Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

[UPDATE--I have now been thrown off Hillarysvoice, a site owned by Alegre. Dissent, it seems, is only a quaint idea to someone who has made so much about her abuse for dissenting with others!]

Does anyone care about Hillary anymore?

A website whose reputation and business quadrupled when it backed Hillary Clinton's candidacy is in the-- Resurrect Hillary business now.

No that's wrong. It is in the Screw Obama Anyway You Can business now.

A well-known blogger has created her own website to promote Hillary's candidacy--well, until the end of  August anyway. But by then the website will be up and running. Front page positions are available Yoohooo.

But while these voices are clamoring, Hillary is facing a silence as bleak as any she has ever known. So before we move along, this is for Hill:

Now, about mydd, the website  that provided a home to the famous blogger mentioned above after she famously marched out of dkos--well, gosh, it has been a big Hasta la Vista, Baby! I used to wonder why this blogger didn't care if she had 3 diaries on the rec list, all put there by her private army of backers on call to rec as requested? I guess because her commitment to mydd was temporary, a  soapbox that's all. Who cares if they were nice to you, and took you in when you marched away from the other guy?

Hell, for all I know mydd has said, `Hey, terrific. Go for it. More the merrier.' I guess that would be taking the high road.

And I do know by now that I should definitely throttle this tendency to think of  this place as a community. Don't lecture, me, ok?  I know it is silly. People come and people go. On any given day only a handful of people who have posted before will do so again. And I know that people who get banned come back under new names and then do the same creepy stuff all over again.

When I first came on this site, Seymour Glass was here and YellowDem. My next love was Undiesided.[These are just names that came off the top. My favorites might not be yours, so chill, ok?] I remember liking them--through their diaries-- a lot. And then I got to know so many other contributors, all Clinton supporters; they are mostly all gone now. And so many of them seem to hang out now at these these old pro-Clinton, now hate-Obama sites.

The truth is everywhere I look I see these people creating websites to tear down Barack Obama and promote Hillary Clinton's candidacy--still. They are also endorsing John McCain.  It actually looks like a huge cottage industry. And they promote each other. A happy family.

And then there are those of us who are doing as Hillary asked. We are supporting the Democratic nominee. There is no reputation to be made, no crusade and no drama. Just people playing by the rules, doing as Hillary requested and loving all she stands for-- still.

I read yesterday that Hillary is taking an extended vacation. She will return if necessary for crucial votes in the Senate, and party leaders are backing her on this. I also read somewhere that to be defeated in a close run for the nomination, or for the Presidency itself, creates a depression like no other.

Who doesn't remember when Al Gore grew a beard and wandered the world? Other  candidates like Gary Hart, who battered her endlessly during the primary campaign, have offered advice in Huffpo, no less. I'm sure she felt cared about by that one. But as was intended, I read it. And between Gore and Hart and McGovern, Ferraro, Mondale and Dole-- who have all written about it, there is no question that Losing the Big One is devastating. They all say that "It" is the Hardest Loss.

Of course Hillary didn't lose the Presidency. But you see, she did. The Democratic nominee will win the White House this year. You can take that to the bank. And she was campaigning for the nomination  for 18 months. It had to take an enormous toll. Acceptable if you win--a terrible burden when you do not. And then there is the pressure of such a campaign. As Ed Pilkington who traveled around the US interviewing failed Presidential candidates writes in the Guardian:

As I meet more members of this exclusive club I realise quite what an ordeal presidential candidates go through - they are subjected to afflictions that can reasonably be compared to torture: sensory overload; ritual humiliation; strangers invading your body space at all hours of day and night; disorientation; sleep deprivation. mar/29/uselections2008.usa

I know people say she has faced up to hardship, disappointment and loss before. And so she has. But I cannot help but wonder how it feels to Hillary to see all these people who say they support her, ignoring her last request. Making a business out of defying her--all in her name.

Of course, maybe she doesn't see it at all. Who knows for sure?

What I do know is that Hillary is more than a candidate, more than an icon, and more than a political platform. She is also more than the candidate to back if you didn't and still don't  like Obama. Hillary is a person. When Emily Malcolm, founder of Emily's List, said recently  at a panel on sexism in the media that Hillary told her breathlessly in New Hampshire

Emily, I am the first woman to win a Presidential primary.
My heart ached like someone had slugged it--hard.  Because it was true, and no matter how many more primaries she went on to win, the media never, ever talked about it.

I know it  is hard to be a standard bearer for a cause, and icons can be lonely. She certainly became my hero.  I have never been so proud of being a woman as I was when watched Hillary Clinton in those 22 debates. Would I have liked more of that--you betcha. Would I have loved to see a woman put her female's hand on the  Bible and swear to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--God yes. I think I would have liked this as much as many African Americans will like it when Barack Obama puts his hand on the bible on  January 20,  because he will. I do not think he can lose. [I am not saying, by the way, that I won't like it when that happens. What I am saying is for many African Americans it will be exceedingly, and then exceedinly again, Special.]

I also wish with all my heart now that Hillary would be his Vice President. I expect that is not to be either. Either way  I am doing my best to support the nominee. And in the meantime I think about Hill. I look at all the people who I used to think of as my friends who are bashing Barack and promoting her still. And when I read about her extended vacation, I think, `they are not helping her.' They don't really care about her. She isn't a person to them. She is a business, a cause, a means to drive traffic to a  website. She is a claim to fame.

But Hillary is bigger than they are, and she cares about the well being of this country as much as anyone I have ever seen on the public stage. Hillary inspires me now, no less than she did throughout the entie campaign, because  unlike so many of her so-called supporters, she will do the right thing. And then she will go private, as she already has done, away from the clamor and cameras, to a lonely beach somewhere or maybe into the privacy of her own home. Alone--or not. But certainly with God. And with her beating heart safely tucked away, out of reach from all those who would sell it for their own advancement.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, MyDD, Simon and Garfunkel (all tags)



Re: Dishonoring Hillary

My respect for Senator Clinton makes my seeing how others are using her name to fight against her issues all the more painful.

I really have to wonder if anger and bitterness from the few have blinded them to the fact that they are now enemies of their champion...

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-19 12:19PM | 0 recs
You have to ask what this was always about?

Was it about democratic principles?
Was it about progressivism?
Was it about a woman's right to choose?
Was it about ending the war in Iraq?

Or, was it about the diarist and their anger all along.

by iohs2008 2008-06-19 12:32PM | 0 recs
Banned Members Club

And I know that people who get banned come back under new names and then do the same creepy stuff all over again.

Jeez I had a friend who did that many times. Hehehe

by stevens7139 2008-06-19 12:44PM | 0 recs
when I was banned

I made a new account and kept my old account name in the sig.

kept me honest. (other name was BlogSurrogate57)

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: when I was banned

I'm on like my 4th or 5th name.

by stevens7139 2008-06-20 10:56AM | 0 recs
Drop them a link using the contact us

button at the bottom. it took them about a week, but my screen name came back! (I asked them politely why they had taken it away)

by RisingTide 2008-06-20 11:01AM | 0 recs


by iohs2008 2008-06-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

"But Hillary is bigger than they are, and she cares about the well being of this country as much as anyone I have ever seen on the public stage. Hillary inspires me now, no less than she did throughout the entie campaign, because  unlike so many of her so-called supporters, she will do the right thing."  - Linfar

There are very different roles that politicians and their supporters play, and each is essential, and complementary, not contradictory.

According to the latest ABC News/WAPO poll, a total of 37% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, and we have a perfect right to our positions, which vary in their basis.

What Hillary decides is "right" for her to do is not "right" for anyone but her, and everyone has both the right and obligation to examine what is right for them. Hillary is a public servant who has both obligations to her constituents to preserve the political power they need her to maintain in order to serve them best, and her own personal vision and dreams to fulfill. She has her understanding of where her obligations and responsibility lies. Her supporters also have our rights and responsibilities to stand up for our beliefs, truths, special personal mission in life, and responsibilities to voice those views.

Hillary could not have gained the opportunity to run for the presidential nomination without being a "team player", and that is one of her gifts. It has severe limitations, which need to be complemented by the dissent of everyone who is not restricted by responsibilities and constraints on their ability to speak truth to power.

Society needs both team players and dissenters to function, and both positions deserve dignity and respect, along with vigorous debate.

Trashing either Hillary, or any of the tremendous number of her supporters who disagree with supporting Obama and refuse to do so, avoids dealing with the issues at hand and offers only a segue into meaningless vitriol. No point to it whatsoever, except to derail an otherwise important discussion.

People have a variety of reasons we will never support Obama, and they will not be changed at all by trashing us, which only alienates us further.

by 07rescue 2008-06-19 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Did you even read the diary?

You do not speak for Hillary Clinton or her supporters.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

lord knows every time you speak space... its jusst SPACEEEEEEEE

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-19 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

It was a funny at first. Now it's starting to get creepy. Stop with the stalking you troll.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 03:54PM | 0 recs
quit dishonoring the memory

of Calvin and Hobbes inc.

by corph 2008-06-20 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I wouldn't say that linfair is extending "meaningless vitriol" nor "trashing" Hillary's supporters. Linfair, as we all know, has been one of her greatest and most outspoken supporters here. As a long-time Obama supporter, we have disagreed (sometimes greatly), but she has always been fair.

She is right to call out the Hillary "supporters" who are threatening (or promising) to vote for McCain. That is in direct opposition to what Hillary stands for. In fact, President McCain would veto every single bill Senator Clinton writes.

She asked her supporters to support Obama because Obama is the Democratic nominee. We are all free to make our own choice in the matter (that won't change and we aren't taking that right away), but no one can pretend that their vitriol toward Obama nor a vote for McCain in any way reflects Hillary's stated goals.

by not Brit 2008-06-19 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

not Brit--Exactly. Exactly.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:40PM | 0 recs
Troll rated?

I love that CoyoteCreek troll-rated you for this comment, but not me for mine. Was it because you agreed with a long-time Obama supporter or simply because you are a "traitor"? Perhaps it was because you repeated yourself. Who knows.

In the end, linfar, I want to say thank you. The reason I am a Democrat is because our party has survived through hardship and trial since Jefferson. We grow, we evolve, we represent the people, and, yes, we compromise. Had it gone the other way and Hillary been our nominee, I would hope that I had had your courage to pick myself up by the bootstraps and say, "Let's get to work!"

Troll-rate THAT, CoyoteCreek.

by not Brit 2008-06-19 09:35PM | 0 recs
Nobody is dishonoring Hillary Clinton by refusing

to support Obama if he in turn refuses to do what's right and put her on the ticket.

by handsomegent 2008-06-20 04:42AM | 0 recs
I disagree, depending on what exactly you mean

by "support." I wouldn't expect someone who had some strong anti-Obama sentiment to actively campaign for him, so I couldn't really criticize for that. But to abstain or vote for a candidate other than Obama in November would mean decreasing the chances that policies Hillary Clinton supports would get enacted, and increasing the chances that policies Hillary Clinton has spent much of her life opposing would get enacted. So yeah, if your vote in November is what you're talking about with the word "support," I think you would more or less be spitting in Clinton's face by withholding your support for Obama.

by kydoc2 2008-06-20 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree, depending on what exactly you mean

Well if she's NOT on the ticket I won't vote for him and neither will potentially millions of other Clinton supporters. I believe you have to take a stand even if it means your POV will suffer.

by handsomegent 2008-06-20 08:38AM | 0 recs
I think you have to take a stand

for the issues that impact people's lives, and if you get so wrapped up in who the standard-bearer is that the issues take a back seat, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face (at best). So I agree about it sometimes being necessary to make a sacrifice in order to stand on principle. I just think it's better to sacrifice one's own pride for the principle of the common good, rather than to sacrifice your country(wo)men's welfare for the principle of...well, I guess I'm not too clear on what the principle is that you're talking about taking a stand for. Maybe you can explain.

by kydoc2 2008-06-20 09:20AM | 0 recs
We can take a stand

without having it be hillary on the ticket.

How about General Clark, last seen kickign off anyone who wouldn't support hillary out of his staff?

by RisingTide 2008-06-20 11:04AM | 0 recs
Well sometimes you have to simply take

a stand and use your vote as an instrument of protest.

by handsomegent 2008-06-20 08:40AM | 0 recs
See, that's where you're screwed up.

Vote counts are pretty thin data.  If John McCain gets 50 million votes, there isn't going to be included in that count any distinction between how many of those votes were for John McCain and how many were protest votes by petulant Clinton "supporters."  If McCain wins, your vote for him would count towards his "mandate" just the same as my dyed-in-the-wool Republican father's would.

You want to protest?  Fine, protest.  But remember what drew you to Hillary Clinton in the first place.  If it had anything to do with her progressivism, her concern for the welfare of all Americans, her devotion to sane foreign policy, or her commitment to women's rights, you betray every single one of those values if you cast a ballot for John McCain.  It's really that simple.  

By voting for John McCain, you assent to being counted among those who oppose women's rights, support war, and think the Bush economy is just fine.  It doesn't matter what you actually think; a protest vote counts just as much as a true believer's.

by mistersite 2008-06-21 02:44PM | 0 recs
Really heartfelt diary

Recced. I'm sure all the folks who still haven't come over to the Obama side will soon.  Bloggers tend to be passionate people, and when they get passionate about something they get big head of steam like a runaway train heading down a mountain, at some point they are going just to go instead of to change the world in ways they care about.

These people will soon see another issue that will lead them to realize Obama is the only way to go at this point, and once you put down your barriers to Obama you start to see all the great things he has to offer the country.

They probably will always think Hillary was the better choice, but they will realize the gulf between the two leaders is not as great as they thought.

by libertyleft 2008-06-19 12:23PM | 0 recs
I'm one of those folks . . .
not on any of the diehard web sites, but just not yet there, altho' I'm sort of kind of half way there - -
And the best thing you can do?
Do what you do when your infant is eating strained peas and cheerios in the kiddie seat while you're enjoying a nice dinner - - ignore them 'til they're done.  If you look too closely, they'll gross you out.  If you try to stop them, you'll just get strained peas in your hair.
by kosnomore 2008-06-19 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm one of those folks . . .

The people who are there don't actually support Hillary.

They want to destroy the Democrats' chances in November.

How do you feel about that, kosnomore?

by JoeW 2008-06-19 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm one of those folks . . .

A lot of them may be working out of spite, but there are more democrats in there than made up republican trolls.  

They will let go of their spite once they start looking around again instead of seeing the primary as the only issue.

by libertyleft 2008-06-19 01:06PM | 0 recs
My point exactly - -
fighting / arguing / whatever is counter productive.  Saying "get over it" doesn't make anyone get over anything ever, it just raises their hackles.
Don't forget - - from Iowa to today is approximately the same length of time as from today to election day.  Plenty of time to get together.
by kosnomore 2008-06-19 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: My point exactly - -
Many seem to overlook the big picture when discounting the "Hillary lost-deniers".  The DNC, i.e., the Dem party (and Barack), has to answer to those who feel there was a bias for Barack from within.  
Not an argument I want to undertake at this point, but a reality that exists.  "Hillary lost-deniers"  have a different agenda than just Obama-hate, imo.
by ChitownDenny 2008-06-19 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: My point exactly - -

This to me is the very definition of deadend-ism.  What could this "answer" possibly be?  Other than that Obama is some kind of fraud?  If that's not the acknowledgment that you're yearning for, please clue me in.

The "reality" you talk about was really the need for the process to be brought to some end. It couldn't go on forever. That end happened sooner than you wanted it to-- the night of the Indiana primary.  By that time, Michigan and Florida, the Wright scandal,  whatever was said in Iowa or New Hampshire or memos about South Carolina-- it was all water under the bridge.  The inversion of the primary process was not that it was an insider game, but that it failed to produce the intended result of an early winner.  It's built to exhaust itself quickly.  Its endurance was somehow simultaneously exhilarating and disapppointing and led to unexpected poignancy when we saw Bill Clinton stumping in South Dakota in June.  No one was supposed to give a shit about South Dakota, destined to go red in November, least of all the Clintons.

by redwoodsummer 2008-06-19 09:57PM | 0 recs
there's clearly a balancing act

you seem to suggest that everyone should just ignore the people attacking Obama, but it obviously wouldn't be a good idea for members of progressive blogs to allow anyone to put up smear attacks on Obama or other Democrats (imagine that!)  and leave them completely unchallenged.  

by ashriver 2008-06-19 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm one of those folks . . .

I don't think that's entirely true.  Many Clinton supporters are more conservative than Obama supporters on certain issues.  There are three wings to the party and Senator Obama is associated with the left-wing.  I don't think they're terrible people--I think they don't feel like they have a home.  One the one hand, you have some Obama supporters who say that you should uncritically support everything Obama espouses, but they can't and feel like they're true to their own values. To me, this makes them normal people, who sometimes hold conflicting positions.  There is a minority which is trashing the Democratic Party, but I'm hesistant to tar all with the same brush.  If they can't support the nominee, they probably should change their affiliation-to Independent.

by TinaH1963 2008-06-19 01:23PM | 0 recs
{insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}

If Obama represents the left wing of the party, I'll eat my shoe. He's a good man. I'm going to fight like hell to elect him president. I wouldn't even say I'm in the far left wing of the party, and I'm far more liberal than Obama.

Conservative dems feeling like they don't have a home.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. That makes me feel like throwing a stink bomb. There interests have been far better represented for the past 16 years than mine.

by Mobar 2008-06-19 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}

Mobar, I think this is accurate. when you consider that hillary and barack's voting records in the senate are nearly identical--it says a lot.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}

I really respect this diary.

Thank you.

If you feel like it, could you write a diary about how MI/FL do not represent any kind of coup.

How Obama is a Legitimate nominee, and not the thief many of these people are claiming.

Will Bowers in particular, on Fox.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-19 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}


When I first started commenting I noted that both Clinton and Obama had remarkably similar positions, and in fact, voted much the same.  Many people didn't seem to see that, and thought that Obama put himself out there in a way that Clinton did not.  But, many on the left have lionized Senator Obama as the standard bearer for the new left, and that's ok--it's just never been true.  My point is that the party has several wings, and there is an effort to marginalize those in the center and on the right.  In fact, some are even trying to attack Democrats in conservative districts--check out Glen Greewald in Salon. Conservative Republicans hijacked their party and it became narrow and extreme.  We shouldn't make the same mistake.

by TinaH1963 2008-06-21 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}

If a centrist is the alleged standard bearer of the "left" wing of the party, who's being marginalized? I strongly support the weakening of the centrist and right wings of the democratic party. Particularly since many of them (including Obama) seem to be centrists as a matter of political calculation rather than the sincere belief that the policies they advocate are the best ones for the American people. The point is not to attack the people, it's the policies.

The republican party became narrow and extreme because it's the natural outgrowth of "conservative" policies. It's how they evolve. That isn't the necessary evolution of liberal policies.  

by Mobar 2008-06-22 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain}

I'm sorry, but I think you're speculating when you try to suss out a person's motivations.  I happen to think compromise is a good thing.  The people who've been canonizing Senator Obama as the herald of the Left are the people on the left--that's why he's the de facto leader.  I've always seen him as a centrist candidate, but many have not.  I don't think leftwing dominance, if it is doctrinaire and rigid, is any better than rightwing exuberance.

by TinaH1963 2008-06-25 01:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm one of those folks . . .

I've always said I have no problem with moderates/centrists or conservative Democrats who decide to support McCain because of policy positions.  I have a problem with people calling themselves liberals or progressives and doing the same out of 1) spite, 2) racism, or 3) sexism.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-19 02:01PM | 0 recs
Really.  No.
AFSCME?  Yeah, just a hotbed of neocons!!!
Seriously, some of the most leftist elements of the party supported Hillary, and some of the most right wing (Sam freakin' Nunn ????) supported Obama.
Again, why the need to argue, put down, characterize?  Why invite people to leave the party 5 months before the election?
Now is the time for all good men to . . . chill.
by kosnomore 2008-06-19 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No.

Hey, kosnomore--AFSCME endorsed Obama yesterday :)

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: No.

