Let Go Of The Primary Anger

I'm talking to both sides here in this post--yes, to the Obama supporters, and to the Hillary supporters as well.

Obama supporters, let go of the primary anger. It's not productive anymore. We are in the general election, folks. I live in Washington, D.C., and let me tell you, Hillary Clinton is working behind the scenes to get her people onboard with Barack Obama. She knows she's not going to be the Vice-President in the end even though she is being considered like other candidates, but she IS determined to help wherever she can.

She's holding a conference call today with her donors, asking them to donate to Obama since some of them are still on the fence. She has been calling her delegates, asking them to support Obama as the nominee.

The reason why you haven't seen or heard her is because she ran for 18 MONTHS straight in a hard-fought primary contest. I think she deserves whatever time she gets off, but she'll be back in the Senate next week. Also, she's not trying to steal Obama's limelight as the nominee because he needs all the media attention on the fight between him and John McCain.

You know I was one of the harshest critics of Hillary's campaign during the primary. I've let go of that primary anger. I don't make snide remarks about her anymore. I've moved on to the general election, but some people clearly haven't.

And to the Hillary supporters, thank you for supporting Barack Obama. It's what Hillary wants you to do, and I thank you for listening to her. Now, to some of the other Hillary supporters, please be aware that Hillary is doing everything she can to support Obama, and no, she is not going to be the nominee. No, there isn't going to be an override at the convention in Denver.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Whenever she says something, she means it. When she says she's a fighter, she IS a fighter. When she says she supports Obama, she SUPPORTS Obama. I thank her for doing so, and I look forward to her working in the Senate and to becoming one of the great lions of the Senate.

She and Obama both have become great icons as a result of this primary, and they will be interacting with each other on a constant basis. They once were a team of rivals, but they now are a team.

And Barack Obama has continued to recognize the great assets of Hillary Clinton in defending her against some that still hold onto their primary anger, like at the rally last night in Michigan:

Obama responded to some vocal Clinton critics in the crowd, who had reacted to praise for the senator from both the presumptive Democratic nominee and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a longtime Clinton supporter.

"I want everybody here to be absolutely clear -- I want everybody here to be absolutely clear -- Senator Clinton is one of the finest public servants we have in American life today," said Obama, noting her work on behalf of children's rights and universal health care.

"She has been on the right side of just about every battle that we have fought -- she has, in her own words, shattered a glass ceiling into 18 million pieces. ....She is worthy of our respect, she is worthy of our honor.

"...And she's tough! That's why this race took so long. She's a fighter and we need fighters in the Democratic Party. Because we've got a lot to fight for. There's a lot worth fighting for."

Thank you, Senator Obama. Thank you, Senator Clinton. I look forward to you two working together in bringing McCain down, and helping elect more Democrats to Congress.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, primary wars, supporters (all tags)



here's to the team!

:-) Together, they're going to scare off the pants off the Republican Party.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: here's to the team!

I agree. Some people around here can't get over the fact that the primary is OVER. Highly rec'd slink.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-17 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: here's to the team!

She knows she's not going to be the Vice-President

And you know this.... how?

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: here's to the team!

spiff is a prime example LOL

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: here's to the team!

She's not a team player

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-18 07:06AM | 0 recs
Fantastic diary.

I feel like I used to see your work more often at dKos (though I could be mistaken). Very glad to see you posting more often here, too.

by sricki 2008-06-17 08:30AM | 0 recs
I agree...

This most certainly should be reposted at DKos, because there are many there who don't understand this simple fact there as well.

by nklein 2008-06-17 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree...

and that includes Markos sadly

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the bottom line:

The more Democrats in the House and the Senate coupled with an Obama Presidency -- the more power Hillary Clinton has to advance her causes (which are almost identical to Barack Obama's).

If there are 60+ Senate Democrats, she will likely get a seat on the Senate Finance Committee, where she will be able to work on health care reform.

So it's in our interest to elect Democrats at all levels of government.

by Brad G 2008-06-17 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the bottom line:

yes a shadow presidency is healthy

by stevens7139 2008-06-17 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the bottom line:

For give a poor ole country hick but that was snark?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-06-18 06:36AM | 0 recs
Whether it was or wasn't...

what did it mean?

by kydoc2 2008-06-18 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Whether it was or wasn't...

Good question. I was wondering that myself. I too am interested in the posters definition and opinion on "shaddow governments".

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-06-19 04:34AM | 0 recs
Attention Obama Supporters

This is NOT cool.

DETROIT, Michigan (CNN) - Barack Obama defended Hillary Clinton at a Michigan unity rally Monday night that featured former Vice
President Al Gore -- and some off-message audience booing at the mention of the New York senator's name.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/06/17/obama-defends-clinton-at-michiga n-rally

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-17 02:33PM | 0 recs
Most definitely NOT cool...

after Jennifer Granholm gives a stirring speech supporting Obama, Hillary gets booed.  That is not cool.

by nklein 2008-06-17 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Attention Obama Supporters

Jeez, maybe they picked that up from the rules and bylaws committee meeting

by stevens7139 2008-06-17 09:59PM | 0 recs

but i hope you eventually realize how wrong you were about Hillary during the primary season.  YOu really were nasty towards her.

by Sandy1938 2008-06-17 03:39PM | 0 recs
I know. And I'm sorry for that.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 04:03PM | 0 recs
Go Cheney yourself!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-17 07:02PM | 0 recs
Oh well apology accepted..........

even though I am not excited about Obama it will be great to have a DEM as president again.  Hopefully we can re-live the peace and prosperity of the 90's.  

Rec'd for your apology which seemed sincere.

by Sandy1938 2008-06-17 08:12PM | 0 recs
hope you learned something from the experience

It was incredibly short-sighted for the Obama-supporting community at DKos to indulge in all those Hillary-hate fests this spring.

A lot of people who don't even like Clinton (such as myself) lost respect for many, many people.

I was glad to see Obama call out the people who booed Hillary at his Detroit event. Sadly, his campaign did nothing to discourage the deranged Hillary-hate during the primaries.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-18 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: hope you learned something from the experience

But had Hillary won, it would have been harder for her to make inroads to Obama's supporters.  As a Canadian, sitting this election out, obviously, I have been an observer on the sidelines.  There was a lot of talk about Obama and Clinton surrogates dealing in dirty politics, but from my perspective, the invective was much stronger coming from the Clinton camp.

I was pretty angry about Clinton's ego during the campaign, but now that the Presidential campaign has begun, I've largely forgotten my anger and irritation - all is forgiven.  Check out No Quarter though, where the hate lives on.  

by bdbrown 2008-06-18 09:04AM | 0 recs

It's true some Obama supporters were pretty  nasty during primary season.  I have discovered since Hillary lost that a few of her supporters are as nasty as I thought some of the Obama supporters were.   They are now supporting John McCain and they are leaving the Democratic party. I think we should stop being tolerant of their stupidity because it's already really old. If they want to support John McCain they need to be set straight.  He's going to pester them hard for all 200 of their votes because it will be the only votes he gets, except for those of his 150-year-old mother and his wax statue wife.

Both sides were nasty in the primary season, weren't they?  Fine -- I really just hope everyone can  face reality and keep John McCain OUT OF the White House. Instead of voting for him, for cripe's sake!!

by shellius 2008-06-18 05:10AM | 0 recs

by CoyoteCreek 2008-06-17 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA!!!!!!

