Why an Obama Supporter Ends Up Defending Hillary

During the Iowa caucuses, I finally realized that I had already made up my mind about the Democratic nomination.  I cheered the numbers for Obama showing up on the screen and cried (and felt like an idiot doing it) during his victory speech.  My husband put an Obama sticker on our good car (the Prius, not on the gas guzzling minivan) and we wake each other up in the morning, interrupt each other's quiet reading time, call each other during the day with good news about the Obama campaign (new support from the Hispanic community; his terrific response to Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remarks).  So how come I end up spending so much of my commenting time on Dkos defending Hillary Clinton?

I realized that today alone I've written 3 comments disputing people who state that Hillary supports Bush's surge in Iraq based on one reporter's claim that "she sprang to her feet" when Bush talked about it in his SOTU address.

I will admit I like Hillary.  I think she would be a fine President.  A competent President.  A massive improvement over what we have now.  But I don't think she'd inspire people.  I don't think she'd draw young people into political activity.  I don't think she could create enough support in the country to make real, and necessary change.  And I'm not sure she would win in the general election.  
But I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to baseless criticism of her, of Obama, of Edwards, and yes, even of the Republican scumballs.  We have plenty of real events, activities, associations, and positions we can criticize.  The minute we begin making things up or exaggerating events, our criticisms become questionable.  I know this is a basic premise when someone is a witness in a trial.  Get caught in one lie and everything else you say is suspect.
We should be better than that.  As an Obama supporter, I want people to respect my views on why he is the better choice.  Making up criticisms of other candidates hurts my credibility when I praise Obama and therefore hurts his campaign.

•  I decided to vote for Edwrads.

  Yet I keep defending Hillary on DKos against shrill Obama supporters.

  Why do I torture myself?

  by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM PDT

  •  it's not just Obama supporters

    by Buffalo Girl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

  •  because you have class........nt

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM PDT

  •  Damn. I could have sworn

    you were for HIllary.  But Edwards is my second choice.

    by Gabriele Droz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM PDT

    •  I like Hillary.

      I just prefer Edwards and plan to vote for him in the primary.

      I would gladly vote for Hillary in the general election. Hell, I'd vote for Obama too with no hesitation.

      by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:30:00 PM PDT

  •  as much as they decry

    the tactics of james carville, and invoke words like "swift boating," many of them do exactly the same.

    by Turkana on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

    •  And HRC may go over the top, too, sometimes,

      but only in little bursts, and I think every candidate is bound to slip in this way sometimes.

      by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM PDT

      •  any little triviality

        becomes a rec list hit diary.

        by Turkana on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:47:48 PM PDT

        •  Weak sense critical thinking is popular...

          on DKos. People start with a conclusion, and work backwards to prove it. It makes for ugly politics.

          by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM PDT

  •  must be all that Hair, True Man!

    It made people behave really weirdly in the 1960's.  I have such nostalgia for the summer of love.

    by soccergrandmom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM PDT

  •  To Tell You the Truth...I agree.

    I am a long time Edwards supporter...going back to 2002.
    However, I think Hillary has been treated rather unfairly by many in this space. I know it is all in the rough and tumble...but sometimes when I read the venom against Hillary I think I'm reading a right wing blog. Hillary hatred was their stock and trade in the 90s and painted her as "divisive." I never saw that...I saw someone who wanted to fight back against the repigs...and she did...and she won in NY...and then won again with a huge margin.

    So maybe some people can't get over the Iraq authorization...but Obama has matched her vote for vote on Iraq ever since he was elected.

    The Obama campaign and its "followers" remind me of Moonies. Even if personal like Obama, I find the culture that is grwing around him to be an ugly cult...with venom expressed towards Hillary and Edwards supporters who are sticking with their candidate.

    by demwords on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:02:31 PM PDT

•  This is a good diary and

  you are a good Democrat.

  It is people who go for the cheap shot who do what you criticize.  They practice the politics of persoanl destruction, of demonization.

