil rights.  
Sorry but when people like that accuse a person who has a record of supporting, working for things life civil rights, of being a racist, it doesn't give you pause???  When people who have fought in wars, have actually supported the military actions of someone like Reagan, call Hillary Clinton a war monger, you don't see the hypocrisy.  Bill Clinton was trashed by the right for protesting against Vietnam.  Hillary Clinton is demonized for having been a "Goldwater" girl at age 14. If you do not see the hypocrisy, what can I say?  Enjoy the kool aid.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

It gives me pause when someone who has worked for civil rights appears to foment racism when it is to their advantage.

I think of Andrew Sullivan. He endorsed Clinton over Bush senior then came to dislike both Clintons extremely.  As recently as a few months ago I thought sensible commentator had a bizarre pocket of derangement. Yet over the last few months I'm seeing a similar thing happening to me.

What I gleaned from Sullivan's writings is that what turned him was their resorting to gay bashing (especially in some ads in Texas, I think) when it was to their advantage.  He came to see them as being about power rather than principle, and this ordered his perception of everything else they did.

Hillary's campaigning has had the same effect on me.

by wrb 2008-05-04 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What I gleaned from Sullivan was the same kind of personal hatred that Matthews had; didn't get the job or sense of self importance they wanted from the Clintons and have become Clinton haters.  If you cannot see thru Sullivan's personal hate, then you don't get it.  I don't care how much Sullivan thinks the Clintons have personally hurt him. If he could not get past his own personal vitriol to see how hurtful supporting W and the right wing was, then he has a real problem.  If you can't see that...oh wait, personal vitriol is in your signature so I see why you understand Sullivan.  

And for the record, I have friends and relatives in the gay and lesbian community and they have been activists for years.  Sullivan's accusations are without merit..always have been.  Sullivan is and has always been about his own personal power and greed.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I agree that Sullivan's hate of the Clintons had seemed to me bizarrely intense.  He seems to believe it originates "betrayal" of gays, for political advantage.

I thought that doubtful, but find it more credible after this campaign.  But I don't have independent knowledge of the facts.

by wrb 2008-05-04 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

So let me get this straight:

1) You're pissed that bloggers demonize Hillary because she was a republican.

2)You demonize bloggers because they were republicans, and insinuate that they may still be republicans by putting "former" in quotations.

3)you question how we can support bloggers that were once republicans.

4)You're suspicious that many of these "progressives" see in Obama what they see in Reagan.  Obama = Reagan

5) You can't trust these bloggers because they were once republicans, but trust Hillary even though she was once a republican

So which one is it -
Should I not trust Hillary or these bloggers because they were once republican.
Ignore your argument and the "Hillary was a republican" crap because they are both asinine. (I agree with this one)

I understand that you're just pointing out the hypocrisy of these bloggers.  But it makes no sense to be pissed that Hillary is demonized for   once being a republican then argue that certain bloggers can't be trusted because they were once republicans.  

by reggie23 2008-05-04 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"Sorry but when people like that accuse a person who has a record of supporting, working for things life civil rights, of being a racist, it doesn't give you pause???"

You are so correct. Then these same people turn and call Obama a racist....

by catilinus 2008-05-04 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

who called Obama a racist?

by colebiancardi 2008-05-04 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I think that was a reference to the Bill Clinton race card thing...

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

he didn't call them racist.  He stated that they pulled the race card on him by calling him a racist.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-04 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I would also add that HRC states that she left the Republican party after attending the 1968 convention where their racism was in full bloom.  Mrs. Clinton has a long and deep history working for liberal and progressives causes, although she has occasionally veered to the middle/right.  However, to me, that doesn't disqualify her.  I've read posts here that scream no quarter ever.  I, personally, think that sometimes no compromise is possible for some issues, but some of the time, it's the only way to bring people together.  If these left-wing puritans were on the right, they'd be called ideologues.  It is the same black or white thinking.  I find it strange that Obama can embrace some of the talking points of the right (less regulation, market incentives, merit pay, optional healthcare coverage), and he's applauded as a consensus builder, but if HRC did the same thing, she'd be called a rightwing shill.  

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 01:00PM | 0 recs

I never made the connection but it is right on. That is exactly what people saw in Reagan.

by catfish1 2008-05-04 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I can't speak for Arianna or Kos, I can only speak for myself.

I became very frustrated by the Democratic party as a whole while Clinton was president.  After we lost congress, Clinton was under constant attack.  His way of dealing with it was to adopt Republican ways of speaking and to move the party to the middle.  It worked for him to some extent.  

While he was president the Democratic party began following the Clinton strategy of moving to the middle.  He and friends set up the DLC who argued that this was the tactic Democrats should take in order to win elections.  While this strategy worked for Clinton, it was devastating to the rest of the party.  After Bush became president we were stuck in a cycle in which the media was becoming consolidated under heavy right wing control, the right was using focus groups to control the public dialog of policy issues, and the Democratic leadership were following the Clinton/DLC lead and constantly moved to the ever right-shifting "center."  All of this went into overdrive after 9/11.

I watched as the Republicans systematically destroyed the country and my party either stood by and watched, or actively helped them do it.  I hold the Clinton/DLC political philosophy of always moving to the "middle" responsible for our lack of a voice.  There is no middle ground when the other side is completely corrupt.  NCLB, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq are NOT centrist policies, they are far right wing policies, and it makes me really angry that my party supported them.

Dean was like a ray of sunshine when he finally stood up and said "What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"   Even though he had been a DLC Democrat, he argued against the Clinton philosophy of pandering to the middle.  He was right.  Since he stood up and the Democrats followed his lead in taking charge of the dialog, our party has been winning.

I became VERY upset with Clinton's friends for dismissing not only the idea of strongly countering the Republicans, but with their elitism and open hostility towards the grassroots.  I believe that the party needs to change, that we need a 50 state strategy, and that average Democrats should have a say in how the party is run.  I want a party that listens to the grassroots and works with them to make the country better.  It's not as much about far left vs. centrist as it is about weak versus strong.  I firmly believe that the Clinton philosophy on politics weakens our party.  Her willingness to use Republican tactics in this election have proven that this is true.

While I have promised to vote for her if she gets the nomination, I am very disturbed by the way in which she has behaved.  I have lost a whole lot of respect for her.  If she has been demonized, it is entirely due to the way in which she and her friends have behaved.

by Renie 2008-05-04 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I understand your feelings, but I respectfully disagree with your analysis.  The Clintons did not "destroy" the party, in my opinion.  They did have a different vision than yours, but many people are on board with their vision.  I'm pretty left-wing, but I could see the appeal in their ideas for many people.  Obama has picked up on some of the same ideas that motivate the right, and I think he gets a pass because he uses language that appeals to the heart, more than the head. Frankly, I feel that many Americans believe both in the social contract between citizens, each other, and their government, and personal responsibility--people want to make this about left vs. right, but I think that's the wrong calculus.  I've been following local and national politics for years, and this is how people feel--and they consistently vote this way.  It's popular to say that Congress operates in a vacuum, but it doesn't--members do reflect the ideas of their constituents.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I think that you misunderstand me.  I am not calling for an extremely left wing agenda.  I'm not even against using language that appeals to the center, what I am against is going back to a place where we have no platform and our own party leaders sell us out.  As I understand it Dean was considered a centrist in Vermont.  I even think that Obama may be a bit of a centrist.  My problem  is with the fact that we as a party lost our voice.  

We let the Republicans set the agenda and coopted their language rather than framing the issues ourselves.  Clinton was a master at this, and I see Hillary using some of the same tactics in her campaign.  It worked very well for Bill, and has worked somewhat well for Hillary, but in my opinion it is not an effective strategy for the party as a whole.  We have allowed the Right wing to use marketing strategies and focus groups to frame the issues and control the political discussion in this country for way to long.

Hillary says that she is a fighter, well frankly, I didn't see that fight when we needed it after Bush became president.  I want a party that is going to fight the Republicans ferociously and set the agenda rather than one that co-opts Republican talking points and has no platform of its own.  I worry what will happen if the Clintons are running the party again.

by Renie 2008-05-04 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  But would you clarify what you mean about the Democratic Party having no platform in the '90s?  In my opinion, it did--it was just more centrist and economically focused, and I will say that for the time, it resonated with a lot of people.  Was I happy, as an old-school lefty?  No, but we weren't facing the same issues we're facing today.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not talking about the 90's, I'm talking about the party after the Clinton Presidency, but still during McAuliffe control of the DNC, and while the DLC was setting the tone of the party with their Liebermannesque philosophy.  

