Were we ever this crazed with hatred?

NOTICE: I am well aware that Hillary has lost the nomination and that we'd like as many of her supporters as possible to vote for Obama in November. So you do not need to make either of these observations in the comments. If you are unable to endure any more discussion of Hillary's candidacy and its followers, spare both of us some grief and go visit a different corner of the Internets.

I dislike Hillary Clinton. In fact, that may be an understatement.

I've posted a lot of things about her over the months. Not all of which I'd necessarily be prepared to defend today.

But I don't think I ever sunk to this level...

About Obama's largest crowd EVAH in Portland the other day

75K, right? Well, Kerry pulled 80K-100K in Philly in 2004. Man, that was a great feeling, wasn’t it?

http://correntewire.com/...

Or to the level of these comments:

I have elderly friends who were young adolescents in Germany during WWII. Several weeks ago, they sheepishly offered the observation that, to them, Obama looks and sounds like the American version of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

Obama rented a large enough space for at least 75K. Well, if you don’t get involved and only 4K show up. The place looks really bad. Thus, ahead of time the campaign devises a complicated plan to get the people. You do a small get out the vote (guys) to go to the polls (stadium). You probably rent enough buses the carry the guys back and forth.

Such operations are common in countries such as Iran (demonstrate against the US), Syria (same), Serbia, etc. They are all government run demonstrations.

Obama has the money for the buses and the need to orchestrate a spontaneous gathering.

I am impressed, not.

Now to repeat, I'm sure I've written things about Hillary that would strike me as embarrassingly overzealous today. But while I've laughed at the "Hillary in the bunker" video, I've never literally thought of her as a Nazi.

I've never thought that people who attended her rallies didn't actually want to be there.

Were we ever this bad?

•  tip jar

  by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:05:30 AM PDT

  •  They're even leveling the SAME charges against

    the Obamas that the right wing leveled against the Clintons... spooky!  I call it Democratic Stockholm Syndrome.  It's amazing how much they sound like right wingers.

    by Denni on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:43 AM PDT

    •  Er

      Many Obama supporters are leveling the same chargers against Clinton that...the right wing leveled against Clinton.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:30 AM PDT

      •  Examples, please

        I haven't heard Obama supporters spewing a lot of crap about Hillary having killed Vince Foster, but I have seen Hillary cozying up to the man who made the charge, Richard Mellon Scaife.

        by anastasia p on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:23:56 AM PDT

        •  They're not exactly hard to find

          I haven't seen the vince foster charge, but I have seen comments that basically amount to "Bill Clinton's presidency really was crap!" or that democrats should have let republicans remove Bill from office because he was a filthy adulterer, and it would have saved the world form Hillary.

          Charges of doing anything to win (wanting to actively undermine Obama in the general so she can run in 2012 seems to be a recent favorite down that road)

          and so on.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

          •  I must say,

            Bill Clinton's Presidency seems fair game in this election since Senator Clinton claims to have been a major voice in it.  And his Presidency was fairly lackluster and did much to further the causes of deregulation and corporate pandering.  His foreign policy and human rights records weren't much to brag about either.  

            by Fabienne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:44:35 AM PDT

            •  It's amazing how a primary challenge

              to the netroot's favorite son suddenly turns Clinton's presidency from great to this atrocious thing.

              And I thought things went well in the 90s.  Well, I guess the GOP was right that it didn't then.

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:48:00 AM PDT

              •  Economically yes, congressionally however

                Bill lost us waves of seats because he went with a "dem dominated region only" strategy, and triangulated his fellow democrats.

                by SteamPunkX on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:52:07 AM PDT

                •  Um, he did?

                  It seems that he started so-called triangulating after the big losses in '94, and after that we didn't fare too badly in Congressional elections while he was in office.

                  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:57:16 AM PDT

                  •  So you're saying that he only jerked us around

                    for 3/4ths of his Presidential career, and that 2000 had nothing to do with him.