  It sounds to me that you support Barack Obama for all the right reasons.  While Obama is not my candidate, I certainly think he is fortunate to have such a decent supporter.  What you speak is what "hope" is about.

  by TomP on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    I'm hoping for a big Democratic win for the for the Presidency (a real mandate, not just the kind claimed by Bush) and expansion of our majorities in the House & Senate.  And I hope we'll replace some of the slimy Dems (e.g., Al Wynn) with ones we can trust.

    by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM PDT

•  I agree

  by Buffalo Girl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM PDT

•  yes, well

  Dkos has turned into Hillary bashing Center, most Obama supporters talk less about what's good about Obama, and WAY more about what is wrong with Hillary, often over the line,  often boorish and silly. Some criticisms are genuine of course, but the level of it is over the line. Its only leading to this site losing traffic, and credibility.

  by rigso on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:29:07 PM PDT

  •  Yes, earlier today I engaged in a long wrangle

    with someone over this laughable statement:

    she's sympathetic to the right wing's long term goal to bankrupt the govt. and invalidate any future social-service spending initiatives

    To his credit, my interlocutor did eventually concede that this might not be ENTIRELY the case.  But it took a painful struggle to extract even that much of a nod to the basic reality of Hillary as Liberal.

    by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM PDT

    •  it is to YOUR credit that you have the

      internal fortitude to continue to try and unravel such convoluted and uncritical thinking.

      I used to try but it has all got a bit too much I'm afraid for me.  I am more for constructive criticism and conflict resolution and shall maybe returnr  to the fray after th worst fo the primaries are over and things  settle down as people begin (hopefully) to really comprehend what the stakes are.

      I have only gone so far as to say that my dream would a double   header of the two front runners.

      I was going to say 'Double bill', but then I realised that would be construed as advocating for you nknow who.  It is as treacherous as a swamp full of alligators out here. Thank god i'm leaving for Argentina.

      by soccergrandmom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM PDT

      •  Argentina will be fascinating

        Good luck there!  Maybe you can keep us posted, if internet access time is adequate.  

        by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM PDT

      •  Love to hear

        what you're doing there.  We're hoping to go to Ecuador if our older daughter does semester abroad there.  But this is so off topic.  Sorry!

        by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM PDT

        •  I can't see my comment about why i was going

          there. Someone seems to have hidden it.  i honestly don't understand the system anymore.

          by soccergrandmom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM PDT

          •  I saw it somewhere, earlier today

            but yeah, it might have been further down in a thread that got ugly at the top.  

            by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:37:17 PM PDT

            •  I checked my 'Ratings' and it appears to have

              been hidden, why I have no idea. I cannot believe anyone would find it offensive to state that my purpose is to see how the populace of Argentina and maybe Chile are reacting to having female presidents. Plus, I am working on an article about'The Disappeared' of both countries in their political and civil wars. In Chile especially when Pinochet was in power backed by both Reagan and Thatcher.

              If it was hidden because it is off topic, that cannt be true either can it? surely this is a political blog?  what can be more political than researching sister countries with female leaders?

              by soccergrandmom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:20:11 AM PDT

              •  maybe it was done by mistake?

                Sounds like a fascinating trip.  Hope you'll write diaries about it so I can keep up with what you're learning.

                by Tamar on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

    •  Social-services

      are a part of government she has a long history of supporting, so it's a pretty ridiculous accusation.  (She's part of the reason we have the Individuals with Education Act, among other things).  I think I read that she's one of the 10 most liberal Senators.  
      I feel funny saying all this since she's not my candidate.  But then, I could go on and on about Edwards also.  Obama, Hillary and Edwards (and Dodd, Biden, etc.) are all incredibly good.  One quick glance at the Republican possibles and our candidates shine like stars.  In fact, there was a poll showing that by and large, Democratic voters are happy with their choices for President and Republicans aren't.  Who can blame them (well, I do blame them -- they picked those losers!).

      by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM PDT

      •  Well said, well said!

        I swear to God, why aren't you speaking for the Obama folks here at dKos?

        All these people have to say to get me to take Obama's candidacy seriously is what you just said!

        If the recc'd diaries were like this one, and then laid out issues and policies and goals, I'd sure appreciate it.

        How is it that the supporters of the "politics of hope" and "reaching out" can't seem to live up to these ideas when it comes to members of their own party?