It isn't that we didn't have a platform as much as that our electeds failed to follow it with their voting record, and were not effective in communicating our beliefs to the American public.  It's kind of hard to do that while voting for Republican policy, and voting in far right-wing nominees to courts and administrative positions.  While I wasn't happy with some of Bill Clinton's choices, they paled in comparison with the way many Democrats went along and voted for Bush's agenda.  My point is not that he specifically supported far right-wing policy, it is that his philosophy on winning elections by moving to the center set up a dynamic in which there was no limit to how far Democrats were willing to reach.  Every time they moved to the center the Republicans moved the perceived "center" farther to the right.  My beef is that the Democrats failed to say "no" until they were pushed into it by Dean and an American public that grew sick of the war.  I know that moving to the center is the Clinton philosophy, and I don't think it's what we need for our party right now.  We need to clean up the mess we have been left with by the Republicans .

by Renie 2008-05-04 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I would, however, absolutely agree that we have to frame the issues our way--and we're not always good at doing this because we take the small view.  But, how is Obama going to change this? I looked at BHO's and HRC's voting records, and there's not a lot of difference.  Are the people on the other side going to go along with his agenda? And if they do, is it just because they like him? These are real questions for me.  I guess, bottom-line, that I've participated in elections for 26 years and I've become more of a fan of the turtle along the way.  Anyway, thanks again for the conversation.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Thank you for being civil too.

Republicans maintain their frames by repeating them over and over regardless of the flack they get for what they say.  They choose their words carefully and make sure that everyone repeats them  on interviews in the media.  If you haven't read it already, George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" explains what the Republicans are doing and how we can counteract it.  I've already seen Obama work to re-frame issues, his race speech was a perfect example.

I don't expect anything less than an all out fight on every issue from the Republicans.  I'm not even sure that Obama totally "gets it."  I was very skeptical of his campaign at first, but was won over by his wife when I watched her on CSPAN.  She was talking about how difficult it would be to pass legislation, and said that they planned on forming a partnership with Americans, and basically said that they would be calling on our help to work to convince our congresspeople.  In other words, they see the grassroots as a tool that can be used to get congress to act.

Since Dean I have seen numerous examples of large and tiny political victories which were in some way encouraged by the grassroots.  Just a couple of days ago the folks on Kos raised more than $20,000 for Ben Chandler (rep. from KY) in a 24 hour period after it was reported that he was attacked for endorsing Obama.  I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish with a president who actually wants our help.

by Renie 2008-05-04 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Hello, again.  Actually, I've seen Professor Lakoff's books and have recommended them--I couldn't agree more with his premise and your assessment of the goal posts constantly shifting.  Whether that's the Clintons' fault, I'm not too sure of that, as it seems that many in this country were eager to climb aboard that train. I agree that we all have to be involved for this to work, but I don't honestly know whether this is any different than what any pol says.  I'd be ok with being wrong on this, btw.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Well here is the problem I have.  While I did not agree with Clinton on everything, I do see the logic of trying to change people's thinking slowly.  I do understand what a democracy is.  Do you?  Do you discount people for thinking differently?  Or do you cajole and engage for change?  
When I was attending caucuses here in CO early on, the dems were absent.  We averaged three or four people.  When we tried to get people to rallies in the 80s these newdems were absent.  They were making money.  Some of us have worked for change consistently through the decades.  Now suddenly my caucus was filled with well to do dems I never saw before.  Where were they when we were trying to get dems elected to Congress?  Where were they when we were fighting against apartheid, against Reagan.  Where were they when we were trying to pass the ERA, the human rights initiatives?  Where were they when Hillary Clinton was standing up to the Chinese government in the 90s, going against her husband's state department and against the UN?, calling out for human rights, saying "women's rights are human rights?"  

NOW suddenly these people show up?  NOW they are angry?   Were they screaming and yelling and protesting and working for change then?  

And I will vote for whomever. I am just as disappointed in how the Obama campaign has behaved.  When you can buy into Hillary Clinton being a racist, when you believe and repeat every hateful right wing talking point from the 90s to insult another democrat, I have a problem.

As well I have real issue with the sanctimony and hypocrisy of your words.  You seem to think Senator Obama and friends have been the icons of holiness.  Is it because Chris Matthews has told you so?  Or Tim Russert?  I watched Senator Obama's condescension on the NBC debates.  He was adept at looking innocent while going along with the attack machine. WHY? Because he wanted to win, I suspect.
Now if I said I thought he was evil for wanting to win, then I would be just like any Obama supporter.
It's evil to be ambitious but only for her.
It's evil and lying to embellish accomplishments, but only for her.
It's evil for her to embellish what happened one day in Bosnia 12 years ago.
But if he embellishes what he did not know or understand from a man who was his spiritual mentor for 20 years of Sundays, no big deal.  If you do not see the double standard in this....then you are drinking the kool aid.

She is a war monger of her vote on Iraq and he is a peacenik regardless of him saying he agreed with Bush in 2004.
His changed and compromised with the nuclear power industry but when he compromises it is good and uniting.  When she does it, you call it pandering.
When his spouse takes words out of context to call her spouse a racist, it's righteous.  When her spouse makes a gaffe, he is evil.

No thanks.
I will vote for any dem nominated but I will neither hero worship or demonize.  The right and the neo left can keep that mentality. I want no part of it.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

As a Democrat under 30, I appreciate your (and your generation's) hard work.  However, I support a move in a new direction.  I think some people who also support that move have dismissed the work of previous Democrats.  I think the DLC is totally wrong, but I do appreciate that they were at least trying to help.  I think they failed at it, which is why I support the DFA.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Now this I can understand. I can disagree with, but I understand.

The argument I would make is this: for the people who insist that Hillary is the "old left", how do you get to that?  Kennedy and Kerry are probably more representative of DC insiders than anyone. Long before Bill Clinton, they (at least Kennedy) were running the party. White southern men were never welcomed into the party by the DC insiders. Kennedy went against Jimmy Carter, essentially hurting him and helping Reagan get elected. Yet they support Obama.
Kerry and Kennedy come from a state that overwhelmingly supports Hillary.  Can you get more insider than ignoring the people you represent???

But I appreciate your respectful comment.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I lived in MA for 10 years, so I am positive they will vote for Obama.  I never understood the whole "superdelegates need to vote for their states' selection" idea.  It is as good a metric as most, I suppose, but I never thought it was a necessary requirement.  I don't fault any SDs from states Obama has won who support Hillary.

It's not a matter of being "old left," it's a matter of being "center left."  Hillary is wrapped up very tightly with the DLC, which I disagree with.  They're not the devil, they're not evil (the DLC I mean), I just don't agree with their type of Democratic politics.  Hillary has some great ideas (health care being one of them), but her connection to the DLC is a turnoff to me.  

I happen to be one of the elitists who support Obama, and I am still working out some things.  But I support anything that moves the country as a whole to a more liberal/progressive position.  I think it's the right time for a president that is slightly ahead of the country's principles (in terms of being more progressive than some people may be ready for).  

I don't see Hillary as moving the country as a whole to the left.  I thin some of Hillary's ideas are very liberal, but with 50% of the country hating her, that's always going to be a huge drag on shifting the national consciousness on issues like the environment, renewable energy, diplomacy, education.  I fully expect those people to pull so hard against anything that Hillary wants, just because she is Hillary Clinton, that while some programs will get passed with her, the country won't really change their minds on anything.  

I see the perception of homosexuality as an example of a huge shift in this country's thinking.  Just in my lifetime (I am 27), homosexuality has become much more accepted, especially among young people.  

http://americanobserver.net/2008/04/23/t olerant/

I would like to see something similar happen with regards to the environment, renewable energy, progressive taxes, atheism/agnosticism, race, gender.  I don't think Hillary as a president has a positive impact on getting people to think of these things in a new way, because she is so (unfairly) divisive among conservatives.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 11:41AM | 0 recs

   I haven't seen the Vilsacks switching their support, since Obama beat Hillary soundly in their state.

  In all fairness, their endorsement came before that shellacking. And, to return the fairness, Kerry supported Obama before MA primary...I believe Kennedy did too. It's not like some (such as Richardson) who saw his state vote, then went against them.

