View Story | 836 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
but frankly, I have been close to fed up lately.
Why John W. McCain is an unstable, crazy, angry, clueless, hypocritical, lying, pandering douche.
by clammyc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
you are an inspiration to many of us that mostly lurk and rarely comment.
One Man with Courage Makes a Majority - Andrew Jackson
by Nick A on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:43:52 PM PDT
your voices are needed.
by rbile on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:46:53 PM PDT
Then get the hell outa here!
McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist
by sgilman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM PDT
Are ignored or troll-rated.
I know a lot of people thought the "strike" was stupid, but I completely understand it. It's getting BORING around here for non-Obamanauts. Diaries and comments completely predictable.
by MadLibrarian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:34:33 AM PDT
He's equating extremists with Al' Qeida. He does not seem to have a firm grasp on middle east issues. I want us us to start framing McCain the way he deserves to be framed, as a political opportunist. If he's a Bush style republican for the purposes of this election then it needs to be called out and focused upon. We need to refocus our dollars and efforts against McCain and his supporters. IMO the Obama vs Clinton wars are over, Obama has won. Lets unite behind him and focus our efforts on exposing the flipflopping fish that McCain is for what he is....an independent who is trying hard to become a republican.
Remember it is just my opinion, and first and foremost I am on the democratic side. I would vote for Hillary if she sweeps the primary contests between now and the election, but I will support our democratic candidate with the most (fairly contested.....MI and FL early votes are not fair atm) votes. Both Clinton and Obama are far better qualified to be president than John "war hero" McCain.
"lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed"
by yuriwho on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:34:12 PM PDT
It's begun already.
I knew the RW would close ranks quickly - they can't help themselves.
Doing my part to fight Obama Muslim smears
by blue armadillo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:50:31 AM PDT
what if McCain isn't getting it on purpose? what if the 23% of Americans who still believe in Dub have been so brainwashed that a new strategy will surely make their heads explode?
I guess it really wouldn't matter.
There may be tyrants and murderers and...they may seem invincible, but in the end they always fail. Think of it: always.
by Dania Audax on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:51:14 AM PDT
I'd say it's not act: he's really clueless.
by MadLibrarian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:23 AM PDT
that McCain doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of those 23% via the exploding heads...
The true measure of a man's character lies not in how he treats his friends, but in how he treats his enemies.
by FunkyEntropy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM PDT
knows EXACTLY what he is doing! that is infect the electorate (here in the US with the fear of Iran virus so the meme flourishes that Iran is training and funding Al Qaeda, because the Shia/Sunni split is too complicated to many to truly comprehend and anyway is not nearly as simple as that. This tendency to `undermisestimate' the Repubs will be fatal yet.
by soccergrandmom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:23:11 AM PDT
wouldn't have needed to write this at all, would you?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't. -8.25, -6.21
by Jacques on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM PDT
I consider those who post so much vitriol against HRC here to be infiltrators from the Republican side. Like 'concern trolls'.......
Recently I met some totally Progressive, respectable and high ranking citizens with decades of public service experience and they gave me their reasons for supporting Sen. Clinton. Totally credible. And no vitriol for Sen. Obama.
And yes they do disagree with some of her campaign's tactics.
So, dear clammyc, if "We're better than this" means us as we, yes, we are....
Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990
by LNK on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:14:08 PM PDT
but some people here who I thought were better than this take glee at running good progressives who are also Clinton supporters (think Alegre, for example) out of here.
Or mocking, scorning, ridiculing and attacking them.
That isn't cool....
by clammyc on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:15:51 PM PDT
the loud and rude folks dont represent either candidate or the community
by mind unseen on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:28:11 PM PDT
they do represent the community. A fair number of them have no idea what that might mean. It's no secret that I'm a bit fed up with the lack of respect and the lack of the outstanding news gathering that used to be done here, much less that the discussion threads we used to have are now impossible. Worthy diaries with information and forward looking material are now ignored. This place used to be two weeks ahead of the newspapers and two years or more ahead on policy and big picture trends and news. Now all that gets shoert shrift and everything is reactive to what's on TV or in the newspapers.