Please stop that PUMA crap.

by shellius 2008-06-18 05:11AM | 0 recs
Somehow I am confident

That it will take more than 4 recs for this to hit the wreck list. I'll give you the first.

by awobbly 2008-06-17 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Somehow I am confident

Including me makes seven.

Hmm. Not on the rec list.

To quote Condi Rice,

"no one could have predicted..."

by Firewall 2008-06-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Somehow I am confident

stock up on tin-foil, it's on aisle 11, we will send someone over to clean up after you again

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:24PM | 0 recs
Odd he hires a veep chief of staff

before he knows who the veep is. You'd think he would let the veep pick a veep chief of staff.

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
it's not odd at all

as I recall, Bill Clinton did the same for Al Gore.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: it's not odd at all


by spacemanspiff 2008-06-17 08:17AM | 0 recs
Before he knew who is veep was?

I don't think so.

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:26AM | 0 recs
Yes he did. It is standard practice

John Kerry did it for John Edwards too.  It is to make sure that the VP stays on message.

by Delaware Dem 2008-06-17 08:42AM | 0 recs

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: ZING!!!!

you really just love to hold that anger and make everyone around you suffer don't you? sad to be you.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:26PM | 0 recs
Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

say it was a bad move by Obama then?

Kerry hired Edwards' chief of staff? Well if you have a link that would be great.

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

So you now think it has precedent it is just a bad move?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

the "precedent" has been asserted but when asked for a link of any kind you and delaware dem just start flinging insults. got anything but bullshit?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

A quick google search turns up several articles from 2004: ?here is a link to an article from July 2004, discussing Kerry's VP staff and making guesses over who would be Kerry's VP choice. Kerry's VP chief of staff is not specifically mentioned in this article, but it is clear that Kerry picked VP staff before he picked a VP.

Here is another article, which specifies that Kerry had a Chief of staff before he picked his VP.

[The article is discussing who Kerry might pick for VP...]

The Democratic presidential hopeful's campaign has asked at least three Democrats on his short list for the job of vice president for detailed contact information and told each to be ready "as early as Tuesday" to join the senator from Massachusetts for campaign events and a fund-raiser next Thursday or Friday, the source said.


The Kerry campaign has a staff of 12 to 15 people ready to work for a running mate, including a chief of staff and communications director, Democratic sources said.

by letterc 2008-06-17 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

Ha ha ha!

Oooh, Gergen, Crowley, and Borger didn't like it!

Such progressives all. They'd slime the Dem. candidate no matter what he did, just like you would, catfish.

by JoeW 2008-06-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Check Politico

And you want me to refute those pundits' opinion?  LOL.  Apologize for your heinous comparison of Clinton's loss to the Iraq War first.

by Delaware Dem 2008-06-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Checked it.

It's not odd they hired Solis-Doyle. It's odd they put her in that specific position.

by catfish2 2008-06-17 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Checked it.

What position would you find less odd?  What can Barack Obama do for you? Be specific.

And check to make sure they aren't already taken.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Check Politico

actually she asked for a link to your assertions, not to care about pundits. if you cannot back-up up what you said why don't you just admit it and move on?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:28PM | 0 recs
Your apology is in my pants.

by Dumbo 2008-06-17 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why did Gergen, Candy Crowley, Borger

David Gergen is the biggest concern troll advising Democrats around.

by Khun David 2008-06-18 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Before he knew who is veep was?

Catfish2 = Fail.


by Rationalisto 2008-06-17 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Before he knew who is veep was?

failed to get a coherent answer to her question, yes. but that is the failure of the ones making unproven assertions and then just insulting people when they ask for evidence.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Before he knew who is veep was?

Al Gore's campaign manager in 1992 was one of Clinton's senior advisors, which supports the idea that presidential candidate's choose their VP's staff. However, a search of the NY Times turns up no mention of Al Gore's VP campaign manager in 1992, so I can't say one way or the other on that. I also couldn't find a specification in the 1992 NY Times archives of when Gore's campaign manager was selected.

Are you merely doubting the claim, or can you refute it?

by letterc 2008-06-17 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Before he knew who is veep was?

Gore didn't run in 1992. He ran in 1988.

So, that is why you can't find anything about it.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-18 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Before he knew who is veep was?

I don't think you are understanding the question.

Did Clinton pick the chief of staff for his VP before he picked Gore for his VP? It doesn't matter that Gore wasn't a former competitor, the question is: do presidential candidates set up a VP candidate staff before they pick a VP?

I was searching for Clinton "vice president" "chief of staff" in 1992. The fact that Gore hadn't been a presidential candidate that year is irrelevant to that search.

by letterc 2008-06-18 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger
It will be a tough ask, if the Obama campaign makes more moves in the wrong direction as hiring patti..
it sent the wrong message at the wrong time.
by devil 2008-06-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
why was that the wrong direction?

Shouldn't Obama hiring Clinton staffers be a good thing? Patti Doyle-Solis is great for Latino outreach.

Clinton herself supported this decision:

"Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we're all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States," said spokesman Mo Elleithee.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: why was that the wrong direction?

No offense was intended, but it was taken, as seen in many reports today. If the Obama team did not expect it would happen that way, they probably did not think it through. (I think candy crowley in CNN said this, it's not an exact quote)

by devil 2008-06-17 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: why was that the wrong direction?

No offense was intended, but it was taken, as seen in many reports today.

Bingo. Certain people are of the make-up that takes offense every time Obama breathes.

They've already decided they're going to be "anxious", "concerned", "offended", "outraged", regardless. This is simply the excuse du jour.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-17 09:48AM | 0 recs
slinkerwink nails it.

Patti Doyle-Solis is great for Latino outreach.

In fact, let's make it a multiple-choice question.

Why did Obama hire Patti Solis-Doyle?

a. Obama wanted to pointlessly insult Hillary supporters.
b. Patti would be great for Latino outreach.
c. Pie.

by Dumbo 2008-06-17 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: slinkerwink can't nail it.

because he can't get over his anger.
Obama may be many things to many people and some of it not good but the one thing man isn't..is stupid. He would have to be stupid to intentially piss off the Clinton supporters at this point so no, that wasn't his reasoning for hiring Patti I don't think.
He is doing great with the Latino vote (reference Politico today) so I don't believe that is it.

She lives in Chicago and she has good experience in that capacity. He has Hillary's approval so I feel he felt it was a good move for his campaign.

While Mark Penn may have sold Patti out? The rest of Hillary's campaign staff loved her. He may have felt it was a good move for that reason.
She also did NOT sell Hillary out when she left though many in the MSM tried to get her to do so.

I agree that those who want a pacifier will be angry regardless of what Obama does at this point.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-17 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: why was that the wrong direction?

Clinton didn't support it necessarily -- she fired Solis because Solis screwed up her campaign and wasted money. I have read they are barely on speaking terms. They are nearly enemies. That is why, it is said, Obama hired her. To send a message -- Hillary, it's not gonna be you.

by shellius 2008-06-18 05:15AM | 0 recs
Clinton didn't have a problem with it...