  In the spirit of friendly opposition, you might want to clarify!

by southernman 2008-05-04 12:54PM | 0 recs
Keep paying attention...

You'll get it eventually.

by froggyman 2008-05-04 10:13AM | 0 recs
You hit on something very important!

Those of us who are embarrassed by these Kossaks and fellow travelers who insist on being the face of this party, don't have to be ashamed of calling ourselves "liberals" because THEY are not liberals.  They are "progressives."

by lombard 2008-05-04 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: You hit on something very important!

You got it.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You hit on something very important!

From the youTube Debate:

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.


CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 02:18PM | 0 recs
I didn't realize that Kos

   was under an obligation to support hillary. Or operate his POLITICAL blog as a neutral site in a POLITICAL year.

  for that matter, this site, run by Jerome Armstrong, is a hit site for Hillary Clinton. Do I see your objection? Nope! Me thinks you have a double standard.

by southernman 2008-05-04 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't realize that Kos

This site has been many things before you deigned to grace it.

by bowiegeek 2008-05-04 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Pish Posh

Well it is a straw accusation, that's for sure but Axlerod and friends are not opposed to using it.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pish Posh

   Just like Williams and Hillary aren't above crying to the media when they feel they are being wronged...and then turning around and mocking Obama for doing the exact same thing.
by southernman 2008-05-04 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"Hope does not feed the poor; never did; I did not get it then; I don't get it now."

I'm confused. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 (and again in 1996) based on his message of "hope." He told us to vote for the candidate who "offered hope," and touted himself as the "man from Hope." Now we are told that such thinking is wrong and naive.

by amadon 2008-05-04 11:03AM | 0 recs
Absolutely one of the most

authentic heartfelt diaries I have read in a long time. One which speaks directly to me - and I am an older white, gay male. Thank you very much for putting into words, Jjc2008, what so many of us feel. Thank you very much. I, too, don't get it...

by Rumarhazzit 2008-05-04 11:26AM | 0 recs
Which part don't you get older white gay male?

1. Voted for war 2. Supports McCain on gas tax And last but not least: 3. From the Wikipedia article: "Raised in a politically conservative family, she volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the United States presidential election of 1964. Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice. In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College. She became active in politics and served as the president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College Republicans." Hillary's a troll!

by hienmango 2008-05-04 11:30AM | 0 recs
Your condescending attitude is

exactly what this diarist is speaking to. Did you even read her diary?

Hillary's a troll!

This, my friend, speaks volumes more about you than it does Hillary. Nicely played....

by Rumarhazzit 2008-05-04 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely one of the most
You are very welcome.  I was glad to find a place to share my feelings where I know at least some will be respectful whether they agree or not.
Of course I did expect the usual insults...you can't get away from it any more.
by Jjc2008 2008-05-05 01:06PM | 0 recs
Hillary President of College Republicans
1. Voted for war 2. Supports McCain on gas tax And last but not least: 3. From the Wikipedia article: "Raised in a politically conservative family, she volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the United States presidential election of 1964. Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice. In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College. She became active in politics and served as the president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College Republicans." Hillary's a troll!
by hienmango 2008-05-04 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary President of College Republicans

This is just silly.  If you read the entire piece, you couldn't have missed the part where she left the Republican Party because of the racism she saw at their 1968 nominating convention.  You couldn't have missed the part about her support for liberal and progressive groups for the past 37 years, could you?  Intellectual honesty means full disclosure; your response is wholly lacking in honesty.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Well, you have a point.  He did "use" the fact that he was from a town called "Hope" in his campaign. I saw it as a nice slogan.  But that was all.  I did not see it as his entire campaign. I voted for him because a) I did believe "it's the economy..."  b) because he was a dem c) because I saw what the Reagan trickle down policies had done, were doing, and how Reagan's union busting was hurting us all.

However, the Obama campaign using "hope" would not bother me, except that I see so many using it as their sole reasoning for voting for him: inspiration is fine but it does not feed poor people.  Hope is great but it is not an economic policy.  Healthcare affects the pocketbook.  So does the tax policy of the right.  I like Hillary's stance on those issues better than Obama's.  
I believe Hillary's stance on education is better than Obama's.  She is adamantly opposed to merit pay and vouchers and he is not.

To me they have the same solution for Iraq and to be honest, I doubt either will be able to achieve what they hope to when it comes to the middle east.

Hillary to me is the better candidate on the issues I believe can be remedied quickly. I think our foreign policy will remain muddled, complex and hard to solve no matter who is in office.
I simply resent the demonization being done by the Obama campaign,  but I will vote for whomever the candidate for the dems is.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

   Read his book. The "hope" message was all over the 1992 campaign.

   Now he mocks it. Go Figure!!

by southernman 2008-05-04 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I 'get' that there is a lot of Clinton hate to make a buck or get popular on.  What I don't 'get' are the throngs heading out to arenas and getting inspired by his speeches.  I scratch my head as to what they are seeing that I am not.

by gwen 2008-05-04 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Why don't you go and see for yourself?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

OK, let me see if I have this straight. What we have here is the DFA vs. the DLC.

About the DFA:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/issue s/reform

About the DLC:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&a mp;subid=85&contentid=893

So, from what I can gather, the DFA is based on the failed leadership of Howard Dean at the DNC, in turn based on his failed candidacy. It's a movement to bring the party back to the far left so we wan keep losing elections.

The DLC was established to help Democrats win elections after a string of miserable failures going back to George McGovern. The single exception prior to the founding of the DLC was a southern governor, Jimmy Carter, who failed to win a second term.

Bill Clinton, once chairman of the DLC, was the only resoundingly successful presidency for a Democrat since FDR's reelection in 1944. That's what the Deaniacs and the DFA-types are pissing on?

The DLC was established to find a way for Democrats to actually WIN, dammit! You can't win running a leftist neo-Marxist like Barack Hussein Obama! No way in hell!

We've had over 7 horrible years with president George W. Bush and we've lost two elections and I blame the far left for that. Gore, and then Kerry, just didn't get the support they needed. They both missed by a small number of votes in one key state that would have made all the difference.

If you want to lose another election to another Republican, just keep supporting Obama because that's just what will happen if he becomes the nominee. Just in case that happens, I'm saving this post so I can smear it in your faces if that horror comes to pass. If I'm wrong, you can return the favor. ;)

I'm doing all I can to help Hillary because she is the only way we get the changes we so desperately need. If you want to screw yourselves and this country, just stick with Dean and Obama. We won't forget.

by Nobama 2008-05-04 11:51AM | 0 recs
Did you miss 2006?

Were you awake when we took control of Congress largely on the back of Dean's 50 State Strategy?  Did you notice that Harold Ford, Mr. DLC himself was the only Democrat to lose a competitive Senate race that year?

What has the DLC's strategy won?  A single two term presidency.  Now, that is nothing to sneer at.  However, given that their strategy didn't ever garner more than 50% of the vote, and given that they also managed to lose Congress for the first time in 50 years, I'd say their track record isn't too good.

Sorry, I've had enough of the DLC.

by you like it 2008-05-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Did you miss 1994?

What has the DLC's strategy won?  A single two term presidency.  Now, that is nothing to sneer at.  However, given that their strategy didn't ever garner more than 50% of the vote, and given that they also managed to lose Congress for the first time in 50 years, I'd say their track record isn't too good.

The Democrats lost Congress because they were corrupt and innept.  There was a scandal in the House Post Office and the Chair of the House Ways and Means committee was indicted and ultimately spent 15 months in prison.

From Gallup:

President Bill Clinton's approval rating before the midterm elections in 1994 was 46%, and three weeks later it was 43% -- a decline, but within the poll's margin of error.

The Congressional Approval Rating the two weeks before the 1994 midterm elections was 23%.

by psychodrew 2008-05-04 02:47PM | 0 recs
You didn't answer my question.

Pointing out the fact that Congress had a poor approval rating is not in any way exceptional.  Congress' approval rating is lower right now than Bush's is.  Yet to argue that Bush is not a drag on Republican candidates for Congress would be silly.

The DLC may not be solely responsible for the loss in 1994.  Nonetheless, they certainly didn't do much to prevent it, for all their vaunted political acumen.  Far more damning is the fact that their politics in the aftermath brought us no closer to regaining a national majority.  The DLC bears a lot of the blame for Gore's "loss" in 2000, and for the loss of the Senate in '02.  Encouraging Senators to vote yea on the AUMF to 'take it off the table' was a poor decision politically and morally.