I'm not inviting anybody to leave the party, but not talking isn't constructive or honest.  These are real concerns and ignoring them will cause many to vote for McCain.  I'm not a Cassandra, but I do know that when we don't have an honest dialogue, people speculate and come up with their own incomplete answers.

by TinaH1963 2008-06-21 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm one of those folks . . .

Hey, kosnomore,thanks for a good laugh.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:24PM | 0 recs
Yea, that was funny

And it's an understandable metaphor.

I hope Senator Clinton comes back with a passion and devotes all of her energy and great determination in getting a Democratic President, more Senate and House seats, and is rewarded with the Democratic appreciation she deserves.

That is how we can, both, get what we all want and save her reputation from those who want to drag the Democratic Party down in her name. That has to be a hurt that rivals losing the nomination, people using your name fighting against everything you ever believed in.

And who would get the blame if those groups accomplished their goals of destroying Obama and the Democratic Party this Fall? You have to wonder if they know and just don't care.

You are so right Lin, so right. And you have my promise that I will not fall for that if it happens. I will remember true Clinton supporters just needed to heal and fought for Democratic principals.

The Republican trolls over at those sites want us to blame Senator Clinton. They want us divided. I won't fall for that.

Great diary, Lin.

by DaveDial 2008-06-19 03:23PM | 0 recs
just a question linfar....

who exactly are you accusing of being her paid army to go out and rec her diaries? how many hundreds is she supposed to have at her beck and call? Is it even remotely possible she got at least a couple rec's because of what she wrote or are they all evil now?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-19 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: just a question linfar....

Her army seems to have dispersed somewhat - her latest diary at Hils bloggers garnered a whopping 5 comments!  Oh how the mighty are fallen.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-19 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: just a question linfar....

well that is why I sked the question, I like Lin and read her stuff when she does a diary but the whole "army" thing just got me curious as to where they all went...LOL

by zerosumgame 2008-06-20 08:10AM | 0 recs
ELLEN Malcolm founded Emily's List.

"EMILY" is an acronym: Early Money Is Like Yeast.  It is not the name of any of the founders, who, by the by, were lead by Ellen Malcolm.

by mdFriendofHillary 2008-06-20 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Really heartfelt diary

Ultimately, Clinton supporters (and that includes me) will back Obama as only a vote against McCain--not necessarily a vote for Obama.

It's not about Obama!!! However, at this point, when and IF he gets Clinton supporters' votes, they will do so holding their noses.

Let's move pass the fact that EVERYONE will see Obama with rose-colored glasses.

...because that....AIN'T HAPPENING! But a vote is a vote...that would be all that I'm going to this point...IF I DECIDE TO EVEN VOTE.

by Check077 2008-06-20 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Wow.  That was nice.  Great Diary.

I have honestly surprised by all the people that went the puma route.  It just seems intellectually dishonest and I wonder if they ever really supported her in the first place.  I think there are many people that are still very angry and there is a very small group who are working feverishly to inflame their anger.  Its sad.


by CAchemist 2008-06-19 12:26PM | 0 recs
let them be angry.

hell, i was tempted to put up a diary or two where we take down site rules and let people scream at each other about the primary.

Just to let the rage out quickly, you know?

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: let them be angry.

I am okay with the angry people.  They are allowed to be angry.  I was seething in 2004 (Kerry really?).   They will, as I did, realize that the cause is more important than their candidate.

The people who are using those who are angry for personal gain or to push their own agenda have lost my respect and should be ashamed of themselves.

Just remember McCain is bad.  John McCain will ruin our country.

by CAchemist 2008-06-19 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: let them be angry.

Speaking of Kerry, I'm pretty sure that McCain is the Republicans' version of Kerry in 2004.  They had an energizing and passionate candidate in Huckabee, but the majority of Republicans guessed that he wouldn't  be able to win (which is probably true, I hope), so they went with the non-energizing John McCain.  Huckabee is their Dean, McCain their Kerry.  And just like we Democrats made a mistake in going with the supposedly safe choice, the Republicans have also.  They likely would lose with either candidate, but now they are going to lose AFTER having sold out their principles.  Even if McCain wins, the neocons will have officially taken over the Republican Party.  Non-neocon conservatives (those of the cautious military action, small government, moderately focused on moral issues) will have been totally shut out.  As someone who respects conservatives (though we disagree on literally everything) and does not respect neocons, I don't see that as a good development for anyone.  We can't have civil debate with neocons because they are totally irrational.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-19 02:05PM | 0 recs

let them be angry, so long as the anger receeds.  Which i believe it will.

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:30PM | 0 recs

are you now joining the alegre-obsessed bandwagon?  its a shame, because your diary is pretty awesome and i would have rec'd it if you would have omitted the first bit.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar.

Well, like it or not, Allegre does provide perhaps the most candid view of a particular type of voter.

by rfahey22 2008-06-19 12:33PM | 0 recs
nope sorry.

whether or not you agree with her. there are almost daily references to her here in diaries (including a shameful event last week you'll recall) and she was accused of being a paid blogger (i guess now people will take that back).

she is fully and wholly entitled to blog and vote how she wants.  she is no longer here at mydd and therefore IMO should be left alone.  this bullying mentality is really awful and turns a lot of people off

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: nope sorry.

She chimed in here pretty recently, as I recall.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-19 12:41PM | 0 recs
if she isn't here

then she won't see this "bullying behavior" and there's absolutely no harm in Linfar using Alegre as an example of the idiocy of the PUMA movement.

by JJE 2008-06-19 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: if she isn't here

you, i and everyone else here sees it.  isn't that enough?  anyway - i do not want to hijack this thread with talk of another blogger.  IMO a general example without attacking alegre would have made this diary much more effective.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: if she isn't here

The thing that counters that is how much she was a symbol of ardent blogging Clinton supporters. She was an acknowledged leader, or even THE acknowledged leader, quoted in the Nation and Vanity Fair.

In some sense, she is a "public" figure, and most importantly for us, she is and represents the Clinton supporters that we worked with and talked to.

She wrote the diary formally boycotting Daily Kos, and that split isn't healed yet. I think many of us, and certainly I, would like to see it healed.

Does that makes sense?

by Falsehood 2008-06-19 01:03PM | 0 recs
it makes total sense.

although IMHO it wont be healed anytime soon.  why?  first - some will not ever vote for BO for whatever reasons.  two - during this primary (ironically with the unity candidate winning) there has never been more disunity in the party.  and lastly - the immensely skewed presence and resulting vitriol of HRC and her supporters in the primary online was a travesty and blow to the medium and effectiveness of its purpose.  i have been working on a diary to the effect for a long time now although its not going very well.  in any case - she is who she is and that is it - and she will blog or vote whatever way she wants to regardless of what you or i say.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: if she isn't here

THAT split will never be healed. Never.

by Tolstoy 2008-06-19 09:51PM | 0 recs
She's not really PUMA. They acknowledge

that Obama won the nomination.

Alegre hasn't gotten that far yet.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-19 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: She's not really PUMA. They acknowledge

How do you call these? Saber tooth tigers?

by french imp 2008-06-19 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: if she isn't here

One of the geniuses at her website said that we must "punish the country" by voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, or the vice presidency.  Great stuff, eh?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-19 04:07PM | 0 recs
She wasn't paid, but she was on the

Maryland Women's Leadership Committee for Hillary.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-19 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: She wasn't paid, but she was on the

Please, lets not play this game again.

Blogging is meant to be anonymous even if the blogger is an idiot.

by CAchemist 2008-06-19 12:52PM | 0 recs
Given that the Clinton campaign has linked

to her posts as Alegre using her real name, hasn't she shed her anonymity, though?

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-19 12:55PM | 0 recs
Beyond idiocy.

I think Linfar was making a point about the hypocrisy of the PUMA mindset. I couldnt' agree more.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Beyond idiocy.

Sumo, thank you for getting it. canadian gal-- while seeming to be offended at the idea alegre was mentioned--altho she wasn't-- pretty much guaranteed this would be all about alegre. The diary is emphatically not oriented that way at all.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: nope sorry.

Yes, last week's (was it only a week ago?) events were beyond shameful.  But what I'm getting at is that her behavior provides insight into particular voters' mentality that we may need to understand before this process is over.  Also, since she is both a diarist and apparently running her own website now, legitimate criticism of her is no different than criticism of Dkos here (or of the mainstream media, for that matter).  Her public comments are open to fair criticism.

by rfahey22 2008-06-19 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: nope sorry.

As the author of the "shameful" diary from last week, I agree that she is wholly entitled to blog and vote how she wants. And she shouldn't be personally harassed or attacked for doing so. I don't agree with what transpired in the comments of my diary (which is why I deleted it), and I don't understand the level of enmity that some people have towards her.

That said, every action has consequences. Alegre has decided to set up shop elsewhere for the express purpose of encouraging others not to support the presumptive nominee. She has written that she hopes some event will prevent Obama from becoming the nominee and she has disparaged the Democratic party. Those are choices she is free to make, but I believe that by doing so she gives up certain things in return.

She loses the right to  be treated differently than any other person working against the Democrats' goals.

She loses the right to be shielded from open criticism.

She loses the right to expect our respect or to ask for our patience.

In other words, she doesn't deserve special treatment just because she used to be part of this community, and people shouldn't be accused of "bullying" for saying they disagree with her choices.    

by jdusek 2008-06-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: nope sorry.

She is fair game because she really was more than an individual blogger. People like ALegre were way too prolific and their blind rigging of the rec list really denied other important diaries a chance for exposure by being pushed down the list too fast.

Now that would tolerable if Alegre actually blogged about other Democrats. I really didnt understand why she came to MYDD if she was interested in only Hillary. She could have done what she did on and bask in the adulation of fellow Hillary supporters. She was a perfect echo chamber and rarely had an independent thought on this blog. If Hillary advocated something, Alegre would blindly spread propaganda here without attempting to understand other democrats.

And hasn't she returned under some other ID? I don't have any sympathy for her. I will welcome linfar and Canadian Girl since they have at least shown some interest past the primary despite my disagreements with linfar in the past.

There have been some blind Obama loyalists and I do  not see some of them anymore here. And I do not miss them. But the Hillary crowd really transformed this blog into something else.

by Pravin 2008-06-19 04:35PM | 0 recs
She's not here

Under the name "Alegre", that part is true.

by BrighidG 2008-06-19 11:55PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar.

That's disingenuous.  Maybe Linfar isn't obsessed, but instead, disappointed?  Maybe because someone that was trusted has turned out to be bitter, a turncoat, and in it for reasons not all so great?

I know that if I were a die-hard Clinton supporter in the primary, and unsure about Obama and considering going the PUMA (what a dumb, dumb acronym) route, I'd be looking very carefully at the Alegres of the blogging world and wondering exactly what THEIR motivations were.  

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 12:39PM | 0 recs
i dont want to hijack this thread.

about another blogger - see my comment above to rfahey.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: i dont want to hijack this thread.

Fair enough.  But one has to ask (and this is perhaps a wider question, certainly not limited to Alegre)- when you're blogging daily, crossposting under the same name on several blogs, and developing a network of readers that recommend your work upon publication- at what point does your work become more of a public matter?  

Better phrased- what is the difference between someone like Alegre and someone like Maureen Dowd, other than the fact that one uses her real name and one doesn't?  

I fully support anyone's right to stay anonymous (and the "let's find her in the real world" shit was despicable)- and I'm not interested in discussing her- but saying we can't question public content she posts, simply because the diarist chooses not to post it here, doesn't quite work for me.  She DID use MyDD once she left Kos, and a lot of people have the right to be a bit irked.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 12:49PM | 0 recs
its an interesting question...

however IN CONTEXT we both know this 'obsession' goes way, way, way beyond that in the netroots community.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: its an interesting question...

Possibly, the net knows all manner of stalkers and such. However, she is a symbol, and the split for DKos was widely publicized.

by Falsehood 2008-06-19 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: its an interesting question...


I think as blogs become a bigger and bigger source for news, this is going to become an interesting question that should be pondered- if not answered.  

We hold the media accountable for falsehoods and untruths.  We know before reading an article that Ann Coulter is going to have nothing to say.  But what of a medium where you can simply sign up for a new handle, or retreat out of sight on a Dem blog and resurface on a Republican one?'

It's interesting, to me.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: its an interesting question...

She bundled 20k for Hillary and was rewarded by the campaign.

She spread despicable lies about Obama that, had the campaign been held responsible, would have caused much embarrassment.

But instead "alegre" the protected was allowed to bundle and smear anonymously.

Protected by a set of blogging ethics that were counted on to provide the cover needed.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-19 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: its an interesting question...

But it is rather silly to act like criticism that does not extend to her personal identity should somehow be perceived as a threat to her.  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-19 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar.

ihaveseenenough, you got the word right. I am disappointed--in a lot, a lot of people. Have you asked yourself where all the clinton bloggers on this website have gone? At least 20 have vaporized. Others on this site, including I guess canadian gal are obsessed with only one of them--I miss the whole damn crew.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar.

I miss 'em, too :(.

by hornplayer 2008-06-19 03:19PM | 0 recs
why antagonism?

because i think that by calling out alegre in your diary you are actually going against its purpose?  i do miss the group of bloggers that left- its just that i think i am being a little more realistic than most about their reasons for leaving.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar.

cg, you are funny.  Me thinks you will always find a reason not rec a diary of mine.  As for your question, since I do not mention anyone by name in my diary,  obsession seems to be in the eyes of the reader--uh, I think that's you.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:32PM | 0 recs

was i mistaken?  if so i apologize.  if you werent referring to alegre i will heartily rec.  let me know.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 03:36PM | 0 recs
We're glad linfar is gone

from hillary'svoice!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-20 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: We're glad linfar is gone

Coyote-- do you and many others remember all the "disappeared" on dkos--for saying what you thought was true, for being honest? The hypocrisy is stunning. I mean beathtaking. It is called a dialogue. And you have used this diary to engage in it at length. Why not keep dialoguing? What is so hard about dissent--about accepting a friend has a different view. I didn't grow horns overnight. I see it dfferently from you. I will keep talking. I have done nothing on hillarysvoice to warrant being thrown off except voice my opinion.

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:08AM | 0 recs
You're entitled to your opinion...

and so are we - we're glad you're gone.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-21 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Don't worry, those people were obviously just using her name to further their own blogging career or sense of ego. There is no way a true HRC supporter votes R after this year, regardless of how anyone feels, there are no similarities to how McCain and her feel on pretty much any issue, so it is impossible to support her and vote him.

by Dog Chains 2008-06-19 12:27PM | 0 recs
Slamming Alegre?

What is up linfar? Why don't you "let go of the anger" as Obama's people tell Hillary supporters to do.

Some of us do not want to see unacceptable behavior rewarded. Some of us respect experience, that matters a lot.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 12:27PM | 0 recs
will you vote for Cheney?

or maybe you can find someone with slots in "before the Nixon administration"?? (err... Kennedy counts, in that. facefault on my end).

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:28PM | 0 recs
Experience isn't helpful if the ideology of

the person (and other things) are terrible.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-19 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Alegre?

She deserves to be slammed.  She does not and has never shared Hillary's values or love of the party.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-19 12:44PM | 0 recs
Slamming Linfar?

What is up catfish2?  Why don't you "let go of the anger" as catfish2 tells Linfar to do?

by JJE 2008-06-19 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Alegre?

I haven't asked anyone to "let go of their anger," and I don't appreciate you painting those who support Obama with such a broad brush.

As far as "Unacceptable behavior," remember the buttons in Texas? Do you want to reward their "unacceptable behavior?"

I don't think the Obama campaign did anything horrible, but we disagree on that point. Even so, don't use the actions of supporters to justify what you're doing.

by Falsehood 2008-06-19 01:08PM | 0 recs
GOP booted the button guy

that was the right thing to do.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:44PM | 0 recs
Don't forget to defend the GOP

at every chance you get, "democrat".

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:59PM | 0 recs
Democrats are about dialog

and the freedom to debate ideas. They're about anti-discrimination, and would like the GOP to be less discriminatory as well.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Alegre?

And some of us can't let go. I am not angry, catfish2, I am ineffably sad. I am exactly what this diary says. And I see people doing things--all in Hill's name that she does not approve. If you hold on to the unfairness of it all, you wouldn't get up in the morning.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Alegre?

There is no reason for this to be TR'd.

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Alegre?


Hillary = 8 years in office.
Obama = 12 years.

by BrighidG 2008-06-19 11:56PM | 0 recs
Thank you...

a beautiful diary.

I say now, as I said before the primaries were over, that all Hillary supporters (on myDD) will vote for Barack in November. I couldn't believe, and still don't, that such dedicated progressive voices could willfully allow froward anger to lose us the election, or to imperil it.

I remember when a good few people were calling you a troll (I'd like to say I reserved judgement, but that would be polishing the truth too much for my taste).

Thank you for proving them wrong, and for making the Democratic party stronger with your presence.

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you...

I am, it turns out, a much better democrat than I thought I would be. I wondered only a month ago what I would do if the unthinkable happened? Well, it happened, and it has been excruciatinlgy painful, and still is; but also easy. I just did as Hillary asked me to do.  

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Whoa, seriously, as a tough guy and all, I am feeling this one, it's emotionally intense... and so well written, it concludes like a portrait of a strong champion bowing out after a tough loss.

Excellent points, excellent imagery, excellent recognition of all the reasons for this pro-hillary (really anti-obama) mess- one that had eluded me until now was that I figured most of these sites were made up of "dead-enders" or "trolls" posing as HRC supporters to help McCain's fight,  but that many are just as likely exploiting her stardom for internet traffic/monetary gains on these sites.

I couldn't imagine running for office just logistically, it does seem similar to toture.

Sorry for rambling on, but you just blew my mind

by KLRinLA 2008-06-19 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

KLR--What a lovely comment. Much appreciated.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

No worries, keep up the excellent work!

by KLRinLA 2008-06-19 08:07PM | 0 recs
Divisive diary

It is a free country linfar and people are free to remain Democrats but not vote for BO.

Hillary endorsed Obama, she is a professional and that is what she did.

While Obama professes to have all the right positions, some of us need to see a record of that candidate's upholding of positions before we reward them with our vote. Voting "present" is a dodge and taking the easy way out.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 12:32PM | 0 recs
what, planned parenthood's SUGGESTION

isn't good enough for you?

Maybe it was cowardly for someone else, but it wasn't cowardly for Obama.

by RisingTide 2008-06-19 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

posting the same thing twice, trollish behavior if I've ever seen it. dude, there is plenty of room for you at No Quarter!

by Dog Chains 2008-06-19 12:38PM | 0 recs
I want downticket Dems to win

that's why I come here.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I want downticket Dems to win

And Obama has some very long coattails and his starting ads in 18 swing and red states (very few Kerry states) will help.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-19 12:45PM | 0 recs
I'm not giving him my vote

just for coattails.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not giving him my vote

E-mail me - I'd like to try to resolve in part some issues you have with Obama and his supporters.

by Falsehood 2008-06-19 01:10PM | 0 recs
Nothing to resolve over email

Sometimes the clash of ideas is a virtue.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:11PM | 0 recs
Yeah, the Civil War was a "virtue"

Gosh, see where your logic takes you??

by Regenman 2008-06-19 03:27PM | 0 recs

The clash of IDEAS. Debates.

by catfish2 2008-06-20 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not giving him my vote

Your time would be better spent doing a lot of things.  Some people are just out.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I want downticket Dems to win

Well you could post that Obama has no experience once and leave it at that, even still, it would be trollish behavior, but posting the memo twice is certified trollish.

by Dog Chains 2008-06-19 12:47PM | 0 recs
Are you sure?

Better think twice - they may have voted "present" or called someone "sweetie" once or twice.  You can't just count on the D after the name, can you?

by JJE 2008-06-19 12:49PM | 0 recs
He has a long voting record.

Longer than any Democratic candidate who stayed in past New Hampshire.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-19 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

I don't understand why you continue to promulgate that fake line of argument on the present votes.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator." ker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_abor ti.html

by politicsmatters 2008-06-19 12:40PM | 0 recs

The fish is recycling old material, knowing full well that it's been explained innumerable times over the past several months.

When you got nothing left, you start reprising the old hits.

Tiresome to say the least, and no longer even worthy of a response. It's garden-variety trolling at this point.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 01:02PM | 0 recs
Have you ever put yourself on the line?

