Why all the shock that Hillary is not liked on DKos??

I am mystified at all the whining and hand wringing that Hillary is not popular on the Daily Kos.  Hillary has always been lowly regarded on Daily Kos even before the campaigns started.  She has always been seen as not progressive enough for most Kossacks' tastes.  She has been very low in the pack in all the straw votes here in the last year, polling far lower than she does among the general Democratic rank and file.  Look at them!  She has never gotten more than 11% of the Kossack vote, and this when she was a massive frontrunner in the national polls.

So why are Hillary advocates looking for love here?  She wasn't popular here when she was winning.  Why would we want her more now that she's losing??

And while I have the floor, may I repeat my plea that we resolve the Florida and Michigan mess by seating half the delegates.  There is zero chance that a revote plan will be proposed that will satisfy both campaigns, the DNC, the state parties and anyone else who may feel they've got a gripe.  Seating half of both delegations and giving Obama the Michigan uncommitteds would cost him a net of 28 delegates.  Obama should be able to make them up, and Hillary should be happy to get them.  

It's not a pure resolution, but there is no purity possible now.  We HAVE to put this behind us.

•  Tip jar

  And not expecting many.  No one liked the split the delegate idea before, I don't imagine many like it now.

  But feel free to go to the poll I had on my last diary and give us your two cents.

  by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM PDT

  •  Diary corrected...

    Seating half the delegates of FL and MI, and giving Obama all the uncommitteds in MI, results in an advantage to Hillary of 28 delegates.

    Seat half of them and let's move on!

    by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:43:09 PM PDT

  •  She peaked (IMO) right before yKos.

    She was saying the right things, working her way up through our opinions, actually willing to engage US, and BANG "Lobbyists are voters, too."

    She actually got to the #2 spot on my list (Edwards was #1 -- Dodd #3, Obama #4).  By the time Lieberman-Kyl rolled around she'd slipped to #8 (below Mike).

    It never seemed like she cared one whit about anything that we cared about.  Nor even to try to engage us.  A lot of other political people did/do come here and post.  To differing degrees of success.  But we generally respect them for that.  (There is at least one exception that comes to mind.)  We were quite prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and to engage.

    Obviously that did not happen.  Peter Doau came here and Alegre wrote stuff, but there is a palpable difference between being preached at by a surrogate and having a conversation with a principal.  And that is ALL it would have taken.

    But that's what happens with top-down structures.  No connectivity between the bottom and the top.

    by polecat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM PDT

    •  I went to yKos

      I remember being very impressed that she was coming to the convention because I knew that most people there didn't like her much, and I considered that quite brave of her.  And then she canceled her breakout session (each candidate had their own individual meetings with supporters after the debate), which met with massive consternation.  The reason for her cancellation was, as I recall, a fund-raiser with rich people.  

      She ended up re-scheduling her breakout for before the debate so she could make her rich-folk dinner.  Those I talked to who went to it said it was terrific.  But I don't think most of the attendees were swayed much by the case she presented in the debate.

      by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:12:03 PM PDT

•  Kos doesn't like the DLC. For a DLC stalwart...

  ...Hillary is actually treated REALLY well here.

  by Addison on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM PDT

  •  Not just Kos!

    I don't understand how ANY progressive could like the DLC. Besides, as I have been referencing for some time now, it's not as if Clinton did not know there was a backlash in the making.

    ----------
    Remember the first Clinton!

    by Gene12 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM PDT

    •  Hmmmm......

      DLC > Socialism

      jus sayin. Funny how so many Obama supproters act like neo-cons and want to seperate their own party.

      by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:37:02 PM PDT

      •  Your point absolutely escapes me n/t

        by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:39:57 PM PDT

        •  I'm sure it does

          It's just funny to see how easily Obama supporters flame the DLC. So much, for unity.

          by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:42:07 PM PDT

          •  Obama supporters?

            You suggest that only Obama supporters dislike the DLC?  Just about every progressive in the country has despised the DLC for years!

            I believe the perception is that the DLC tries to cobble together an illusory unity while compromising on key progressive values.  That's pretty much the consistent view here on DKos.  You may disagree, but please don't try to pin this on Obama supporters, or suggest that it's something new here that's sullying your vision of unity.

            by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:46:12 PM PDT

          •  Appearently

            You have never read Jerome and Kos's book "Crashing the Gate"

            The DLC is the enemy of a progressive Democratic Party.

            by offgrid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:49:18 PM PDT

            •  No

              The DLC is not the enemy. What a ridiculous thing to state. Again, so much for unity.

              by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:55:15 PM PDT

              •  You can tut-tut all you want...

                ... but you cannot deny that any conscious human who has perused DKos for any period of time must realize the contempt the writers and readers here feel for the DLC.

                by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:57:41 PM PDT

                •  It reminds me of Neo-Cons

                  And the contempt they had for moderate Repugs. I guess the DLC is like the McCain/Powells of the GOP, and many of their distracters like the neo-cons who call them "fake" Republicans.

                  Once again, so much for unity, dropping labels, and reaching across the isle......

                  by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM PDT

                  •  Not only don't you seem to grasp

                    what we don't like about the DLC, you don't seem to understand what a "neo-con" is either.

                    by punkdavid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:10:15 PM PDT

                    •  No, I "grasp" your reasoning

                      I just think it's extremely flawed.

                      by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM PDT

                  •  Actually

                    That's not a wholly untrue mirror comparison, although it's not the neo-cons on that side of the Republican Party, it's the paleo-cons.