Charlie Brown for Congress
by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM PDT
that there is still a great amount of substance still covered here, especially on the FP. I agree that a lot of space is taken up by candidate diaries, but I don't think it's fair to say there's no "outstanding news gathering" going on anymore. I find Diary Rescue a great source for the more substantive pieces that get pushed off the list too quickly for full appreciation.
John McCain
by majhula on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:01:51 PM PDT
now it's down to Diary Rescue and the Enviro Rescue.
by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:25 PM PDT
that I've been clicking straight through to other bloggers from this site lately, rather than actually getting into the comments much.
I've been lurking here since before Scoop, and I can say with assurance that most of the angry froth of third-grade-level taunting and mindless cheerleading will blow away post-election. Unfortunately, some valuable voices may be carried away with it.
By the way: until yesterday I supported Obama because he was the best thing remaining after Edwards' electoral demise. Now I can actually look forward to voting for the man.
Never has it been clearer to me that this nation will get the President it deserves.
by Scarpia on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:18:04 PM PDT
that would indicate they don't represent the community? I haven't seen them reigned in one bit. Edwards people, for reasons I didn't observe, even lost the ability to "recommend". This gang, however, gets to roam and wreck the site at will, haranging everyone in their path. Since no corrective action has been taken against the Obama thugs, it would be logical to conclude that they still exist by design. Edwards posters are gone, and so are Larry Johnson, Allegre and the rest of Hillary's crew.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:40:25 AM PDT
on any progressive blog.
by Bluesman48 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM PDT
by Hillbilly Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:02:12 AM PDT
now it is the "Daily Obama and Bashing of Clinton/Clinton supporters"
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:41:33 AM PDT
I've seen lots of tough intra-party races in my day, but never a death match like this one. That includes RFK vs HHH. They were still civil in their oppostion to one another. Whoever the nominee (I favor Obama, but will support HRC) I would hate to think that if one were to lose in the general election, that the reason would not be that the "Third Term" McCain outran them, but the primary fight and the damage done.
by Hillbilly Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:47:59 AM PDT
will cease once she drops out
by mind unseen on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:21:38 AM PDT
Especially yesterday, all the diaries about Iraq were booted off the lists by more Obama/Wright diaries...
by akr nyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:43:22 AM PDT
When those good Progressives make assertions not backed (and often contradicted) by facts; who, when the facts are calmly pointed out, only dig in their heels and make the same assertions over and over while attacking those who disagree, what is you plan? What's the "right" way to handle it?
The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi
by kingubu on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:31:58 PM PDT
ignore them.
by elmo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:50:13 PM PDT
But I'm sympathetic to those who can't.
Primarily because, if John Kerry's failed campaign taught us anything, it was to respond forcefully and fast to political attacks. He chose the patrician high road of "not dignifying that with a response" and, with no "on the other hand" to advocate his side in the subsequent coverage, the slime stuck to him.
by kingubu on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:26:32 PM PDT
and not the messenger.
Or bystander.
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:45:01 AM PDT
When she was in kindergarten, they had a lesson on "debugging" -- what you can do when another kid is purposely bugging you. So my older daughter asked her what she learned -- what were the things you should do?
The little one answered, very seriously, "you can walk away" okay "you can tell them you don't like it" fine "or you can pound them!"
If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.
by Tamar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM PDT
about what the facts happen to be. Your "facts" may not be viewed as factual by another. To expect everyone to immediately accept your point of view as factual, without argument or question, meets the definition of hubris and arrogance.
[requisite dkos disclosure: not a Hillary supporter]
by ZhenRen on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:24:09 PM PDT
Right, but assuming someone you don't know is ignorant of the basics of epistemology could in no way be perceived as arrogant.
Carry on! :-)
by kingubu on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM PDT
and an explanation of my point of view.
(Your assumptions about my assumptions are, well, assumptions. A snippy answer doesn't constitute a reasonable reply. It's just another flippant remark that takes the place of rational dialogue. Makes you look "smart" to your cohorts.)
by ZhenRen on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM PDT
cohorts?