        Thank you so much, Tamar, for giving me at least a glimmer of a new perspective on what seems to be the candidate of a hopeless horde of idol-worshippers.

        Barack Obama's online presence needs way more people like you to represent him...

        by StuartZ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for the support

          I'm not always rational.  Attack my children and you're dead.  And I can't be in the same room with someone who supports Bush/Cheney.  
          But within the liberal community, I try to be reasonable.

          by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM PDT

        •  Well she IS here speaking

          and we like that.  But the shrillest voices are the most likely to drown things out.  

          Also, as someone pointed out about, the styles and strengths of the candidates do differ, and since Obama's pitch is the most emotional of the three, it kinda makes sense that many of his supporters are running on pure feeling.  

          by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:40:08 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  If more Obama supporters posted diaries like this one, I would be much more likely to consider voting for him.

  As it is, I feel like I would be helping to sweep an un-self-critical crowd of candidate-devoted (not cause-devoted) adherents into power.  It feels around here like some folks believe that if I'm not with Obama then I'm against him.

  Thank you for showing a better face for your candidate.

  by StuartZ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    I really like Edwards, but will undoubtably support Obama if he is the nominee. But I keep ending up defending Hillary and the Clintons who have been depicted by very ignorant Obama fans as neo cons, republicans in disguise, all kinds of untruths.

    I found myself almost starting to like Clinton MORE because I was having to defend so many absolute lies and distortions. One thing is for sure, it hasn't just been the Clintons distorting people's messages.

    by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM PDT

    •  Isn't it crazy?

      I've been attacking the DLC and the Clintons for years.

      I can't believe that I have to defend these people--not these people, but the objective truth.

      If the truth weren't so important to me, I'd love to see the triangulating Centrists out of power forever.

      I'm just not going to call Bill Clinton a racist to do that, however.

      by StuartZ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM PDT

      •  Yah, it's been very weird.

        I couldn't believe I was responding to so many posts. I was like, driven. I mean I just don't know if people realize that we have only had one democrat in office in over 28 years. We had 8 years of democrat. I didn't agree with everything the Clintons did but holy cow, I could stand to listen to the news and I could stand to read the paper, and I could stand working with the poor because we actually had some programs to help them with.

        It bothers me when people don't recognize how bad it's been and how much better it was even under the Clintons. The way we talked about the poor changed, the way we talked about race changed. It made a huge difference to have a democrat in office. HUGE.

        It'd be nice to see what would happen if we swung even farther to the left, but I fear that some people don't realize how evil the right side of live really was before Clinton, and now look what we got going??

        by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:54:31 PM PDT

        •  The "polarizing" thing drives me nuts

          It's bat-shit insane to tell everybody not to vote for a Democrat because the wingnut-osphere and dittoheads have been calling her Satan for fifteen years.

          What if they do that to Obama?

          Will we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, it's not fair, but that's the way it is"?

          If we don't fight back against the "too polarizing" narrative now, won't we need the approval of Rush Limbaugh listeners from now on for Democratic presidential candidates to be deemed viable?

          In my world we exist to counter narratives like "Hillary's too polarizing".

          I can't even believe that I have to have this argument with Democrats...

          by StuartZ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:18:37 PM PDT

          •  I know, I really think some of them drank the

            republican koolaide and that this is part of the Clinton problem. Aside from the obvious valid concerns about the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary)and might I add that there are obvious valid concerns about each candidate, we cannot forget what life was like under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. It ain't been pretty for minorities or poor people. The Clintons might have disappointed a lot of folks are the left. He was not my choice of nominee. But my goodness it was wonderful having a democrat in office. (but for the constant barrage of attacks).

            by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:24:27 PM PDT

            •  right now

              they love him. They  hate her, and they don't want her in the highest position cause they've been so over the top. This reminds me of the run-up to war, sold by newspapers and cable tv news.  If they never turn on Obama, it did take a way long time with Bush, and they have made it hard for themselves to take it back, it could turn out okay if he wins the nom, but a candidacy run on hating the girl can't win on hope, just hate. Seems that he's a small man, in his heart, his instincts aren't very nice.  Doesn't mean I won't vote for him if he's our nom, but it's sad that this has turned into such a hateful campaign.  Maxine Waters came out for Hillary and mentioned that it's bad for America to portray Bill  Clinton like a racist.  That kind of thing can backfire, and unfairly on those who are least able to protect themselves.  

