View Story | 1593 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It's why I'd vote for Hillary. Anyone familiar with me knows how critical I am of HRC, on a whole host of issues. But every problem I have with her (and there are so many) is magnified by about a hundred when I consider the possibility of a McCain Administration.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:52:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I can't think of a single other one.
I'm not persuaded that this diary isn't trolling, anyway.
by felagund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:34:03 AM PDT
Seriously. Take it from this Green. On the margins, the Democrats are less kleptocratic than the GOP across the board.
Hillary Clinton won't seriously address the issue of poverty, but the minimum wage may be a little higher, food stamps and Headstart may be better funded, the next Katrina will be dealt with just a bit more effectively.
This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)
by GreenSooner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:40:13 AM PDT
what? I like him a hell of a lot more than I like her.
I'd vote for hillary, in a heartbeat, if I knew that would give Clark a real chance to run.
Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:50:32 AM PDT
I'd be on the rec list!
Seriously, how does confused, irrational nonsense like this get recommended? Yes, some people who are voting for the other guy don't like your candidate's claim that her votes for things like the war reflect experience and political savvy, rather than a gutless, poll-driven political ethos that always puts personal ambition above doing the right thing (her campaign now even claims she knew it was a bad idea all along -- she was for it while she was against it). Therefore, the diarist claims, while she won't say she'll vote for McCain herself (which I suppose would be a banable offense) she sure thinks there are other women, who might otherwise vote for Hillary, but won't vote for Obama ('cause he's a sexist constantly attacking and insulting her, the diarist, doncha know), but will vote for McCain instead. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- she's really not talking about herself.)
Add to this the claim that she's a yellow dog who's worked for every campaign she's voted in and always votes Democratic and got kicked out of her house for having a McGovern sticker.
I really don't see why this site would entertain arguments from people who openly threaten to leave the party on grounds that someone is campaigning against her candidate in the primary.
And if you see her... Tell her it's over now!
by Vincenzo Giambatista on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:23:56 AM PDT
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller
by georg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:29:58 AM PDT
"From war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption follows, until all wealth is aggregated, and the Republic is destroyed." Lincoln
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:49:24 AM PDT
by Yoshimi on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM PDT
Regularly, and for quite some time. The site administrators don't seem to be too concerned about it.
by Haningchadus14 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM PDT
You're serious trolling
John McCain: Crash Test Dummy
by kubla000 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM PDT
You can't express strong reservations about someone's electability, then say you (or "millions of people like you" as you like to frame it) are thinking of defecting if she doesn't win the nomination. If her electability is really suspect, she shouldn't take the nomination and you shouldn't be defending her campaign.
I believe the word for this kind of diary around here is "concern" -- it offers a (bizarre) critique based on unsubstantiated, irrational fears about what will happen if what's going on here (people rooting for Obama) continues and offers non-advice on that pretext (every Obama supporter needs to stop making certain arguments about experience, an issue Hillary created, or women like the diarist will defect in droves because when you say Hillary's experience is "not the right kind of experience" you are denigrating middle aged women everywhere).
by Vincenzo Giambatista on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:35:01 AM PDT
This diarist is not the only woman who feels this way. I also feel this way, and I'm reasonably certain that there are other women out there who do as well. We're pissed off at the sexism in this campaign. At this point, I'd be perfectly willing to stay home, just like all of the supposed Obama supporters who won't vote for Hillary. The Democratic Party does not give a fuck about women. They push racial equality until the cows come home, but what have they done about domestic violence, women's poverty, freedom of choice? Not much lately.
by dianem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:05:10 AM PDT
will do a better job on those issues than Barack? He has worked with the poor, he has stood with women on the issue of choice.
Hillary put out a mailer in Iowa and NH that lied about Obama's record on choice.
I will not tolerate a lying politician to gain some kind of advantage for women, even if I thought supporting Hillary would give us an advantage, and I don't see how it does... just because she is a woman?
Can you cite some examples of what you think is sexism in this campaign?
by juca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:25:44 AM PDT
Don't buy the spin. The woman going around saying she knows all about the choice votes because she was with NOW when they happened has distoreted her record quite a bit. A lot of people didn't agree with his position on that then and don't now. Clinton wasn't distorting anything - she was portraying one side of the story. Read the Salon article in Broadsheet.
Clinton has been fighting for the rights of women, children and minorities since Obama was in grade school. I don't know if voting for her will give us an advantage. I suspect it won't. But I do know that she deserves to be treated as a candidate, not an interloper.
by dianem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM PDT
and yes, there are often two sides to these things. What I have read, has led me to believe that Hillary's campaign was deliberately misleading on this. Obama has a strong pro-choice record. I know that Edwards was very upset about some misleading information Hillary's campaign put out against him, as well. Also, I did not appreciate the comments made by Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and others.