Didn't we used to be some sort of community?
by MadLibrarian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:59 AM PDT
points of view are just that.
Points of view or "interpretation of facts" are not facts.
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:45:56 AM PDT
with my comments. Facts are facts, but often can be misunderstood by those who use them. When people believe their interpretations of facts are beyond question or infallible, communication and listening stops.
Incomplete knowledge of facts really gets people into trouble.
by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM PDT
especially if they're my Obama-supporting peers and go over the line. I'm not alone in that conscious habit.
Else, I just ignore folks when they're in gang-whack mode if the volume is overwhelming, knowing they'll calm down, eventually.
It's a tough job fighting almost pure emotions, of course. Better to address their needs and get back to an actual dialog, I feel.
To that end . . .
clammyc's diary is good, stuff I've heard others say recently and certainly bears worthwhile repeating in a Recommended way, though I also feel there's a context missing here:
So, great diary for hitting on the highest layer of what is occurring!
I'd prefer less anger at the community and more addressing of the issues which tend to tear us apart at these times, admittedly.
"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 Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM PDT
Or the "I could have had a V-8 Syndrome"
You know what its like when you set out to buy a new car and you finally can afford to get rid of the piece of junk you've been driving?
You might think you're ready to buy but then doubt sets in.Did I get a good deal? Did I buy the best car for my needs? Should I have waited to get more fuel efficient model? Do I really like that color? It never ends.
We've had a great slate of candidates to choose from.Any one would be better than what we have running the country and what the Republicans have to offer.
Clinton and Obama have many good points to recommend them.They are both electable. All they need is our support. We need to keep the GOP trashers from convincing us they aren't acceptable.
WE ARE THE DECIDERS. They need to stay out of our primaries and out of our business. Let them try to convince everyone their candidate is better but doing something other than trashing ours.
Spend your energy on protecting your candidate from being sliced and diced by the media.
Obama handled his business with Rev. Wright better than anyone could have hoped for.Hillary will come to terms with the Florida/Michigan delegate problem because she has to.
Meanwhile, stay cool and be excellent to one another.
by lindalrs on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM PDT
hopefully someone high profile and relatively neutral like me calling it out will spurn others to do it as well.
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:42:22 AM PDT
I agree in so many ways, clammyc. Either of our choices are better than theirs and vitrol accomplishes little.
But there is a party strategy here that Clinton seems to have ignored. 50 states; local, state and national.
I may be wrong but I think this is about control of the democratic party. I cannot imagine winning the White House to be faced with a split congress. If we really want to change our political discourse, then all offices, all states have to matter.
I will not argue that passionate, informed voices have left here for other, valid reasons with the discourse here. But if we don't act as a party to reform ourselves and become relevant across all of America, will our nominee ever matter?
Try my dream: President Obama
by MrSandman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM PDT
give up for the good of... she wants to win. If someone suggested that Obama give up when he thought he had a chance to win, what would you tell them? Hillary is not a fool. When they conclude they have lost, they will quit. Until then, more damage is being done by supporters fighting than them competing.
by dkmich on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:38 AM PDT
how she views the netroots. But I am not talking about her. I am talking about the attacks on her like the darkening of the Obama photo and the attacks on those who dared to ask whether there was any proof that itwas done intentionally, let alone by her campaign.
It used to be "verify, then report". Now it is "report, who cares if it is true or verifiable"
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:48:11 AM PDT
But there's a pile-on thing that goes on as well. One unsubstantiated assertion is made, then another, then another - each of which refers back to all of the other unsubstantiated assertions as "proof" of its validity.
"I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD
by SingularExistence on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:23 AM PDT
Running good progressives who are also Clinton supporters (think Alegre, for example) out of here. Or mocking, scorning, ridiculing and attacking them. That isn't cool....