              by anna shane on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM PDT

              •  Well it's using republican talking points to hurt

                the dems. When we are calling each other racist it keeps us from looking at the true racists in power.

                by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:01:00 PM PDT

                •  Amen and Amen! n/t

                  by StuartZ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:21:31 PM PDT

    •  Like her more

      as I keep defending her. Have not settled on a candidate. It's between Hillary and Edwards now. The attacks on her are outrageous.

      by DaleA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM PDT

  •  I think that's partly the nature of the Web

    I used to feel that way about Edwards supporters, and sort of that way about Clark supporters before that (although I always thought Clark supporters were classy -- just boring).

    I think we have to try to repeat to ourselves over and over that we can't blame candidates for their Daily Kos supporters, and it could be that the most grating posts are part of a dirty tricks campaign organized by their opponents, the Bush Rovie Vigueries, or random troublemakers.

    by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM PDT

•  When I started posting on Kos, I had no candidate

  I saw what I thought were unfair attacks on Clinton and started defending her.  I began to support her more and more for two reasons:

  1. An emotional reaction to seeing her unfairly attacked.  It's not logical, but I couldn't help feeling it.  Part of it, as you say, is that the unfair arguments undermined other legitimate arguments against her.  

  2. In defending her, I was researching her record and life story.  I came to respect her liberalness much more than I had before.  

  by Partially Impartial on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM PDT

  •  Similar journey here

    I started defending not out of real allegiance but only out of a committment to fair-mindedness.  But in the process of doing so, I researched her positions, most of which impressed me, and reviewed her alleged offenses, most of which utterly failed to ring true.

    Ironically, HRC-haters -- many, though certainly not all of them, intemperate Obama supporters --almost converted me to HRC.

    But I am still uncommitted.  I see many fine attributes in Obama's campaign, as well.  And if I can be reassured that more of his supporters are, like this diarist, still in possession of a sense of balance and perspective, I may yet get on the bandwagon. Unless Edwards rebounds ...

    by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Yours is one most important statements here n/t

    by demwords on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM PDT

  •  tha's how she became a democrat

    she had to debate for Johnson, and she did her research and she realized that's where she belonged too.  She was like 18 or something.  I wasn't at first for her either, I thought she was a light-weight opportunist, and it took some time for me to get how much she's accomplished, and how on top of things she is.  He's running a negative campaign and that moment when he wouldn't acknowledge her played to his base - Hillary haters.  He has managed to inspire over the top hate.  

    by anna shane on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM PDT

    •  That's a great story, Anna.

      by Partially Impartial on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

•  Thank you for this diary, Tamar. When I see a

  Hillary supporter going over the edge I treat it no differently than when I see any other candidate's supporter going over the edge. I would like to say, "thank you," to all the Obama and Edwards supporters who have the class to call bullshit when they see it, and a great big pfffftttttttt to the many classless assholes that inhabit this place like vermin in a mole-rat hole.

  by Rumarhazzit on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM PDT

•  Well said!

  I'm an Edwards supporter who also spends a lot of time defending Hillary.

  I'm voting for Edwards in the primary because I think he is saying what I think we need to hear about real issues in way that cuts through the abstractions.

  But I like Hillary. And I like Obama too.

  We're lucky to have THREE great choices. I know that's an unpopular position to have around here lately, so sue me. I'm not jumping on the Hillary  hate bandwagon just because all the "cool" kids are doing it.

  by Quirkygrl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:35:49 PM PDT

  •  And there are things to criticize about HRC, but

    she's just a regular, flawed person trying to swim with sharks, not someone intentionally trying to hurt anyone.

    by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM PDT

    •  Exactly.

      by Quirkygrl on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM PDT

•  I'm just sick of coming to dkos

  and seeing all the crap my right-wing college classmates were obsessed with in the 90's flying around the pages, with no apparent sense of irony on the part of the diarists. It's pretty sad that some of the diaries I dislike the most are the ones coming from supporters of my candidate. Ugh.

  by decembersue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:36:34 PM PDT

•  Good for you now put up a tip jar!