I think Obama is the one being treated like an interloper, in fact your comment here sort of implies that... how can someone 15 years younger challenge the Clintons?
I think Hillary would do a good job... she has done work on children's and family issues, but during these years she was also working for a corporate law firm, serving as first lady, etc. It is not as though she were working full time on family issues. I like Obama's experience, too. I like the way he thinks things through, and I think he is persuasive, and may be able to achieve things that others have not.
Obama spoke out against sending other peoples children into a "dumb" war. How's that for supporting women and families?
by juca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM PDT
It seems that the complaints of the diarist over Hillary criticism are summed up in the following laundry list:
I've lost count of the number of times I've been hurt and insulted by the rhetoric coming out of the Obama campaign, aimed at Hillary that ricochets and hits me. Experience doesn't matter. Unconventional experience is not real experience. If your husband is a dumbass so are you. You've f$cked things up so bad only young people can fix them. Your stupid because you watch the Hallmark Channel. You don't understand the real issues. Your marraige says more about you than your own accomplishments. If you cry you must be weak. If you cry you must be unstable. If you cry you must be putting it on to get attention. If you show emotion you can't be trusted. Your ambition is unattractive. Your ambition is suspect. you've worked hard and accomplished things, but those accomplishments are now irrelevant. All tough women are ball-busters.
I think many of these are indeed bogus criticisms. But many of them are mostly coming from Repubelicans and the media. Maybe I missed it, but many of these are not critiques I have heard coming from the Obama camp. And then there is "experience." That is a valid issue, but a complicated one.
Let's look at each of these complaints. Several of them really are sexist bullshit:
If you cry you must be weak. If you cry you must be unstable. If you cry you must be putting it on to get attention. If you show emotion you can't be trusted. Your ambition is unattractive... All tough women are ball-busters.
I agree that these types of criticism are sexist bullshit. But I haven't heard them from Obama or anyone that he has control over. They seem to come from TV pundits (especially Chris Matthews.)
you've worked hard and accomplished things, but those accomplishments are now irrelevant.
Who is saying this? It is non-sensical. I suspect that the diarist is mischaracterizing a much more nuanced argument: Hillary's hard work and accomplishments are relevant, but should be weighed against Barack's accomplishments and positive attributes and against some criticisms of her.
Experience doesn't matter. Unconventional experience is not real experience. If your husband is a dumbass so are you... Your marraige says more about you than your own accomplishments.
These are all tied into the "experience" question, and they are all issues that spring from the Hillary campaign's framing of her husband's presidency as experience that she can claim for herself. (Except for "Experience doesn't matter." No one that I know of is making any such an argument. Obama's argument is that Washington experience is not a pure positive, and that good judgement is more important. Argue with that if you will, but I don't see how it has anything to do with gender.)
As for the other "experience" critiques, is there any way for Obama to address this issue without pissing off the women voters the diarist claims are going to pull the lever for McCain? If you accept the premise that Hillary gets "experience" credit for the two Clinton terms, then it is only logical that you can legitimately criticize Hillary for bad things the Clinton administration did. But then you would be implying that "If your husband is a dumbass so are you... Your marraige says more about you than your own accomplishments." The diarist has framed this in such a way that Obama and his supporters have no way of criticizing Hillary in any way on the issue of "experience" with out pissing off women voters. I'm not buying it. Personally, I think that Bill and Hillary are each other's closest advisors. I view them as a team. Therefore, I am willing to credit Hillary with executive experience from the Clinton presidency. I think it is a realistic way of looking at things. Therefore, I think she also is implicated in the negatives of the Clinton presidency - NAFTA, the triangulation, failing to let gays serve openly in the military, etc. She also has her own record in the Senate, where she voted for the war and the bankruptcy bill.
Unconventional experience is not real experience.
Both candidates have unconventional experience. Barack has lived overseas, comes from a diverse ethnic background, worked as a community organizer, and taught constitutional law. I would think that most Democrats would recognize and appreciate the unconventional experience of both candidates.
I appreciate the diarist sharing a window into her feelings on all of this. She is probably not alone. Obama supporters may want to be more cautious in framing their debate to avoid unnecessarily insulting women. But I think that the arguments are somewhat confused and overstated. Everyone feels defensive about their candidate in the primaries. But when it comes down to a race between one Democrat and one Republican, people are going to make a choice between those two. I sincerely doubt that McCain is going to be seen as the feminist alternative to Obama.
Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.
by miasmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM PDT
Thanks. I agree with all of it.
by juca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM PDT
and I don't dislike Obama for the reasons stated in the diary but I think they are valid reasons. I dislike him for the over-the-top evangelical type rhetoric. It smacks of bullshit.
When I hear him talk about poverty it sounds like flowery words written by an excellent speech writer and delivered by a charismatic man. When Hillary talks about poverty I sense that she does care whether or not that translates into action.