And the "good progressives'" postings of the most vile lies about Barack Obama is cool, huh?
by William Domingo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:32:46 PM PDT
So I rec'd this. I'm no Clinton fan, for pretty much the same reasons as Markos. However, I know the real enemies out there are much worse. I was on a Politico message board today, and about puked at the bigotry, racism, and yes, fascism being spewed by commenters. It makes our primary wars seem like bean bag.
As far as the strike goes, such is the primary campaign. Supporters gravitate to where other supporters are found. In a race this close and intense, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
by dmfox on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM PDT
It'd be great if "we could just all get along", and talk to each other nice all the time. But I don't see how clammyc can call out the Obama supporters' attitude towards some of the "good progressives" who "just happen to support Hillary" without acknowledging the reason for that attitude. It also drives many of us wild everytime Hillary sides with the Republicans, which she has a habit of doing, and these "good progressives" always deny that it ever happens and try to tell us Hillary is more progressive than Obama is.
by William Domingo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:06:22 PM PDT
Cult member, idol worshipper, naive, blind....
I don't have a problem with putting it behind us and getting along in the general--I was here for the 2004 primary and I was a lot more vocal about support of my candidate--but I think it horribly disingenuous to say, "look how mean the Obama people have been to Hillary and her people!"
Yes, let's get going on this, let's define the real enemy, but let's make sure everyone knows it's a Republican, not a fellow Democrat.
tragically un-hip ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-
-5.88, -6.82
by Debby on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:20:27 PM PDT
I too have been accused of Cult membership. Though that doesn't happen much anymore, during the vicious Edwards-Obama-Clinton wars of January, Obama supporters were on the receiving as much as they were on the giving end.
by dmfox on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:24:23 PM PDT
I'll explain what's behind that "Cult member" smear. It's the Karl Rovian tactic of attacking a candidate by his strengths. Because Barack is a good speaker who is able to inspire people, his detractors dismiss anyone who is inspired by him as a "Cult member". We need Party members who can inspire people to vote with our side so we can win elections, don't we? The last thing we need is to be ridiculing those that flock to our Party because they like what they hear as "Cult members". This is one of the many destructive behaviors to our side engaged in by others supposedly on our same side.
by William Domingo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:34:22 PM PDT
There seems to be a concerted effort, not only here, but on many sites, to "call out" Obama supporters for putative intolerance, viciousness, etc. -- but then I think maybe I missed something and look around the thread -- and the only nastiness I see are the Hillary supporters accusing people of nastiness. Some of this may be coming from Republican trolls as well, but it's not always easy to tell.
It's possible I'm biased, but I'm a typical mealy-mouthed liberal and quite capable of spotting rudeness from someone I agree with. And, yeah, I've been called a fake progressive and a concern troll by both Hillary and Obama supporters, but from everything I've seen, there is a subset of on-line Hillary supporters who really seem to take their cues, and there literary style, from Taylor Marsh, whose whole shtick is accusing Obama supporters of being clueless airheaded "fake progressives" in the harshest and most insulting terms, which is weird because the progressive movement has gone by roughly a 70% margin for Obama if MoveOn is any judge.
I'm all for getting along and have no problem disagreeing pleasantly and civilly with anyone as long as they are the same to me. (In real life, it's quite literally true that some of my best friends, and my mother, voted for Hillary. How could I hate all Hillary supporters?)
Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)
by LABobsterofAnaheim on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM PDT
I've been called "Hillbot," a "racist son of a bitch," a "liar," a "dumb," "uneducated," "low-information voter," ordered to "leave this site" or "go on strike with everyone else," and more.
That's pretty nasty.
by SingularExistence on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:54:56 AM PDT
from the other side.
I wasn't an original Obama supporter. I was a hold-out for Gore for a long time. Then I was split between Edwards and Obama. I was really sad when Edwards left the race and didn't gear up for Obama right away. I went through the 2004 campaign strongly supporting a candidate who dropped out and ended up strongly supporting our nominee and I wasn't interested in playing that game again. I have defended Clinton against unfair comments that I've seen. But often, when I've said something positive about Obama, I've heard the same things--Obamabot, naive, fluff, sexist. The premise from the diarist is that Obama folks have been mean to Hillary supporters. All I'm saying is that it's a two-way street. Should it stop? Hell, yes! But to call out one group over another is unfair. I'll take the chip off my shoulder if you'll take the chip off yours.
by Debby on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:40 AM PDT
was "the only nastiness I see are the Hillary supporters accusing people of nastiness."