All that aside, you didn't answer my question.  What claim does the DLC have to any national victories other than Bill Clinton's presidency?  That presidency, by the way, was won more by Bill's vast personal gifts than by any DLC policy.

by you like it 2008-05-04 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You're getting troll rated for the "neo-Marxist" remark. Is there anyone who doesn't think "Nobama" is a freeper troll?

by amiches 2008-05-04 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Brava, for you and your eloquent diary

by Denny Crane 2008-05-04 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"So how does a former right winger who was by marriage in the Reagan administration, and how does a blogger who admitted to being a Reagan lover,  get to be the icons of the left?"

I don't know, how does a Reagan Democrat like Taylor Marsh or a guy who voted for and donated to Bush like Larry Johnson become icons of the Clinton supporters?

by Rumproast 2008-05-04 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Let's see....
Taylor Marsh???? Has she been a regular on any television/ cable/ political shows?  Was she there trashing the left on the tube all through the 90s like Arianna?

I have never seen her on the tube. I saw Larry maybe once.  

Markos and Arianna on the other hand are regulars on the very left hating MSNBC.  Go figure.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-05 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It
I think I understand Hillary, maybe the more so because I too am just about her age. She just comes across to me as very confused. I'll accept that she is running to protect the Clinton legacy. But she needs to grasp (maybe she already does?) that the time of the Clintons is past. Obama reflects the new wave of politics we will be seeing more and more of as the 21st century proceeds. Due to their age, the
Clintons are not able to adapt to that style. On the other hand, Hillary can be a definite help to Obama once she bows out, and she has stated that she will help.
by applecrispbetty 2008-05-04 12:10PM | 0 recs
The Only Problem is

this "new way" of politics you speak of looks an awful lot like the "old way" to me - what was it about the Clinton era that you didn't like - the peace or the prosperity?

by pan230oh 2008-05-04 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Only Problem is

I could have done without NAFTA, or losing Congress for the first time in 50 years.

by you like it 2008-05-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
My opinion only

Markos is easy.  He has changed his stance so many times that I honestly think it is purely economics.  He is for whoever will bring him the most viewers and the highest income.

Ariana I fear is just plain jealous of a successful woman.  Women may shoot me but I think Ariana is a spiteful lady.

by NewHampster 2008-05-04 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: My opinion only

nah, I won't shoot you.  I would have used harsher language to describe Arianna - and lady is not a term I would have used towards her.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-04 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I realize that you can't see me. But if you could you would see me standing up and saluting your comments. It is about time that someone stood up and spoke the truth.

by Pagan Power 2008-05-04 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I can't figure out why Obama has never one time denounced the sexism directed at Clinton.

by cc 2008-05-04 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

   B/c she hasn't denounced the racism aimed at him...by people like Ferraro and Johnson.
by southernman 2008-05-04 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It
Ferraro' statement was not racist.  Please stop saying so.  
What she said was the race was a positive factor for him in the same way gender was a positive factor for her.  People who do not believe that race and gender have not benefitted Obama and Clinton are living in a bubble.  They have and THANK HEAVENS that FINALLY after 200 years race and gender have some positive repercussions.  Because the truth is that for over 200 years race and gender were negatives when it came to be elected to office.  Now there is still some negativity for both candidates because some people will never vote for a woman and some people will never vote for any minority.  But that's been FINALLY counterbalanced with people who are voting for either candidate partly because they see it as an opportunity to get beyond race and gender.
by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

   No, that's not what she said. She said Obama would not be where he was if he wasn't black.

  Never once did Obama claim that Clinton wouldn't be where she was if she wasn't a woman (or b/c she's married to a former President for that matter).

  She didn't say it was an advantage. She said he wouldn't be having the success if he weren't black. That's an appalling statement.

by southernman 2008-05-04 01:53PM | 0 recs
Not to mention

    that the Obama campaign hasn't engaged in sexist tactics. Not once has he, or any surrogate, said Clinton shouldn't run b/c she's a woman, she can't win b/c she's a woman, or she'd be a bad President b/c she's a woman.

   Where's the sexism?

by southernman 2008-05-04 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not to mention


I think you are wrong. Jesse Jackson Jr who works for the Obama campaign said in national television that Hillary's fake tears were used to get women to vote for her.  You don't think that was sexist????

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Not to mention

   Not at all. How is that sexist? Hillary did cry...the timing was interesting..and the result was obviously favorable to her.

  I don't see the sexism.


by southernman 2008-05-04 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not to mention

If you don't get it or see it, that explains a lot about you.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

hillary gets a lot of grief for being a goldwater girl, but she was a republican only because her father was, switched to the democratic party within a couple of years of leaving for college. and why was her father a republican? he started out a democrat, but when he lived in chicago he ran for alderman and ran right up against the corrupt democratic chicago machine. it left such a bad taste in his mouth that he switched parties. and here his daughter is, sixty some-odd years later, running against a chicago democrat with more than a whiff of the chicago machine smell to him. funny how things work out.

by campskunk 2008-05-04 12:43PM | 0 recs
And thankfuly we won't, because we are rational

and base things on policy and issues, not "feelings" and "symbolism".

They are proof that the Right Wing Conspiracy lives long and prospers.  And just moe proof that they are trying to destroy the Democrats t any cost.  They are the ciruclar firing squad they themself talk about (hey Randi?)  

And, don't forget, where they don't call themselves Democrats, but are playing in the Democratic race, (ARIANNA), her best friends are still Repbulicans, ie Frank Luntz (Republican Strategist).

GOOOOO President Hillary.

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-04 12:46PM | 0 recs
For what it's worth

   you clearly need some experience on this blog. The hero worshippers you speak of on this site are Clinton supporters.


by southernman 2008-05-04 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: For what it's worth
Really?  You make blanket statements that can easily be disproved.  Plenty of Obama worshippers here....and everyone knows their names.  
You are wasting my time. All you do is attack personally.  Why am I not surprised?
by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: For what it's worth

   LOL...you are the one who originated the hero-worshipper argument, then when I point out that the bulk of them on this site are Clinton supporters, you complain that i'm attacking personally?

  Good grief, the hypocrisy!!

by southernman 2008-05-04 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I am a 60-year old Obama supporter. Let me try to explain why I am disliking Hillary Clinton more and more. By the way, I agree with you that there are many overzealous Obama supporters on Daily Kos, who refuse to be civil about any disagreement, just as I think there are many similarly overzealous Clinton supporters on MyDD.

I had much admired Hillary Clinton in terms of her work for health care and children, and I would give her a tiny edge over Obama in that respect (since I think he is also excellent in that regard).  It is her over-willingness to support war that is the reason I could never support her to be the Democratic nominee. Her vote to authorize war with Iraq was inexcusable, and her attempt to portray it in more peaceful terms is just wrong. She has unfortunately been willing to fan the flames in support of Bush's ambitions in Iran also, with her recent inflammatory rhetoric of "annhilating" Iran (yes if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, but Iran is many years away from nuclear weapons, and we have many years to work diplomatically, not to bring up ridiculous hypotheticals). She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment giving Bush more support for his hope to start still another unjust, dumb war. Hillary has even said she would provide an "umbrella of tolerance" for such medieval dicatorships like Saudi Arabia. She would be willing to go to war and sacrifice American lives to support one of the most horrific regimes in the world.

I also have been angered by the tone of her campaign, with her ridiculous charges of elitism towards Obama, with her pandering support of a gas-holiday which would mostly support the oil companies, would hurt efforts to save the environment, and which pander to right-wing antitax sentiment which ignores the benefits that are taxes provide, in this case money for repairing are crumbling infrastructure.

I would still vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee even though I don't see any way she can win it without overturning the will of the Democratic voters. Regardless of her failures she is far better than the alternative of John McCain, who would continue the nightmare policies of George W. Bush.

by berkeleymike 2008-05-04 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I have no problem with your reasoning with regards to her vote on Iraq.  I disagree with you as I do not believe she voted for war. I believe she and 80% of the American people and their representatives felt they were voting for letting the inspectors do their jobs.  Trash us all for being naive. I accept it.  I never see things so black and white and while I was against the invasion, I never saw Saddam as an innocent bystander..he was a sadistic despot and it was hard for me to work up sympathy toward his government.  But I was wrong in not being more aware, more cautious, more concerned about Bush's ultimate goal.  It was a bad time for a lot of people.  I did not lose anyone in 9/11 but I know how they felt having suddenly lost my sister in 2003 to negligence.  Sometimes anger and fear can cloud one's thinking. Nonetheless, I do not believe any of the congress voting to authorize the Bush to do what was needed believed he would do what he did.  But that's me.  We all have a right to an opinion and obviously one's intent is not provable.