It's like people are swept up in some kind of cult. One of the most intelligent women I know will not consider any criticism of Obama because she read it book that was written as a campaign tool. That's fucking scary as shit to me.
Blood 4 Oil War 2
by TXsharon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM PDT
There hasn't been a single iota of sexism in this campaign, outside of one blowhard (Matthews). None. Nadda. Zip. Wingers don't hate Hillary because she's a woman, they hate her because her last name is Clinton. If you complain about the use of the word "shrill" or talking about "the sob", remember the Dean Scream and Ed Muskie.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM PDT
is pretty sick of the Obama histrionics, too. For a campaign preaching unity, its supporters are sure doing their best to alienate females, HRC supporters, older people, and white people. Talk about double standards, Michele Obama said she'd have to "think about it" when asked if she would support Hillary. Guess she might vote for McCain, too.
I have a couple of reasons why I would be willing to drop Obama, Hillary and the NDP on its ass. Obama's supporters just keep adding fuel to the fire.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM PDT
The Obama campaign has pretty much taken the high road. If you think he can somehow control what all his supporters say, you're being unreasonable.
The only one who has used lies and distortions against opponents on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton and her husband (who she certainly can control). I think it was perfectly reasonble for Obama to call her out on it.
This is a tough process and fair and accurate criticisms are perfectly valid. It's the Republican Party view that legitimate criticisms are somehow traitorous and look where that got us in a whole host of areas with the Bush Administration.
One obvious claim of her's to scrutinize is her claim of "35 years of experience". Well 20 of those years was as a first lady (12 in Arkansas). Her view seems to be that everything that went right, she was half responsible for as first lady, everything that went wrong, hey she wasn't in charge! Well, it doesn't work that way, and scrutinizing the character of a person who wants to claim credit for things that go well, but deny responsibility when things don't go well (hrm, that sounds like a certain president we have right now) is certainly valid.
by Adam T on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM PDT
that Obama is immature and a child. At 40 something, he should be anything but. I think the diarist's bitch is more with the Obama people at this site than Obama himself. You have to admit their enthusiasm borders on zealotted. I also agree that Obama cannot be held responsible for idiots who happen to support him. The problem with the Obama campaign is that it is running at a high pitch on emotions and fervor. I think Michele Obama got caught up in it too with her statement. It was a political blunder.
by dkmich on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:56:09 AM PDT
Michelle Obama can advertise her disloyalty to the party and no one calls her on it. That's the endless double standard in this campaign.
This is one hell of a diary. You have so well captured the disdain and contempt from the Obama crowd that has turned "hope" into arrogance.
No, women are not so dumb as to follow a candidate that tolerates so much disrespect for women.
Well done, nancyj.
Hillary '08.
by Athena on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM PDT
Athena
I am jumping into this thread for an important Public Service announcement!!!
Yesterday the Hillary Clinton campaign asked for 3 million dolars in 3 days. They got 4 million dollars in less than 24 hours!!!
Now they are going for 6 million...and they can do it.
They did this by just sending out emails. They haven't even begun to tap the internet in terms of embedding links into web posting and emails links. Now I am a techno dummy when it comes to embedding, but at the bottom is a link to her website's contribution section.
Everyone please donate who supports her ...and who supports us and who wants to make sure that she's the president so we can all bequeath a better future for everyone's kids...$10 in tens of thousands of increments makes a differnce.
Embed the link ...send it out to friends in an email as well as embedding it here in your comments.
It matters
You matter https://contribute.hillaryclinton.co...
Debra
by debcoop on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:09:18 PM PDT
Of course some of them may be extreme. Your dealing with all manners of people with that many voters. labelling all his supporters based on the behaviour of his most extreme is neither accurate nor logically valid.
I am pleased to see that the Clinton campaign has toned down their attacks on Obama since they appeared to have received a backlash for it.
That said, as I said in the original post, valid criticism has a place as scrutiny of the candidates is welcome and necessary.
For the candidates, the arguments need to be kept factually correct and for the candidate supporters, they have to appreciate that this is a tough process and criticizing the other candidate is not an attack on their race or gender.
by Adam T on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM PDT
got blamed for their response. Again, I think the diarist was addressing Obama people at this site and not the 7 million at large.
by dkmich on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:11:42 AM PDT
When asked if she'd work to support Hillary, she answered that she'd have to think about it. She said everyone would support the Democratic nominee Please listen to what she really said.
Btw, I'm gettng sick of Hillary supporters complaining about Obama supporters especially since they do the same things they decry.
You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata
by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM PDT
and I can tell you that the Obama supporters are WAY, WAY, WAY worse than the HRC supporters.
by TXsharon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM PDT
And I can tell you that's simply not the case. Obama supporters don't invariably end arguments with over the top handwaving sarcasm the way Hillbots do, nor try to spin criticism of their candidate as "sexism".