                    Spin baby spin!

                    by SteamPunkX on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM PDT

                    •  we gained congressional seats in 2000

                      2 in the house, 4 in the senate.

                      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM PDT

                      •  and lost the white house . . . nt

                        by SteamPunkX on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM PDT

                        •  except your argument

                          was about congressional seats.

                          Oh, and Gore lost because southerners saw him as too liberal.  I lived in Tennessee at the time.  They basically thought that he had strayed from the path of being a centrist/conservative democratic Senator.

                          If Clinton is to blame for his loss in any way, it's because of that.

                          However, it was so close, there are probably about 100 things that could have "decisively" changed the result, from Nader voters, to Gore running differently, or evening running closer to Clinton than he did.

                          Probably about the only thing that didn't cost Gore the election was Bill Clinton's political positions.

                          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM PDT

                          •  And I can't amend that when you bring 2000 into

                            it?

                            Bill lost us the culture war, any way you spin it.

                            by SteamPunkX on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM PDT

                          •  19,000 Nader votes in TN 2000...

                            ...Suppression of minority voters probably contributed at least as many lost votes. Gore lost TN by 80,000.

                            by Enterik on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:02 AM PDT

                          •  not Clinton's political positions,

                            the fact that he couldn't keep it in his pants. A Pew poll from 1999 indicates:

                            In a Gore-Bush match-up, Clinton's mixed favorability ratings are a stronger predictor of support for Gore than is Clinton's job approval.

                            While Gore does benefit from Clinton's robust job approval ratings, he is clearly being hurt by weariness with problems of the Clinton administration. An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration." This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. Among those who express fatigue, 60% say they would vote for Bush over Gore in a two-way 2000 match-up; only 35% pick Gore.

                            Despite Clinton's strong 62% job approval rating, few Americans wish he could run for a third term. Only 29% of the public would like to see four more years of Clinton; 69% would not.

                            by limpidglass on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM PDT

                          •  The gun lobby, mining/coal lobbies, tobacco lobby

                            all of them ganged up on Gore in the south, it seems.

                            "If Clinton is to blame for his loss in any way, it's because of that."

                            Some price for progressive policies that those lobbies opposed and campaigned against was likely a factor in the red states, but Clinton scandal/impeachment fatigue was the overwhelming factor.

                            This exit poll question makes that quite clear:

                            "Which issues, if any, were most important to you in deciding how you would vote for president today?..." Up to two responses accepted.

                            				All	Gore	Bush
                            	"Moral/Ethical values"	35	17	55	
                            	"Jobs/The economy"	26	36	16	
                            	"Education"		25	31	20	
                            	"Social Security"	21	25	16	
                            	"Taxes" 		16	9	25	
                            	"Abortion"		14	12	17	
                            	"The environment"	10	14	2	
                            	"Health care"		8	11	5	
                            	"Medicare/Prescription drugs"	8	10	6	
                            	"Budget surplus"	6	6	6	
                            	"Foreign affairs"	5	5	5	
                            	None of the above	4	3	4
                            

                            Gore won on all issues here except for "Moral/Ethical values" (where he badly lost) and abortion and taxes.

                            Gore started down to Bush by 15-20% in national polls and that's mostly attributed to Clinton scandal fatigue which was intense among both Republicans (we used to need about 10-13% of crossover Republican vote) and Independents (60-67% of the entire population was unfavorable towards Clinton "as a person"; assuming those favorable were mostly Democrats, that translates into most indies finding Clinton unfavorable). If Gore was even in the "blue states" (at that stage, a fair enough assumption), it translates into him trailing by 30-40% in southern/red states (effect was probably lesser in TN because of Gore's roots there but I doubt that it was absent. As such, Clinton/Gore barely managed to win TN in 1996 after working overtime there) from the get go. That's a HUGE barrier to overcome.

                            "or evening running closer to Clinton than he did."

                            Nope.

                            Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests

                               CNN, From staff and wire reports
                               October 24, 2000

                               Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.