  Every time I read a comment or diary where the person is just insulting another candidate in spite of the facts I remember that 30% of the population still think George Bush is doing a good job. Fanaticism will always be there. Thankfully there are people like you to fight it.

  by Step Beyond on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM PDT

•  I defend Hillary

  when she deserves defending.  The truth is the ultimate arbiter.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:39:01 PM PDT

•  Honestly. I think there is an underworld

  of Clinton bashers here, who pose as supporters of other candidates, but obviously only exist to handicap Clintons chances. I didn't used to feel like this, but if you will notice, some post no other comments of substance in favor of another candidate.  Their mission is to destroy Clinton with some of the most hurtful vitriol I have ever experienced. Obviously, there is a whole other breed of Obama and Edwards supporters who are good people, but who rarely speak out here.  The members of the gang of nasty posters don't exist in real life, I don't find them in mine.  Who could live with them in real life?  A lot of them seem like fabricated personalities intent on posting to reinforce the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they are here just for that.

  by hopscotch1997 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:16 PM PDT

  •  I get the same feeling, hopscotch, and I

    really agree with this:

    The members of the gang of nasty posters don't exist in real life, I don't find them in mine.  Who could live with them in real life?

    Anonymity has much to do with it, I'm sure.

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:46:11 PM PDT

  •  There are some posts on Yahoo! message boards

    by people who say they have been paid by hedge funds to post posts bashing various stocks.

    I have no way to verify whether that's true or not, but, if there are paid stock bashers out there, maybe there are also paid candidate bashers out there, too.

    Certainly, we can find plenty of similar frenzies on Internet message boards about topics such as Star Trek in which, clearly, there are no paid bashers, only fanatics.

    But we know political campaigns spend plenty to openly send out press releases. It doesn't seem to be that hard to imagine that the Bush Rovie Viguerie people who run RightMarch.com might have a message board division that is trying to do through message boards what it used to do to the Clintons through e-mail campaigns.

    by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM PDT

•  Thank You...

  from a fully undecided, committed Democratic voter who is voting on 2/5 in a state that used to be the first Tuesday in June...aghhhh!  I still can't decide...but I love the Democrats and the Kossacks!!!

  by dvogel001 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM PDT

•  You might have a point

  if people were "making up" that Hillary is pro-Iraq occupation.  But they're not.

  First, how else would you interpret her leaping to her feet to applaud Bush's dishonest line in the SOTU?

  Second, there's the whole ["I AM THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK" http://codepinkalert.blogspot.com/... thing.

  Third, there's the fact that she rushed to vote for the AUMF before even reading the NIE, fabricated as it was by the Ch*ney people.

  Fourth, there's the fact that she went back to being Senator 911 in New Hampshire when her back was to the wall.

  Fifth, there's her wrong vote on Kyl-Lieberman to enable a bunch of drunken frat boys.

  I could go on.  The criticism of her on Iraq is hardly unfair.  If anything, it is too mild.

  by DelRPCV on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM PDT

  •  On Iraq, it is overall pretty fair

    and that's why she'll never be my first pick in the primary.

    But the whole idea that she's the ultimate racist mean-queen is pretty torturous, and creates a lot of tiresome make-work if it is to be beaten back as it deserves.

    by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM PDT

  •  Don't agree entirely

    There are two issues: what we should have done, and what we have to deal with. The Presidential campaign is about the latter. What should we do given the facts as they are today? All three candidates have pledged to start removing troops in 2009. That's been said over and over. Obviously, how it is done is a critical issue. There are great complexities in the Iraqi situation that we are a part of. We owe it to the Iraqis not to make a bad situation disastrous by just leaving without thought, and without planning. In other words, leaving in the same way we arrived would be a mistake. All three candidates agree on that.

    by Anne Elk on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM PDT

  •  But Obama wasn't in office for the AUMF vote

    a) I think your arguments against HRC are reasonable, and I don't think your post is what people here are complaining about.

    b) About the AUMF vote: Honestly, even though I knew what the dates were, and even though Obama doesn't claim to have voted against the AUMF, I used to be under the mistaken impression that Obama had actually voted against the AUMF. But he couldn't have, because he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

    I marched in various marches against the Iraq war in early 2003 (my baby might have been the youngest protester at the ANSWER march in Washington) but I think it's sort of unfair for Obama to run as the candidate who opposed the AUMF measure, because there's a huge difference between how a private citizen would have viewed that vote and how a senator (especially a senator who was in a bomb shelter on 9/11) would have viewed that vote.

