My morning at MyDD.

Oh, what a joy it is to go to a one-time preeminent liberal blog run by Markos' former writing partner, Jerome Armstrong, and witness the power of the Democratic netroots!

Take a gander at what they've been cooking up today over at MyDD!

(more)

All in a morning's work for the good Democrats of MyDD! (Yes, these diaries are just from this morning before lunch! Still a half day to go!)

• Did you know that MSNBC has signed a secret agreement with the Obama campaign to back his candidacy and attack Clinton?

  Here are the facts!!!!!!

• Did you know that a The New York Times front-pager today about fears for Obama's safety is also part of this conspiracy?

  Here are the facts!!!!!

• Did you know that voters backing Obama are "Kool-Aid drinkers" and that Democrats are so stupid that they may nominate the "wrong candidate?"

  Here are the facts!!!!!

• Did you know that Nation of Islam head, Louis Farrakhan, endorsed Obama and along with the endorsements of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Jewish Americans have reason to be fearful of an Obama candidacy?

  Here are the facts!!!!

• Did you know that Obama is a secret frontman for GOP interests?

  Here are the facts!!!!

• Did you know that Obama and George Bush are two sides of the same coin?

  Here are the facts!!!!

Whew! That's a lot of hard work!

I predict that after a good lunch, the crew will come back refreshed and offer a plethora of new gems, including:

BREAKING: Obama = Satan!!!!!!

Good thing Jerome and company are on our side. I hate to see what they'd write if they were a Republican blog!

•  What's the delegate count

  at over there?

  HRC 1227

  BHO 1056

  Just a guess.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM PDT

  •  1278 to 1232, Obama over Clinton n/t

    by Hannibal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM PDT

    •  He changed it very recently

      after people called for it. Not 100% sure, but the MyDD delegate ticker seemed to have remained static since Feb'6th until that recent update.

      In any case, the real delegate count is:

      Pledged Delegates

      Obama: 1193, Clinton: 1034

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM PDT

      •  B-b-b-b-b-but Obama HATES AMERICA!!!

        It's all due to breastfeeding, apparently.  

        One of my favorite writers has jumped the shark.
        .

        by Grand Moff Texan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:10 AM PDT

        •  and i thought only senator clinton looked like

          captain queeg grumbling about someone eating her strawberries, but it seems to have spread to her supporters

          by TAPayne on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM PDT

          •  Spengler is a Clintonite?

            Judging by his "there is no lever of policy left" talk, I got the impression he's just a crusty old fart who forgot to die.
            .

            by Grand Moff Texan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM PDT

      •  Kinda of

        Jerome Assclown was not including delegates from caucus states because even though they had been won at the caucus they hadnt been seated via the nominating convention.

        Hmm. I wonder if Jerome did that in 2004?  Hmmmmmm.

        Umm..no.

        by alexm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM PDT

  •  as I understand it

    They're going to set up a separate delegate tracker that breaks out delegates to states that count from the ones that don't count.

    by CaptUnderpants on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM PDT

    •  Comment of the week

      Right there

      by aerojad on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM PDT

    •  MyDD = The Onion

      No shit.

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM PDT

  •  Easy enough for you to check yourself.

    by Osiris on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM PDT

    •  I think you missed the point

      It's not the numbers, just the way they are being reported.

      by hopeful on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM PDT

      •  I go the point.

        But did you get the point that he was wrong?  That the delgate count had Obama in the lead?

        by Osiris on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM PDT

        •  *got correction n/t

          by Osiris on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

        •  My point, unclear as it was, was that

          since HRC's Super Tuesday loss that the counter at mydd had been lagging at best and frozen with HRC in the lead at worst.  It was, quite literally, denial of political reality.  Only recently has that changed.  

          McCain and the IRI--wars for 100 years, at minimum.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:18:06 AM PDT

  •  They were just trying to provide balance to all

    the HILLARY = SATAN diaries here.