                            Clinton was always popular with Democrats and mostly unpopular with Republicans, but in 1999/2000, he was also extremely unpopular with independents because most of them seem to have faulted Clinton for his reckless conduct paving to the impeachment drama by Republicans, with the country mired in that nonsense for 3 years as result.

                            "Probably about the only thing that didn't cost Gore the election was Bill Clinton's political positions."

                            Nope, again. Nader bashed Gore for not only alleged sins of Gore, but also those of Clinton at the policy level (eg, it was Clinton that didn't put his weight behind environmental matter such as Kyoto as Gore wanted him to do, but Nader bashed Gore for it). Nader's attacks in turn:

                            1. probably made many Bradley voters vote for Nader

                            2. were used by the GOP to turn off as many Indie voters as possible and to undercut Gore's strengths (on the environment, eg).

                            The 2000 election was a multi-ring circus, but Clinton scandal provided the whopping starting handicap that hampered Gore badly. Media smears and the Nader factor were the other factors not exactly of Gore's making.

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

                      •  that was when Gore ran

                        for comparison, Clinton's coattails in 1992 were nonexistent: we lost 9 seats in the House, and neither gained nor lost in the Senate.

                        And besides 2000, we never won any Senate seats during the Clinton Administration, either losing seats or not gaining any.

                        We had better luck with the House after Gingrich's stupidity lost the Republicans seats, but they still controlled the House.

                        by limpidglass on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM PDT

                        •  Here are the numbers:

                          
                          spreadsheet with links

                          It seems that we gained 2 senate seats in 92 (compared to strengths at the beginning of the session), but lost 12 house seats. Then we blew everything in 94.

                          What happened to Gore's senate seat once he was elected as VP?

                          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM PDT

                          •  the discrepancy may be due

                            to people being appointed to fill out someone else's Senate seat, for Wikipedia indicates that the 1992 Senate elections were a draw for both parties.

                            Gore's Senate seat was filled by appointment by Harlan Matthews. Fred Thompson won it in 1994.

                            by limpidglass on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:37 AM PDT

              •  and if you're concerened

                about who is going to be the most moderate and centrist...based on their senate voting record, Clinton would actually be the more liberal of the pair, not Obama.

                So while they criticize Bill Clinton for not being liberal enough, they go ahead and support the less liberal of the two candidates, at least based on record.

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:53:12 AM PDT

                •  Her Iraq war vote alone makes her

                  voting record unprogressive. Add Kyl-Lieberman and we have a trend.

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

              •  I was never much a fan of Bill's

                after he tanked on gays in the military, Zoe Baird, Lanie Guinier, etc.

                I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think if a president gets caught flat out lying to the American public, the right thing for him (or her) to do is resign, because to do otherwise is to signal approval for the idea that it is OK for politicians to lie to the people who elect them.

                Up until this campaign, however, I had a generally positive attitude towards Hillary. I wouldn't vote for her because of AUMF, but I didn't blame her for that vote any more than I blamed Kerry or Edwards for theirs.

                by elmo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

              •  Whatever

                It's amazing how a primary challenge to the netroot's favorite son

                What kind of retarded argument is that?  Can't you remember, say, 4 months back, when 60%+ of the people on this blog were pushing for a John Edwards nomination?

                Wasn't John Edwards the netroots' favorite son?

                Truth is, Hill and Bill Clinton were never that popular with the netroots because they governed like moderate republicans.

                But keep ignoring things like history and facts, look how well that has worked for Bush and his buddies.

                by Trepanator on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM PDT

  •  A: YES!

    You're obviously not getting the same Clinton-bashing forwards I'm seeing come off my.barackobama.com groups. This week Obama supporters taught me that HRC lies to protect rapists, including her husband. Reasonable people tell them to STFU.

    by opendna on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM PDT

  •  Always assume these are trolls

    Even if they may not be.  It's better just to assume those are GOP plants making these arguments, and move on.  Otherwise you end up assigning bad motives to people who don't deserve it.