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM PDT
and I can prove otherwise.
by TXsharon on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM PDT
And I can prove otherwise. On the first point, yes Hillbots would end arguments with jumping-the-shark sarcasm, and I'll find some nice links for you as soon as I have the time. And on the second, just re-read this diary.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM PDT
From a diary speculating that a President Hillary would push Howard Dean out of the DNC and replace him with Terry Mcauliffe or an equivalent:
This primary is neither about the individual candidates nor about unifying behind a single Democrat to defeat the Republicans in November. Instead, this battle--in its own way not dissimilar to the conflict being waged in the Republican party--is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. It is similar to the battle that was waged in 2004 between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt (and, to a lesser extent, John Kerry).
Which leads first to the tip jar, then a couple of responses, then your over-the-top Hillbot sarcasm:
tips for making the right choice--or at least not making the wrong one. by thereisnospoon Talk about the politics of fear. Ugh. by AZnomad This isn't politics of fear it's politics of the obvious. Clinton confidants James Carville and Paul Begala have publicly belittled the 50 state strategy, and Carville whined that Dean should be replaced b/c we gained only 30 seats in the House. Terry McAuliffe looked for everyone under the sun to stop Dean from replacing him...as did the entire DLC and establishment. A Clinton nomination will finish Dean as head of the DNC. We'll get Harold Ford or perhaps Al From. Not what we need. That's not fear politics. That's the truth. by usmeagle69 If Clinton gets the nomination it will be Armaggedon for progressives and the Democratic Party. That's not the politics of fear? Yeah, whatever you say. I'll see your Progressive Doomsday and raise you a Bush Terror Alert. by AZnomad
tips
for making the right choice--or at least not making the wrong one.
by thereisnospoon
Talk about the politics of fear. Ugh. by AZnomad This isn't politics of fear it's politics of the obvious. Clinton confidants James Carville and Paul Begala have publicly belittled the 50 state strategy, and Carville whined that Dean should be replaced b/c we gained only 30 seats in the House. Terry McAuliffe looked for everyone under the sun to stop Dean from replacing him...as did the entire DLC and establishment. A Clinton nomination will finish Dean as head of the DNC. We'll get Harold Ford or perhaps Al From. Not what we need. That's not fear politics. That's the truth. by usmeagle69 If Clinton gets the nomination it will be Armaggedon for progressives and the Democratic Party. That's not the politics of fear? Yeah, whatever you say. I'll see your Progressive Doomsday and raise you a Bush Terror Alert. by AZnomad
Talk about
the politics of fear. Ugh.
by AZnomad
This isn't politics of fear it's politics of the obvious. Clinton confidants James Carville and Paul Begala have publicly belittled the 50 state strategy, and Carville whined that Dean should be replaced b/c we gained only 30 seats in the House. Terry McAuliffe looked for everyone under the sun to stop Dean from replacing him...as did the entire DLC and establishment. A Clinton nomination will finish Dean as head of the DNC. We'll get Harold Ford or perhaps Al From. Not what we need. That's not fear politics. That's the truth. by usmeagle69 If Clinton gets the nomination it will be Armaggedon for progressives and the Democratic Party. That's not the politics of fear? Yeah, whatever you say. I'll see your Progressive Doomsday and raise you a Bush Terror Alert. by AZnomad
This isn't politics of fear
it's politics of the obvious. Clinton confidants James Carville and Paul Begala have publicly belittled the 50 state strategy, and Carville whined that Dean should be replaced b/c we gained only 30 seats in the House. Terry McAuliffe looked for everyone under the sun to stop Dean from replacing him...as did the entire DLC and establishment.
A Clinton nomination will finish Dean as head of the DNC. We'll get Harold Ford or perhaps Al From. Not what we need. That's not fear politics. That's the truth.
by usmeagle69
If Clinton gets the nomination it will be Armaggedon for progressives and the Democratic Party. That's not the politics of fear? Yeah, whatever you say. I'll see your Progressive Doomsday and raise you a Bush Terror Alert. by AZnomad
If Clinton gets the nomination
it will be Armaggedon for progressives and the Democratic Party.
That's not the politics of fear? Yeah, whatever you say.
I'll see your Progressive Doomsday and raise you a Bush Terror Alert.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:22:44 PM PDT
The Obama camp is playing up every ugly right wing/ paranoid left wing whisper campaign ever pushed against Hillary Clinton. I had respected Michelle Obama, but I don't anymore.
Women's History Month: The 19th Amendment
by belly on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM PDT
Will she support/work to support the party? She said "she would have to think about it".
by dkmich on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:15:09 AM PDT
is pretty tired of the over-the-top handwaving of zealoted HRC supporters.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM PDT
Give yourself another 20 years, and you might have a clue what tired means.
by dkmich on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:17:25 AM PDT
You aren't old enough to be tired of anything...Give yourself another 20 years, and you might have a clue what tired means.
