Progressive Media Explodes against HRC

It's been slowly building... Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, etc

Now we are hearing from Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ranid Rhodes and even mainstream sources like Johnthan Alter.

All of them have more or less come out against HRC's tactics and many have suggested HRC is supporting John McCain... It's gotten particularly pointed today

Now here's the question... How influential is the progressive media?  Air America?  Do liberals listen to this at all?  I honestly don't know.  How much sway does olbermann hold?

To me, it seems that HRC has irreparably lost the entire activist wing of the party (and this wing, unlike wingnuts, have shown they will sit out elections when they feel slighted... as in 2000).  She may also have permanently lost any support from the black community if what I'm hearing on a sampling of black-focused talk radio is true.

I'm wondering.. does this matter at all?  Does it matter that HRC is being skewered on Air American and Countdown?  Does it matter that discussion of "stealing elections" is happening in the african-american community and liberal community at large?

How much does liberal talk radio and the blogosphere matter?  Is this the base of the party or just fringe elements?

I really don't know.. I have no idea how influential the progressive media is... but I guess we are going to find out.

Air America is pretty much 100% anti-HRC at this point... and I think some of those shows do get some decent ratings (I think Ed Schultz does particularly well)... so will this have an effect?

It's actually getting pretty vitriolic....

Has HRC done irreparable damage to the party?  I'm worried this is going to also steel her supporters on her side

Even Johnathan Alter has all but said that she has no chance of winning and questions why she is still in (from talking to SDs he's very sure there is no way they will overturn pledged delegates and popular vote)

SIGH, why does it have to be this way?

UPDATE: Randi Rhodes just said (unless I heard her wrong) that she knows for a fact that these same discussions are going on in Super-Delegate circles... I hope that's true

•  If the roar is getting louder

  then the Corp Media will eventually follow. All we can do is keep emailing and calling and hope it get picked up.

  by DJShay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM PDT

•  Maybe the biggest question is . . .

  will Hillary supporters vote for Barack Obama in November.

  If Hillary goes much farther in attacking Obama, how will she be able to ask her people to vote Democratic in the Fall.

  And if she DOESN'T support his candidacy . . .? ? ?

  by bobdevo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM PDT

  •  her intent is for him to lose

    she is setting herself up for '12. That has become very obvious.

    by Tanya on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:02 PM PDT

    •  If you're a conspiracy theorist or stopped

      thinking rationally, of course.  Then it's absolutely obvious.

      by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM PDT

      •  You don't have to be irrational

        to see that she is running a campaign parallel to the GOP nominee in terms of attacking Obama.  You don't have to be irrational to know that her best chance of beating Obama at this point is with John McCain in the general election.  You don't have to be irrational to recognize ambition on a level that would cause someone to be willing to behave that way.

        It might be extreme, but it doesn't mean it's irrational.  Sometimes the truth just hurts.  

        It may be wrong.  Maybe Hillary really does think she's getting the nomination.  But at this point, the more rational idea is actually that she's doing everything to preserve Clinton leadership of the party.  That means Obama must lose now or in the general.  

        by Sun dog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM PDT

        •  It would be irrational to not consider that

          this is a campaign and Republicans and Democrats alike have conducted heated primary campaigns the exact same way.  Stop pretending that this is any different from any other close, contested primary.  

          by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM PDT

          •  BS

            I've never seen anything like this.. NEVER

            Not on our side... not on our side....

            this is worse than the daisy ad...

            I'm glad HRC prefers McCain's SCOTUS choices to Obama's

            by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM PDT

          •  It would be irrational

            to ignore the fact that she began attacking him from the right after any reasonable chance for her nomination was passed.  

            I watched this campaign closely when it was in my neighborhood in Iowa.  At least for those ten months she was running pretty much as a Democrat.  She didn't beat him as a Democrat.  Now she seems intent on extending her campaign as long as possible in the interest of poisoning him for as many voters as possible.  

            Maybe you'll feel differently after it drags on for long enough and you can see clearly that her candidacy is the biggest obstacle to the Democrats taking back the White House.  Maybe it will be after she drops out and her overt attacks on Obama end but we keep hearing the little coded things from her clearly designed to urge people not to vote for him in the general.