    Not to mention the HILLARY = BUSH diaries.

    I try to avoid reading any of them, from either perspective.  

    by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, "balance"

      Just like Faux news.  

      I am enjoying today's pro-Obama diaries, expecially two on the rec list right now on how we don't need to go negative, we don't need to Hillary-bash, and our votes for Obama are not protest votes against her.

      Are there "balance" diaries at MyDD for THESE?

      by Dem in the heart of Texas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM PDT

      •  There is one over there asking Clinton supporters

        to tone down their rhetoric against Obama which is good.  Of course that diary's comments broke down to:  "Obama supporters are pretending to be Clinton supporters just to make us look insane."

        It is pretty funny.

        by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM PDT

        •  I am all for Hillary and her supporters to

          continue and engage in this behavior. Obama will stay above the fray and make her look like ten year old tantrumming.

          by ZinZen on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:46 PM PDT

        •  That's RedState level lunacy.

          by ogre on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM PDT

      •  Exactly.

        You don't need to go negative, but you sure the hell have.  For weeks now.  

        And don't compare what goes on here to MyDD.  This is Dailykos - not MyDD.  

        There's been a constant stream of Hillary bashing for weeks.  No balance here - none.  All Hillary bashing - all Obama can-do-no-wrong.  And if you can't see that you're blind.

        by Miss Blue on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM PDT

        •  That is the problem with having such a large

          majority of Obama supporters at this site.  Look at the recommended list:

          Important Updates to Siegelman Blackout Story in AL [Updated]
          by Mogolori
          226 comments (226 new)

          I am not voting against Hillary Clinton on March 4.
          by Nuisance Industry
          65 comments (45 new)

          Hillary Doesn't Need Your Help
          by wmtriallawyer
          267 comments (66 new)

          My morning at MyDD.
          by Bob Johnson
          224 comments (8 new)

          Daily Drudge
          by Turkana
          676 comments (676 new)

          Edwards and Obama Endorsers, MoveOn & SEIU, Launch "Iraq/Recession" Campaign
          by NCDem Amy
          193 comments (193 new)

          Mark Penn's lobbying shop is headed by John McCain's top adviser
          by JedReport
          446 comments (446 new)

          Monday Morning Obama Anecdote
          by mismolly
          166 comments (166 new)

          Not bad.  Only one anti-Hillary diary and one anti-insanity-MYDD diary on the list.  The bold titles are positive and/or call out negative diaries.

          Now compare that to MyDD:

          This Needs to Stop
          by sricki
          119 comments

          Williams Stops Photo Flap/Obama Attacked HRC on Bhutto
          by susanhu
          42 comments

          In Ohio: Obama Flip-Flops On Outside Political Spending
          by andrewalker08
          22 comments

          Now He's Lying About NAFTA
          by alegre
          89 comments

          Obama Camp Doesn't Know If Hillary Is The Culprit [UPDATED]
          by andrewalker08
          91 comments

          Only one positive diary on the MyDD list.

          by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

          •  That site has some serious administrator problems

            if its whole rec list is populated with these types of diaries.

            by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM PDT

            •  I actually feel sorry for Jerome.

              At one time, there actually was some level of sanity at myDD.  Now, the number of commenters that appear to be insane/ignorant/quite possibly posting during study hall (or recess) is so high that I'm not sure it's possible to administer the site anymore.

              by msanthrope on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM PDT

          •  "Hillary Doesn't Need Your Help"

            is not a positive diary.

            by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM PDT

            •  We disagree.

              wmtriallawyer is asking Obama supporters not to do attack diaries because it makes Obama supporters look bad.  He also accurately writes that Hillary is doing more damage to herself than any attack diary could do.

              That is a fact.

              by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM PDT

              •  We disagree

                and that is a fact, too.

                A diary criticizing Clinton and her campaign, at some length, is a not a positive diary, even if it contains felicitous advice to Obama supporters.