    And that goes for both sides.  So don't get sucked in by trying to shout down a troll.  You'll just make comments you regret.

    And they probably really are wingnut trolls.

    by jrcjr on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM PDT

•  While obvioiusly not a good thing

  It's not exactly like Obama's supporters have been all nice and sweet towards Clinton either.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

  •  **Why should they be nice and sweet? Really.

    by greylox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:25:48 AM PDT

    •  my point

      was that Obama's people (and Clinton's too) get all hot and bothered when people spew vile towards their candidate, but then don't hesitate to do the very same thing toward their opponent.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM PDT

      •  i don't think that is true

        in terms of the vileness of the attacks -- personally, i can not see myself, as an Obama supporter, tolerating the kinds of attacks on Clinton that is done by the Clinton supporters

        it has become fashionable (as propogated by the Clinton campaign itself) to praise the FoxNoise -- i don't see many of us on this side of the ledger doing that -- and sure as hell -- if the Obama campaign WAS doing that -- then i for one, would be saying -- well, the campaign is over and it really should stop

        check out the ardent pro-Clinton blogs -- they are a bizarre mashup that could easily be taken as nothing other than  the Crazy Right Wing blogs ... maybe i am just missing them -- but i don't see ANYTHING equaling that on the Obama supporter side!?

        so ... to try and say "both sides do it" -- i have to disagree -- both sides are NOT doing it ... a far too sizable portion of the Clinton supporters are just plain nuts

        by josephk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM PDT

      •  **I was shocked the first time

        I saw what so-called democrats (Clinton supporters) were saying about Obama.  It was so far off-base that I was sure they must be Republican poseurs.  Really mean stuff, and seeming to come full blown out of nowhere.
        I don't believe the majority of them are real.  

        by greylox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM PDT

•  Yeah, there has been some awful stuff

  posted here.

  by ablington on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM PDT

  •  True, but

    the extent to which Fox News has become an ally of the HRC campaign is an odd and troubling development.  What's even more troubling is the enthusiastic embracing of Fox News by some of the more ardent Clinton supporters.  

    by ROh70 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM PDT

    •  **They go to Fox because that's the only

      place they'll be welcomed.  Not too many democratic groups like what they're doing, so they're appealing to those easily led who tune into Fox.

      by greylox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

•  The only time I was ever politically consumed

  ... with hatred, was a day in December 2000 and another in November 2004.

  When the Supreme Court rigged the Presidency and when Bush said he had a "mandate." Those two dark days, I slugged a fifth of Jack and was not a good person to be around.

  These people are not yet consumed. They're just lashing out and they know the end is near. Things will turn around by the convention.

  by OReillysNightmare on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:26 AM PDT

•  Obama has no coercive force at his disposal

  Just a bit different from Nazi Germany, don't you think?  

  It might be interesting to hear more about the elderly views of Obama as a second Goebbels, especially the "looks like" part.  

  It's possible to find some of Goebbels' speechs on the web, you can compare them with Obama's speeches yourself.

  by tarheelian51 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM PDT

•  There are idiots in every camp

  You just happened to come across a bunch at once.

  by sfbob on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM PDT

•  These Aren't Examples of Hatred

  Let's not us use the extremist terminology where it doesn't truly apply.

  by Gooserock on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:15:03 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    These statements seem to reflect an underlying jealousy and desire to devalue the significance of the historic Portland rally.  

    by ROh70 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM PDT

  •  It applies

    to the Goebbels one.

    by ChurchofBruce on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM PDT

•  In the old days - pre internet

  You know, the term "political junkie" gains its full and true meaning in the context of a flat out campaign where you have stayed up nights and been under a lot of stress for several months.  People get addicted to the adrenaline rush of it and you see this from one campaign to the next.

  Before the internet came along, a lot of the foaming-at-the-mouth strange and silly stuff that people say when they are in the midst of such excitement is forgotten when it is all over.  

  However, with the advent of blogging, late night, coffee drenched thinking can be immortalized (in a short term sense.)

