View Story | 694 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I'm an Obama supporter, have been from the start, but I love Hillary, too.
No, she's not perfect, but she does not deserve the vilification she has sometimes received here.
I hope my fellow partisans will knock off the personal attacks. We have plenty of material to make the positive case for our guy.
Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.
by Happy Days on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
spoil it for the rest of us. Most Democrats like both candidates and will enthusiastically donate and vote for them in November.
by A Handsome Man on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM PDT
and some of the nastiest stuff is just not real kossacks. The fact that so many of the attackers really do not differentiate between the fascism we now suffer under Bu$hCo and the last Democratic administration under Bill Clinton. He was the unfortunate recipient of the flowering of the rightwing conspiracy that had been growing since Nixon, so he was hamstrung by a vicious Rethug congress.
A lot of people who can see the outstanding qualities in her have simply abandoned the site, at least temporarily. I too think she is a decent human being, not evil, very smart and capable of bringing back the Common Good as a concept. So is Obama. I'm fine with either. But the attacks on her here now are pure Drudge report. Literally.
I hope it will return to sanity here too.
McCain already vetoes every environmental bill !
by dotcommodity on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:23:19 PM PDT
Sorry, but that's just the wrong image. To be honest in the conversation here, we need to realize that there is some number of us who are lifetime registered Democrats who don't see H. Clinton as demonic, but do find her character lacking; even who respect her as a good senator, but find her unqualified for the presidency. That number includes some of us who've been active since the last presidential cycle.
Look, there is honest debate about what standards we should hold politicians to. There are those who believe, with substantial evidence to cite, that politicians who won't fight dirty just don't have enough fight in them. There are pragmatic arguments for preferring someone skilled at occasional dishonesty - just if they on the whole want to move things in a direction one favors, even so. It is perfectly rational to claim that one must make the compromises that Hillary has made, and persist in the distortions of truth her campaign favors (e.g. that Obama doesn't support abortion rights, that Obama would raise payroll taxes by "trillions" - look it up, these are gross distortions).
It's perfectly rational. But is it true? If enough of the electorate says, "Enough of this. We will not vote for someone who campaigns like that. We will enforce higher standards for character in politics," then that becomes the new political reality. When all politicians are highly dishonest, that leaves people stranded, with no real way forward. But then a fundamentally honest politician comes along, and changes the whole game ... because we're given an effective choice.
And that's what it's about. We aren't Republicans; we don't read Drudge; we're nauseated by Fox. And while we respect H. Clinton, that respect cannot extend to supporting her presidential bid. It's just too important that honesty has a real chance to win this time. And she's standing firm on the wrong side of that question.
by wytcld on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM PDT
disfranchisement and politics as usual. I think that is what has spilled over into venom directed as Ms Clinton. Misdirected, I would say, but the facts remain that she is close to being a typical political wonk and many of us here are beyond apoplectic with respect to "careful" democrats (take the FISA vote, please).
I agree with your well-stated post. In the spirit of the diarist, I will also agree that the gloating, name-calling and sometimes veiled sexism are a serious turn-off.
I feel regret that it looks as though we will not see the first woman president sworn in next year. And I feel a lot of sympathy for Hillary reporters who have supported their candidate with heart and soul.
Perhaps we can learn from Obama how to show a little dignity. (I'm an Edwards enthusiast, an Obama fan).
From Chile to China to Iraq, torture has been a silent partner in the global free-market crusade. - Naomi Klein
by geomoo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:39:32 PM PDT
is because they don't see her as a real Democrat, but instead as a "Democrat in name only" because she is such a corporate sell out and has aligned herself so openly and overtly with the status quo.
Just because someone calls themselves a "Democrat" or has played in Democratic Party circles doesn't really mean much to me. These are just labels.
Look at Joe Lieberman for example. Need I say more? I mean so many of the things you've said about Hillary could apply just as equally to Joe Lieberman, before he was beaten in the Connecticut primary and decided to become an independent.
Nonetheless, so many people give Hillary a pass becuase 1. She is an important symbol to other women that women can achieve the highest position of power, and 2. she wears the patina of the her husband and the years of his presidency on her.
For me, however, I think I see Hillary clearly for what both she and her husband are: Self-serving, power-seekers that will throw anyone under the bus to further their own ambitions, even to the point of selling out to the powers-that-be.
So, please stop this "it saddens me that so many people have turned on this Democrat" crap. It doesn't sadden me, 'cause if Hillary is representative of what the Democratic Party is, then I don't want any part of it.
by LivinginReality on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:53:32 PM PDT
"Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM PDT
a plain statement of fact and opinion that you don't happen to like.
Funny how whenever anyone on Kos brings up the same things I said about Hillary in criticizing her, her supporters NEVER engage the substance of them, but just ignore them or pretend they were never stated.