Since Obama hasn't been campaigning for 20 years much less 40, you can't "pretty sick of the Obama histrionics, too", now can you?
Go back to chasing the neighborhood kids off your lawn with your cane. :)
by Uberbah on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:57:36 AM PDT
by dkmich on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:08:35 AM PDT
They had to walk the plank too!
by belly on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM PDT
She is not alone. My Mom who is a frothing Republican hater and has given so much money to Democrats is so offended by this Hillary bashing that she refuses to vote for Obama.
The anti-woman comments are deeply upsetting to many women. I started out supporting Edwards because he is the most progressive, then leaning towards Obama until his "followers" totally alienated me, then supporting Clinton and now I am becoming actually anti-Obama.
Good work, you guys. It feels like such a betrayal. Shame on you.
by Calgal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:40:21 AM PDT
Edwards supporter who really got into it with one of Obama's people in Seattle a couple of months ago I have to say I understand where your coming from. But, I really had to realize and do some soul searching that we aren't electing his supporters, we are electing him. You have to get past his wacked out supporters and read his positions, look at his proposals etc. If we don't how are we any different from the throngs of Americans who voted for the guy they wanted to have a beer with? Take a couple days off from the blogs, the media, whatever, it might help to get some distance.
by Picot verde on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM PDT
You, your mom, and people like you are just like Republicans who blow off any criticism of Bush as "Bush bashing". And just as people have perfectly legit beefs with Bush, people have perfectly legit beefs with Clinton. And it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with her sex.
If, as Micheal Moore put it, Hillary had voted with her conscience instead of her calculator, this election would have been no contest. If she had voted against the AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, and had been as consistent as Russ Feingold in opposing the Bush Administration, she could have coasted to the nomination.
But rather than admit that Hillary's record has some large blemishes and that people have a right to be wary of her, you blow the criticism as being "anti-woman". And that's pathetic.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM PDT
Surprisingly, to me(!) I was an Edwards supporter, with Obama as number two and Hillary number three. I thought Edwards had the best programs, and always led with them. The others would chime in later, and get all the press. I didn't like Hillary's war vote, but frankly, I have been watching Obama in the Senate since day one, and was not impressed. He seemed too much a centrist, hung back too much, and went along with the war after opposing it before he was in the Senate.
But why was it surprising? Of course, at almost 72, and having pushed for equal opportunity for women in public life since age 5 or 6, I would be thrilled to vote for a woman, and especially one as accomplished as Hillary. And, I have four adopted children who have Obama's ethnic background, as well as grandchildren from a second marriage who are mixed Asian-Anglo. His election would be a huge validation for them. But I supported the white guy!
My own assumption was that I would move to Obama if Edwards dropped out. However, the Hillary haters have turned me off. I need to affirm exactly what Nancy is talking about, because I have lived it, and still live it, since I am in public life and now experience both age and gender discrimination. And I find that many Obama supporters, instead of emphasizing what they see as Obama's strengths, prefer to put down Hillary's strengths as being of no importance because she is not young, and because she was already there as a supporting player, and so has lost her chance to be the "star." Her husband used up all the "Clinton" time, and she doesn't get any.
So, I filled out my ballot in California for Hillary. I wonder how many other middle aged and older women, anti-war women, did the same? (But no, I won't stay home, and I won't vote for McCain. And I expect patriotic Obama supporters to return the favor if Hillary gets the nomination.)
Sharon Toji Irvine, California
by ADALADY on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM PDT
pretty illuminating, and it will make me think again before I dismiss Clinton as not having "real" experience. I acknowledge it is possible that some of those arguments have sexist underpinnings. By the same token, I think it is foolish for any one of us to dismiss Obama's very worthwhile experience, too. The huge problem here, really, is how the diarist gets angry, with no justification, at Obama. Even if some Obama supporters are making a big mistake and representing their side badly, that does not mean that Obama is in any way sexist for making a couterargument againt Clinton's own argument, that she brought up, about "experience." In the same way, I know that I have seen bloggers and others make pretty undisputably racist comments about Obama, and I have to do my best not to hold that against Clinton herelf, and not to get unreasonably mad.
oy
by old possum on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM PDT
I didn't recommend it.
And I DO NOT BAN people for wanting to talk McCain.
I defend them. Come here, and talk. Kos runs a site for a reason -- you don't expect him to change that. But I do not represent him, and I'm rather the longwinded, 'let's talk this out' sort.
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:37:41 AM PDT
This is not a site where we "talk it out", except as that relates to the election of Democrats or the furtherance of Democratic issues. Period. If people want to discuss the possibilities of crossover voting (which is unmistakably what this diary is) there are other forums.
Get it the hell off of dKos.
Their number is negligible and they are stupid. -- Eisenhower
by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:40 AM PDT
you TR. Those comments are not divisive enough to cause anyone to change their views, if they're already on this site.