As for the tone of the campaign, I feel the same way about the Obama campaign.  My experience with the Obama campaign here is not a good one.  Arrogance and sanctimony do not win over democrats.  His campaign here is almost exclusively white, well heeled men.  Yet the core of the dem party here has been women, many black women, Latina women as well as older women and union men. And guess what, we have been ruthlessly pushed out by the Obama men.  There are men few who have ever gone to a caucus before.  While we were pounding the pavement in anti star wars protests of the 80s, where were they?  Making money.  When we were trying to get the ERA passed, where were they?  

We both have bad views of our fellow dems.  And that is sad.  But when the Obama campaign started off using the "DC insiders," the DNC elitists, I scratched my head.  It is the DC insiders and DNC longtimers who resented Bill Clinton early on.  Kerry and Kennedy?  Can you get more "insider"?  Their own state overwhelmingly supported Clinton and they went Obama? That's not elitist???

So I guess we agree to disagree.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I am sorry that where you live you experience the Obama campaign seems arrogant. I live in Berkeley, volunteer in Berkely and Oakland. The Obama campaign is quite mixed racially, lots of women as well as men, mostly young but also older folks lot me. I like people I have met. There is a lot of idealism, a lot of hope for a better future.

I don't buy the charge of elitism. Yes there are insiders supporting Obama. He could not be a viable candiate without that. But I like the fact that Obama is much less reliant on lobbyists (although not 100% so) and has amassed an amazingly large number of low-money donors. He has revolutionized political fundraising and made it possible for Democrats to successfully compete against big-money.

I appreciate your statements about Iraq. It may be that Hillary and others were voting for the inspectors to do their jobs, but they did and were doing their jobs until Bush demanded they be pulled out. Bush was unwilling to let them do their jobs because he was so determined to go to war with Iraq. He did not want a peaceful solution. It was only his lies and the American media's complicity with those lies that gave a different impression to 80% of the American people. To me it was obvious that Bush wanted war above all else. I think it was obvious to most of the millions of people worldwide who marched against the war, and even those who didn't. I marched. Very possibly you did as well but had a different belief about his intentions. But I believe all of the Democratic senators who voted for the authorization for war (and that's what it was - it was even in the title) should have known better and probably did know better. That includes Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry. I think their action was a disgrace, was based upon their personal ambition rather than what they really thought was right.  Yes, you are right that intent is not provable. But if Democrats had stood strong and voted down the resolution I believe we would have avoided a disastrous war. So even if intent was good, I believe judgment was not.

by berkeleymike 2008-05-04 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I can understand your assessment, but I disagree.  BTW,I was against this war from the beginning, and I still believe this wasn't the war we needed to fight. When asked to explain her vote, HRC said that she had to make a decision, and in a time of war, the Commander-In-Chief should be given the benefit of the doubt.   The vote to authorize the war said that it authorized military action only if inspections did not work--it demanded compliance with earlier UN resolutions that compelled Iraq to fully disclose its nuclear program--this came about because of the first Iraq War. I remember the rallies and marches against the war, but I also remember the groundswell in support for action. I don't think it was posturing, because I sincerely believe she cares too much about life and the causes and issues she chooses to support lead me to that conclusion.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I would give mojo for this if I were allowed.

by juliewolf 2008-05-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
This diary is absolutely brilliant...

It's elegance is in its simplicity and clarity of purpose, in terms of how the diarist conveys some very basic sentiments supported by basic historical reference.

Cleaned up very slightly, it belongs in a major US newspaper; perhaps even syndicated to many.

I think it's one of the most powerful diaries I've ever read anywhere as far as conveying my own sentiments about the state of the Democratic Primary is concerned. (And, god only knows, I read plenty of them, too!)

by bobswern 2008-05-04 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary is absolutely brilliant...

Thank you so much for your kind words.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

So what. This diary just highlights the pervasive martyr syndrome that is infecting MYDD.

I used to really like this site and still do. But for gods sakes. This is the internet. People can say whatever they want at their respective websites. Who cares and how is this at all constructive. So you don't like Dkos, then don't go there. Folks on this site have been just as offensive as the folks at DKOS. This primary has torn apart the blogosphere and the party.

The real question that needs be to asked is can we come back together and fight the Republicans. Will you fight with us(obama supporters) if Hillary loses? I will fight with you regardless of the outcome and I hope you will do the same.

by Forward with Feingold 2008-05-04 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

To clarify: will you join us in the fight against Republicans?

by Forward with Feingold 2008-05-04 01:08PM | 0 recs
I will not.

For many reasons, I have come to the conclusion that I would rather take a chance with McCain at the helm, then with Obama.  I believe that if we can get enough Democrats with guts into the House and Senate, and get Pelosi and Reid out of leadership positions, our Country will survive four years with McCain.  I don't feel it will be safe with Obama as President.

You don't have to like it, but that is the way it is.  Last I heard, this was a democracy, and we can each vote our conscience.

By the way, this was an excellent diary.  I really feel like the author captured what a lot of us our feeling.  Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your perspective), unlike the diarist, I can't stomach voting for Obama if he is the nominee just because he is a Democrat, because I am not sure the Democratic  Party is any better than the Republican Party at this point.

by cjbardy 2008-05-04 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I will not.

I can't say I am surprised, as I suspect many of the folks here and Hillary supporters agree with you. Frankly, it makes me very sad to hear anyone say that. I can not believe that anyone could vote for McCain after what the Republicans have done to this county in the past 10 years. This is truly disheartening and makes me wonder about the future of  MYDD as site that works to get Dems elected.

I implore you, and anyone else who reads this, to think long hard about voting for McCain or any Republican for that matter. I have never been a rabid Obama fan but more of the same will only harm this country and my children's future. We can't afford another Bush. sigh

by Forward with Feingold 2008-05-04 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I'm a 50 year old white Jewish woman who was for Clinton until January and now supports Obama.

I reject the idea that Obama supporters are more negative and irrational than Clinton ones. When I was a Clinton supporter, I asked questions and raised issues about Obama, and I got some nasty responses but also clear-headed posts which provided evidence and analysis. Now I'm an Obama supporter and when I aske questions and raise issues about Clinton, I typically get called names and told I'm a cult member. The amount of evidence and logic is frequently minimal.  Just look at the discussions of the gas tax - which every economist has said is absurd and which Clinton supporters defend without refuting the policy arguments.

While it is absolutely absurd to claim that Hillary Clinton is a crypto-Republican, it is likewise absurd to claim that she and her husband ran a progressive administration. I well remember the criticisms from The Nation and other progressive publications and organizations. They operated with DLC principles and triangulation.  And I'm sick of the claim that I'm somehow a gender traitor if I don't support Clinton and that I'm nasty if I criticize her in perfectly civil and rational terms.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 01:10PM | 0 recs
No diatribe...just my take.

Obama has run his campaign premised on the idea that he promises a new politics, one that isn't partisan.  The DLC said much the same thing.  Here is a snippet of their position.

"We believe in community; that we can achieve our individual destinies only if we share a commitment to our national destiny. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the commonwealth."

Obama says that we are ones we've been waiting for.  How is this fundamentally different than what the DLC is espousing? Not much, and when you analyse BHO's positions on issues, he takes a little from the right and a little from the left.

What's triangulation? Moving to the middle, where many people are.  Some of us act as though the left and right are the only wings of the party--those who believe this are wrong.  Being inclusive means welcoming everyone, even when you don't agree with all their positions.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-04 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You ask:

So how does a former right winger who was by marriage in the Reagan administration, and how does a blogger who admitted to being a Reagan lover,  get to be the icons of the left?

Because like drunk kids in a frat house, they scream the loudest and drown out the voices of reason.

by ghost 2 2008-05-04 01:15PM | 0 recs
Obama's more populist
"My guess is this: some/many maybe of the bloggers now shilling for Senator Obama are probably former Reaganites who "saw the light"." Some guess, Obama's grass roots approach appeals to most progressives that I know, and he's more forthright on issues that they care about.
by clad 2008-05-04 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What issues?  Explain please.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 01:57PM | 0 recs
Are you off your meds?