Your snark is in keeping with this well-established tradition.
By the way, even though I'm not too crazy about Obama, I'M LOVING THE FACT THAT HE APPEARS TO BE KICKING YOUR CANDIDATE'S ASS!!!!
LOSE, HILLARY, LOSE!!!
IN FACT, I'M DELIGHTING IN HER DEFEAT, just like I delighted in (opportunistic war enabler) Dick Gephardt's defeat in 2004.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
by LivinginReality on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:45:29 PM PDT
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:48:04 PM PDT
Waannnh!!! Waaaanh!!! Waaaanh!!
Oh, did I mention the fact that your candidate is LOSING?
If I didn't, please indulge me while I do it again:
HRC IS PRESENTLY GETTING HER ASS KICKED . . . . AND I'M LOVING EVERY MOMENT OF IT!!!!!
BTW, you wouldn't happen to have a rattler and a pacifier handy, would you?
by LivinginReality on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM PDT
to quote you - I should have a "rattler" ready for you !!
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:55:03 PM PDT
Looks like it is in the 143,000 range...That is usually a pretty good sign of where somebody is coming from....
Wars not make one great. - Yoda
by Volvo Liberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM PDT
good sign of where YOU are coming from.
by LivinginReality on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM PDT
I hadn't yet read how this thread has developed. I'm sorry I took trouble composing a thoughtful response. So long.
by geomoo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:26:26 PM PDT
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM PDT
I'd be interested to see a chart of when waves of ID#s came online...For example, it would be interesting to see how many people joined dKos over the last six months, the six months prior to that, and the six months prior to that, etc....Then, I would overlay that with key events in the political world...it would tell you a whole lot....While I don't know for sure, I am willing to bet that many of the most outrageous Obama supporters, those who have done their best to wreck this place over the last several months, haven't been part of this community for all that long...That's just a guess, though....
Does anyone have the data?
by Volvo Liberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM PDT
of the more outrageous comments (so yes I am really busy ;)
but fact is that of the 140,000 plus - many are notorious
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:51:38 PM PDT
And those below 10,000 usually know what's up.
by Volvo Liberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:55:44 PM PDT
by sara seattle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM PDT
LOL
But, as a general rule those with lower UIDs have been somewhat vetted by the community and those that are only here to troll have mostly moved on or been tossed.
It's when you get someone in the <10,000 that says something completely out of line that it kind of surprises you and makes you wonder how they hid it so well, for so long. Or, if they were just having a crappy day. Sometimes it's not about the having a bad day thing.</p>
Garrhgsfsafasd!
by Hedwig on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:04:38 AM PDT
Retraced up the chain of this thread and it started here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
And the first 4 upgraders have UIDs <20K. Maybe the site needs better weed eaters. :)</p>
by Hedwig on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:10:41 AM PDT
so now, to point out someone's venom is itself a vicious act. Gee, I had no idea!
Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!
by ghost2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM PDT
As this is a prime example of the childish behaviour of a certain segment on DK. Here it is for all to see.
Vote with your conscience, O Progressive, for there are many Conservatives who will vote without one.
by MahFellaMerkins on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:12:26 PM PDT
I'm tired of the Lieberman/Gephardt-like, "Can't We All Get Along" Billary apologists.
And I'm tired of them b/c they only ask us to get along every four years. In the interm they fight us on NAFTA, on welfare "reform," on the illegal invasion of Iraq, on the Iran resolution. They remember to give last second Presidential Pardons to American traitors like Marc Rich, but forget about the Senate's last stand against immunity for the anti-American telecoms. "LOSE, HILLARY, LOSE?" AMEN!!!
(Tho, being that "Texas is the state that matters" and there wasn't a single mention of tonight's primaires, I'm not sure she knows that she did lose. Guess we'll hafta remind her in Wisconsin)
Hooray For Boobies!
by BrooklynJohnny on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:32:04 PM PDT
long before they turned on her.
With all her selling out and defending of the status quo--from her vote on the IWR, to her refusal to apologize for it, to her silence and inaction in the face of SEVEN YEARS of Bush crimes, to her refusal to vote against Telecom immunity today--IT HAS BEEN HILLARY CLINTON TURNING ON THE RANK-AND-FILE ACTIVISTS OF HER PARTY ALL ALONG.
Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.
by LivinginReality on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:14:44 PM PDT
I remember listening to Bill Clinton radio press conferences every week. Perhaps the man didn't represent exactly the way you think things should always be for everyone, but he knew what was going on in the world and was involved in an intelligent manner which did not put our country in grave risk. He answered all questions, usually with an astonishing grasp of the situation under discussion and usually with a fairly clear idea of what could best be done. Just because he wasn't a radical and he didn't do things the progressive way, that does not justify throwing out everything he did well. It is really amazing to see how many people here seem to see little difference between the administrations of Bill Clinton and W. Just amazing.