I vote for a republican last november. Most of the dkossites in town did too.
So, you can start by banning me. Who voted for the only ProChoice, ProGay, ProScience candidate on the ballot.
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM PDT
Who voted for the only ProChoice, ProGay, ProScience candidate on the ballot.
Which ballot are you talking about?
That's not an attack or anything, btw. I'm just asking.
by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:15:09 AM PDT
Pittsburgh's reliably democratic, but DeSantis won all the 'educated, richfolk land' areas ('creative class' if you want to be all sophisticated.)
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM PDT
If you're really living in such a wacky district, go ahead, I guess, although I take it you don't understand the impact of party machinery.
But McCain isn't more liberal than Clinton or Obama by any stretch of the imagination, and there's the SCOTUS to think about. And fucking Iraq, remember?
by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:16:19 AM PDT
was to deep six the primary (they had a WRITE IN campaign for Democratic mayoral).
Wacky district? It's called Pittsburgh, which makes it... pretty wacky.
And the impact of party machinery is to keep my city broke, through not downsizing what should be.
I'd kill someone before voting mccain, and for entirely different reasons than you cite (though yours are just as credibly well-reasoned as mine!).
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:48 AM PDT
I think one of the changes I've seen on dkos since I've been here (I'm not a pioneer, put me in the second wave) is that with the increase in numbers we've got what SEEMS like a decrease in tolerance. It seems like ANY posting is bound to draw a negative reaction from a handful (and it's a different handful for different topics). Many of these young whippersnappers don't truly understand the CONCEPTS of tolerance and dialogue. We need diaries like this especially if we disagree. The diarist is expressing some heartfelt, and cogent sentiment. Is it right or wrong? Who knows. Is it worth considering? Damn straight.
By sheer probability, every diary seems to piss off at least someone. Check out my last one if you're bored (and go to the comments - only 17 of them - to see what I mean).
(Missouri 2nd Congressional District)
The Universe is a big place ... perhaps the biggest. -Kilgore Trout
by fugitive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:13:23 AM PDT
if i start talking to someone.
And I like the democrats being one big, happy, shouting family.
Kinda like the Irish, except with less sticking of forks into hands when someone tries to filch a potato (true story, family in law).
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:02:23 AM PDT
As the old saying goes: "Two Jews, three opinions."
My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?
by Shiborg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM PDT
and write a diary telling them you are now reformed and a Democrat. Then they welcome you with {{{open arms}}} and put your diary on the rec. list.
If you are a life long Democrat, already here, and sick of party politics and bullshit, they call you a concern troll and attack you.
by dkmich on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM PDT
that's why they hit the rec list. I hate clinton, but Allegre's posts get recommended. Because she's good, generally, at getting her points across.
I'm sick of stupidity, mostly. Politics can wait, we need science NOW!
Global warming is a national security issue -- Clark
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM PDT
Second, if you believe making the rec. list has to do with writing - well...
by dkmich on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:15:25 AM PDT
hit the rec list, in my experience.
very few with horrid spelling mistakes hit it either.
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM PDT
obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Hillary wins, or say they won't go out and vote at all, suddenly there's a veritable RASH of agreement with them.
by mtnspirit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM PDT
since I just read in a story about Mitt's quit that some Republicans are considering "suicide votes" and voting for Hillary. Now that's uniter for you...LOL
What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams
by Demfem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM PDT
wouldn't downrate someone for disagreeing with their perceptions and opinions.
This site is all about debate and (hopefully) learning from such. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of whining children. Well, we are at times, regardless!
McCain is a highly well known element, about the same level of incompetence and ease-of-manipulating-by-the-movers-that-be as Bush Jr., IMHO.
Anyone who decides to see Obama's criticisms of Clinton's campaign and own words as sexist may be looking a bit too personally at their complaints of each other. She has loads of baggage and years of exposure that tends to make her a more polarizing figure than Obama at this point. He's right in asserting his opinions on this as a means to attempt wooing voters his way. She can counter-assert, too.
None of that changes their level of difference from someone such as McCain. I dislike the chance of Clinton being our candidate and predicted years ago (on this site) that a Clinton vs. McCain election would end in sadness. I still feel that way, unfortunately. But, I'd still support her and never go to the emotional extreme of acting out by threatening to vote for McCain if Obama didn't win the nomination.
So, I find this diary interesting but odd. Yet, why should I downrate anyone for expressing these thoughts for debate in public?
People need to get out of their bunker mentality sometimes. Even within our own damn party.
"So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."
by wader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:50:03 AM PDT
and that's mostly when they stop listening to me ... like that libertarian chap who dropped by saying "Pa Dems are Evil"
maybe I just dinna know when ta quit?
by RisingTide on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM PDT
Seriously, how does confused, irrational nonsense like this get recommended?