And yet it's your candidate shilling to Republicans with her bullshit gas tax holiday(which will cost us $10 billion in funds for our highways, thousands of jobs and likely result in gas prices remaining exactly where they are so that the oil companies can pocket the difference).

And it was your candidate pretending to be something she's not - a gun enthusiast - in another shameless appeal to the right.

And it was your beloved President Clinton who so championed liberal values when he threw the LGBT community under the bus repeatedly, particularly when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, using the LGBT community, that was very loyal to him, as wedge to increase his appeal to bigots.

And, of course, NAFTA, which sold out the American worker.  We know Hillary supported it then and is lying about it now.  Of course, her top man, that moron Mark Penn, was actively working for another trade deal that would screw over the American worker.

And she was apparently too stupid to see what was really going to happen when she voted to authorize the Iraq war.

Then her warmongering on Iran - man, that's so fucking liberal of her.  Liberals are always talking about how they can obliterate other countries with nuclear weapons.

Supporting an anti-Flag burning amendment - just Hillary standing up for those liberal values of hers, not shameless pandering.

by jaywillie 2008-05-04 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you off your meds?

You seem to KNOW an awful lot.  Did you grow up with Hillary?  Did you hang out with her?

I disagree with Hillary on the anti flag burning thing. I don't totally go along with NAFTA but neither am I blind to the fact that world trade is here to stay.  It needs to be fixed. Do you think the USA could overuse all the resources and count on cheap from abroad forever?  I don't know the exact answer. I don't think anyone does....but that does not make Hillary evil or a republican.  

And your personal insult, as in "are you off your meds" speaks volumes about you, not me.  I don't need to demonize Obama to justify my support for Clinton.  But you seem to need to demonize Clinton and her supporters on a personal level in order to justify your support for Obama.  Again it speaks more about you and your narrow vision than anything else.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Interesting facts:

Creator of DKOS - former Republican
Creator of Huffington - former Republican
Creator of Americablog - former Republican

All of the above blogs used to be in my top three favorite progressive blogs. That was before Obama. Before Obama, I agreed with everything posted on their sites because they seemed to have the best interests of Democrats in mind. Now, I can't stand them. They are obsessed with their hatred of the Clintons. They are almost fanatical about their love and admiration of the Obamas. I knew about Arianne's past and John Aravosis' (Americablog), but I had no idea about DKOS. I feel they violated my trust.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Forgot to add this little gem. Once, John Aravosis (Americablog), former Republican, got all bent out of shape when the details of the economic stimulus package were first announced. You might assume he was against it. But, no. He was upset because he was excluded. This is a single attorney, who appears semi-regularly on CNN and probably makes well over a hundred grand a year, crying that he didn't qualify for the stimulus check. After reading his rant, I knew it was the end of my time at Americablog.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 03:57PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton - former Republican n/t

by Renie 2008-05-04 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton - former Republican n/t

Yea, that would be in her teens........

You really don't get the difference do you?  How sad for you.

by Jjc2008 2008-05-05 06:36AM | 0 recs
Wonderful Diary

Absolutely wonderful! I couldn't agree with you more :)

by LDFan 2008-05-04 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I don't get it either. I really don't get huffington for being an ultra liberal, but hating the Clintons. If she loves Democrats so much, why does she hate the family who brought us out of 5/6 landslide losses, won twice, and made us competitive in national elections again? (btw don't give me the Perot horseshit, exit polls showed the pro choice pro gay candidate taking equally if not more from Clinton 1992: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A96495826 0 1996: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html ) (Congress in '94 happened because of congressional scandals, the Clinton hating media, the anti-health care lobbyists, and conservative awakening, not Clinton for all you other people who don't show honour to the Clintons like you should. 9/11 and the War on Terror is why they stayed until 06.) So Huffington hating the Clintons makes no sense. I hope Hillary gets the nod, I wonder what the huffington post will say then. will they support John McCain?

by DiamondJay 2008-05-04 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What's not to get? DailyKOS and Huffington, and a couple of others are led by disgruntled Republicans who couldn't stomach George W. Bush. They're still Republicans.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

And they have a vote. Please don't write someone off for what they used to think.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

As an Obama supporter, I have never been a supporter of Huffington.  She has always been suspect in my book.  

In a GE, I will take all the help I can get.  In a primary, I refuse to listen to a former camp- follower who mouthed right wing bile to satify her husband.

The bigger issue is what's the point of attacking HRC for being a GOP activist when she was a teenager.  So was I (passed out literature for Ford)  Children tend to follow their parents politics.  HRC's adult political pretty straightforward Dem and her loyalties should not be questioned.  

We've got better things to discuss

by kmwray 2008-05-04 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What hasn't been addressed is that, should Clinton get the nomination, will Huffington and DailyKOS support her in the GE. I don't think so.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

huffington is not a real voice of the left.

I bet you dKos would.  If she got the nomination in a way that made sense (she won the next few primaries in a landslide, all of the supers en masse shifted to her), I bet you he would

by ab03 2008-05-04 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Hey, fair enough. As an Obama supporter I can respect that he isn't your particular brand of tea and can respect even more your life-long commitment to liberal causes and your commitment to vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

You should keep in mind that there are millions of us and we're not all former Reagan-lovers or whatever. Given how different people are it's kinda amazing that any of us can agree on anything ever. I hope that Obama grows on you over time.

by Brannon 2008-05-04 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It
Very gracious response. There are many great Obama supporters. I'm not one of them, currently, but should the unexpected come about, I'll remember post like yours. Kudos!
by Jeter 2008-05-05 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

If he would fix his health care plan and actually make it universal, that would go a long way for me toward growing on me.

by splashy 2008-05-05 08:50PM | 0 recs
when was the last time

anybody called her goldwater girl?

and are you really going to claim that dkos is a conservative in drag?  really?  

What's interesting is that a number of people in your demographic are NOT going to vote Democrat in November if Obama is the nominee (at least that is the story).  So tell me, how are you going to call the young voters or the dkos's of the world "not real democrats" when they will vote the party and most of your demographic won't?

by ab03 2008-05-04 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: when was the last time

Most of my demographic won't?   Do you have proof? I have seen numbers like 20% or 30% on both sides angrily retorting what they will or won't do.

But there is no proof so perhaps you read tea leaves or you can see the future.  My  understanding based on my what my peers say is opposite of what you say.  Everyone of the Clinton supporters in my  circle of friends and relatives in my demographic will vote for whomever the nominee is...and the majority of them have a history of getting past their anger in the primaries and supporting the party.  Does yours?

by Jjc2008 2008-05-04 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: when was the last time

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari -hutchinson/vote-demographics-spells_b_9 8211.html

"Obama's Pennsylvania loss does not dampen his chance of eventually getting the Democratic nomination. But the voter demographics that stack up high against him dampen his chance of getting the White House."

It can be spun both ways.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama supporters are immature, naive, and obnoxious.

They do more damage to their candidate than McCain ever could.

They rave about his "character" and how he's "a different kind of politician" without knowing anything about his history in Chicago or how dirty a campaign he's run.

There's a very good site, http://www.attacktimeline.com that shows just how dirty his attacks have been from the beginning in a timeline format

Obama supporters show a level of naivity not seen since "the children's crusade"

They fail to realize that his central argument, conflating of the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years with the war and economic disaster of the Bush years, and his claim that he will "change" the tone in washington by changing how he interacts with republicans are both incorrect and illogical.

Obama's young supporters don't understand that the Clinton years of the 90's were great for America and just how much American's lives improved economically.

Obama's supporters fail to understand that by adopting right-wing anti-Clinton talking points that they are devaluing Democrats most valuable historical resource.

Finally, Obama supporters are showing people that read these blogs that Obama brings out the worst in people, not the best, and divides people, rather than bringing them together.

Obama is not qualified to run the country. He doesn't have the character or the judgment to do so.

What he does have is a rabid cult following that turns everyone who is not in it completely off to them and him.

McCain could not ask for a better opponent.

If Obama's the Democratic nominee, McCain will be the next President.

by BerkekeyGuy 2008-05-04 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

You are wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. Your ignorant portrayal of Obama supporters features one patronizing stereotype after another. It demonstrates a level of nativity that I have yet to encounter in any Obama supporter.