            I hope to hell I'm wrong.  I pray that I see her at the convention breaking this whole perception by endorsing the nominee with strong words and actions, helping to throw the weight of the party behind him and urging her staunchest supporters to get to the polls and vote Obama in the fall.  Somehow, I don't believe she's going to do that.  

            by Sun dog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:11:20 PM PDT

      •  its been stated on serveral

        air-america shows today... is that not at least somewhat mainstream?

        It was stated on olbermann last night

        by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM PDT

        •  Air America is now considered mainstream?

          Really?

          by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM PDT

          •  what is the mainstream voice of the left?

            seriously?  what is our mainstream voice?

            Olbermann?  he's saying it...

            even jonathan alter (who is definitely mainstream) is implyling it

            by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:20 PM PDT

        •  btw....

          Randi Rhoades, who has tried to remain impartial and has praised both candidates, has finally had it.

          She is giving it to Clinton with both barrels blazing as we speak.

          by cometman on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM PDT

          •  she flat out said

            that hillary is trying to help mccain

            by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM PDT

            •  She just said....

              that there is no difference betweeen the Bushes and the Clintons at all.

              She is pissed off with a capital P today.

              by cometman on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM PDT

              •  Wow

                maybe this thing will wind down, first Rachel than Rhoades.

                by meatwad420 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM PDT

                •  I think Clinton has really pissed off...

                  the wrong people.

                  Just the other day Rhoades was kind of defending Clinton saying she could understand her because they had similar personalities.

                  Today she is just getting medieval on Clinton's ass.

                  by cometman on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Great point. Since she is in the process of

    destroying Obama every single day, how could her voters now vote for an unexperienced speechifying do nothing who  bag of tricks is empty except for hope.  An empty vessel that speaks well, if you will.

    He is a black man, she thinks he might be a Christian, but she is not sure, and she is ashamed of him.

    They will have to vote for the more experienced candidate, McCain.  

    by Do Tell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:02 PM PDT

    •  OTOH my opinion as to why he is NOT

      doing the same is, he knows he will need her voters in November.  He can't and shouldn't bash her the way she is bashing him.

      With every day that goes by, Hillary further alienates all of Obama's voters.  There's no way she can win the GE now--I don't even think that's her goal anymore.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM PDT

      •  Truly, I think that his standards, morals and

        ethics would never allow him to stoop to gutter tactics like she has.  He just won't allow himself to be dirtied like that, he has more self respect for himself and his family.

        Actually, I think that might be what ails HRC, she does not have any respect for herself because he husband does not respect her, or their family.  These type of things are usually pretty deep seated and when you are surrounded by people who lack moral fiber (Bill, Penn, etc.) you tend to absorb their morals.  

        Even people who seem to exhibit confidence can have very low self esteem.  

        by Do Tell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM PDT

  •  She will run with Joe Lieberman

    as an "Independant Democrat"

    by DJShay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM PDT

    •  Joe Lieberman ID-C (Irksome Double-Crosser)

      by nwgates on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM PDT

  •  I'm very worried about this

    Obama has stated flat-out that HRC would make a very good president and I feel would encourage people to vote for her.......

    But what about her supporters?  I have no confidence they will come over or that she will help us get them

    It's very sad and depressing.

    I hope the super-delegates do something soon....  this isn't about not being able to win at the ballot box.... this is really damaging our party

    A guy just called into randi rhodes who said he has been volunteering for dems in prez elections for 30 years and almost broke into tears over what hillary has done... that to me is a lot worse than all the hatred around here...

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM PDT

    •  Obama said that before HRC starting channeling

      Richard Nixon, who would switch parties to vote for her at this point.

      Obama is free to revise his opinion in light of new facts.

      As far as the Progressives are concerned - canaries in the coal mine.

      by SicXitGM on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:46 PM PDT

    •  Leave it to the democrats

      to find every way possible to lose an election.  I mean seriously, all the stars are aligned in our corner, yet still we find some way to muck it all up.  Somehow the democrats are full of a bunch of Keystone cops.  I really hate to say it, but drawing an analogy to the highschool social hierarchies so many of us experienced so painfully growing up, I sometimes get the feeling that the democratic party is full of the nerds and losers who are so socially incompetent that they just don't know how to win at all...  Either that or we all have battered wife syndrome and find ways to get ourselves into situations where we'll be battered, beaten, and mocked.  Who said Freud was wrong about the death drive?  It certainly seems to me that we have a will self-destruction.  Perhaps there's something to the idea of an instinct to win and perhaps have it and others actively pursue their minority, victimized status...  We should all be reading the first part of Dostoyevsky's Notes From the Underground.

      by Philoguy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

      •  Maybe that's it...