    It seems more fair for Obama to run against HRC's post-AUMF votes, but I think she's taking a fairly standard, consistent approach to all of this. She thinks we broke the vase in the Pottery Barn and now we have to fix it, or at least not actively break it more than we've broken it.

    In the real, grim, awful world we live in, I think that's really what's in the fine print of what Obama is saying about Iraq. He's not really promising all troops out tomorrow; he's saying he's going to try to get everyone home in 18 months, if things work out.

    "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." (See this part of his Web site.)

    by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM PDT

    •  My daughter was 2 1/2

      but your baby was obviously younger.  Great march, great scene.  Reminded me of the old days!

      by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM PDT

      •  4.5 months. Any younger DKos babies

        who were there?

        by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM PDT

      •  Also: Met a really grandmotherly

        Marxist. Wonderful woman.

        But I had the feeling at the end that ANSWER is really a front group for the FBI or some organization like that, and it's real purpose for organizing the march was to have us march past the FBI cameras so the FBI could get nice clear shots of all of us marchers.

        I hope the "analysts" enjoyed the baby pictures . . .

        by sclminc on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:36:36 PM PDT

  •  My point is that criticism of her Iraq vote

    Kyl-lieberman, bankruptcy are all reasonable and valid points.  But interpreting a single reporter's description of her applause as a policy statement on Bush's surge is just absurd.  
    Criticize what's real, ignore the speculation and hype.  I was disgusted with Bill Clinton for his Jesse Jackson statement.  But I didn't jump to conclusions -- I checked out the whole question and answer and saw that Bill brought the problem on himself.  
    And Obama snubbing Hillary -- another absurdity.  
    And I am aware of my candidate's flaws.  I was pretty mad at Obama for the McClurkin event.  He clearly fell into it by mistake, followed with a very good statement and then allowed that homophobic gospel singer the mike to make disgusting statements.  And yet, I still ended up an Obama supporter.  (and felt vindicated by my choice when he made his terrific statements about accepting people who are gay to the Black community at Ebeneezer Baptist Church).
    If I were as hard on Obama and Edwards as some people are on Hillary, I wouldn't be voting for any of them.  

    by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM PDT

•  It's all pretty understandable.

  Edwards is all substance (in other words, his appeal is the populist platform, more than the guy himself), so there's nothing negative towards the others coming from his camp--the substance defines him and the comparison with the others doesn't have to be shouted.  Clinton is kind-of-substance (administrative competence and moderate-default-Dem policies we've all seen before), so she is somewhat negative--she's certainly not above defining herself vs. Obama (she doesn't vs. Edwards for purely strategic reasons--she wants his votes), but she has a record and an image, whatever you think of it.  Obama is all style, and his appeal is premised solely on the notion that he can do the job (pre- and post-November) better than the others...so it's no surprise that his campaign is the most pointed vs. the others (and again, that means Clinton since Obama is also pining for Edwards voters).

  Any political scientist could have predicted this from an opening list of candidate qualities.

  by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM PDT

  •  Interesting summary

    A bit broad-brush, of course, as summaries are, but cogent all the same. And explains a lot about supporter styles.

    by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:57:39 PM PDT

    •  People interviewed about Edwards.....

      post-NH said he was too angry.  People here see him as principled.  Apparently angry doesn't play well except here.  I think that reflection is useful for our tunnel vision.  

      by murrayewv on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM PDT

      •  I know this is true, and important

        Apparently angry doesn't play well except here.