                    In both cases, there is anger at selling out the Party's core beliefs, as the DLC has done.

                    by offgrid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM PDT

                    •  Except that the site supports

                      a whole array and type of Democrat, as long as they represent core values.  And that means, that this site is extremely supportive of Western state Democrats who are very pro-gun rights.  It means that this site supported Casey who is "pro-life".  It doesn't mean that this site supports an ethos that mirrors the worst aspects of the Republican party for the sole purpose of gaining power and control.

                      There is plenty of room for compromise and "moderation", there is no room for a lack of values or ethics.

                      by CeeusBeeus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:28:42 PM PDT

                      •  All true

                        at least as in incremental strategy.

                        While the Congress and the WH were controlled by Republicans, we had to work to elect Democrats of all stipes. As long as they had a "D" after their name, that was fine. Except for Lieberman.

                        But, after Jan 20, 2009, when we control both Houses and the WH, our strategy has to move on to trying to elect better, more progressive Dems.

                        That doesn't mean that we have to become progressive fundamentalists. On single issues such as gun control, we have to acknowledge that there are differences of opinion, and work with that.

                        by offgrid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM PDT

                        •  Well I guess it means that we

                          need to come to some sort of consensus as to what it means to be a Democrat then.  And further, what it means to be liberal and progressive, because I think we are in for a world of hurt down the line if we don't have a general understanding of what it is we as a community are trying to achieve.

                          And I agree with you regarding "progressive fundamentalism".

                          by CeeusBeeus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:07:13 AM PDT

                          •  As Twain said

                            "Moderation in all things...including moderation"

                            Yes, we do have to work on defining our terms. This is a very important project.

                            But as far as coming to consensus...it's called "politics". We just need to get to the point where we all can agree to practice clean politics.

                            I think that the biggest problem is the general lack of issues coverage in the media. Hopefully, the blogosphere will fill the gap left by our disfunctional traditional media.

                            by offgrid on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:16:37 AM PDT

              •  Corporations are the enemy

                and the DLC is the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

                by VelvetElvis on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM PDT

          •  How very Republican of you to call people

            who are repulsed by corporate control of the Democratic Party socialists. This is a reform blog. From the FAQ which you obviously couldn't be bothered to read:

            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. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.

            If you read Kos's book, Crashing the Gate, you will find out why HRC and the DLC have never been popular at DKos.

            by peraspera on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:50:00 PM PDT

            •  I'm an Indie

              And voted for Obama. But let me be clear, I still like the DLC, and could care less about "Crashing the Gate". Books are a nice source of info, but experience and knowledge guide my views.

              by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:59:17 PM PDT

              •  DLC

                Their "experience" lost a lot Democrats seats.  I know you are an Independent, I've read a lot of comments and everyone you trumpet your Independent standing.  I also I have my reservations about your Obama vote, based on your posting history and what I see as a low opinion that you have of him.  With that said, some Democrats want to try new ideas, because the "experience and knowledge" of the DLC hasn't gotten us anywhere.  You may really think the DLC is the cat's pajamas, but the majority posting here simply disagree with you.      

                by kilgore2345 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM PDT

                •  I have no problem with differing views

                  The blind hate for fellow Democrats I don't get. It's the very thing that ran me from the party.

                  I voted for Obama back on Super Tuesday, but yes, I'm questioning my vote now.

                  by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:33:41 PM PDT

                  •  Blind hate?

                    Really?  What do you consider to be blind hating?  I know you have an opinion about Ferraro - Wright hypocrisy, slam that opinion in the Obama supporters' faces only.  Now, maybe I could spend some time reading your past comments to see if you even handed with independent judgment, but I have always had the sense that you are quite harsh with only Obama people.    

                    I'm sorry, I don't think it is hate that is motivating people here to discard the DLC.  Rather, that group is ineffective in accomplishing anything considered to be a progressive agenda.  Either you move up or get out, and clearly the way the DLC was steering the party in the wrong direction.

                    I voted for Obama back on Super Tuesday, but yes, I'm questioning my vote now.

                    Why the sudden change of mind?  Obama supporters on the Internet?  The candidate himself?  I don't fully believe you voted for him any how based on what you have written, but like I said before there is really no way I can verify it.

                    by kilgore2345 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:48 PM PDT

                    •  If you respond

                      I apologize my writing is getting incoherent.  That post is a grammatical minefield.  If you do read, I hope you at least get the gist of what I am saying even though it reads like crap.

                      by kilgore2345 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM PDT

              •  Who were you

                in your previous incarnation?

                by Grannus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:30:46 AM PDT

          •  FUCK the DLC

            my two cents.

            by another cascadian on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM PDT

        •  same here...total confusion n/t

          by CeeusBeeus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:22:06 PM PDT

      •  What?

        Whazza?  

        by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM PDT

•  Are there not 70 remaing supers top be allocated

  by the party in whatever way they like.

  If we agreed to a 50% MI FL seating why could we not agree to allocate the equivelent number of deleages from this pool to Obama so the net impact of the seating is delegate neutral.

  It seems totally wrong that Obama should be punished are force to be the one to take an unecessary delegate hit, out of nobility because he followed the rules.