        Our entire constituency is organized around various social roles that pertain to victimhood and disenfranchisement.  Maybe there's some enjoyment, some narcissistic gratification, in this social identity and position.  To win would be to surrender this identity, to no longer be the oppressed and the underdog, and thereby to lose the sense of moral superiority that comes from perceiving oneself as oppressed.  Perhaps this narcissism and the enjoyment drawn from being the oppressed works unconsciously to find ways to undermine our own success.

        Can you tell I'm feeling dark and pessimistic today?

        And what do the republicans get to do in the meantime?  Eat popcorn, grin at the spectacle, and find ways to instigate more trouble.

        by Philoguy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

        •  Here's Another Horrible Thought

          your description also applies to many fundamentalist Christians.

          by FLDemJax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM PDT

      •  hehe

        We do suck at winning.....

        But not with obama... he definitely was in the cool crowd!

        by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:43:28 PM PDT

        •  A Nerd King!

          True story.  Two weeks ago when Obama was here in Dallas a friend of mine tagged along with someone working for his campaign to see him speak.  The crowd was so huge that they were in a separate room with other people and would not be able to hear them speak.  Obama came in to apologize and say a few words and they ended up meeting Obama.  When he found out that the woman they were with was working for his campaign he exclaimed that they had to be in the main room.  He took them behind stage and they ended up chatting.  This woman is currently writing her dissertation and her and Obama got in an interesting discussion about the details of her dissertation and then got to stand behind him on stage.  What a change!  A president who can barely string a sentence together to a president who is gracious and can chat graduate students up about their dissertations in literature and social theory.

          by Philoguy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM PDT

    •  Yep we are just keyboard warriors

      to call in and have your voice heard by so many.  Damn I cannot listen today too many trucks around interupting the signal.

      by meatwad420 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM PDT

  •  That is idiotic.

    I have yet to see a Hillary supporter here say they would not support the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.  Obamabandwagoners on the other hand would rather submit this country to 4 more years and however many more right wing Supreme Court justices than vote for Hillary.  That's telling.

    by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM PDT

    •  That's because the candidate

      has been overwhelmingly disrespectful and damaging to our candidate.

      She's not looking past the next couple of days, so far as I can see, while the Obama people have a plan to go all the way.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:13:40 PM PDT

    •  wow

      so we should tolerate this behavior?  

      If obama behaved this way I'd abandon him.. .but he never would

      If edwards behaved this way I wouldn't vote for him.. but he never would

      I don't even think Bill Clinton would do this.

      by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM PDT

      •  Um....

        Bill is currently cheering her on.

        by cometman on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM PDT

        •  he's not doing it himself though

          and he's not the one making these attacks

          he's complicit.. but he's not the one doing it..

          Probably becausee he had even less experience when he was elected..which is something obama should point out

          by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM PDT

        •  Bill would be co-president, don't kid yourself.

          This is his campaign every bit as much as hers.

          by SicXitGM on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM PDT

    •  AND HILLARY WOULD RATHER TORPEDO OBAMA

      So long as she could pick up after McCain in 2012.  That is telling.  And more than that, it's repellent.

      by Thaddaeus Toad on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM PDT

    •  Can't you see what is happening?

      My family is an example -- I was never a big Hillary fan, but was OK with her until S Carolina. My wife started to get turned off then, but defended HRC for another month or so. At this point, my wife demands that I shut off the sound whenever HRC comes on the TV. (Not that she has to wait long, 'cuz I can't stand much of HRC's sneering tone, either.)

      I don't think we are unusual. And I would imagine that  a lot of people have turned more negative than us.

      Wait and see. HRC is well on the way to running her high negatives permanently up above fifty percent. You can't keep insulting your own party and maintain a political career.

      by Imipolex on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM PDT

      •  high negatives

        I wish someone would poll the candidates' negatives again at this point so we could compare with 4 months ago.  

        by Nellcote on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:46 PM PDT

    •  Go read MyDD and you'll

      find a LOT of Clinton supporters that claim they will never vote for Obama. I don't really believe them, any more than I believe the ones here, but it's pretty balanced in terms of what people are saying.

      by johnsonwax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM PDT

      •  I think that a lot of people here are serious

        I've heard several people call air america shows today and they weren't angry.. they were upset... like very upset.