        But I sure have a hard time getting past my blind rage at all that has occurred.  I mean, I was angry during the Reagan years, too, but this was was even more wrenching.  The catch-phrase "if you're not angry, you're not paying attention" STILL works for me, more than ever.

        But if it doesn't work in the General, as considerable evidence would suggest, well then we have to cope with that somehow.  Definitely an area of strength for Obama.  

        by lgmcp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM PDT

        •  I blog to channel my anger.....

          I am righteously angry over Bush and will support anyone who ousts him and the awful Republicans.  But I can't just say things like this to others and be effective.  That is also useful to remember.  People shouldn't be so surprised a lot of people in the USA DON'T think Hillary Clinton is the antichrist.  They did have a local commercial for a car dealer making fun of Hillary crying in a Bill Clinton immitation voice, so clearly some do.  But that just turns people like me off of ever buying their products.  Truthfully, Eastern KY is probably a lost cause and we shouldn't worry about it.

          by murrayewv on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM PDT

  •  Don't agree with this at all

    the "all style" criticism of Obama is as much a Republican talking point as are the "Hillary the cold bitch who killed Vince Foster" is.  Obama has a solid record both in Illinois and in the Senate. Look at his votes and look at the organizations supporting him.  The criticism of his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature have ignored the substance -- that this was a strategy devised with the pro-choice groups to counter targeting by the right wing.  Illinois Planned Parenthood and NARAL have made it clear that they worked with Obama on this and that he has a 100% record as far as they're concerned.
    As for going negative, they have all been negative at times.  Obama actually put off being negative for quite a while and only jumped into it when he was attacked.       (my husband kept complaining that Obama was being too nice!).  Edwards got negative at one point, but has done less recently.  And Hillary has certainly been negative.  

    by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

•  There are many things that I do not like ...

  about Hillary. But there are also many things I like. I am happy with her as my senator. (Much happier with her than I am with Schumer right now.)

  But I would prefer that she not become President.

  However this petty bickering today about the SOTU address is really irritating. Both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, and a few Edwards supporters, are showing poor judgment in these diaries.

  Those comments should really be beneath us.

  by Glinda on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    And I've said for quite a while that I wish she would just continue to be a good Senator.  From some of the comments on DKos about her, you would think that her votes have been to the right of Feinstein.  But she has been much more stand-up than that and is very much in line with our favorite and most progressive Senators (I would say that there are only about 4 Senators who are more liberal than she is).

    by Tamar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM PDT

    •  That's kind of the way I feel about Obama

      His place is in the Senate.  He can do good work there.  Inspiration and hope are concepts too vague for the presidency, in my opinion, and allow behind-the-scenes players to get too much power.  I'd rather know that the president is truly in charge and is working side-by-side with the advisers and cabinet members.

      by Montague on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM PDT

•  there was a comment upthread about anonymity

  that really got me thinking about why I feel such unease in many of the Obama candidate diaries. In the flaming barbs of Edwards supporters the dialogue was mainly about class, rich vs poor, but it remained reasonably civil.

  In many fo these Obama comment threads the threats are tangible and are beginning to affect me emotionally. It is maybe because i am a woman, but mainly it is because i am an 'older woman' and the gender wedded to generational contempt is extremely disturbing. It brings to the fore so much knowledge of woman battering both physically and verbally, and elder abuse which is so prevalent in our society.

  we do not respect our elders, we warehouse them, we dismiss them as excess baggae. That is so unlike the manner in which most other cultures treat their elders. I am finding it not only incredibly distastefylut also very frighhening.  If this is the CHANGE we are hoping for i must say I don't welcome it.

  And don't make the mistake it is about the racial thing because i have spent a great deal of my working life in Africa, the Caribbean, India and Australia as well as new York City. One of my three husbands was from Guyana.

  by soccergrandmom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM PDT

•  Tamar,

  you are gracious and classy and I thank you for your diary.

  I has been a true nightmare here for the few hardy souls who dare speak out in favor of Hillary Clinton and I'm grateful that you were fair enough to notice and courageous enough to write this diary.

  by Radiowalla on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM PDT

•  Dear Hillary

  Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you, you know.

  You are not my first choice this time, but I will always be a great admirer.

  by jayden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM PDT