yeah, democracy! when the other two frontrunner's names weren't on the ballot--democracy! and even though the delegate system bears only a passing resemblance to popular vote--democracy! even though many voters thought the election wouldn't count--democracy!
While acknowledging that there were likely no technical violations
the diarist as much as admitted that there probably wasn't anything nefarious going on.
you can't prove that there was, you can only ask questions. And asking questions isn't all that good an argument. For that, you have to make a positive claim. For example: Barack Obama did something nefarious in exchange for getting paid. That's a claim, and one without positive evidence.
Make a claim, and I'll listen. But raising questions doesn't do much. For example: Is Barack Obama satan? prove me wrong! Did Barack Obama eat his puppy? prove me wrong!
These aren't good arguments, anymore then the bullshit over "is HRC running for 2012?" is a good argument.
Yeah right... if this had come out about HILLARY you've be leading the charge of villagers up the hill to drag her down over this.
is irrelevant. Seriously. But if it'll help you take me and my argument seriously, I'd encourage you to take a gander through this obama supporter's diaries and comments. You'll see I've spoken out against the bosnia nonsense, the 2012 crap, the HRC's fake tears bullshit, etc.
(1) What exactly is being charged here? As best I can tell it's that Obama was paid for some work and later on wrote a letter to that ended up helping his employer. This would be bad if (a) he were helping his employer to the detriment of his constituents (b) he was helping his employer to the detriment of his morals, or (c) he were helping his employer to the exclusion of other things.
None of these things is alledged, either in the Times piece or in TD's diary.
The times piece, as has been noted elswhere, was remarkably balanced, in that it provided Obama's response. What TD did is take this and use it as an example of the Obama = corrupt, Chicago politician.
It's out of proportion with the evidence.
Lastly, if he did end up engaging in some kind of quid pro quo, then that would be too bad. I would think less of him. I would still vote for him. I don't need--and I don't think many "Obamites" need--to have their candidate be perfect.
As for the hate that you're talking about. It's difficult for me, I know, to keep cool sometimes. It's difficult when all I see when I come to MyDD is hit diaries on the rec list. It's difficult when, in the comments, I get called an cultist or elitist or pick your own favorite anti-obama supporter slur.
So, yes, a lot of people don't care for TD. I don't care for TD's diaries. I don't know TD. She's obviously committed to a good Democratic candidate, which is good as far as I'm concerned.
But it can be hard for me to see this when I read these kind of triumphant guilt-by-association diaries.
I know where most of the sources are for the things you listed, and I trust that you could provide sources for them.
When I saw her performance at the last debate, I saw her playing into the same guilt-by-associated tactics that the moderators were using. And, yes, I'm referring to the Penn. ABC debate where she was directly asked. She brought up Farrakhan, and the only reason to do that would be to tar Obama. It wasn't in anyway substantive. The fact of the matter is, these kinds of personality-driven attacks, by the actual candidate, make me cringe much more then issue-based attacks. I'm not going to pretend that Obama hasn't used negative tactics, but I do believe that Sen. Clinton has done it more.
But, if you're willing to accept (and I am) that it's a two-way street that's good.
I suppose we could quibble over who's been more negative. From where I'm sitting, tarring Obama with guilt-by-association is pretty negative. If you don't think so, I guess you don't think so. We could go back and forth over what makes an attack a personality attack and so on and so forth, but I don't think that would be that productive.
I'm willing to accept that you believe one thing and I believe another. Keeping that in mind, and, keeping in mind that I think you seem like a rational person, and I think I'm a rational person (I hope!), I'm willing to grant that we each could make rational arguments. Which, in and of itself, says something about this whole crazy primary season.
I'm going to bed. But--and no snark here--thank you for responding without resorting to kool-aid lines, etc. I've been seeing a lot of that suff directed at me. It's always nice to argue with people who are obviously dedicated Democrats.
When you say BO's attacks on HRC, I'm assuming you mean supporters and campaign staff of BO for most of these. And as such, it's a little disingenuous to then say "please show me where she has personally attacked him?" But, I will anyway.
I think her jumping up and down on Obama over Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, et. all in the last debate was negative personality stuff.
Her lauding mccain's lifetime of experience in contrast to Obama's speech was a personal attack.
I'm willing to admit that Senator Obama has used negative campaign tactics. But so has Senator Clinton.
My objection isn't to negative campaigning, my objection is to the type of negative campaigning. For example, I have less of a problem with issues-based attacks (which both sens. Obama and Clinton have talked about) than I do with personality attacks (which I see Sen. Clinton as engaging in more).
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to take what surrogates say as a good measure of what the candidate actually believes. People aren't always on message, and, especially with bigger names and bigger personalities, it's hard to imagine they're always willing to stick with the script.
My problem isn't with negative campaigning, per se it's with the type of negative campaign.
we should also let them know that CBS reported that "Clinton is to Hit Obama" [emphasis added]. SHE'S GOING TO HIT OBAMA.
We need to get the FBI to investigate this--it's possible Obama may be PHYSICALLY ASSULTED by another candidate. Unless, of course, they were referring to the mob use of "hit" in which case CBS REPORTED THAT CLINTON IS GOING TO KILL OBAMA!!!!!!!!111111111