I'm old enough to enjoy it when you characterize me as young, so I'm not going to object to that part.

Hillary's conduct during the campaign has shown she lacks the character and the judgment to be a good leader of our Party much less a good president.  

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-04 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It
" A level of nativity"?
by Jeter 2008-05-05 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

While I'm certain that at least some Obama supporters fit your description, I resent your overarching generalization. You don't know me, and throwing around insults doesn't help anything, even if it makes you feel better.

I know lots about Obama's history in Chicago, and I've seen Hillaryis44 continue to misrepresent the mistakes that he did make.

I do understand how great the 90s were - we prospered. But while prospering, we had all sorts of fighting in Washington that held this country up.

I'm sorry that nicer people don't write on these. They are put off by harsh attacks from negative Obama and Hillary supporters, including you.

Looking at Attack Timeline, it can be misleading:

AT (sept07): Obama says, even if elected, Hillary 'can't govern.'

Article Quote: "A lot of people ask me," he declared in a concluding riff, "why you instead of Hillary? Why you instead of John Edwards or other candidates?" He then briefly returned to the central image of his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention: a fragmented America of warring red states and blue states. "We can't govern because the country is divided," he said. "Nobody can govern."

AT (Oct03): "Obama says Hillary would be 'another president who shuts the door on the American people.'"

Quote: "We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy."

AT: (Oct12): "Obama says Hillary is leading 'because she's Hillary Clinton as opposed to Hillary Rodham.'"

Quote: "The default candidate for Democrats in this race was always going to be Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton as opposed to Hillary Rodham,"

AT: (Oct12): "Obama campaign says it questions 'what principles, if any' Hillary has."

Quote: "Questioning and challenging what principles, if any, each candidate is standing on when they take a position or change that position is the normal part of the political process."

Some other attacks include: "Obama: Hillary 'tends to galvanize the other side,'" and "Obama's talking points hit Hillary on electability."

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

"Finally, Obama supporters are showing people that read these blogs that Obama brings out the worst in people, not the best, and divides people, rather than bringing them together."

there are so many things wrong with your post but just a question - how do you know it's not hillary that's the divisive one?  don't see how you could tell.

by ab03 2008-05-04 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Because of the kinds of posts Obama supporters make, especially at the Washington Post.

Clinton supporters biggest issues with Obama are his lack of experience and the total disconnect between the kind of transcendent leader he sells himself as vs. his real record. There's also the naivity and sheer insanity of the whole "changing the tone" argument. Republicans have been winning because of power and discipline. Nancy Pelosi made the mistake of thinking that it would help to "play nice" with the Republicans and got her head handed to her along with screwing all of us by "taking impeachment off the table"

Its not a matter of "tone" its a matter of conflicting goals.

Its negotiating, and Hillary is a far more effective negotiator than Obama is.

She's got the record of bi-partisan results.

Obama doesn't.

Obama's supporters forget the biggest mistake in negotiating. You don't get to choose the lines for the person at the other end of the dialog.

Obama's central argument is a sham, and he knows it.

He's a lawyer. He knows that "nice" doesn't have anything to do with it. You try not to be disagreeable when you disagree, but you never lose sight of the fact that you have your goals, the other side has theirs, and you do your best to get the most you can for the people you represent, over the long term, as well as right ow.

Hillary does that better than anyone.

She learned it from Bill, and he's the best there is.

Finally, there's the fact that Obama supporters post vicious below the belt attacks on Senator Clinton, and often ones that are brutally sexist in nature.

Mydd is more civil than most forums but you still see a lot of the same stuff here.

by BerkekeyGuy 2008-05-04 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Really - how did her healthcare reform work out?  

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Post that stuff from timeline here if you believe in it - it will be ripped to shreds.  Go on, please.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:17PM | 0 recs
Moulitas was in CIA
Yes MSM favorite "lefty" blogger was in the C.I.A.
Go Figure!
by hypopg 2008-05-04 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Moulitas was in CIA


by interestedbystander 2008-05-04 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Now you know how I sometimes felt about all those Southern conservatives who turned Republican from the late 1960s on.

by spirowasright 2008-05-04 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

A lot of female baby boomers are willing to overlook Hillary's support for the war, her DLC triagulation, and her loose realtionship with the truth because they identify with her as a woman.  

by fugazi 2008-05-04 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Excellent diary.  How ironic that all these ex-Republicans are supporting someone whose nomination will assure the election of the current Republican candidate in November.  Maybe a lot of these folks, subconciously speaking, never actually left the GOP in the first place.

by AzSaxCat 2008-05-04 10:47PM | 0 recs
you are Progressive

and you've got it nailed, corporate agenda and certain elites have hijacked the term.

It's the policies stupid and that's the issue here, none of those people really look at policy positions.

The fact these people have been cheer leading for Obama is actually what convinced me to dig deeper into policy positions and I absolutely did not like what I see.

And I'm not that much of a Hillary fan but assuredly this rude insanity, win at all costs activity turned me 100% away from Obama.

by Robert Oak 2008-05-04 10:50PM | 0 recs
A Better Guess

I think the anger many of us have towards Hillary is the anger that comes from betrayal. I've gone from joy at her '00 victory to disgust at her support for Bush's war.  From there it's been a series of nasty surprises: that bankruptcy bill, that cluster bomb bill, Kyl-Lieberman, the recklessness of her presidential campaign... all those things smell of sell-out and tarnished character.  I expect bad votes and vicious campaigns from Republicans.  From one of our own, there's just something much more infuriating about it.

I recognize the other candidates' flaws, but Hillary seems to take things to a special level.  

by mikeinsf 2008-05-04 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

What you don't get is "change."

Hint: It ain't DLC Hillary nor GOP McCain.

by Kobi 2008-05-05 12:01AM | 0 recs
I Just Don't Get It either

I just don't get it, that you can  support a candidate that says about herself and the Republican nominee that they have a life time of experience and have past the "CIC-test", while her Democratic oponent only gave a speech.

I just don't get it that you can support a candidate that teams up with the Republican nominee to push a short term, bad for the environment, non-solution like a gas-tax holliday.

I just don't get it how you can support a candidate that uses a typical republican style attack on gun control her democratic opponent.

I just don't ger it how you can support a candidate that uses guilt by association attacks right out of Carl Rove's playbook to swiftbaot her Democratic opponent.

I just don't get it.

I would never attack someone for having been a Goldwater girl or a Reagan fan in their past. I think that the way the candidates act in this campaign is far more relevant, and I think that is the reason HRC is attacked on Dkos and Huffpost.

by hebi 2008-05-05 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I found the Clinton White House to be much further to the right than anything I could be happy with.  I consider them as guilty as Reagan and the Right with their actions on  trade with China, handing US ports and buisnesses over to China, their foreign policy, and their trade policy, they stuck with the Reagan policy of dereglulation and gutted the welfare safety net.  Alot of Republicans were against NAFTA, and Bush Sr. even had a plan to reduce the federal deficit.   Hillary had to overcome my negative opinion of the Clintons (that they were too aligned with the Right) during her campaign, but she has continuously reinforced my opinion.   I was not interested in Obama, until Clinton mocked him on his stance on meeting with foreign leaders.  Over and over she brings up things that make her seem aligned with the right, and anti-liberal.   That sad part is, she has some nice liberal policies, but in her campaign she has made me fear her right alignement more than I believe in her liberal policies.  Which is why I hate and fear the idea of her in the White House.  Both candidates are to the Right of where I stand on issues. I do not consider Obama much left of center, but he is further left then Clinton.  But even if they were carbon copies of each other on policy, I would still have to support Obama.   Because of her willingness to concede part of this country to the Republicans.  Because of her mocking attitude to the strength and value of hope.  And because of her Iraq war vote (if I truely believed she was ignorant I could forgive her for it, but because I think she is intelligent and knowledgeable I cannot).

And every person and group becomes unimportant the minute they are thoroughly  commited to an idea or candidate.  It has nothing to do with, age, race, or gender, when a demographic group becomes for the most part unmovable they become sidlined.  Every election cycle we get a narrative about the group that is going to decide the election.  Blind Clinton supporters and blind Obama supporters became unimportant the minute they became blind.  It is the people capable of being moved that are important to the outcome of elections.  I assure you both you and I are unimportant at this point, I have no one in this race I am capable of supporting other than Obama barring a major error, and based on what you have written I would say you feel the same about Clinton.   We both need to relax and ejoy the view from the sidelines.