        A few sounded like they wanted to cry... these weren't  the vitriolic voices you see here... they were wounded voices.. voices who felt betrayed... something is happening.. I don't know how big it is.. but HRC has broken some people's hearts out there.

        Breaking someone's heart is a lot worse than pissing them off..... this isn't just heat of the moment anger... this is a deep, deep level of disappointment...

        by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM PDT

        •  I understand.

          If I thought my wife betrayed me, even in a small way, I'd be very hurt emotionally, but it would pass. I don't see people running to McCain because they feel wounded that someone they respected has disappointed them. Sure, that's a reasonable first reaction, but a lot will change over the next 6 months. McCain will say stupid and hateful things and we'll rally to the Democrat just as Rush and crew quickly found their way to McCain after the Times article.

          We just need to make sure there is enough time to heal things up, which means the party needs to end this thing soon.

          by johnsonwax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM PDT

        •  thanks for identifying my human

          condition for no longer supporting her.

          by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM PDT

  •  Screw Her!!!

    She has gone too far!!!  

    by serrano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM PDT

  •  It's not just Obama, it's Dean as well

    as the soul of the Democratic party. As much as she is attacking Obama, she is attacking Dean and the DNC with these fights over spending and FL/MI elections. She and Bill and the DLC are the old core of the party with moneyed interests front and center. Dean and Obama are the radicals here, pushing those moneyed interests aside in favor of a more populist, grass-roots approach - one in which the Clintons have very little to offer.

    If Obama wins, he becomes the natural new core of the party and the party will build around him. Bill and Hillary and their team will be fully wrested of power and influence, where at least now there's something of a stalemate. This is all-or-nothing for her. There will be no 2012 or 2016 for them if Obama wins and there will be no inside influence from them as well during that time.

    In a sense, I think they see this as a fight which is larger than this election. And if it means handing the White House to McCain in order to preserve their vision for the party, I think that's a trade-off they are willing to make.

    by johnsonwax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM PDT

•  All sentient Democrats already have rejected

  HRC and very little of what is in the progressive media will sway anyone either for or against her.

  Her ads have been effective, and Obama has not challenged her enough.

  Obama will still win the nomination.  

  by Do Tell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM PDT

  •  Except of course for the millions of

    sentient Democrats who have voted for her just over the past few days.

    Nice.

    by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM PDT

    •  And sentient ditto-heads. Very sentient.

      More sentient, perhaps.

      by benheeha on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

      •  How sentient of you.

        by Rasputin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM PDT

    •  Sentient, sure.

      Myopically nostalgic as well.

      by Thaddaeus Toad on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM PDT

  •  I love the smell of 'sentience' in the morning.

    It makes me feel .. I don't know .. so .. so ... transitory.

    by abarefootboy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM PDT

    •  This is all an illusion

      At least I hope it's all an illusion, because it really does suck.

      by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM PDT

  •  lets not insult voters

    There are a lot of working people who dont' have time to critically evaluate all this information.

    We need those voters, they are honest democrats and they aren't stupid.. but they may not have the time some of us do to think about these things.

    They believe in hillary because of Bill and may beleive anything she says... she may be almost permanently alienating their supporters from obama

    Of course I wonder if she's realized yet that there is a very good chance she's going to get almost no african-american support if she does have some sort of pyrrhic victory

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:02 PM PDT

•  Some kind of tipping point has been reached

  It feels like there was a lot of pent-up distrust/dislike of Hillary that has suddenly been released as a result of her recent antics plus Obama's losses on Tuesday.

  It's almost like people have recognized that we are now fighting a general election campaign, and Hillary is at this point just another obstacle toward our winning the general election.

  Will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I'm not making any predictions.

  by poblano on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, something is different

    in the past few days, perhaps because McCain has wrapped it up and here we are, headed to PA and possibly beyond.   Obama will win tomorrow and Tuesday and it we still can't get at McCain.

    by chicago minx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM PDT

  •  Another point, she is intent upon destroying

    Obama, and these attacks coming from a fellow "Democrat" resonate with many people.  

    It is one thing to have to withstand scathing attacks about your experience, religion, race, and campaign  from the opposing party, but to have a member of your own party trying to utterly obliterate you, is quite another.

    By embracing McCain while dissing Obama, she made a major mistake, but only time will tell if the less informed voter will pick up on it, or even cares.

    by Do Tell on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM PDT

  •  I sure as hell

    hope you're right, Poblano.  I sure as hell hope you're right.  Sometimes knowing too much can be a disadvantage.  You begin to project and assume that everyone else knows what you know, when in fact they don't.  

    by Philoguy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM PDT

•  I think you underestimate

  the reach of Progressive media voices.  They're not super powerful, mind you, but the scope and diversity of the viewers/listeners to these shows is consistently ignored and underestimated, IMO.  I think it will have a small effect, but an effect nonetheless.

  I can't tell you how many time Schultz or Rhodes has Hillary supporters call in to discuss the primary.  And I have to wonder what those listeners are thinking now.

  by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM PDT

  •  Probably Wondering With Him Why the Candidate

    would never appear even earlier last year when he was still quite Clinton friendly and pushing the progressive any-candidate-would-be-terrific meme.

    by Gooserock on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM PDT

    •  Yes, he used to be VERY pro-Hillary!

      She brought this on herself.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM PDT

    •  I remember the day he blew up at a Clinton

      supporter.  It was surreal, because I had always thought of Ed as mildly supportive of Hillary, and then all of a sudden I'm driving to the bank and Ed is saying things like "I am DONE with Hillary Clinton".  WTF happened here?

      But his point was very valid- how can Clinton claim to be treated so unfairly by the media, but then not even give the time of day to struggling/rising progressive voices like Ed Schultz?

      Answer:  Ed Schultz isn't (in her opinion) big enough to help her get elected.  And if you can't help her get elected, then she's got no use for you.  She is a USER.

      by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:29:46 PM PDT

  •  Plus ... we can read and write .. mostly

    by abarefootboy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM PDT

•  Progressive media...

  is insignificant.  In fact...progressives are insignificant.  This is the attempted revenge of the plutocracy.

  by mayan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:07 PM PDT

•  Oh, and another thing

  I surf through Ben Smith at Politico, First Read, Political Punch, etc and I have to say I have seen a noticeable increase in the Pro-Obama comments. 2 weeks ago, it was pretty much 50/50, but recently the pro-Clinton comments have been few a far between. HuffPo is the same way. Now, I don't know if the comments are anything to go by, but I'm just puttin' it out there ;-)

  by DJShay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM PDT

•  Air america in NY is far from

  anti hillary. It is about a split at best. don't forget mark green (hillary shill extradonaire) owns it.

  by Tanya on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM PDT

  •  well here in chicago

    the main shows are stephanie miller, ed schultz, randi rhodes and rachel maddow

    Rhodes, miller and schultz are strongly anti-HRC... rhodes thinks she is trying to help mccain win

    Maddow used to be balanced but has also basically come out against clinton now..

    so here in chicago it's basically 100% anti-clinton... much of it STRONGLY anti-clinton

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:02:09 PM PDT

  •  Mr. Green, I hope is a businessman

    I get Air America on XM satellite.  We have three subscriptions.  The only reason I signed up for XM was to get progressive talk.  I don't have to listen to Air America.  

    by Char on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM PDT

    •  actually he isn't

      he's a former politician from a very wealthy family

      by Tanya on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:47:02 PM PDT

•  I think it does

  I honestly, honestly believe that there is a backlash building against HRC. I have been ranting about her for months, so it's almost hard for me have any perspective. But I have noticed many of my friends becoming increasingly uncomfortable with her campaign and her tone in the race. It makes me cackle with glee. Turning into a Republican is NOT going to help her be the Democratic nominee. Granted, I think even knows that and this is part of her kitchen sink crap. But yes, I do believe that the people that are actually tuning in are beginning to reject her. I am hoping that low-information voters are not far behind.

  by jenontheshore on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM PDT

  •  typos!

    I meant "it's hard for me to have any perspective" and "granted, even she knows that"

    sorry.

    by jenontheshore on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM PDT

  •  Yes .... I think she is bringing thunder down on

    .. her head.

    by abarefootboy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM PDT

•  if that woman wins its 2000 all over again

  No way will i vote for her or any other DLCer.  They have done more damage to this party than Rove could've ever dreamed.  If HRC somehow steals this expect parties at McCain's and Nader's houses.  And expect all the new voters Obama brought in to go back to apathy-land.  I'm thinking of opening a bar there.

  by zerzan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM PDT

  •  I blame the DLC for bush

    democrats never stood up to him ever.. disgraceful

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM PDT

  •  Apathy-Land would be a great name

    for a bar, and if Hillary is the nominee it would be packed. You'll have to expand to the "Why bother" cafe.

    by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

  •  RWW ass-troll

    check history

    (we are "lefties")

    by condoleaser on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM PDT

•  Karma's a real BITCH, Hillary....

  ....remember that come November.

  by lams712 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM PDT

  •  We Will Remember In November

    so the old saying goes.

    by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:06:43 PM PDT

•  Schultz Started Out Very Clinton Friendly

  She had to work to lose him.

  One issue, he could never get her on the show. She wouldn't even accept the sole guest spot he offered her and all the candidates last fall.

  Probably media ownership is another issue. Since her resume includes media consolidation, I imagine that in talking to her in DC where he visits regularly, he found out she wasn't going to help on media ownership.

  by Gooserock on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM PDT

  •  I think that can be said about alot...

    ...of people:

    She had to work to lose him.

    She has pissed off alot of people that she will need if she does end up as the nominee (even though I don't see the math working in her favor, but anything is possible).

    by lams712 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM PDT

•  John Kerry, Gary Hart also

  John Kerry was on Larry King last night.  He did a fantastic job defending Senator Obama.  I found myself staring at him, in fact, wondering why he did not defend himself in such a way in 2004.  It was a terrific statement.  I don't know if there's any video out there but this is part of what he said, from the official transcript of the show:

  I think the most important thing for Obama to do is in these next days is to continue to remind Americans why he is the strongest candidate for change and to unite the country.

  I mean, let me give you an example, Larry. You know, Barack Obama, in fact, I think, is the most qualified to be commander-in- chief of the three candidates still remaining because he was absolutely correct about Iraq, because he was absolutely correct about Pakistan and Afghanistan, because he had a policy that was visionary about Afghanistan and Pakistan over a year ago. And now that's the policy that the Defense Department and other people are coming to. That's leadership.

  Gary Hart put a post over on Huffington today.  It points out how truly bad what Senator Clinton is doing really IS.

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  It looks like, perhaps, the Democratic establishment may be starting to step forward and put a stop to what she's doing to the party.  I hope they do this en masse in the next few days, before she has any more opportunity to cause further damage.

  by Are We There Yet on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM PDT

  •  I am heartened to see Super-Ds

    take notice.

    by christomento on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM PDT

  •  That's a great post

    I was surprised to see Hart come out so strongly against her.

    by DJShay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM PDT

  •  Thank god for them

    I hope Hart and Kerry resonate with other Democrats.

    by chicago minx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM PDT

  •  Excellent statement by Hart

    Very, very much worth reading.  I'd cut 'n paste the whole thing if it were allowed! :)

    by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM PDT

•  It's good to know.

  I don't listen much myself these days, except Seder, but it's heartening to hear this.

  by TKinVT on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM PDT

•  The imapct of Hillary's behavior is beginning

  to seep out into more mainstream Dem circles. I am hearing it especially from older, liberal women who supported Hillary as the first viable female presidential candidate, but who care deeply about the Democratic Party and progressive causes in general. Hillary's implicit endorsement of the detested John McCain was out of bounds ans something which will not easily be overlooked.

  by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    It's really NOT just political junkies anymore. People are starting to become aware of it.

    by jenontheshore on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM PDT

•  At the end of the day...

  nasty tactics don't equal a non-Progressive candidate.  I've seen very few diaries or comments that focuses on Hillary's policies as being the reason not to vote for her.  

  Maddow, Olbermann, and Kos folks focus on "her evil scheming campaign"...now that may be a reason to vote against someone...

  Buy putting John McCain in the White House won't help the Progressive agenda one bit.

  Democrats simply don't win by losing. If you want Obama to beat Hillary get him to change his tactics enough to fend off her attacks....which are driving up his negatives.  PA is 49/43 for Hillary...a couple weeks ago it was more like 52/36..Hillary   he never got over that hump in OH....Progressive media has to leak over to MSM and focus on the nasty nature of her attacks...and focus on Obama's policy differences.

  by Patrick B on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM PDT

  •  Richard Nixon was responsible

    for many good, even progressive, policies. He was, of course, a terrible president. We do not expect our presidents to be saints, but neither can we afford to elect a morally bankrupt opportunist.

    by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM PDT

    •  That was partly because he had to...

      ...face a very "liberal" (relatively speaking) Democratically-controlled Congress.

      I guess that's also another point that needs to be hammered home. A progressive agenda can only be accomplished with a progressive congress behind it. Which candidate will most likely help downticket? Obama would.

      by lams712 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM PDT

    •  Same is true of Lyndon Johnson

      but you can't say that around here.

      by slaney black on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

  •  You are missing the point

    Defending yourself against republican attacks is very difficult when it's coming from a democrat... she's broken a sacred rule... there was a great article about this on realclearpolitics the other day talking about how the republicans would never allow this..... so even they wouldn't tolerate this behavior

    Saying she has more expereince is fine.. saying she is more qualified is fine.. saying mccain is more qualified than obama is not fine and is grounds for dismissal from the democratic party

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM PDT

    •  It also alienates the voters

      she will need in November.

      As much as people here want Obama to hit back, it's very smart of him not to do so.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM PDT

•  At the end of the day...

  nasty tactics don't equal a non-Progressive candidate.  I've seen very few diaries or comments that focuses on Hillary's policies as being the reason not to vote for her.  

  Maddow, Olbermann, and Kos folks focus on "her evil scheming campaign"...now that may be a reason to vote against someone...

  Buy putting John McCain in the White House won't help the Progressive agenda one bit.

  Democrats simply don't win by losing. If you want Obama to beat Hillary get him to change his tactics enough to fend off her attacks....which are driving up his negatives.  PA is 49/43 for Hillary...a couple weeks ago it was more like 52/36..Hillary   he never got over that hump in OH....Progressive media has to leak over to MSM and focus on the nasty nature of her attacks...and focus on Obama's policy differences.

  by Patrick B on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM PDT

•  Here is some progressive media

  from a non-progressive paper "Washington Times".

  Bill Clinton profits 700,000 dollars from a convicted felon.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/...

  There is lots to know about the Clinton's mysterious dealings, they will be vetted!

  by kanuk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:02 PM PDT

•  Thom Hartmann

  I missed the show in the last few days, but he is not anti-HRC; he was for Edwards but lately he's been saying Obama and Hillary are great.  

  Did he change his song?

  by Must Have Been The Roses on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:44 PM PDT

  •  My friend listens to Hartman

    He was telling me this morning that Hartman has started questioning Hillary's tactics.

    I hope this spreads into the mainstream media soon.

    by MingPicket on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:18 PM PDT

  •  maddow wasn't against her either

    until a few days ago....

    Randi rhodes used to be for her and now she's outright telling people she's dangerous and not to vote for her

    Hartman is starting to seriously question her suitability also

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:13:50 PM PDT

    •  Yes--Thom has surprised me lately

      That is new coming from him.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM PDT

    •  Good

      Hartmann has been leaning Obama but trying to hide it on the air.   I respect Hartmann's opinions, but I think he has been off the progressive track with defending Clinton from attacks.  Hartmann is really trying to prevent the candidates from attacking each other so he steers all the discussions away from that.  But Hillary doesn't make it easy for him.  

      by Must Have Been The Roses on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM PDT

•  Our Bubble

  There's is no doubt that die-hard progressives spend an inordinate amount of time sifting through like-minded media, and I too wonder how much effect this has on the general public. Certainly, the flood gates have opened on HRC in the last few days, and she only has herself to blame.

  Will it register in the MSM? My guess is yes, but not because of what we do our high-minded bubble.

  It will break forth because it fits with the see-saw media narrative, and because it took Clinton years to sofetn her image with the media. The one place she could count on for a sympathetic hearing was among progressive voices. She's lost that. . . forever.

  So, on balance, this will hurt her, because she has lost some of her most vocal defenders. And, if she jacks the process and steals the nomintaion, she will get destroyed by McCain. Too bad, because she'd make a better president than the old fellar.

  by time8 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

  •  Let me tell you what I saw this mornign

    on CNN. They replayed the press conference of Hillary in front of all the flags and generals. Then immediately after, they go to the story of the vague threats about Al Quaeda attacking the us. That was no accident.

    by DJShay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

    •  Expected

      CNN is always tough to watch; lately it has been brutal.

      The wager of the Obama campaign was that we could change the narrative in politics. IF HRC wins this way, that bet will be lost and so will another generation of voters.

      You want to know how deep this impact will be? I am a Canadian, active in politics for about twenty years. Today, I was downtown in my small Ontario city and I ran into several intelligent, well-informed friends. Each one volunteered how distressed they were at the turn of this campaign.

      They all, like me, admired HRC and had sympathy for all the garbage thrown at her over the years. But now that she is showing her real character. . . well, let's just say it was a depressing hour of chatting on an otherwise beautiful snowy day.

      Even those with no vote in this election were beginning to hope that America would once again lead the world with an enlightened, progressive voice.

      by time8 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

•  In 2004...

  ... we were all lined up behind Dean. Or Clark. None of the liberal media/blogosphere wanted Kerry.

  The liberal media/blogosphere does not command a majority even of the Democratic Party.

  by copithorne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM PDT

  •  that was different

    Clark and Dean never had huge support like obama.. they were never basically in control of the nomination

    Kerry never launched attacks like this

    There is a difference between supporting one canidate over another and explicitly stating that a canidate is unsuitable (which is what is happening with HRC)

    by Capt Morgan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

    •  The question was though...

      How much influence does the animosity of the progressive media/blogosphere count in electoral terms?

      And the evidence is, basically, not enough. It is not, by itself, decisive.

      by copithorne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM PDT

  •  I will tell you though

    I have never disliked a Democratic candidate as much as I dislike Hillary today.

    I voted for Bradley over Gore, but Gore was fine.  I preferred Clark to Kerry, but had no bad or hard feelings about Kerry, I was just afraid he wouldn't win.

    The Hillary thing goes WAY beyond all of that.  I cannot believe I have so much animosity towards someone in my own party.  And it's because of her underhanded attacks.

    by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM PDT

    •  Me too

      While I've preferred some candidates over others in years past, Hillary is the only one I have come to actively loathe. Since the beginning of the campaign she has gone from not being my first choice, to being my last choice, to finally being someone I would not vote for under any circumstances. And she has no one but herself to blame; she worked very, very hard to lose my vote.

      by beltane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM PDT

•  Clinton's killing the party slowly...

  She's doing a great job of alienating the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.  If she's behind in the popular vote and delegate count and somehow steals the nomination, I'm so through with the Democratic Party.  And so will a lot of other folks.  Remember that sick feeling you got in your gut when Bush won in '04?  Well, this time it'll be worse.  And if she gets on the podium and says that she has a mandate of the people, that'll be it.

  Progressive media isn't that powerful yet, but if they make enough noise to make the MSM take notice, then there's hope.

  It sickens me that the MSM ignores Clinton's bush league tactics in favor of covering a false horse race.  The race is nearly over, and they're still milking it.  Greed corrupts all, I guess.  It's all about dollar signs and not about the news anymore.

  by cybrestrike on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM PDT

  •  we are infiltrating the democratic party

    Bascially this people powered machine is taking the party over; so those who have had the power won't give it up easily.  

    But the stakes are high: we have to win this Obama nomination.  

    by Must Have Been The Roses on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM PDT

•  Maddow Was Trashing Both Teams Equally Last PM

  for painting the other as unfit to serve and for failing to attack McCain.

  Something that only the Clinton team is doing.

  HRC still has plenty of support from Maddow.

  by Gooserock on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM PDT

•  Did you hear this morning

  on Stephanie Miller where she admitted that the Clintonistas are mounting boycott campaigns against her, writing her sponsors, etc.?  Horrifying.

  I hope AAR will survive this primary.  Sad to see us eating our own like this.

  by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM PDT

•  At the local level

  I'm seeing a big change in tone.  The progressive group I belong to has been anti-Hillary all along, but the language used now is very similar to remarks I read here.  The Democratic group, still supports Hillary, but admit to being ashamed of the way she is running her campaign and want this to end.

  On another note, even AOL FP News has a derogatory article up now about Bill and the library.  They aren't progressive at all, and so it seems that the ugly Clinton stories are starting to get some play outside the Progressive realm.