  This isn't really in the same category as hate speech, unless people develop entrenched attitudes that last past the end of the election cycle.

  The only problem here is whether a percentage of the voting population carries some residual resentment from the primary into the voting booth in November.  

  Most likely things will take place that will alter the situation.  The emergence of an uncontested nominee, the debate focusing on McCain and other Republican contestants, the convention, world and domestic events - those will tend to overpower the emotions of May going into June.  

  The thing to do is take the long view, relax a bit, and take things in stride.  Like the old civil rights song says, "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize and Hold On."

  by Stuart Heady on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM PDT

  •  Nicely put

    by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:14 AM PDT

•  isn't there a diary

  here today which talks about the dangers of posting while drunk or stoned? :-)

  by onanyes on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:55 AM PDT

  •  No, there's a sanctimonious jackass

    ... attempting to dictate who can post in his diaries and what state of mind he will "allow".  He bases that demand on the fact that a longtime user disagreed with him in a previous diary and, thus, "must be stoned."

    by bustacap on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:27:15 AM PDT

  •  Drunk or Stoned, but not Simply Overexited

    Politics gets to be fun because it is, especially at a time like this, pretty exciting.

    It is easy to get cranked up emotionally over what is going on, because frankly, it is part of how the human mechanism mobilizes for action and we should be getting ready for action.  There will be a lot of doors to knock on phone calls to be made and arguments to have pretty soon.

    You can't really regulate excitement when you are also hoping to promote it!

    by Stuart Heady on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM PDT

•  This isn't hatred

  It just a blurry perception of reality when viewed through the looking glass darkly from Hillaryland.

  They can McAullifize spin anything to show that their candidate is actually in the best position.  Its weird; even eerie sometimes but it never fails.

  I read Hillaryis44.org EVERY DAY just for laughs.  These people are so far gone over the edge for her it is CRAZY.

  by Wisper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM PDT

  •  Talk Left isn't far behind

    some folks over there think Obama is just like George W. Bush; they can't seem to decide whether Obama is going to lose to McCain in a landslide, or get impeached  as president.

    And yet some still think he'd make a good pick for Hillary's VP. Go figure.

    by elmo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM PDT

  •  HillaryIs44 is Harper's compared to No Quarter

    Typical post:

    Karl Rove’s Maps PROVE Hillary Can Beat McCain, but Guess Who Can’t

    And when you ridicule them, they don't even delete your posts. They re-write them.

    by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM PDT

•  Let's think about it for a second

  To Clinton's most ardent supporters, she's been the presumptive nominee since 2004.

  Then along comes this "kid" who had a couple of kickass speeches (Iraq and the convention) and a couple of excellent books, and to Democrats he's even more a rock star than Bill was?

  How can this be?

  At first they said they like him but he can wait.

  But since the majority of Democrats said we like him enough to make him the nominee, they became increasingly incredulous.

  And as they see their hopes of the first woman president -  an idea they thought a done deal only a few months ago - slip away, they want to lash out at the person who "stole it" from her.

  It wouldn't have mattered who took it.  

  But the fact that this "rookie" did it makes it hurt more for them.

  Is it rational?

  No.

  Is it understandable?

  Probably.

  by broui on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM PDT

•  Re

  ....I have elderly friends who were young adolescents in Germany during WWII. Several weeks ago, they sheepishly offered the observation that, to them, Obama looks and sounds like the American version of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda....

    Maybe these folks don't speak English?  Don't get the content of Obama's speeches?  Ridiculous statements.

  by bibble on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:22:38 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps a lot of the comparisons

    of Obama to Nazis is from the pro-Israeli contingent of voters, who, for reasons unknown to me, believe Obama will sell Israel down the river.

    by Fabienne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM PDT

    •  Evidence? nt

      by another American on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM PDT

•  Joe...I have a suggestion for you.

  Go to a Renaissance Faire and buy yourself a suit of armor and get read for the real fun to start.