Have you ever gone to the mat for something you believed in? Did you risk your own popularity for it? Did you take heat from all sides?

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Have you ever put yourself on the line?

It's an attention thing. I get it. Carry on.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 01:24PM | 0 recs
Didn't translate.

As I expected.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't translate.

You continue to be a fixture here, despite having already announced your preference for the Republican candidate and expressing daily your contempt for the Democratic nominee.

Now you're just rehashing past battles, being obtuse when it serves you, dredging up February's talking points, and basking in the attention that inevitably comes from being a contrarian on the internet.

What's there to translate?

Enjoy your life.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 01:50PM | 0 recs

we get it.

You are racially aware and no black candidate with any ties to the black community can ever be trusted not to sell white people down the river to the 'thugs'.

I've seen it from you a thousand times.

You remind me of 'Pauline' who worked so hard making sure the black bastard children of Thomas Jefferson couldn't be buried in the same cemetery as the pure descendants.

I'm sure her PUMA bona fides are rooted in all the non-race over spun rhetoric.

And I'm sure the tiny core of racists using the discontent of Hillary supporters LOVE the fact the GOP won't ever have to 'go there' because you dupes will 'go there' on fox for them.

All in Hillary's name.

Who is laughing at who.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-19 02:39PM | 0 recs
So tired.

Shall I call you a sexist since you didn't support Hillary?

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: So tired.

The difference 'sweetie' is that YOU have posted about your racial awareness.

I'm not painting you with the brush of others.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-19 03:10PM | 0 recs
You're painting with quite a brush

I don't support Obama therefore I am a racist. OK.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Have you ever put yourself on the line?

But catfish, she has asked you not to do what you are doing. Hill and all of us went to the mat, we fought our brains out. It is over now. She has asked you to suppoort the nominee. How can you justify not doing as she asked you?

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:57PM | 0 recs
She's a professional

she had to do that. I am a voter, I am keeping an open mind. I am also a Democrat.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: She's a professional

catfish - I have got to give you credit for coming here tonight, taking all of this and stating your position consistently even though most people don't agree with you.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 11:20PM | 0 recs
linfar, I need to interject here

I know where you are coming from, but why is it so hard for you to see why catfish and I are doing what we are doing?  The only reason that I can think of is that you so fervently believe in the justness of your cause.   My own particular belief is that I think Hillary is doing what she needs to do.  Not only do I not think that she expects that all of her supporters will flock to Obama's side, but I quite frankly think that at least part of her hopes we will not.

Go back and look again at my diary "I Miss Linfar!"  In that, I wrote

You may not like what Linfar has to say, but as Democrats/Liberals/Progressives you should all be willing to listen to her. Disagree loudly if you must, but don't push out people with opinions who are different than yours. We all lose when that happens.

The political system in this Country works best when we each are allowed and encouraged to take our own path to the future that we want.  That is what democracy is all about.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 11:37PM | 0 recs
So what is the future that you want?

And how do you see John McCain helping to create it?

by kydoc2 2008-06-20 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

I cannot believe an intelligent person still goes here:

Voting "present" is a dodge and taking the easy way out.

Talk about holding on to argument that has so thoroughly been discussed, explained and found wanting.

by jsfox 2008-06-19 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

You vote against the nominee for a Republican you do not share the values of Democratic party and therefore NOT a Democrat.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-19 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

Yes, it is a free country and I resent being scolded because I see Obama as a flawed candidate.

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-06-19 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

hate to break it to you, but they are all flawed. that's why people usually take a look on what they stand for on these weird things called issues.

by Dog Chains 2008-06-19 12:55PM | 0 recs
I hate the 'you should go ___arguement'

But really if you don't expect to be argued with when you trash the Democratic nominee, then why are you blogging on a Democratic site?

There are plenty of places where that idea is encouraged.  This isn't one of them.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-19 12:59PM | 0 recs
All candidates are flawed

you get "scolded" (read criticized) because you don't add anything but bad faith and tantrums.

by JJE 2008-06-19 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

Hi Crone--I have missed you so Big. I certainly did not mean this diary to be scolding. I was expressing my dismay. Yes. Obama is flawed. And so is Hill. Neither one is/was/or ever will be perfect. Compared to McCain, however, both are Perfection. That is what Hillary was saying in her last speech.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:00PM | 0 recs
There are known knowns,

known unknowns, and unknown unknowns (thanks Rummy).  

I think that it is a known known that John McCain would be a terrible President.   For me, Obama is still largely an unknown unknown.

But you would be crazy to not vote for him and thus give support to the very bad known known in McCain.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:41PM | 0 recs
Not that unknown

Chicagoan here. I know you don't mean any harm but it's just funny to hear people talk about Obama like he just sprung fully-formed from John Kerry's head in 2004 when he's been around here for ages.

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

catfish, I am not angry at you. Truly. I have just seen so-called ardent Hillary supporterss refusing to do as Hillary has asked--and I am saddened and dismayed by it. I think Hill is having a rough ride right now. And I don't see a one of them acknowldging that or thinkinbg about it or even factoring it into their calcualations.

by linfar 2008-06-19 02:53PM | 0 recs
Uh - Obama has to win our votes.

Elections are the time to hold politicians accountable. This is not punishing Hillary.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh - Obama has to win our votes.
I think it is punishing Hillary because with McCain as president all that she has worked for will be vulnerable.  Also, for at least the next for years, assuming a McCain presidency, Hillary will not be able to move forward with her goals as easily as with a Democratic president.  Do you think Healthcare will be passed as effectively wtih teh veto power?  Do you think McCain is going to help with unions?
These aren't threats but a real roadblocks that Hillary will encounter with McCain as president.  Think about that and tell me this isn't punishing Hillary  
by KLRinLA 2008-06-19 08:17PM | 0 recs
Why is catfish being TR'd?

This is ratings abuse.

I don't necessarily agree with her sentiment, but this is not an attack on the diarist.  She raises a legitimate point.  

So far, the blogosphere's message to Hillary supporters has been:

Your candidate sucked.  Get over it.  There was no sexism.  It's all in your head.  McCain will take control of your body if you don't get in line behind Obama.

Is it any wonder that many of Hillary's supporters haven't made the jump to Obama?

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 06:21PM | 0 recs
not having done so...

I'm not the one to defend... but repetition of bland, long-debunked talking points distorting the position of the Democratic nominee is arguably fair game.

One must have no respect whatsoever for the truth or have every ounce of will focused upon denying it to repeat the "present" smear at this stage. The fact that the strategy was coordinated with unassailably pro-choice groups has been established. The fact that the present vote had exactly the same effect as opposition has been detailed past any reasonable confusion. Anyone who continues using the argument, having been repeatedly informed of the truth... is not arguing upn merit, but rather on personal conflict.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 10:12PM | 0 recs
I think you can leave out "arguably"

from your first sentence.

by kydoc2 2008-06-20 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is catfish being TR'd?

Straw man much?

As far as I've seen, the blogosphere's message has been to Hillary supporters has been:

Your candidate was one hell of a candidate. She lost an amazing battle in the primaries. Of course there was sexism. There was also racism. Battling back and forth about who's the bigger victim isn't productive; fighting both are great causes. It's not all in your head. McCain will take control of your body away from you if he wins the Presidency.

The people who've been repeating the specious claim that the message is "Your candidate sucked.  Get over it.  There was no sexism.  It's all in your head.  McCain will take control of your body if you don't get in line behind Obama" are doing it to create division where there shouldn't be anyone. The people saying that are, with almost no exception, the same people taking exception to it.

The wonder is that people seem to believe there are "millions" of Hillary's supporter out there who aren't supporting Obama (yes, I realize you didn't say millions; others have). I think the collective membership of the PUMAsphere is probably in the 100's. Poll after poll after poll have shown that the Democratic party is remarkably united -- much more so than the Republicans, much more so than Democrats have been in many elections.

Linfar's point is this (or at least, my take on her point is): Hillary Clinton stood for and stands for something. Perhaps that something is her position on the issues. Perhaps that something is caring for people and fighting for them. Perhaps that something is being a symbol for millions of women. Whatever that something is, for you, electing John McCain President doesn't advance a single one of the things that Hillary Clinton stood for. Not one of them. None. Zero. Nada.

Electing Barack Obama President may or may not advance the ones you care about. It'll advance the vast majority of her policy positions; they have remarkably similar voting records and positions on the issues. It'll advance the causes she was a fighter for; they share a focus on those goals. It won't put a woman in the White House as President, so on that issue, I'll give him a tie with McCain. But electing Obama President advances many, many of the things that Hillary Clinton stood for. It makes her own chances to effect change and get her policies enacted much better.

It's that simple. The PUMA crowd, the dead-enders, the Hillary/McCain petition folks, the take-it-to-Denver gang, they're slapping Hillary Clinton in the face. They're saying that the cult of personality she created is far, far more important than her values, positions, and everything she stands for. It's so much more important that it's worthwhile to trash the nation, destroy the economy, risk a multi-decade permanent right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, stay in Iraq endlessly, destroy Roe vs. Wade, gay marriage, the environment, health care, and everything else just to spite Obama for no other reason than he's not Hillary Clinton.

I cannot have respect for those people. I can have sympathy, but not respect. The final irony of a primary season rich with ironies is that we, Obama supports, derided as kool-aid drinkers, as cultists, as brainwashed masses, are watching the last throes of what was a strong campaign by a great person, a great politician, and, yes, a great women, degenerate into something that makes the most star-blinded Obama supporter look coldly rational.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-06-20 09:59PM | 0 recs
Had to troll rate every single one....

...of your comments in this thread.

You are pushing a smear that has been thoroughly debunked.  Anything you say that either directly, or indirectly, supports that smear is TR worthy.

Your continual pushing of a debunked smear exposes you for what you really are. You're not here to have an honest exchange of ideas; you're here to deliberately spread poison.

You should be banned.

by xynz 2008-06-19 10:45PM | 0 recs
Oh for fuck's sake

The Illinois Legislature requires a constitutional majority (51% of ALL members) to vote for something to pass. This is different from most state legislatures of the US Senate where a simple majority (majority of anyone who votes that day) is necessary for a passage.

What this means is that voting "present" will shoot down a bill/proposal/whatever in the Illinois Legislature as surely as voting "no". Let me repeat that: IT WORKS THE SAME WAY AS IF HE VOTED NO.

And before you start showing how little you know about this subject by going on about how Obama was playing a CYA game let me tell you two more things: 1.) Illinois is not a blue state beyond the Chicagoland areas and a few college towns. It's as red as Indiana or Kentucky. 2.) After his present vote that shot down a bill to use extraordinary measures to save an aborted fetus if it survived the abortion, Obama went out and spoke to the press and took shit for it.

(I know this because I've lived here my entire life and because I actually investigated the issue.)

Educate yourself before opening your mouth.

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Divisive diary

Check out the law that was passed yesterday and Obama was one of the co authors.

It closed the loop hole that has allowed companies that do work in other countries to avoid US taxes by having a store front on some small island even though they employ over 10 thousand employee's.

Quite impressiver and he has done this while running for President.

While I agree things got very heated during the Primary and things were said that should not have been the time has come to ensure that John MCain does not get into office. His policy? scares me.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-20 04:44AM | 0 recs
Thank you, Linfar

Haven't always seen eye-to-eye with you, but you've shown yourself to be one of Senator Clinton's true supporters--someone who supported her because you supported her, not because you opposed Obama.

At this point, sites like NoQuarter, H44, Alegre's Corner, PUMA, et al, are dedicated to completely trashing Senator Clinton's judgment and character, and all in her name.

by BishopRook 2008-06-19 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar

Those people are pathetic.

Talking out of one corner of their mouthes talking about women's rights, while at the same time doing their level best to get McCain elected.

The best Candidate won. That's how it works.

Hillary is not so incredibly magical that the only way she loses is because someone else cheats. The harsh reality is that without her name advantage, she wouldn't have had that massive head start in this race. Do you think it was her achievements as the junior Senator from New York that got her those supers? Bullshit.

You can't go to the sexisim card because that's not why she lost. She lost because her campaign was incompetent in how they ran.

by Darknesse 2008-06-19 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar
Do you think it was her achievements as the junior Senator from New York that got her those supers?Bullshit.


[you are sad. sad. you get that the name of the diary is dishonoring Hillary right? yeah you would.]
by alyssa chaos 2008-06-19 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar

I think it's a fair question.

by Darknesse 2008-06-20 05:50AM | 0 recs
You mean, maybe you ARE Chris Matthews?

kidding, of course. I knew what you meant.

by kydoc2 2008-06-20 06:59AM | 0 recs
I will ammend your statement

The best campaign won, not the best candidate (at least in my opinion and that of 17M+ other Americans).

But I agree, the Obama campaign was richer and better run.   To the winner goes the spoils.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I will ammend your statement

You're right.  And that is the reality.

by ChitownDenny 2008-06-19 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I will ammend your statement

But if the Candidate was better, then she would have run a better campaign, or at least hired better people to run it for her.

Plus, a better Candidate could have won without going incredibly negative (kitchen sink). Oh wait, he did.

by Darknesse 2008-06-20 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar

Bishop, I know. I know. And it makes me want to cry.  It is like an abusive phenomenon or something as in:  I love you so much I will completely do as I please and not as you ask me to.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar

Wow, what an unwarranted smear that is!  We are "dedicated to trashing" her judgment?  I feel really badly that you only see one point of view.  As I said earlier in a different way, the people who are at these sites by and large devoted to two things, seeing Hillary Clinton become President some day, and the well-being of our Country.  

Although there are some Clinton supporters who are happy to change their allegiance to the presumptive Democratic nominee, as is usually the case, there are a large number of Clinton supporters who also do not like Barack Obama.  I can tell you that even if Clinton had not been in this race, I would not have supported this man.  Many of us not only believe that he is not a good candidate for the general election (if that were the only issue I would work hard to get him elected) but that he would be a BAD PRESIDENT!

It does not follow that working against Obama equates with trashing Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is doing what she has to do.  She can urge her supporters all she wants to support Obama, but she knows that she can't compel that from us  (Quite frankly, Hillary does not seem like the kind of woman who gets pushed around either)

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 10:59PM | 0 recs
overheard on no quarter tonight:

Obama is a PHONY ! I find it hard to believe whatever comes out from his own mouth or from his cronies.
I will not be surprise, that the educational debt "reparation' to the descendants of slaves will be one of the priorities of his cabinet in education, should he become the WH tenant (God forbids!)What about the ethnic groups who were also mistreated by the "White " governement? Japanese? Chinese? Italians? Filipios? Irish? and more, more, more?
Another "fairy tale" of Obama!
Because I love my country, I will vote Hillary or McCain `08. GOD SAVE AMERICA!!

Quiet a story about Obama's Arab slave trading family.....

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has this fascinating post from an article by Ken Lamb, a journalist and radio commentator. Assuming that Lamb's information is accurate information that might derail the Obama big mo express-his Arab slave trading heritage on his Kenyan father's side. Not exactly PC. On his Caucasian mother's side there were distant connections to slave owning Confederate President Jeff Davis whose 200th birthday is being celebrated. But read this about his natural Kenyan father:

Researching his roots reveal that on his father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

The above criticism of such sites? Warranted....

Defending sites that launch racist attacks on the Democratic nominee, sexist attacks on his wife and perpetuate smears and slurs with reckless disregard for the truth? Not warranted.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: overheard on no quarter tonight:

When people think of "pro Hillary" at this stage, these are the people that come top the for front.  Hillary needs to say something, to disavow them, because as long as they are allowed to be in the media, and the more airtime they get, the more people correlate Hillary with these nuts.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 11:19PM | 0 recs
not really...

There's been too many people asking Obama to disavow people and statements he had nothing to do with to expect the same of Hillary. They've both done well enough, and they're accountable for people who serve their campaigns. They are not responsible for random idiots.

That said, calling them random idiots couldn't hurt...

by Casuist 2008-06-19 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: not really...

The amount of garbage in going on in the name of Hillary is amazing.  And now they are getting airtime. And worse then getting airtime, to a person they come off as bigots and reflect poorly on Hillary.  If she is fine with her legacy being defined as such, thats on her.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 11:26PM | 0 recs
it's not...

her legacy isn't defined by them from an objective standpoint... she can rebuke them as she sees fit.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, Linfar

Hillary Clinton is doing what she has to do.  She can urge her supporters all she wants to support Obama, but she knows that she can't compel that from us  (Quite frankly, Hillary does not seem like the kind of woman who gets pushed around either)

And thus the ultimate irony.

You're saying that Hillary Clinton is "doing what she has to do" in endorsing Obama.  You're suggesting she doesn't really want to endorse him, and she doesn't really think he'd be a good President, but she's being forced to do it by the Democratic establishment.

Sounds like she is the "kind of woman who gets pushed around," eh?  If that's what you think, you are trashing her character.

Or maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton actually believes Barack Obama would make a good President.  In which case, you're trashing her judgment.

You need to pick one of the two.  Either you think she's being sincere with her endorsement, in which case you're trashing her judgment, or you think she's being insincere, in which case you're trashing her character.  Either way, you're showing an immense disrespect to the candidate you claim to follow.

by BishopRook 2008-06-20 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

And with her beating heart safely tucked away, out of reach from all those who would sell it for their own advancement.

damn. you win the best [SMACKDOWN] of the week from me. the most eloquent smackdown to date. ever.

[proud to rec, you deserve it]

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-19 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thanks alyssa. I feel for her so much right now. Hard. Hard. Hard.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Well done.

We've disagreed in the past.  But this is the best diary I've read on this site in the last two weeks.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Emily, I am the first woman to win a Presidential primary.

In all the bitterness of the primaries, that just hit me.  I guess I never realized that...


Great Diary, Linfar.  Major Mojo.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-19 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Hillary Clinton is indeed the first woman to win a presidential primary for delegate selection.

But Shirley Chisholm put the first crack in that ceiling in 1972, when she won the New Jersey primary with some 66% of the vote. However, that contest did not award delegates.

Chisolm's campaign was a gutsy, under-funded, and under-reported effort that nonetheless yielded over 150 delegates to the party convention.

Comparing the campaigns of Chisholm and Clinton would be an interesting study, both in contrasts and in similarities.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 01:21PM | 0 recs
good point.

that would be an interesting study.  i hope its less than 36 years before we see another female candidate too.

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: good point.

I don't doubt it.

Personally, and in the meantime, I wouldn't mind seeing a few more women on the Supreme Court, as well a woman leading the Senate majority, too. And these could well happen in the next eight years.

I also hope to see more women in governor's mansions and in leadership positions in state senates. IMO, that's the kind of soil from which the next strong woman will appear to make a viable run for the presidency.

Obama emerged in a very short time out of relatively obscurity, doing so on the strength of his skills, vision, and charisma, along with some good timing. For those who despair that there seem to be no women in line to follow Clinton's path, I suggest that she's out there, you just can't see her yet. But she'll be here sooner than you think.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 02:04PM | 0 recs
by canadian gal 2008-06-19 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: um...

Is it that you don't think so, or that a writer for the Washington Post doesn't think so?

What a crappy, pessimistic article. It's neither reportage nor analysis, but amounts to a shoddy "Hillary's our last chance for a generation" non-argument.

She makes the demonstrably flawed assumption that only someone with "national name recognition" and proven "prodigious fundraising" capacity is worth scanning the horizon for. Hasn't this primary put that canard to rest?

She references an online reader poll to fuel a few paragraphs, not because it offers an accurate snapshot, but because it supports her thesis.

She begrudgingly acknowledges "some legislative success" without bothering to identify them, lest it again undercut her thesis. She notes that there are only eight women serving as governors (I'd like to see more, and I think we will), but doesn't pursue the potential for more gains in that area.