...so why do you?

by Dracomicron 2008-06-17 08:16AM | 0 recs
So, he can't hire people if it will offend

any Dead Enders amongst teh Clinton inner Circle?

by Geekesque 2008-06-17 08:21AM | 0 recs
I gave you a 1 for the "deadenders"

Can we please move away from these sort of insults? Like "Hillbots?" Like "Obamabots? Obamatons?" and so on?

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:23AM | 0 recs
Most Clinton supporters aren't

Dead Enders.

Those that are acting like there's still a primary race on and trying to kneecap the party's nominee, are Dead Enders.  

To put it in perspective:

Atdleft and Linfar:  Not Dead Enders.

Alegre and the Pumateers:  Dead Enders.

by Geekesque 2008-06-17 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Most Clinton supporters aren't

As distinct from arrogant clown Obamabots I suppose. I'm  a strong Hillary supporter but with him as the winner I have no problem with making the switch because I'm a democrat first. However, I do expect him to take all possible actions to win and I don't expect a lot of arrogant 'we don't need you' bs from folks this character. I'm going to vote for Obama but I find this sort of stuff deeply irksome so I can imagine the reaction amongst those who feel more strongly about it.

by ottovbvs 2008-06-17 09:28AM | 0 recs
What 'stuff?'

A couple of Clinton moneyraisers raise a ruckus, and this gets designated as a the worstest disrespect evah?

(Hint:  Maybe the people complaining are friends of Mark "Not My Fault" Penn)

Seriously, PSD's hiring is inside baseball stuff.  Obama thinks she'll do a good job.

I suspect HRC isn't terribly upset by this.  

by Geekesque 2008-06-17 09:31AM | 0 recs
Still not a good term...

As a person who has been reprimanded for calling out the lies of some of the people you criticize as Deadenders, I still think it is an inappropriate term and obviously tr-worthy.  The most important focus for anyone concerned with electing Democrats (including Obama) is to stop insulting Democrats.  

The primaries are over.  We're a team now and we win and lose as a team.  Insulting other Democrats does not help in anyway and even if people louding grieve of loss of Hillary Clinton we shouldn't use that term to demonstrate their foolishness.  The reason being is that term was used for Clinton supporters as a whole towards the end of the primaries.  People who now fully support Obama were called that.  There's no need to use that anymore, even if it is descriptive of their behavior.

by nklein 2008-06-17 03:20PM | 0 recs

for TR abuse

by juliewolf 2008-06-18 03:16AM | 0 recs
Come up with your own phrase then.

I'm becoming more and more inclined towards the simple, traditional word TROLL.

The nomination issue is over.  Now, all there are left or bullshit surrogate issues (like, is Olbermann a sexist, is PSD's hiring a fuck-you...) which are used as a way to continue the battle by other means.

At some point, I think it is misguided to try to change people's minds, because all you are really doing is feeding the trolls.  They don't all want to be reached out to.  Just recognize the fact that some of these people don't have good intentions.  

So, let's not use "dead-enders."  Fine.  Come up with some other one for us to describe these trolls.  

by Dumbo 2008-06-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Obama does not need the Hillary supporters that are there in La La land who refuse to support him....there is not a huge contingent of them..come on remember the thousands that were to show up at the DNC meeting? a couple of dozen showed..
The few that are still hanging on and ignoring Hillary? Cut them in half because half live in states that will go for McCain and now how many are left? Cut those in half because at least half won't show up to vote for McCain and that leaves how many?
Not enough to get upset over. Best to leave them alone to their anger and when they respond in an ugly manner just ignore.
I am certain that Hillary is not happy nor proud of their actions as she darn sure does not want to have to work the next 4 years under a McCain Presidency. If some want to work so that she has too? Then we know they were never true Hillary supporters to begin with.
by Grissom1001 2008-06-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

Will you QUIT with the Deadenders thing. I was and am an Obama supporter and I find it annoying.  Women who supported Clinton are moving to Obama, for heavens sake.  

by KateG 2008-06-17 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

Then they're not referring to you- don't worry.  When I say dead-ender, that doesn't mean someone who voted for, or still loves, Hillary.  

A dead-ender is someone who is still under the misimpression that somehow, Clinton will come back and "save this sorry-ass party from itself" and magically claim the nomination.  Meaning they will continue driving down the road they were, despite the fact that it was, in fact, a dead end.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-17 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

Seriously though, drop it.  People find it insulting.  People who are your friends and allies.  That should be enough?

by Jess81 2008-06-17 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

I'm sorry but if you're taking it as an insult, you're taking it incorrectly.  I speak for myself, of course, but "dead-ender" is neither directed at you nor anyone who is a friend and/or ally.

If it's that big of a deal I'll try and stow it, but really, you're taking it the wrong way.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-17 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

If it is any consolation - I think that it is a very useful term when used in its proper context.  just for kicks I visited hillaryis44 the other day and was astonished to see what was posted there.  Truly astonished.  Dead-enders is an absolutely perfect description of the folks who post that shit over there.  These people are out there - it helps to have an appropriate label for them.  the key is consistency in use of the term.  

by oliver cromwell 2008-06-17 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

Yeah- agreed.  Do you know what I call people who supported Hillary in the primary?  "People who voted for Hillary".  "Hillary Supporter" isn't a valid term- because I voted for Obama in the primary, but I am in fact a Hillary Supporter myself.  She's a Democrat, and a damn fine one, and regardless of what happened during a campaign, she still is.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

I like the phrase "deadender." Short, descriptive, and accurate.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: So, he can't hire people if it will offend

Ooh. I hate that name!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-17 06:32PM | 0 recs
You know, not everything Obama does

is done with a mind as to what Hillary or her most "vocal" supporters think about it.

He wanted to hire Patti.  So he hired her.  One thing about the Obama campaign that you should have learned by now is that they do not use their hires to piss people off, and they do not hire people they view as incompetent and not up to the task.

Thus, Obama must view Patti as competent and up to the job, and he wanted to have her in his campaign in some fashion.

You would think Hillary supporters would be pleased with this.  BUT NOOOOOOOOOO.

by Delaware Dem 2008-06-17 08:46AM | 0 recs
please don't paint all Hillary supporters with

a broad brush. You do us a disservice when you do that.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: please don't paint all Hillary supporters with

Did you really think he meant every single Clinton supporter?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: please don't paint all Hillary supporters with

Nope, just the Hillary supporters, which is why he said "Hillary supporters."

by SophieL 2008-06-17 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: please don't paint all Hillary supporters with

So you thought he meant all 18 million people that voted for Hillary?  

My take was that he was referring to the Clinton supporters who got upset about the hiring.  A small minority no doubt but I don't think they are easily confused with all Hillary supporters.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: please don't paint all Hillary supporters with

It would be really easy to type 'some Hillary supporters', almost as easy as typing 'Hillary supporters'.

One has a distinction, the other does not.  There's the rub for some.


by emsprater 2008-06-17 10:05AM | 0 recs
I think he meant to say

"dead-enders" rather than "the more vocal Hillary supporters," but was struggling for the right word.

by Dumbo 2008-06-17 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You know, not everything Obama does
It's not good for Hillary because Hillary fired her. That's why it's not something Hillary supporters think is good. The women was incompetent when she worked for Hillary and she'll be incompetennt when she works for Obama. She made a lot of bad decisions and wasted a lot of Hillary's money on stupid stuff like snow shovels. I wonder if Obama knows how incompetent this person is.
by shellius 2008-06-18 05:25AM | 0 recs
I was annoyed at the TV networks

They cut away after Gore's speech... what the hell?  I would have liked to have heard Obama use the "18 million pieces" bit, because that's a Clinton line.  I'm liking the slogan sharing.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-17 08:14AM | 0 recs
same here too

I hate the news sometimes.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:17AM | 0 recs

I was most displeased that they cut away like that.

by sricki 2008-06-17 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Slinkerwink -

First diary made the rec' list.