And I really love the notion that Obama supporters are more blind and rabid than people supporting Clinton at this point.  Every indication is that Obama is the more liberal of the two, and my allegiance is going to go to the candidate in the race that is furthest to the left.   But I am also supported by all the facts pertaining to the race, Obama has the most delegates, the most popular vote, and the most money.   And as hostile as alot of people are to the notion that Clinton should get out of the race, and certainly she is close enough that all else being equal I do not think I could get out.   That said, I think the points she has used to promote herself and attack him are loathsome and anyone with the power to end this thing should.   But additionally I do not think anyone other than Clinton would be in this race when their debt level hit 17 Million.  I am sure Edwards would have loved to be able to have a shot at Winning Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.  I tend to think that people like Edwards drop out because of money, so with her debts why hasn't Hillary? Can't imagine any stronger arguement than -17 Million.  Don't agree?  Then go Donate to Hillary.

by Tumult 2008-05-05 02:00AM | 0 recs
It's Spurious...

...to suggest there's something nefarious about Huffington & Kos's voting histories or that there is any connection between that and their support for Obama.

This fight got too ugly, too early, and everybody thinks it was the other sides fault.  Each side declares the other's tactics to be "Unfair" and "Undemocratic" but still return fire in kind.

There are plenty of accomplished career Democrats on both sides, and there are plenty of new excited voters on both sides.  Nobody gets to claim the mantle of being a "True Democrat" compared to anybody else because sooner or later, we're all going to be in this together.

I examined both candidates on the issues, and weighed them in accordance with how I thought they would perform in the General Election, and how they would affect our party downticket.  Based on these criteria, I selected Barack Obama.  I am confident that thousands (millions?) of his supporters did the same.  And you know what else I'm confident of?  That millions of HILLARY supporters did the same thing too.  The reason is that decent, intelligent people are ALLOWED to disagree on things.  And if we could all just accept that and advocate for our candidates based on our candidates instead of attacking each other's supporters for all the imaginary nefarious reasons they picked the side they did, we'd be helping our odds in November tremendously, regardless of who the nominee is.

by TooFolkGR 2008-05-05 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Spurious...

Just watch the election results tomorrow if you're an Obama fan. You will see a beautiful thing.

See, the deal is this: Obama inspires us.
Clinton does not. Obama is someone the country can rally around.

Clinton hasn't won by a big margin anywhere.
She's going to be a fantastic VP

by Trey Rentz 2008-05-05 10:15AM | 0 recs
"I Just Don't Get It"

Your title is perfectly accurate.

by McNasty 2008-05-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton for VP

Three Cheers for Hillary Clinton as VP!
Polls are showing she's losing her lead. Looks like Obama is gaining on her.

Um. By the way? When Obama wins. The two people you're writing about will just end up looking cool.

by Trey Rentz 2008-05-05 10:13AM | 0 recs
A very serious response...

Kos and Crew are trying to take over the Democratic party. Trying to divorce it from corruption, impossibly bad strategy, and corporatism.

You may not agree with that. But it is a clear goal of theirs, and they are trying their damnedest to get it done.

Hillary falls under the corporatist logo. (Obama does too, just look at how much support he gets from wall street).

Kos, for one, is not an Obama adulator. He criticizes Obama whenever it's warranted. (see the trial lawyer stuff with edwards).

by RisingTide 2008-05-05 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Oh go cry me an effen river. This diarist is actually crying because she thinks that bloggers and posters ruined Hillary's victory ride down Pennsylvania Ave. I've never heard such drivel in my entire life. Truth be told your candidate lacks the charisma to turn on the young demographic, and tells too many falsehoods for the middle age demographic.Lets face facts, back in 92 the Republicans were the ones complaining that The Clintons were getting the young voters who "didn't know nothing" Ain't that something, was this diarist one of those young voters??

by johnny sexton 2008-05-05 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Obama has a paper thin record. He associates with known and unrepentent terrorists as well as racist pastors.

He can only win the Democratic nomination by calling former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton racists. That won't win him the presidency. Republicans and independents have deserted him. He's insulted working-class whites and cannot win there votes in large enough numbers. What does that leave him? The lunies.

Good luck!

by mmorang 2008-05-05 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

I meant he's left with the loonies!

by mmorang 2008-05-05 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Don't Get It

Yeah Blah blah blah on his associates. Hillary has no past record, and a history of unsavory people in her past also. Don't you know that the Republicans are in control of most of the records of her past problems. This is probably why Obama hasn't used them, because they are in Republican hands. You can sweep them under the rug now, and call the kettle black (no pun intended). But you gotta fight with clean hands, and Hillary's hands are just as dirty if not dirtier than Obama's. If by some miracle, like Barack Obama pulls a Vince Foster on us, and your candidate actually gets the nomination, rest assured "Hillary's chickens will come home to roost" te republicans will put her feet and fat calfs to the fire.

by johnny sexton 2008-05-05 03:14PM | 0 recs
Obama Wins Nomination = Small Tent Democrats

If Clinton is abandoned by the Democrats, if they don't count FL and MI or have a revote, then the Democratic party is finished as a viable national party. Another party will have to take its place.

The coalition that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton represent is a winning coalition that the party could build on. In stead, many on the left have embraced a man who has split the party ("Hillary didn't cry for Katrina") with race bating.

Unlike the author of this diary I can't say that I'll DEFINATELY be voting for Obama should he be the nominee. I don't respect how MSNBC (particularly Keith Olbermann, Air America, Kos and others have been so one-sided in their coverage. Considering all the crazy and unfair things they have said about the Clinton's, why should anyone believe what they have to say about McCain?

Jjc2008, don't worry, Obama will come running and begging for your vote if he's nominated and he'll say a couple of nice things about Clinton. But for me the damage has already been done. I will not forget the immoral tarring of the Clinton's as racists or how they have been treated by the left in the media.

by mmorang 2008-05-05 01:26PM | 0 recs
You don't get it

Because it has nothing to do with you.  These people are just pundits, you know, they profit from opinion and it's more interesting when there is conflict and you guys just lap it up like it was a gift from Heaven.

No one in their right mind thinks you are a racist because you support Clinton, that's such bullshit and I'm tired of that Meme.

I consider myself a liberal and I support Obama, the color of my skin means nothing.  Everyone needs to stop playing the damn victim, it's old and it's destroying the Democratic Party.

I will work for either of them as the nominee and anyone who says otherwise does not understand what is at stake here.  

by Ellinorianne 2008-05-05 02:36PM | 0 recs
Ah, but I do.

You "guess" that Obama supporters are either deluded crossovers or brainwashed youngsters.

I see.

You don't think our support for Obama might possibly be because we believe that presidents actually DO have to LEAD. For which they have to, you know, INSPIRE?

You don't think that it might be because when it comes to charisma - pivotal in Bill Clinton's election to office - your girl has all the personality of a wet blanket?

You don't think it might be because policy wonks such as your heroine - in fact, wonks in general - are only suitable additions to operational staff, not to the leadership circles - regardless of how many times we hear about her "solutions"?

You don't think it might be because the management of her campaign - a good indicator of how the WH would be run - has consistently been nothing short of disastrous? To have started the favorite and to have blown money, name recognition, DLC influence, presidentials coattails, every advantage - to the point where she's losing the nomination today - implies a breathtaking LACK of leadership skills.

You don't think it might be because she has shown herself to be an expert at prevarication, spin, and a near mule-like tenacity ("toughness" is the euphemism, I believe) to win at any cost?

You don't think it might be because of her blatant attempts to grovel before, and pay homage to demons of the right like Scaif, OReilly and other denizens of Fox News - demons that will turn on her the minute she's the nominee?

You don't think it might be because we know that NOTHING can get discouraged republican voters to rejuvenate and close ranks like a Hillary Presidency?

You don't think it might be because she's embraced the low road (NYT words, not mine) since February,
denying the rest of us even a glimmer of hope that  we can for once be engaged in a primary where decency and truth prevails?

You don't think it might be because for once, just ONCE in our lifetimes we'd like to nominate a candidate that we can be truly proud of?

Which was it again, delusions or brainwashing?

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-05 09:01PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads