Feingold to Obama Supporters: "Cool It."

So it comes about that ... Just to run this up the flag pole in a very short diary, see what the reaction is and move on.

Russ Feingold said the following yesterday:

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/...

"I'll tell some of the (Barack) Obama supporters here today: Cool it," Feingold, D-Middleton, said Wednesday to a group of about 50 people at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County. "Take it a little easy."

The campaigns of Sens. Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York have exchanged blows in recent weeks, and aides to each campaign have resigned after making controversial statements. At UWMC, Feingold aimed his censure at Obama supporters, saying their purpose should not be to "crush" Clinton, but at other times, he seemed to take aim at both campaigns' rhetoric.

I wonder if he's beginning to realize a danger for Barack Obama in the General Election.  Some of it might be his fault.  You can't divide Dems against Clintons and not pay a price.  Sorry.  You can't.  All you can do is divide Dems against Clintons and then figure the price you're paying is affordable if what you're purchasing is independents who have also been members of the Clinton Hate Congregation.

Some of it isn't Obama's fault, or even the Obama supporters fault.  The Media comparing Clinton to Tonya Harding wasn't Obama's doing.  As far as I know that wasn't even something that came about from Obama supporters.

But the damage done there is still, I think, real.  I tell my mom, who has disengaged herself from the process and refuses to watch any media at all at this point, "Guess what mom, they're now comparing her to Tonya Harding."  You can imagine her response.  I tell my wife that, and you can imagine her response.

The single most consistent phenomenon I've experienced in this campaign is my sense first and foremost that my outrage was a lonely outrage.  But then I ventured forth out into the rest of the blogosphere.  I consulted others in the real world and I found that the things that I've expressed on this blog has some weight in numbers.

This is as far as I go in this diary.

UPDATE/Correction:  According to slash196, the Tonya Harding comparison did come from the Obama campaign.  

UPDATE/Correction:  According to Erik W, it's not proven that the Tonya Harding comparison came from the Obama team.  That's what I figured in my diary.  

•  As a Feingold fan and Obama supporter...

  I choose to look at his comment not as some warning about how far Obama supporters are taking things, but instead as telling them not to rise to the bait. Obama is the front runner, Obama supporters should chill out a little bit, because the sturm und drang doesn't help their candidate at this point.

  Clinton and her surrogates and supporters are going to continue to say and do outrageous things because they are in a desperate position. It does Obama and Democrats no good to live in a constant state of inflamed anger. Be like Obama: let the attacks and the dirty tactics slide off your back.  

  by beanbagz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:46:24 AM PDT

  •  Hillary supporters, COOL IT!

    by bluecayuga on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:26:59 AM PDT

  •  That's a fair assessment

    But it's also fair to say both sides and supporters should have a bit of a détente.

    As an Obama supporter, I do cringe at seeing supporters wanting to stomp anything Clinton related into the ground.  It's tough to remember in the heat of the moment, but keep in mind that what's fair game in a general, is not the same as a family fight.  We do need to cool it.  We don't need to be baited by every little distraction and keep our eyes on the prize in November.

    That doesn't let the Clinton supporters off the hook.  29% say they will vote for McCain in the general if they don't get their candidate.  I've seen that as a standard talking point on MyDD for why Hillary's more electable.  If we want to talk about destructive party politics, this is Exhibit A.  Throwing a temper tantrum and taking the ball home with you is just plain childish.  There are many people who didn't get their first choice, namely the Edwards people, but they've moved on and understand what's at stake this November.

    by BoringUserName on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:14:40 AM PDT

    •  No it's not

      There isn't a single word in Feingold's statement that supports this intepretation. It's what beanbagz chooses to think.

      by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:19:17 AM PDT

      •  I'm adding my own observations nt

        by BoringUserName on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:48:17 AM PDT

  •  As someone who...

    ...supports Feingold, and only Feingold, you can choose to look at it as anything you want, including a call for Obama to quit and an intimation that Russ is going to run as an independent. That don't make it so.

    by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:18:16 AM PDT

•  As soon as Hillary is out of the race

  we Obama supporters can be as gracious towards her as Obama has been all along.

  Until then, part of her own "vetting" is seeing how she stands up under a small portion of the amount of ridicule she would face, were she to win the nomination, over her pathetic confabulation foreign policy "experience" to try to compete with McCain in the domain of having war stories to tell.

  Even then, I would not mind her staying in the race had she not tried to distract from her own problem regarding Tuzla by deciding belatedly that it was time to get her own fingers dirty whipping up some resentment against Obama over the Wright sermons.

  As for your mother and your wife, they will be voting this fall over whether to end the war and whether to block appointment of a Justice who would overturn Roe and Casey.  I trust you to convince them, as we reach November, to uphold their values.

  I am looking forward to being able to "cool it" and to the eventual kumbaya.

  by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:46:44 AM PDT

  •  They don't believe

    McCain will appoint judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

    The republican party is stringing fundies along on that issue.

    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:50:11 AM PDT

    •  I remember people saying the same thing in 2000

      and 2004 ...

      At this point, if people don't believe another Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito judge is in the pipeline ... they're delusional.

      by balconesfault on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:43:16 AM PDT

    •  Then intelligent guys like you

      will have to give them a wake-up call, once you examine McCain's position on judges.

      Seriously, exactly how is this supposed to work?  McCain is going to appoint judges who refect his own anti-abortion beliefs, as well as broader conservative ideology, only after ensuring with a sly wink that they will switch sides on this issue like David Souter?  Why would anyone assume that the next Justice appointed will be any different from Roberts and Alito?  You don't do your side credit here, Edgar.

      by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

•  Actually, the "Tonya Harding" bit came from

  the Obama campaign. And it's 100 percent correct, including the bit where the plan fails and Harding still finishes behind her rival.

  by slash196 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:52:13 AM PDT

  •  So it did come from the Obama team then

    Thanks for the clarification.

    I'll post an update.

    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:53:08 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      Click.

      by Plutonium Page on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:55:42 AM PDT

      •  Thanks

        I'll be sure to let the women in my life know where it came from.

        by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:59:06 AM PDT

        •  How about you don't.

          Unless they have not already voted in this election, funneling anti-Obama information towards Clinton supporters isn't helping anything.  It only increases the stridency that you denounce in your diary and weakens the Democratic Party in the process.

          by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:04:00 AM PDT

          •  No

            I will.

            Facts are facts.

            by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:04:44 AM PDT

            •  True, they are, but I'm sure you're not

              funnelling them many aspects of reality that reflect negatively on the Clinton campaign.  The Tonya Harding thing should enrage people so much when given in context.  Are you planning on doing that?

              by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:06:55 AM PDT

              •  Wow. big mistype

                shouldn't*

                by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:09:51 AM PDT

              •  If there is anything I have learned

                From this campaign, as I've seen statements from Clinton and her team twisted and torn, is that context is something I should ignore.

                by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:10:57 AM PDT

                •  Then you are no better than those you decry.

                  And this diary is hypocritical in nature.  Certainly, I wish that some Obama supporters would listen to the message, but that's a disappointment.

                  by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:12:30 AM PDT

                  •  F*ck, missed the snark n/t

                    by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:13:25 AM PDT

                  •  You know

                    I am not decrying anyone in this diary anyway.

                    Things are the way they are, I've learned to live with them.

                    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:13:54 AM PDT

            •  Joeytj

              It didn't come from the Obama campaign. It came from a anonymous democratic superdelegate (neutral) talking to somebody at MSNBC or ABc, cant remember. Fact are facts, but not all of them real. Jack Tapper said it came from a Democratic official.

              Tonya Harding from Obama campaign? not really, click here.

              by Joeytj on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:11:05 AM PDT

              •  That's what I figured

                If you see my diary above I figured it wouldn't have come from the Obama folks.

                But then some folks here said I was wrong.

                Maybe you should address THEM!

                by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:12:41 AM PDT

                •  Joeytj

                  I know you're a Hillary supporter. Hate Wright, see Obama as the race card player, Hillary being "bullied" by the media and all that. I'll just say that you be a bit more open minded about the information that pretty much contradicts the notion that the constant negative one is Obama. Mark Halperin over at thepage.time.com is pretty usefully. 2 days ago he questioned the Obama campaigns language in memos, and said that in the last 3 or 4 days its been the most negative out of both the campaigns in the last week. BUT, he he clearly states that it's been the Clintons who have overall stirred the campaigns into a more negative atmosphere. He's comes out as a bit more pro Clinton to me, but i admit, he and Chuck Todd (more pro Obama) are one of the best political media analyzers out there, and both agree that Obama has fallen in to some of the traps of negativity throughout, but make no mistake...  Hillary has been no saint and is the most responsible for taking this campaign to were it is right now. And it all has to do with how Clinton portrayed herself from the beginning. She is the tough one, and her husband said it, ITS A FOOTBALL game to them. Everything goes.  

                  Here, very good read by Mark Halperin. Why she is still in it.

                  by Joeytj on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:32:25 AM PDT

                  •  Halperin

                    Is an Obama supporter.

                    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:34:22 AM PDT

                    •  uhhhh no

                      Halperin is one of the Clinton's campaign key media allies. They use him for friendly "leaks" and everything.

                      This is the guy who had a "FIGHT ON SISTER OF CHAPPEQUA" banner prominently displayed on his blog.

                      I know when you're a hyperpartisan, even friendly sources can sometimes seem antagonistic, but seriously, Halperin is a big time Clinton supporter to the same extent (if not more) that Jonathan Alter is an effective Obama booster.

                      by Stroszek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:44:08 AM PDT

              •  Thanks! I didn't know that.

                I should have checked Media Matters first.

                by Plutonium Page on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:18 AM PDT

            •  Facts are facts, except

              When you're wrong.

              The story people are saying showed Obama started the Harding thing actually says the opposite:

              "Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.

              "We decided that's not the kind of campaign we wanted to run," he said.

              Obama said his campaign has been trying to point out differences with the other candidates without going negative.

              However the Clinton campaign has accused their Democratic rivals of negative attacks throughout the campaign.

              * This does not say the Obama campaign called Clinton Tonya Harding

              * In fact, it shows Obama refuting the characteriation of himself as Tonya Harding

              * The only negative campaigning documented in this story is that "the Clinton campaign has accused their Democratic rivals of negative attacks"

              To cite this article as proof that Obama started the Harding comparison is blatantly false. You might as well blame Mr. and Mrs. Harding for originally naming her Tonya -- this is a reference to Tonya, not an accusation of Clinton in any way.

              by MarkC on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:01:01 AM PDT

            •  That's amusing coming from you. nt

              by TheBlaz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:28:31 AM PDT

      •  That may be the original source of the

        Tonya Harding analogy, but it certainly wasn't an analogy to the Clinton campaign at the time.

        by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:55 AM PDT

    •  No, it didn't.

      Unless you know who Jack Tapper's anonymous source is.

      http://mediamatters.org/...

      See, this is how bullshit gets started. Obama's statement back in December was not what "started" the idea that Clinton was employing the "tonya harding option."

      by Erik W on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:11:21 AM PDT

      •  I'll add another update then

        n/t

        by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:15:04 AM PDT

    •  That's a DIFFERENT Tonya Harding reference

      The one about Clinton pulling a "Tonya Harding" came from an uncommitted DNC type.  The one lined here is Obama back BEFORE IOWA saying HE isn't going to pull a "Tonya Harding" even though HE'S is behind in the polls.  Huge difference -- and you're diary is misleading if it conflates the two.

      by VirginiaDem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:23:25 AM PDT

  •  Nope...

    Not from Obama camp.  The Tonya Harding thing came from an "Anonymous Democratic Party official" in an ABC story.

    Jake Tapper

    l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

    [...]

    She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

    "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

    The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

    by Dumbo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:09:59 AM PDT

    •  Nup... It started out at PFF

      http://www.politicalfleshfeast.com/...

      Hillary Harding and Barack Kerigan (5.00 / 1)
      Most people are idiots.  But don't tell them.  It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.
      by d3n4l1 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:32:12 AM CST

      *shrug*

      by kraant on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:23:01 AM PDT

      •  But that was not ABC News's source. -nt

        by Dumbo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:34:04 AM PDT

    •  Well, let's say it did anyway.

      A little lying here and there is good for a campaign....Isn't it?

      by kitebro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:56:43 AM PDT

•  HRC had the absolute GALL

  to say that she would not have attended Obama's church.  Never mind that I agree with her.  And so do probably 90% of Americans.
  Who does she think she is? :D

  by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:59:24 AM PDT

  •  You agree with her?

    Yet you blame her for agreeing with you and speaking her mind about it.

    I don't really know how that makes any sense.

    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:00:39 AM PDT

    •  I'm being facetious, Edgar. nt

      by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:02:01 AM PDT

      •  Oh, OK

        You don't agree with her.

        I do.

        by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:03:45 AM PDT

        •  Edgar, Edgar.

          I DO agree with her.

          I'm satrizing the over-the-top outrage of Obama supporters to a perfectly legitimate statement of hers.

          by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:06:12 AM PDT

          •  Wow

            stupid me.

            I get it now.

            Sorry.

            by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:08:10 AM PDT

            •  It's okay.

              It's pretty damn early where I live.
              The dog sleeping under my bed decided she needed to start barking at something at 0330.

              by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:11:48 AM PDT

            •  Joeytj

              It's not legitimate. She was asked the same question by the Philly Daily News a day before, and again some days before. She didnt want to answer. Comes the Bosnia story, and decides to sit down with the leader of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" in Pittsburg, and suddenly gives her "legitimate" opinion about Wright. Mike Huckabee agreed with Obama, other Conservative writers agreed with Obama. Look, it was an attempt to distract the attention away from her Bosnia lie. And given the fact that she chose to sit down with the man who accused her and her husband of murder... Tells a lot about her doesn't?

              by Joeytj on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:17:21 AM PDT

              •  It may

                well have been cynically motivated, but it is a legitimate point of view.

                by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:19:41 AM PDT

                •  so is, "American foreign policy was a factor

                  in 9/11"

                  but apparently we "progressives" now shudder at the notion.

                  by Stroszek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:47:25 AM PDT

              •  Calling her a liar

                Might be what Feingold is talking about.

                by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:29:04 AM PDT

                •  ironic that

                  since the Clinton campaign continually accuses Obama of lying, even to the extent of claiming he wasn't a law professor.  He was.

                  by loralei on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:10:14 AM PDT

•  Embittered attitudes are unavoidable in such a

  close race.  We have two candidates with enormous, enthusiastic fan bases.  People get very emotionally involved in the process.  Most people here have, which is part of why they're here.  Many people at other political communities have as well.

  People will get strident, people will be hurt.  I think it is important to remember when an unnamed DNC member compares the Clinton campaign to Tonya Harding for their tactics or when Senator Clinton makes an experience and electability argument that suggests that John McCain would be a better President than her Democratic rival, that supporters of either campaign realize where the remarks are coming from and why they're being made.

  In the end, we are going to have to support the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, and if we go off to our respective echo chambers (yes, both Daily Kos and MyDD qualify as text book examples of echo chambers) and read angry tripe denouncing the opponent as dirty scum, that we realize that that dirty scum would make a far better President than John McCain and that we are doing ourselves no favor in tearing each other down.

  Because in the end, this is a nomination, not the presidency, that we're talking about.  If you've developed a hatred for another Democratic candidate or that candidate's supporters, an alarm should go off in your mind that you've gone to far.

  Now, that doesn't mean that the race shouldn't continue.  If either side is using questionable tactics, they should be called on it.  And if someone finds something that is a legitimate question about a candidate, that should be brought up too, but if you see those on your side going to far, call them out.  That's what Feingold did and it would be nice if more people on both sides did the same.

  by Meng Bomin on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:00:11 AM PDT

•  Joeytj

  Contrary to Edgar08, this acctually seems like an attempt to cool down the Obama campaign on its calling for Clinton to call it quits.This isn't an attempt to back down from his endorsement or saying that Obama might not win it, just that he knows that calling for Clinton to quit could backfire. He's not the only one who thinks like. Today we got to test the waters at what would happen if surrogate and the media called directly for her to quit. I think the campaign and surrogates got the message "don't give the Clinton campaign a reason to play the victim card". Dean was really good at putting a deadline for the process to come to an end, BUT carefully warned against doing this swiftly. Just like in New Hampshire, everybody was swift to crown Obama, and underestimated the Clintons.

