• not to mention that it was only one event.

    Do you remember that time a different diarist posted a diary on the premise that since obama had an average contribution of 98 dollars he was elitist? Then it turned out Hillary had a higher average contribution?

    This one's almost as fun as that one was.

    I just love it when people get called out on their shit but then don't update or unrec.

  • actually, claiming that Clinton do enough to help rust-belt communities is attacking from the left.

  • I'm not spinning, I'm asking for evidence that people outside of Mydd and the MSM care.

    You claim that it's going to be bad for Obama. Great. Now provide evidence to back it up. As I said before, media reaction doesn't equal America's reaction. So, do you have polling data? No. Do you have movement from uncommitted superdelegates? No. What direct evidence do you have to back up your claim? As far as I can tell, it's the reaction of the media, and the reaction of other supporters of Sen. Clinton.

    Not exactly strong evidence.

  • It's a fair point that we haven't seen what the public's reaction is yet (which, I think is your point by saying that this didn't hit headlines until late this week). But I'd argue that (1) this being big news doesn't necessarily spell trouble for him. As we saw with the Wright flare-up, the Rezko issue, and a host of other attacks on Obama, they simply didn't stick. They played those Wright tapes over and over again, yet Obama's standing in the polls didn't significantly decline. I'd furthermore argue that (2) very few if any Obama supporters believe he can say "whatever he wishes and it will not matter in the least to voters." The fact is, I think many of these "gaffes" aren't really gaffes at all. If you have strong evidence (non-anecdotal) that people care--as in they will not vote for him--I'd love to see it. But, I have yet to see those types of arguments, at least here on MyDD and in the MSM. Rather, I've seen a lot of speculation about how this will play and anecdotal evidence about how they and their friends are offended. I'm not trying to say that this is necessarily unwarrented--I'm not making a normative claim. I'm saying this diary doesn't provide anything except for media coverage and speculation--not positive evidence of an actual groundswell against Obama.

  • It's interesting that "sweeping country like wildfire" apparently means is covered by the media. I would agree that this "gaffe" might harm Obama, but I have yet to see evidence (non-anecdotal) that this has actually hurt Obama. Rather, I've seen plenty of media fervor, which may or may not be representative of how the country actually feels.

    In short, it's a fallacy to presume that media coverage of something equals Americans caring about something.

  • comment on a post Why would anyone be offended? over 6 years ago

    This is an interesting diary, and a well said point. I'm an Obama supporter, and from a larger city, and, in many ways, I didn't--and don't--see what the fuss is about.

    I think you've provided a very coherent explanation for the uproar, and have done so in a non-vitriolic way. For that, I thank you.

    I disagree, however with some of your points, and am hoping to ask a couple questions so that I can get a better feel for your arguments.

    I'm going to grab lunch now, but, for now, I just wanted to say thank you for this clear, respectful diary on this issue. It was illuminating for me.

  • on a comment on Obama responds on being "bitter" over 6 years ago

    I'm fairly sure you're trying to be insulting. But I'm not sure how. Good work!

  • comment on a post Chuck Todd On McCain's "Faux" Lead over 6 years ago

    I thought we were going to lose.

  • comment on a post Obama responds on being "bitter" over 6 years ago

    kool aid !

    Implying that your opponents are all cultists isn't going to do you much good.

  • on a comment on Obama smashes critics over 6 years ago

    it isn't whining, it's responding to attacks.

    nice strawman, though. He does expect people to hold him accountable for things--i.e. his response the california delegate dust-up. Responding to attacks that mis-construe his words isn't whining.

    (1) People put his statements in the worst possible light.
    (2) He responds.
    (3) He's whining.

    Great argument!

  • comment on a post Obama smashes critics over 6 years ago

    this whole "gaffe" is just another straw man from the right--and, sadly, from other Democrats.

    The only way to construe Obama as some kind of elitist is to give only the most liminal understanding of his statement, then put in a narrative of other mis-understood statements.

    That was a great video. thanks for the diary--now I don't have to right one :)

  • okay, rewarding them with... getting to be a convention delegate--pretty evil.

    If it's true.

    How about some non-anecdotal evidence that this is what Obama was doing? without positive evidence to back up your claim, you don't have much in the way of support, and, as such, it is more likely that the simplest explanation--worry about trojan horse delegates--is the true one.

  • comment on a post The Perils of Globalization over 6 years ago

    I would submit that this issue should be a moral objective of all progressives ~ since the victims of globalization are those that are the "weakest".  Therefore, I would submit that all readers of this blog should care, regardless of your favorite candidate.

    Right on. This is informative and written in a clear enough way that I can understand it (my head hurts when read economics lit. too long).

    I do have a question. You provide excellent analysis of globalization as it relates to goods; what about globalization of labor?

  • sorry... didn't finish...

    at the end of the day it'll come down to the fact that you put more weight on what Obama's campaign did than I do.

    I don't see it as much of an issue. You do. That's fine.

    I guess I don't even really think it's worth the nine rounds. I'll even grant that from your perspective it might be reasonable to call the tactics Stalinist. It's not from mine.

  • you analogy is flawed; I'd argue there's quite a different thing at stake. In Stalinist Russia, disloyalty (perceived or just rumored)  was your life, and in the California Democratic primary process, it is your seat at a convention--hardly a matter of life or death.

    One is justified in using sketchier evidence to determine loyalty when the stakes are low.

    people's lives, livelihoods, families are not at stake in Obama's case. The only thing at stake is the (justifiably) hurt feelings of some die-hard Obama supporters--hardly cause for allegations of Stalinist tactics.

    Calling his tactics Stalinist is pure demagoguery. It's needlessly incendiary. Your language choice is far too strong given the subject matter.

    But, you know what, I'm guessing that you'll have a response and I'll have a response and so on and so forth, and at the end of the day  


Advertise Blogads