  Eitther that, or wait for HRC to concede and or seat MI and FL for the second round so their can join the unanamous Obama vote.

  To let them impact the elected delegate counts in favor of Hillary would be disasterous if it led to a HRC victory.  Every AA I've heard talk says under this scenario they will never vote for a Democrat again ever.  

  Why are we even playing with this fire?  

  by HoundDog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:28:27 PM PDT

  •  There are almost 400 SDs to be allocated

    We could seat them all on a 50/50 split, but that is pretty much the equivalent of not seating them at all.  Clearly their impact of their votes is entirely illusory.  I would be for it, but obviously Hillary would not, and it would be a completely artificial result.  At least the results we had in January reflect an actual "reality", albeit one that's essentially unfair to Barack.

    In any case, without those 55 delegates, Barack still looks to take the majority of the pledged delegates by late May.  The SDs will support the winner.  They don't want any trouble.  No one is going to stick their necks out for Hillary against the will of the population.

    by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM PDT

    •  I thought there were 340 unannouced supers

      and I thought many already know who they are?  Are you saying there are 400 that can be allocated at the DNC discretion?   Aren't the state supers allocated by the state rules based on elections?

      But your comment makes me wonder how many of the unnannouced supers don't even know who they are yet.

      This could explain why they have been so silent?  LOL

      But I've been assuming a lot are like Pelosi, Gore and others who know who they are but are chosen not to announce for a variety of reasons?

      I need to learn more about this.

      by HoundDog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:04 PM PDT

      •  No, your terms are confusing me.

        You are right that there are something like 340 unannounced SDs.  The number is fluid -- I threw out the number 400 a bit sloppily.

        And no, I'm not aware that there are any superdelegates that can be assigned by the party at DNC discretion.  Howard Dean can't just send out 70 new SDs in support of one of the candidates.  Can you please source your information?

        by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM PDT

        •  heh

          The Democratic Party minting a new litter of delegates to put one candidate over the top?  That's the last thing we need.  Then we'll have folks posting diaries about the curse of fiat delegates and urging us to go back to the gold standard.

          by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:06 PM PDT

          •  I may be wrong, and I was as surprised as you

            both, but I definitly read in the last week, that the DNC has about 70 delegates, it can still appoint.

            Not all the superdelegates are elected.  Many have been appointed according to complicatid formulas.

            Apparently, one example, is that the former Miss American, has apparently been appointed as one.

            One insight, I gained from this diary though, is that I need to determine exactly, how many of the remaining 340 yet-to-annouce superdelegates are already chosen, and how many remain to be elected, OR appointed on some other basis.

            I have been calling for yet-to-announce pro-Obama supers to announce to take the uncertainty out of the systsm.

            Under the premise that under assumption of an approximate tie of the remaing just under 600 supers, he only needs about 120 supers.  If he already has them, and they announce, perhaps HRC would voluntarily conceed and endorse Obama for the good of the party and her own reputation.

            But if a majority of these unannounced haven't announce because they haven't been selected yet, and don't know whom they are then I might have embarrased myself.

            but if we have 600 remaining elected delegate to choose and the supers are 20%, then my guess is that only  a maximum120 of the remaining 340 unnannouced supers don't know whom they are yet, if their appointments are connected to the state elections.

            But these are two many unknowns to make a bumber sticker.

            Thanks for the clarifying questions.

            by HoundDog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM PDT

        •  Your are right that the 76 Add On Supers

          are not chosen at the discretion of the DNC, but are done at the state level.  Dean needs to confirm them but, does not get to chose them.

          The Democratic Convention Watch website, says they are not pledged.  I am unclear how they are selected.  It looks like they may be elected without pledges, or appointed by the states.

          Sorry for the error on my part.

          We have also created a list of superdelegates that have not committed to a candidate.

          There are 795 (not including Michigan and Florida) total Democratic superdelegates that the nominees are trying to be endorsed by. This consists of 719 regular superdelegates and 76 unpledged add-ons. We will continue to add the unpledged add-ons as soon as they are named by each state. (Note: Democrats Abroad superdelegates get 1/2 vote each, so there are actually 800 superdelegates casting 795 votes).

          by HoundDog on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:31:43 PM PDT

    •  MI I can see going 50-50

      Florida with its clusterf*k I have no idea what to do except halve their allocation and apportion based upon the January vote, and strip the Supers.  There has to be a penalty for violating the rules...and regardless of the Florida Dems. spin, they flouted the rules and then refused to come up with an acceptable alternative.

      by CeeusBeeus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:34:12 PM PDT

      •  Yeah the FL supers should definitely be

        stripped of voting rights as the convention as so many of them seem to be complicit in the Florida fiasco. Amazing that Florida would try to mess up another presidential election . . .  .

        by alba on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:42:47 PM PDT

        •  No - I'm not saying the Florida

          people should be disenfranchised, however, I do believe that the Democratic party of Florida did f*k them over.  Michigan can also be not only split 50-50 but the delegation cut in half - I don't really care.  What I do care about is that the Establishment (both in FL and MI) who were/are firmly in HRC's camp tried to game the system and screw over the other candidates, not just Obama but the entire slate of them, in order to end the primary quickly, and thereby disenfranchise every other state due to the size of FL and MI.