Next I think we all need to get used to the fact that some folks just won't let go. For them anger and pot stirring is their happy place. Go figure.

For this group a I am making a concerted effort to just ignore and not rise to the bait.

by jsfox 2008-06-17 08:26AM | 0 recs
Let go of the Iraq War anger

just move along, no point in moving backward.

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:30AM | 0 recs

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-17 08:38AM | 0 recs
great analogy

comparing your candidate's loss in primary to a foreign policy blunder that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.  You truly have a healthy perspective.

by JJE 2008-06-17 08:40AM | 0 recs
OK if President McCain

is your idea of a disaster, if he gets elected we can say move on, no point in looking backward.

Seriously, hiring a veep chief of staff before you have a veep is unprecedented. Who is Obama's chief of staff?

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:43AM | 0 recs
it's not unprecedented.

Kerry did it for Edwards.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Kerry hired Edwards' chief of staff

really? Before he picked Edwards?

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:45AM | 0 recs
Do you have a link

to an MSM source?

by catfish2 2008-06-17 08:49AM | 0 recs
Read the Politico articles yesterday on the hire

That is where I read the Kerry-Edwards bit.

by Delaware Dem 2008-06-17 08:51AM | 0 recs
So you have no link

did a search didn't find it.

Also did Kerry hire Edwards' fired campaign manager to be veep chief of staff before he hired Edwards?

by catfish2 2008-06-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
those goalposts are heavy

don't strain yourself.

by JJE 2008-06-17 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: So you have no link

Wasn't this "concern" of yours addressed upthread?

Further, aren't you the one that claimed this was "unprecedented" - a claim that is provably wrong?

Why don't you have references to back up your incessant concern trolling?

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-17 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: So you have no link

Look up thread. Then hide your head in shame, as your googling skills demonstrably suck.

by letterc 2008-06-17 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: OK if President McCain

Catfish needs a tissue, Tito.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-17 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: OK if President McCain

Blackened Catfish With Lemon Butter

(Note: This recipe best prepared outdoors, if possible)

4 catfish fillets
olive oil
1/3 lb. bacon
2 teaspoons each of the following:

garlic powder
white pepper
black pepper
cayenne pepper
lemon pepper
cumin or chili powder
rosemary, crushed
fennel seed, crushed

1 teaspoon allspice
1 teaspoon oregano
½ teaspoon salt

    Fry bacon; discard bacon and retain grease. Combine all dry ingredients, rub fillets with olive oil, then coat liberally with spices. Drop in hot bacon grease and cook until you can
easily put a fork through them.

Serve with lemon butter:  

¼ cup melted butter
1 teaspoon lemon juice
½ teaspoon tabasco
sliced green onions  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: great analogy

His candidate didn't lose the primary. The GOP primary, that is, of course.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-17 10:16AM | 0 recs
Nice. And how many people have died

because Clinton lost the nomination?

I expect you to retract this statement immediately and apologize to the families who have lost their sons and daughter, husbands and wives in the horrible Iraq War.  You have trivialized and minimized their sacrifice by comparing anger over the Iraq War to Hillary's loss in the primaries.

by Delaware Dem 2008-06-17 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice. And how many people have died

But that's what catfish2 does!

How else will he get those all-important McTroll points that will get him 10% off the neat lapel pin?

by JoeW 2008-06-17 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice. And how many people have died

You two guys are personally contributing to Obama loosing in the fall. If someone from Clintons side says something stupid why don't you just shut up and ignore it instead of pouring gas on the fire.  

by ottovbvs 2008-06-17 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice. And how many people have died

It is a two way street, my friend.  Don't start a fire and no one will pour gas on it.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice. And how many people have died
  1. Because this someone isn't from the Clinton side.
  2. Because the comments aren't stupid - they're weaselly, manipulative little bits of innuendo designed to make mountains out of molehills and sow dissension.
  3. Because you might want to lead by example.
by Sumo Vita 2008-06-17 10:25AM | 0 recs
Oh my god.


by catfish2 2008-06-17 09:07AM | 0 recs
take your own advice

by JJE 2008-06-17 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice. And how many people have died

your abuse has been reported.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 06:00PM | 0 recs

Let go of the Iraq War anger
just move along, no point in moving backward.

Uprated to counter unwarranted HRs.

by Koan 2008-06-17 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Uprated

What are you, the fucking unwarranted HR police?

Coming from someone who talked about "crackers" in one his recent posts, I find that positively hilarious.

by John in Chicago 2008-06-17 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Uprated

Whatever, man.  It's a self-policing blog.  You rate how you want to, I'll rate how I want to.

Go ahead and HR my crackers comment and see if I give a fuck.

by Koan 2008-06-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Uprated (Downrated)

Downrated to counter the unwarranted Uprate to counter (wrongly perceived) unwarranted HRs.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-17 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Let go of the Iraq War anger

Yes, that would help with support for your beloved McCorpse, wouldnt it.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-17 09:52AM | 0 recs
Weak Sauce

Cuz we all know that losing a primary is the same thing as losing a fucking leg.


by John in Chicago 2008-06-17 10:57AM | 0 recs
Clinton will not become a lion of the Senate

She's too old, and doesn't have enough seniority in that institution to get there.

I suspect that she will run again for President in 2012 or 2016 depending on the results this fall.

I do not expect that she will be on the ticket - I don't think that it is Obama's best pick, and I don't think that it's Clinton's best option either.  Not sure she serves in a cabinet position either, though Secretary of HHS could be of interest and a good fit.  My guess is that she serves another term in the Senate, focusing on the issues high on her agenda, then gears up to succeed Obama or Mccain.   If Obama wins the election, then she will likely have to face off against his VP (unless he wins in 2008 and is defeated in 2012).   But she will still have the support base, and money, to run a top tier campaign.  

by activatedbybush 2008-06-17 08:30AM | 0 recs
believe it or not...

Clinton doesn't seem like much of a team player to me (just my impression, but it goes to her campaign and to her health care program). so if it's a cabinet post, why not Attorney General?

by RisingTide 2008-06-17 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: believe it or not...

Another twit working for party unity.

by ottovbvs 2008-06-17 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: believe it or not...

Calling someone a "twit" isn't doing much for party unity.   Do only those who disagree with you have to be considerate?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: believe it or not...

If it walks like a twit, talks like a twit, well you get the idea. I would say I'm a very typical democrat who supported Clinton but doesn't have any problems with Obama as the candidate although I think he's clearly got weaknesses that are going to need shoring up. So when Obama partisans start dissing Clinton by calling her a none team player when she has fully endorsed him and then says oh she could be AG like throwing a dog scraps from the table they are behaving like twits.    

by ottovbvs 2008-06-17 01:17PM | 0 recs
blink. oh fuck you did not think I said that

I think we both owe each other an apology.