                I happen to be a fan of wmtriallayer, BTW. As candidate diaries go, that one wasn't bad. But I still don't think it was "positive."

                by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM PDT

                •  see, here's the disagreement I have with this

                  I think it's perfectly FINE for someone to be highly critical of either candidate's campaign.

                  I do not think it's perfectly FINE for someone to make ad hominem attacks on either one - I am very turned off by this.

                  What you're suggesting seems to be that for the site to look pleasant, there should be a quota of diaries of one kind or the other.  I can't think of anything I'd hate more, frankly.

                  by Dem in the heart of Texas on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:30:22 AM PDT

        •  Huge sweeping generalizations

          kill nuance. They also attempt to silence debate. This cannot be rebutted as a rebuttal means I'm blind. In the reality you create in your post no disagreement can be brooked.

          This doesn't lead to conversation. You aren't interested in conversation. I don't appreciate that. It's wrong.

          by Andy30tx on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM PDT

      •  I don't know, I don't go to MyDD much

        although I have seen pro-Obama diaries on the rec list there.

        I have found Talkleft has a balance of Obama and Clinton supporters with few accusations of Satanism.

        by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

        •  myDD

          is the bob dole of blogs nowadays.

          by alexm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM PDT

          •  Sad...

            it useta be a go to for me.

            by mayan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM PDT

          •  No, that's an insult to Bob Dole.

            More like the Gary Bauer of blogs.  Or maybe the Duncan Hunter.

            by msanthrope on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

        •  Yes, indeed

          I am starving for good, objective discussion of the candidates, and I've found some of that at other blogs like TalkLeft. Both Dkos with its rabid pro-Obama stance and MyDD with its Hillary stance (although I've seen some objective posts there, to be fair, and I haven't spent enough time there to really judge) have pushed me out of the nest to look for sanity elsewhere.

          The frothing foam is getting all over the floor and on the walls, and I often need a bath after reading on the blogs lately.

          As is often said in such circumstances, just sayin'.

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:06:55 PM PDT

          •  what do you expect given how much

            both those candidates suck.  now, if my candidate, bill johnbob richdoddwards hadn't been hounded out by the rovian msm and the penn/axelrod consortium... then you'd see a real progressive campaign.

            by 2nd balcony on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM PDT

            •  Support for a candidate is fine

              Mindless support, with absolutely no retention of the ability to have a modicum of objectivity, is not so good. I would hope everyone could acknowledge the truth of that.

              by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM PDT

    •  Ah yes, the balance that we also see at Fox News

      Why doesn't the site concern itself with smacking down some of the dubious claims posted over here instead of posting every Obama conspiracy theory out there?

      by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

    •  MyDD screenshot from a few days ago

      Providing balance.

      I would suggest that a more productive way to counter unfair hits on Hillary is with positive pieces on Hillary, rather than unfair hits on Obama.

      Just my two cents.

      by brendanm98 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:14:17 AM PDT

      •  Yup, one would

        think that the most effective way to promote your candidate would be to underline all the policies, positions, and outstanding characteristics of your candidate and also discuss all the energy coming from that campaign.  I wonder why so many Clinton supporters haven't chosen to do this.

        by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:20:55 AM PDT

        •  Any pro-Clinton diary here

          is a hate magnet.  Alegre writes one almost every night.  9 out of 10 are positive.  If she writes an "anti" diary it's on an issue or issues.  But no matter, her diaries are spammed and hammered.

          She's a good Democrat, a talented writer, a long time member of what used to be a "community" and deserving of respect.  But what she gets here is a thorough trashing by some of the nastiest, meanest and mostly new to Kos Obama supporters.

          It's a shame.

          by Lying eyes on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM PDT

          •  This is really dishonest...

            You are right that Alegre's "anti" diaries take a lot of heat, but there's a reason for that.  In one instance, Alegre quoted Obama out of context about Edwards and then tried to suggest that Obama was making fun of Edwards for his passion about issues pertaining to poverty.  Yesterday or the day before Alegre attempted to argue that Obama was lying about Clinton's record on NAFTA without pointing out a single place where Obama's charges were factually inaccurate.  When these things were pointed out to Alegre, she refused to change or modify her diaries to reflect this.

            One of the central pillars of this community has been honest and fact-based argumentation.  Indeed, one of the reasons this community arose in the first place is that many of us were literally going mad from the sort of reporting about the Administration in the media and the distortions coming from the media itself.  Many of us came here as a way of validating that we weren't insane and as a way of gathering information and finding the truth in a world that had seemed thoroughly pervaded by distorted propaganda.  It is not spamming or "being hammered" to have false statements and distortions corrected.  Nor are anti-Obama arguments off limits.  When Alegre says something like "go post in your own diary" or "grow up!" in response to criticisms that demonstrate that a claim is false or a half-truth at best, she is violating the spirit of the community.  Of course, I can only speak to these two diaries as examples of what I'm getting at.

            by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM PDT

            •  Obama did in fact make fun of Edwards

              and Clinton for their answers to a debate question and he continues to dissemble today on NAFTA.  If she said "write your own diary" it was a response to a 10mile long link.  As for "grow up" sometimes it is  all you can say when dealing with nasty smart-ass teenage-like comments. And her pro-Clinton diaries all full of them.

              by Lying eyes on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

              •  Shakes head in utter

                wonder.  Amazing, really amazing.

                by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM PDT

              •  And Saddam was behind 9-11

                too.  Do you have any idea how much damage you do to your own credibility and your candidate when you argue so dishonestly?

                by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM PDT

                •  brillant

                  your guys lies and it means Saddam was behind 9-11? Wow.  

                  by anna shane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

                  •  Wow, it gets better.

                    Maybe a reading comprehension course is in order.  It's called sarcasm, i.e., that this line of argument has about as much factuality behind it as the claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11.

                    by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

                    •  except?

                      come on philosophy fellow, give the other side now?  

                      by anna shane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM PDT

            •  obama admitted it

              in his flier he quoted Hillary as claiming NAFTA has been boom for our economy, and she said no such thing. He also claimed he could blame her for NAFTA because she takes credit for Bill's accomplishments and she does not.  Does that satisfy you? Obama didn't apologize, he apparently thinks he knows what she really means and it's fair for him to claim what he thinks is what she's said. I say, shame on him, and I hope he's asked about this deceptive stuff in the debate. He's trying to portray her 'negatively' by misquoting her and adding up out of context quotes to make his case against her. She's right to ask him to face her with these sleazy accusations.  he's perhaps trying to distract voters who can see she's the better qualified and the better prepared, so all he can do is distort her record and impugn her character. I'd call that Rovian.  I'll go farther, I think he was a coward for refusing to attend the New Orleans conference.  Did he wish to distance himself from black Americans?  Did he not wish to stand next to her with his hope message and her hope and detailed plans and great record message?  Will he ever say?  

              by anna shane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM PDT

              •  And this is a distortion...

                He was mistaken in the claim that Clinton said that NAFTA was a boom for the economy.  He was not mistaken in the claim that Clinton has often spoken positively about NAFTA.  Here is a good summary of those occasions where she does here.  The fact that she did consistently speak positively about NAFTA severely diminishes the oversight of quoting the "boon" comment in the flier.

                by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM PDT

                •  Whoops, the link

                  I wanted was here.  Incidentally, this whole "boon" argument is a prime example of "parsing".  Strategically it's not exactly the best argumentative strategy to adopt if you want to overcome that negative stereotype for your candidate.

                  by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

                •  and so has he?

                  what's that got to do with his lying?  He's "mistaken" - goodness, that's quite some mistake. He left out his own support by mistake too?  

                  by anna shane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM PDT

                  •  Hell, I'll just go ahead and

                    quote Great Uncle's entire post here for the sake of those who might be mislead by these red herrings, so that they might judge for themselves:

                    Hillary Clinton's Support of NAFTA Has Been Well Documented
                    February 23, 2008
                    HILLARY CLINTON PRAISED NAFTA FOR YEARS

                    2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton's Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

                    2003. Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

                    2003. Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

                    1998. Clinton Praised Corporations for Their Efforts On Behalf of NAFTA. The Buffalo News reported, "As first lady, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with either trade move. Nor has she repudiated them. In a 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." [Buffalo News (New York), 7/16/07]

                    1996. Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

                    1996. Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

                    1996. Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton's Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]

                    DURING THIS CAMPAIGN, WHEN ASKED ABOUT NAFTA, CLINTON HAS NOT CLAIMED SHE DID NOT SUPPORT IT

                    Asked Whether NAFTA Was a Mistake, Clinton Said It Was a Mistake To the Extent That It Did Not Deliver. Clinton, asked whether NAFTA was a mistake, said "Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped. And so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we're going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world. ... NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for trade timeout. When I am president, I'm going to evaluate every trade agreement. We do need to get back to enforcing the ones we have, which the Bush administration has not done. They have totally abdicated that. But I think we have to get broader than that. We've got to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. We've got the WTO that enforces financial and corporate rights. We need the International Labor Organization and other mechanisms that will be there to enforce labor rights and environmental rights. And that's what I intend to do as president." [Democratic Debate, 11/15/07] VIDEO HERE

                    Clinton Didn't Say Whether NAFTA Should Be Repealed; Just Said It Didn't Realize The Benefits It Promised. Clinton, on whether she'd be willing to repeal four things (DOMA, Telecom Act of 1996, NAFTA and Welfare Reform) that happened during the Clinton years said, "NAFTA, you know, I have said that NAFTA did not realize the benefits that it was promised for a number of reasons. This is not just about Mexico but about the tri partied relationship. So I thing generally we've have to generally have smarter trade agreement that not only have labor and environmental standards which I fully support but really have an ongoing evaluation of the impact of trade agreements." [YearlyKos, 8/4/07]

                    BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA

                    JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Said "A Lot Of People Think NAFTA's A Bigger Problem Than it Is. During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said "She [Hillary Clinton] believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don't enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA's a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them." [Bill Clinton, 1/18/08]

                    Bill Clinton Defended His Decision To Enact NAFTA And Disagreed With His Wife That It Has Hurt Workers. "President Clinton is closing one policy disagreement with Senator Clinton while keeping another alive, saying his wife is right to forbid the use of torture but wrong that his signature trade deal has ‘hurt' American workers. ... He staunchly defended his decision in 1993 to support the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mrs. Clinton said over the summer had ‘hurt a lot of American workers.' Asked directly by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if he agreed that the pact had hurt workers, Mr. Clinton replied, ‘No.' He said NAFTA had become a ‘symbol' but America had worse trade deficits with countries such as China and Japan than it did with Mexico." [NY Sun, 10/1/07]

                    COMMENTERS HAVE CRITICIZED CLINTON FOR HER FLIP ON TRADE

                    Bloomberg: Clinton "Praised" NAFTA, Friends Said She Was "A Free-Trader at Heart." Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. 'The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. 'Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.' Praise for Nafta At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: 'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.' Clinton 'is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. 'She would absolutely do the right thing as president.' There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization." [ Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

                    SF Chronicle: Clinton's Position On Trade "Clearly A Flip-Flip To Unions And Industry Sectors" And A "Bid To Outflank Her Rival, Senator Barack Obama." "Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton's coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a "timeout" on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It's clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/07]

                    by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM PDT

              •  Excellent points, Anna.

                I also deplore his refusal to attend Tavis Smiley's conference in New Orleans.  Courage is obviously not part of his resume.

                by Lying eyes on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM PDT

            •  not dishonest

              typical exaggeration by Obama fan.
              lying eyes: "thorough trashing by some of the nastiest, meanest and mostly new to Kos Obama supporters"
              bingo. "mostly new"
              why did I suddenly start getting email from life-long Repubs saying "vote Obama" at almost the exact same time all these heavy-handed Obama fans started blasting away on DKos?  The kosnewbies vitriol almost sounds like posts on Readstate or something.
              Don't be so smug Philoguy.
              Apparently Obama has run a better campaign.
              doesn't mean he's right.
              His mutterings on healthcare reform are doa imho (and Edwards, Krugman, Josh Marshall, etc etc)

              Philoguy: "Amazing, really amazing."
              piss off.

              by cj51 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM PDT

              •  Not an exaggeration at

                all if you scroll back up.  She has been a strong supporter of NAFTA.

                by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM PDT

            •  First of All Phil, If You' Read

              last night's diary, you'd have seen the proof that BO's lying about Hillary's NAFTA record.

              Second - stop distorting myposts... the only time I suggested somone go write his own diary was when someone posted the same thing over and over - you know... spamming?

              The only time I suggested someone grow up was when they acted like a jerk and gloated over the state of the race.

              Nice try in excusing childish and hateful behavior on the part of BO's followers here, but I'd put money on BO's being embarrassed if not flat out pissed off at some of their posts here.

              by Alegre on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

              •  yeah, but he thinks so

                it has truthiness to him, so he'd put it into a flier and that would make it true.  Why does Obama have to resort to lying, isn't hope enough?  

                by anna shane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:52:09 PM PDT

              •  Sighs, here's

                yet more from Sirota Alegre.  There's nothing hateful about it, just a deep dislike of distortions and obfuscations coupled with an unwillingness to admit it when confronted with evidence to the contrary.  For crying out loud, she speaks positively about it in her book.  Don't reinforce the "that depends on the meaning of 'is'" stereotype.

                by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM PDT

    •  'Hillary=Satan' diaries don't get much respect

      but 'Barack={insert anything bad you can think of}' all get ringing applause and commendation by other users at myDD. That's the difference.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:19:02 AM PDT

      •  Hillary=Satan Diaries don't get much respect?

        Is getting on the rec list a sign of disrespect?

        by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:48 PM PDT

        •  Oh really? Care to point us to one of these

          diaries?

          by Yoshimi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM PDT

        •  you have to distinguish

          "Hillary is Satan" diaries from diaries doing valid criticism and justifiable rapid response (Hillary's campaign has been extra-ordinarily negative, please see a list here).

          by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

    •  Bullshit.

      by Flippant on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM PDT

    •  Agree

      Save some of this vinegar for McCain, folks, don't want to wear yourselves out, now, do you?

      by LFL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

    •  Hey Hillary does not = Satan

      or = bush.

      Can't you count.  Obama = satan.  See, same number of letters, and even same number of "a"s in the name.

      And no one equals bush, I wouldn't even want that for the worst of democrats.

      by jimraff on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM PDT

  •  Don't know about

    Clinton's totals, but if Obama = Satan, then it's clear he has 666 delegates.

    by MLDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

•  Those last two,

  or something in the same vein, have shown up here this morning. Maybe others, too. I can't keep track of every diary.

  by yellowdog on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05:43 AM PDT

  •  If we're honest, very similar diaries

    appear here at DKos, with the candidates reversed.

    We are rapidly approaching the moment where this party has to reunite. Ironically, the divide within the progressive netroots seems to be widening. I hope this isn't reflective of the general electorate.

    by Chrispy67 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:11:06 AM PDT

    •  I dont think it is.

      It's too bad I spend more time here than in the general electorate. Those folks are boring...

      by ablington on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM PDT

    •  I don't consider MyDD to be part of the

      progressive netroots anymore.  Not because they don't back my preferred candidate, but because crude race-baiting diaries routinely top the recommend list there, and a large number of posters there think Obama's father being Kenyan is an "issue".

      by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:45:06 AM PDT

      •  But it WILL be an "issue"

        to the same people who keep saying Obama is a Muslim or a black nationalist or unpatriotic because he doesn't wear a flag pin, etc., etc.

        There is of course a significant overlap between those folks and the people who think Hillary is "shrill" and "unfeminine," etc., etc.

        by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM PDT

        •  well the republicans

          are going to keep redefining patriotism every four years in a way that neatly excludes our candidate and includes theirs.  The questions is if we will let them get away with it.  

          The incredible thing about MyDD is that many there seem to have decided that the best way to respond to republican attacks is to anticipate them and launch them yourselves against the democratic candidate you don't want to win, and then justify it by saying you are just trying to save the party from what the republicans will inevitably do.  

          by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

          •  That happened here in earlier days

            when Clinton leading in the polls and seemed more likely to be the nominee.  Every old GOP talking point was dredged up from the bottom of the cesspool.

            There were even Vince Foster and Whitewater diaries.

            Now people just say they hate her.

            As I said above, I can't speak for MyDD; I rarely do more than check the front page for interesting-looking non-candidate diaries.

            Talkleft is worth checking out if you are interested in relatively evenhanded discussion between Obama and Clinton supporters.

            by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM PDT

            •  Whitewater and Vince Foster

              diaries here rightly get laughed out of the room.   At MyDD, anti-Obama diaries equally lacking in facts and at times containing outright race baiting shoot to the top of the Rec List.

              You are trying to create an equivalence where there is none.    It is not equally bad on both sides.  On one side, the level of discourse is objectively much lower.  

              by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM PDT

              •  I think you missed the point

                When Clinton was on top, you saw such diaries, now, not so much.

                It is always easier to be gracious and sane when you are winning. Clinton supporters on MyDD are making asses of themselves at present, but we should remember, at present they have a harder row to hoe.

                by Robert Farrell on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM PDT

                •  I have never seen a diary

                  with Whitewater/Vince Foster crap on the rec list.  I have seen many substantive anti-Hillary diaries, but I have never seen what I guess we could refer to as a "Scaiffe-based" diary.  Again, the equivalence you are trying to support simply doesn't exist.    

                  by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM PDT

                  •  Uh, in the last two weeks, I certainly have.

                    I went there for some balance, but so far, the site has been dominated by "Obama is a closet Muslim" "Obama is a closet Black Panther" "Obama is a misogynist" and "Obama is a cult leader" - except I am being extremely generous in terms of grammar and spelling.  Really, at present, the site is pretty indefensible.

                    by msanthrope on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:01:39 PM PDT

              •  Not just talking about diaries

                calling for new investigations of Vince Foster's murder or claiming that the Clinton's actually committed crimes in connection with Whitewater.

                But countless diaries about how the allegations made by the GOP in the 1990s -- allegations almost wholly without merit (well, there was Monica) -- constituted a reason not to nominate her, since those allegations would be exhumed and run against her yet again. Whitewater, the commodities trading, the freakin' travel office -- it's all been discussed here time and time again.  We can't nominate her because she has all this baggage.  Let's catalogue the baggage!

                In the meantime, when I suggested last week that Michelle Obama's "first time proud" comment should be clarified to put an end to story, I got hammered by people saying I was repeating GOP talking points.

                The bottom line, I suppose, is that people find it difficult to be objective when they passionately support a candidate. But we could probably all try a little harder.

                by litigatormom on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM PDT

      •  isn't it MyDLC now?

        by cardinalzen on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:07:09 AM PDT

        •  No, it's myIForgotToTakeMyMeds.

          Front page diairies are not terribly bad, but they are usually pretty thin, and the recommended diaries are craaaaazy.  

          by msanthrope on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

      •  agreed

        some there seem to go along with what the Republicans are believing about Obama having Muslim roots and about Obama being unpatriotic and all the other vile, hateful things spread in some of those emails.

        This especially disturbs me as it is just so ridiculously racist and absurd

        Did you know that Nation of Islam head, Louis Farrakhan, endorsed Obama and along with the endorsements of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Jewish Americans have reason to be fearful of an Obama candidacy?

        by wishingwell on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM PDT

    •  For Example

      Identical diaries were posted here and there detailing how Obama's mailers about NAFTA and health care are filled with vicious lies.  Here, the diarist was met with literally hundreds of substantive rebuttals showing, for instance, that the NAFTA mailer is completely factually correct.  As is her wont, the diarist never responded to substantive criticism.  Her most direct response to the most complete and sound rebuttal was "why don't you go write your own diary?"

      At MyDD, her diary was met mostly with equally outraged Clinton supporters, who thanked her for helping get the truth out.  When I tried to offer a documented rebuttal, I was responded to with non sequiturs, abrupt dismissals, or silence.  One poster told me that s/he had followed my advice and come here to see the responses and there were no "substantiative" rebuttals.  The same poster echoed Alegre in decrying the "sensorship" that goes on here.

      It is a fact that I wasted my time trying to reason with folks who were uninterested in the facts, but it's dispiriting to me as a member of this community and six-year reader at MyDD that folks would be utterly immune to facts.  I'm not talking about matters of interpretation: The diarist said, among other things, that Obama misattributed quotes to Clinton.  I pointed out that this was impossible, as the NAFTA mailer never quotes Clinton.  Seems like an open and shut case to me.  But not to the devoted Clinton supporters of MyDD.

      by deminva on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM PDT

      •  Heh. "Sensonship".

        Evidently "sensorship" has security value.

        Nice post.  :)

        by Fogiv on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:09:28 AM PDT

      •  My favorite is when they

        cry "but this blog is supposed to be about getting democrats elected", as if that goal means that we throw out all critical thinking with regard to candidates with a (D) beside their name and never engage in any fact checking.  Apparently this fact checking and critical thinking counts as an "attack" for a number around these parts.  By this reason George Dubya could put a (D) beside his name and he'd immediately be worthy of support here.

        by Philoguy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM PDT

    •  Splitter!

      REG: ‘The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ... Judean People's Front.’
      P.F.J.: ‘Yeah...’
      JUDITH: ‘Splitters.’
      P.F.J.: ‘Splitters...’
      FRANCIS: ‘And the Judean Popular People's Front.’
      P.F.J.: ‘Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...’
      LORETTA: ‘And the People's Front of Judea.’
      P.F.J.: ‘Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...’
      REG: ‘What?’
      LORETTA: ‘The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.’
      REG: ‘We're the People's Front of Judea!’
      LORETTA: ‘Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.’
      REG: ‘People's Front!’
      FRANCIS: ‘Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?’
      REG: ‘He's over there.’
      P.F.J.: ‘Splitter!’

      by Mr X on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

    •  The Mechanisms Favor Widening the Divide

      as far as I can tell.

      I note that both of these candidates have expressed distance and some hostility to the left and activists in the past, so a disruption of the activist left would not necessarily be a problem for them.

      by Gooserock on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM PDT

  •  And these diaries don't speak for everyone here

    either or the entire site or the entire staff. Just like those diaries don't do that at MyDD.

    This kind of seems like a "gotcha" diary by Bob without much to it when you look at what its saying in context.

    Not that it won't work and quickly make the rec list and get some Obama supporters filled with indignation.

    by okamichan13 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM PDT

•  When o when will March 5th get here n/t

  by smash artist on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM PDT

  •  next wednesday n/t

    by missreporter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:23 AM PDT

    •  Unless the standard calendar "doesn't matter."

      by pat208 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM PDT

      •  Obama added a day to February...