She cites the "record" of presidential races since Ferraro in 1984, while passing over more recent events:

2000 Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.
2001 Elaine Chao became the first Asian-American woman to serve in a presidential cabinet.
2001 Gale Norton became the first woman to serve as Secretary of the Interior.
2001 Ann Veneman was appointed to be the first female Secretary of Agriculture.
2001 Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) became the first woman to serve as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
2001 Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was elected as House Democratic Whip, the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. Congress.
2001 Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) became the first woman to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
2001 Sila Calderon (Popular Democratic Party) became the first woman governor of Puerto Rico.
2002 Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first woman to head her party in Congress as House Democratic Leader.
2002 The election to Congress of Linda Sanchez (D-CA) meant that for the first time, two sisters served together in the House. Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was first elected to the House in 1996.
2003 Arizona became the first state where a woman governor succeeded another woman governor. Jane Dee Hull (R) was succeeded by Janet Napolitano (D).
2005 Washington state became the first state to have both a woman governor (Christine Gregoire, D) and two women serving in the U.S. Senate (Patty Murray, D and Maria Cantwell, D).
2007 Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first woman to serve as Speaker of the U.S. House.
2007 Three congresswomen became the first women of color to chair congressional committees: Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Committee on Ethics; Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA), Committee on House Administration; and Representative Nydia Velasquez (D-NY), Committee on Small Business.
2008 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first woman to win a major party's presidential primary for the purposes of delegate selection.

To name a few from the last decade. .html
A lot of "firsts" are happening, and if we can break free of this reactionary conservatism that's paralyzed the country for the last eight years, we'll see a lot more.

Seriously, you should stop listening to doomsayers, lazy pundits with a deadline, and agenda-laden commentators, and certainly stop citing them in lieu of your own opinions.

The times are a-changing rather quickly. Not quickly enough for some, perhaps not quickly enough for Sen. Clinton.

But to claim that she's the last great hope is a disservice to the many women doing good things at local and state levels, developing strong resumes, establishing networks, and perhaps harboring a desire to someday run for president. Someday soon. They deserve your confidence.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: um...

they have MY confidence.  but your unbridled optimism (and i commend you for that) is not really based on any sort of historical perspective but rather wishful thinking.  i sincerely hope that you are right and i am wrong though!

by canadian gal 2008-06-19 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: um...

"not really based on historical perspective" you say. I just gave you a list of a decade's worth of it. C'mon, do better than that.

My optimism in not unrestrained, since I'm well aware of how hard it is to turn a ship as big as western civilization. But my hopes are based not on my wishes, but rather on the positive changes I'm seeing in the contemporary political and cultural landscape. Changes that this election will hopefully accelerate, if we can counter the inevitable reactionary forces.

It's still slow going, but I see an open road. I'm sorry you're seeing a dead end. Try looking at it differently.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 07:36PM | 0 recs

I haven't thought of her in a long time, thanks for the reminder: holm.htm

by mady 2008-06-19 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

yitbos, it hit me two. Right smack where I live.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:06PM | 0 recs
Only Hillary can dishonor Hillary

We'll see if she shows up for work on the FISA vote.

by benmasel 2008-06-19 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Only Hillary can dishonor Hillary

ben, my understanding is her vote will "be handled--that is only if neccessary will she be called. Gore took what, 6 months--a year. So many others had a lot more time--to put themselves back together. Hill has until the convention. And then I have no doubt she will be barnstorming for Barack

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

People are free to vote for whoever they want but the group you speak of is using Clinton, stealing her name and the good will she built to advance an agenda that she vehemently opposes.

I'm sure it would be galling for Hillary to have people using her name to try and build support for McCain. However since it is a tiny group and will have zero impact on the election I expect Clinton and everyone outside of Sean Hannity and Bill O. will ignore the antics.

by hankg 2008-06-19 12:45PM | 0 recs
You know who is using the Clintons?

Donna Brazille - after tacitly condoning and perpetuating the myth that they ran a racist campaign strategy, then saying oh yes, Bill will be there for Obama in the General Election.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: You know who is using the Clintons?

Still hating on Donna are we?

You have not revealed a new b.s. talking point  in ages.

Same old, same old from fish.

You do not speak for the Clintons.

This diary is not about the Clintons.

If you worry so much about downticket races why do you only comment about B.O. in a negative light?

It's all you do!

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 01:21PM | 0 recs
Because some of us care about Democrats

two Democrats who were slammed repeatedly and innaccurately through this entire season. Some of us want the record restored for the legacies of two Democrats who have dedicated their lives to making ours better.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Because some of us care about Democrats

Did the Clinton's appoint you their spokesperson? Because what you are saying runs counter to what Hillary is saying. If I want Hillary's opinion I'll get it from Hillary and Hillary is supporting Obama.

by hankg 2008-06-19 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Because some of us care about Democrats

And the best way to restore the Clintons' legacies, based on your behavior, is apparently to troll away using rehashed long-debunked talking points, vicious smears and outright lies directed at the Democratic nominee.

With "supporters" of your ilk, who needs enemies?

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:18PM | 0 recs
Obama/Clark would be a good ticket

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

hank, you articulated something I couldn't quite get at when you wrote they are 'stealing her name and goodwill to advance an agenda she vehemently opposes.' this is so true of way too many. Lots of Hill supporterss are just hurting, and it is not true of them. but way too many others are really beginning to bother me. I pray you are right, that it is not many, but I watched that panel on tv with the head of planned  and the leader of emily's list about  media bias and the anger by the women in the audience was palpable. Someone upthread pointed out that the way Hill was treated by the media is fueling a lot of this. But it is some angry shitstorm. I think come the convention we will have a better grasp on how seriously widespread it is.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Great diary.  Thanks a lot.  Recced.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-19 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thanks linfar.  Rec'd

by NewOaklandDem 2008-06-19 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

It's sad to see what some of Clinton's former "supporters" are doing and saying in her name. It's especially infuriating to see them capitalizing on her, to the extent that they're trolling for ad revenue. But it's not a surprise. A lot of us saw it coming, particularly with certain individuals, months ago.

But for all we know, these new anti-Obama hate sites are being filled with the sockpuppets of a few dozen obsessed people. Heck, I could come up with 20 online personalities in a heartbeat, probably more.

It's really time to ignore them, completely. By August they'll have faded into such obscurity that nobody will even remember who they were.

Anyway, I trust that Hillary Clinton is making the most of her time off. Coming down from something like this probably requires a massive reorientation of priorities, and a reintroduction to one's private self.

When we reach the convention, I hope she's rested and adjusted, with a renewed sense of purpose and direction, and that she rocks Denver with a speech that'll bring this party together like never before. And it'll probably do her a lot of good to give that speech not as a candidate, but rather as a citizen, a Senator, and a Democrat.

by BobzCat 2008-06-19 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Hey BobzCat, from your mouth to God's ears as they say--even if I am a buddhist :)

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I think what bothers me the most about the diarist you speak of is her completely lack of a moral compass.  I'm actually suprised at how she has reacted to Hillary's loss and my own capacity to be hurt by it.

I have never had one ounce of respect for Alegre or the way that she supported her candidate.  I found it so subtly dishonorable, with her use of code words and her ability to make her dislike of Obama seem like support of Hillary.  I had always questioned that her support was genuine, but part of me wished it was because it made me feel bad for those who put their trust in her.

Now that her rhetorical efforts have turned to calling for the overthrow of the Democratic nominee in Denver, I'm absolutely repulsed.  For as fervently as I support Obama, I never would have wanted to steal the nomination from Hillary had she won it.  

It's a complete lack of decency regarding others and all that they put into the Obama campaign.  It's all nerve and no heart.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-19 12:54PM | 0 recs
Lack of decency

Did you witness a lack of decency shown to supporters of Hillary? Ever? On the blogs? From the DNC?

by catfish2 2008-06-19 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
A complete lack of a moral compass? Listen, I'm no fan of Alegre (though I used to be, sadly), but because her morals take her down a different path does not mean she lacks them completely.
In the beginning, Alegre was a great supporter of Hillary. Unfortunately, the wrong people started paying attention to her, and her diaries reflected their influence. I stopped reading them months ago myself.
I think she's absolutely wrong in what she's doing, but I think it has a lot to do with the people who have been "supporting" Alegre these last several months.
Hopefully, she will come to realize that Barack Obama is the best hope for this country and support him in the GE.
by skohayes 2008-06-19 02:19PM | 0 recs
It's not about alegre

It's about bloggers using this site to make their name and then turning on it on a dime. It's about holding people accountable when they pretend to speak for ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS when they are in fact only speaking for themseleves.

It's about somebody called out the hypocrisy and I'm glad Linfar is the one doing it.

Highly rec'd in the name of all these fake Clintonistas.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not about alegre

*about time

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Beautiful & wise, Lin


by wrb 2008-06-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

thanks wrb. appreciate it.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
I rec'd your diary.  
Not because I agree with its content, or even most of it, but because I respect the opportunity to have discourse on this site, something that has lacked since the results of the last primaries, if not before; and your diary provides for a discourse.
by ChitownDenny 2008-06-19 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

well, this is a good thing, chitowndenny. I am glad for that.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Great Diary linfar!

I really like your writing style.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-06-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Here's a diary I'm happy to rec, linfar.

It's heartening to see you and others speaking out on behalf of Clinton supporters who were, and are, Democrats first.

by Firewall 2008-06-19 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

This is an excellent diary. This is an excellent Clinton diary. This is an excellent MyDD diary. It's so good I'm almost tempted to write a diary explaining why it's so good.

by catilinus 2008-06-19 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thanks again Linfar.

Almost all of Hillary's supporters here, in the mode of their candidate, have been extraordinarily gracious and have gone way out of their way to embrace unity and the ideals of the Democratic party, and to those people I would like to give my full respect and gratitude.  

The few who fled this site to go off on a tangent after the primary ended, I don't know what to make of them.  Not voting for a candidate you don't like of your party is certainly acceptable, trying to destroy them, or voting for a party that stands for nothing you believe in, I don't get that at all.  One person, who wrote a really decent comment to my diary on the death penalty, now has a site that is all about Dems for McCain.  One is trying to undermine John Kerry's race by coming from out of state to support his primary opponent.  I find it hard to believe that these folks ever really supported Hillary Clinton, and I can only imagine what she would think of them now.

by mady 2008-06-19 01:20PM | 0 recs
I think that supporting primary opponents

of those who didn't support your candidate is one thing.  I might send money to a viable Kerry challenger, presuming they were a strong candidate bringing good new ideas to the table.

But it's another thing to support the GOP and all of the pernicious policies that they promote.  That is an act of profound stupidity and self-indulgence.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that supporting primary opponents

I agree if you genuininely support the primary opposition candidate, but the site made it clear that this was an act of revenge against Kerry for supporting Obama.  That to me is not acceptable.  

by mady 2008-06-19 01:53PM | 0 recs
I'm looking to settle scores

I will oppose those who weren't with my candidate when it counted, but not to the detriment of politics or the party.  John Kerry's had a long run.  If the right individual comes along, it would be great to have some new blood.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm looking to settle scores

You know what.  He stands for just about everything I do, including the courage to oppose the death penalty, and to go to war and then fight against that war.  He has, I think, the highest environmental rating in the Senate.  I don't think you CAN find someone better, and although I supported Obama, I would have continued to give him my respect and my vote had I been a Hillary Clinton supporter.  I do not believe in penalizing politicians who make a choice in good conscience to support a candidate that I do not.  I have voted, many times, for people who represent me well even if they do not share my support of one particular person.

by mady 2008-06-19 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm looking to settle scores

John Kerry (88.13) scores a few hundredths of a points higher than Barack Obama (88.04) on Progressive Punch, he's a great asset to the Senate and the Democrats right now.
When we have a veto proof majority in the house, then you can retire him.

by skohayes 2008-06-19 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm looking to settle scores

in the Senate, I should have said.

by skohayes 2008-06-19 02:30PM | 0 recs
I retain my anger at politicians like Kerry

Hillary Clinton was positioned as next in line to run.  Bill and Hillary supported John Kerry when he ran.   He betrayed that support.

I am angry and frustrated.  I have determined not to allow this anger and frustration to be directed to destructive causes, such as working against our own party's nominee or any of the individuals that I am angry with when they are running against someone who would work against the party.  But if it's an intra-party contest, with a strong alternative, you better believe that I'm sending money to opponents of Kerry, Richardson, McCaskill, etc.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-20 05:06AM | 0 recs
What do you mean

by "positioned as next in line to run"?

John Kerry didn't sign a loyalty oath to them when he received the Clintons' support in 2004. Neither has anyone else. After eight years of "loyal Bushies" being privileged over everyone else, the notion that loyalty trumps all is a discredited one.

And th idea that it was "her turn" to be the nominee is truly obnoxious and disrespectful of those of us who like to think we have a say in these matters, too.

Sorry that you're angry and frustrated. But don't let it cloud your vision.

by BobzCat 2008-06-20 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean

Ya know, Clinton folk got really angry when a crazy catholic priest spoke of entitlement, it might not be a good idea to use it as a base of your bitterness.

by Brandon 2008-06-20 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

mady, I think  the sad truth is almost all of hillary's  supporters on this website are gone now. I could name 20 who are not here anymore.  I think many did support Hill--passionately. And I do not understand it either. I wish catfish2 and others would come on here and say more. Chitown could say more. I long to hear. But a calm dialogue may be impossible right now.

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

As a progressive, even though supporting Obama, I felt that there was a lot of commonality with this whole group, and I really valued many of the people who left.  It would be too personal to say I feel used and that is not quite it, but all of the stuff that got talked about that wasn't specifically about Hillary or Barack seems seems like it was just false somehow, just a means to elect her and of no importance if she did not win. Obviously I am only talking about those who left, I have immense respect for those who stayed, whether they end up voting for Obama or not.  At least the dialogue continues.

I really respect you for forging different ties with the rest of the blog here after the primary.  It took guts.

by mady 2008-06-19 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

mady, I understand your feelings. You supported Obama and you feel 'had' I feel betrayed--bigtime. Listen, a few of us have started a blog called  clintonistasforobama, but after this diary we are hoping it will also be a place where people can come and discuss these issues. Screaming and jerking each other off won't be tolerated. But we hope it will be a place for dems of good will can come and discuss their differences and confusions at this point in the process. It is clintonistasforobama

by linfar 2008-06-20 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Sounds like a good place.  Just finished work and am beat but will check it out tomorrow.  

And hi.

by mady 2008-06-20 08:57PM | 0 recs

This is great work.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 01:24PM | 0 recs

mojoing. mojoing, mojoing with youse. thanks space

by linfar 2008-06-19 03:31PM | 0 recs
I got a less kind

analogy to

It actually looks like a huge cottage industry. And they promote each other. A happy family.


by notedgeways 2008-06-19 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I will only speak for myself.  I understand what you are saying linfar and I don't doubt your sincerity at all.

But the thing of it for me is greater than just what Hillary herself wants or asks us to do.

It's a series of things and I will try to best describe it.

First it is (and always has been) about the person and their qualifications. I simply do not have it in me to back someone like obama who i find so utterly unqualified and inexperienced to be commander in chief. I just don't even see how he made it past the first round of vetting by democrats!!

(no point putting up arguments I've heard them all before).

Second I cannot support a candidate that spent the past 18 months running my candidate down. My candidate has chosen to be a "good sport and good democrat" and do what most politicans are required to do in order to keep their career going. But I don't have to do this. And I don't have to be a 'good sport' about it. I can remember all the racist remarks and innuendos throw at my candidate by both her opponent and the media. Up to and including -recently- call her an 'assassin'.

Third - and again no point in countering me - I have my opinion and you won't be able to change it:  I ACTUALLY BELIEVE MY CANDIDATE WON!! That's right. She won and was denied the nomination.  I believe that not only did my candidate win the popular vote, I believe that had the DNC applied the rules fairly across the board to all of the states that broke the rules (by holding primaries early) instead of singling out MI/FL and had MI/FL delegates been seated in full as voted, then my candidate would be the winner of the pledged delegate votes too.  I have always had a problem with the caucus calculations and I remember clearly, back in Feb, the media as well as many of the DNC leaders stating the winner should be determined by popular vote. But when it became clear that their favored candidate would win the delegate race and not the popular vote - they changed to 'delegate math is what matters'. And, then they changed the delegate math to fit their coronation.

To me the dishonor to Hillary is what the DNC leadership did and is doing to both her and Bill Clinton. And the real dishonor to Hillary (and Bill) was done by Obama over 18 months.

That's where I'm at right now.

by nikkid 2008-06-19 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

You are entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe and vote however you want. But you speak for yourself and not for Hillary who has spoken forcefully for herself in support of the party, her ideals and the next President of the United States, Barack Obama.

by hankg 2008-06-19 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

There's no talking you down, then.  There's no way you'll hear anyone's counterpoint, there's no way you'll hear anyone else's reasoning, and clearly there's no way you're even going to listen to the candidate you support.

So the question becomes, why do you come here?

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I come here to stay on top of things. To see what's happening, not just in the presidential race, but other races as well.

I plan on voting democrat - downticket - across the board (we have a tight race here in the 50th district in CA) against Bilbray.

by nikkid 2008-06-19 01:47PM | 0 recs
Surely you won't vote downticket

without a thorough investigation of all those downticket Dems, to make sure they meet whatever arbitrary standard of "qualified" you want to impose and also to make sure that they weren't unfairly cheated by the all-powerful and nefarious party/media axis.  

Such an obvious attempt to rationalize indulging an emotional grudge.

by JJE 2008-06-19 03:29PM | 0 recs
With all due respect

You really need to look at the numbers.  There is no objective way to argue that Hillary Clinton won the most pledged delegates.  And even if she did, the supers backed Obama.  Did she win the popular vote?  Maybe, it depends on how you count it. But Obama's claim to it is just as valid.

Bottom line, no one stole this election from us.  Barack Obama got just a bit more support, enough to win.  

Now you and I have choices:  We can support the Democratic party's nominee.  We can abstain.  Or we can support John McCain.   I really don't see anything close to as good a choice as supporting our nominee.  Despite his shortcomings (which all candidates, including Clinton, have), he is the best.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-19 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

nikkid, hi. So good to see you :) I have never seen an election in which the fix wasn't it in some way, some how. You should  have heard the complaints about Bobby, by the McCarthyites. Elections are imperfect at best. I think all that you say has validity--from one perspective. The Obama folks will argue with you until the cows come home and they see it quite differently. I was so immersed in the Hillary perspectgive I didn't  believe Obama had a side. But I am beginning to see that he did. A different one from ours. But no matter what you think of the outcome--Hillary has said it is over. She has endorsed Obama. She did not "have" to do it. Particularly, she did not have to do it as powerfully as she did. So many candidates can barely give a tepid endorsement at best. Hill went full out. Why? She knows Obama--hell, she campaigned for him--more than once. She mentored him in the Senate. Hill knows what she is doing. And she knows who he is. Trust, Hill.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:13PM | 0 recs
It's one thing to have an opiniuon but to ignore

facts is wrong. The math just isn't there and for you to attempt to muddy the waters of this election is just flat out wrong.

Hillary did not win the delegate count nor would she even if you gave her ALL delegates from FL and MI.

The popular vote? That one is open to debate also but it is over and I refuse to parse words or what if's.

The fact is no one says you have to support Obama. Hillary choses to do so and with damn good reason. She dosen't want to have to toil for the next 4 years under a McCain Presidency.
You do what you have to do but keep it honest.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-20 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

As if Hillary had any choice but to endorse the nominee. Do you think she fought all the way to the bitter end because she really thought Obama was the better candidate or that he had a better chance in the fall than she? No she fought to the end because she knew the dems were making another huge mistake and choosing a candidate that was going to lose.

Now Obama thinks he can win by buying the election (hence he opts out of public financing) and he sucks all the money up that would go to down ticket dems but now won't. Go ahead you can become an Obama-crat but I will remain a democrat.

by Bornagaindem 2008-06-19 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

... or a soreloser-crat.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-19 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I thought all along that Obama had no chance of winning the general election. But, given the fact that the Republicans are running a corpse and are less popular than cancer, he has a chance.

Don't get me wrong, he can easily lose it. Especially if he kicks Hillary to the curb.

He employed a very cynical scorched earth policy on the Clinton's from the beginning. The race-bating will be thrown back in his face by the Republican 527's. He will be turned into a very polarizing figure like Hillary was.

If he does win it could end up being the worse thing for the Democratic party because of a possible economic melt down that may come. The same is true of the Republicans. If they win the presidency, they might not survive as a party if they are blamed for everything.