I meant that she didn't involve others in her policy shit.

Not that she wouldn't support Obama, for christ's sake!

I am embarrassed that something I wrote could be read so wrongly!

Take my apologies for the stupid internet mangling what i meant to say!

Attorney General would be dedicated to rooting out shitty republicans. Clinton sounds right on message to do that sort of thing, and to enjoy it!

by RisingTide 2008-06-18 09:40AM | 0 recs
Falsely accusing the former president and first

lady of race-bating isn't good for party unity. Neither is taking FL and MI off the table when would have had a HUGE impact on the race.

The only thing that will unite the party is puting Hillary on the ticket. Anything short of that is a waste of breathe.

by mmorang 2008-06-17 02:01PM | 0 recs
Not going to happen.

The reason: Bill Clinton library.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 03:32AM | 0 recs
According to Quinnipiac

far from being "the only thing that will unite the party," Hillary on the ticket actually "does not help dems." Also, their most recent poll shows Obama up over McCain in PA, OH,...and FL (same link).

by kydoc2 2008-06-18 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: According to Quinnipiac

Obama was up big in CA the night before the election. He lost badly. It's happened in many other contests. His poll numbers are inflated because people don't want to be thought of as racists so they lie to the pollster.

The GOP till be airing ads showing the race-bating that went on in the Dem primary in an effort to win McCain some Hillary supporters. McCain will pick a younger and probably female VP. The GOP will have no problem turning Obama into a very polarizing figure.

The voter turnout among AA's and whites will be the highest in decades.

As soon as Obama makes it official that he's kicking Hillary to the curb McCAin will have his opening.

by mmorang 2008-06-18 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton will not become a lion of the Senate

Too Old??  

Hello - Ted Kennedy is considered the lion of the senate - I think he is a decade and half on Hillary.

And seniority doesn't mean just years - Reid doesn't have the years that Bryd or Kennedy - Reid became a senator in 1987.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-17 12:49PM | 0 recs

I have been part of Wes Clark's site since he ran for prez. There are a lot of Hillary supporters there. It is a very loyal group.

I have not been there as much in the last few months,. I actually pulled back when I started supporting John Edwards, because I did not want to argue with my "friends".

So, if you would like, join up over there, read and lurk. Then when you have a grasp of the direction there, join in with positive thoughts. These people will work there asses off!

Here is the link:



by kevin22262 2008-06-17 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: suggestion

Thanks for the link!  It's a good idea.

I won't sign up myself - temper and a tendency to insult people and all - but Wes Clark is a classy guy who's been a total mensch during this entire primary.  I would imagine he would attract similar people.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 11:24AM | 0 recs

I believe4 that most at SA/CCN are in support of Obama. They are VERY loyal to Wes Clark, so they were very loyal to Hillary Clinton and since Clinton and Clark have both come out for Obama, I notice that it is becoming a pro Democrat/Obama place.

One other thing, even tho the word "mensch" is a good word, it just feels like it should be an insult word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m ensch  

Just me... so no worries.  :)

by kevin22262 2008-06-17 07:30PM | 0 recs

I believe that most at SA/CCN are in support of Obama. They are VERY loyal to Wes Clark, so they were very loyal to Hillary Clinton and since Clinton and Clark have both come out for Obama, I notice that it is becoming a pro Democrat/Obama place.

One other thing, even tho the word "mensch" is a good word, it just feels like it should be an insult word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m ensch  

Just me... so no worries.  :)

by kevin22262 2008-06-17 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

there is a new poster here who just continues to smear BC and Hillary and uses phrases and comments that come straight out the republican playbook from the 1990's.

I am glad to see that several mydd'ers have called this character on it.  But that type of crap has got to stop as well.  

Using republican ploys to smear the last 2 term democratic president in 50 years and his wife is fueling the anger

by colebiancardi 2008-06-17 08:32AM | 0 recs
I think a lot of Obama supporters

aren't yet aware that Bill Clinton is onboard with Hillary in supporting Obama:

Bill Clinton came to Hollywood for Thursday's American Film Institute gala to pay tribute to Warren Beatty, but the former President didn't miss the chance to play peacemaker among warring Democrats. While Clinton commiserated with Hillary-backers like Jack Nicholson, he also reached out to Obama-backers, like vicious Clinton-basher David Geffen. Said WJC to Beatty: "We all have to get behind Barack now."

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I think a lot of Obama supporters

no, I don't think it is that.  I think this person is a troll or ex-republican-turned-Obama-supporter only because s/he hates the Clintons.

seriously.  This person is disgusting.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-17 08:39AM | 0 recs
that's sad.

truly, truly sad. Obama is a wonderful candidate, and if the ONLY fucking reason someone supported him was to screw over Clinton... sad.

That said, I would be glad to see that person whatever party, vote in the Democratic primary.

It's an honest choice, between two options.

Ditto for the reverse in support of Hillary.

by RisingTide 2008-06-17 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I think a lot of Obama supporters

There are plenty of Republicans and Indys posing as "Obama supporters" in order to continue their decades-long hatred for the Clintons. They'll undoubtedly vote for McCain, but in the meantime, they found that pretending to be Obama supporters provides a whole new audience for their Clinton hate-fest.

Whether you love the Clintons or not, all Democrats and real Obama supporters should recognize this phenomenon and understand that every time they believe or repeat Clinton-hatred, they are undermining the Democratic party and brand. This will only harm Obama and all Democrats running for election in November.

by LakersFan 2008-06-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I think a lot of Obama supporters

FYI- this memeber is a PUMA troll.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-17 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

There's one person who has been quite sucessful trashing the Clinton's with the Republican playbook. His name is Barack Obama.

In fact, he's been tougher on the Clinton's. His campaign convinced people that the Clinton's were race-bating.

by mmorang 2008-06-17 02:05PM | 0 recs
Now, see...

I don't know what phrase to use to describe this kind of post and poster.  Dead-ender is frowned upon.  Yet TROLL seems insufficiently descriptive.

I wish those who TR-ed Geekesque would give us further advice on the correct jargon.

by Dumbo 2008-06-17 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, see...

go with dead ender, its frowned upon, but you cant dress up a pig to be anything other then a pig. Anyone who watched the campaign new who the vastly more negative candidate was, the kitchen sink didn't bring home the nomination, and we are all better off for it.

There is a reason campaigns go nasty, and i think it says something about out progress that the negative campaigner lost, kind of makes me giddy inside.

by Brandon 2008-06-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, see...

The problem with dead ender is that it assumes that the troll is anti-Obama because he isn't Clinton, rather than anti-Obama because the troll is a stone cold racist or some other sort of Republican.

If the troll has a long history as a pro-Clinton partisan, then the term dead ender might apply, but if the poster doesn't have a long history, they should be called a garden variety troll, even if they are using the "Obama was mean to Clinton" talking points.

by letterc 2008-06-17 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, see...

and maybe the "anti-Obama" poster has a long history of telling it like it is and that rubs you the wrong way.

by mmorang 2008-06-18 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Now, see...

Actually, I was speaking in the abstract. I know nothing of your history, and don't really give a damn if you enjoy speaking ill of Obama on minor poliblogs.

by letterc 2008-06-18 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Now, see...

You seem to have a problem with anyone who has a different opinion than you.

Are you not aware that Hillary supporters are furious about the way she was treated? You can disagree with them but you don't have to call them trolls....or what the heck, call them trolls and worse.

You're right, everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.

by mmorang 2008-06-18 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Brilliant. Exactly how I feel. I got furious with Hillary around March/April, but now I've moved from grudging respect to something approaching admiration, and understanding. I really do think, as I wrote in a diary way back, that she has taken over the Clinton brand and proved herself as the most formidable politician in the US (with one exception).

Some will see this change of tone as merely tactical. But it isn't. She's a politician and fought hard using everything available to her. My support was elsewhere, but I have no anger left towards her. I don't know where it went, but it's partly due to the grace of her departure from the race, and the grace of most of the (genuine) Hillary supporters on this site.

by duende 2008-06-17 08:37AM | 0 recs
Glad you feel that way

Of course it's easier to be a gracious winner.   I personally liked Obama throughout the campaign (at least he was "likeable enough" LOL).   So never had any anger directed at him personally.  

by activatedbybush 2008-06-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Voting for Hillary for President would have been so much better and more exciting to me personally. She would have made a great President. She was much better than Obama in debates and everything. That's not going to change.

by whothere 2008-06-17 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Are you going to vote for Obama?

by JoeW 2008-06-17 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Yeah but I am just saying that I would prefer to vote for HIllary.

by whothere 2008-06-17 09:04AM | 0 recs
I know, and I don't begrudge you that

I would've preferred to vote for Dean in 2004, but had to go with Kerry instead.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Good diary.  We need more HillaryLove, especially from Obama supporters.  She's emerged a hero, and that's great thing for us, for November and beyond.

I have no problem with Hillary not being visible yet.  I don't know about you but I've been exhausted from just watching the damn primary.

by redwoodsummer 2008-06-17 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Hey, I know I'd be on vacation if I'd just worked 18 months of 20 hours days non-stop without a break!

Oh wait... I have been!

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

If the Dems win in November, put together a health care package, and Obama signs it, there is going to be more HillaryLove than her supporters might be able to handle.  One of the big problems Dems have, I think, is that we just don't have much experience winning the big ones.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-17 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

I'm personally just bothered by a minority (an annoying minority)of supporters of Senator Clinton, not by the Senator herself.  She has been excellent, and it annoys me that a minority isn't following her lead.  Also, whoever those people are talking to the newspapers, are doing her a disservice.  Let her (or her official spokespeople) speak for her.  It's as if some supporters are now saying they support Hillary so much, we don't care/believe what she says, we'll go against her wishes and statements.

by cycl06 2008-06-17 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Thanks for the dairy.  I realize that I've been overly critical of some Clinton Primary supporters, which hasn't helped.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-06-17 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Here's to Hill and barack, far more appropriate representatives of the party than the majority of us:)

by Dog Chains 2008-06-17 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Agreed.  We can win w/o the Sen Clinton supporters throwing a tantrum, but we'd rather win big w/ the margin they'd endure. Time to move on  folks.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-17 10:10AM | 0 recs
It's as easy for me to let go of the Primary Anger

as is is for many Obama supporters to let go of their Hillary hatred.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-17 10:34AM | 0 recs
It was easy for me to let go.

Barack supports Hillary, and Hillary supports Obama.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-17 10:42AM | 0 recs
You missed the point.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-17 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You missed the point.

No, that is the point.  It's not your point, but it's the only point that matters.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 01:12PM | 0 recs
...it is the only point that matters.

...to you.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-17 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: ...it is the only point that matters.

well yes, jess is pretty pointless overall

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: ...it is the only point that matters.

Well, according to Jess, there is only one point that's credible: his own.

Wonder how he'd feel if things were the other way around.  Would he feel ready to just turn on a dime?

by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-17 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You missed the point.

You forgot to say that this is only YOUR point of view, not everyone else's.  And no matter how hard you hammer the fact that yours is the right one, there are many people who feel otherwise.

I'm 56. I've had a life full of experiences, and am basing my opinions on all of those years.  I cannot turn on a dime, like I could when I was younger.

Too much has happened since I was a rebellious person back in the 60's and 70's, fighting for the rights many nowadays take for granted.

I'm still rebellious, even at this age, and I refuse a candidate that is sold to me like candy on a TV Ad.  He has nothing to back up his speeches.  He's anyone's "dream" only in terms that he has no solid positions.  Anyone can read anything into him (project their dreams - and by God - we need them all).  But it's a fake media creation promoted by the very ones that he proclaims to disown.  Just take a look at who is behind him.

Where are the new innovators?  It looks to me like the old gang, the one he supposedly is against, is the one group that stands behind him.

Axelrod?  Just Google him.

Former Presidential Candidates that LOST?

Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Carter, etc. etc.

Are they NOT the old group of people he talks against? And why are they behind him?

Ahh, so many questions, so few answers.  Even asking them is a crime these days.....

by Gabriele Droz 2008-06-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: You missed the point.

Carter is a former presidential candidate who lost?

Also, Bill Clinton now supports Barack Obama, so every living former Democratic president now supports Barack Obama.

by letterc 2008-06-17 11:48PM | 0 recs
So sit it out

or vote for McCain, whatever.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 03:42AM | 0 recs
somehow I doubt you'd be saying that

if Hillary were the nominee.

Clinton supporters don't need this lecture from you.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-17 06:22PM | 0 recs
Supporting Clinton for WHAT??
She isn't running for office that I am aware of?????
Unless you live in NY then your supporting her for what????
She has ask you to support her candidate.
by Grissom1001 2008-06-17 07:26PM | 0 recs
you misunderstood my comment

I am not a Clinton supporter.

I didn't notice slinkerwink trying to elevate the dialogue about Hillary during the past few months at DKos.

I was saying that if Hillary had won the nomination, I really doubt that slinkerwink would be out there urging everyone to let go of their anger.

The people who were deeply involved in the primary wars at DKos are the last people who should now be lecturing others about letting go of their anger.

That said, I would encourage all Democrats to vote for Obama in the general, because McCain would be an awful president.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-18 07:16AM | 0 recs
Not just the anger. Let go of primary altogether.

So many here on MyDD seem to still be stuck in the primaries. Some 75% of what's written here either has to do with Hillary, or some slights to her during the primaries, or how great  a VP she'd make. Let it go. This is a race between John McCain and Barack Obama and the Clintons have almost nothing to do with it other than being supporters of the candidate.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-17 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

I have no problem with Clinton, just with a small fraction of those on this website that insist on nursing a grudge.  There occasionally is an unhealthy level of self-identification on display.  This is a political party, not a personality cult.

by rfahey22 2008-06-17 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

then why did a personality cult beat the issues candidate

by whothere 2008-06-17 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Wow, you completely missed my point and advanced an unflattering stereotype.  Thanks.

by rfahey22 2008-06-17 10:53AM | 0 recs
missed your point,

but demonstrated it.

by kydoc2 2008-06-18 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

No, I can't do it.Obama as the nominee is literally like taking $500 and giving me $250 back in return. He is not a fighter, not experienced, less of a leader, flip flopper on foreign policy, so much more. If I wanted half,we might as well nominate a blue dog. I'm not a woman so it has nothing to do with the gener either.

by bsavage 2008-06-17 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

You don't know what "literally" means, do you?  

by fogiv 2008-06-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Ahh, that golf ball set is within reach.  Just a few more points...

by OVAH 2008-06-18 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Republican trolls or not, these "pro Hillary people" above me are the people advancing this rift.  The fact that they are even confronted is called being "anti Hillary" which is almost as absurd as saying ANYTHING against Hillary makes you a sexist, almost.  

by Brandon 2008-06-17 11:16AM | 0 recs
Obama on Clinton


"She has been on the right side of just about every battle that we have fought -- she has, in her own words, shattered a glass ceiling into 18 million pieces. ....She is worthy of our respect, she is worthy of our honor.