          Listen, I'm from CA and I'm sick and tired of only being treated as an ATM, that said, I would work as hard as I could to ensure that CA did not jump to the front of the line of primaries due to the fact that the ONLY way to campaign in this state is by television and name id.  Small states serve an essential and vital purpose.  Yes, the system need overhauling, but doing it in the middle of a primary race is b.s. and there are (or should be) consequences to breaking the rules.  Just think of George who hasn't been held accountable for anything.

          by CeeusBeeus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:03:52 AM PDT

•  seat 1/2

  and give them 1/2 of a vote each;

  by pollwatch on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:28:33 PM PDT

  •  I don't understand 1/2 votes.

    Sounds too much like "three-fifths" to me.

    Not directed at you.  Directed at the concept of 1/2 votes.

    by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:49:45 PM PDT

    •  I take your point...

      ... but the states have to suffer some kind of sanction for their rogue actions.  And the Republicans have halved their MI and FL delegations for this very reason.

      Besides, this delegate process is a long way from one man/one vote.  Parts of some states get more delegates for certain reasons -- that's how Obama got more Nevada delegates from their caucus, even though he got fewer votes there.  Some regions are over-weighted or under-weighted all the time.

      by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        I'm fine with cutting the delegations in half, since that's apparently what the rules provide for by default, but I don't understand giving the remaining 1/2 of delegates a half vote each (unless you meant they would have, collectively, half the vote their state otherwise would and not a true half-vote system like Democrats Abroad).

        by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:04:08 PM PDT

        •  I agree.

          Why not just quarter the delegations?  

          by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM PDT

          •  Can we draw them first? n/t

            by Alfred E Qaeda on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM PDT

•  She did it to herself

  I was OK with Hillary for many months.

  I have been with Barack since the second he announced he was running, yet, I always felt satisfied with any of our candidates. To be honest, I didn't think my guy would win!

  But, over the course of this campaign, Hillary has been incredibly CONSISTENT. She has consistently done and said whatever would most disappoint me, whatever I would find most morally bankrupt. And in the last few weeks, I started to read those "I'm not voting for Hillary!!" diaries and wonder if they made sense. This is coming from a hard core Democrat. I just couldn't bear to reward her for her dirty tricks by making her president. Sure, there's the Supreme Court to think about....which means she will have my vote no matter what. Maybe that's what she's counting on?

  I just sincerely despise her. And she has done it to herself.

  by jenontheshore on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:30:34 PM PDT

  •  I went door to door in

    Iowa in negative 20 degree weather and never, ever thought he had a chance before he won Iowa.  Even then NH--and I thought it was over.

    Super Tuesday--remember, he was supposed to stay witin 100 or so delegates...

    Then he won 11 in a row and 14 out of 17.

    Yet it will go all the way to Denver.

    by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM PDT

•  Note to the Hillary supporters

  Don't ever complain about dirty Rovian tactics from Repugs ever again. It's obviosly okay if its from the candidate you support.

  by ghett on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:30:44 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts exactly

    It's disgusting how some people that call themselves "progressives" are turning a blind eye to Senator Clinton's dirty, negative, fear-mongering, 50%+1 campaign style.  It's in opposition to everything that progressives stand for.

    by Aerials on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:42:25 PM PDT

  •  Note to the Obama supporters

    Don't ever complain about comments from associates of candidates ever again. It's obviously okay if its from the candidate you support.

    by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:41 PM PDT

    •  So, let racism slide?

      Because that's what good Democrats do.

      by jaywillie on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM PDT

    •  There's a pretty big difference

      between a white person saying that a black candidate is only where he is because he's black and a black person saying that there has been lots of injustice suffered by black folks at the hands of whites.  

      by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:52:58 PM PDT

      •  Except....

        Both Geraldine & Wright were outlandish. Wright said A LOT more than what you're admitting. Down playing his words is hypocritcal.

        by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:06:01 PM PDT

        •  Oh I don't disagree with that

          but I'm prepared to give him some slack because blacks haven't exactly enjoyed the fruits of American democracy for most of this country's history.  There's pretty good justification there for some seriously righteous anger.

          But, for what it's worth, I'm glad that both are gone from their campaigns, and I'm glad that both candidates have distanced themselves from the comments.  Assuming for the moment for the sake of argument that both Ferraro and Wright were speaking entirely in good faith, both have become a distraction, and we don't need that.

          by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:14:04 PM PDT

        •  But Wright is not a member of Obama's campaign.

          That is guilt by association.  Ferraro had to know that as long as she was a member of Hillary's campaign, her words would be associated with Hillary.

          I think she is just surprised by the backlash.  I think she didn't think she was saying something that controversial, and then wouldn't back off from them.

          by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17:30 PM PDT

          •  But

            Wright's association with Obama was much closer than Geraldine's to Hillary. He did have a loose affiliation with the Obama campaign, much like GF did with Hillary. The real problem lies with the  many Obama supporters who linked Hillary with GF's words, yet chose not to do the same with Wright.

            It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

            by The Annoying Hater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23:25 PM PDT

    •  So you're cool with the "monster" comment? nt

      by polecat on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM PDT

    •  The Rev was talking to his congregation

      Ferraro was talking to the media. Her comments are part of a campaign strategy that has been going on for a while. Hillary is a monster, You cut off her head and she still crawls at you. Stephen Colbert.

      by ghett on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM PDT

  •  The Moment That I Decided...

    I was very pro Hillary.  I love Bill.  4 weeks ago, there was absolutely nothing you could tell me to

    1. Not vote 100%

    2. Not vote for Hillary

    The words that swayed me AWAY from Hillary was her own words...Her speech to the Pink Women:

    I was sick.  That Hillary could say this really made me sick.  Sorry.  Then she won't admit it was a mistake.  We already have a president like that.

    Her actions in the last few weeks has been gravy, in that they show me that I have made a correct choice.

    Erased, over, out.

    by Lava20 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM PDT

    •  Could you please summarize the comments...

      ... in the video that you found so objectionable?  It's a pretty long video and I would rather not listen to the whole thing to get your basic thrust.

      by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM PDT

      •  She gave a bullshit answer

        about believing bullshit Bush propaganda about Iraq.

        by tiggers thotful spot on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:14 PM PDT

      •  Here You Go!

        1.  I'm not an expert on body language.  I can tell she has already made up her mind.

        2.  "There is a very easy way to protect the women and childen...disarm Saddam."  I remember clearly that the weapons inspectors were getting a hard time but they did not have anything to go on to indicate there were weapons, or that he was going to use them against us.  I really wanted them to keep going because, while the progess was slow, it was still progress.

        3.  "I have no belief that he will."  Why is a Democratic Senator so sure of this.  Why not give it a chance.  Further, why would she show up to this meeting.  Knowing what the subject is.  And dash their hopes?

        3.  She starts with her list of absolutes 4:00 into the video.  Absolutes which were not true, and had no time to investigate.  How do you disprove a negative?

        4.  About 5:00 minutes in she starts with her concern for women and children bit...Ummmm Rwanda?  Dafur?  Of all the stuff being lead by tyrants, why do we storm the one that is oil rich?  And even if it isn't for oil...How can you ignore the rape, torture and mass suicide going on all over the world?  Let make sure here...war is the way to protect women and children.

        5.  5:34 she starts talking about continuing discussions.  But a minute and a half before she said there were absolutes...

        6.  6:15 She carefully reviewed the information.  Except she didn't read the NIE!!

        7.  After a wonderful dialog at 9:19 she respectfully disagreed?

        8.  She ends it by talking about the administrations economic policies...And she just voted to give that same admin permission to storm the castle.

        9.  At 12:00 she said she would never put her people at risk, then runs away.  Whats our total dead again?  Did tax cuts stop?  How much was the cost?

        All of that I could forgive her for.  If she would have just said she made a mistake.  She, like Bush caused thousands of our brave soldiers to die.  And then not at the very least say:  My Bad. I'm sorry.

        I so my original conclusion was correct.  Her mind is made up.  She's out of here.

        Exit stage left

        by Lava20 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:53:38 PM PDT

•  And today I've seen Hillary supporters

  claiming both unfairness of having posters tear down their candidate, AND denouncing censorship.

  Apparently, only the censorship of their fellow Clinton supporters is unfair, though. Censorship of those who don't like her is okay, and even encouraged.

  ...REALLY?

  by Annie Maim on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM PDT

•  I don't think that's a shock

  Being compared to the ebola virus for supporting Clinton might be a shock.

  by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM PDT

  •  Comparing Clintonites to Ebola? That's absurd

    Ebola is still going to be viable in six months.

    (Sorry, but that comment was just asking for some response like that....)

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:46:02 PM PDT

    •  Well I found it rather

      Shocking.

      Perhaps the title should be "Why all the shock that Hillary is hated in such a deep and profound way that it consumes our every waking moment on Dkos?"

      by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:48:29 PM PDT

      •  I don't accept your premise

        But to the extent it makes sense, it would probably have to do with what people perceive to be a scorched-earth approach to the campaign -- "the fun part," I think she called it -- that people feel damages the party.  Not so shocking, and temporary.

        by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM PDT

        •  I'm still recovering

          From my candidate being called a liar.

          Yes.  It's been a trying time for all.

          by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM PDT

          •  I don't think she's a liar

            But I do think that when it comes to campaigning she's a bullshitter, in the Harry Franklin "On Bullshit" sense.  Far less so than Bush, and less so than McCain, but enough to set off BS detectors among non-Democrats and those who aren't cathected to her success.  Politicians "know" that this sort of thing -- the equivalent to "puffery" in the advertising world -- is perfectly OK, but I don't think the public agrees any longer, not after eight years of Bush, and frankly not after the Lewinsky affair.  This is, after all, exactly why Republican voters chose "straight-talking" McCain.

            I discuss this towards the end of my diary for today, which you won't like at all, so decide to read it or not with that forewarning.

            I do look forward to our all being on the same side again.  Can't come too soon.

            by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:37:29 PM PDT

            •  Oh

              A bullshitter.

              I see.

              During Lewinsky Clinton's approvals skyrocketted so who knows about all that.  Maybe I'll disagree with you about how the public reacted to all that.

              by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:41:49 PM PDT

              •  Bill Clinton was being persecuted by Starr

                and the GOP was blocking the process of governance.  The situation was different.  (By the way, I'm not sure about this, but I believe that Clinton's job approval rating stayed high -- but I think his personal "liking" thermometer rating did decline.)