If Hillary isn't on the ticket, I'll sit back and enjoy the show. It will be like watching the Clippers against the Timberwolves in the finals. A first term senator with little to no accomplishment against a corpse with all the wrong positions. What fun.

by mmorang 2008-06-19 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Why do you come here, if you're that disinterested?

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-19 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Because their life would not be complete without burdening strangers with a daily dose of their bitterness and instransigence.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Duh, everyone who ran for president thought they would be the best qualified for the job. They all stayed in as long as they thought they could win. And they all supported their 'less qualified' opponent when he won. They are adults and support their party and don't stomp off the field when things don't go their way.

Don't project your views on Hillary she made it very clear where she stands and she stands with Obama. Yes, you and John McCain are upset that Obama opted out of public financing. Down ticket Dems are thrilled at the GOTV, voter registration and organization they will be getting.

by hankg 2008-06-19 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Bornagain--Hillary is the first woman to win a state primary. She was determined that every woman and every hill supporter in every state would have a chance to be heard. She made that pledge when she started out. A woman for the first time in American history  Won 22 primaries. That's history, baby. And in the end, by all these wins, she made it a whole lot easier for women to run for any office at all.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:19PM | 0 recs
If you really believed that about public financing

Instead of it being a cheap, stupid shot (Yeah, he should go the same road that sunk Kerry.) then you'd have advocated Hillary do the same.

So show me where you wanted Hillary to take public financing. Link me.

Yeah, I won't hold my breath.

And I love people like you who refuse to vote for Obama because you think he will lose. Does logic exist where you come from?

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: If you really believed that about public finan

yeah cause 84 million dollars isn't enough for two whole months of campaigning.

BTW Kerry lost because dems were too stupid to realize that the effette North Eastern patrician liberal was not going to appeal to the voters they needed to win the election.  And they have done it again. Only this time it is the effette, elitest "new" face that represents "diversity" that is going to save their bacon.

by Bornagaindem 2008-06-21 05:04AM | 0 recs
I want to make one point

As I said before the focus shouldn't be past bloggers, but moving forward. We have a lot that all of us can do to heal things, but when we focus on the past we get side track about the future. It is a reason why I do not pay attention to hillary44 or anyone who was a Clinton supporter claiming to vote Republican.

I am not trying to be mean by not paying attention, but if I want to truly heal things I will focus on posting postive things about Hillary Clinton when she does postive things. It is a reason why I posted a diary thanking Hillary Clinton for her letter. If Hillary does something in the future I will also thank her then as well. You see I'm not a Hillary hater and I will give credit when credit is due.

We have a general election coming up so lets keep focus.

by AHiddenSaint 2008-06-19 01:42PM | 0 recs
The Clinton's were Swiftboated

Obama employed a scorched earth policy on the Clinton's. He gave approval on the race-bating strategy.

It's simple: David Axelrod copied the Karl Rove playbook of going after your opponents strength. The Clinton's were popular in the AA community because of their support for civil rights, Bill Clinton's foundation that provided free AIDS medicine to millions of blacks, etc. Axelrod played the race-card on them as he had done in other campaigns. They claimed that the former president and first lady were race-bating. They said Hillary dissed MLK. They said Bill was sending out a secret message that Obama was the black candidate. As absurd as it all was, people bought it just as they bought that Kerry was unpatriotic for volunteering and heroicly fighting for his country.

Now it's time to reward the swiftboat crew. No thanks!

by mmorang 2008-06-19 01:43PM | 0 recs
No they weren't, no he didn't.

by Iago 2008-06-19 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

PENN: He attacked her. And a lot of the press egged him on.

GQ: But he should have. You would have, right?

PENN: I would have, yeah!

They vetted each other. Deal.

by X Stryker 2008-06-19 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

Falsely accusing the former president of the US and first lady of race-bating is not vetting, it is doing exactly what 2 of the 3 most influential pastors in Obama's life did on the pulpit: RACE-BATING!!!!

by mmorang 2008-06-19 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

Falsely accusing two pastors of race-baiting just exposes your hipocrisy.

by X Stryker 2008-06-22 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

mmorang--the primary election is over. We can replay it and replay it and replay it. the result will be the same. this isn't about rewarding anyone. It is about defeating John McCain.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

You can hope all you want, you can write diary after diary, you can betray one of the hardest workers for Hillary and it will never change my opinion of you, you are sad and lonely and it is evident, you crave the limelight...all the hints you gave, why did you not just come out and refer to writer by name...what a disappointment you are...
As for your line, you are doing as Hillary asked...spare me your allegience to this party, please.

McCain 08

by GendraX 2008-06-19 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

Good bye.  Identity politics run a muck, Hillary will be held accountable for her belief that an extended primary wouldn't hurt party unity, She has tied her national career to this race, if she is seen as a principle reason for a Obama loss in 2012, they may one day be a female president, I can guarantee you it will not be Hillary Clinton.  It was a very close race, and political sabotage in the name of Hillary Clinton will not be taken lightly.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clinton's were Swiftboated

After something is over is a good time to reflect on what happened.

There is nothing to worry about. The Republicans are running a corpse and Obama has more money than God.

The "progressive" blogosphere bought Obama hook, line and sinker and dumped on two extraordinary Democratic public servants.

Now we have first-term senator vs. a corpse. Surprisingly, the corpse isn't doing that bad in the polls all things considered.

by mmorang 2008-06-20 02:56PM | 0 recs
Just say black people should be grateful

And take whatever the Clintons dish out and be on with it.

(It would be better than spewing such crap without ONE SINGLE LINK to back it up.)

Damn uppity black people.

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Just say black people should be grateful

Great comeback.

by mmorang 2008-06-20 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons did some swiftboarding of

their own hon.

You can try to change the facts all day long but those little facts can be pesky things. They keep coming up to bite the liar in the butt.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-20 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons did some swiftboarding of

You didn't name any "facts".

Jesse Jackson Jr.: "Hillary didn't cry for Katrina, we need to examine her tears".

by mmorang 2008-06-20 11:14AM | 0 recs

Incredible diary. Brilliant.

by Jeter 2008-06-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Haven't seen Bill endorse Obama

Haven't seen Hillary stand next to Obama. She did the right thing and absorbed the phony race-bating charges and endorsed Obama. But I haven't seen her by his side. I haven't seen Bill stand next to Obama either.

I would like to get behind Obama, but I'm waiting to see if he kicks Hillary to the curb for one last spite.

by mmorang 2008-06-19 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Haven't seen Bill endorse Obama

mmorang--You get your wish next Friday. Woohoo. they will campaign together.

by linfar 2008-06-20 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Haven't seen Bill endorse Obama

yep I saw that story a while ago. Where's Bill Clinton, the last and only sucessful Democratic president in the past 45 years?

It won't change anything. If Obama doesn't put Hillary on the ticket there will be a lot of upset people and many, not all, will leave the party or just not vote. That is reality. The same thing would have happened if Hillary had won and not put Obama on the ticket. I hope the decision-makers in the Obama campaign are attuned to political reality and don't flub it.

by mmorang 2008-06-20 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Haven't seen Bill endorse Obama

Most of the Hillary kooks getting media attention are saying they would not vote for Obama if Hillary was even on the ticket, so I ask, what would be the point of putting her on?  You and your ilk have burned this bridge on both ends, have fun.

by Brandon 2008-06-20 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Haven't seen Bill endorse Obama

You've done your own little private survey and know what "most" Hillary supporters will do?

Puting her on the ticket will go a long way to unite the party. What about that is hard to understand? Its pretty straight forward.

by mmorang 2008-06-20 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I'll say it again HRC has impressed me more than words can say...Thanks linfar for diary, it was terrific!

by hootie4170 2008-06-19 02:11PM | 0 recs
Selling those $100 t-shirts...

...must be mighty tempting.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-19 02:17PM | 0 recs
Know what has to be bad?

After putting your heart and soul into a really long primary campaign, seeing some of these web sites with your picture on it, supporting throwing the election to John McCain. It's got to make you think, after all that work, did they hear a thing I said?

I suspect, and I hope, she never goes there and sees that stuff. I cannot imagine what one's mind does to you after something like this coming to an end and not turning out the way you'd hoped. A vacation indeed.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
God, I love that song -

so appropriate for the Boomer generation -

People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening

and this before the blogs which I often have to leave because of the cacophany of nonspeak.

Neon god they made -- good that!

by Xanthe 2008-06-19 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thanks for writing a great diary. Yes we should be getting behind Senator Obama as he is Dem nominee. He won the primary and it is over. We need a Dem in WH. With respect to McCain, Obama is eons better person suited for it as he is much closer to us in principle, in his work, his political philosophy et al. There is no doubt that he has inspired a generation of new folks for public service.

However life is a two way street. Some diehard Obama supporters still cannot get over their opposition to HRC. Quoting Kos in one of his yesterday's diary.

Clinton would be a disaster on the ticket, re-energizing moribund and demoralized Republicans and giving the GOP an easy hook for their floundering fundraising efforts. /18/122715/921/134/537861

Read through the details Q-Pac survey, you'll be surprised at how Obama's Democratic support grows with HRC inclusion in the ticket...

by louisprandtl 2008-06-19 02:51PM | 0 recs
Kos needs to let go as much as Jerome

still does, but your quote is not a slam imo.  I happen to agree with that statement - of course I may be completely incorrect. There is plenty of discussion of that posibility by a wide range of sources.  Lord knows the GOP doesn't have a rallying cry whatsoever and you would expect the Limbaugh's of the world would do their best to make hay out of it.  The only question remains whether it would help them.


by chrisblask 2008-06-19 03:43PM | 0 recs
You're mistaking...

...political analysis with hostility towards Clinton.

by juliewolf 2008-06-20 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Louis, I agree with you. If she goes on the ticket, it will such a landslide it will be a tsunami :)

by linfar 2008-06-20 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I love your passion. This is what Hiliary is all about.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-19 02:57PM | 0 recs
Great diary linfar

You have a special talent for putting what you are thinking/feeling into words in a way that the reader gets it.

I've been thinking about how depressed I would be in Hillary's position lately.  I have always liked her since the 90's and don't want her to think she's been rejected just because she didn't prevail in this contest.  I hope she gets a huge welcome back to the Senate and a standing ovation.

As for the bloggers who have jumped ship because she didn't win, I was just thinking about what drives them this morning.  Some may have been republican moles but some were truly Clinton supporters.  The only thing I could come up with was that they lost the point of the primary and began to think they were fighting a larger battle about women in general.  While there are battles to be fought regarding treatment of women, the fact that Hillary didn't prevail in this primary isn't a huge blow for women's rights.  In fact, it is just the opposite because Hillary didn't run 'as a woman' she ran as a Democrat and she was able to beat all but one of the other candidates, only narrowly losing in the end.

By forming a small group that only talks among themselves and refuses input from the world at large, this small group of the disaffected have fallen into the traps of groupthink.

Eight main characteristics of groupthink:

  1. Illusion of invulnerability
  2. Collective rationalization
  3. Illusion of morality
  4. Excessive stereotyping
  5. Pressure for conformity
  6. Self-censorship
  7. Illusion of unanimity
  8. Mindguards

It's easy to do in a closed group. I think they truly believe that all 18 million people who voted for Hillary agree with them and will all be backing McCain in November.

(Sorry, long comment but as an Obama supporter I didn't want to write a diary on the subject 'cause I would have been flamed to high heaven.)

by GFORD 2008-06-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary linfar

GFORD, appreciate your comment. Closed group is accurate, that's why I think dialogue, if possible, is important.Not to persuade. But to understand--both ways. People are free agents here.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Great diary linfar

I am part of the Alegre's group, many of whom joined her new website.  Let me assure that there has been a great deal of dissent over how to move forward.  A great deal.

Groupthink is not involved.

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 06:28PM | 0 recs
I checked out her website earlier

and you are right that it is better than say TexasDarlin's blog.

A good example would be the Larry S. story.  On Alegre's blog they have decided he is just not credible.  But on hillaryclintonforum one person said she was suspicious about his story.  Even though she had been posting there for awhile, the rest of the group pounced on her and decided she must be a 'bot' because she had doubts about the veracity.  That's groupthink.

by GFORD 2008-06-19 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Great diary, Linfar. Though I haven't been a Hillary supporter (for the presidency) for over a year now, I am beginning to understand what hopes her supporters had for her, and themselves, and how hard it is to give up this idea of the first female president. I'm sorry there had to be this choice.

by duende 2008-06-19 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Yeah,duende, it was a helluva choice. that's the appeal of a dream ticket.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I'm one of the biggest Hillary lovers, but Barack's the nominee now. It is essential that he wins. Hillary's campaign has increased her stature and she'll have her day. I don't know how or where, but she will.

by NY Writer 2008-06-19 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Yes, ny writer, I think so too.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I am also one of HRC's biggest supporters.  First, BHO is the PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE.  The nomination HAS NOT occurred.  That happens when ballots are cast at the Convention.

Second, I do not need to support BHO.  Where was he in supporting FL voters?  Why did he advertise in 6.6 million homes in FL against the Four-State Pledge.  He could have pulled the ads but made a conscious decision to run them, even though there would be cross-market effects.

No, I don't HAVE to support him just because it is suggested of me.  And that makes me no less a HRC supporter or Democrat for that matter.  

I have a mind, I have my vote and it is my voice.  Until I see some reconciliation and movement toward honoring a great candidate, her principles, and the wonderful things she has brought to our party and to our Country, I will NOT support BHO as a blind exercise in loyalty.  

by fdrjim 2008-06-19 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

The advertising in Florida argument has been debunked repeatedly.

The ad was a national ad. You can't pick and choose what areas you want a national ad to play in. It plays everywhere.

He never ran a Florida-only advertisement.

by PSUdan 2008-06-20 04:53AM | 0 recs
linfar why do you like Obama?

We know you are working for him because Hillary said you should.

Can you think of anything you genuinely like about Obama? Maybe that would be a better diary.

This diary is so disappointing, I think Alegre's motives were genuine and she has every right to take all the time she needs to come around to Obama. She has every right to never come around to Obama. Alegre did more for Hillary than you did, so this diary is misplaced, divisive and disappointing.

I expected more from you.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: linfar why do you like Obama?

You have no problem criticizing Linfar's diary as misplaced, divisive, and disappointing.

Yet you oppose her right to criticize Alegre's efforts as misplaced, divisive, and disappointing?

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:25PM | 0 recs
Freedom of speech

Linfar and I both have a right to criticize what we want who we want when we want.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:38PM | 0 recs
The point made was not one of rights

but of your hypocrisy.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:46PM | 0 recs
This is a dialog

you know, like in a Democracy? A dialog of ideas, opinions, philosophies.

Competing ideas is a good thing, which bear the fruit to refined, developed ideas.

by catfish2 2008-06-19 03:50PM | 0 recs
If only it were

Stop with the hit-and-run attacks, and we might actually be able to have one.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a dialog

I don't think they understand what the "marketplace of ideas" is supposed to be about.  So sad, really.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 10:43PM | 0 recs

I troll-rated that because of the mealy-mouthed, "I can criticize you (and call it free speech) but if you criticize me/people I like than it's unfair!!"

If you're gonna dish it, learn to take it. Damn.

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:12AM | 0 recs
Have at it.

I can take it. Of course, troll rating is not debating, but hey it's a free country you can TR if you can't think of a response.

by catfish2 2008-06-20 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: linfar why do you like Obama?

Interesting.  I always thought Alegre did far more harm to Hillary's campaign than help.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-20 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

You have no problem criticizing Linfar's diary as misplaced, divisive, and disappointing.

Yet you oppose her right to criticize Alegre's efforts as misplaced, divisive, and disappointing?

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Incredible! So happy to rec this.

Hillary does inspire us, and your diary certainly inspired me. Thank you. A lot of people aren't doing what Hillary asked them to do -- and there was one, in particular, who I expected to honor her wishes. It saddens me greatly, but I'm so glad you're still here, and doing a damn good job of filling up the gap. Maybe that other person will rejoin us eventually.

by sricki 2008-06-19 03:28PM | 0 recs
Well said.

Reading through this I let my mind wander into  your situation.  Folks I had fought hard with gone screaming off of the runway and into residential areas in a burning rage of jetfuel.

A moment of head scratching (maybe they're just going to get a Freezee at the local 7/11?).  A pause to let the reality sink in.

Then disgust.  "I thought I knew you!"  "There's more at stake than your ego!"  "My kids live on that block, you a@@hole!"


Barack's name nailed to a tree by the wreckage.  All he stands for being scattered to the winds and nothing left but folks on TV talking about the maniacs running loose in the streets shouting his name.

Not a happy thought exercise.  Worse than just having lost the fight, actually.  It'd be an "insult to injury" scenario for more than just Barack, it would make me ill and depressed on top of everything else.

Very well written, again.  Nice to have someone like you around that I can both agree and disagree with without having to worry that you'll suddenly turn out to be something other than yourself.

Tipped and Recced.


by chrisblask 2008-06-19 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Great diary, Linfar. Some of the people who supported her apparently never understood her.

by X Stryker 2008-06-19 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

X Stryker--So sad to say, I think this may be true.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:18PM | 0 recs
Bloggers Offlimit for Criticism?

I'm putting this here instead of piling it into the related furball below because I think an important issue has been raised.

Are we, really, so precious that we cannot criticize each other?  Has this rule passed it's shelf life, and begun to smell a tad sour?

Part of merging the MSM and Public Media is reconciling this meme with the debate (or at least my fiery comments) in linfar's diary yesterday.  If in fact We are becoming as powerful as Them (Certified Journalists) - and particularly those of Us who have attained significant visibility - we should apply the same standards to Ourselves as we do to Them.

An example of this is that it is OK for me to criticize Alegre in this Comment, but if I cut and paste this and make it a Diary instead then I trample on Hallowed Ground. Ben Smith or Drudge I can rip apart in a Diary, but not Sricki or Rankles (random examples)?  What makes them better (or worse) than the rest of us?  Do we want to relegate ourselves to a second-class of lesser commentators forever?

I neither hold Celebrity TV Commentators on pedestals for vilification or for worship.  Nor do I consider StudentGuy or Linfar mere anonymous faces in the crowd who have to be tiptoed around.  Never been a big fan of our coveted anonmymity, either.  The license it gives people to avoid standing by the things they say, for better or worse, can lower the tone of discussion as we see here often enough (hence the 18 years of being chrisblask when I could have been 'wollingtonfishworks').  It only seems fair that if I choose to say something on important topics that I am willing to be held accountable for them, just like anyone else whether on a street corner or in a TV studio.

These forums are going to continue to become more and more significant in the scheme of public debate - IMO moreso than the one-way window we have grown up watching.  There is an urgent need to get out of our media adolescence and find a way to play by the rules grown ups play by.


by chrisblask 2008-06-19 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary


by rabidnation 2008-06-19 04:11PM | 0 recs
That video!

That's about the most uninspiring version I've heard yet.  They sounded like they were falling asleep.  Garfunkle has his hands in his pockets and looks like he's dying of boredom.  The audience looks catatonic.

by Drummond 2008-06-19 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: That video!

There was a version of them singing live in Central Park which was slower still--and yet it was very moving. but I couldn't get that one to stay in the diary. Sorreee.

by linfar 2008-06-19 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

The Democratic nominee, if in fact BHO, will NOT win the Presidency.  The guarantee you mention is baseless, unfounded, and arrogant.

The BHO campaign and the DNC elitists have stolen the election - many will not forget.  Keep in mind the 1.75 million Floridians and the 600,000 Michiganders and countless nationwide who have seen our democratic process fail.

The 18 million who supported HRC have yet to be considered - we are asked to Fall in Line - BIG ASSUMPTION.  

I own my vote.  It is not for sale.  It must be earned.  Until BHO and the DNC earn my vote, they will surely not get it - and I stand with millions who feel the same way!

by fdrjim 2008-06-19 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

fdrjim, I know who and what you are about from another website. You can spew your outdated arguments all you want,come Novemeber you will  be wrong. Barack Obvama will be our Next President. I find it sad that someone with a handle like fdrjim doesn't know his history well enough to know the kind of bare knuckle, no holds barred politics that FDR engaged in. He was a winna--no matter what it took. And Falla was all part of the strategy.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I do know my history - FDR was nominated on the 5th ballot - my point being BHO is not the nominee - that process has not yet occurred.

You suggest my argument is outdated - how so?

by fdrjim 2008-06-19 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

and I stand with millions
Those millions exist in your head. The vast majority of the 18 million are like Hillary already behind Obama. Check the polls, that train already left the station.

Latest swing state polls have Obama ahead of McCain in Florida. Obama is crushing McCain with Hispanics and women by wide margins. All the pundits handringing about whether Obama could win over Hispanics and women was based on BS like most of their bloviating.

by hankg 2008-06-21 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Wow.  Great diary.  I know we've been at odds a few times, but this diary is incredibly touching and well written.  Kudos to you.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-06-19 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I find everyones obsession, including your own, with Alegre and other people who did not immediately do things the same way you did, to be really curious.  How do you dare to know how anyone will vote in the end, or even assume to.  How is it that you find it necessary to search the internet and bring everything you find out there in here to be judged and discussed and mocked and whatever else you are attempting to accomplish. Is it an attempt to look for approval of your own, or at least increase the number of people who approve of you?

There is one question that comes forth in all of this besides the question of what are you thinking, and that is why is there so much dissatisfaction regarding Obama that this is happening? This in itself, is unusual, and that is the thing which should be analysed, not the people who are thinking differently than you.

I think what happens outside of this blog is noones business.  If it finds it's way in here on it's own, then maybe it should be a concern to as many people as seem to not be able to let it go, and get on with their own political agenda.

But sheesh, what is the drawing power of what the rest of the world is doing, if they are not doing it in your space.  I mean if it was some earth shattering or life shortening issue, but what some other bloggers are doing?  That is really strange.

by Scotch 2008-06-19 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Scotch, I am truly sorry if this diary upset you so much. It was not meant to be about any one person so much as a trend--in the name of a candidate-- which goes against everything this candidate stands for. I am a die hard Hillary supporter which is why I am working for Barack Obama.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
Linfar, it's not that you are now supporting Obama. It's just that you are falling into the pushiness you worked so hard against during your great Hillary diaries. You resented the pushiness and wrote about it so eloquently. Yet here you are, rapidly accepting that you need to do the same, pushing, prodding, and dismissing/labeling your former friends as being inadequate, not up to the task, and that everyone should just turn on a dime. THAT's what's the problem. Not your support for Obama. I can live with that. I just resent the constant barrage of people calling us all kinds of names because we don't turn on that dime. It seems that at least, since you've been one of ours, you could let us have some time, give us some respect, and refrain from interpreting each one of our motives lumped into generalizations. That's why your writings right now hurt. Remember, we were friends, and friends, even if they disagree, deserve some respect. But all of this seems to have gone down into a hell hole during this whole sick primary. I wish you the best Linfar. I hold no grudges against you. Just trying to explain how I feel, and I speak for myself.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-20 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
I was just banned from hillarysvoice--owned by alegre-- for this diary. This was a home for many months. I counted many of those people my friends. Obama supporters have no corner on the market for banning dissent.
Would you like to tell us some more how rough politics are not being played now by hillary supporters who refuse to dialogue about their choices. These people are going completely against what she has asked them to do. Why?? I'd sincerely like to know.
by linfar 2008-06-20 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I don't know about that.  I don't spend a lot of time there.  I just visit once in a while, but this diary all but names Alegre by name, and at the same time attacks many people who post there and did not immediately fall to Obama, in every way but by name.  You don't think that all of us who supported Hillary, havent taken enough attempts at calling out, attempts to shame us for our views, and pressure from people pushing Obama for months to deserve to be left alone on blogs outside of this one?  I can see why you might have been blocked from going there.  It didn't happen, if you were banned, because they attacked you and played hard ball tactics, it was you who made an issue of them expressing the wrong views and on other sites even.  I imagine people feel treated poorly when you start to lean against them, and even blatantly start to diss them in diaries.  It is kindof the same as   talking  about them behind their backs.

by Scotch 2008-06-20 05:43PM | 0 recs
breaking faith

Dear linfar,

    You write a profound and touching diary.  There is much in what you say that I agree with.  I feel a profound empathy with the emotional challenge that Hillary Clinton faces over the next year.

    However, in the words of one marriage counselor I once knew, "you're trying to talk me out of my feelings."

    I'm sure that there are many people who are using Hillary Clinton's personal tragedy for their own financial gain. I would be surprised, though, if these parasites are more than a small fraction of the websites you reference at the beginning of your diary.  Without having actually met or talked to Alegre in person, I feel that I can say with the utmost confidence that she is motivated by rage and anguish, not greed.

    A lot of women feel that the members of the Democratic coalition broke faith with us.  We were betrayed.

    There may be some who are trying to turn that sense of betrayal into dollars, but I don't think Alegre is.  She is, as are many like her, in a great deal of pain.  There's a lot of pain out here.  Its not just losing.  Its losing in the presence of a profound injustice done to all women who have had to endure our own deeply wounding episodes of sexism and misogyny.

    Accusing such women of being disingenuous is not helping.  You are just pouring salt in the wounds.

Warm regards,

by dbrown04 2008-06-19 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: breaking faith

dbrown, I don't think I accused anyone of being disingenuous. I do think the blogosphere has all sorts of motives and agendas and incentives--and money can be made. So I have to say that abandoning a website that helped you when you were being harassed and silenced to create a new one, all to push a candidate who has already conceded and asked her supporters to support the nominee--when you profess to be a democrat-- is confusing to me. It would be naive not to wonder what is going on? Particularly when this person has a website and a messsafge board  which are perfectly acceptable for this purpose.

by linfar 2008-06-19 05:03PM | 0 recs
Well, then I misunderstood you

I would have to guess, though, that her main reason for leaving probably had more to do with not wanting to be, I think she put it, "crapped all over."  (Her words, not mine.)

Also, and I may be mistaken on this point, I thought the Admins on Mydd made it pretty clear that they didn't want to host the conversation as to whether Hillary should fight on.  If that's the case, then taking her agenda elsewhere was the polite thing to do.

Again, I apologize if I misrepresented your main point.

by dbrown04 2008-06-19 05:46PM | 0 recs
Missing the Mark

Linfar, some of us have great problems and reservations about Obama. Mine, like some of the people at the sites you mention, center on lesbian and gay issues. This is something I have written about since last fall. When I have raised these concerns, Obama supporters have responded with a hail of homophobia and sneering. But have not had any evidence to counter the concerns.

We do have real issues that prevent us from supporting Obama now. Please respect that.

by DaleA 2008-06-19 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

I'd be thrilled if Obama were vehemently pro-gay marriage, but that's not gonna happen if a candidate wants to be electable in 2008 -- if you want that, you can choose between Kucinich and Gravel. He's pro-civil unions, and states that he wants to repeal DOMA entirely [1]: "I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples."  As Obama intimates, Clinton only wants to repeal half of DOMA [2]: "Clinton cut herself free of the second plank of the law while continuing to embrace the first plank, essentially saying that she would let states decide their own destiny on marriage but leave the door open for federal recognition of same-sex unions."

As for DADT, all the Democratic candidates wanted to repeal it.  Of course, it was Clinton's husband who gave us that in the first place, after promising he would repeal the ban -- whether you feel that compromises her stance is a personal decision.

Finally, Obama has taken a lot of heat for Rev. Wright's crazy comments.  Does he get any credit for Wright's pro-LGBT positions?  Wright opened one of the first AIDS ministries in Chicago, and started a singles night for gay parishoners (in the face of opposition from some of his church's prominent members).

So, here's evidence, not sneering, that Obama's LGBT positions are actually stronger than Clinton's. Is good?  :)

[1] hris/2007/11/the-obama-hilla.html l=news_articles&sernum=2007/06/19/1& amp;page=1

by jere7my 2008-06-19 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Actually it was someone on Obama's VP list who forced DADT on Bill Clinton: Sam Nunn. Part of what bothers me is that almost all of the anti-gay politicians in the Dem party are with Obama.

Hillary has stood up for gay people numerous times. Even back in Arkansas she supported us publically and socially. She has many close gay friends; Obama apparently has none of any length of time. His statement on knowing a gay professor who didn't come on to him was incredibly offensive. On a par with O'Reilly's description of the black restaurant. Read the responses to your friend's posts, they seem to be coming from the same viewpoint I have.

Obama has no gay supporters of any long term standing. He appears to have no gay friends. Beyond mouthing words, he seems to have no first hand knowlege of us. Hillary does.

by DaleA 2008-06-19 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Honestly, Dale, I see a bit more sneering coming back my way than I sent yours.  I didn't link to a "friend"; I did a little Google research to see what Obama's stated policy on DOMA is.  I have no idea who wrote that blog post, and linked it only because of the Obama quotes. (It's the top Google result for [obama doma]. Which would be a great band name.)

My point is this: Obama's stated policy positions are more pro-LGBT than (either) Clinton's.  Clinton has vocally defended DOMA on multiple occasions. I care more about their positions than about who their friends may or may not be -- that's not something I know anything about, and I'm not sure it matters.  Cheney's got a lesbian daughter; that doesn't mean I trust him on LGBT issues.

Anyway, I guess you'll think what you're going to think. My main purpose here is to be an Obama supporter who fires back with evidence instead of a "hail of homophobia and sneering".

by jere7my 2008-06-19 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Oh, and here's the full quote you're referring to, which says nothing about anyone "coming on to him":

"Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn't proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues."

You read "proselytizing" as "coming on to", or "converting", or maybe the homophobe standby: "I don't mind them being gay, but why do they have to rub our face in it." If that's what Obama meant, I'd find it troubling too. But I read it as, "He didn't preach to me about equality and civic rights, but through his actions and his innate goodness I learned a lot." To me, that seems like a more reasonable reading, especially coming from a black American man who has some experience in having to make people accept him without resorting to proselytizing.

by jere7my 2008-06-19 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Hey Dale, I understand the concern by gays. Obama has been a jerk sometimes: about gavin newsome and with Donnie McJerkin. But McCain is the middle ages. This guy will send gay rights back so far it will be like the dark ages. C'mon--look at the record here. Obama pandered in the campaign--will he do he right thing when the chips are down? I think he will. Look at his speecbh at MLK's church in Atlanta where he stood up aganst the bias against gays. And I say better to put your chips on the better of two alternatives than throw in with the one you Already know is a complete disaster on gay rights.

by linfar 2008-06-20 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Hey Linfar,
not so sure about this. McCain has never been part of the hard core homohate GOP. He has always stayed a bit distant from them. The LogCabinettes are saying he is not so bad. Consider the source. Also, McCain is reaching out to us and other Hillary supporters. So, lets wait and see.

Obama has consistently refused to speak with the gay press thru out the primary season. He made one easily forgettable sentance in one of his long boring speeches about us. BFD. His statement about his professor was incredibly offensive. Obama has no long term known gay associates. He is deeply associated with that homophobic sewer known as the AA Church.

At IGF, the libertarian gays are urging that we send a message to the Democratic Party. Which is that our votes are not automatic. This is tempting. Hillary is a nobrainer: she has a long positive history with both our community and with individual lesbians and gays. Obama has nothing to bring to the discussion.

What offends me beyond words Linfar is the attitude that we should shut up and support someone with clear homophobic ties. I can not yet tell who has deeper ties to homophobes: McCain or Obama. I suspect Obama does. And for progressives to dismiss these concerns is really galling.

by DaleA 2008-06-21 01:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

I am adamantly not dismissisng those concerns, Dale, but I will take Obama over McCain on gay rights any day you name. Did you see McCain on gay marriage on Ellen? Have you seen Obama on Ellen's show. Does he look uncomfortable? does he look like he can hardly believe she is human and he can't quite believe he is haveing to sit there and talk to her. McCain was horrible!!! McCain doesn't like gays. I don't think Obama has any trouble with gays, at all. What I think is, he has in some instances pandered to his base which has become militantly homophobic. And yet at MLK's churcn in Atlanta, a liberal place, he spoke out strongly against anti-gay bias. McCain is not the friend of gay rights. he wants to exploit these issues and drive a wedge between natural dem allies. Please don't fall for it. any dem president will be more responsive to gay rights because of the ardent gay constituency and allies in the dem party. it is just the opposite in the repug party. Please, please--think.

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the Mark

Hey Linfar,
not so sure about this. McCain has never been part of the hard core homohate GOP. He has always stayed a bit distant from them. The LogCabinettes are saying he is not so bad. Consider the source. Also, McCain is reaching out to us and other Hillary supporters. So, lets wait and see.

Obama has consistently refused to speak with the gay press thru out the primary season. He made one easily forgettable sentance in one of his long boring speeches about us. BFD. His statement about his professor was incredibly offensive. Obama has no long term known gay associates. He is deeply associated with that homophobic sewer known as the AA Church.

At IGF, the libertarian gays are urging that we send a message to the Democratic Party. Which is that our votes are not automatic. This is tempting. Hillary is a nobrainer: she has a long positive history with both our community and with individual lesbians and gays. Obama has nothing to bring to the discussion.

What offends me beyond words Linfar is the attitude that we should shut up and support someone with clear homophobic ties. I can not yet tell who has deeper ties to homophobes: McCain or Obama. I suspect Obama does. And for progressives to dismiss these concerns is really galling.

by DaleA 2008-06-21 01:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I think for a lot of those so-called HRC supporters its simply about ego and attention. I like your diary but these people don't deserve the attention you give them. They deserve to be marginalized to the proverbial internet rock they blogged out of.

by bigdaddy 2008-06-19 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Marginalize us - forget about winning the GE

by fdrjim 2008-06-19 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
I have to say this diary sounds more like Taylor Marsh's writing....
 It seems to have alluded you that this is no longer about Hillary but actually is much larger than her.
 He is not qualified- he has not proven himself to be capable of leading anything other than an organiztional works- but that doe not make one able to lead a country thru what is coming up next.
 There are way too many things that would disqualify him for the position of POTUS so why should anyone just do as you and the Dems are essentially telling them to do- which is to "sit down and shut up!" Thank god they are not- thank god there are so many who believe in dissent ...
 BTW isn't that what Democracy is supposed to be about anyway?
 So good luck to you with your Untiy Thingy there, but I really don't see it happening...not really at all.
by artsykr 2008-06-19 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

People said the same thing about Abraham Lincoln and JFK.

Now, you've proven that you're capable of freely poopooing the current Democratic nominee. Now please explain to us what it is you like about John McCain.

So good luck to you with your Untiy Thingy there, but I really don't see it happening...not really at all.

That's funny. Because I seem to see Obama pulling ahead in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, places that were supposed to be his weakness. And don't forget about the Hispanic and Female votes he wasn't supposed to capture.

Now I realize that you want Obama to fail because your little emotions are more important than the lives of billions of people worldwide... but to want doesn't make it a reality.  

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-19 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Just look at the polls. Unity is a reality

by Politicalslave 2008-06-21 03:11AM | 0 recs
Great Diary.... BUT

First I want to say I meant what I said about the diary. And I commend you for speaking out to back the Democratic nominee.

But there's an extremely important element that keeps getting lost in all of this.

Every single thing keeps tying back to Hillary Clinton. Almost every word, whim, song or dance is viewed through the eyes of, "what does this mean for Hillary."

With all due respect, NONE of this should be about Hillary Clinton. It shouldn't be about Barack Obama either. It's about the Country and what is best for it. And what defines a country is its people. In the words of the great, wise (formerly bearded) Al Gore, "Even dogs and cats know that elections matter!." The the Iraq war, with Bin Forgotten, with the economy, with gas prices, with corruption of epic proportion, with the constitution under assault, with millions of people losing their jobs and/or homes, with ALL these problems.... the importance of this race cannot and MUST not be trivialized to mere emotions invested in a one person.

I like to believe that we are all Democrats because we believe in Democratic principles and values. It impossible to deny that voting for McCain is throwing those principles down the toilet, and thus, your integrity along with it. My old Battalion Commander used to tell us all the time. "Remember, nobody can take away your integrity. You must willingly give it away.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-19 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary.... BUT

Hey paratrooper--I liked your comment. I think Hillary has those values and I do too. They are larger than any one candidate. That is the whole point. I don't understand how democrats can vote for a conservative Republican???

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:21AM | 0 recs
Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.


I have a lot of respect for you and I love your writing, but I respectfully have to disagree with you here, and with many of the comments supporting your diary (which is beautifully written and which I will still recommend because I respect your opinion).

You can count me among those loyal Hillary voters who will be supporting McCain this fall if Obama is the nominee.  (Before anyone jumps all over me, I agree that is the most likely case - but you never know what will happen, and I still hold out hope, however slight it is).

You need to realize there are two components to my position.  First, my absolute respect and admiration for Hillary Clinton, and my belief that she would be the best President of my life-time; and second, the fact that I believe that Barack Obama has the potential to be worse than George II for a whole lot of reasons.  I know that back in the day when we were on the same team, you didn't like or support him any more than I did.

The fact that I am choosing to support McCain over Obama does not mean that I do not respect Hillary, because I do.  That respect, however, does not require that I support or agree with everything she says or does.  In this particular instance, I believe that McCain is the best short-term choice for President this Country has, despite the fact that I have significant disagreements with him on some issues.  There are some issues that I agree with him on, and there are others, that do not seem so significant to me this election cycle.

I do believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party as I knew them to be for most of my life, but I have no loyalty to the Party as an entity.  When I believe that the Party no longer represents me, that is when I am no longer a member of that Party.  My loyalty to this Country, however, is undying.

I think that the Party has gone in the wrong direction this year and has basically spit in the face of about one half of its members.  I believe that Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi have not served the Party in good stead and that their goals for personal power have dictated the turn the Party has taken more than there interest in the National good.  To say it plainly, they have succumbed to the lust for power.

You, and many others here may not have liked the direction Alegre has gone in, and I remind you that it was made plain and clear to many of us that our views were not welcome to be expressed if it did not comport with the goal of "party unity."  You may not like it  that many of us not only will not be supporting Obama but will be supporting another candidate.  That is okay because you are entitled to your point of view.  I have always said that and I will always believe that.

Nevertheless, I think you went too far when you conclude that we are dishonoring Hillary and when you said:

I think, `they are not helping her.'  They don't really care about her. She isn't a person to them. She is a business, a cause, a means to drive traffic to a  website. She is a claim to fame."

That is so far from the truth.   I cannot speak for everyone else, but I can tell you that most of us, like me, are acting in good faith and believe that we are doing the best we can to advance Democratic ideals, in the long run, and to advance the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming President, if not now, then in 2012.

So basically, we have taken two paths.  I give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe that you are doing what you think is best for this Country and is what Hillary would want.  I ask you to give the same benefit of the doubt to me, and to others that used to be on the same team with you.  After all, aren't we still on the same team?  We are all Americans after all, and we have the right, indeed the obligation to exercise our best and freest thought, speech and judgment to help keep America strong and free.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 07:26PM | 0 recs
I call bull&^%$

It is simply not logical for anyone to have believed in the principles upon which Hillary Clinton campaigned and turn around and support John McCain. Therefore, you are supporting McCain for some other reason.

Further, if you are supporting McCain, you are not on the same team. You are not a Democrat. You are not on Hillary's team, since she's supporting Obama. In fact, you are the political enemy, a supporter of the Republican Party.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-19 08:06PM | 0 recs
How offensive you are!

First, I have stated that I support McCain because I oppose Obama.  It may not be your logic, but it is mine.  Don't impute evil intent where there is none.

Second, with regard to being a Democrat, I don't have an obligation to stay on  that sinking ship.  That does not mean I do not support Democratic ideals, and that does not mean I am a Republican.  I will be supporting all the Democratic candidates that are down-ticket.

Third, calling me an enemy shows what a low sort of person you are, and makes me sorry I visited to make what I thought was a calm statement to Linfar.  The way I see it, your inability to even consider that a point of view other than yours exists, demonstates that you are not a person who thinks very much or very deeply.

Notwithstanding the support of people like Psychodrew and Linfar for Obama, when I think that you are an example of many of the people on Obama's team, it makes even clearer to me that I don't want to be on your team.I

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 08:46PM | 0 recs
politics demands....

that if you are on anyone's "team" you will share it with someone you wouldn't consider a friend. An ally, perhaps... but not a friend. As it happens... Travis' statement is entirely accurate... support of McCain works against the principles Hillary Clinton stands for. When it comes down to a decision between the two... supporting Obama comes much, much nearer towards forwarding the ideals Clinton has stood for...