  So, stop all this "Clinton must quit NOWW!" shit. It's not helpful. Obama can do this on his own, maybe with some help every Friday hehehe. Big endorsements seem to come in by the weekend.

  by Joeytj on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:05:22 AM PDT

  •  correct yourself

    the obama campaign has not asked clinton to step down...we've had too much of the victim card deployment...already she's out there claiming that they are trying to bully her...leahy may be an obama supporter, but he is not an integral part of the obama campaign

    by succinct on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:30:51 AM PDT

•  I don't necessarily agree with this part.

  Some of it might be his [Obama's] fault.  You can't divide Dems against Clintons and not pay a price.  Sorry.

  I think maybe you overestimate the importance of the Clintons to the Democratic Party as a whole.  Certainly they have a constituency.  I used to be PART of that constituency.  But it has been eight years since they were in office, and the loyalty and protectiveness that many of us felt has had plenty of time to dissipate.

  And a number of intervening matters have taken place in this time that have further diluted it.  I won't go into things like the AUMF vote, because I'm sure a lot of people who are for/against the Clinton don't know the details.  

  There is, however, a general discontent both in the country and within the Democratic Party (the whole Party) about the direction of this country.  The right direction/ wrong direction polls show it widening and widening.  And a lot of that has to do with dissatisfaction with not just Bush but with the Democrats that have done nothing to rein him in.  It's "A pox on both houses!"  And the Clintons walked right into that, fairly or unfairly as it may be.

  Obama had one very right idea.  He ran on "Change."  Notice how all three candidates rushed to embrace that vague word after Iowa?  It was because of this obvious fact, that this was going to be a "Change" election (whatever that means to you).  

  Hillary Clinton's campaign theme, however, was that she was ready.  Ready for what?  Basically, to continue the Clinton legacy.  That is a great sounding campaign theme if you are a member of the Clinton family, or a long-time Clinton staffer or apparatchik or just somebody who identifies with the Clintons and wants to see them succeed for vicarious reasons.  But most people don't see it that way.

  So there is a price to pay, but not such a big price.  A lot of people want to move on.  That's one type of "Change."  No more Clintons, no more Bushes.  The distinction between the two has become blurred in many people's minds.  Fairly or unfairly.  (I think most fairly.)

  It is interesting to me how McCain had poised himself to run as a distinct person from George W. Bush, even though he supports Bush's failed war.  That is because McCain has always been a bit of a rebel within his own party, an object of their criticism (almost derailing his candidacy).  And he is so clearly defined as a unique figure that he may well, when the general election comes, be better poised to represent himself (correctly or incorrectly) as some kind of change to the status quo.  He's definitely a likable guy.  I don't like anything about his foreign policy, but I admire him personally and can't stomach the idea of seeing him attacked.  He might be a tough candidate to beat if the Republicans get their act together.

  McCain versus Hillary would have been much different than McCain versus Obama will be.  It would have been man of character versus wonk of the past.

  Note: I also don't understand or sympathize with the enormous amount of sensitivity of the Hillary supporters on here and other blogs.  I understood it with the Edwards' die-hard supporters, but some of the Hillary supporters take everything very personally, when its not.  I guess its difficult for me because I never identified Obama or Edwards as protagonists in the drama.  I was, and still am, ready to turn on Obama if/when he becomes president if he doesn't get us out of Iraq.  But some of the Hillary supporters on the blogs (not Edgar) sound downright spiteful in their anger at possibly losing.  Like, threatening to vote for McCain, just to show everybody.  To me, that's kooky.

  by Dumbo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:31:14 AM PDT

•  Oh, so only the Obama camp is divisive?

  I'm puzzled by this quote:

  You can't divide Dems against Clintons and not pay a price.  Sorry.  You can't.

  But you can divide Dems against its base in the African-American community?  You honestly think Clinton isn't driving Obama voters away?

  This primary season has long since passed the point where it was just building enthusiasm for the general election, and now everything is perceived as insult.   You can either join everyone in playing the outrage game, Edgar08, or you can try to stop it.

  Calling on Clinton to stop her campaign is precisely what we need to start doing.  