I'm just pointing out that you've missed a lot.
by SingularExistence on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:19 AM PDT
Where exactly do you see me saying THAT? I admit I've been going on inadequate sleep lately so anything is possible but I sure as hell don't remember saying ANYTHING like that. I HAVE said that it's ridiculous of the diarist to point out the Obama people who have been rude while not also pointing out the Clinton people who have done the same. The post you're replying to says:
All I'm saying is that it's a two-way street.
If I said somewhere that all the nastiness is coming from the Clinton camp, I'd love you to show me where. Otherwise, you're putting words in my mouth and I don't care for that.
by Debby on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM PDT
I was responding to LABobstero and thought that you were he/she.
I don't think I'm getting enough sleep either.
I am truly sorry.
by SingularExistence on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM PDT
Another Rovian trick finding its way into the Dem Primary
by ChakraTease on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM PDT
Just because "others" have been horrible, it doesn't give you guys a license to sink to that level in gangs. We adults are suppose to be able to deal with people without attacking them.
by dkmich on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:34 AM PDT
shown by all sides.
The vitriol was useless and usually replied to in kind...sad state of affairs for this place.
by blue armadillo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:00:45 AM PDT
Is that he would cross the aisle and bring bipartisanship back to Congress.
by kateNC on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM PDT
You see, this is where pretty much every true-beliver on both sides have jumped the shark.
I've read Alegre's diaries and they are no more exaggerated and full of hyperbolee than most of Geekesque's diaries and yet because he says what you like to hear you give him a pass on whatever he says - no matter how much of a stretch it is.
I thought the netroots and the grassroots movements were going to hold all candidates to a high standard and push them to be better Democrats. We haven't done that. We've lined up in cheerleading squads {except those of us who would prefer to be coaches offering constructive criticism (gasp! oh no! no critiques allowed!) and encouragement where appropriate} and have taken to discourse that is no better than that of a couple of firing squads.
When Bush told me that the terrorist threat was "a struggle between good and evil", I thought he was a simple-minded idiot. When people offer up the same strawman in the Obama v. Clinton contest - I think they are simple-minded.
Sorry, but this hyperbolic hand-wringing about the choice between these two centerist Democrats is a tempest in a teapot as far as I am concerned.
But carry on...
by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:46:46 PM PDT
No more exaggerated and full of hyperbole, you say? How about her diary on "The Snub"? What she didn't mention in the diary about "that brute Obama" was that Hillary had been acting that way towards him all year, but he doesn't "cry" about it to win votes. Martyrdom seems to be about all a lot of Hillary supporters got.
Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off. It bothered him, and he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary. Again and again at debates, he looked eager to greet her or be friendly during the evening and she iced him. She might have frozen him out once more Monday night had he actually tried to reach out.
Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off.
It bothered him, and he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary.
Again and again at debates, he looked eager to greet her or be friendly during the evening and she iced him. She might have frozen him out once more Monday night had he actually tried to reach out.
Here's a good article with more about that martyrdom.
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/...
by William Domingo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:20:03 PM PDT
it still doesn't justify the behavior. Nobody has us virtually tied up. We can walk away from whatever we disapprove of. Maybe everyone just needs to shut up and walk away a little more often when they run out of patience with someone and can't be nice anymore.
by dkmich on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:51:38 AM PDT
than I disagree. But what concerns me about your comment is that there used to be an expectation in this community that a diarist peddling demonstrable falsehoods were to be challenged in an effort to advance a reality based discourse.
I don't think walking away is the answer. Asserted facts should be challenged here.
That said, many ... including myself ... have taken it too far at times.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:07:35 AM PDT
at least someone knows where I am coming from. But of course, I get attacked for "taking Clinton's side".
sigh......
