View Story | 1031 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
hillary started it with the kitchen sink. now people are raw and hurt and starting to lash out. I believe that Samantha Powers is an important intellectual and political figure for the next 30 years, and for Hillary to have alienated a smart progressive woman like her shows you something.
The MSM is certainly aiding and abetting this, but I have yet to see 1 piece of evidence that Obama helped fuel this in any way.
McCain
by ksquire on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:01:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
job of poisoning this site. The hateful, disgusting and over the top attacks are going on here every day. And they are by people who support Mr. Hopes and Dreams..and they do so by viciously attacking Senator Clinton every time they come online. Clinton supporters are told to not vote, are attacked with personal venom if they dare to show support for their candidate. Obama supporters have called her everything from a bitch to trash to slime to shit, etc. I could go on and on, but you can see it for yourself just going through the diaries. Imagine what would happen on this site if someone called Michelle Obama a bitch for her nasty remarks..all hell would break loose. People would be having the vapors all over the place. But call Hillary whatever you like and it's fine with everyone here. What happened to civil discourse in politics? I used to love coming here and having lovely arguments and talking about politics, but not now. Now I cringe at the prospect of the attacks that I know will be here, and the incivility that seems to reign these days. I still come because I WILL NOT ALLOW anyone to run me out of here because my opinion doesn't jibe with theirs. Obama may be the "hopes and dreams" candidate, but his supporters need to learn some manners. Referring to a sitting Senator in the manner they refer to Senator Clinton is outrageous, and shows very little respect for the institution of the Senate. Frankly, it makes me sick. Literally. But, I am going to swallow my nausea and keep on coming back, if only to inject some civil discourse into the slagfest that DKos has become.
What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:27:53 AM PDT
if you look hard enough for it. It sounds like you've spent a lot of time in comments searching for the worst name-calling out there. This is a public blog, I'm sure you can find plenty of folks saying nasty and stupid things.
But you miss the point. Hillary is actively trying to poison the well for our nominee. She has no way of realistically winning at this point, let's be honest. But instead of running a decent Huckabee type campaign, instead she is doing everything she can to make it look like McCain would be a better president than Obama.
This makes people quite mad, and maybe some folks go over the line with their name-calling. Myself, I liked Hillary quite a bit until after Feb. 5th. First she showed total incompetence in running her campaign, which was broke and unprepared. Then she unleashed the kitchen sink, full of lies and smears about Obama. Now I simply can't stand her, and hope she gets beat bad in every race to come.
Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!
by existenz on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:35:03 AM PDT
found them in replies to my own comments.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM PDT
you must have truly voiced the most outrageous HRC talking points.
by TLS66 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM PDT
and asked what Obama had actually planned to implement all his ideas..and pay for them. One person told me he was going to use PayGo,..which is how Bill Clinton got us out from under the Reagan deficits. At this point, all I want is to be able to come on DKos without seeing nasty gender-based insults to one of our candidates. That being said, unlike many of the Obama supporters, I WILL VOTE for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I think it's disgusting that so many Obama supporters say they won't vote at all if Hillary gets the nomination.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:11 AM PDT
I for one am not, so if it's not Obama I don't feel obliged to vote party line anything. I'm an independent, and if it comes to that, I know that I will not be voting for someone who voted for the war. I will find a suitable 3rd party candidate, or write in one.
by sunday driver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM PDT
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM PDT
By aligning herself with the Republican nominee in order to knock out a Democratic opponent, I'm starting to think that Hillary is actively campaigning for Nader!
She chose to blur the lines between her and McCain, and if she ends up becoming the Democratic nominee because of this tactic, Nader's argument that the two parties are essentially the same will have come to frution, even though it was complete bullshit when he started making it in 2000.
McCainery (noun): Using obvious simplistic platitudes to deceive the gullible, as in traditional GOP politics.
by seenos on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM PDT
You will "vote" for McCain.
my favorite local blog Scrutiny Hooligans
by randallt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:51:47 AM PDT
I don't - but in my book, voting for what I believe beats voting out of fear for the results, any day...
by sunday driver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM PDT
But if it comes down to a close race betwen Hillary and John, and a sizable number of progressives vote against her by voting for a Nader or a write-in, those voters could hand the office to John McCain.
by randallt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:16:23 AM PDT
should try to figure out what about her behavior is encouraging good Democrats to sit out the general election in November, hm? She's an autonomous human being that can and should be held responsible for her own actions.
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:21:01 AM PDT
She is absolutely the worst candidate we could field. I'll vote for her though if she is my party's nominee. If I don't, I'm essentially supporting McCain.
by randallt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM PDT
might just be one of those things. No matter with his experience (and hers too for that matter), he fell lock, stock and barrel for the WMD and other yarns?
I don't think enough people understand yet how much damage those comments will do to either Dem candidate for the general election. But that's not how the media latches on to kitchen sink comments.
Although still she would be better than McBush.
by SwingVoter on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:44:18 AM PDT
I have been stumbling over, way too many "independents". Many Independents are just disaffected Republicans who brought in Bush, supported his ilk, and crap and war. And now they are "independents" Yeah right. Why do you just go to the "independent's blog" and leave us alone. Oh yeah..... you would have to smart enough and concerned enough to organized your own political group blog. Yeah we assume that people who come are Democrat because of the mission of this blog. Non Democrats are coming here and throwing mud around posing as "Obama supporters" when the only purpose is to come for them is to bash Clinton.
That is the worse I will say here.
donate to a shelter box please http://www.shelterboxusa.org/
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM PDT
If they can behave themselves. We've even had republicans here who could mind the site rules and discuss real issues that affect all of us.
The idea of people coming here because they don't like Bush and are just looking for the next guy to have a beer with is painful to me. I thought we might have learned something in the past seven years. Just because some one makes you feel good is not a sufficient reason to vote for them. And anyone who suffered through both Reagan and Bush should learned that lesson in spades.
Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!
by Fabian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM PDT
If they can behave themselves.
When will WE learn the lesson? The debate here was once between Democrats from different camps. Now we have tons of "if not Obama then McCain"...... that sounds Republican to me.
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM PDT
But there have been people with open minds wander in the door - and I don't want to run them off without giving them a chance first.
This election has attracted people who only wake up and vote for Presidential elections. While it could be an opportunity to educate them, the odds are good that anyone who is that apathetic about politics in general is just looking for a feel-good candidate and some fast talking points long enough to cast their vote in the GE.
I miss the naive optimism of my youth.
by Fabian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:25:59 PM PDT
people with open minds wander in the door
Check the many meta diaries about the state of affairs on the Daily Kos. The Hillary hate and Obama bashing going on, is not a relfection of open minds wandering in.
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:04:12 PM PDT
Although I admit the odds are better of republican trolls visiting us even in the off season, than of real "bi-curious" visitors.
The state of this place is so bad that I don't think I could actually spot a real live troll anymore unless they use key phrases like "Democrat Party" or "You people" and "You liberals". I just can't wait for the familiar refrain of "Losers! You lost, get over it!" to break out. Especially when commenters don't realize that they are parroting a very right wing sentiment. [heavy sigh]
by Fabian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:52:51 PM PDT
the entire electorate against Obama is quite another. That is point here.
Clinton herself has made outrageous attacks on Obama. Some Obama supporters on this site have said nasty things about Hillary. However, Obama has never made the kind of attacks that Hillary has, saying that she is unfit to be c-in-c, or that the Republican candidate is a better choice than she is.
If you cannot distinguish between what the candidate does on national television and what his or her supporters do on a website, then you are on very shaky footing.
by LisainNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM PDT
on this site for their treatment of Hillary, you also need to take an honest look as to the actions of Hillary Clinton that has led to such outrage. You can't treat people like crap and then get mad when they call you names. She is not unifying the party, she is not interested in competing in all 50 states, and she participates in the campaigning style of the GOPsick and tired of that type of campaigning; we don't care if she is best qualified to participate in that style, we want that style to come to an end and to show the American public a real difference between our great party and the GOP. She does not help that cause one bit. She only perpetuates the style of nasty campaigning that we want to see come to an end.
I often wonder if Nancy and Harry were really outraged about the K-Street project or just pissed that they didn't think of it first.
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:48:29 AM PDT
her POSITIONS..I am saying that calling her names is beyond the pale. Calling someone wrong and misguided, and disagreeing with their positions etc. is a long way from calling them a bitch, slime, etc. That is what I am objecting to, the type of nastiness that belongs in a high school bathroom, if it belongs anywhere.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM PDT
I think that's a bad name and it was a considered, prepared judgment, not an off-the-record angry comment immediately after hearing of their lies about NAFTA and how they ran with it in the news.
Samantha Power was upset, but it was not a coordinated party position or campaign talking point. It was a one-off, not a strategy.
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." Orwell
by NotablyZen on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM PDT
referring to the DKos members who indulge in nastiness. Although, I must say, Ms. Powers needs to learn some self-control and think about what she is going to say before opening her mouth.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM PDT
what direction you want our party to take. 50 state stragety or 50% + 1? Do you want a top down driven party or a bottom up driven party? Hillary continues to say that she can withstand the GOP attack machine, I'm saying that we want more discourse than an attack machine. We want the truth for a change, not a bunch of half truths-distortments-and resume padding. I want to see the manner in which we are governed changed for the better, not more of the same. That is the question about this election, not weather or not someone is calling Hillary a name that may or may not be true.
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM PDT
Weather is what is going on outdoors.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM PDT
but you still have not answered my question. Which type of party do you favor?
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM PDT
one that deals in realities. One that will put the common American before the corporations. Know any parties like that??? Yeah, me neither. But until I find one, I will stick with the Democrats.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM PDT
then why in hell do you support Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Howard Dean would all bring our party closer to what you want than Hillary Clinton, the DLC, and party elite that are currently in power. No wonder you are so touchy about people attacking Hillary, it doesn't take much to shatter your glass house of her.
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM PDT
doesn't think Obama has the chops for the job. I would rather have someone I think has the chops in the Oval Office. That leaves Senator Clinton. And as I have said, repeatedly, I have no objection to people criticizing Senator Clinton, I do, however, object to the vicious and disgusting language applied by those critics. It's calling her names that has me pissed off, not the arguments about policy or experience. I am a woman, and I naturally defend any woman who is called a bitch, trash, slime, etc. as Senator Clinton is repeatedly on this blog. It's the same thing as if someone used the "N" word when referring to Senator Obama. Imagine what would happen if someone did that..outrage, and rightly so. But, people get to call Senator Clinton a bitch, scum, whatever they want with impunity. That makes me rise to her defense, no matter what else she has done or said. NO ONE deserves that sort of treatment. Even if you don't like them or agree with them.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM PDT
you deserve to be called a thief. If you kill someone you should be called a murderer. If you do not want Hillary to be called names on this site, you should get her to stop acting like those names and the name calling will stop. You act like she has done nothing to justify those name callings and I would argue that she has. Every time she says McBush is better than Barack, when her top advisors call Barack Ken Starr, when she lies about her experience, when she continually mis-leads the public about the state of the race, when you call states unimportant, and caucuses illegial; maybe just maybe some people will think that you are acting like a BITCH!!!!!!
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM PDT
No woman, no matter what job she has, deserves to be slanged like Senator Clinton is on this site. It is disgusting. And so are you.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:35:50 PM PDT
to be nice and to try to see your point of view about this issue. You have failed to answer any of my questions and I find that disappointing. Man or woman, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR JOB DESERVES TO BE CALLED ON THE MAT WHEN THEY ACT LIKE AN ASSHOLE. Her actions over the past two weeks most certainly deserve whatever treatment people want to give her. What ever happened to women's lib anyway? Can a woman not be called on the carpet like a man? Are you also going to argue that GWB deserves some sort of respect? I am sorry but I disagree with you on this, if someone crosses a line that should not be crossed, there is nothing wrong with calling that person out. PS - just in case you are unable to tell, she really is a bitch.
by rogereaton on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:29:37 PM PDT
by TLS66 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM PDT
they say they want party unity and building a grass roots party and then they support a candidate who could not give a shit about either one. When you point out that Hillary's actions do not match her reterick they give you the same deer in the headlight look that the evangelical voter gives when you question that GWB is a good christian. It defys logic, but in my opinion it lies at the root of most of her supporters. What I try to point out to them is that if you want a party of the 50 state stragety, bottom up, grass roots, people empowered movement you should not support Hillary for President. The problem I have is that some people on this site claim to loathe the DLC and yet support Hillary.
by rogereaton on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:46:29 PM PDT
other dem in the race with the fucking "threshold" schtick what do you expect?
It ain't going to be flowers and chocolates being thrown at you....
It was a slimy action, it was a bitchy action, it was a nasty, nasty, ugly action.
And for that she earned every one of the epithets flung at her.
It also undercut any possibility of there being a unity ticket between the two of them. And that is all down to her judgement.
Hey I can understand you not liking the language, I know the Obama people don't like being referred to as zombies, cult members or obamabots either.
The difference is that the supporters of Obama are flinging poo at HRC for things that she said or did, and the HRC supporters are flinging poo at their fellow kossacks.
and for the record: I am not endorsing ANY candidate and have not. I previously urged people to vote for our candidate regardless of who it was.
But based upon HRC' "threshold" statement? I'm at this point not planning on casting a ballot FOR her in the GE. And that is because I realize that she if fully capable of doing that kind of throwing under the bus to anything that stands in her way politically, and that could be me or my causes.
by skippythebox on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM PDT
I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm unhappy about Hillary's recent statements. I want Obama to win. But I am so goddamned tired of the Hillary-is-Satan's-spawn stuff. Her policies and Obamas are very similar -- they're both liberal Dems and they both care a million times more than McCain about our bill of rights, our children, our poor, our health, and our very survival. I choose Obama because of Hillary's Iraq & Iran votes and because I think he's a more dynamic leader who can make things happen. But Hillary is not evil and it's time for people to back off this stuff and realize that. We have 2 good candidates. The Republicans have nada. And this goes for those supporters of Hillary who think they're getting somewhere by being really nasty. Some of you have been busily earning the hatred of the Obama supporters. Behave! Remember that the real enemy is just waiting for us to tear each other apart. And I'm not speaking about Al Quaida.
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 Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:49:25 AM PDT
...that we in my opinion do NOT have 2 good candidates, Clinton's actions & tactics prove that.
by golconda2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:53:51 AM PDT
by sean oliver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM PDT
Hillary talks like a Liberal/Progressive on the stump - just like her husband in 1992. Like her husband, I fear she will become a DINO in the WH - just like her husband did in 1993.
Goldwater girl, indeed.
by sean oliver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM PDT
whose main agenda was to bring him down. He had to deal with them as best he could to further his legislative agenda. Frankly, I think he did pretty well. She will have a Democratic Congress, hopefully they won't be in the same attack mode as the one Bill had to deal with. You seem to think that the President operates in a vacuum without having to deal with Congress at all. A president with a Congress of the same party is going to have a lot more ability to stick with the Party agenda than one who has to deal with the opposition.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:29:23 AM PDT
His triangulation allowed the GOP to tell america that Democrats only care for those who live on each coast and not for middle america.
Triangulation allows for the GOP to define Dems - and it is why many of us blame Bill, the DLC, Carvelle, etc. all for the REpublican take over.
If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."
by Clytemnestra on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM PDT
The Democrats didn't lose Congress because of Clinton or of him betraying liberal principles--far from it.
Clinton staid true to liberalism by asking for a moderate tax increase that eventually help heal the economy. If anything, he asked the Congress to make a principled decision which left many members temporarily vulnerable. Remember, the economy starting to really take off in 1995, the year after the Democrats lost control.
The problem was that this vulnerability was increased by the action of a number of Democrats who took part in the House Post office scandal. It was that scandal that really gave the GOP its opening to take back Congress, not anything Clinton did wrong.
by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM PDT
because of the post office scandal
by Clytemnestra on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM PDT
And don't forget the Rep. Tom Foley mess too.
by Frank Cocozzelli on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM PDT
told after he won the election to follow the Right Wing corporate line in 1992, before he took office. Clinton obeyed.
Since Gorbachev ended the Cold War immediately prior to Clinton taking office, he had a far smaller military budget to deal with. The technology boom also assisted the economic situation
The Right Wing policies of Clinton in the 90's may have helped in the short run, (MAY have) but they definitely set the stage for the huge income disparity we see now, and the recession we're in.
by sean oliver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM PDT
we see now began in the 80's under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Clinton's economic policies got us out from under a massive deficit and left us with a surplus. If his policies had been continued and if Congress got some balls and decided to start regulating things again, then we would not be where we are. Bush continued Reaganomics, and the deregulation of corporations and that is why we are where we are today. Clinton slowed and almost stopped the problem, but wasn't able to get a lobbyist-owned Congress to start regulating again. What we need is some trust-busting. The sooner the better, and taxing those corporations, and allowing them to be sued, etc. We can start by not allowing "business expense" deductions for corporations with a bottom line of over a certain amount. For instance, Exxon, with a $40 billion profit in a year, they don't need deductions to help them do business. Tax the hell out of them. Or better yet, nationalize them and put the profit to work for the American people. Yeah, I know, radical, but these days radical may be the way to go.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:47:26 PM PDT
Congress had a Democratic majority ... in both houses. Try again!
by TLS66 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM PDT
Reaganomic disciple between the election in 92 and Inaugaration day in 93. Before taking office, Clinton was briefed by a number of Wall St bigwigs and Rightwing economists (Rubin, Freidman, Greenspan etc) who told him disaster was around the corner if he didn't do what St Ronnie failed to do during the 80's. Which was turn the US into a plutocracy. Clinton swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Bye Bye welfare, Bye bye banking regulations, Bye Bye American Jobs, Bye Bye Middle Class Prosperity
It's all in the history books. And the statistics. Clinton did more to destroy the middle class than Reagan.
by sean oliver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:53 PM PDT
Hillary-is-Satan's-spawn stuff.
We will kick their asses into the stone age whether it's Hillary or Barack. They know it and don't want us to come together. Because in the end, guess what? In end we WILL come together....
So my message to all you Republicans HIDE AND WATCH. We will duke it out but in the end YOU are the opposition.
Spewing hatred, because Republicans are trying to let off the pressure not to shit all their internal organs out in the general elections. So throw your crap, I no longer consider most of the crap thrown as being thrown by real Daily Kos members but rather Republicans grasping at straws on their way over the cliff! Ha ha ha ha ha .......
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM PDT
Hillary is slightly behind in pledged delegates. That is all. I know the Obama supporters have been trained to say that this is all that matters, but that's just phony and dishonest.
Without counting Michigan and Florida, Hillary is slightly behind in popular votes. Counting Michigan and Florida, she is ahead. After Pennsylvania, it is likely that she will be ahead without Michigan and Florida. Even if you give ALL uncommitted michiganders to Obama, she will still be ahead. (Which is why Obama doesn't want to let those states vote at all.)
If you were a superdelegate and you saw one candidate who couldn't win a big election outside of his own backyard (even with effectively unlimited money), whose delegate lead comes primarily from quirks in the counting system, flooding small caucuses, or from nondemocrats voting in open primaries. And that candidate seems to have peaked in the polls, is dodging the press on various questions, is bleeding senior staff because they keep contradicting and embarassing him, and is simultaneously preaching hope and unity while attacking his opponent with the usual show-me-more-tax-returns inuendo and slime.
And you saw another candidate who was ahead in the popular vote, has maintained a solid base of support throughout the primaries, has been thoroughly vetted by both your party and the opposition, and has shown the ability to create an operation that wins in elections with more than a few hundred thousand voters (which is ALL of the states in the general election), then who would you choose?
Now imagine that you are down-ballot from this person in a congressional, gubernatorial, or other race. Since you are a true Obama believer, we know what your answer is. But imagine if you were not "drinking the koolaid"--would you still hold out for the guy. I doubt it.
The continued vitriol that you guys expend on Hillary just shows that you know she has a great chance, and that your guy doesn't have it wrapped up after all.
by rmerren on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM PDT
I can answer that for you. Nothing.
Obama proved his coattails -- that's what down-ticket candidates want to see.
Hey, Brian Ross! Who Lied To You About the Anthrax?
by tbetz on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:54:23 AM PDT
I'm tired of the "if you just count MI and FL". We'll guess what-they broke the rules so those don't count. Everyone who cared about the rules pulled their names off the ballot in MI--everyone but Hillary. And even being the only dem on the ballot, she BARELY won it. I can't believe she's bragging about that.
In FL, there was no campainging and lots and lots of people stayed home. I don't see how Hillary's camp can bitch about the caucus sytem disenfranchising voters, but at the same time they want to count FL were thousands were disenfranchised.
Then we hear complaints like yours above of the open primaries allowing crossovers. Well, we hear complaints until those crossovers helped her in the primary part of the Texas vote since Rush rallied his troops to vote for her over Obama since she'd be easier to beat. Then we hear complaints about the caucus system in Texas being unfair (Hillary lost that) because her supporters couldn't come out that night. Well, she won my precint's caucus and it was just fine to her supporters then. It was also just fine to the table of republicans in the back of the room who told me they were republicans and were there for Hillary--No doubt sent by Rush, they were laughing their ass off.
I am tired of complaints about rules and systems. Especially state systems that have been around decades and seemed to work fine for Bill.
Lose with grace and win with grace. Until then, these whiney complants from her supporters is only irratitating me. Certainly not persuasive.
by OenophileBoke on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM PDT
are part of the "rules" as well. Yet I've seen Obama supporters complain that she'll be "stealing" the election of she is chosen by the supers.
By that rationale, Obama "stole" Massachusetts.
"I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD
by SingularExistence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM PDT
We should stay focused on the facts here.
Obama is currently ahead by over 600,000 popular votes, not including Iowa and Washington (who have not released voting numbers). There is no way Hillary can catch that up in the remaining contests. Currently, with MI and FL Obama would probabaly still be slightly ahead if you include the Iowa and Washington numbers.
Obama will rack up more votes in Mississippi, North Carolina, and Indiana with clear victories. If Hillary wins in Pennsylvania and Kentucky it will not be by very wide margins. Neither will add much to their popular vote margins in the coming contests.
This brings us back to MI and FL. Obama was not even on the MI ballot. If these states are to count there will have to be a do over at which point Hillary's popular vote margin would become much much less than it is now projected in these 2 states(simply by Obama being on the ballot in MI).
Looking at all of this it is very unlikely that Hillary will win the popular vote, even with do overs in FL and MI.
Superdelegates will not go against the pledged delegates and the popular vote. If Hillary already had the rules changes by allowing FL and MI to come back into play she cannot count on a Superdelegate victory. If that happened the democratic party would implode.
Maybe a dream ticket is indeed in the works, but it clearly has Hillary as VP.
by hgerhard on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM PDT
The Constitution is not negotiable
by Hkingsley on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM PDT
Just check the recommended list every day.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:47 AM PDT
You Clinton people have about as little of manners as the Obama people. In fact, you know what I see?
I see Obama people attack Hillary and her policy, Bill and his scandals, which is appropriate and relevant.
I see Hillary people attacking Obama supporters directly and personally, calling them cultist, kool-aid drinkers and so on and so forth.
So quit crying over this alleged mistreatment, your side is just as guilty and possibly even more nasty.
Hillary '08 - No We Can't, Down With Hope
by miproggrrl on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:12 AM PDT
because I see plenty of personal attacks against Clinton and her supporters as well. There is no way that Clinton supporters, who make up something like 10-15% of the people posting here right now, could possibly match the constant drumbeat of nastiness that some Obama supporters keep up in virtually every diary on this site.
There's bad stuff on both sides, but you're pretty obviously ignoring what's coming from your side.
by annac1aire on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM PDT
You'll see a constant drumbeat of anti-Obama vitriol there, or go to hillaryis44. How appropriate a name ... reminds me of Poppy and Chimpy calling each other "41" and "43" so as to boast that the WH is a family posession. Look for the Clintons doing something similar.
by TLS66 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM PDT
Thank you for making the case presented by jjellin,demfem and rmerren. I would like to say much more but in keeping with the tone of civility set forth by jjellin,I can only say I am a Hillary supporter but as a democrate,will vote for Barack if he is our candidate.
by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:04 AM PDT
to accuse, albeit in a thinly-veiled, passive aggressive way, miproggrrl of spewing vitriol or arguing in bad faith?
Thank you for making case presented by miproggrrl.
by tomjones on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:25:18 AM PDT
I thought I was being pretty straight forward. If that appeared passive aggressive to you-let me make myself perfectly clear. In the context of this diary--what is civil about bringing up Bill,his 'scandals',and Hillary in the same post? To encourage meaningful discussion? You know what that was meant to do. I also happen to think it is less than civil to play the gotcha game ,i.e.,it`s ok for us because you`re wors than we are. How does that help?
by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM PDT
any different?
by Hear Our Voices on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM PDT
Thank you.I totally agree.I too, will not be pushed off this site for supporting the best candidate.
by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM PDT
the complete reversal and have HRC supports come up with the most absurd attack posts I've seen.
Lobbying the American Psychological Association to declare conservatism a conduct disorder with narcissistic personality traits and a whole lot of stupidity!
by HGM MA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM PDT
I don't care for Jerome, and his blog is a joke. I don't go there often.
by Demfem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:31:17 AM PDT
Why do I have to go to another site for anything. Why can`t I stay here for a balanced discussion on this most important decision facing us? This is fair and balanced as much as fox news. In fact the same language is being used in relation to comments made about Hillary---some people say---I heard that--I know someone that---I`ll bet that--,and on and on.
by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM PDT
because the writing is so over the top rude and obnoxious about Hillary and Obama is praised to the hilt. I am a John Edward's supporter and I think this site is dead, dead, dead. It's not a place for "friendly" discourse and doesn't provoke thought. There is absolutely no tolerance here for a difference of opinion. The same is true at Buzzflash. That used to be a great place to get information but now I rarely go there because it too is tainted with the Obama disease of intolerance! I would like someone to explain to me why Obama supporters are so afraid of discussion. Shouting what they think to me, as a John Edwards supporter, doesn't make their man any more palatable to me.
I believe all things are possible if we work together.
by ksvoboda on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM PDT
I do have a serious question for Clinton's supporters: why is it ok for Tina Fey to categorize her as a b**** while it is not ok for others to do so?
As I woman, I am offended by any public usage of this word. It may be one thing to talk amongst close friends this way (though personally I use this word sparingly) but I was very disappointed to see her use the word this way. I think she could have made the same point of toughness or what not without going there.
by sunday driver on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM PDT
on this completely. I was horrified by this development. I also hated the whole "I'm your girl" meme.
by DMiller on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM PDT
she flirted with going for Rudy because he made her feel "secure". She's an idiot.
by TLS66 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM PDT
of all the cries for civility? This is the internets. As the diarist would say, it's not beanbag.
by tomjones on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:19:17 AM PDT
The Red State blogs and freepers have grown weary of thier own site and hits have gone down there. They are still internet addicted so they come here now. Same crap posters only now they have to shit here.
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:54:42 AM PDT
May be something to that. Admins at the rightwing sites are also much more heavy-handed with the bannings. We sometimes forget how lucky we are. =)
by tomjones on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM PDT
We, Obama supporters DID NOT START THIS. And many of us have tried to stop it.
White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)
by nolalily on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM PDT
Based on the consent to Roberts and Scalia, the refusal to stand up to Bush on FISA, Patriot Act, Budget, Kyl/Lieberman, signing statements, Congressional subpoenas, other oversight outrages, and, on Sunday morning tens of other matters that this Senate has refused its duty on, you are right. I have no respect for this institution called the United States Senate. Nor by the way for one of the chief suporters of the war and of executive power, Hillary Clinton, (war supporter,NY).
Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.
by StrayCat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM PDT
Obama supporters have called her everything from a bitch to trash to slime to shit, etc. I could go on and on, but you can see it for yourself just going through the diaries.
Don't worry about it - Hillary knows how to take all this crap and end up being the last person standing. And good for you for standing your ground and not allowing anyone to run you out of here.
by He Who Still Must Not Be Named on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:07:09 AM PDT
When a decision is finally made the Republicans will run screaming away from our KUMBAYA songs, here.
by TexMex on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM PDT
well.
That entire "threshold" schtick was enough to put me off of HRC. And if you check some of my comments I was one of those saying that I would gladly vote FOR HRC if she became the nominee.
Not so much anymore, I am really thinking that after that tacit endorsement of McCain OVER Obama that I can not in good conscience cast my ballot for her in the GE.
It was a monstrously stupid thing of her to say as it damaged the party as a whole and burned a lot of bridges. Could she be the VP at this point?
No, McCain would just whip out that little sound byte and beat the ticket to death with it just as easily as he can if Obama is the nominee with another VP.
Lets put it this way: IF she will throw Obama under the bus like that, what else will she throw under a bus for political advantage in the future? Every one of our causes could be Obama'ed, any one of our leaders, any one of US.
She built the swiftboat and McCain just has to pilot it.
by skippythebox on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:14:23 AM PDT
Try going over to Hillaryis44.com. That place is horrible.
by mertam on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:22:36 AM PDT
Look at what the candidates themselves have said. Forget the advisors for a moment, just the candidates.
Obama: About the worst he's said of Hillary is that she represents the politics of the past, that her judgement on the Iraq War was wrong, that she's "likable enough".
Hillary: She has said that McCain would be a better Commander in Chief, that Obama has zero experience beyond a "speech", that Obama is somehow guilty of something in the Rezko case, that Obama is not a Muslim "as far as I know", that he is a liar on the stump (that phony NAFTAgate stuff), that he plagiarizes, that he hasn't rejected Farrakhan hard enough.
I'm sure there's more Hillary has said, this is just what pops into my mind. Amongst the spouses, Bill is a step ahead of Michelle thanks to his idiotic "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" line. As far as advisors, Samantha Power is the first one Obama has had to reign in. For Hillary, there have been multiple: Mark Penn and Bill Shaheen talking about Obama's drug use, former Sen. Bob Kerrey indicating that Barack went to madrassas, Wolfson calling him Ken Starr, the BET founder Robert Johnson, the list goes on and on.
This kind of dirty, divisive politics comes from the top. You will never convince me that Barack has engaged in gutter, destroy-the-party politics to the same degree as Hillary. Never.
by existenz on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:29:40 AM PDT
about Hillary's healthcare mandates while conveniently neglecting to explain his own.
Case in point: The evening before the Virginia primary, Obama gave a televised speech in which he said, "Hillary Clinton says the only way to get universal healthcare is to go after your wages."
In fact, what Hillary had said two days before, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, was that there were many mechanisms by which to enforce mandates, including things like default enrollment, signing people up at work, and, if all else failed, maybe going after wages. That's a far cry from saying, "The only way to do it is going after wages," but Obama had no problem misrepresenting that statement.
And he still, to my knowledge, hasn't explained exactly what would be different about how he'd enforce his own mandate - that all children must be insured.
by SingularExistence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM PDT
SingularExistence: Good post. I `ve made the same observtion in the past but no comments or feedback.Just wanted to respond to you to let you know that you`re not alone out there.
by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM PDT
Neither are you.
by SingularExistence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:01:30 AM PDT
She said that she'd enforce the mandates via garnishing people's wages. If anything, its Hillary is lying, implying that her program was "The One True" plan and that Obama's was heartless and was going to leave millions uncovered. She also continually lies saying that she's offering 'universal health care', she isn't, she's attempting to force 'universal health insurance'. There is a big difference.
Obama's response was spot on, her plan would force you to buy insurance. At least Edwards' mandates didn't kick in till 2012; Hillary's mandates would be much earlier (if they were after 2012, then why is it even a talking point). Hence, either Hillary will be forcing you to buy private health insurance before the public plan is ready, or, she's pushing this mandate issue even though it wouldn't be enacted till 4+ years out. In either case, it isn't pretty.
It's also a petty distinction, given that it'd be easy enough to add a mandate after we've got the kinks in the system worked out, and 95%+ compliance. Note that mandates brought the swiss program from 97% to 99% -- however, this move wasn't made till well after a public option was on the table for many many years.
My personal opinion: Hillary is going to force me to buy a private health insurance program, one from government approved lists. It's going to cost more than my current health care, and will provide less. Till she's proposing a 100% public insurance option, and not just hints at one, she's got no business even talking about "mandates".
by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM PDT
Except on Obama's part. She said there were many ways to enforce the mandates. He said she had said there was only ONE way to enforce the mandates. That was an untrue statement on his part, period.
Besides, you didn't address my other question: Obama's plan MANDATES that all parents must buy health insurance for their children. How is he going to enforce this?
by SingularExistence on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:22:14 PM PDT
You`re right--I will never convince you that Barack has engaged in gutter,destroy-the-party politics to the same degree as Hillary. At least you`re open to discussion of the issues when you state the difference has to do with the degree and not the fact of divisive politics.
by