...this is both my subjective opinion and the objective evidence of public statements and voting records.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: How offensive you are!

Do you honestly think Hillary has a shot in 2012 if she is seen as the reason Obama lost in 08?  You cant seriously think a campaign fueled by rage and revenge wont be met with rage and revenge, only allowing it 4 years.  Hillary 2012, you sir are out of your mind.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:06PM | 0 recs
I am perfectly satisfied your point of view exists

You aren't voting for anything, as you say. You're voting "against Obama",  for reasons I'm sure that are clear for you. I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to do that. Far from it. We have a whole political party for people supporting John McCain. It's called the Republican party. However, don't come crying here that we are somehow on the same team. We are not. You are siding with a continuation of the Bush presidency for the next 4 to 8 years, and that is counter to progressive values of any kind.

Also, don't go using Hillary as some kind of figurehead for a movement that aims at electing John McCain. She is on the other side. She is doing everything in her power to make sure you don't succeed. To call yourself a Hillary supporter without prefacing it with the word "former" is not correct. You, because you don't like Barack Obama, have switched sides. That's fine, but lets call it what it is, shall we?

by Travis Stark 2008-06-20 03:58AM | 0 recs
So wrong, so ignorant.

by cjbardy 2008-06-20 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: So wrong, so ignorant.

So without a counter-argument. Sorry to confuse you.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-20 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Good point:

I remind you that it was made plain and clear to many of us that our views were not welcome to be expressed if it did not comport with the goal of "party unity."

It makes sense that Alegre and many others would leave.

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Hey psychodrew, I am sorry that you went in a different direction than I did, but as I said to Linfar, I know you are doing it because you think it is the best, and it does not diminish my respect for you.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 08:48PM | 0 recs
Same to you.

We can be good progressives and good Democrats and still disagree.

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

You're not on my team, that's for sure.  

by tibbs 2008-06-19 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Fine by me.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Oh, boo hoo.  That hurt.

by Demogrunt 2008-06-19 09:03PM | 0 recs
on the single most important decision...

regarding politics in the past 30 years, Clinton agreed with George W. Bush and Obama did not. That does not preclude my having respect for those who differed with me on that position... but it does call into question your judgment above.

There is no remotely logical basis for expecting the same or worse from Obama that we have received from GWB... if only because he has framed his positions by opposition to president Bush and McCain has done the opposite. The ideology that McCain has embraced is antithetical to any progressive position on foreign policy, civil liberties and economics... and if you're serious about this you will take a long, objective look at Obama's politics and record outside of the context of who ran against him and the invective invoked against him in this campaign.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

You're insane, or an idiot, or were never a Democrat in the first place.

Cry yourself to sleep this November, k?

by NeverNude 2008-06-20 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

I can perfectly understand not liking Obama or believing he is the answer.

What I cannot even come close to understanding is how a supporter of Hillary Clinton, someone who believes in her ideals and stances, could possibly make the idealogical leap to John McCain.

I can leaving the president slot blank, I can understand writing in Hillary, I can understand voting Green Party. I cannot comprehend being a supporter of women's rights, the environment, universal healthcare etc. and then voting for John McCain, a person who supports none of that.

John McCain will work against everything Hillary stood for. Who do you think is more likely to pass a universal health care bill written by Hillary in the Senate - McCain or Obama?

Make no mistake about it - John McCain will work against everything that Hillary stands for.

And your long term view of 2012 is a fairy tale. If the deciding factor in an Obama loss was due to dissenting Clinton voters do you really believe she could win in 2012? When you use revenge as a strategy don't be surprised when it is used against you in the future.

by PSUdan 2008-06-20 05:09AM | 0 recs
Please explain to me...

why this comment was hide-rated by two people?  I didn't attack anyone; I didn't use offensive language; I was respectful to the diarist, who I personally like.

This is rating abuse of the worst case.  You should be ashamed of yourselves!

by cjbardy 2008-06-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Hi, CJ--what a model of reasoned, fair and open discourse your comment is. And I welcome it. Yes. We disagree. I have no problem at this point with people needing time to sort through the primary battle. It was heated and you are right,I fiercely fought Obama's nomination. But I was raised to believe in a democratic process when it comes to politics, and so even when you don't win, no matter how strongly you feel about it, you support the other guy. In this case, my candidate, has led the way and if one doubts her recommendation of Barack then you are doubting her. We can second guess her motives, but I believe she believes with all her heart that McCain would be a disaster for eveything she has supported her entire life. I agree with her. And if you truly distrust Obama--look at their voting records in the Senate. They are nearly identical. All along in the primary, the pundits said they were so close in their policies and issues that they had to emphasize other differences. As for what I have said about some of her other prominent supporters--I am truly dismayed about their actions. I have now been thrown off Hillarysvoice for expfressing my opinion. Isn't that something alegre once fought against? This is something I see happening among way too many Hillary's supporters: agree with me--or you are toast. I am grateful for this dialogue with you. I have fought my whole life for a woman's right to choose. McCain is an enemy of that right, he is an enemy of gay rights, he is no friend of the environment, he wants to keep Americans dyding in Iraq--no congress, even with a majority, which hopefully dems will have, can hamstring the horrible possibilities of a Mccain presidency. Please, please don't let your fears and animosities towards Obama cloud your judgement about McCain. I hope we can talk more CJ.  I miss you and respect you. And value your opinion.

by linfar 2008-06-20 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Thanks Linfar - I have no problem listening to your point of you although I I don't agree with it now and may not agree with it ever, but I appreciate the open door. ; ) I just wish some of the people at this site were as reasonable as you are.  Did you see that I was hide-rated for this comment?

by cjbardy 2008-06-20 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

Hi again CJ--I have never had hide rate abilities--too subversive I guess :)But I am sorry that happened. sigh.  Listen come on over to clintonistasforobama--we are wanting to set up a place, in part, where Clinton supporters can talks and disucss their issues calmly without screaming etc. No pressure. Let's just get it all out on the table. I think its important to keep talking. And we welcome diaries from all points of view. ALL points of view. clintonistasforobama

by linfar 2008-06-20 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry Linfar, I don't agree with you today.

I'll stop by and visit Linfar.  BTW, it appears I have now lost my hide-rate abilities, even though I never used them.  

Take care.

by cjbardy 2008-06-22 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Dear Diarist and Others Posting Here,

Maybe this will make you feel better.

It's chapter four of Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self".  I think it does quite a nice job of describing the phenomena you are describing here.  And it might help in resolving some of your frustrations. ight+People+Sipping+Wine+in+Kettering&am p;sitesearch=#

It's a nice film about people who "care about the well being of this country as much as anyone I have ever seen on the public stage."  Or something along these lines.

It does a lovely job talking about Hillary and Bill and as well us, the voters.

by nocore 2008-06-19 07:36PM | 0 recs
Excellent vid, thanks! Spot on.

by tibbs 2008-06-19 08:56PM | 0 recs
I respectfully disagree

I think that the people you are speaking about have good motives.

by psychodrew 2008-06-19 07:41PM | 0 recs
Compelling diary.

These traitors to the progressive causes Hillary fights for are actually few in number.  They are just visible, especially to those of us who hang out online, and they are in love with the sound of their own cybervoices.  There are many, many more like you than there are like them.  

I can tell you that the Hillary supporters in my neck of the woods are all fired up and ready to go for the Democratic Party in November.  We are planning to get out every single Dem vote, and get Democrats elected up and down the ticket, from County Commissioner on up to president.  We also have many Republicans and Christians working to get Obama elected in this area.

Hillary is a great candidate, but her campaign advisors let her down miserably, and they are a large part responsible for the situation that is the subject of your diary.  Next time, Hillary  should skip over all of Bill's male friends, and instead choose her own advisors.  That's my two cents.

by tibbs 2008-06-19 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Compelling diary.

It wasn't just her campaign advisors that let her down miserably, but her fellow Democrats who reveled in ripping her to pieces.  Now these fellow Democrats want bygones to be bygones without even a hint of the irony of it all.  Hillary wasn't good enough to shine Barack's shoes in many of your eyes, but now it is of the utmost importance that her supporters tow the Democratic party line.  I don't follow the creed that all is fair in love and war. There were no apologies nor acceptance for the obvious hatchet job done to both of the Clinton's characters.  I hate to point this out to you all, but the Clintons did right by the Democratic party in the 1990's, but you would never know it by the total lack of respect that so many Obama supporters showed them in the past year.  I have never witnessed such vitriol coming from people within THE SAME PARTY as I witnessed in this primary election.  You behaved like the most rabid Republicans. Well, this Democrat will never be bullied or guilted by anyone, so save your "your not a Democrat" bullshit for someone else. I don't intend on promoting people who would never do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.  Barack had an opportunity to get my vote months ago, but he showed that winning at all costs was more important.  Now he can try to win without me. Also, don't fool yourselves because there are many more like me.  You are going to need to work your butts off to get Barack elected because there are many Democrats who will not be supporting him in the general election.

by Demogrunt 2008-06-19 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Compelling diary.

Most of the complaining about Hillary was the negative approach she took to the primary, and yes she was by far more negative.  I can offer you the challenge of listing some quotes Obama said to attack her.  And most of the calls for her to get out were because the longer it went on, the more divided teh party would be and the harder it was going to be to put it back together.  

Wow, they must have been psychics, because the length and negativity she displayed in the primary have caused some of her supporters to do exactly as was predicted, funny how that worked out.  It was never about winning back the WH, it was about Hillary, and Hillary of Mccain attitude is a direct by product of that.  The insanity that she would be elected president if she is seen as the major cause of Obamas defeat in 2012 is laughable, if anything, her career in national politics will be done.  She tied her legacy to this thing, lets see how it plays out.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:15PM | 0 recs
The Bhutto and RFK comments are contrary to that

Obama's negative campaigning in his emails were daily and relentless.  His campaign manager Axelrod went so far as to say she was responsible for causing Benazir Bhutto's death, a charge that Obama took up in full force at the most inappropriate time when the entire Muslim world was in shock and horror.

Axelrod then distorting her RFK remarks is something that Hillary supporters will simply never forget, well, it's a permanent scar.

You can continue to dance on her supposed grave, but it's contrary to facts and not a good way of reaching out to her supporters to continue to distort this campaign so blatantly.

It's not unifying to continue these distortions and this is the time when leadership would demand that you quit indulging the need to assign blame where there is none.  It's politically, the wrong time for that.

Hillary is a fine lady, a great Senator, and her ideas are so great that Obama has sought to borrow as many as he could.

You could at least respect her years of service to the Democratic Party and acknowledge that starting a campaign by claiming she was responsible for killing Bhutto at a sensitive diplomatic time was a horrible thing to do.

Or, you can continue to try to beat down the finest first Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, and first woman to win a Presidential primary.  

by chieflytrue 2008-06-19 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Bhutto and RFK comments are contrary to th

Thanks for not including one quote, point proven.  

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:55PM | 0 recs
Excellent comment Demogrunt

I believe that a good number of Obama's current supporters, and in particular, the ones who like to cry out that anyone who does not go along with them are not Democrats, are not only short-sighted while looking toward the future, but are equally handicapped when looking at and evaluating past history with their revisionist lenses.  

The sad fact is that independent thinking is no longer valued.  The mantra of the day is "go along to get along."  Well, that is not the way I was raised to be, and I am sure not going to start thinking that way now.

by cjbardy 2008-06-19 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Compelling diary.

Demogrunt, Hillary is campaigning with Barack, next Friday. So let me ask you. If they shared the ticket, if she is the vp nominee. Would you begin to see voting for the ticket as a possibility?

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:14AM | 0 recs

I really think it's unfair, and even a little cruel, to be dangling the VP spot as a carrot to draw former Clinton voters back into a conversation.

If and when that place is taken by someone else (and I believe than "when" is far, far more likely), then the anger and disappointment they feel now will be doubled, and they'll really be lost.

by BobzCat 2008-06-20 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Compelling diary.


by Demogrunt 2008-06-20 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
Linfar, you are a true dishonor to Hillary's legacy. You know darn well that she had to endorse Obama at the end. Your presentation here reminds me of something in my own life. You are someone that made the change for the winner, but you're someone that just joins the gangs, and they quickly overtake your thinking, as it's always comforting to be amongst the herd, versus something else. Here's my own analogy:
"Isn't it amazing what hanging out with school yard bullies can do to your mind in a tiny amount of time? The need to "fit in" with the "popular crowd" seems to be a powerful force in human nature. That's why I pulled my younger son out of public high school and started home-schooling him. He ended up being Valedictorian at his graduation ceremony for the school, and now has a Biology degree from UCSB. Before that he was caught with Marijuana on Campus, and had a foul mouth at home. He completely changed and started thinking for himself after I pulled him out - and I was really scared doing it, as at that time we had a very rocky relationship. But he started into gardening, helping out with the wildlife, and becoming interested in all kinds of things far healthier than "trying to fit in with the high school gangs crowd. Now he's my hero."
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary
Linfar, you used to be one of my heroes. Now you're just another joiner into a future of more of the same we all fought against. Let's see where Obama stands on FISA. Apparently he needs a whole lot of more time to come up with a politically correct answer. More than even 24 hours. Leadership? Responses to urgent needs (FISA is one of those)? Will you stand behind him when he gives us an answer based on a whole slew of political calculations as to what he should say in order to win in November? I'm so disappointed in you. You used to be my hero. No, I'm not one of those who will vote for McCain. But I cannot possibly imagine myself voting for Obama at the same time.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Gabriele!!! No, no, no! Linfar is NOT a dishonor to Hillary's legacy. Not in any way. And neither are you, and nor is Alegre. You are all talented women, skillful writers; you all were - and are - great supporters of Hillary. Our very own Hillary. The best Presidential candidate of this century.

And we lost. And it sux. And it hurts. And we're angry. And we're angry twice as much because we know she'd been a brilliant President. And we deal with this differently. And it doesn't make us bad. And it doesn't dishonor Hillary. Not in any way. You have all the right in the world to feel this way. But linfar is not the cause of this. Linfar is one of my heroes too. And so is Hillary. And we mustn't grip for each other's throats because of this.

There will be a new day to fight. But this, Gabriele, just isn't it.

by DemAC 2008-06-19 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

You know darn well that she had to endorse Obama at the end.

No... actually. If she actually felt that McCain would be the better option she was in the perfect position to make that happen. While doing so may have cost her her position in the Senate and the esteem of the majority of the party... she has far too much standing in the public eye to personally suffer from the decision. She endorsed Obama because it was the most effective way to forward her own goals (and because it was the right thing to do).

you're someone that just joins the gangs, and they quickly overtake your thinking, as it's always comforting to be amongst the herd, versus something else.

Get the hell over yourself. Everyone should question of themselves whether they are subject to a herd mentality. Imposing such judment on others takes a certain crude arrogance...

by Casuist 2008-06-19 09:56PM | 0 recs
Get the hell...
that's enough for me. Suit yourself. Some so-called unity, change, and peace-maker that addresses my own beliefs with "get the hell...." deserves nothing from me but a pure repudiation. There is nothing re-conciliatory nor peace-making in your post. Had one of your friends responded to you in this fashion, would you still embrace them after such a comment? And we we never even knew each other. What a fine introduction. I bet if I wrote a message to you like that, you'd write me off your list in a second. I have no idea why you think this might make me change my mind. But then again, I don't think your real goal is to unite anyone, but just to be a rebel-rouser. You do well with it, indeed. And your success will be prominently apparent in November, when enough of us have had it with your "unification" methods. Keep at it. It's not to your or your candidate's benefit, but then again, what the hell do you care? Spew hate in the name of "unity".
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Get the hell...

I don't care who you vote for.  That you threaten to vote for someone clearly opposed to "your" ideas you claim to have had being a Hillary supporter show you are in fact just not a rational person and have let rage, bitterness and revenge strongly affect you.  The democrats have no chance at getting your vote, because you would rather throw it away and elect a republican out of spite.  Good luck to you, don't be naive to think Hillary will ever be president if you and you're mob get what they want, because perception is apparently reality, and voteing out of spite and anger will become the flavor of the month.  Half the party supported Hillary in the primary, half supported Obama, now more then half support Obama.  If you think his sabatour will ever take the oath of office, you really are out of your mind.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Get the hell...
Democrats and Republicans are no longer as separated as you'd like to believe. That's why I can't support either of them anymore. The time has come for us to change things. Our Democrats are now spineless wimps who submit to a 24% approval ratings President's agenda. I have no more faith in them. It's time for us to find a better way. (Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table." FISA today). Sorry folks. I've watched this scenario for decades, going down hill. If we really want true Democracy in accordance with our original Constitution, it will take more than we're doing right now. By approving and condoning their down-hill trend to take impeachment (accountability), torture, FISA, the environmental catastrophes in place and further awaiting us, it will take far more than electing Obama. Obama is a tiny drop in the bucket of the global corruption that's been in the makings ever since good Ronald Reagan came on the scene. It's too late to try to make good by electing a bought symbol (Obama), that was brought to the top based on Axelrod's marketing opinion that it was a good time to feature an African American, because there was so much white guilt. Yes, yes. I know. Not a popular opinion. Just mine. And I'll be damned if I can't express it. It's still (sort-of) okay to express one's opinion, or is it?
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Get the hell...

"white guilt"

So the answer to you being dissatisfied with a president is to do everything you can to make sure his policies are here for 4 more years.  You have to see how this makes no sense to people.  Theres a specific group of people throwing around "white guilt" as a reason for Obama nomination win, and they are the people I like to believe that do not represent Hillary Clinton, though if you and your friends at No Quarter and Hill44 keep bashing my head in with it, I might come around to believing it.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Get the hell...
Have you had your rabies shot lately? If not, I highly recommend it. It seems like things are really getting to you - way out of proportion.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-20 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Get the hell...
Lumping me in with other people on different sites is not a credible argument. I speak for myself, and myself only. I agree with some, and disagree with others, just like you. Cut it out.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:57PM | 0 recs
i don't hate you...

I hate it when you're condescending. I will call you on it, whether I consider you to be on my side or not... just the same as I would take a close friend aside and tell them they're out of line.

You are not free from rebuke when you openly criticize millions of people you know nothing about simply because you disagree with their choice of candidate.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...

This my be new, but rumor has it that the primary is over, there are 2 candidates, That your choice is fueled by bitterness is sad, well, bitterness is one of teh more honorable reasons for your decision.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...
And rumor has it, that each of us still have our right to vote - one voice at a time. I will never vote for McCain, but I'm also sure that I'll never vote for Obama. That's my right and my privilege according the the US Constitution. The more you try to bully me, the less likely I am to conform. Bullying and threates, in my book, always have been a poor technique to win folks over. And it's not even about that, guys. If I believed in your candidate, I could look past all of that. My problem is with Democrats merging into Republicans these days. So what if we elect Obama? He's been pre-selected by the very folks (you know, the old-time establishment folks) to do their bidding in the future. I can no longer support the lesser of two evils. The Democrats (look at FISA, Pelosi and Hoyer right now), are not in any way committed to take our country back to where we want it to be. "Impeachment is off the table", one of the first statements Pelosi as new House Speaker put forth. I had such high hopes for her. Why do you all think that Obama, who has a great deal of difficulty articulating where he really stands (see FISA just today), will bring us the change we want? He changes his positions on a daily basis, depending on who he talks to. And we all watch how everyone tries to twist themselves into pretzels excusing his changes as they pop up every day. No thanks. I'm 56. Ive seen a lot of politics. I was one of the fighters for women's, gay's, AA's , Hispanics and Native American rights - way back then. I won't turn on a dime anymore. I've seen it all, and the truth is that the Democratic Party today has completely merged with the Republican party. And Obama is being used as another foot-note to the international corporatization of global wealth distribution. Mark my words. You may not believe me now, but time and decades of observations from this truly liberal person, me, should count for something. I won't stay silent. I know it's not popular. But I have to stick with my integrity this time around. I've tried to go along far too long. We're at a precipice in time, and our Democrats are leading us towards the cliff. EOM.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...