  We ain't seen nothin' yet.

  by David Kroning on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:37:08 AM PDT

  •  Republican smear... hard to get worked up

    It's like finding raccoons have knocked over your trash can and spread garbage all over the place.

    Annoying, certainly. But they're raccoons - what else could you expect?

    by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

•  I can't believe I'm listening to more Nazi cr**

  One of the HRC  supporter threads throughout this campaign is that Obama is UnAmerican. Now this!

  I am truly sorry that Hillary can't draw 75K people to a rally, about 10% of the supposed 600K Democratic voters in Oregon going to the polls today. And I am aware that there are some websites which use terms for Obama supporters which cannot be reproduced on this site without banning, but suggest that they are not giving their support autonomously. But comparing him to Joseph Goebbels for being able to do it is beyond the pale.

  Especially during the week when the Righties are posting opinion columns, such as the one that got through the WaPo system, that suggest there is such a thing as a 'full blooded American" here a couple of hundred years and not less, who is the real and true American and O is not that.

  If I had a doughnut, I'd doughnut this in the morning, I'd doughnut this in the evening, all over this land....

  by Christy1947 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:37:44 AM PDT

  •  And, yes, I mean the poster here.

    Reposting this sort of stuff is not a neutral act, but one which spreads the nonsense beyond where it would originally have gone, and enables it.

    by Christy1947 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM PDT

    •  Disagree, obviously

      by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM PDT

•  don't know if "we"

  were ever "this bad", but the diarist certainly was, time after time after time after time after time.

  It's a little hypocritical of the diarist to focus so much on the inflammatory and offensive comments of others, when he's made so many himself.

  by limpidglass on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

•  That's what you used your diary on?

  Really?

  by burrow owl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM PDT

  •  You didn't read the notice, did you

    by Joe Beese on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

•  we should be more crazed than we are

  We as a movement need to stop treating conservatives as nice people and genuine patriots with whom we disagree, but would be happy to sit down with them and work out a compromise. Lefties who think like this are so corrupted by Broderism they can't even see it.

  Godwin's Law aside: we need to expose conservatism as "creeping fascism" or the "gateway ideology" to fascism - between conservatism's endless and indiscriminate hagiography, scapegoating, and eliminationist impulses, we won't be lying or even spinning.

  I'm sure the Right has more than its share of charismatic speakers and large crowds of enthusiastic and uncritical supporters ... and their values and policies are a lot closer than Obama's to those of Hitler and Goebbels.

  by Visceral on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:49:29 AM PDT

  •  Right on.

    We as a movement need to stop treating conservatives as nice people and genuine patriots with whom we disagree, but would be happy to sit down with them and work out a compromise. Lefties who think like this are so corrupted by Broderism they can't even see it.

    Right you are. We need to start thinking of the Right in the same terms they already think of us -- as the enemy.

    by CrustyPolemicist on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:07:31 AM PDT

•  Distinctions

  I believe the commenter was responding to interpretations of this event which saw the presence of 75k supporters as "new" or "unparalleled" in recent politics, somehow indicative of what has come to be seen as illogical theme to this election.

  Indicating that Kerry had pulled a larger crowd in 2004 is nothing to be upset with considering that Obama and Hillary supporters both look to champion objectivity and reality as those will be the strongest points in countering McCain.  

  As for the crowd logistics - the commenter just made assertions - basically that people were paid to garner and manage that crowd... Possibly to counter claims of spontaneity - not that I heard them.  In all fairness, it was a planned event featuring the Decemberists in concert.

  If German immigrants who saw Goebbels speak want to make a public speaking style comparison with a contemporary orator known for an ability to energize crowds - isn't it their right?  If that is their observation after witnessing both politicians campaigning, they probably feel a civic duty to make it known.  It's not the same as calling Obama a Nazi and should be met with the same scrutiny with which all news/opinions should be treated.

  by DrVenture on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM PDT

•  Such insinuations are even more brazen...

  ...when one considers what was detailed in the following diary

  by Enterik on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM PDT