                Do you think that Clinton truly believes that Obama is not qualified enough to be President, but that he is qualified enough to be her Vice-President, although the Vice-President must be ready to take over the Presidency on a moment's notice?  I expect that you don't.  Furthermore, I expect that, like me, you believe that she doesn't really believe this -- although we may disagree about what part she doesn't believe -- and is just saying it because it helps her achieve her goals.  That's bullshitting; Bush does it all the time.  Read "On Bullshit" if you haven't.

                by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM PDT

                •  Honestly

                  Yes.

                  She doesn't plan on dying and if she did she'd have her cabinet there to advise Obama, not Obama's.

                  by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:10:44 AM PDT

                  •  Then you raise a third possibility

                    If she thinks that Obama is truly unqualified for the Presidency, but that he would be able to be helped through the hazards by her team of guides to whom he'd surely want to listen, then she is neither lying nor bullshitting.  She's delusional.

                    Furthermore, if that's what she believes, then she cannot in good conscience promote the candidacy of someone unqualified if and when she loses the nomination.  I'm sure you see where this train of thought leads vis a vis party unity.

                    Luckily, she's not delusional, nor is she our only hope.  She's bullshitting, and as soon as it becomes convenient for her to drop the conceit that Obama is unqualified to be President, she'll drop it, disavow it, refute it, and pretend she never implied it.

                    It will, I admit, be hard on her supporters who have less ability to turn on a dime.

                    by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:17:23 AM PDT

  •  Being called a cult member

    Over and over again, yeah that was pretty shocking to me too.

    by kilgore2345 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:32:46 PM PDT

    •  A movement

      Should never be confused with a cult.

      by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:47:19 PM PDT

      •  Yikes

        "A movement should never be confused with a cult."

        Maybe, I'm missing the snark here.  I am not really understanding you here.

        by kilgore2345 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:04:30 AM PDT

•  I'll get back to you on your MI & FL plan

  But don't think it isn't falling on deaf ears.

  by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Dude, if you are really A. Whitney Brown...

    ... I am a HUGE fan.

    I still quote a couple of your jokes to friends... to wit...

    The Russians say that Chernobyl was no big deal.  After all, only four people died.  And that's nothing compared to the nine that died during the Stalin purges.

    (on Chinese population) Just think -- a billion people.  That means that if you're a one in a million kind of guy, there are still a thousand exactly like you.

    Freakin' genius...

    by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:05 PM PDT

    •  Tanx...it is me.

      What a memory. I was kidding you about the plan. It's a good one.

      by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM PDT

      •  I hope you go to the Netroots Nation in Austin...

        ... I'll be there, and I'd love to meet you.  I'm an actor in Chicago and been a great student of comedy my whole life.  

        If the prospect of meeting yet another comedy nerd isn't sufficient reason to stay away, you may enjoy the convention greatly.

        And in gratitude for your kind words, I tipped your comment.  You may thank me later.

        by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM PDT

      •  heh

        All the times I've seen your posts here, that's the first time I've seen a "stopped in the coffee shop for an autograph" response from an adoring fan.  Funny.  

        On topic, I actually thought your first comment was saying that the plan was good.  I think I need to study "negation" again.  

        Then again, I ran across the following sentence in a book I was reading last night:  "She could not be convinced that she was not unattractive."

        by socratic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:10:09 PM PDT

        •  Wow, that one is hard to unravel.

          And my comment was just meant to say, out of the few hundred who will read your plan, none of us really have any input on the decision, but it's a good idea, for all the difference that makes in this whirlwind of passions.

          by AWhitneyBrown on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM PDT

          •  Well, we all put our ideas out there...

            ...hoping something will stick, and maybe someone else will pick it up, and then you get some momentum and then someone else hops on, and then your idea suddenly is an idea that has some force behind it.

            Otherwise, why do we post?  It may be futile, but we aspire to something more than masturbatory.  After all, there was a time that the only person reading The Daily Kos was Markos.

            But to be sure, the person I need to read this diary is Howard Dean.  Maybe I'll send it to him.

            by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:55:45 PM PDT

            •  word

              by AWhitneyBrown on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:24:14 AM PDT

•  Wow. ANOTHER bash Hillary diary.

  Seriously, focus on Obama's positive message.

  It is fine to criticize Hillary. But be kind to the Hillary supporters, because Obama NEEDS them to win the general election.

  About half the voters in the Primary have voted for Hillary. So DKOS is NOT representative of the electorate in general. We are all a VERY small subset of the voters a Democrat needs to win in November. But it's easy to forget that with the echo chamber of (my fellow) Obama supporters.

  For all of us that criticize her fighting style, we also criticized Kerry for NOT being a fighter.

  by sd4david on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:43:26 PM PDT

  •  We've already lost them...

    the Hillary supporters that is.  we needed this thing to end conclusively last week.  now that it didn't we're just paving a road for McCain just like Romney and Huckabee splitting the Jesus vote did.

    i swear i don't understand this party sometimes.  the more i look at it in these critical situations the more i see why so many people vote for Republicans.  the Dem establishment is incredibly timid, and won't stand up for its values or critical issues as they come up.  they spend so much time with a wait and see attitude.  we could have avoided all of this divisiveness and could avoid further division if the party establishment would just make some moves.  as it is, one side is already going to feel robbed in some fashion when we get to Denver and some serious work is going to have to be done to assuage that.  i don't know what the answer is; a split ticket ain't gonna happen.

    by cardinalzen on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM PDT

  •  It's not a "Bash Hillary" diary...