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:51:38 AM PDT
I often get accused of being a "Clinton supporter" which is downright laughable on so many levels. Just because I won't buy into outright lies and slanders that favor Obama people think that means I support Clinton. Doesn't say a lot of good things to me about "the movement" people say they are so excited about. The truth warts and all will always be more precious to me than any political candidate.
by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:50 AM PDT
Obama supporters getting attacked and hunted down around here?
And just because one group may do it, that doesn't mean that ALL of her supporters do, or that the Obama supporters should.
We are better than that, right?
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:49:23 AM PDT
i've always loved and recc'd your diaries since i've been here too....and that's been since December 2003.
But it's a little hard to swallow when yet another person joins the Alegre woe is Me bandwagon what did I do bandwagon.
She posted her fair share of ugliness, vitriol, and vicious b.s. against a good Democrat named Barack Obama. Some of her diaries made my skin crawl. And now you're actually trying to say she was driven off this site? After the crap she pulled? Please. For the love of god just please. That is not true. She would post the most outrageous accusations against him, and then act offended and hurt when she was asked to provide links or facts. And then she ran. And accused Markos and this site of being mean to her and all HRC supporters because it was made up of crazy cult members. So please.
And for every diary like this that tries to paint kossaks as the bad guys who drove them off, I ask you to go over to Mydd and read what's posted there. That's where they went. The "strikers". The boycotters. And the banned. You tell me what you see. It's become a hate site so filled with venom and hatred towards Obama that I swear I'm at Free Republic. And Jerome cheers them on. And to this day Alegre is posting lies and and some ugly nasty stuff about Obama over there while you say we ran her, and them off. So on that on call utter total bull. The people that support Clinton and that did stay are not getting HC'd and harassed, and I refuse to buy into this spin that they are. Day after day after day I hear their whine and I've had it.
And as for focusing on McCain - when did you become naive clammy...because I know you are so not. How do you expect Obama to be able to focus on McCain when he's being torn to shreds by one of his own? Honestly - and you are puzzled as to why this site is upset about that? Someone has to win this damn thing.
Markos posted three weeks ago how great this was. Obama vs. Hillary. How it would keep us in the news. How McCain would be forgotten. I was horrified beyond belief when he wrote that and vocalized it it a few posts. I said this would kill us. He disagreed with me.
I wonder how that's holding up now. The whole "this is great for the Democratic Party". Anyone who believed that was high on something.
So you tell us, or you tell Obama, how the hell he can fight his real opponent when this cancer is coming from within.
I think this is the first time i've disagreed with so much of a diary you wrote in since day one, and of course it's the one that's all peace, love and understanding so I'll come across as the bad guy here.
"Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.
by Christin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM PDT
I stopped visiting Kos for a while. Came back not too long ago and couldn't stomach Alegre's diaries. At all. They were hateful and spiteful and were almost always anti-Obama instead of pro-Clinton. That made no sense to me. Either promote your candidate by telling me why I should vote for him/her or move on. Don't tear other candidates down. I was on the fence, but her diaries, in part, helped me make my decision.
But maybe she was, by that point, already on her way out. Perhaps she'd been driven to these types of diaries. I'm not sure.
Cheers.
Formerly of Ann Arbor. Now in Baltimore!
by Matt in AA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM PDT
Most of the diaries are pro-Clinton. There's a significant minority that are pro-Obama, now. People seem to mix less than you'd expect... Obama people on Obama diaries, Clinton people on Clinton diaries.
And there's way too much rudeness, and sadly, much too much comes from Obama supporters. Yes, an awful lot from Clinton supporters, but as an Obama supporter it bothers me when someone hijacks a thread with off-topic pro-Obama ranting (and it's never polite, when it's a hijacking). It doesn't reflect well on us, and I don't care how much provocation there is.
But it's a weird place now. I try to comment on both sides, but it's hard; the Obama threads are 90% Obama-is-great and the Clinton threads are 90% Clinton-supporter backslapping and mutual praise about how wonderful they are. It's worse than it is here, even at the most mutually-praising diaries.