I'm really starting to get sick of the way people on this site think they can passively/aggressively insult other posters, simply because they are voting for a different candidate.
It was a great diary. It made a lot of sense. It took a lot of time for the diarist to prepare, and you shit all over it ONLY because you are an Obamaniac.
Shame on you.
Go piss in someone else's Wheaties.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM PDT
I don't care why you trollrated me.
by Vincenzo Giambatista on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:52:44 AM PDT
you shit all over it ONLY because you are an Obamaniac
The only reason I am not giving you a hide is because you aren't supposed to TR in debates in which you are participating. And since my comment in upstream of this one, I'll refrain.
But you do your credibility no favors when you chastise someone for insulting in one sentence, then proceed to to display the very behavior you condemn in the next.
by Aethern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM PDT
Some people who support Obama are reasonable people, and can read that diary and enjoy it.
Others that support Obama are so caught up in it, they will attack anything that isn't 100% in support of Obama. It appears that Vincenzo is one of them, based on his negative response to a positive diary.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:58:49 AM PDT
Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark
by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:01:27 AM PDT
The point was that Obama supporters are turning people off.
That's it.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Not about voting for McCain.
Its a warning: I love you but if you don't stop drinking, I'm going to take the kids. It worked for Laura Bush, why not the diarist?
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:32 AM PDT
look at HER comments.
She screamed at people yesterday that if we were TRUE REAL PROGRESSIVE we'd vote for Clinton.
She brings it on herself.
She is no victim.
"Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" - Barack Obama
by pacified on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM PDT
seen yesterday's comments in other diaries.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:50:29 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/...
enjoy.
That is how Nancyj tries to win friends and influence people.
by pacified on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:20:05 AM PDT
I haven't seen so much bullshit since the SOTU last week.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM PDT
I'm one of the biggest Obama fans that there is from way back. But I understand how Hillary supporters would be insulted by his comment.
It's OKAY to call him out, and say look "Don't offend people." "Be careful, that's all."
Geesh! I love him, but the guy does not walk on water.
Go Obama!
McCain: Without Issues, Without Vision, Without Integrity. --- or Obama: With Truth, With Kindness, With Endurance.
by CupofTea on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM PDT
The point was that Obama supporters are turning people off. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Not about voting for McCain.
And.
What.
About.
Any.
Of.
That.
Is.
Positive!
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM PDT
By telling them to cut it out, it gets them back on a positive path.
I'm surprised that took an explanation.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM PDT
...a comment that stupid. Gumby would say your "explanation" is a reach.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:26:33 PM PDT
and cried lalalalalala in order to drown out the truth.
Whatever, dude (or dudette).
I'm completely, positively, 100% done with Obamaniacs on Daily Kos.
And if that doesn't help make my experiences here as good as they used to be, I'll just make myself completely, positively, 100% done with Daily Kos. And we'll all get along just fine without each other.
by PJ Jefferson on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM PDT
No, you just put your hands over your ears and cried lalalalalala in order to drown out the truth.
It's time you bought a mirror, Mr. Pot.
I'm completely, positively, 100% done with Obamaniacs on Daily Kos full of crap.
There, fixed that for you. And as I said, I'm an Edwards supporter, and am in no way on the Obama bandwagon. Some recent posts of mine:
that's alright, I abhor sucking up to Reagan Progressives across America abhor Clinton tactics that we have seen for the past month. Clinton has her attacks, and Obama has his interview where he flat-out complimented Reagan with no caveats. And I see Kos is again full of crap on the issue. He keeps comparing Obama's comments to Crashing the Gate, where he talks about how movement conservatives took over the Republican party. But kos had bad things to say about Republicans in his book. Obama had no such caveats in his interview, which he made to a paper that endorsed Bush in 2004.
that's alright, I abhor sucking up to Reagan
Progressives across America abhor Clinton tactics that we have seen for the past month.
Clinton has her attacks, and Obama has his interview where he flat-out complimented Reagan with no caveats. And I see Kos is again full of crap on the issue. He keeps comparing Obama's comments to Crashing the Gate, where he talks about how movement conservatives took over the Republican party. But kos had bad things to say about Republicans in his book. Obama had no such caveats in his interview, which he made to a paper that endorsed Bush in 2004.
are you also partial to "helping a rogue president continue an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment."? Yes, Edwards voted for the war - before everyone knew what a clusterfuck it would turn out to be. Obama has continued to vote to fund the war after everyone knew it was a clusterfuck.
are you also partial to
"helping a rogue president continue an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment."?