    It's a "Why the hell are you surprised that Hillary is being bashed?" diary.

    by TheWurx on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:55:04 PM PDT

  •  Look in certain ways

    despite it all I do like Hillary, but the chance for her to win the nomination in any kind of acceptable way has passed.  Now she only is helping the GOP to attack him.  I will vote for her if she wins with the pledged delegates or the popular vote wholeheartedly, but not if she "steals" it with the SD's only.  That is the only case in which I will vote third party or not at all for POTUS, which will drain me as a voter to no end.  Barring a complete collapse by Obama (which I think highly unlikely) she can't win by any acceptable means at this point.  That matters.

    by bythesea on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:00:17 PM PDT

  •  in the general election....

    The problem with being a "fighter" at this stage is that, just as you say, we need the voters from the two campaigns to cooperate and vote for the winner. The "kitchen sink" strategy hurts.

    I have two questions:

    1. What does Clinton's campaign hope to achieve with the kitchen sink strategy? It seems like a hail mary pass at this point. If she does win the nomination, it will almost certainly take supers and pledged delegates opposing the will of the voters. But then how does she get support when at least half the electorate will think she "cheated"? Are they really trying to win this election?

    2. What goal do Clinton supporters hope to achieve with: a) posting campaign talking points as diaries on this site, e.g. Alegre's "Just  words" b) posting complaints that Obama supporters are being unfair on the site?

    Do they think this helps their candidate? How so?

    Both tactics strike me as a poison-the-well strategy. And I'm guessing it works about as well as that time Bill O'Reilly took down DailyKos.

    by antboy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM PDT

•  Hillary is Hillary!

  I have been watching the blogs and I  just happened to see and article by none other than Glenn Beck whom I do not like much that spews from him, but this said something about taking responsibility for your actions and he said, (in my words) that the MI & FL delegates should not be counted as all agreed to not count them and stated so in written agreements. Live with it! I do agree. Just my two cents.

  by nancat357 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM PDT

•  Hey, It's not like

  Barack was doing so great here before he was the obvious front-runner.  I remember when the Rec list and all else here was Edwards.  

  by bythesea on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM PDT

  •  funny that.

    People don't seem to remember that for months, it was Edwards who inspired fanatical loyalty from Kossacks.

    It was Edwards who was supposed to be the real candidate of the left, the one who really cared about working people, while Obama was merely an elitist corporate sell-out. How quickly things have changed.

    As much as people here like to pretend they're independent freethinkers, the fact is that there's a strong pack mentality here. And Kossacks, like most people, love to be on the winning side.

    by limpidglass on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM PDT

    •  I came here because it was pro-Obama :)

      Why am I always the last one to the party?

      by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:49:25 PM PDT

      •  just because you came a bit late

        doesn't mean you can't have fun here :)

        by limpidglass on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:54:41 PM PDT

    •  Excuse me...

      ...but if we merely wanted to be on the winning side, we'd be Republicans for the last 8 years.

      And most of the people on this site who were for Edwards backed him until the day he left the campaign.

      You've got a hell of a lot of nerve to call us front-runners.  It's been very discouraging being a progressive for a very long time, and for once when one of our candidates has a shot at the win, some punk calls us a front-runner.

      by TheWurx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:00:40 AM PDT

      •  well, is he or isn't he?

        if you believe what some of the Obama backers say, Obama has such overwhelming support that the people of this country will riot in the streets if the superdelegates dare to vote for Hillary, as they could very well do.

        That makes it sound like they think he's the frontrunner.

        But then they turn around and say that Obama's the gutsy underdog, fighting valiantly to win the nomination against insurmountable odds, and that the superdelegates should step in and give him a hand against the Clinton machine.

        That makes it sound like they think he's not the frontrunner.

        So which is it? Can't have it both ways.

        Frankly, were I backing Obama, I'd have been pleased that someone called him the frontrunner. That means he's favored to win, and you don't find that disagreeable, do you?

        And I never said that winning was the only thing that mattered to people here; as you rightly point out, if winning was the only thing we cared about, we'd be Republicans.

        I just noted that Kossacks, like people everywhere, enjoy being on the winning side. It's just human nature.

        by limpidglass on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM PDT

        •  You chop the English language like a Cuisinart

          I'll try and take this item by item...

          There surely will be tumult if the superdelegates reverse the clear desires of the rank and file voters of the party.  If they throw the election to Hillary after Obama gains a majority of pledged delegates, popular votes, states or however else you may define the victory, you may be absolutely certain there will be both fury and mass desertions from the party.  Such a result would be an absolute perversion of the system.

          Secondly, I have never heard anyone suggest that superdelegates should overturn the primary results if they went in favor of Hillary.  The desire for superdelegates to declare for Obama relates to creating the necessary majority required for nomination, consonant with the preferences of the primary vote.

          If you have seen any opinion that superdelegates should overturn primary victories for Hillary in favor of Obama, please favor us with a link.

          Next, you play fast and loose with the multiple definitions of "front-runner."  The gloss I used meant "one who opportunistically supports whoever is ahead," as opposed to "the one who is ahead."  The first definition is a pejorative and applies to observers of a contest, the second simply descriptive and applying to a participant in a contest.

          Those are two very different definitions.  I believe the context of my comment made it clear which definition I meant, but you either confused which definition I meant, or you convoluted it with the other definition for the purposes of your argument.

          Put very simply, if you're saying I'm supporting Obama just because he's ahead, you can go to hell.  I've supported too many losing candidates and had to accept too many "moral victories" to take that kind of crap now.

          by TheWurx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:37:47 AM PDT

•  Why all the talk that Barack cant close the deal?

         She had a 20-50% lead in just about every state  just based on name recognition,  she had all of the DLC type establishment folks get behind her early and she had access to the Clinton Money machine....   The big story is that the dog(us) doesnt really like the dogfood(3rd Clinton Term)..   Its been a visceral rejection of the past by most of the democratic party since the beginning but this story doesnt seem to catch on.

  by Klaypott on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM PDT

•  I am not AT ALL

  shocked that Ms Clinton is disliked here (or anywhere).

  I am shocked that Mr Obama has as wildly enthusiastic a following as he does... it appears cult-like.

  The reality based view is that the next President takes over in a shitload of trouble, with US economic might more than overstretched, and yet both candidates propose expanding the US military, which is a major cause of the real decline in our collective fortunes. (Well, those of us who aren't Halliburton or Exxon investors, holders of Euros or Gold)

  by tiggers thotful spot on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:47:07 PM PDT

  •  The cult-like meme

    I really don't understand the whole cult-like meme. What is cult-like about supporting a candidate?

    Is it because he has great oratory skills, and people feel inspired after hearing him speak? Then I guess JFK and MLK must have been cult leaders too.

    Is it because the Obama campaign is more people-powered, with large throngs of volunteers doing everything from making calls to canvassing? Then I guess unions must be cults too.

    Is it because supporters believe that he is more ethical and honest than his opponent? Then I guess... Ok, you should be catching on by now.

    There is absolutely no basis for saying that the Obama campaign is cult-like. To use Obama's words, it's absurd.

    by dawnt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:53:30 PM PDT

  •  Short Memory

    This site clearly had more support for Edwards than Obama a few months back.  Many of his supporters weighed their choices when he dropped out (suspended?), and chose Obama.

    The way HRC and her surrogates have handled her campaign, trying to marginalize Obama and trivialize his successes, has contributed mightily to the diminishing of her standing around here.  Bill made it a lot worse.

    Methinks a few people came to the conclusion that the Clinton campaign displayed a very annoying sense of entitlement.

    by threegoal on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:09:34 AM PDT

•  The posters here are not typical Obama supporters

  I know quite a few people backing Obama and you hear very little from them of the vitriol and insults spouted here.  National polls indicate the vast bulk of supporters of either candidate would support the other if they become the nominee.

  It is a fact that things have gotten tense of late.  And I do think there is some basis for the Clintons to take their share blame for it.  I am glad Hillary apologized the other day.  The Ferraro episode was inexcusable.  But as the Jeremiah Wright episode showed, there is bad behavior on both sides of the fence.

  The DKOS boards are so pro-Obama they have become a a terrible place to get soundings on reality.  By way of example, a couple of days ago I pointed to the emergence of the Wright situation and suggested Obama would need to deal with it more forcefully than he had heretofore.  I explained that my post was aimed more in looking to the future, where if Obama was nominee I planned to support him.

  I was called a Concern Troll and otherwise insulted/ignored by the pro-Obama folks here.  If you say you are a Hillary supporter here, apparently that delegitimizes anything you say.

  So here we are, two days later, and Obama is doing exactly what I suggested he needed to do.  And frankly he is doing it very well.  The issue should be closed.

  But I hope this episode is a lesson to the more fanatical Obama - and yes, Hillary - people here.

  At the end of the day, we are all Democrats who want to advance the issues we care about.

  by FDRDemocrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM PDT

  •  No Sh*t

    People that hang around here that write diaries and post comments are clearly more passionate than the average Obama or Clinton supporter.  The action of reading all this stuff and posting is a natural selection process for the passionate.

    There is no doubt that there have been comments that have been over the top, and I hope that they will diminish if there's any good outcome from the face to face the two candidates had in the Senate.

    There is no doubt that there are a lot of issued on which supporters of the two candidates can find common ground, but do understand that many Obama supporters are looking for a degree of change that goes well beyond what HRC and the DLC, are calling for, to say the least.

    by threegoal on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:22:25 AM PDT

•  Many of you don't get it

  the issue is not supporting Clinton or Obama.  The issue is mere civility.  The issue is that every diary turns into a feeding frenzy, where supporters of Obama gang up on and attack Clinton supporters.  Diaries in support of Clinton get HR ratings in the tip jars, even for diarists with long histories here, even histories of well-received and Recommended diaries. People, instead of ignoring diaries or writing why they disagree, demand that people "boycott" the diary, or even the diarist.

  And it gets worse.  I have received personal email, ugly email, for what I wrote on this blog.  I took that as a threat, by the way, to extend it from home to work (I am one of the few completely UN-anonymous people here).  Another blogger here tried to start a campaign to identify the real-life personnas of Clinton supporters, an implicit threat to out people for their political position.  

  Additionally, the administrators have done nothing about any of this.  They claim they will try to put the lid on once actual outing begins, but