Politics is the art of the possible. It's not like me to be on this side of this discussion, but around here these days, I sure as hell wish people would take that saying more into account.
How many read the diary tonight that the military is looking to execute six prisoners at Guantanamo? The magnitude of this behavior by our country makes your critique of Hillary seem trivial to me. She would be an infinitely better president than W or McCain.
So I appreciate the efforts of people who have worked to create the possibility that our next president will neither torture in our name nor show disdain for the constitution and our tradition of government. Getting corporations completely out of government is probably about 30th on my list these days.
by geomoo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:21:10 PM PDT
crimes like Guantonamo, by never taking Bush to task over any of it, but instead silently playing along, either because they agree with the policy, or because they are too chickenshit and cynical to take Bush on and only want to do what they must do further their careerist ambitions.
Geez, talk about cognitive dissonance . . .
You epitomize it.
by LivinginReality on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:02:11 AM PDT
They both played plenty dirty, and only one candidate got held to that higher standard: Clinton. For instance, Obama's been pushing some bullshit meme about wage garnishment and how scary the health care mandate is, overtly and dishonestly scaring working class people, but he gets a free pass for that here. He's also been pushing some garbage about how he won't be the target of the right that Hillary Clinton will. I don't complain that Obama plays as dirty as any other politician, but don't for a second tell me we were given an effective choice, or that the political reality has changed. Because we haven't and it hasn't.
That said, if Obama is your candidate, congratulations on your wins tonight.
Also, great diary.
Women's History Month: The 19th Amendment
by belly on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM PDT
There is infiltration for sure, but I have seen long time Kossacks attack in some very personal ways. It's painful to me. I expect better from what I always proudly called The Reality Based Community.
Edwards Democrat voting for Obama would like to remind you, "Concentration Moon, over the camp in the valley" Frank Zappa knew.
by high uintas on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:37:48 PM PDT
A good bit of the spin that has gone on here, and continues to go on daily, should make Rove and his buddies gasp with admiration. I suspect there would be a scandal if HRC, WJC or Paul Krugman sat down to a meal of soul food. I'm not sure what makes "my husband didn't do well in caucuses either" into the equivalent of libel, or recognizing that she can't compete effectively for the black vote a sin (or, for that matter, "the race card"). Historians will look back on this campaign and what turned it around for Obama with wonder and incomprehension, whether or not he actually wins.
What irritates me is that some on the front page actually appear to buy this tripe.
The truth shall make ye fret... -William DeWorde
by flagpole on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM PDT
I am all for taking our elected officials to task for the positions they take. But keep it professional, not personal.
by VoicelessInDC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM PDT
I ran the GOTV on the west side of Manhattan. And I voted for her because he is the most progressive candidate in the race. And that was the judgement of people in my district, like congressman Jerry Nadler..one of th emost respected progressives in the legislature.
So I am posting a link to her website. The first link is to the main page. The headline says that in there were 127,542 donors ....almost all of them online and almost all of them from new donors.
The second link is to the contribution page and you can give what you want.....$1,$5,$10....whatever you can afford. There are wonderful stories of people giving what they have, in just those kinds of amounts.
And this is relatively new involvement....and the Clinton campaign is at the floor in this kind of participation. There is more that can happen here.
She needs the resources to win the next leg of the this long race.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.co...
Debra
by debcoop on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM PDT
I am a lousy typist
by debcoop on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM PDT
because he came out in support of Clinton. To me it isn't just about her. It is about a poisoning of the well that is occuring. Some dope wanted to primary Nadler because he supports Clinton. It is that stuff that makes the Obama crowd look fanatical and myopic. It is a shame too.
by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:15:21 PM PDT
As they say in the Big Apple -
Fugeddaboudit!!!
He's a NYC fixture, with a hugely positive reputation, seniority, and astonishing constituent respect (I know, I'm one!) - and will only leave Congress involuntary on a gurney. He's also a solid Party guy of the old-school: Clinton or Obama: he'll do his best to see them elected.
by Jay C on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:35:52 PM PDT
How's he doing these days? I remember reading that he got the gastric bypass surgery. Has it worked for him?
by DailyKingFish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:43:31 PM PDT
next week, and the next... It's not much, but I figure if everyone gives a little it will make a big difference.
by PamelaD on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM PDT
by ghost2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM PDT
There's a lot I like about what Hillary's talking about. Unfortunately, they only let you vote for one candidate, and I finally settled on Obama because he's bringing a lot of new blood to the party (yes, I know some of them won't stick - but many will).
I hate to see the vilification of Hillary that goes on here. We will only win in November if we all work together, and a small number of Obama supporters are doing a lot to turn off Hillary's supporters... not smart.
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 694 comments