Bully? Threat?  Are you kidding?  I don't care who you vote for, but being bitter and vengeful and not even being able to put together one valid reason why outside of "my girl lost waaa waaa" just shows you aren't even worth reaching out too.  Hysterical people that believe they can hold the party hostage don't belong in the party anyway, have fun.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...
Do you know how to read? And if so, do you know how to comprehend what's being written? There's a certain kind of satisfaction in your response to my post. I'll spare you the details.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...

You mean that rambling conspiracy you ranted about? I think history will judge the bitter Hilary movement as it is, a bitter rebellion of over inflated egos and self importance.

by Brandon 2008-06-19 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...
Suit yourself. I don't hate you either.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't hate you...
The troll-rating I get from you show me exactly how much of a liberal you really are. You apparently are not able to read a differing opinion without pushing that button. Sigh. Must say I'm not surprised though. More like what I expected from you.
by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-19 11:50PM | 0 recs
Wah wah wah

"I attacked someone with my crappy ad-hominem argument and now people are being mean and refusing to buy my bs that hope/unity = bending over and taking it!!!1"

Sorry, that's all I read from your comment.

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:10AM | 0 recs
So you're saying Hillary is weak-willed

To be pushed into taking a stand she didn't believe in?

And you claim to be a supporter of hers?

Are you serious with this crap?

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Gabriel, I am sorry to see this from you. I know your name so well from countless diaries over the months. I have been blogging for Hill, nealy a diary a day, since last September. Please do not assign me any motivation other than what I tell you it is. This sort of attacking motives and slander is something going on that is frightening to me--  and it makes dialogue and interaction very hard. I am doing as Hillary has asked me to do because I believe she was sincere in asing it and also passionate. She knows the threat John McCain poses. It is time for Democrats to undersatand the threat from McCain and unite to beat him. Obama is the nominee. No it didn't help when Obama supporters etc. said oh, hillary voters will get in line over Roe v. Wade--but a woman's right to choose IS fundamental to me and bigger than that putdown--and so many other issues too. Please do not think he can be neutralized by a democratic congressional majority. McCain is a huge threat to everything Hillary has stood for her entire life. Why can you not see that? And if you think I am wanting to be popular, you missed my diary on Tim Russert. whoa. Jut like the old days--could have used your voice.

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Despicable comment.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-20 07:25PM | 0 recs
in frankness...

I've been inclined to avoid reccing your diaries, linfar... because I still feel there are things for which you should apologize which, in my opinion, transcend political ideology. That being said, this is a very good diary... and it's quite worthy of being seen. Thank you.

by Casuist 2008-06-19 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: in frankness...

Casujist,time to move on; it isn't only Hillary folks who can't let go. glad you commented.

by linfar 2008-06-20 07:36AM | 0 recs
hence the rec...

Though, again... I think my problems have nothing to do with the primary campaign per se, but rather with crossing certain lines with one's commentary. I hope everyone on both sides of the primary has learned something about taking such divisions and distorting them out of all recognition such that sincere Democrats are still, presently at odds- to their own detriment.

However many years down the road... I'd like for this to go better next time.

by Casuist 2008-06-20 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Well linfar, in general I do agree with you; your diary is pretty awesome indeed, you're such a good writer and really - the PUMA attitude is just stupid.

However, I can't but help agree with Canadian Gal; why couldn't you leave Alegre out of this? (I know, I know - you didn't mention her by name and she's not the central part of your excellent diary at all) but I'm sooo effing tired of women being bashed around, on this and other sites!!! It's bad enough having the know-it-all crowd of twenty-something college guys marveling in their own glory 24/7 and constantly sniping at Hillary.

We need to be better than that. We need to protect our own - even when we profoundly disagree on policy and course of action.

Anyway linfar; you're an amazingly talented writer. I do enjoy your diaries very much and you've been a constant inspiration since those halcyon days when we all wore pink. Keep up your good work. Just mind the girls as you go...

by DemAC 2008-06-19 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Who is Alegre? Most people here don't pay that much attention. As you point out it wasn't linfar who named her.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-20 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Alegre is important insofar as she's a respected blogger who was important for a lot of Hillary's fans around here during the primaries. Linfar is right of course, but so is demac too. Women for Hillary need to be supportive of each other now; not take out the obvious frustration of the sexist primaries on each other.

by TheLeftApple 2008-06-20 12:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Hey, DemAC, I am emphatically not "after" any particular person, but I did try to paint a picture of the landscape as I see it right now. And for my labors I was just thrown off Hillarysvoice which is owned by Alegre. There I said the name. The truth is I have never experfienced this woman as someone especially open to differences or welcoming of dissent. You either fall in line with her view or you are disappeared. I have seen ithappen over and over again. Otghers hae b een thrown off there as well. so it is all well and good to say don't pick on___. People myight tgry asking her to do the same.  

by linfar 2008-06-20 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

You forget that it's the voters you need, not Hillary, so the cutting the baby in half approach of showing a lack of understanding of Hillary's supporters who are the key to this election demographically from women to Hispanics, to Jewish voters, Catholics, Caucasian voters (who you should stop disparaging, it's unseemly for a national party to disparage women and majorities) and on, while you acknowledge a very half hearted appreciation of Hillary herself isn't very welcoming.

It's not a way to come together, and insulting her supporters especially makes the rest of us voters feel like, if that's what they think of us fine.  We'll vote for the best prepared person for the job, a person with experience, a person who has worked with the most Democrats.

And if you don't know our principles, you can't win.  It sounds to me like you don't and you don't care to understand.  Well, let me start, fair reflection and one person one vote are bedrock.  

by chieflytrue 2008-06-19 11:00PM | 0 recs
Read the polls

Obama has the people already.

(And as a Catholic, working-class, white woman I am so sick of listening to people tell me who I should be voting for based on demographics invented by talking heads.)

by BrighidG 2008-06-20 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

She dishonored herself.

"Does anyone care about Hillary anymore?"

Nope. Except for a relative handful of diehard fans.

by Beren 2008-06-19 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thank you for writing such a great diary.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-20 12:13AM | 0 recs
Hillary is no longer

a candidate for any office that is open.
People who say they support her don't seem to understand that she is no longer in a position to be supported nor does she want it.

The ones left who refuse to recognize this fact do so for their own reasons that have nothing to do with Hillary. They would prefer her to have to work under a John McCain Presidency than to fully take to heart her message.

Obama's side said and did some horrible things to Hillary BUT her side did some and said some horrible things about and to Obama. THAT'S POLITICS.

If someone dosen't want to support Obama now? That's their choice but when they want to vote McCain? I will stand and call them out all day because that is insane.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-20 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

Thank you linfar.

A great diary and highly recommended.

by PSUdan 2008-06-20 05:17AM | 0 recs
For an interesting test

For shiggles, I went to the other day.  They are definitely rooting for Obama to fail.  Amazing.

On a hunch, I changed the address to  It was blank, but for a small phrase, "This site reserved for 2012."

This led me to want to rant that if Hillary supporters wouldn't back my guy, what makes them think I would back Hillary in 2012.  If they stab my back, I'll stab them!!!!

The one person who keeps me from doing that, frankly, is Rush Limbaugh.  He wants this.  Republicans are fueling much of the "Hillary or no one" rants from the sidelines.  

Now, the diarist who shall not be mentioned was certainly a democrat.  But the vast majority have/are moving back to Obama.  A few may not.  But I'm convinced there aren't enough of them to create a large movement.

At least, I hope they don't give Rush the satisfaction.

by stlatty72 2008-06-20 05:44AM | 0 recs
The owner and admin of HIs44 is anonymous

so how do you know it's NOT Rush Limbaugh, laughing and snickering while typing with his left hand.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-20 05:58AM | 0 recs

Whatever.  You do not understand that a lot of people actually dislike Obama.  Some people really do!! I know it's hard to believe- but get a grip.  It is Obama's burden to win over Clinton voters who feel as though his campaign has been sexist and deceitful.  Again, I know it's hard for some people to grasp this reality- but it's true!!!!!  If you believe that all of these Clinton supporters will "come home in time" without being aggressively courted by Obama- then you are crazy.  Have you seen the number of sites attached to this website:

You can go ahead and believe that these are all "Republican Moles" or "bitter Dems who will eventually come home"- but I tend to disagree.  Remember 19% of the vote right now is still UNCOMMITTED! 08_release_web.pdf
Now- can Obama still win without these voters?  Maybe.  Does he want to risk it?  Maybe. Time will tell.
That's all I'm sayin.

by easyE 2008-06-20 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Uhg

I think many of us recognize that some people don't like him or don't want to vote for him. I certainly understand that.

What I don't understand is a Hillary supporter voting for McCain, who stands for and represents the polar opposite of Clinton.

Don't vote for President, write in Hillary, vote for someone in a different party who has your ideals - but John Mcain? He certainly does not have progressive ideals.

by PSUdan 2008-06-20 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Uhg

easyE--I am well aware of what you are documenting here. In my opinion, and in Hillary's, it is time now to put the welfare of the country before disappointment, unfairness, a less than inspiring candidate [for you] and unite to defeat McSame, who be excatly that and then some. Do you really want to stay in Iraq and have more Americans die there? Do you really hate the environment so much? And do you truly not care about Roe v. Wade and a whole raft of other women's rights issues., Notg to mention tghe economy, minimum wage, social security and on and on and on. He is also a huge opponent of gay rights. Whatever feelings you are carrying over from the primary, in my opinion, need to be looked at in light of the larger picture. We have a nation to heal. And Hillary is putting the country First, that is the kind of leader she is.  

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary

I still maintain that these people are not true democrats and never were.

by sparkalepsy 2008-06-20 07:36AM | 0 recs
Uprated as anti-TR-abuse

Don't know if I agree with you, certainly some are, certianly some aren't.

But that was not a TR worthy comment.

by chrisblask 2008-06-20 02:54PM | 0 recs
Not everyone agrees with your premise.

To begin with, I am a Hillary supporter who campaigned in 8 states at my own expense, and now have made an FEC reportable contribution to the Obama campaign.   I have tried to bring my collegues along with me, but encountered two principle lines of resistence.

1) Those who don't believe Obama can win.
   Pooh pooh, you say.  Just look at the map in the corner of MyDD --today, not June 1, when he was losing.  But the election isn't until November and McCain has barely been heard from.  The map hates us.  Victory for Obama assumes that his charm will reverse 200 years of conventional wisdom about the turnout of the young and minority voters, and maybe it will.  I hope it does.  
   But it is not foolish to disagree.   To the liberal blogosphere, hope is ensconsed as fact nearly as fast as it is uttered, but to those of us who have seen Kennedys and McGoverns energize youth for a few moments only to confront 17% turnouts of under-25 year old voters on election day, there is cause for concern.  A HUGE percentage of Hillary's supporters want to end the war with more passion than I see here and are Hillary supporters because they beleive she is the only one who can win.  And peace is too precious to them to give up just because their candidate did.
    My perception is that Alegre is one of these.

2) Obama will be Jimmy Carter.
    Sorry about that Jimmy.  I think it's an unfair rap, but there is a substantial crowd who believe you were smart and hell, but that you just didn't know how to work the levers of power in Washington.
    And a whole bunch of those folks see no evidence that Barack has a better grasp on it.  They look at his "no money from Washington Lobbiests" business and think he is, at best, naive.   They are underwhelmed by his list of legislative victories.  They look at the roster of Obama's inner-circle and wonder what it means that he doesn't have anyone who has been with him who didn't sign up after the 2004 Convention Speech.  They hear him talk about "hope" and "change" as if he believes he is the first candidate for president ever to hope to change America.
    Some of those folks honestly believe that a president of your party who cannot handle the job is worse than a president of the other party --- both for the party and for America.  (Can you believe that?  A political activist who wants what is best for America even if it is against the short term interest of his/her party?   Ok, I'll admit it, I've seen nearly as many unicorns, but . . . )

So those are the arguments I'm up against.  You're right: calling them names won't help.

by mdFriendofHillary 2008-06-20 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Not everyone agrees with your premise.

The fear that Obama might turn into another Carter is kind of funny in this respect: the accomplishments of the 95th and 96th Congresses look quite good, arguably stellar, if compared to the non-accomplishments of the current one (eg. Clean Water Act, Unlawful Corporate Payments Act, Airline Deregulation Act, Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Bankruptcy Act of 1978, National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Panama Canal Act of 1979, Refugee Act Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, etc.).

A large part of the problem, I think, is that Democrats have simply forgotten what government looks like when the legislative branch is doing its job (which hasn't been true, really, for eight years, and they were stuck playing defense for the previous twenty).  The legislative accomplishments of the Carter years weren't shabby (esp. in the area of the environment), and this was possible because there was a Democratic president who would sign these bills.  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-20 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Not everyone agrees with your premise.

Thank you for your hard work, enthusiasm, and service!

by TimO 2008-06-20 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Hey md, thanks for your comment. She is going to campaign with Obama next Friday!! What a day that will be, huh?

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:10AM | 0 recs
Sorry you got kicked off one site, but

the real action appears to be at

It should be something next Friday. It will be the first time Hillary introduces Obama as the next President of the United States. Some people's heads will explode.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-20 08:25AM | 0 recs
reminding me of...

Rachel Maddow's comment late in the campaign that, with respect to the delegate argument, Clinton's campaign was "post-rational" and had been for some time barring some circumstance by which Obama could be disqualified. Similarly, the remaining holdouts aren't just waiting around in the jungle unaware the  war has ended... so I doubt Friday will be much of a surprise.

...they want to save Hillary from either herself or the cruelty of fate.

...or, in some circumstances, they hate the other guy (No Quarter)

by Casuist 2008-06-20 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: reminding me of...

Casuist, I think many, certainly not the majority of the hill supporters who are still on the fence-- will take it very well. I know I will :)

by linfar 2008-06-20 10:55AM | 0 recs
my account on that site lasted 10seconds


Someone is a little bit paranoid.  And not interested in discussion.

Her choice.  Oh well.

by chrisblask 2008-06-20 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

I know Travis--I was so happy to see it. Whoohoo!!

by linfar 2008-06-20 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Hillary who?

by TimO 2008-06-20 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

the woman who is campaigning with Obama next Friday--thassss who, who, who. Is there an owl in here?

by linfar 2008-06-20 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Linfar who?


by adrienne4dean 2008-06-20 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

I honestly don't see any need for this sort of comment. Is it because I disagree with you. We have a country to rebuild. That is bigger for me than my outrage over the primary disaser--for us. Hillary is putting the welfare of the country first--and I agree with her. I am sorry you are so upset you cannot see that is all she and I are doing here.

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Linfar, this is much bigger than Hillary Clinton.
One cannot vote for a certain person because Hillary Clinton says to do it. The sake of the party is not all consuming. How true one is to one's self and how one values their vote and how it is used IS all consuming.

I still believe Hillary Clinton has a chance for the nomination, but if she doesn't receive it, there is no way I would vote for Barack Obama just because she had asked me to do so. I think even Hillary, in her own heart, would respect that. An individual's own right to choose is of the utmost value and priority.

Hillary Clinton will be fine. She is doing what she has to do right now, and her supporters have to do what they each must do...either vote for Barack, or declare their independence and vote for what they themselves feel is the overall good of the country.

Many of us will choose country above party loyalty.

by ginna60 2008-06-20 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Hi ginna60, I don't think I am saying you shouldn't listen to your own heart and conscience. Of course, you must do that. For myself, and my own conscience, after Hillary, Obama is the only viable choice left-- If one cares at all about the whole range of issues and poliicies that Hillary advocates. I thought I would lose my mind at times during the last eight years--I mean this. I also thought of emigrating to Canada. To me what has happened to this country under the neocons is beyond the pale. McSame is just that. I believe Hillary understands the stakes in this election--and they are enormous--Obama is not more of the same, and whatever concerns are front and center because of the primary fight--need to be retired in light of a much bigger threat. We simply cannot afford another Republican in the White House who will keep us in Iraq, continue to gut our environmental protections, ignore a woman's right to choose and every issue important to women for the last 50 years, and actively support those who oppose gay rights. I would be the last person to say the primary was fair. It wasn't. but it is over. And we have to face reality.

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

linfar, for me it is not about going against what Hillary requested. It is a gut level response to Mr. BO. I THINK HE IS A TERRIBLE CANDIDATE. In spite of being a long time loyal democrat, I therefore cannot support him. I also have been appalled by a process that was so flawed it made my stomach turn. I cannot forget these things. It would compromise my integrity and my patriotism to support a candidate I detest and do not respect. That could be the downside in getting myself so involved in the process. Perhaps like many Americans, ignorance would have been bliss. So forgive me, as I have asked Hillary to forgive me, for not being able to support the democratic nominee (presumptive). I therefore do visit groups that support alternative points of view. There were 18 million of us who supported Hillary Clinton. I hope many of us will stay the course.

by susanclare 2008-06-20 08:05PM | 0 recs
So you were for disenfranshising my vote

in Florida before you were against it?

The National Equirer is looking for your story.

by chrisblask 2008-06-21 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

Hi, susanclare, I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I know this is hard. If you would be interested in  discussing who to support in the general election please visit clintonistasforobama We are going to provide a forum for people to discuss this with All points of view  being represented. Those of use--all three :) who are at this site appreciate the struggle and difficulties. As I say all points of view will be welcome. We are hoping to foster dialogue and understanding--not conformity or even orthodoxy. Hope to see you there.

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:22AM | 0 recs
Hey, how 'bout that FISA capitulation?

by OtherLisa 2008-06-20 11:03PM | 0 recs
When you know enough about

the FISA bill specifically and the mess that the next president needs to unwind after eight years of GOP slashing of the rights of Americans, then come back and post more than a one-line attack comment.

Author John Dean:

"I spent most of today reading this bill.  This is a very poorly drafted bill.  I am not at all clear that it does not leave open the possibility of charging the Telecoms with criminal liability."

Jon (fellow infosec expert on one of the lists we inhabit):

The Dems "suprisingly" agreed to this new draft (that's the characterization from NPR or someone similar) -- maybe they thought it was drafted so poorly they can use the gaps to charge someone and that's why it passed. Wouldn't that be funny?

Looks like the EFF was already filing suits: 6/20

Sorry to burst your conspiracy-theory-grade bubble, but the people who have to actually work on these things may know more than you do.  I'm sure you can find some other character attack to get behind.

Troll rated for insincerity and ignorance.


by chrisblask 2008-06-21 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, how 'bout that FISA capitulation?

Hillary voted for fisa. It was a huge issue between she and Barack. He has now adopted her position.

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

It didn't take you long to get thrown off but that's what you get for being fair minded and behind our candidate. Frankly Alegre was most likely a McCain supporter like others here.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-21 02:09AM | 0 recs
Is there life after Hillary?

For many out there, I'm beginning to wonder if there is.  These folks seem truly lost.  They seem to want to draft an unwilling candidate to a non-existent Third Party.  I'm not opposed to third parties-- God knows what a vale of disappointment the Democrats have been over the past thirty years, the duration of my voting eligibility.  But over that time I've never seen such a group that had this level a passion, but no clear direction for it.  At some point you're going to have to figure out what to do with yourselves.

by redwoodsummer 2008-06-21 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

I have no idea, but she ain't acting like a standup dem :(

by linfar 2008-06-21 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

I was a PUMA when the movement first started, but left shortly after Hillary asked us to support Obama. I've been abused by them since then as much as I ever was by Obama supporters before.  They are fringe lunatics and cyber terrorists, vying for their 15 minutes of fame, and financially gouging the unhappy souls who cannot,or will not, move on.

I can't "get over" what was done to Hillary and to us, but moving on, and getting over it, are two different things. Courage is feeling the fear and doing it anyway. All of us who love her and worked hard for her are going through all the stages of grief. But the PUMAS are stuck in stages 1 and 2, denial and anger.

Of course, then there's PUMAPAC, which is such a blatant attempt by an internet marketing predator to capitalize on people's pain that it's despicable!

Some people are just so dishonest, and without conscience, it's best to just ignore them.  They want our attention.  Let's just ignore them and they'll go away, like all ugly trolls.

by nobodybutme 2008-06-21 11:56AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads