We have become The Free Republic.

Seriously.

Go over there.

I dare you.

Read posts on the Free Republic and substitute Democratic names for Republican names, progressive causes for... well... I honestly don't know what to call what those people care about... but its ugly and unpleasant and deeply embarrassing.

And yet... we've become them.

Every utterance spoken by one of our candidates is viewed through glasses tinted with ultimate distrust by the supporters of the other candidates, so words like bigot and racist and sexist and traitor and corporatist and homophobe are typed with pious certitude.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely and wholeheartedly a REPUBLICAN, AFRICAN-AMERICAN-HATING, MONEY-GRUBBING, WAR MONGER and Barak Obama is a RACE-BAITING, WOMAN-HATING, CENTRIST, SELLOUT and John Edwards is... well he gets a pass for the most part... but his supporters are IDIOT, PIE-IN-THE-SKY, CHILDREN, WHO MUST SECRETLY BE HOPING FOR A MITT ROMNEY PRESIDENCY.

We are the dark side now... we are the worst parts of ourselves... we are the littlest children, who see any differing view as a sign we don't exist.

We arrange these awful words into horrible sentences that eventually form an army of toxic, vitriolic paragraphs... and to what end?

Does anyone believe that THEIR diary on how Hillary Clinton loves to masturbate while in blackface... or Barak Obama has secret meetings with lobbyist groups at strip joints frequented only by men who beat their wives... or how John Edwards supporters need to be medicated for their own good so they don't commit mass suicide... has done anything other than further bolt supporters to their already chosen candidates?

Think those examples are over the top? Read the diary before mine and after mine. Without knowing what they actually are... I bet I'm on the tame side.

This would be a GBCW diary, but I know myself... I don't go anywhere.

Hell, I instigated one of the classic meltdowns in DKos lore and never budged an inch. I choose my people and I stick with them... even when it gets very, very, very dark.

I chose the Democratic Party when I turned 16 and in the 22 years since I've seen great beauty and deep disappointment, but I never thought I'd see the day when I'd have a hard time distinguishing these people from these people.

•  "Mama told me there'd be days like this."

  by JeffLieber on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:38:22 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I know. You're a lieber, not a fighter...

    I still think we're a far cry from Freeperville.

    by DaveV on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM PDT

    •  Not me,

      I've just read 5 diaries from different camps this afternoon.  I found them illiterate, hysterical, and fundamentally stoopid.  I've read about 2 diaries from cult members of every camp which are articulate and stay on point with the candidate's issues.  And then, the comment section devolves into pure idiocy.

      The last place I would look for any information on a candidate is in the non-FR diaries here.  If I did, and took them seriously, I'd stay home on February 5.

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:53:24 PM PDT

      •  Hmm, that should read

        non-FP diaries -- didn't mean non FR as in Free Republic -- I've never even pulled up the site because my old computer would bite me.

        by gchaucer2 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM PDT

        •  Got to realize that this is an Obama site now.

          The damage is going to be enormous long term. If this site is any indication, many Democrats are going to be so dismayed at their nominee, they may be inclined to stay home as much as many Republicans will stay home in dismay at their neighborhood.

          If Bloomberg gets in the race with the personal resources at this disposal and no similar baggage as found in recent third-party candidates like Perot or Nader, the general election could be interesting.

          I wish Edwards could do well, but if Obama or Clinton have enough delegates to want to fight it out at the convention, none of them may make it and the one that does will be crippled in the general election.

          I've just never seen this kind of agitprop from a Democratic candidate as I have seen here from Obama supporters. It does not augur well for the fall.

          by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM PDT

          •  no--and there's a good reason for that

            the people who like Obama and Edwards here find Hillary unacceptable for about 1,000 reasons--most of which have nothing to do with the silly accusations of racism or whatnot.

            Obama supporters simply will not come out and canvass and donate to Hillary, by and large.  We just won't.

            We're in this game for major change--quickly.  Hillary represents an attempt to return to the nineties, which is a major turnoff for most of us.  Most of us who don't own stocks or a mortgage don't have the same fond remembrance of the 90's that others do.

            by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

            •  Then you're part of the problem: Naderism.

              I like Edwards; in fact, made a small contribution out of my meager public defender salary. Clinton is not my first choice; in fact, despite Sen. McCaskill's endorsement, I'm still voting for Edwards in the Missouri primary. He's still the best candidate out there from what I can see.

              If, in the end, you won't work for the Democratic nominee if the nominee isn't to your liking, you're part of the problem and no amount of gainsaying will change any of that.

              The funny thing is that many thought the same about Roosevelt in 1932 as you do about Clinton: insider, not credible, et al. The ones wanting change wanted Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party; they got nowhere. Roosevelt, being the consummate insider that he was, was the instrument of change in American society that we still benefit from today and which has ultimately transformed the GOP in the party of whiners and grumps they are today.

              But if you're representative of Obama supporters, this site is a site for malignant Naderism and is breaking down as a credible site for wide-ranging discourse.

              And that is very, very sad; especially when it could have been prevented.

              by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM PDT

              •  If you

                won't do as I say you're part of the problem.

                (Previous post condensed for those with short attention spans.)

                by drbloodaxe on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:20:38 PM PDT

                •  "We"

                  If the Heathers won't follow the nominee...

                  That's the problem.

                  by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM PDT

                  •  Heathers?

                    As in that movie with the guy who tricks the girl into killing classmates?

                    As we found out in '00, your candidate has to address the desires of enough people to win.  Had Gore been a bit more in green mode back then, he could have grabbed all the Nader folks and we wouldn't have quite the disaster the country is in atm.

                    So give us good nominees, they'll win enough people.  If you see lots of people saying they'll be off voting for Bloomberg or whatever, that's not a sign that people 'don't belong', it's a sign that the nominees are displaying characteristics that make their appeal too narrow.

                    Candidates and parties want to be inclusive, not exclusive to win votes.

                    by drbloodaxe on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM PDT

                    •  Technically, had he chosen Bob Graham...

                      We probably woudn't be having this problem.

                      by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM PDT

                    •  You can't blame Gore.

                      You have to blame the voters they should have known the diference, and if they didn't then, they do now -- there's no excuse this time around...Gore only had one vote, and I'm pretty sure he didn't opt for Nader or Bush.

                      If the voters are so arrogant they demand perfection (or so stupid they can't see the difference between evil and dissatisfying), they will get exactly what they deserve; and in 2008, that will be senile, warmongering, utterly unprincipled (disguised as thoroughly principled) John McCain. If you like Bush you'll LOVE John McCain. "All the war and twice the taxes!!!" Anyone who says, "I can't in good conscience vote for Hillary" has neither good conscience, nor good sense, and sadly, the whole country has to pay for their teenage "I WON'T mow the lawn!" mentality. Bush, like a stopped clock may have been right that one time "You're either with us, or you're against us" it's a fact (in politics, anyway).

                      Fortunately, there is a cure, either, a) seeking maturity of the mind, or b) smack upside the head. If a) isn't appealing, I'm available to dispense b) in multiple treatments.

                      by PBJ Diddy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:12:05 PM PDT

                      •  Amazing

                        My exact argument to all the purity trolls on this site who tell people to leave if they won't vote for a single candidate.  You can't be arrogant enough to demand perfection.  You have to want to be inclusive of people who MOSTLY support Democrats, not abuse them and tell them to leave.  Or else they will, and take their votes with them.

                        Oops, then you turn around in the same paragraph and start abusing the people who won't vote for one single Dem again.

                        by drbloodaxe on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

                        •  I don't suffer fools gladly. n/t

                          by PBJ Diddy on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM PDT

              •  Thank you.

                I like all the Democratic candidates and will vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primary.  But how someone could say "I like Obama, but I wouldn't lift  finger to elect Clinton (or Edwards)" is beyond me.  There are some differences policy-wise among our Democratic candidates, but nothing that major -- especially between Obama and Clinton.  Someone who can love one and despise the other is not operating on any rational level -- the diarist is right to label this behavior "cultist".

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:56:42 PM PDT

                •  Exactly

                  And let's be clear here, it isn't the Clinton supporters who are saying they won't vote or will vote for McCain if Obama or Edwards win. As far as I can tell, we're mostly of the mind that anyone of them would be an asset. They are all Democrats after all, and they all intend to bring our troops home.

                  Every single one of the Reps except Ron Paul would keep them there and keep them dying or wounded. Are the people who can't accept Clinton willing to consider that?

                  by belly on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:06:35 PM PDT

                  •  To be fair. . .

                    there have, in fact, been some people who've said they wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances -- a statement almost inconceivable to me in terms of self-defeating stupidity.  And it's fair to assume that some of those people -- the ones who don't self-identify as Edwards voters, in any case -- are Clinton supporters.

                    No candidate cult can claim complete innocence.

                    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM PDT

                    •  Not nearly on the scale or influence of...

                      Obama supporters. We're got former DKos frontpagers saying that they won't support Clinton if she's the nominee.

                      How many really influential Kossacks have come out correspondingly for Hillary?

                      None.

                      by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM PDT

                      •  and that's why our party sucks in a nutshell

                        because come election time, the party can put forth a craptacular candidate and count on people saying "STFU and vote because you don't want a Republican to win".  Whereas the GOP is perfectly happy to lose a seat to a Dem for a term if it means keeping a crappy Republican out of office.  The GOP fears their base, while the establishment Dems give us a shit sandwich and tells us it tastes great.

                        by Uberbah on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:01:00 AM PDT

                        •  Please name the candidate that...

                          ...the REpublican party abandoned based on their "moral" outrage?

                          I spend WAAAY too much time watching the other side and in the last five years I've never seen then walk away from even the most obvious crook.

                          by JeffLieber on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:39:16 AM PDT

                          •  who said anything about crooks?

                            They love em.  I mean craptacular candidates in their eyes, like when the Club for Greed comes in and primaries a Republican for not being a big enough asshole on taxes.

                            by Uberbah on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:52:59 AM PDT

                            •  So, who's the candidate they forsook....

                              ...and kicked out the door?

                              Because we primary candidates we don't like (as they do) but often don't win (as they don't) because of the innate advantage of incumbency.

                              Who have the successfully objected to and won?

                              Because Hagel is still around. As is Specter. As is McCain... who they HATED based on his stand on immigration and yet, he may be the nominee.

                              by JeffLieber on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

                  •  Whatever else can be said about the Clintons

                    Whatever else can be said about the Clintons is that they are bedrock Democrats.  I remember how the media was saying how the Clintons were going to buck the Democratic Party and keep campaigning for Leiberman after he lost the nomination.

                    They did not, and Stephanopoulis actually laughed at any notion that they would have done otherwise.  He said they might not be as enthusiastic as one could wish at times, but they will not defy the party.

                    The Clintons will come support the nominee if they lose, and I believe their followers will do the same.

                    by stephdray on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM PDT

                •  i'd work for Edwards, too

                  but not Clinton.  I don't like anything about them or their politics.

                  by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM PDT

                  •  Since their politics. . .

                    are indistinguishable in any significant sense from Obama's -- with very slight differences in presentation reflecting only their personal histories -- I can't see how can possibly make that statement.

                    I can see you might prefer one to another on the basis of minor policy differences, on presentation, on political ability, or on perceived ability to be elected.  By any examination of their records indicates that Clinton and Obama almost certainly believe the same things and would govern in more or less the same way.  To love one and despise the other isn't rational.

                    That, by the way, is why the "battle" is fought in terms of personal destruction -- the members of the various cults recognize that on substance there's just not that much difference between the two.

                    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

                    •  not at all

                      Obama wants to roll over the Republicans using charisma, personal popularity, and a big mandate.  Obama's is actually the Bush 2000 strategy in reverse--but with a mandate.

                      Clinton's strategy is to triangulate, play the victim and win just enough votes to squeak through.  Once elected, she'll play the same incremental politics that Bill did in the 90's, with the same fucked up priorities and "what's good for the Dow is good for America" bullshit.

                      Their platforms on their websites may not look all that different, but there would be a world of difference in their governance.

                      What a lot of people don't understand is that it wouldn't matter to me if Bill or Hillary were running--I have equal distaste for both of them.  

                      by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM PDT

                      •  Nonsense. . .

                        It's true that Obama's plan is to get support from a lot of Republicans and Independents using his charisma and the fact that he doesn't have the long negative history that Clinton has -- that's a difference in personal history that allows him to campaign in a way that Clinton has more trouble with.

                        But it's purely a pragmatic issue -- a matter of strategy.

                        The idea of developing a persona and programs that will appeal to Independents and Republicans as well as Democrats is the very definition of triangulation.  Both Clinton and Obama are fundamentally triangulators -- attempting to put together a majority through compromise and careful planning and calculation.

                        Personally, I think that's a reasonable and realistic way to govern.  You're welcome to a different opinion, of course.  But if you hate triangulation and calculation you ought also to hate it in Obama.

                        Of course, what's happened is that, as a cultist, you're amenable to Obama's triangulation while somehow despising Clinton's.  Which isn't logicl.  You even go so far as to say "there's no difference in their policies, but would be a world of difference in the governance".  How you get there from two center left candidates with identical platforms is beyond me.

                        by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:35:33 PM PDT

                        •  sorry, no

                          you've seen my diaries here long enough to know I'm better than that.  I only came out for Obama a day before the Iowa caucuses, after all.

                          The way I get there is simple: I saw what the Clintons did in the 90's.  I see what they're doing now.  I don't have to ask how they'll govern: I already know.  And I despise it.

                          Obama's triangulation is fundamentally different from the Clintons' in one fundamental way: the Clintons govern as Centrists, while Obama promises to govern as a Moderate.

                          The difference is here.  And it's a big one.

                          by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM PDT

                          •  Don't you understand?

                            Can't you see?  He's black on the left side and white on the right side!  I'm black on the right side and white on the left side!

                            It is the most amazing example of sophistry to create an artificial division between "centrist" and "moderate" and then, based on that very dubious argument to find two essentially identical candidates and decide to love one and hate the other.

                            If you want to argue that Obama would be a more successful moderate than Clinton (or, befitting the minor policy differences they've displayed, that he'd actually be more moderate than Clinton's lefter-leaning positions) I'll listen to that argument.  I think a good argument could be made.

                            But to hate one and love the other because their difference is "centrist" versus "moderate"?  It's an example of how nutty Daily Kos has become that that kind of argument isn't laughed out of court.

                            by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:52:54 PM PDT

                            •  that very argument was at the top of the rec list

                              all damn day long before the primary wars.

                              Besides, if you look at Obama's actual voting record, it's extremely progressive.  Obama's talking about earning massive support and approval ratings, and then doing whatever the fuck he wants because he's got the people with him.

                              It's basically George Bush in reverse.  And personally, I'll go with that.  For all his talk about "bipartisanship", Obama's the likeliest to actually try and succeed to ramrod progressive legislation down GOP throats.  Hillary and Edwards simply won't have the popular support or the mandate to do it.

                              Combine that with the palpable youth movement Obama has spawned, and that's where my support comes from.

                              by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM PDT

                              •  Both Obama and Clinton. .

                                have, as I've pointed out, very progressive voting records -- it's you who tried to make them out, respectively, as a moderate and a centrist.  Or a centrist and a moderate.  However you want to define them, my argument is that their positions are pretty much the same.

                                The fact that a diary arguing that Hillary Clinton sucks appeared at the top of the rec list at Daily Kos has no probitive value as far as I'm concerned.

                                I doubt very much that Obama will try and "ramrod" anything down anyone's throat.  He doesn't say he will, and he's never acted that way before.  You're simply making that part up.

                                As for popular support and mandate and the ability to motivate the youth vote, those are interesting issues that bear discussion.  But they're pragmatic items, not the sort of thing that would create hatred of one candidate and love for another.

                                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:13:18 PM PDT

                                •  read the diary

                                  it had nothing to do with obama and clinton.  it was well before the primaries every started.  Please read the actual diary, then take your shot.

                                  by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:14:41 PM PDT

                              •  please

                                No Bush in reverse.
                                I would rather see us have a president who puts the checks and balances back in place and makes it harder for them to be removed. It may make his/her job harder but look at what has happened to us now with unchecked executive power.
                                No matter how personally popular a president is all new laws/programs should be able to make it through congress on their merits.

                                by J Rae on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM PDT

                                •  this, admittedly, is my biggest concern

                                  with Obama: the expansion of presidential power under a charismatic, popular president.

                                  But it's not exactly as if the Clintons respect the congressional prerogative.  Bill Clinton wanted a line-item veto, if you'll recall, which was my single biggest reason for rejecting Richardson out of hand.

                                  by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:02:21 PM PDT

                                  •  Wanted

                                    He wanted it but did not get it.
                                    But when he did not get it he didn't just "Take it" by stating "executive privilage.
                                    That is what we have now, a president who makes up the rules and laws to benefit himself and his friends.

                                    by J Rae on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:30:26 AM PDT

                            •  If You Look At Obama's Actual Policies On

                              domestic issues, they are farther right than Clinton's.

                              The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

                              Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.  Krugman

                              For more on Obama's initial plans on fiscal stimulus WJS

                              by MO Blue on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM PDT

                    •  and, btw, i'm not an obama cultist

                      i'll take any candidate that can beat the Clintons.  I'd even take Gravel.  I just prefer Obama over Edwards for reasons that have more to do with style than with substance.

                      by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM PDT

                      •  Yes, there is a group. . .

                        that could best be described as anti-Clinton cultists.  I don't generally read your diaries but simply from the sentiments expressed here I'd put you squarely in that camp.

                        by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM PDT

                        •  call it a cult if you want

                          Clinton's presidency was a disaster for progressive politics.  He actually set us back, after failing to gain even close to a majority in 1992.  Had we had a Republican president instead, voters would have become disenchanted much more quickly, and we'd have had a real progressive movement ten years earlier.

                          Instead, we got the temporary bandaid of a Clinton presidency that allowed the country's real wounds to fester and worsen.  And that same cabal of Clintonites actually wants to return to those policies.

                          Thanks, but no thanks.  Not if I can help it, anyway.

                          by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM PDT

                          •  Again, Exhibit A in Naderite thinking (n/t)

                            by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM PDT

                            •  whatever you say, my friend

                              but it's the truth.  Hell, read Markos' own goddamn book if you doubt it.  He says as much about the Clinton record himself.

                              Hillary's only shot at earning my real support is to act like she wants to govern differently from how her husband did.

                              What I've been hearing from her so far is that she'd like to return to the 90's.  No dice.

                              by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM PDT

                              •  What I recall was, that after a bad start, he

                                stopped the Gingrich revolution, the "contract on America", largely dead in its tracks.

                                by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM PDT

                                •  really?

                                  did he?  reread that contract, and ask yourself how much of it he stopped, and how much of it he only delayed, while watching every single Democrat down ballot get creamed or struggle, and the base evaporate?

                                  Ask yourself what happened to the disparity between the rich and the poor.

                                  Ask yourself what happened with NAFTA.

                                  Ask yourself what happened with welfare "reform", his signature "achievement".

                                  Ask yourself which bubble-created Republican he kept as Fed Chair and apotheosized in the process.

                                  Ask yourself what was actually done on global warming.  Ask yourself how that inaction could have been possible, despite Al Gore's being vice-president.

                                  You say he had a hostile congress?  So that George W. Bush.  Somehow Bush doesn't manage to get rolled like a pancake.  Clinton did.

                                  by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:04:46 PM PDT

                                  •  So are you back to saying that Bill was a

                                    Republican?  If we're back to that, you're going to find working with Democrats difficult.

                                    by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:03:20 PM PDT

                                  •  C'mon, you're both pretty!

                                    tins, I agree that BC went center/right.  IMO to a) get some things done and b) impede 'worse' things.

                                    That said, NAFTA, welfare reform gutting and the Telecomm Act were destructive crap.  Boo, Bill.

                                    However he did smack Newt down and limit larger potential damage from theReTHug House 'Contract'.

                                    He raised the tax brackets - and survived.

                                    And he did stand his ground vs a 6-seat R Senate majority in 94 and 10-seat R Senates in 96 & 98.

                                    To compare the last to Bush's victories over our present milquetoast 49-50* "majority" (SD-Johnson out, traitor LIEberman's war-lust + *Cheney lurking over any tie) isn't equal.  Our Dems Can Not be labeled 'hostile'.  Servile fits, IMO.

                                    Finally, anyone in the "I won't support/work/vote for Dem X in the general" camp is smoking electoral crack and Not Helping Us!!  Justice Stevens is 87 - Hello?

                                    IF it comes to HRC vs any bloodthirsty ReThug I hope your sanity will overcome your valid dislike for her centrist flaws.  For my niece's sake.  ;o)

                                    by JVolvo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:56:20 AM PDT

                        •  any-Dem-will-do fanatics

                          should not throw stones at cultist glass houses.

                          by Uberbah on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:07:14 AM PDT

                          •  Riiiiight. Bush II sure proved the Naderite

                            "No Difference Between the Parties" was utter horseshit.  Iraq.  Wiretapping.  Plame.  Fundies + Faith-based policies.  Signing statements.  Rove.  Abu Gonzales.  Alito.  Roberts.  Blackwater.  Bolton.  Abramoff.  Et-fucking-cetera.

                            And before you "bla bla" at me, I was foolish enough to believe in Nader's push against Gore.  I know Voter Regret.  

                            Please don't repeat my purity concern mistake!

                            by JVolvo on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:09:12 AM PDT

                      •  So you're an Anti-Clinton cultist? Whoo, big dif.

                        Not much of an improvement over the long run.

                        by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:50:06 PM PDT

                        •  guilty as charged

                          see my previous response to you.  Bill Clinton's presidency was a disaster.  The impact of the Internet revolution on certain aspects of the economy masked that fact.

                          The idea that some people would want to return to that is beyond me.

                          by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:14 PM PDT

                          •  I respectfully argue that the statement...

                            ..."Bill Clinton's presidency was a disaster" is a rewrite of history. He was not perfect, but he did much more good than ill and left the country in a better position than he found it. Were it not for the Bush tax cuts and the response to 911 I daydream about where we'd actually be right now.

                            by JeffLieber on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM PDT

                            •  Clinton was not the enemy

                              before this. He was well liked here, I know I've been around for a while. He was the Big Dog, admired for the most part. We didn't worship him, but he wasn't the evil triangulator that he's being called now.

                              I can't believe the amount of historical revision we have going on now. All I can think is most were too young at the time to see what the political wind was during the 90s. The fact that Clinton got anything through is amazing, not to mention his popularity was such that he would have beat Bush if he could have run a third time. All those crazy Murikans loved the peace and prosperity, those idiots.

                              I'm not an HRC supporter, but I'm sick of reading the lies and right wing talking points that are being thrown around. The Obama supporters should know that they are damaging their candidate. I have to step back and remember that he is not they in order to listen to him. He seems like a good candidate, his supporters here, not so much.

                              Oh, for the innocence of the SYFPH days.

                              by high uintas on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM PDT

                              •  disasters

                                NAFTA has been a disaster.  Triangulation (and making  left of center Dems irrelevant in the process) was a disaster.  Media consolidation was a disaster.  All thanks to Bill Clinton.

                                by Uberbah on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:19:09 AM PDT

                                •  He also caused the extinction of the dinosaurs

                                  The ultimate triangulator of present day is Sen. Obama. That's why I'm having trouble with his campaign. When he claimed that Social Security was "in trouble" he dog whistled the right. He did it again with his reach out to homophobics with McClurkin.

                                  I agree that NAFTA is a mess, but the Media Consolidation Act of '96 is more the work of the 104th Congress than Bill Clinton. Do you really think that he was controlling the agenda at that time?

                                  Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

                                  by high uintas on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM PDT

                            •  was that him, or was that the Internet?

                              Bill Clinton takes credit for the economic boom.  But it wasn't him.

                              by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:08:04 PM PDT

                        •  Enough with the g/d name calling!!!!!

                          Here's how I look at the Obama/Clinton split. As much as we can ever know about someone's whose never been President, we have a pretty good idea of how Hillary will govern. Obama may be as big as big a dissapointment, or maybe not, but I'll bet on an somewhat unknown quantity over a near certain dissapointment any day of the freaking week.

                          Thereisnospoon's assessment strikes me as eminently accurate.

                          By the way, not everyone who voted for Nader is some kind of wacky, ultra-leftist or defeatist. I am anything but. As a Californian who voted for Nader in 2000 but who would have rather cut off my arm than vote for him in 2004, allow me to remind you that back in 2000, the Dems were in full retreat mode and the ONLY way I saw to wake up the sleepy heads was a bit of shock treatment. In the event of a miracle, I also would have been very happy with a genuinely liberal/progressive new party, but I knew the status quo was utterly unacceptable. To me, the campaign song of the Clinton Administration was "You Haven't Done Nothing (But You Administrated it Well)."

                          And, with both party's candidates running as committed centrists, and the Gore we know today was an extremely well kept secret, there was little or nothing to be done within the Democratic party. Also I admit to vastly underestimating how extreme the Bush Administration would turn out to be and for that, I accept a certain amount of blame. (Though I have no idea how I would have voted if I'd lived in a truly close state like Florida. I might have "wimped out" and gone for Gore, or not. I'm not sure. Since I lived in California, my decision seemed like an easy one. In Florida, I might have tried to be a vote trader or something.)

                          The point is a lot of us have returned to the fold only conditionally. We're still sick of being taken for granted and while I will certainly vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, you can't make me be happy about my vote and I'm sorry, I doubt I'd personally work as vigorously for Hillary as I would for Obama or Edwards because I blame a lot of our present problems on the prior Clinton Administration.

                          Could Obama be just as ultimately pathetic? Maybe, but with Hillary it seems like the closest thing there is to a sure bet. If she gets nominated and wins, maybe she'll surprise me. But to quote Damon Runyan, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet."

                          by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:57:00 PM PDT

                          •  Yeah man! What he ^ said! (nt)

                            I mean LABobsterofAnaheim.

                            by musicalhair on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM PDT

                •  Absolutely Larry. I have not seen one

                  single comment from a Clinton supporter promising not to vote for other candidates in the GE, very few from Edwards supporters, but 100's from Obama supporters flaty ruling out voting for Hillary in the GE. It is cultist, and it is extremmely troubling.

                  by Rumarhazzit on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:21:12 PM PDT

                •  We can only hope

                  that as the candidates leave the race, they urge their supporters to support the eventual nominee as Howard Dean did. Although these "no one but my candidate" folks make me shake my head now, I was just like them in early 2004--it was Howard or the highway. But Dean asked us to support Kerry and I did with contributions and canvassing. Hopefully this batch of Dems will follow suit.

                  -5.88, -6.82

                  by Debby on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM PDT

              •  sorry to say it, but no

                I'll vote for Hillary, no question.  But I still have a bad taste in my mouth from having worked hard and donated a bunch of money to John Kerry.  I now wish I hadn't.

                If the Democrats can always count on our activism and support regardless of whom they nominate or what they do, why the heck should they change?  What incentive do they have?

                The problems that matter strongly to me are not the problems that Hillary will solve.  The 90's were a fracking disaster for the party, and I won't part with my time or money to support those who would vainly or misguidedly attempt to relive them, just out of fear of a Huckabee administration.

                by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM PDT

                •  Well, you know: slow and steady wins the race.

                  A revolution that happens overnight is one that is apt to go Jacobin at the most inconvenient time.

                  Great progress is being made, especially in Congress. Democratic control of the White House, even if by a despised "centrist", allows that real revolution to move forward.

                  American politics have always worked best when everyone who wanted to come along came along together.  Obama supporters have lost sight of that over the last two weeks.

                  We can still get back on track.

                  by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM PDT

                  •  does it?

                    you seem to think that this is an upward straight line.

                    In fact, American politics is cyclical.  Any given movement in this country has about 20-30 years to take its shot and make its mark, before the tide turns on it.  And those cycles get shorter and shorter.

                    by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:29:01 PM PDT

                    •  No; progress has been made...

                      Sure there are cycles, but we're also not the United States of 1908 either. Tide hasn't turned on a lot of things; social security, for example, and despite the dedicated best efforts of Republicans since the 30s.

                      by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:01:18 PM PDT

              •  no nominee has been chosen yet, don't be so ...

                quick to push people out the door if they don't want to "support" HRC (in what ever way that may mean).

                Here is something for what you call "Nadarism":

                God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,

                the courage to change the things I can,

                and the wisdom to know the difference."

                I voted for Nadar in 2000 and don't regret it.  My vote is not yours to regret or get mad about either.  As for this being a partisan and democratic site, HRC is one person running for one office, if I support every other dem that is on the ballot in Nov, I'm not sorry if that isn't good enough for you-- in that case, refer again to the serenity prayer above used in AA and NA meetings and perhaps should be said before logging in to Daily Kos.

                by musicalhair on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:13:03 PM PDT

                •  If it works for you...great...

                  ...but there are alternatives.
                  http://www.rational.org/

                  by elial on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:02:50 PM PDT

              •  I guess we all have to choose

                which problem to be a part of.

                If, in the end, you won't work for the Democratic nominee if the nominee isn't to your liking, you're part of the problem and no amount of gainsaying will change any of that.

                I think teacherken said it best, when he said this a while back:  Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.  If, hypothetically speaking, I felt that the Democratic nominee was not the right person for the Presidency, and I worked to help elect that person anyway, I might not be part of the problem you describe, but arguably I'd be part of a much, much larger problem.

                Just sayin'.

                by Mehitabel9 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM PDT

                •  Wish I could recommend

                  this multiple times.  I don't vote democratic but progressive.  If someone has a "D" behind their name but is nonetheless a center-right conservative (for example, Lieberman), I cannot in good conscience support them.  Many seem to support brand name over actual policy positions.

                  by Philoguy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 06:58:30 PM PDT

                  •  You could always nominate it for Top Comments :-)

                    by Mehitabel9 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM PDT

                  •  Nope, sorry....

                    ...but wishing and hoping and voting for known lost causes gets nothing done.  I've heard this argument from the useless far left for decades too:  "If we defeat (insert Democrat here) and get someone really bad like (insert Republican here), the PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP, THE REVOLUTION WILL COMMENCE AND THERE WON'T BE NO MORE WAR OR CADILLACS!!"

                    Oh. Really.  And how'd that work out so far?  They did it to Humphrey - we got Nixon, a longer Vietnam War....and no revolution.  They did it to Carter - we got Reagan, recession, small wars....and no revolution.  They did it to Gore - we got George W. Bush, an unnecessary and damaging war....and no revolution.

                    Hmmm...is it me or is there the possibility of a pattern here?

                    OK, I'll fess up.  I like Hillary.  I like John Edwards.  I plan to vote for Obama in my primary. Any of them (and yes, Dennis too) would make a fine President I would be proud of.  The differences between them are so slight we're down to arguing about how they sound.  Oh puh-lease.

                    Claiming that any of them is the ONLY ONE who can end the war, erase poverty, protect the middle class blah blah blappidy blah  is pure male bovine fecal matter.  They'll all be working to do all of those things, and as a side note to those who either slept through civics class or plain didn't get to have it: no President does any of this all by themselves.  What they do has to get past the Congress first.

                    Bummer, huh?  Kinda kicks that "the only one" theory right in the nads, doan it?

                    So, stop planting your feet firmly in the clouds and WAKE THE HELL UP.  We're talking degrees of good here, not the Republican degrees of BAD.  Take your revolution and shove it, I want things DONE....and that's going to take a Democrat taking the oath in January '09.

                    by ProudLiberal7 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM PDT

                    •  Nor is it as if something radical

                      is being asked for here.  Some seem to pitch this issue as if concern over these things amounts to being a wild-eyed Nader supporter or implausibly believing someone like Kucinich could have a chance.  Yet it's very simple:  all that's desired is a candidate that isn't so beholden to corporate interests, that isn't so hawkish, and that doesn't pander to the rightwing by supporting things like flag burning amendments and the nonsense about video games.  There's something seriously dysfunctional about a party that nominates the likes of Kerry in 2004 and that managed/muzzled Gore as it did in 2000.  For Christ's sake, haven't any of these consultants ever read the Greek and Roman rhetoricians on those qualities that an effective leader embodies?  I.e., those qualities that draw people to support that leader?  Is it any wonder that Gore lost in 2000 by virtue of being so wooden and muzzled that he dampened enthusiasm among his own base and couldn't arouse it among independents, and even worse in the case of Kerry?  And here we are in 2008, poised to make precisely the same idiotic mistake all over again.

                      by Philoguy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM PDT

                •  See, I think...

                  Choosing the lesser of two evils is choosing to have less evil in the world.  

                  If not choosing was a better option that'd be one thing.  But not choosing ends up meaning that someone else makes the decision, and they usually decide upon More Evil.

                  by stephdray on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:39:47 PM PDT

              •  i don't agree

                but, that's ok. we'll agree to disagree.

                by extratime40 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM PDT

              •  I agree

                We should all pledge our allegiance to Tweedle Dee in order to avoid the nightmare scenario of 8 years under Tweedle Dum.

                by DemCurious on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 05:37:30 AM PDT

            •  I am an Edwards supporter,

              and I like Obama. But if Hillary is the nominee, I will support her as well. I don't own stocks. I don't even have a 401k. But the 90's were good to me, by and large, and most of the other working class people as well.

              by cackyp on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM PDT

            •  Please leave now.

              Obama supporters simply will not come out and canvass and donate to Hillary, by and large.  We just won't.

              Jefflieber was wrong: We have not become the Free Republic. You have become the Free Republic.

              I really hate how often I have to quote this part of the FAQ to people, but here it is again:

              This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.

              I will happily and, to the extent that my lazy ass will allow it, energetically support whichever of our fine candidates win the nomination, and when he or she defeats whatever scumbag loser the Republicans end up with I will cheer a mighty cheer. If you are not able to say the same thing, then please, please, please--and I say this with all possible sincerity--please leave this site right now, and don't even think about coming back until your answer changes. This place is not for you. In all likelihood, it never was.

              by phenry on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM PDT

              •  Dkos no longer meets it's own ideals.

                Probably need to start a diary of my own on this, but...

                If you didn't have DKos, where would you go instead?

                I'm sort of looking for a lifeboat off the Titanic right now.

                by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:21:23 PM PDT

                •  LOL

                  I wouldn't try PFF.

                  Just sayin'.

                  by DMiller on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM PDT

                  •  Duly noted. (n/t)

                    by Superskepticalman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM PDT

              •  Okay.. calm down and re-read what the guy said

                Obama supporters simply will not come out and canvass and donate to Hillary, by and large.  We just won't.

                He did NOT say he wouldn't vote Democratic.  Hell, I'm an Edwards supporter... and I will VOTE for our nominee.  But do you honestly think I will devote the same $ and energy to a candidate for whom I do not have faith in?  Hell no.  That's human nature.  But when I go to place my vote... it's going to be D.

                As to this part of your post:

                I will happily and, to the extent that my lazy ass will allow it, energetically support whichever of our fine candidates win the nomination, and when he or she defeats whatever scumbag loser the Republicans end up with I will cheer a mighty cheer. If you are not able to say the same thing, then please, please, please--and I say this with all possible sincerity--please leave this site right now, and don't even think about coming back until your answer changes. This place is not for you. In all likelihood, it never was.

                If Edwards wins the nomination and then the general - I'll cheer and drink until I pass the hell out.

                If OBama wins the nomination and then the general, I'll breathe a sigh of relief and have a shot.

                If Hillary wins.. I'll sigh and mutter "Oh well, at least she isn't a religious nut"

                Oh how I despise litmus tests, but if there is one, from what I've read it's this: Vote Democratic.  

                I have yet to see in the FAQ that members of this site are required to "canvass", "donate", or otherwise engage in measurable activity which demonstrates their worthiness to be here.  There's no requirement to cheer at a certain volume, donate a certain amount of money..etc.  As long as you vote Democratic, IMHO, then this site is for you.  

                After all, what is the most valuable thing you can give a candidate?  Your vote.

                As for comparisons to Free Republic.. that's so beyond the pale, I won't even comment.

                by Johnathan Ivan on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM PDT

                •  thank you jonathan

                  for the little note of sanity here.  you want to talk about cults?  How about the cult of "I'll work my ass off as long as they have a 'D' by their name"?

                  This country is in such bad shape that inaction on problems is almost as bad as Republican worsening of them.

                  by thereisnospoon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:16:02 PM PDT

                  •  thanx.. just trying to encourage tolerance nt

                    by Johnathan Ivan on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM PDT

                •  many have said they won't, however

                  symptomatic of tunnel vision, black and white thinking, the whole Freeper mindset mish mash.

                  by Runs With Scissors on