Another typical white guy for Obama
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM PDT
Diary earlier this week was recc'd by most of the banned daily kos users. It was banned by almost all those who left in a hissy fit and are boycotting daily kos. I saw 20 names on there who recc'd that p.o.s who wrote goodbyecruelworlddiaries on here pssing and moaning that we were so mean to them. They also posted in alegre's temper tantrum. Those same posters were in the diary posting that Michele was indeed a welfare queen and that obama was the evil incarnate. It was the ugliest, most vile, most disgusting, more vicious, most horrific diary I've ever seen written against any of our candidates. It occupied the top spot on mydd.
I think the biggest group of hypocrites I have ever come across is Alegre and her gang. I truly mean that.
by Christin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:08:44 PM PDT
----- _The Flow of FISA: video clips | GroundZero
by rhfactor on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM PDT
Do you mean me? Do you really mean me?
I don't talk about politics on DKos much anymore. I don't get the Obama love.
This leaves me a choice: keep quiet about my thoughts here, or open myself to real misery here; being thought of as a cancer coming from within.
I'm with clammyc.
"Republicans are poor losers and worse winners." - My grandmother, sometime in the early 1960s
by escapee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:33:16 AM PDT
I did not mean you by that by the comment. I meant members of our own party. And I left her name out of the sentence as not in git anyone riled up. (HRC). It's why I said he was having a hard time fighting his real opponent:
I'm sorry if it came across that way.
by Christin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:51:52 AM PDT
even without speaking of anybody specific. I am a Democrat. I support Clinton. I am the cancer coming from within.
Yet I'm still escapee. And you're still Christin.
If I could somehow, some way, get this across to the people on Dkos right now, I would be happy. Some of us don't agree on politics. But we're still the people we were, still the people whose lives revolve around our houses, our cats, what we had for dinner, and politics.
There's so much we have in common - much more than what we don't.
by escapee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:16:52 AM PDT
that her diaries have become what they were. But.....take the "darkening of the Obama photo". Never proven to have been done, done intentionally or done by Clinton's campaign. People who were in that line of business, including dday and dhonig cast doubt on whether this was done in conversion to YouTube or on purpose.
Yet, there was never anything other than an accusation, repeated by Markos on the front page, and no proof offered.
And then there are people like me who just try and keep people honest and accurate here but get attacked.
Even if you take out Alegre and others, it is still pretty inexcusable.
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:56:20 AM PDT
I have come to look at DKos in a few different ways, one of which is as a litmus test for the possibilities of people working together in groups that are growing and evolving all the time. And I believe that if people at DKos can't avoid going negative that maybe it really can't be done. That is, maybe people simply cannot live civilly, even when they do disagree. Your diary and the excellent front page piece by DarkSyde the other day are encouraging though. Party on, Wayne.
I'm sorry Bruce... these boys get that syrup in 'em, they get a little antsy in the pantsy. -Capt. John O'Hagen (Super Troopers)
by The House on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:34:04 AM PDT
party on, Garth.
by clammyc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:44:37 AM PDT
.... they really are ?
, you would think that Clinton, A DEMOCRAT, is the enemy, or even more so - her supporters.
I never thought that until South Carolina.
But I was never an Obama supporter or Edwards supporter either. I, a "Dean Democrat", was of the opinion that with Gore out, with Feingold out the year before, I really didn't have a candidate I overtly supported. So for me it was pretty simple: Vote for the Dem in November 08, make sure the Republican didn't win. Case closed.
And nothing has changed on that. Given the constraints of America's 2-party system, and given my fundamental progressive values that completely conflict with republicans in every way, that has only left "the Democratic Party". But like you, clammy, I register non-partisan, because for me, overall, the Democratic Party lets me down constantly. I need not cite the details.
Which brings me to Clinton and her supporters. Personally, I have never been that wild about her. And, starting out two-three years ago with this presumption of certainty perpetrated by the conglomerate media that she would be the Democratic nominee, I found that very annoying. I also couldn't stand her Iraq war vote. I also found her disingenuous -- that's just the way she's struck me.