Yes, Edwards voted for the war - before everyone knew what a clusterfuck it would turn out to be. Obama has continued to vote to fund the war after everyone knew it was a clusterfuck.
yup Obama can deliver a perfect 10 speech, but isn't so hot on debates. Edwards can deliver a 9 speech, but is also a pro at the latter. And once a Dem is back in the White House, the press will rediscover their spines and press conferences will turn into debates. Bill Clinton campaigned on much of the same "hope" and "unity" rhetoric, only to run into Republican and Bush Dog obstruction when he tried to pass something progressive (UHC). I think Obama the same thing would happen to Obama, and "the honeymoon would be over". Of course I could be wrong and Obama could turn out to be the second coming of LBJ in legislative prowess, but I haven't seen much to make me optimistic.
yup
Obama can deliver a perfect 10 speech, but isn't so hot on debates. Edwards can deliver a 9 speech, but is also a pro at the latter. And once a Dem is back in the White House, the press will rediscover their spines and press conferences will turn into debates.
Bill Clinton campaigned on much of the same "hope" and "unity" rhetoric, only to run into Republican and Bush Dog obstruction when he tried to pass something progressive (UHC). I think Obama the same thing would happen to Obama, and "the honeymoon would be over".
Of course I could be wrong and Obama could turn out to be the second coming of LBJ in legislative prowess, but I haven't seen much to make me optimistic.
Eat it, Hillbot.
And if that doesn't help make my experiences here as good as they used to be, I'll just make myself completely, positively, 100% done with Daily Kos.
Ahh, I am always so sad when a troll says he's had enough and is hitting the road. Too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Maybe you can set up your own private echo chamber under your favorite bridge.
by Uberbah on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:58:16 PM PDT
Check my post history, and you'll see that you can go fuck yourself.
by PJ Jefferson on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:13:59 AM PDT
and it confirms that you're a fucking asshole.
Good luck with that, asshole!
by PJ Jefferson on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:16:09 AM PDT
sense that you don't have many non-internet friends, or non-internet conversations. But you do seem good at having enough time on your hands to delve into everyone else's post history and regurgitate it. Typical for someone with no social schedule to get in the way of internet arguments. Someone with friends that love them simply wouldn't have that much time on their hands.
Sorry for your personality flaws, but I'm on my way out to hang with some real live human beings!
And while I'm on my way out, did I mention GO FUCK YOURSELF yet?
No, seriously, go fuck yourself.
No passive/aggressive bullshit hidden between comments about Hillary or Obama. No fancy words. No attempts to insult you without you even realizing you've been insulted, no rude words in a polite voice like so many losers like you around here are fond of, because they think they are clever enough to insult someone while avoiding administrative punishment.
No, this is just me telling you straight up to go fuck yourself, without a care in the world what the consequences will be.
Take that to an admin or whoever you want - - - as long as you don't forget to fuck yourself in the process, you fucking asshole.
This Hillbot is leaving now, but only after reminding you that you have some serious fucking youself to do, you stinking pile of shit.
by PJ Jefferson on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:25:29 AM PDT
Did you manage to pop a blood vessel yet? Penis Jerkoff Jefferson, is this you? And what happened to you leaving?
by Uberbah on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:46:55 PM PDT
She did not say that she would vote for McCain over Obama, only that with all of the Hillary bashing based on Hillary's personal demographics, ie: over forty, white, female with non-trad "experience", she'd be tempted to. She is warning against alienating an important and large segment of the voting population who also happen to be over forty, white, female with non-trad "experience."
I, at no time, would even consider voting for any republican over any democrat (except maybe Lieberman,ugh). I am over fifty and female and not African American (that I know of). And I am an Obama supporter. But such attacks and comments about Hillary do put my teeth on edge too. And I agree with the diarist. Go carefully.
by pundette on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:12:09 AM PDT
She's pretending to be undecided...about freakin' McCain.
You put too much stock in the diarist's claims of all these insults. I've previously asked nancyj and other HRC supporters for links (read: evidence) of all this sexist hate being spewed at Hillary here on DailyKos. What do you know, they always decline to provide those links.
I think a lot of the time, Obama supporters say
Hillary is wrong on...
and Hillary supporters hear
Hillary is a b--tch because...
And I just can't put in the time or energy to bring those type of people back in off the ledge. When people get angry at things that were never said, I doubt there's a way to communicate with them anyway.
by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM PDT
They are everywhere. I won't post links, because if you can't see it you aren't paying attention. Do your own work.
by dianem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM PDT
by cfaller96 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:54:48 AM PDT
They are everywhere.
Then you shouldn't have any problems finding some examples then, even if they are "Bill O'Reilly" style needles in a haystack.
I won't post links, because if you can't see it you aren't paying attention. Do your own work.
Get over yourself. Making a bold assertion and then expecting others to do the work of proving your point for you is the height of laziness and arrogance. Prove your own damn points.
by Uberbah on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM PDT
for numerous of Obama's supporters to consistently and in a block state that if HRC is the nominee they will refuse to vote, vote for McCain, vote third party or stay home, but if HRC's point out that they are also capable of doing the same thing if insulted, they are suddenly "not progressives?"
by DMiller on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:51:00 AM PDT