Time to let it all go..

by KateG 2008-06-17 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Clinton

She said it had 18 million cracks not shattered in pieces!

by whothere 2008-06-17 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Clinton

these types have made it a bad habit of deliberately mis-quoting her

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Clinton

That evil Obama, praising Clinton. Disgusting.

by letterc 2008-06-17 11:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

No anger here.

Congrats to Obama for becoming the presumptive nominee.

However, I still think Hillary Clinton stands a better chance against John McCain in the swing states come November, so I will continue to hope that the superdelegates will make her the official nominee at the convention.

by leisure 2008-06-17 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Hillary is supporting the nominee, not hoping to undermine him.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 03:46AM | 0 recs
Don't Let It Go - Channel It!

Replace that primary anger with some well-placed, well-deserved anger towards John McCain.

McCain is completely in bed with big oil.

by obsessed 2008-06-17 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Let It Go - Channel It!

Yes but he didn't beat Hillary Clinton so that makes him better than Obama. Just Kidding.

by whothere 2008-06-17 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Let It Go - Channel It!

And it's cool for McCain to make "beat the bitch" and "Chelsea's dad is Janet Reno" jokes because he and Hill are drinking buds.

by obsessed 2008-06-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
Who's In Bed with Big Oil?

McCain is completely in bed with big oil.

Everyone also knows who voted for the Cheney Energy bill. Obama's got some 'splaining to do, for sure.

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-17 02:51PM | 0 recs
You start off by saying that Hillary is being

considered for VP but she KNOWS she won't get it. After receiving 18 million votes and being FALSELY accused of race-bating along with her husband, not being VP is unacceptable.

The primary process lacked intergrity and that hurt Clinton, not Obama. She better be on the ticket or you will see millions of people defect or sit on their hands. I will be one of them and I have voted Democratic my whole life.

by mmorang 2008-06-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: You start off by saying that Hillary is being

Makes ya wonder how this diarist was able to perform a Clinton mind meld, to know exactly what she's thinking from minute to minute.

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-17 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: You start off by saying that Hillary is being

and of course spiff the McLamiac hides it in fear :) oh and it has been reported

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You start off by saying that Hillary is being

Hillary will never be VP.  The Clintons will not allow themselves to be vetted, for very good reasons.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You start off by saying that Hillary is being

She's been vetted and attacked for decades. She's been slimed by Republicans for decades and now she's been slimed by Obama and some socalled "progressives".

by mmorang 2008-06-18 11:24AM | 0 recs
Two words:

Clinton library.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

This is a great diary. I see so many comments from Clinton supporters.  Keep standing strong :D

by soyousay 2008-06-17 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

NO. we will remember that

by engels 2008-06-17 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Who is "we"?  Are you a collective now, engels?

by rfahey22 2008-06-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

37% of you know who...

by engels 2008-06-17 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

Now you're only 1/3 of a person?  I'm very confused.

by rfahey22 2008-06-17 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

MMorang, get back to FreeRepublic or Hillaryis44, you have already said your not supporting Obama in November, the facade of you being anything but a republican here to troll is gone.

by Brandon 2008-06-17 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

soyousay and engals can join you.

by Brandon 2008-06-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Go Of The Primary Anger

You know I was one of the harshest critics of Hillary's campaign during the primary. I've let go of that primary anger. I don't make snide remarks about her anymore. I've moved on to the general election, but some people clearly haven't

Well aren't you just a magnanimous human being. BO's henchmen run a lying, smearing nd race baiting campaign against Bill and HRC and YOU have let it go????? Bully.

This is laughable if it was not pathetic. By they way, I have moved on to the general. Not happy about the candidate chosen to represent y party, but it is what it is. I just don't need any condescending BS from supporters of BO.

by Newport News Dem 2008-06-17 06:05PM | 0 recs
slinkerwink, I think we all know

that if Clinton had won the nomination, multitudes of pro-Obama bloggers would not be letting go of their primary anger.

Maybe if the Obama supporters on the blogs hadn't been so over the top for the past several months in their Hillary-hatred, it wouldn't be so hard for some of the Clinton supporters to let go of their anger.

I agree with the general sentiment of your diary, but the message would have more credibility coming from someone who didn't fan the flames of the primary wars.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-17 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: slinkerwink, I think we all know

Didn't sricki write a similar diary a day or two before?  It's not like this is a one-sided crusade here.  

by rfahey22 2008-06-17 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: slinkerwink, I think we all know

If Clinton had won the nomination by winning a majority of pledged delegates, I think 99% of Dems who supported Obama this go around would have supported her as a candidate (even if some had to hold their noses while voting for her).  If you look at sites like Daily Kos, up through mid-Feb there was a real sense that she might win (and Kos wrote a post in January expressing the opinion that not only was this quite possible but beneath the vaneer he knew Clinton to be warm-hearted, capable, etc.).

One of the lesser mentioned strategic mistakes the Clinton campaign made in January, which had a huge impact, was the emphasis they gave to winning off of superdelegates (ie. even if we lose the pledged-delegate count we'll still win).  This had a huge, and, I think, underappreciated role in convincing many who had supported Edwards to back Obama (because this seemed like arrogant bossism, even if we lose we'll still win).

People forget that Daily Kos, at the start of this race, was the website for those who supported John Edwards (and that the campaign only got really nasty during the weeks just before the Ohio/Texas race, this very long endgame after most people had already voted).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-17 10:24PM | 0 recs
Spot on
 I know I can't stand these bitter ones with their sneaky little passive agressive talking points.  So it seems we will have to win without them, and we shall win, in spite of their concern trolling.  Every last one of Obama's supporters would have held their noses and voted for Hillary in the general had she one the nomination.  But for some of the bitter ones who supporters, being the democratic nominee isn't enough.  Hillary is so special she must be the one even if it means committing political seppuku.
For the rational ones, the Democrats, welcome aboard, we'll be taking the hide off McCain all the way to November.  
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 04:02AM | 0 recs
you don't know what you are talking about

I was not a Clinton supporter. I was an Edwards supporter who didn't have a preference between Clinton and Obama.

I've been saying for months that all Democrats should support our nominee, no matter who it is. I've posted many, many anti-McCain pieces at my blog home, Bleeding Heartland.

I was doing battle in countless comment threads at DKos with immature, self-indulgent Obama fans who loved nothing more than to rant about how they'd never vote for Hillary if she "stole" the nomination.

I didn't notice slinkerwink or any other "star" Obama supporter at DKos step up to the plate during this period.

On the contrary.

Yet you have the nerve to call me a "bitter" Clinton supporter.