However: (a) not wild about her, (b) annoyed by presumptive nominee, and (c) seems disingenuous never never equaled "unqualified to be President" or "I could never vote for her" or any extreme position like that. I've always seen her as professionally competent like a CEO, and despite the three tags I use above, I have been fine with the possibility that she would be the Democratic nominee, and there remains no shadow of a doubt that I would vote for her if she prevails... and no way would i vote GOP, nor some third party, and I'm not all that wild about abstaining.
But. Starting with South Carolina, her campaign tactics really started to grate on my sensibilities. And with respect to her supporters, for those who were disappointed that her campaign started to take that tact yet nevertheless felt she was the best candidate for President, THAT was fine with me too. But those who dismissed those tactics, and began spinning their candidate, in complete denial that her campaign was in fact employing some really dirty tactics, and who came here and did their cheerleading and rapid response diaries with the intent to push her into the winner's column, regardless of anything -- THAT began to be a flag of concern for me.
Then came "not a Muslim... as far as I know" ... "hasn't crossed the CIC threshold" ... "McCain is experienced, I am experienced, and all he's got is a speech" ... "unqualified to answer the 3am call" ... and the 2nd injection of racist bait into the campaign, via surrogate Ferraro. And you know what? That has not been okay. Not at all. And that her supporters who cheerlead here have defended those tactics, or dismissed them, ignored them, written them off as "all's fair in politics", that is not okay either. That's really shameful.
And it makes me seriously question the value systems of those people.
At the end of the day, for me? simply "being a Democrat" is not enough to equal being moral, progressive, or integrity based. And there is only so much bending of those standards that I, as a person who has worked hard helping to build the new netroots campaign methodologies starting with the Dean campaign, can take as within the realm of acceptability for people who are supposedly on the team of the "good guys" as opposed to the GOP assholes who have traded all morality for power and influence, no matter what the cost, no matter what the damages have been to our Constitution or system of democracy.
So I don't know what one is supposed to call those who are not on your team. Maybe they are not "the enemy" per se, but personally, I sure as hell don't consider them leadership worthy or even colleagues.
Winning admirably matters. Winning fairly matters. Poisoning your "own" so that you might win and he might be crippled out of the race, that is not admirable, for me it's not moral.
So, sorry, but cry me a river for all the apologists for the Clinton method of campaigning. What they do and what they say, on the whole, as expressed here on this site, has not been okay by me.
I may be no better -- and people can critique the hell out of me, that's fine by me. But I'll be damned if I am going to just read all this "can we all get along?" crap while dirty campaigning is the rule by which Senator Clinton operates. Sorry, doesn't wash.
But I will still vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee.
by rhfactor on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM PDT
Cutting Obama off at the knees with that "Commander-in-chief threshold" shit really grated on me. I hate Republicans because of how they behave. When a Democrat starts acting like a Republican--at the expense of another Democrat, no less--I just find that hard to take.
My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?
by Shiborg on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:20:45 PM PDT
I agree with you lockstep except for your last sentence.
I don't know if I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee at this point. I can't see how she would get there without even more nastiness and nominee-by-coup, so that's one thing. And finally, while I can get past the Ferraro misstep and frantic spinning and desperation, I don't know if I can forgive her and her surrogates for the mocking and deriding of Obama supporters. That's something that Obama and his surrogates have not done and I never thought I'd see on this scale among Democrats. I find it disgusting, like watching an act of cannibalism.
by SheaG on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:26:10 PM PDT
If this is what a Progressive should do:
"Progressives realize the bigger picture. Progressives shouldn’t be eating their own."
then, by the action of her campaign, Hillary Clinton is not a Progressive. Ergo, criticizing Clinton is not eating one's own.
And as you quoted:
"you would think that Clinton, A DEMOCRAT, is the enemy"
Clinton IS the enemy. There has been a racist bent to her campaign that, due to its systematic and constant nature, ca