  Waiting around until June, following day after day of insults from both sides and with dwindling prospects for both candidates for a general election, just for Clinton to recognize that she's already essentially lost the race just doesn't make any sense.

  by psericks on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:34:51 AM PDT

•  Thanks for keeping up the comic relief

  This one is rich

  You can't divide Dems against Clintons and not pay a price.

  So, you are agreeing that Bill and Hillary will extract a price on those of not willing to anoint her.  Thanks.

  See you at the coronation...

  Still LMAO

  Keep it up Edgar.  I love to laugh at your "but she should still win it" posts.

  by DrWolfy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:36:53 AM PDT

•  Yep, Obama is responsible for the divisions...

  When Hillary gave a speech where she openly mocked Obama and his supporters, it was really a call for unity.  Unfortunately, Obama has disdained from unifying the Democrats in the same fashion.

  When Clinton supporters routinely refer to Obama supporters as members of a cult (or "Obamites"), it's an attempt to embrace the "Obamites" in a spirit of unity.

  Those silly African Americans (who are incensed because they believe the Clintons have been playing the race card), they'll eventually come to their senses. If Clinton is the nominee, then they'll realize that they were just too darn sensitive and were only imagining that the Clintons were trying to sow racial division.

  by xynz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:41:09 AM PDT

  •  Funny thing is, I wouldn't call Obama supporters

    African Americans.  Indeed, I know a few AAs who are ardent Hillary supporters.  Now being from NY might influence that, but be careful when you lump certain groups into one camp or the other, as you'd be surprised how fluid political dynamics are.

    by Dcoronata on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:15:16 AM PDT

    •  80-90% of AAs support Obama

      It's far more true a statement than saying "women support Clinton."

      by psericks on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:38:59 AM PDT

•  Weirdest thread I've read in weeks. nt

  by k9disc on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48:09 AM PDT

  •  It needed to be said :)

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:19:53 AM PDT

  •  And I don't think I've ever encountered...

    ...the guy who always puts his name in the comment subject line.  How weird is that?

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:22:21 AM PDT

    •  

      very weird.

      by VoteHarder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:25:04 AM PDT

•  Obama is no Kerrigan.

  He will win the gold.

  by mastrwik on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48:52 AM PDT

•  Folks Here

  Seem totally happy for McCain to win the general election, as long as Clinton is completely destroyed in the primary.

  by bink on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:06:58 AM PDT

•  Forget Tanya: on DKos she's called a sociopath

  Don't they realize how badly that damages the roughly 13 million who have already voted for Hillary, to hear Obama's supporters call her such names?

  You can't legitimize either candidate by delegitimizing the other!

  by Dcoronata on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:12:48 AM PDT

  •  only hardcore partisans read DailyKos

    if most people read blog comments, it's one of the ones from the major news sites, which are dominated by racist right-wingers.

    This old line of concern trolling is silly.

    We've heard for months on how thoese "meanies on DailyKos" are going to be THE END OF OBAMA (TM). It never is. Just another fantasy from hypocritical Clintonistas.

    by Stroszek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:51:45 AM PDT

  •  Uhh

    do you not see how Clinton is trying to do precisely that?

    Holy shit, you people are blinded by your worship.

    by TheBlaz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:29:11 AM PDT

    •  What do you think the word "either" means?

      Is English your second language?

      by Dcoronata on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM PDT

      •  "Either" I missed the "either" in your comment...

        Or....

        Uhh....

        /sheepish

        by TheBlaz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

        •  Forgiven. People are too fast on the trigger.

          That's part of the problem here; people are almost expecting warfare.

          by Dcoronata on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM PDT

•  You play the hand that is dealt

  The Clinton campaign has initiated the kitchen sink strategy. There is not much Obama can do about that except to make sure he has an effective response.

  The Clinton camp brags that they know how to play hardball, that 'Obambi' can't take the heat. But when he absorbs the attacks effectively and hits back hard they start crying he's being mean and it's not fair for him to respond. Clinton is going to do whatever it takes to take him down and failing that to make sure he can't win so she can comeback in 2012. She's not going to concede and she's not going to take anything off the table in the effort to win.

  Obama has not yet won and as nice as it would be to ignore the mudslinging and move on to McCain he has to lock up the nomination first. As a matter of fact it seems that winning according to the party rules is not good enough. The Clintons have been moving the bar with every loss and are pretty much insisting that the only way Obama can be considered a legitimate candidate is if he does crush her.  

  by hankg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:17:12 AM PDT

•  Whatever is happening to HRC campaign

  is of her own doing. Obama is running strong and managing a great campaign as well as offering us very much of what we are needing and wanting to hear and hopefully have backed up in the next 4 years and it's his fault she is doing poorly?

  by goofygringirl on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:04:21 AM PDT

•  Let's see.

  On various occasions Clinton tries to paint Obama as possibly muslim ('he says he's not, and I don't see any reason not to believe him") when they have attended prayer breakfasts together;  

  Clinton vows to withdraw from Michigan, doesn't, then demands that the results be allowed to stand, and blames Obama when it doesn't happen;  

  Clinton does her level best to keep racist fears of Jeremiah Wright alive among the Pennsylvania electorate;

  Clinton lies repeatedly about her foreign policy contributions and then, when caught out over Tuzla, claims the oft repeated, and increasingly embellished stories are not a lie, but a "mistake;"

  All the problems we have now come down on the heads of the... Obama supporters?!

  I see.

  At the same time I take Feingold's point, if for somewhat different reasons.  Given that all the Bosnia experience that Clinton shared with us did actually happen, only to Olympia Snowe and not Hillary Clinton.  

  This is not a well woman, and we ought to cool it.  There's no joy in beating an opponent who has problems that are so deepseated; there's more a sense of beating up on a cripple.

  And Hillary's supporters, too, ought to be treated with kindness and dignity.  I know how I felt as my primary candidate didn't run, and then my next emotionally committed choice dropped out.  They must be allowed to mourn.

  The level of sexism and misogyny that Clinton's candidacy has exposed, like the levels of racism (more carefully coded), have not always said good things about this country.

  by oxon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:33:43 AM PDT

•  It's Bill Clinton who is the horse's ass

  Bill Clinton, who states AA states don't count.  Jesse Jackson comparison.  Constant McCain slobbering.  Q Obama's patriotism.  It seems Hillary is a willing co-conspirator, but it's Bill leadding the way.  First black president my ass.  I hope Harlem kicks his library out.  I hear the Tennessee hill country has land.  Let's see, a new name- Hill Billy Laberary.  And to think I supported, worked for, gave money to, and defended to dozens of my friends- that selfish traitor.

  by realwischeese on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:41:25 AM PDT

•  "quit dividing us by pointing out my tactics"

  The perennial martyrdom from Camp Clinton continues with the usual horde of concern trolls coming out to issue blanket condemnations of Obama supporters, wringing their hands about their bad attitudes while dishing out copious insults themselves.

  Why do people continue to waste their time with this nonsense?

  by Stroszek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:53:40 AM PDT

•  Russ is Wise

  Let's not over analyze this.  Feingold offers good advice.  This race has a time cycle to it.  The Clinton Campaign is beginning to realize thier own mortality.  In life or politics it's never good to kick someone when they are down.

  by howardpark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:56:08 AM PDT

•  Color Me Pleased

  I must say, I'm feeling pretty good about my own candidates (Dean and Feingold) today. They both done us good on this.

  by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:14:17 AM PDT

•  Clicking the link and reading the article

  here's the Feingold quote that jumps out at me:

  When that starts to get personal, it is to the benefit of the Republican candidate.

  By "that" I take it to mean he's referring to rhetoric.  And the article also says this:

  ...but at other times, he seemed to take aim at both campaigns' rhetoric.

  though it might have helped the context a little if the article had given a strong example of him taking aim at each campaign's rhetoric.

  That is just my attempt at reading Russ's message in context - it is really not enough of an article to go on, frankly - even so, I concede I might have it all wrong.

  But I do know this: Russ has managed to win 3 times in a purple state and has done so running clean campaigns.  That tells me he has good people instincts and therefore political instincts.  He has also been right about Iraq, the Patriot Act, the FISA mess, on and on and on and on, so I tend to trust his judgement.  If he says cool it, well, I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand no matter how pissed you (plural)are at Clinton campaign tactics.

  by zett on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:30:11 AM PDT