Skip to main content

View Diary: Clinton supporters have nothing to complain about in Biden nomination (463 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Aren't you even reading what I write? (0+ / 0-)

    it's better than trying to put out fires after they get started.

    I'm not going after rabid PUMA voters. As I've said umpteen times on this thread, it's about pre-empting media attempts to create fake controversy because Clinton wasn't selected. Have you been watching the media trying to do exactly that? Even as I was reading your comment, Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell were discussing how much of a controversy there would be because Clinton was not chosen.

    chiz

    •  I guess I missed that part (0+ / 0-)

      I don't see any mention in your diary that this is a message to the media only and not intended to dig at Clinton's supporters.  I kind of thought that I was reponding to the diary and the words you wrote there, so I guess I didn't realize that this was one of those times where I needed to read all of your follow-up comments to get the entire content of what you were trying to say.  I'll try to do better with figuring out your intentions next time.

      •  so which words in the actual diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shirah

        do you object to? What is a "dig at Clinton's supporters"? You've made all kinds of vague assertions that you find the diary objectionable, but you haven't quoted anything and explained what the heck you object to. You seem to be projecting preconceived complaints onto what I say.

        Another example of that: Where do I say that my post "is a message to the media only"? Or that you need to "read all of [my] follow-up comments to get the entire content of what [I was] trying to say"?

        Enough of what I haven't said. What about what I have said?

        •  So defensive! (0+ / 0-)

          You'll recall that my criticism was pretty mild: that you may be overstating the PUMA mystique, and that your comments came off as condescending.  So, here you go:

          ... the nomination of Biden ought to put an end effectively to complaints that Obama is short on experience. It's the only consistent criticism of Obama that I've heard this year from truly persuadable voters.

          Biden's nomination also will make it difficult for Clinton's supporters to feel aggrieved that she wasn't chosen instead. All along her candidacy was based on claims of (a) experience, and (b) expertise. Joe Biden has more of both than Hillary Clinton does, as even her more ardent supporters would have to admit. ....

          That won't preclude a few PUMAs from continuing to nurse their grudges. Extremists aren't amenable to reason. But Biden's nomination will show their complaints to be ridiculous in the extreme.

          All of the highlighted text comes across as telling Clinton supporters what they should feel.  Obviously, you see it differently, but I'm just giving you my opinion, and it's shared by others.

          And, I notice that many of the comments in this thread are exactly what sara seattle predicted - another opportunity to vent every criticism of Clinton's campaign.  That ended months ago.  So I'm sure they really appreciate all of that being brought up again.

          Anyway, I'm sorry that you feel that your words were not understood as you intended.

          •  you're right (0+ / 0-)

            I don't see anything in what you've highlighted that tells any voters how they should feel. Neither does it condescend.

            1. You omitted the first part of sentence, which established the meaning of the rest
            1. Just an assessment of the effect of the nomination, not an instruction to voters
            1. Possibly shading over in your direction, except that it's hardly controversial. Biden was in Senate long before Clintons arrived in DC
            1. Calling PUMA complaints ridiculous is fair given what I've said. Anyway I'm not trying to tell them what to think, I'm saying they're marginal.
            •  You're so not listening (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, I get it; you don't think those words are condescending or provocative.  Apparently, you don't think I have a right to express my contrary opinion that they could be taken that way, which is kind of ironic.  

              Anyway, we're really on the same team here, so I'm sorry that you took offense to what I thought was just a question to consider the particular words you used and a suggestion about how to move forward without further provocation of Clinton's former supporters.

              •  Where do I say this? (0+ / 0-)

                Apparently, you don't think I have a right to express my contrary opinion that they could be taken that way, which is kind of ironic.

                You're just projecting stuff onto me, which gets pretty tiresome. I don't have to agree with your interpretation of what I wrote. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm telling you to shut up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site