I can't stand the hypocrisy of some Obama fans. For months they celebrated and recced up numerous "I'll never vote for evil Hillary" diaries. The collective judgment of the Daily Kos community made sure these regularly made the rec list. Now they can't believe that there are some Clinton supporters who don't want to vote for Obama in the general.

What goes around comes around, people.

As for the Clinton supporters, I would encourage all of you not to give the alienating actions of certain Obama supporters more power over your decision making than they deserve. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance, so all Democrats should vote for our nominee.

by desmoinesdem 2008-06-18 07:13AM | 0 recs
You are absolutely out to lunch

on this, and there was a Gallup poll a while back that proved it:

 http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain -vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

In case you're having trouble reading it, it's 28% to 3% voting for MCain if their candidate lost.  And you want to talk about bitter?  Do yourself a favor and don't go there.

We're sorry you had such a rough time at Daily Kos.  There were very few if any such diaries on the rec list at Daily Kos, except for a brief period at the beginning of the "kitchen sink." or the "scorched earth" phase of the Clinton campaign.  That sentiment was expressed, certainly, with full justification, considering the "pure republicanism" on daily display (Robert Reich.)  
  This is par for the anti-Obama course, though.  Bring up a false equivalency, it doesn't matter what issue or accusation.   In the interest of party unity, I'll not go down the laundry list at this time.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-18 07:57AM | 0 recs
Yes, Yes, Yes

Well said.

I want to win in November.  I think a lot of other people do to...

Booing Sen. Clinton or threatening to vote for McCain isn't going to help us get there.

People need to Get.  Over.  It.

You can't move forward when you're hung up on the past.  Breathe deep and let it go; or at least direct it at people who really deserve it, ie Republicans.

by jaywillie 2008-06-17 06:29PM | 0 recs
Obama does not need the Hillary supporters that are there in La La land who refuse to support him....there is not a huge contingent of them..come on remember the thousands that were to show up at the DNC meeting? a couple of dozen showed..
The few that are still hanging on and ignoring Hillary? Cut them in half because half live in states that will go for McCain and now how many are left? Cut those in half because at least half won't show up to vote for McCain and that leaves how many?
Not enough to get upset over. Best to leave them alone to their anger and when they respond in an ugly manner just ignore.
I am certain that Hillary is not happy nor proud of their actions as she darn sure does not want to have to work the next 4 years under a McCain Presidency. If some want to work so that she has too? Then we know they were never true Hillary supporters to begin with.
by Grissom1001 2008-06-17 07:23PM | 0 recs

No one can say for sure until November, but right now it looks like Obama does in fact badly need as many of Clinton's supporters as he can coax to come aboard. His lead over McCain is weak and he got almost no bump after Clinton's withdrawal, which seems to indicate that not many of her supporters actually went over to him.  Keep in mind that the vast majority of these voters are NOT in the blogosphere. They will tend to vote for a candidate they like. They liked Hillary. Many don't like Obama.

The vast majority of US voters are "character" and "personality" voters, not "issues" voters.  Just because a few high-profile site bloggers who strongly favored Hillary are now switching their support to Obama does not necessarily reflect some kind of wholesale national shift in that group (any more than the existence of the PUMAs indicate that their views are widespread. The average voter hasn't even heard of the PUMAs, and if the word did register on the edges of their consciousness, they probably think the news stories  are actually about the running shoes.)

We who are obsessed with politics understand that in terms of positions Hillary and Barack are practically identical. But in terms of personality and attitude they are very different. And that is what your average voter will be deciding on.  I know it's easy to get wrapped up in the blogosphere and mistake it for the real world, but honestly, it's not the real world.

It's also not a matter of whether or not Hillary is "proud" of her "supporters" actions. The people who voted for her did it because they wanted to, not because they were mindlessly following her.  Just because they honored her with their votes does not mean she gets to influence or dictate their actions. It's the other way around. Her voters are the employers; she is the employee being considered for hire. Since when does a manager do what a job interviewee wants, even if the manager did favor that particular person for the job opening?  It makes no sense whatsoever.

"Hillary supports Obama, so if you voted for Hillary you should vote for Obama now!" is a bunch of hooey. Votes aren't transitive unless you're completely partisan and just automatically check off whatever box has the "D" or the "R" beside it instead of thinking carefully about both candidates as individuals. Hillary is welcome to support whoever she chooses, but her voters are under no obligation whatsoever to follow her lead.  And it doesn't mean they don't still like and respect her; they do. But they didn't hand their brains and consciences over to Hillary -- all they gave her was their vote, their affection, and in some cases money and time.  Their choice remains their own, not Hillary's.

by Michigoose 2008-06-18 02:19AM | 0 recs
You might be right that, in the end, voters choose based on the candidate's "personality" and "character." For the sake of our country, I hope that is wrong. The last time the country chose the President based on who they would rather have a beer with, things didn't work out very well.
That aside, you are correct that Hillary's supporters don't have to follow her lead. However, the idea being peddled elsewhere that they are going to vote for McCain is illogical. I hope they all come around and realize, as you noted, that Obama and Hillary were nearly identical on the issues. At the end of the day, I don't care if Obama is the most arrogant person in the country...I care about what he will do to fix the damage done over the past 8 years.
by GrahamCracker 2008-06-18 03:24AM | 0 recs
I don't know how else to say this

Anyone who's still trying to make demands on how Clinton and/or Obama behaves and trying to stir up problems is not interested in resolving them.

I completely appreciate the intent of this diary, but I don't think it actually solves anything except to get a bunch of people who agree with it to say "you're right!" and everyone who disagrees with it to be resentful.  

Those who are able to get past the residual anger from the primaries will do so, on their own time, and in their own way.  Those who are not able to do so might be a problem, but they're a problem we just won't be able to resolve.

So I'll just suggest that maybe we need to move on from the residual primary anger, but maybe we also need to move on from worrying about it, too.

by juliewolf 2008-06-18 03:21AM | 0 recs
I was never mad at Obama, but

remain angry with you. Your call to "let go of the anger" seems to be missing something pretty essential - recognition that you were a major contributor.

Every single network, pundit, and yes, even campaign, talks about polls by demographics, but you seized upon one statement to slander Clinton's campaign in Clinton Campaign Says Only White Voters Matters.

You were the lead scumbag in pushing the baseless and false Drudge story, SECOND UPDATE: Clinton Staffers Circulate Picture of Obama in Tribal Costume.

You wrote two different diaries, How Do We Make Clinton Unelectable? and How Do We Make Clinton Unelectable? Part II, that were not even slightly positive, but instead included grossly Rovian advice like:

Health care is Hillary Clinton's strongest point. We have to ridicule the assumption she can pass her health care plan

and then a third, [UPDATED!] How To Naderize Hillary Clinton.

And of course, this does not even touch on your avalanche of comments of equal venom.

I will support and vote for Obama.  I will either manage my county's poll-watchers (as I did in 2006) or canvass in Ohio (as I did in 2004) for Obama. But I will not "let go of the anger toward people like you," people who decided dishonesty was a legitimate way to campaign against a good and loyal Democrat.  Not, that is, until you are least acknowledge your own involvement.

by dhonig 2008-06-18 03:31AM | 0 recs
I apologize for that.

I was wrong to make those posts.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-18 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I apologize for that.

Thank you.  I appreciate and respect that.  d

by dhonig 2008-06-18 08:03AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads