$7795 with 157 donations, which ain’t half bad.
I tried to find something to blog about today, but just got disgusted with the whole mess after 5 minutes at memorandum. If Jeralynn Merritt and the rest of the folks who make up the Axis of Hillary can’t figure out they sound like Red State and Hot Air, what the fuck could I possibly say that will pull them out of their stupor? And if they manage to damage Obama enough in their failed attempts to win this for Hillary that the GOP wins in the fall, well, I guess will have plenty of blogging material then, as I throw it in their faces for four years.
Regardless, after watching them the last few months, I have almost decided Rove was too good for ’em.
Piss off, the lot of them. I am as disgusted with politics as I have ever been. Bunch of children who can’t figure out their candidate lost fair and square, squandered millions and name recognition and a huge lead, and now they want a do-over or to destroy the opposition so their first-choice gets it handed to them. To hell with them all.
Wilfred
Give me a C, a bouncy C!
Hillary is gonna fuck up,
Put on a happy face;
Brush off the clouds and cheer up,
Put on a happy face.
Take off the gloomy mask of tragedy,
It’s not your style;
You’ll look so good that you’ll be glad
Ya’ decide to smile!
Think of Barack Obama,
Stick out that double chin;
Wipe off that “what the fuck!” look,
Slap on a happy grin!
And start flaming all over the place,
Just put on a happy face!
Chuck
I don’t know how many other readers out there are like me, but probably about $40-ish of the couple-few hundred I’ve given (in about 6-8 easy installments) has been in response to your posts, though you don’t get the credit because I haven’t clicked through on your Act Blue link. Probably only $25 of that has been since you put up the link. It’s just been easier to keep going to the same spot I’ve always gone to donate. But for what it’s worth, that number underrepresents your actual fundraising influence, at least somewhat.
myiq2xu
Don’t blame us. It’s not our fault your pony oinks.
nightjar
It’s kind of ironic in that although I once had respect for Jeralynn, I always thought her and her followers were a little too far left for me. Now they’re quoting Michael Barone as evidence Hillary has more popular votes that Obama.
I’ve made a few trips over there in the past couple of months just to challenge their notions on the primary race, but they’ve recently entered into subspace or something and are in full wingnut-like projection mode and can’t be reasoned with. Sad really.
skippy
i’m w/you, john. i go to memeorandum and i get discouraged and disgusted. i feel great dismay at the track jeralyn has taken, as she was one of the very first people to encourage me in my blogging career. but now she has left her common sense and fair play behind in her pursuit of the cult of hillary.
i don’t mind if people like hillary over obama, as i’ve said many times before, i think she would make (nominally) a better president than obama. i truly think obama is less progressive than hillary (which ain’t saying much).
all three prez candidates are to the right of center; it just depends on how far right of center you want to determine whom you would vote for.
but this rovian gotcha style crap is what’s killing politics in america. it’s certainly killing my motivation to write about it.
taoless
i hear you, john. i’ve been unable to pay attention to any of this shit for a couple of weeks now. even when they were handing out the vote return crack in pennsylvania the other day, i could barely care one way or another. i think, after so many years of being battered and barraged by the wingnuts, that the clintons have developed stockholm syndrome, and while i’m sure there’s plenty of material for a good psychological case study, there’re better soap operas on tv.
anybody want to lay odds that she’ll mount a third-party presidential campaign if the democrats won’t give her the nomination? i mean, if she and bill are as convinced as they seem to be that they and only they are the saviors-in-waiting for a troubled america, then what would be stopping them?
Wilfred
Annals of the Age of Bush:
Does this mean the government failed to prove the confession? A lawyer named Spinner?
smiley
I don’t think they’ll do that. It would be political suicide to the extent that it would absolutely ruin her chances in 2012 and probably cost her her senate seat.
The Grand Panjandrum
If Obama were to lose in the GE–in the delusional world of Clinton Above All Else–the Clinton camp would see it as vindication that Hillary would have been a better candidate and won. Sadly, they will ignore the simple fact that you have to secure the nomination before you can run in the GE. The logic they employ escapes me. Why would a candidate that employed a losing strategy in the primaries have been any more successful in the GE? Bizzare.
Corner Stone
Fuck you and your built in whiny ass excuses. If your Lord and Savior can’t win the GE then how the hell is that anyone’s fault but his?
You think HRC “dirtied him up” during the primary? What a laughable joke. If he can’t close out Hillary until the convention, and subsequently can’t put the stake in old vamp McCain in the GE then….well, I guess he’s not as much of a unifier as he PR’s himself to be.
Get over yourself. If Obama is the nominee, and IF he loses to McCain it will be completely his fault just like it was when Kerry lost to Bush. Period.
wini
The total should now be over $8k.
scarshapedstar
Talkleft and Corrente, Balloon Juice and Booman…
This primary is going to make my head explode. Who will be the Unity Pony of the blogosphere?
Wait… what’s that on the horizon? No… no, it can’t be!
It’s the McCain Impotence Meme! It’s here to unite us all under its flaccid banner!
wini
Oops – nevermind. I counted wrong. Dammit.
Andrew
lool, myiq’s candidate is being beaten by an oinking pony!
nightjar
With sore losers like you corner stone, I am beginning to doubt that ANY dem can win in November. Are you one of the thirty percent of hilbots who are going to pout and vote for MCcain or stay home come election day?
And btw you can take the “lord and saviour” shit and shove it up your wingnut ass.
empty
As long as this is an open thread. Go over to pbs.org and listen to Bill Moyer’s interview of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I don’t generally use the reverend title because there is so little to revere about most people who claim the title. But I think in Wright’s case it is well deserved. This is a truly decent and thoughtful man. Go listen. Here is the link.
Anticorium
And thus the goalposts move: if HRC wins the nomination then she is vindicated and is utterly blameless, and if she loses the nomination and the voters respond to her message by voting in The Guy Who Passed The Commander-In-Chief Threshold she is vindicated and is utterly blameless.
John Cole
I only beat her because I love her so much!
Fuck off, wanker.
Just Some Fuckhead
Heap on your derision since it continues to portray HRC in a worse way. Obama not being able to “close out Hillary” in a proportionally-allocated delegate contest is significantly less ridiculous than HRC, with all her built-in advantages at the beginning of this thing (money, name, hailing from second-largest delegate state, polling 40 percentage points above everyone else, largest group of staunch supporters, married to former President), will come in second place to an unknown black candidate with a funny name.
But despite her completely fubarring her gimme candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination to what she and her supporters consider a lucky political neophyte, for some unspoken reason her loser supporters think she is the best candidate and should be the beneficiary of an affirmative action awarding of the nomination.
At the conclusion of this primary, Obama will have earned the right to lose the general just like all of the white candidates before him.
jake
Man, you’re giving those wastes of skin way too much credit. Maybe the majority of Democratic voters are both aware of and so stupid they’ll be swayed by J-Lynn’s Shrieking Society o’ Bedlam.
I’d be willing to bet that a random poll of Democratic voters would show 98.9% don’t know who the fuck they are and 100% could give a damn. I didn’t until I read about it here and frankly, I sort of treasured my ignorance. However, to say that pack of pants wetting WATBs will have an impact on this year’s election is to pay them a compliment they do not deserve.
You’ll feel much better if you follow SOP for escapees from the home for political mental patients:
Point.
Laugh.
Repeat.
Josh E.
There is a new Grand Theft Auto video game coming out next week. Let’s see if it engages Hillary’s nannystate instincts.
John Cole
My favorite is the folks saying she should go all the way because Huckabee did in the GOP and it was no problem.
One thing- in the GOP winner-take-all primaries, Huckabee actually had a chance at winning. Hillary does not. This is just free damage for McCain, all for the Hillary vanity campaign.
smiley
A hypothetical question for the resident Hillbots: What was your position on the Lieberman/Lamont situation? I know the situations are very different but I just want to know if you would shun the party’s nominee for the sake of a candidate who didn’t win the primaries. Just want to get a read on what ya’ll are going to do in the Fall. So, just answer the question. What was your position on the Lieberman/Lamont situation?
Just Some Fuckhead
I agree she can’t win the most pledged delegates. But she can still be the beneficiary of an affirmative-action awarding of the nomination by superdelegates. And her supporters are clearly clamoring for such.
The large bloc of superdelegates on the Democratic side with no clear guidelines on how to vote sort of renders apples-to-apples comparisons with Republicans untenable.
smiley
Um, I guess that’s not a hypothetical question. Forget the hypothetical part…
Corner Stone
You are the King Clown Wanker here Cole. I’m not sure how the extremely laughable topic of domestic abuse is on point here…BTW – I’m suprised you haven’t been offered a side job at MSNBC with the rest of the boys club.
Excusing your inane rejoinder, the point remains.
If the empty suit can’t win the GE then it will be on his campaign and his alone.
cbear
Funny, I don’t recall hearing Democrats label a fellow Dem an elitist Muslim terrorist nigger in past primary seasons.
BTW Corner Stone, how’s that colon taste? Be careful not to strangle yourself with your own sphincter when you try and get your head out, bud.
John Cole
Tom Hayden says to blow it out your ass, cornerstone.
nightjar
Well one thing is certain, Hillary Clinton is through, done, kaput of EVER being the dem nomimee for president. You didn’t answer my question big mouth. Will you be voting for Obama or not this fall? It seems not, and therefore your above quoted declaration is just more hillbot garbage.
cynique71
I wonder how much of the barking madness comes from the slowly dawning realization that Hillary will NEVER be president and the Clinton reign is simply over.
If Hillary gets the back room blessing, the Dem party is irreparably damaged, she loses in November.
If Obama loses in November because she scorches the earth to have another go in 2012, she will be a Dem pariah and will automatically start with roughly 50% of the Dem party against her.
She will simply never be president.
PeterJ
If there ever was a reason for getting a PS3 or an XBOX 360, this is it.
—
If you throw shit, then some of it will end up on you too.
Clinton is driving up the negatives for both Obama and herself.
If there aren’t a major grassroot supported campaign to unseat her in 2012 I would be rather suprised.
D-Chance.
Your “economic stimulus payment” (read: here’s a check, shut up):
Schedule for receiving checks.
Payment calculator.
Delia
Strange days. John Cole is citing Tom Hayden. Hillary Clinton is cuddling with Richard Mellon Scaife, the founder of the VRWC. Hayden’s article is good, BTW.
Bill Clinton was in Oregon over the weekend. He was appearing at school gyms in tiny towns around the state to build up his wife’s brilliant new campaign promise to fix up all the ways the goopers have screwed over Oregon for the past seven years. I got a phone call from some mentally retarded campaign operative on Friday afternoon, asking me if Hillary could count on my vote. I politely said, “No. I’m voting for Obama.” She then quickly invited me to Bill’s appearance Saturday morning at the Junction City high school gym about ten miles north of Eugene. I said I wouldn’t be going and gave her a one minute exposition of why I didn’t like the Clintons anymore and hung up on her before she could ask me for money.
Oh, yeah, and our governor is a superdelegate in her camp and he’s trying to get citizens to sign on to a petition for two TWO debates between her and Obama in Oregon alone. The mind turns to jelly at the very prospect. I mean, haven’t we all suffered enough?
Oh yeah, and apparently Bill’s now running his wife’s campaign.
Jake
I think this post should have this cartoon from the WaPo at the top:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/04/25/c_04252008_520.jpg
lucslawyer
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary…please stop your scorched earth campaign for the good of the country and the party…if I have to face 4 years of Bush Lite…
scrutinizer
But John, Hillary is teh 733t! As William Curry, a former advisor to Bill Clinton said,
Thanks for the link to the Hayden article. I had forgotten that Hillary was once a DFH. I’m sure that if she manages to make the case that she should be the nominee because shut up and the party anoints her as the next Chosen One, the fRighties will be able to use that stuff to launch an offensive against her that will make the Wright dust-up look like a hugfest.
I’m sure all those Reagan Dems (ie, Republicans) that p.huk is so worried about will eat that shit up.
Just Some Fuckhead
Some fool posted this in a Dailykos thread:
OMFG
Remember, we have it reliably that one of these will be a better President than McCain. Maybe #2 – take your pick.
Rick Taylor
Taking the temperature at Talk Left, it’s now the common wisdom there that Hillary is winning “the popular vote.” People point out that a count in which an unsanctioned primary in which Obama was not on the ballot is counted while caucus states are either under-reported or not counted altogether is silly, and are troll-rated; one is suspended for making too many posts (16_. Meanwhile, “Big Tent Democrat” makes an appeal for a “Unity Ticket” and the response is a mix between it might be ok, with Hillary at the top of course, versus Obama is damaged goods and Hillary should be free to choose whom she likes. Most there believe Obama is going to loose the election if he’s the nominee (although BTD feels he’s more electable because of media bias). Commenters can’t even expect to win California without diverting significant resources there that will keep him from fully campaigning in other states (no, I’m not making that up).
John Cole
My only question at this point is at what point all the Hillary supporters will see something, stop dead in their tracks, and have a “MY GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE.”
I am thinking it will be sometime in October when mcCain 527’s are running attack ads against Obama in the general election starring Hillary or Hillary supporters. Maybe questioning his patriotism, calling him elitist, or something. At some point it will sink in what they have done, and it won’t be pretty. I remember going through that when I realized what a disgrace the Bush administration was, and that it was partially my fault.
Carol
They’re worth 109 million. That’s enough to run a spite campaign that doesn’t even try to win states.
Rick Taylor
Just Some Fuckhead
No way, this is when they will all exclaim “Told ya so!”
PeterJ
I believe that both MyDD and TalkLeft will experience this.
I doubt anyone writing at No Quarters will ever feel any remorse.
jake
Or, Pup Tent Democrat and his ilk pull a Reverse-Cole and eventually realize their true home is with the GOP. The already contentious mix of old-cons, neo-cons, faux-cons, so-cons & theo-cons will have to make room for the de-cons and become even more of a bar brawl.
Win^2^.
ThymeZone
Just wanted to say, saw the Barack Obama interview on FoxNews today. Wallace’s questions were a little Fox-ish, especially in the early part of the interview (All the black people voted for you, why can’t you unite the party, are you just another negro candidate?) …. but got better, and Obama fielded the full range of questions with his characteristic calm intelligence.
Wallace’s follow analysis was pretty flattering to Obama, considering the ideological bent of the Fox tradition. He characterized Obama as “reaching out to the voters who watch Fox News.”
Some of the chatter that sounded a little critical could actually be characterized as good advice for Obama (why not reach out now to the racial divide, and talk less about change and process?)
I’d have to say, from here, it looks like the appearance is a win for Obama.
Oh, Kristol: He was “eloquent, but substance free.”
Kristol. Pshhht.
scarshapedstar
Honestly? If Obama — having watched the War on Gore and the Swiftboating of Kerry — decides to pull a Schiavo and hang back and “brush McCain’s dirt off his shoulders” instead of taking the fight to that warmongering old nutjob and his impotent campaign, Hillary is not the problem here. This shit is already telegraphed. The media is already running free attack ads for McCain. Obama can let that miserable twat shrug his shoulders and sheepishly mumble about how he sent an email and a voicemail and gosh darn it those ads need to stop, or he can call him out on it. Whether the ads feature Hillary supporters or Ken Starr doesn’t make a damn bit of difference, if he takes it like a bitch, Kerry-style.
Oh, but he might whine a bit more about it. Yeah, that’ll really impress the Ace of Spades bloc.
Jake
Didn’t Bill Kristol also shout for glee over how much he likes Hillary, how much he’s for her, in that same roundtable after this morning’s Fox interview?
This actually gives me some consolation. Were Kristol actively campaigning for Obama to win, I would be concerned.
Rick Taylor
I’m still waiting for war supporters to have a similar realization regarding Iraq. You’re just about the only one I know who has, so I’m not too hopeful for Hillary supporters.
Evidently human beings have a huge capacity for self delusion, and the problem is the worse the outcome of the wrong headed stances we make, the more evidence we have to change, but the more motivation we have not to change, as it means facing the results of our actions.
Jake
I am thinking it will be sometime in October when mcCain 527’s are running attack ads against Obama in the general election starring Hillary or Hillary supporters.
I doubt it. They’ll just yelp “This COULDN’T have happened to HILLAREE because Obama didn’t campaign as HARD as HER!!!”
I actually think such ads are unlikely to hurt Obama. Her negatives are going to be at an all-time high heading into the general, esp. if we have a cluster-fuck of a convention. Clips of her criticizing Obama might actually make him look good.
JackieBinAZ
She’ll probably get more money from Republicans for the GE than she’s getting right now from her own party.
HRA
“I am thinking it will be sometime in October when mcCain 527’s are running attack ads against Obama in the general election starring Hillary or Hillary supporters. Maybe questioning his patriotism, calling him elitist, or something. At some point it will sink in what they have done, and it won’t be pretty.”
I already heard one McCain campaign advisor talk about this recently. It seems they now want Obama to be the nominee instead of Hillary. “We have changed our minds. She has already given us so much good material for the general election.”
Also, I have to agree on Jeralyn. I have been going to memeorandum a few times a day for weeks. It’s be depressing lately.
Someone said she may lose her Senate seat? Gawd – I’ll have to throw a WNY celebration party!
myiq2xu
I think it is Hillaryous that she’s running against Obama and he’s the whiny bitch.
Not to mention that her core constituency is older women and his supporters are WATB’s.
vwcat
What is it about supporting Hillary that turns perfect normal, intelligent people into raving lunatics?
I have seen places like MYDD go from an political activist site of free opinion to a total slavishness to all things hillary in fantasyland.
And I have seen people who use to be open minded and fair and wanting to have intelligent discussion on the issues become mini fascists that are intolerant and nasty and even joining in with wingnuts and fall into some kind of paranoia all in the name of worship at the alter of Hillary?
scrutinizer
myiq, you’re a pitiful little man.
mrmobi
John’s stand on torture and the evolution of his views on what happened in Iraq were the things that drew me here. I myself was dead wrong on Iraq, and I deeply resent that my government so willfully misrepresented the justifications for war. (I’m also disappointed in myself for being lazy) I will never, ever, accept on faith the word of any politician concerning matters of war again.
I don’t see John’s ability to evolve politically happening anywhere else on the right, with the possible exception of Gen. William Odom. I still think his advice about Iraq is spot on (re: get. out. now.)
What has happened over at Talk Left is very sad. While it seems to me that both sides of this debate have gone to extremes, the fact that no one at Talk Left can understand a concept as simple as basic fairness makes it an infuriating site to read or comment at.
No Quarter is another case entirely and has become the ministry of propaganda, free of any party loyalty or moral compass whatsoever.
AkaDad
Does John McCain support domestic terrorism?
Dennis - SGMM
Cue pluk with irrefutable proof that enough Americans will be menopausal in November to make Hillary a shoo-in.
vwcat
If anyone doubts that Hillary is helping the gop and damaging the party and Obama, Andrew Sullivan linked to this little gem.
If the right is thanking Hillary, then, the democratic party is worthless in letting this woman continue in her ‘vanity campaign’ because she is indeed helping out the gop.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/04/richelieu_the_perfect_storm.asp
A.Political
myiq2xu Says:
I think it is Hillaryous that she’s running against Obama and he’s the whiny bitch.
Not to mention that her core constituency is older women and his supporters are WATB’s.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
—
Hmmm, if I remember correctly I think there’s only been one person thats cried b/c she was getting treated sooooo unfairly. I mean it’s like anything that happened more than 2 weeks ago doesn’t count in pantsuit-land.
Regardless if it’s past affiliations, conduct or important metrics…they should tattoo a set of goalposts with cartoons legs blurred out in a running motion on Hillary’s forehead. And regarding myiq, well he warrants…well nothing.
TR
Agreed. He’s been 100% wrong about everything, so if he’s for Hillary then Obama’s chances are good.
I just wish I could find out which stocks he hates. I could make a fortune.
A.Political
What has happened over at Talk Left is very sad. While it seems to me that both sides of this debate have gone to extremes, the fact that no one at Talk Left can understand a concept as simple as basic fairness makes it an infuriating site to read or comment at.
—
Take a gander at how many comments get posted in their stories on law/crime (you know the original idea of the site) compared to the Hillary stories. She used to get dozens of comments on those stories. Now? Maybe 7-8 tops compared to 150+ on the pantsuit.
What Jeralyn doesn’t realize I think is that ‘big tent armando’ has hi-jacked her site and once this whole sordid affair is over her site will collapse since anyone who actually went there for the law aspect of things has long since left.
TR
Really? She was the one who cried, who complained about how rough she was being treated, who even whined about getting the first question at a debate, who said the “big boys” were ganging up against her, and who had her husband say her opponents were picking on “the girl.”
You want a whiny bitch? Look in the mirror.
A.Political
Myiq dreams in pantsuit vision….it’s true.
Dennis - SGMM
Odd, isn’t it, that Clinton’s supporters aren’t kipping in the same small donations that have allowed Obama to outraise her throughout the campaign. If Clinton’s supporters sent her a few bucks now and then she might not be running a deficit. Money talks, bullshit loans its campaign five mil and threatens to attack Iran.
Rick Taylor
Thinking about it, I’m not sure how much damage such attacks would do. Wright, Ayers, Farhakhan, fitness for command issues, and bitter-gate are all attacks the right wing would have used regardless, so the only question is how much if at all Hillary Clinton’s remarks would support them. The more right wing groups wouldn’t particularly care what Clinton had to say. Maybe the argument, look he’s so liberal, even someone as far to the left as Hillary was concerned, will have some weight with some professed moderate voters, but I’m not sure. The biggest impact would be among Democrats who very much wanted Clinton to be the nominee, but by the general election I still believe she’d be closing ranks behind the nominee, which will heal some of the damage; she’s already said in no uncertain terms that anyone thinking of voting for McCain over Obama should reconsider. It looks the worst now because we’re still in the thick of the primary battle, and I’m also assuming the primary will be decided shortly after the last primary election at the latest.
myiq2xu
Except for the husband thing you pretty much nailed Obama’s post-Philly debate reaction.
You recall that don’t you? That was the most recent debate where Hillary bitch-slapped him.
PeterJ
Republican Space Rangers.
A.Political
myiq2xu Says: blah blah, revsion this…blah revision that, blah no fair…blah change the rules…mmmm pantsuits…
Except for the husband thing you pretty much nailed Obama’s post-Philly debate reaction.
You recall that don’t you? That was the most recent debate where Hillary bitch-slapped him.
—
Of course what happened more then 2 weeks ago doesn’t count! And she didn’t cry, no Obama did…..seriously wtf planet do you live on, I mean it must be Planet of The Pantsuit cuz you’re either delusional or just intentionally ignorant.
I vote for a mix of both!
Rick Taylor
Nightjar wrote:
Who are you on Talk Left?
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, if you mean debate as in television appearance where front-runner and likely nominee’s electability is questioned by second place finisher.
It was a debate like my Christian High School’s Junior-Senior Banquet was a prom.
A.Political
I’ve been
myed2x
myiq4xu
r3ali7y
on TL, and maybe one more, all burned by Armando b/c I dared to debate him and then call him out on his dishonest methods.
Had one brouhaha with Armando where I called him out on his insulting debate style and traffic mongering, he no liked that so I was banned. Despite my civil approach and referencing his many personal and dismissive attacks on dissenting viewpoints. Then there was his outright deletion of civil dissent that I nailed him on flickr with. He is a joke I find.
nightjar
oxpecker. It’s an African bird that picks ticks off of well, oxes, and other surly critters.
Temple Stark
Thank you Corner Stone. That about covered it for me very well even if you’re a spoof.
If people are going to say, if Hillary gets the nomination they’re gonna whine forever and if Obama gets the nomination and loses they’re going to whine forever and blame Clinton, well, the left side of the blogosphere just got a helluvalot less interesting. It already has for the most part for any Hillary supporters – I know, we’re just e-viiiiil – who constantly see delusion from those in the new-already-feels-old blog media.
I realize I’m not supposed to take any posts here seriously anymore except as a practice in studied outrage for hits, but still, for the lurkers. …
myiq2xu
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Often imitated, never duplicated.
myiq2xu
nightjar
Nobody said you’re evil mr. martyr. The difference between Obama versu Clinton whiners is real simple. Playing by the rules Obama has more goddamn votes. It’s ain’t rocket science
These hillbots that come here with this pining drivel apparently are in need of specialized help. Some kind cult deprogramming or something.
John S.
Nah, there’s an entire wankosphere of Hillbots just like you posting their Obama screeds.
I find it funny how strenuously you objected to my calling you out on your incessant Obama ranting after the Florida primary. Then you spent quite some time pretending to be reasonable, claiming to have no personal issue with Obama, before you showered the joint with the byproduct of your Hillary hard-on.
I guess you were just pissed that someone blew your cover before you could ‘peak’.
Temple Stark
Just to ad a tad of clarity to my point, the premise here completely ingores the idea that Obama supporters maybe have suppoorted a candidate that doesn’t have what it takes, who has baggage they’re not willing to consider matters to people.
Abpout 90 percent of politics is about feelings and discussion and non-action that matters to people even if it shouldn’t.
Also MCain is clearly talking out of his ass when he condemns the NC GOP ad linking (pick a word) Rev. Wright to Obama to gubernatorial Dem candidates supporting Obama. McCain was on Meet the Press the day before citing many of the same “well, people will be thinking about XYZ controversial topic.” McCain will and has said anything to get elected – to Senate, to the presidency.
To believe that Obama supporters have some sort of superiority in the calm thinking, rational department is to pile on the delusion. Here and elsewhere. People vote for many reasons. I’ve chosen to to support Clinton because I’m for a person with concrete answers, who I believe can actually do more to lead and get things doen in this country.
This primary has set partisan Democrats – especially those online – in fits of tizzy and hatred I didn’t think was possible. But they blame they’re irrational hatred not on themselves but on others. (And note I didn’t put it solely in one camp) That’s a clear clear flaw of discourse and one’s own personality. It’s either a flaw or a feature of a primary that people just weren’t expecting.
But saying hateful things really doesn’t bring people to want to forgive you.
Again, for the lurkers not the character-players here.
scrutinizer
Delusion? Becuase Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more votes than Hillary, has outraised Hillary in campaign donations, has run a more effective campaign than Hillary, leads Hillary in national polls, wins over McCain by a greater margin than Hillary in polls of polls, has higher favorables and lower unfavorables than Hillary? That kind of delusion?
As opposed to the Hillary supporters’ argument that “Hillary deserves the nomination because shut up”; the essence of clear thinking and rational thought.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah Temple, it’s the rest of the world that’s all fucked up. Thank god you’ve got it together though.
nightjar
Ok! I forgive you . Now GFY.
Temple Stark
If you substitute Obama here, you begin to see the intractable situation where people’s perceptions are diametrically opposed. I see the situation where some Hillary Clinton supporters are nutcases but the worst of them are picked to characterize them all – kind of how Malkin et al treat liberal / left blogs – and I see a lot of online Obama supporters just outright dismiss anything Hillary or her supporters – online or off – have to say and take glee in it. As if they have a lock on smarts. Very sad.
… Again, for the lurkers, not the character-players here.
TenguPhule
Behind in votes, cash and support.
Hillary has been left behind.
It’s time for Iqboy and Phucker to leave quietly.
Notorious P.A.T.
Really? You were happy with that ABC “debate”? Questions about flag pins and meetings with terrorists that happened 40 years ago? That’s what you like to see?
You want Obama to debate Clinton again, but why should he? No matter who wins, Hillary will go around saying she did better because she has 40 years of public service, she has been vetted, she has won more popular votes (if you count Michigan, Florida, Treasure Island, and Tattooine), etc. You can’t win in a debate with someone who is reality-challenged.
John Cole
There is a marked difference between recognizing that both candidates will have all sorts of specious crap tossed at them and CREATING, MARKETING, AND VALIDATING the bullshit because you hope it makes your fellow party member so unacceptable that after losing the nomination to them, you hope the party heads will overturn that.
myiq2xu
Fixt
scrutinizer
Which is a nice sentiment, except that I feel that Obama is better than Clinton in this area. Perhaps Clinton could have swung me over to her side, if she hadn’t been more interested in endorsing McCain over Obama, if she hadn’t been more interested in showing how “tough” she is by lying about her experiences under sniper fire in Bosnia, and if she had run a creditable campaign that relied more on explaining why she was a better candidate rather than just an inevitable one. Hillary has not impressed me with her management skills, nor with her ability to change directions quickly and effectively when her initial plans go all to shit. Hillary hasn’t shown me leadership during this campaign, but she has shown me that she can wiggle, spin, and lie down with the worst enemies of the Democratic Party if need be to ensure that she wins.
Hillary hasn’t even made a good case that the superdelegates should throw the nomination to her despite Obama being far ahead in the pledged delegate lead. National polls don’t show a disaster for the Dems if Obama gets the nomination. If anything, they show that Obama can compete more effectively in the GE than she can, despite p.huk’s insistence to the contrary. I myself don’t have a problem with the superdelegates’ ability to supercede primary and caucus results, but she brings nothing to the table to justify it.
Specifically, why do you think Hillary is a better candidate? What specific experience has she had, how has her performance during this nomination process shown her to be a better candidate for the general election, what policy positions does she hold that are so different from Obama’s that make her a better choice? Myiq never answers this, he just does his little dance; and p.huk thinks Clinton is a better candidate because she’s white and Obama isn’t, and therefore he’s unelectable. The lurkers, and those of us who’ve been asking this question for a long time, might like to hear an answer.
nightjar
So now Hillary supporters have become so desperate, and dare I say, insane, they are courting “lurkers” at Obama supporting blogs. I hope the SD’s take note of this greatness.
scrutinizer
In other words, you support Hillary because you didn’t like something an Obama supporter said. Not Obama, but one of his supporters. Or you don’t really support Hillary, you just come round to play your silly games. Grade school was a long time ago, fella. Maybe it’s time for you to move on.
Just Some Fuckhead
No, it’s a way of avoiding having their fragile notions challenged by “player-characters”. It’s the commenting equivalent of BTD and Other Talk Left Assholes deleting anyone who disagrees with them.
The HRC folks can’t handle differing opinions.
tim
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
jake
Hey buddy, you misspelled irritating.
You’re welcome.
empty
On Balloon Juice you will find numerous “Fuck Hillary” threads while on Talk Left I have yet to find a “Fuck Obama” thread. I think on the question of their favorite candidate they are a tad more rational.
Temple Stark
>>scrutinizer Says
Christ, as if you haven’t heard good reasons why people support Hillary Clinton. If you haven’t heard it from myiq2 then you haven’t heard it? You’re just playing people for fools again?
But I’ll answer, even though when myiq2 was less abrasive he did indeed answer, everyone just pretended he didn’t.
I was an Edwards supporter. When he dropped out it was right before Feb. 5 and I had to make my choice, being from Arizona. I’m a recent (2003) transplant from Washington state.
I supported Edwards because I thought his background could fight back against those on the right with intelligence and his legal experience to get us as a country to move away from torture and, to keep it short, quite a number of other things. I called him the arguer-in-chief.
So my time to vote comes around and I really had to examine what would make me support either candidate over the other with my vote.
One of my first thoughts was I don’t believe Barack Obama has what it takes – as a candidate. I had to examine why I thought that. I discovered that to me Obama lacked the same solid, concrete skills that had made me want to support Edwards.
At that point especially, Obama seemed much more about saying he was for “hope” and “change” than actually being about hope or change. Every non-incumbent candidate in the world says they are for change, it doesn’t mean anything.
That he is half-black didn’t seem anything more earth-shattering than that Clinton is a woman. So I put that out of the equation for my vote. It was a non-factor. The country should collectively feel ashamed that neither a black person or a woman has led this country or had much of a chance in hell to be elected. Until this year.
So, the general feeling I have for Clinton is that she can get things done. Her plan for Iraq, though rooted in an bad vote (though I’ve looked at her speech and it’s much more thoughtful than people give her credit for) seemed more pragmatic.
You can bring everyone home and it seems the country supports such a move. But people are fickle and the feeling of losing, sich as in Vietnam lingers a long long time. The overidign public sentiment at that time was to end the war, and yet, it ended and has lingered for this long. I was born in 1971, i don’t remember shit about the war except the lingering effects. I’m sure most of the people here can say the same.
Arguably, that is when Democrats began to be seen as the party weak on the military and weak on defense. That has lingered. So you need someone who has a pragmatic view of withdrawal but who will actually withdrawal, unlike the bloodthirsty Republican Presidential candidates (excepting Ron Paul)
Clinton has also said she would end or try to end no-bid govt. contractors business in Iraq and the presence of people fighting in America’s name that aren’t of the US military.
The environment? It hasn’t been talked about much in the election from either candidate, sadly, but looking at Clinton’s positions, she has studied the related issues and technology thoroughly and again has a much more progressive stance toward achieving green and focusing on it.
I can’t go through all the issues without making this an even longer post. They all come down to, I believe Clinton has the much more pragmatic and realistic approach and that her knowledge, for the most part is greater. This used to be valued by Democrats – pace Al Gore. I didn’t need someone to have a beer with in 2000 or 2004 and I don’t look for politicians to inspire me, I look for politicians to get things done.
People’s opinion may differ on who would be best. That’s great, stop being – generally – so nasty about painting Clinton supporters racists and low-information voters (and more). Because the over-the-top hate toward Clinton was definitely a factor as well to my leaning toward Clinton. I did not want to be attached to such hate, and I saw it many more places and across the board – and in the national media – than I did the few Web sites everyone here likes to cite as representative of all.
At this point Hillary Clinton could care less whether people, in general, like her and that if she gets things accomplished people will move her way and start to believe in her. The same, of course would happen with Obama.
While many people suddenly think Clinton would be / is a DINO, because they think a campaign is how a person will govern (think Bush, think Bush1, think Reagan). I leave out Bill Clinton because he remained hugely popular but was stymied by Republicans. To put it another way and to link it to the paragraph above, being liked doesn’t translate into getting more done. Being disliked doesn’t translate into getting less done, as arguably, GWB has got a lot done – tax cuts etc, his nominees to AG and Supreme court that has been very damaging to the country.
I fully expect people to pick the tiniest thing out of my post to make themselves feel good, but I wanted to post. Now that I’ve said my piece, don’t continue to pretend like you had never heard any good reasons why people support Hillary or that it’s rare to have it be said. If you haven’t you really haven’t been paying attention or been listening or been trying to listen.
Corner Stone
Ahhh yes, the Tom Hayden piece. Well, that’s definitive isn’t it? I mean, hell, if Tom Hayden is saying something smearlicious then it must be true, eh?
It’s lovely how he starts out, his second sentence reads:
“This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama’s transformational appeal.”
Hmmmm, maybe he should talk to a few kids too, see how they feel about Barack. All the other pols who’ve signed on to the Empty Suit Express ™ have used long heartfelt discussions with the youth of today as the reason they endorse BO. Not because of anything they themselves have felt though, just that their kids are so damn excited by his speeches, that gosh, they just have no choice but to feel the burn.
Thank goodness Tom is at least listening to a grown woman scream at the TV. That’s quite a rational foundation and source of truth.
And for whatever nutbag above cited The WeeklyStandard – that’s pure fresh squoze concern trolling if I’ve ever heard it. Numbnuts like that probably listened to Karl when he told the Dems the last thing they wanted to talk about was the Iraq War back in 06.
scrutinizer
…crickets…
As usual.
Huh. Just noticed that. I wonder if the Hillbots think that Clinton gets a saving throw against the MUP?
Shygetz
Then you’re not looking very hard. Unless you meant that you never read the exact words “Fuck Obama” in the title of a thread there in a blinking font, but you wouldn’t be that pathetically trite, would you? Surely not…
p.lukasiak
Hillary Clinton did not chose Jeremiah Wright as Obama’s pastor.
Hillary Clinton did not force Obama to stay in Wright’s church for 20 years.
Hillary Clinton did not introduce Tony Rezko to Obama.
Hilarry Clinton did not arrange Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko’s wife.
Hillary Clinton did not call working class white voters “bitter”, did not criticize them for clinging to their guns and religion, and did not compare their lifestyl and faith with racism and prejudice.
Hillary Clinton did not prevent Obama from holding subcommittee hearings.
Hillary Clinton did not force Obama to run for President with only 2 years national political experience…
but somehow, the damage being done to Obama’s november prospects is all the fault of Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
DO YOU EVER THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE THIS CRAP?
empty
Pathetically trite? Wow, I suppose compared someone who can come up with that brilliant riposte I must be. I usually mean exactly what I say. Works for me.
Just Some Fuckhead
It’s like Clintard Hell in here tonight. Good luck wading through the pseudo-racist bullshit, character-players. I’m going to bed!
Temple Stark
This among MANY other thing is why I say character-players are here and not much else. If this exaggeratedly named commenter really believes anything in his statement than “I’m going to bed” then the reality of blind hatred really is much worse than I thought.
Dennis - SGMM
I have a straightforward, no tricks, question for the Clinton supporters who are present here tonight. What is Clinton’s signature legislation? I tried Googling it but came up empty. That could be my fault for not asking the right way but I tried several queries and I couldn’t find a single significant bill that she’d authored or co-authored. Again, that could easily be caused by not asking the right question. So, I’m asking you.
ThymeZone
Uh huh. But she did not point out that John Hagee is a fucking intellectual and moral trainwreck who blames Americans for Hurricane Katrina, and point out that if the GOP wants to have a Pastor War general election, we are prepared to have one, and may the best pastor win.
She also did not point out the intellectual bankruptcy of association politics, making it clear that she doesn’t tolerate it in her campaign, and won’t tolerate it done to her either. Pointing out that swiftboating Obama … or anyone … is not acceptable politics.
Instead, she went along with the “controversy” and clucked her especially evil and disgusting tongue over the supposed “controversy” so as to gain as much mileage for herself from it as possible.
That’s what she did do, and that’s why people hate her fucking guts. She will throw her own party, her own worthy adversary and her own campaign under the primary bus because she is nothing but a political whore who practices the worst kind of Ends Justify Means politics … just like the assholes who are in the White House right now. She is just exactly like them.
She is a piece of shit.
Cain
That’s too bad. I like the governor in general, but I think he’s wrong to support Clinton. But then the governor is definitely old world democrat not progressive. Kitzhaber was probably a lot more progressive that way. And I liked Kitzhaber a lot.
Speaking of which, our rep for state senate was knocking doors and we had a nice 15 minute chat about the state of affairs. We both agreed, Clinton was screwed she’s just doesn’t know she’s already dead. We both laughed about the democratic party and it’s habit of being a circular firing squad. I love my oregon reps. I don’t ever have everything to writeto them about. They’ve generally voted the way I wanted them to. (Including a no vote on Iraq)
cain
Pb
Ooh, that looks like fun, p.luk, can I try…
Barack Obama did not force Hillary to join “The Family”.
Barack Obama did not introduce Tony Rezko to Hillary and Bill.
Barack Obama did not introduce Jeremiah Wright to Hillary and Bill.
Barack Obama did not say of working class white voters “screw ’em”, “They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them”.
Barack Obama did not prevent Hillary from reading the NIE, from voting “Yes” on the IWR, “Yes” on Kyl-Lieberman, and from generally making a fool of herself on national security lately.
Barack Obama did not force Hillary to run for President with less experience than he in elective office.
However, I think he’s shown a lot more class over the course of the campaign, given all of the above. And perhpas most importantly, he didn’t force her to spend all her money, run her campaign into the ground, and lose too many contests to fairly win the nomination. D’oh!
scrutinizer
TS-
Thank you.
I was an Edwards supporter as well. I liked his message, and unlike a lot of people, I didn’t see him as recycled DLC. I didn’t see either Obama or Clinton as being nearly progressive enough for me, and I liked the populist message Edwards preached. When Edwards dropped out, I too felt like I had to make a choice between Clinton and Obama. I was leery of both for different reasons: I thought Obama lacked substance and experience, and I didn’t know much about him.
I didn’t especially like the baggage attached to Hillary. I also felt like Hillary was inexperienced, since she had only been in an elective office for little over one term as a senator, and there wasn’t a lot of performance there as a legislator. Her stint trying to get healthcare reform passed wasn’t all that successful when Bill was president, and she hadn’t made any strides towards introducing any progressive legislation at all. Then there was the AUMF, and more importantly, her refusal to admit that she might have made a mistake in helping to give Bush a loaded gun.
Still, it appeared that going into the primary season Hillary had built an impressive campaign organization. She had raised scads of money, had secured a large number of superdelegates before the primaries and caucuses began, and appeared to be posed to cruise to victory. I mean, Obama and the other guys were in the race, and I was supporting Edwards, but it all seemed pro forma.
When Edwards dropped out, Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates, but I thought that Super Tuesday would take care of that. When Clinton didn’t close the deal after Super Tuesday, I started looking harder at the two candidates. What I found surprised me: in terms of policy positions, there wasn’t much difference from my point of view. They are, after all, both a little right of center, and not what I call progressive in the sense that Edwards was. Race and sex didn’t matter to me (I thought all the race card/sexism stuff from all sides was just silly), but what I did see was that as time went on, Clinton really had no idea of what to do. She had blown her lead, she had spent her money, she wasn’t organized on the ground, and she had no way to match the moves that Obama was making to snatch caucuses and primaries away from her.
Frankly, I liked the message that Obama was preaching about building a new politics. I’m a lot older than you, and I should be more cynical, but these last 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush have left me yearning for more. When I looked more deeply at what Obama had done as community organizer and senator, I realized that the “no experience, no substance” story wasn’t true—this guy had at least as much experience as Clinton, if not more. Hillary has not shown me that that she has the maturity, or the skills, or the leadership ability to function at the level that whoever is our next president will have to function. She’s still floundering, whatever her spin might say, and she really hasn’t shown me that she has what it takes to be ready on day one. Or even day one thousand.
nightjar
This is what I wrote on my blog on January 30, 2008.
So don’t give me this Obamabot worship shit. I was willing to vote for Hillary or Obama, and only started openly supporting Obama when it became clear Clinton was unfit for the presidency. So Pluk, corner stone, and temple please do us all a favor and just quit the dem party and form your own or join the wingnuts. I’m at the point I don’t give a damn whether you vote for Obama or Mccain or Bob Barr or old Ralph. Hillary lost, get over yourselves.
John Cole
How long before Hillary echoes McCain’s claim that Obama is out of touch with the poor? Any takers?
I hope she surprises me.
jake
No. SA2SQ Vol VII (3rd ed.)
scrutinizer
P.huk-
On the other hand
Hillary Clinton did endorse McCain over Obama. Twice.
Hillary Clinton is attempting to seat delegates from Michigan after having said that the election in Michigan didn’t count.
Hillary Clinton did vote for Kyl-Lieberman.
Hillary Clinton did lie about being under sniper fire.
Hillary Clinton did threaten to obliterate Iran.
Hillary Clinton did make nice with Sciafe.
Hillary Clinton did turn her back on “it’s all about the delegates” when she didn’t get as many as she wanted.
Hillary Clinton did lie about having the popular vote lead.
Gee, P.huk. This is p.hun.
scrutinizer
John, wasn’t that the point she was pushing with “bittergate”? Obama was supposedly out of touch with the poor folk in PA because he was in touch with them?
Temple Stark
well great, you still called me a Hillbot for absolutely no reason.
People disagree. Why people feel the need to make up so much garbage about the people they disagree with is rather pathetic.
Thanks also for your response. There’s a real world out there. It’s unpredictable, not always fun, and it isn’t an echo chamber – and doesn’t try to reinforce that echo like so many blogs on the right or any that mass-delete comments.
I already knew many Obama supporters had good reasons to support their candidate. That’s why I find it extremely hard to believe that they pretend to need explanations from Hillary supporters as if they’ve never heard them.
John Cole
I don’t need explanations as to why you at one point favored Hillary- I was resigned to voting for her and found very little daylight between their positions on many things.
What I need an explanation for is why you sit and tolerate her lying and deceit and vicious gutter politics. And yes, she is lying about Michigan and Florida. And yes, she is lying now about the popular vote. And no, I am not going to go through every one of her lies, attempts to sling mud, and attempts to divide along racial and economic lines, all for her own personal gain. You clearly know what they are, and don’t care.
The only thing you all apparently hated about the bullshit and spin and vicious attacks of the past eight years wast that George Bush’s name had a ( R ) after it rather than a ( D ). That is quite pathetic.
Temple Stark
Yeeeeah, that’s nice. Sorry about not mastering the complete agreement with your POV that you demand. I didn’t know that Obama was the perfect embodiment of a Democratic candidate that anyone different was automatically “not a Democrat.” Or that the Party was so revered here. I thought delusion was over-the-top when I used it earlier but some do fit the characterization.
The more things change the more they stay the same?
Temple Stark
Ok, John, whatever. Your post pre-disposes that there’s nothing objectionable about the tactics of Obama’s campaign or Obama’s words.
KRK
Repudiating Bush’s obscene power grab for the executive branch has to be a top priority for the Democratic candidate and the next president. Throw open the windows and doors of government and shed some light, institute sweeping transparency policies and ethical standards. Make it clear that whether or not you agree with what the president is doing, at least you can know what’s going on. Obama’s record and on-going efforts on transparency and ethics make him our best hope in this regard.
Clinton has given me no reason to assume anything but that she will want to make full use of the powers that Bush has aggrandized. I can give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she would intend to use those powers for good, but we’re past the point where that’s an acceptable position.
nightjar
I swear, with every comment, you sound more and more like JWW.
I hate to sound cruel, but I just don’t care what your point of view is.
Phoenix Woman
Paul Lukasiak:
— Hillary and Bill Clinton invited Reverend Wright to the White House, along with several other prominent preachers, to serve as ecumenical human shields for the Clintons the day before the Starr Report was released in September of 1998. Now she goes and stabs him in the back. Charming.
— Speaking of Rev. Wright: He helped save LBJ’s life as a Marine corpsman stationed at Bethesda in 1964.
— The Clintons met with Rezko at the White House (which Hillary tried to explain away as a simple photo-op) and got money from Rezko’s codefendants. Also, Rezko has not only met with every Illinois politician of both parties, he’s donated thousands of dollars to some of Hillary’s friends, including LA mayor Tony Villaraigosa. (By the way: In the 78-age Rezko proffer released in December, the house deal that the Hillaryites have been shrieking about never was mentioned. But of course, that must mean that Patrick Fitzgerald was bought off by Obama, right? Right?!)
Temple Stark
OK, exciting to know. Thanks. You don’t give a damn either, you already said that, as well. I was equally excited to know that. Thank you for repeatedly sharing your considered opinion on not caring.
I don’t have to care that you don’t care do I, because that’s where you’re making your mistake here. I was really just addressing scrutinizer because he made the effort to lay out a POV and so he couldn’t say – again – that no one had responded why they vote for Hillary – and then he did anyway “Crickets. As usual” before seeing that I had in fact, responded.
I have no idea who JWW is – and no, I don’t care. You know the point I was making but you’re pretending. You’re playing a character. Boring.
mere mortal
Let me get this straight, Obama’s October surprise campaign move will be to blame the Clintons if he loses? The mind boggles. I believe you will, John, you’ve been childish this far, of course you’ll follow through afterwards.
I must have missed where Obama has a majority of delegates. Those were the rules going in, as Obama supporters will say as long as it benefits their guy. And John, you’ve been acting like a child on this issue for months.
What about your vicious gutter politics, John? Scorched earth seems to be fine, as long as it’s done to the benefit of your guy. All of us should want a Democrat in the White House in 2009. But some seem intent on luxuriating in the Clinton hate of the GOP’s heyday.
Yeah, it’s Clinton and her supporters who are tearing the party apart.
Phoenix Woman
What’s more, she herself, along with the dozen-odd supporters of hers (including Harold Ickes) on the DNC’s Rules Committee, supported stripping Michigan of its delegates right up until she lost the Iowa primary.
Here’s what Hillary said in October of last year about Michigan’s primary, back before her loss in Iowa, the one that made everyone realize she wasn’t inevitable:
As Jake Tapper said earlier this week:
empty
Dennis, I am not a “Clinton supporter” – unlike most of the people commenting here I was not a (Bill) Clinton supporter in the nineties. But I do respect her service (and Obama’s). Which is a long way of giving you the link to Project Vote Smart’s tally of her legislative record. I think throughout her career she has been a consistent advocate for children and as such I would consider her work in that area such as SChiP to be her signature. But that is just my view. As she has been in the senate longer than Obama her record is of course more substantial. I don’t think that is an argument against Obama unless you are using the experience frame. Here is Factcheck.org’s comparison of her record and Obama’s.
empty
Damn. What happened to the VoteSmart link.
Here it is again
Phoenix Woman
Mere Mortal:
Back when Terry McAuliffe was DNC Chair, he fended off another effort to break party rules by moving up Michigan’s primary. Now that McAuliffe is working for Clinton, and ever since she lost the Iowa primary, he’s all about being nicey-wicey to Carl Levin. Erm, I meant the voters of Michigan.
By the way: When the Michigan Dems tried this stunt back in 2000, not only were they punished, but both Gore and Bradley, the only two viable Dem candidates, removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and the heavens somehow managed not to fall.
nightjar
Straight out of the Clinton playbook, heretofore used only against republican opponents and with great success.
Drag your opponent into the gutter, then hop out and point the finger of OMG what’s wrong with them there in the gutter.
He won’t be the only one.
KRK
I think you’re not quite clear on the concept of October surprise.
mrmobi
I’ve come to the conclusion that the “controversial” figure of Jeremiah Wright is entirely a media creation. After watching the videos of the two sermons which were butchered into the smear piece, and seeing Wright interviewed by Bill Moyers, I’ve got to say I like this church, and its’ former leader, a lot. I’m seriously thinking about attending, and I’m an atheist! The music is supposed to be great, too.
No, she didn’t, but neither did she object when her husband welcomed Wright to the White House during those “20 years” of “hate” speech. P. Luk, do you honestly think the Clinton pardons of Weather Underground figures and the invitation of Rev. Wright to the White House won’t come up if Hillary is the nominee? Your candidate may well succeed in torpedoing the Obama campaign, but not without doing the same to her own. Is that her plan?
Um, earth to P. luk, there’s nothing there. Don’t you have some fresher shit you can use to smear a good and decent man? Remember, they don’t have to have any basis in fact. That makes it a lot easier. And remember too that whatever smear you make, Hillary will approve.
Jeebus. See above.
While I agree it was a tactical error for Obama to say what he did, I also know people just like the folks he talked about. They actually exist, and you know it. Don’t bullshit a bullshitter. But I give her credit for making a tactical error about something which is completely true into a major distraction. Bravo! What kind of mindless bullshit is next?
No, he was busy running for President, you ninny.
I recently read an excellent Gary Wills article comparing the Obama race speech with a speech that Lincoln made. In the article he said that Obama has more experience in office than Lincoln did when he became president. This argument of the Clinton campaign is only effective until a voter get a chance to hear Obama speak or debate.
One last note to P. Luk: Does the list you posted strike you in any way? Did you notice that nothing in it is about the real issues confronting America right now? We don’t need another debate, we need Hillary Clinton to start behaving like she’s running for the Democratic nomination.
Ted
Oh just shut the cheesy fuck up.
Ted
Did Talk Left dispatch a team of looneys over here tonight or something?
shera
Clinton lost because she doesn’t know how to run a competitive race, period. She’s never had to do so. It’s obvious, because she wins in those states where she’s widely recognized and supported by a local machine. The states where she actually has to go and compete against Obama, she loses. It’s ironic that Clinton criticizes Obama for his speeches; while she makes speeches and talks to fundraisers, he’s campaigning on the ground, registering voters, working with local party organizations, actually TRYING TO WIN.
What irks me most is that Clinton didn’t seem to take this election seriously, didn’t comprehend the level of discontent among Americans, didn’t see the possibility that Democrats could get out of this electoral rut they’ve been stuck in, register millions of new voters, and crush McCain. How unsurprising that the Clinton campaign hasn’t announced a 50 state voter registration campaign or a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. It’s one more lapse in judgment, and I’m not sure why we are repeatedly told to overlook these lapses on the ground that Clinton’s somehow more experienced. If she’s so experienced, why can’t she win when there’s real competition?
Oh, and this week’s episode of BSG was frakking awesome. Burn through season 2, John, but you can skip that episode about Lee and the smugglers.
Daniel Koffler
God it’s late. If Hillary Clinton’s camp can be likened to a composte heap, and I think it can, Paul Lukasiak is the biggest corn growing out of the pile.
Whoever referred to the impending collapse of Talkleft once the campaign is over, since anybody interested in crime left long ago — good point, couldn’t happen to a more deserving crowd.
Here’s the thing about Jeralyn. Maybe she’s just acting very convincingly, but all her posts showing by retarded P.Lukasiak arbitrary transformations of data that Clinton has more votes seem really, really earnest. So, it seems likely to me that she really is just that stupid.
Armando is another story. Possibly the single most obnoxious personality in cyberspace. I think part of the story of the slide into various DSM-IV conditions over at TL is that Armando finally had to confront the fact that he couldn’t be emperor of the liberal blogosphere, that he’s a deserved laughingstock everywhere outside the Hillary cocoon, and decided to do an intellectual Jim Jones number on the little piece of internet real estate he’s still got in his claws.
Notorious P.A.T.
Well, that’s f**king great. “Uhh, we can’t do the right thing because it might not be popular with a part of the population that will always hate Democrats anyway.” No wonder you’re a Clinton backer. Let’s just keep on blowing up innocent people and bringing home soldiers with mental trauma and/or limbs missing because it’s “pragmatic”!!! We can’t just pull out, oh no, we have to do it Clinton-style, or else there will be lingering bad feelings! Sorry, Iraqis being kidnapped and beheaded! Sorry Iraqi women and girls forced into prostitution! We have to accept Republican propaganda as real.
Yeah, except for the times when she tells her campaign people to tell voters she’s not so bad, and she’s a lot more likable in person.
p.lukasiak
wow, this is funny.
Cole tries to pre-blame Clinton for losing in November. I point out that the things that will damage Obama are not Clinton’s doing — his lack of experience is not her fault, Wright is not her fault, Rezko is not her fault, bitter/clinging is not her fault.
And the Obots here goes apeshit.
When I pointed out months ago that Obama had serious electability problems that would be exploited by the right wing smear machine, I was told that Obama would transcend those concerns, that Americans were tired of that kind of politics, etc, etc.
Now that the right-wing smear machine its starting in on Obama, and its having an impact, its all Clinton’s fault somehow.
Don’t blame Clinton for Obama’s problems as a candidate. She has every right to point to Obama’s lack of experience — its not a GOP talking point, its something that politicians of every party raise about an opponent if they have more experience. Clinton never endorsed McCain, she just stated the obvious — that national security issues are important to Americans, and Obama has practically no national security credentials while McCain does.
And please knock off the crap about Clinton running a negative campaign. Obama has been going negative on Clinton since last September — and when it comes to Rovian tactics, nothing comes close to the Obama campaign’s efforts to paint Clinton as a racist in South Carolina. NOTHING that has been done in this campaign is as damaging to the party as that little gambit — and Obama supporters persist in pushing it.
Obama is already throwing you folks under the bus, sucking up to FauzNews and their conservative audience in an effort to re-invent himself (not even Madonna re-invents herself at this pace). It won’t work, because he so obviously lacks the political acumen to understand how to pander to ALL people, not just the Faculty Lounge crowd and the African American community.
Or, as myiq so eloquently put it (paraphrase) ‘my pony doesn’t oink’.
nightjar
Yea right, that’s all she and you are doing pluk, just pointing out Obama’s lack of experience. Your just a common liar buddy. No one here takes you seriously.
smiley
No, it’s not her fault. So why pile on using the same tactics? That is her fault. Will you vote for Obama if he ends up as the nominee? And please don’t dodge the question by stating that he won’t be the nominee. Will you vote for him if he is? Just curious.
Temple Stark
You seem very short-sighted N-PAT but you at least bring up a good point.
We shouldn’t have gone in. Most Americans believe that we can’t just hop back out. We should withdraw, as my post made clear, but there needs to be some order about it. Getting out ASAP has to include practicality and it’s sister, pragmatism.
Many Obama backers also believe this, Obama himself and his surrogates also seem to believe this. So it’s not just “no wonder you’re a Clinton backer” and it’s not just “Clinton-style.” It’s Clinton leadership and planning that I think would be better. And you’re free to disagree about this important matter.
When people say if Clinton gets the nomination it will split the party they seem to think they aren’t part of the split and that it is pre-destined without the exercise of free will.
But it is also said that Obama’s loss will damage the party, and Clinton gets the blame, too. See how that works? Heads I win, tails you lose.
tjproudamerican
I wish more left bloggers would expose Talk Left.
Jeralyn fits the usual profile: the angry aging liberal woman. But Big Tent, Armando Llorens is a Hillary shill who claims he is for Obama because “he is more electable” and then spends all his time weeping over the treatment poor Hillary gets and savaging Obama, Obama’s supporters and calling for Obama to be on the ticket with Hillary.
Jeralyn is truly sad, because her pro-Hillary Clinton cadre of Taylor-Marsh like dittoheads all skirt with racism in their weepy support for Hillary. One said that Michelle Obama would get her finger broken off if she dared to come to WV and “wag” it at the decent God-Loving, fellow Hillary non-elite duckhunters.
Jeralyn has worked hard to challenge the “Guilty until proven innocent” Crime Politics, and now she is attracting the most reactionary crowd who like her because she and Bit Hypocrite Tent HATE Obama.
Big Hypocrite says that threatening to “Obliterate” Iran makes us safer. Elections are insane in America, but The Clinton’s are a disease in our Soul.
They have 100’s of million of dollars. The Clinton’s should go away.
Thank you for taking on Talk Left.
Dennis - SGMM
Thanks, empty. As far as I can tell from the link, neither of the good Senators has authored a major piece of legislation. It would seem to me than that, based on legislative accomplishments, the choice of a candidate is a matter of personal preference. Neither of them is a substantial legislator.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
And the 50% of Democrats who actually support the guy.
patronizing.luk – he knows what’s good for you better than you do, Mr. Democratic voter. (And especially you, Mr. African-American.)
Bob In Pacifica
Pb, you are way too generous. Making a fool of herself on national security? She was threatening genocide against innocent men, WOMEN and children, thus giving more cover for Dubya’s imminent bunker buster shock and awe spectacular.
However, right now I would like to call for a moratorium on the use of metaphors which reference action movies, which reference gender, which suggest violence or which can in any way be considered unkind to Hillary Clinton.
But threatening genocide is cool if the people are far away.
Scrutinizer
Temple-
Hillary getting the nomination itself would not be sufficient to split the party. Hillary getting the nomination in a way that seems illegitimate to those who have voted for Obama would, especially since right now, Obama leads Hillary in votes from sanctioned primaries, not to mention his lead in caucuses.
It’s been my position that the superdelegates have a role in this process, and that Obama has to win with them just like he has to win the pledged delegate contests. Party rules allow the superdelegates a role apart from the primaries and caucuses, and I think there are good reasons for that. I don’t believe that the SDs should be required to follow the results of the popular vote, although if that’s one of their criteria that’s fine. I think that my fellow Obama supporters who want to put the SDs on a leash and require that they follow the popular vote in their state are misguided.
However, I feel that Hillary should also be following the rules. Her attempts to seat MI and FL are equally misguided, and are an obvious pandering for delegates that she didn’t earn. The reason that the MI and FL contests were unsanctioned are clear, and although the DNC gave those states more than every opportunity to comply with DNC rules, the states refused. Even Hillary’s advisor Ickes voted the most Draconian punishment possible against these states when he was on the rules committee, and Macauliffe played the same hardline against Levin in 2004. Now that she’s behind, Hillary is fighting a war with the party to seat delegates that she isn’t entitled to, under agreements that she herself signed, pledging not to participate in the contests in MI and FL. Participate includes “reaping the rewards”, and even though the Clinton campaign can parse away on the issue, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Another problem with Hillary is that by comparing Obama unfavorably with McCain, she is going way outside the bounds of what a party nomination process is all about. I don’t have a problem with Hillary saying “I’m more qualified than Obama.” i do have a problem with Hillary saying, in effect, McCain would make a better CiC than Obama. That’s stupid, and from the party’s viewpoint, suicidal. Obama has said that Hillary is not as good as he is many times, but he’s never said that McCain was better than Hillary.
Comparing yourself and your policies favorably to your opponent is one thing, but Hillary has crossed the line into Republican talking point territory often. At that point Hillary is not engaged at raising herself up over her opponent, she’s engaged in trying to tear her opponent down. There is a difference. That sort of behavior does split the party, because Hillary’s loyalty to the party, never a sure thing, given the Clintonian Third Way philosophy and their unfortunate ability to triangulate the party under the bus.
At this late date in the campaign, Hillary has not made a sufficient case that the SDs should override the results of the delegate voting so far. She has spun the hell out of a bad campaign, and has goalposts mounted firmly on the back of a wheeled cart, but the simple fact is that even by the metrics she is trying to use, she is still losing. Spinning a single-digit win in PA as a great victory, when she should have won the state by 15% easily is a case in point. She might eventually find some combination by which she can claim victory, (p.huk’s “she is white, he is black”) comes to mind), but after all the endless spasms from one victory condition to another, it loses meaning.
Having lost legitimacy, and at this point being so far behind is every category, a win given to Hillary by the SDs would split the party. I’m not really worried about that happening, though. The few unannounced SDs would have to swing to Hillary by an unbelievable margin. Frankly, if there were that much support for Hillary out there in SD land, some would have come out for her already, in order to staunch the bleeding. Instead, there has been a steady flow to Obama, with Hillary even losing SDs that had been pledged to her.
p.lukasiak
of course its not about issues — the media doesn’t care about issues. And the media isn’t going to focus on issues– it hasn’t in the past, and that’s not going to change before November.
Does that suck? Of course it does. But keep in mind that its Hillary Clinton who has been emphasizing issues this entire campaign — Obama has focussed on broader themes like “Hope” and “Unity” and “Change”, and that has left him vulnerable, because people don’t really know what Barack Obama “hopes” to achieve through “unity”, and what “changes” he can be counted on to implement.
The problem for Obama is that most people don’t see the world like his MUPpets do. Their faith is in their god, not in a particular political candidate, and the change they want is in the direction of the country, and not the “process”. Every non-incumbent politician on the planet who runs for Federal office campaigns on the same themes that Obama is campaigning on, and there is a great deal of cynicism about the potential for real “change in Washington.”
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Most people didn’t see the world like Dubya and his supporters did, and look how well that turned out for them.
Dennis - SGMM
It’s disturbing to me that while Clinton declared that she wouldn’t negotiate with the Iranians without pre-conditions she would launch an attack on them based on their perceived intentions and the weapons that they might be developing. This is uncomfortably close to Republican thinking.
p.lukasiak
I don’t see the Clinton campaign ‘piling on using the same tactics’. They haven’t mentioned Wright in any of their ads, and Clinton herself never raises the issue of Wright — (nor, AFAIK, has the Clinton campaign tried to make Wright an issue — certainly not to the extent that the Obama campaign used right-wing smear tactics in pushing the “Bosnian sniper” story) she responds to questions about him, but what is she supposed to do when asked?
The only time that Clinton’s tactics have bothered me was the “bitter/clinging” ad, which looked like “dog-whistle” to me. But I wasn’t that bothered by it, because the Obama campaign and his cult followers have been falsely accusing Clinton of doing this kind of thing all along. And IMHO, if you are going to pay a price for a false accusation, it makes perfect sense to reap the benefits by doing what you’d been falsely accused of doing.
If anyone has employed right-wing talking points, its Obama and his campaign. Raising questions about Clinton’s character is pure Rove, and Obama has been doing that since September.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
MSNBC First Read: Ickes pushing Wright with supers
nightjar
You’ve been given a free forum here to say your piece without censorship and you use it to level non-stop insults on Obama supporters. Your mothership Hillary blogs offer no such open forum. That speaks volumes about your character pluk, or better said lack of character.
nightjar
Liar
Soylent Green
If Obama wins the nomination, it will be because he earned it. If Clinton wins the nomination, it will be because she stole it. That you can’t tell the difference is because you’re a moron. Authentic Democrats will rally around the legitimate winner. Faux Democrats will carp and whine as you are doing that the legitimate winner is illegitimate and that his victory should be voided. So do us all a favor and switch parties already. With ethics like yours, the GOP is your rightful home.
John Cole
Up is down, black is white, and Big Tent Democrat is actually an Obama supporter.
The Other Steve
You may be surprised, but my reaction to this statement was strongly negative.
The Other Steve
Yeah, but it’s not Clinton herself!
Sure p.luk is running around making the claims, but he only works for the Clinton campaign as a fluffer. So it’s not quite the same.
nightjar
Just deserts. Boy that REzko thing is gonna hurt Obama. But, Oh wait,
Too funny.
Dennis - SGMM
Obama’s supporters are “cult followers.” We’re neither as clever as you are nor do we apply any logic or reason to our choice of a candidate. Just a bunch of political Deadheads or Phish followers. Your dismissive attitude towards those who support Obama marks you as by far The Smartest Person in the Room.
p.lukasiak
Doug, talking about the impact that Wright could have with super-delegates is not the same as mass-emailing the media about Wright (as the Obama campaign has done on the Bosnian sniper story.)
The question here is whether Clinton or her campaign have tried to make Wright an “issue” with voters. AFAIK, that has not happened —
***********
oh, and nightjar, you’re an idiot. Clinton did not raise the issue of wright in your link, she was responding to a question, and I specifically noted that she had responded to questions about Wright. But its typical of Obots to call someone a liar without any basis whatsoever….
(big difference between you and Doug above. My statement about not making Wright an “issue” was ambiguous, because my intention in using the word “issue” was unclear, so Doug’s link was justified. You’re just an idiot.)
The Other Steve
Yeah, it’s all the voters fault that they didn’t go along with the Hillary coronation.
p.lukasiak
John, are you actually denying that the Obama campaign has been attacking Clinton’s character for months on end?
Are you really that delusional? Or is your Clinton Derangement Syndrome so severe that attacking Clinton’s character is somehow “acceptable because its true”?
Xanthippas
Examples please.
nightjar
Ok pluk, you want to parse expanding and piling on as excusable because she was asked the question.
This is from a speech where she claims an unseen editorial board asked her the question (to make it OK.) and then proceeds to expand and pile on.
This is emblematic of the entire Clinton campaign of deceit and lies. And your still a liar.
The Other Steve
Last week you were talking about how this Wright issue has made Obama radioactive.
Now you’re backtracking from this position, because you realize it’s really pissing people off, watching the Clinton campaign trashing fellow Democrats.
Interesting.
The Other Steve
I believe he was referring to your delusional denial regarding what the Clinton’s have been up to.
I don’t recall Obama attacking Hillary’s character. But he certainly has pointed out some of her problems, and this has enlightened voters as to why she is unfit to be President.
Xanthippas
BTW John, just stay the hell away from Memeorandum. I don’t know how that site works, but I go over there and it’s just one substance-free link to one substance-free article after another. Memeorandum’s been taken over Clinton/Obama news, such “news” being endless stories about Rezko, Wright, endless horse-race “analysis” of the campaign and one tired clice about the candidates after another. If you scroll down far enough you MIGHT find a story about Iraq or the economy or health care, but don’t count on it. If the blogosphere is an echo chamber, memeorandum is a funhouse of mirrors.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
shorter p.luk: Its depends on what the definition of “is” is. (ZOMG VRWC MEME. Obama is a secret Muslim radical Republican!)
And I totally skipped this one:
Clinton has a Baron Munchausen moment, Obama supporters rightly call her on it, and its “right-wing smear tactics.” Uh huh.
Let me re-do my shorter version then:
It’s OK If You’re A Clinton, It’s Never OK If You’re An Obama.
Sorry, I’ve had seven plus years of this shit from the other side of the aisle. That doesn’t make it anywhere near OK for our own side to do. I want a leader, not George W. Bush (D).
Andrew
It all boils down to the fact that Hillary will need to win 80+% of the remaining superdelegates. There is about a 5% chance that will happen.
Hillary is willing to do damage to the Democratic party, not just Obama, for that 5% chance.
Those are the only facts I need to know to declare that Hillary is acting badly.
empty
True.
les
Cut Hillary and supporters some slack. Negative perceptions last, positive perceptions can be changed. Hillary started with, and has “increased,” the highest negatives of any serious candidate, either party. The only way she could have won was to damage her opponent–even if she had something to sell, and maybe there’s more there than corporatism and “I was Bill’s wife while he was prez,” she had to drag the others down first. Turns out she may be just good enough at that to fuck the Dems without her winning, especially if enough of her supporters agree with her that McBush is the superior commander in chief.
p.lukasiak
no steve. last week I was talking about how Obama would be radioactive by the time the convention came around — and that he would detract from the ticket in the VP slot.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinions, steve.
p.lukasiak
its an attack on her character, regardless of how you want to excuse what the Obama campaign did with it.
And that really is the point — it is the kind of thing that the Obama campaign has been doing all along, but the Obots disregard.
nightjar
What again is the meaning of is? Pluk, Chief parser and apologist for the Clinton campaign.
Boring and Boorish.
Kenneth Almquist
From my perspective, the biggest difference is that Huckabee was careful not to go negative or do anything else that would undermine Republican chances in the fall. If, after Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton had decided to limit her campaigning to talking about why she would be a good president, I would have no problem with her staying in the race until all the states had voted.
I’m not just talking about Clinton’s attacks on Obama. Her attempts to get delegates from Michigan and Florida seated has the potential to harm the party. I would have thought it would be obvious that the Democratic party should not change the rules after the votes have been cast, but Clinton seem to have convinced a lot of people otherwise.
ed
p.lukasiak
Nice game in blaming Obama with a list. Here’s my little contribution, remembering Hillary has 35 years experience and was co-governor and co-President making her equally responsible with Bill:
Barack Obama did not find an illegal method to make up the Clinton losses on their Whitewater investment.
Barack Obama did not force Susan McDougal to sit in jail to protect the Clinton’s from possible criminal indictment.
Barack Obama did not leave Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints on Rose Law documents that conveniently “disappeared” for 2 years and then showed up at the White House.
Barack Obama did not turn $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures in an impossible futures deal for Hillary.
Barack Obama did not fire long time White House travel employee’s to fill the positions with Clinton cronies.
Barack Obama didn’t screw around with Gennifer Flowers for over a decade and then lie about it.
Barack Obama did not take over 900 FBI files on Republicans to the White House illegally for political operations.
Barack Obama didn’t seal Vince Foster’s office from law enforcement after his death, nor did he tamper with evidence in the supposedly sealed room.
Barack Obama didn’t whip out his pecker in an Arkansas hotel room to crudely proposition Paula Jones.
Barack Obama didn’t lie under oath about his encounter with Paula Jones.
Barack Obama was not disbarred and cited for contempt of court.
Barack Obama did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom for $150,000 a night.
Barack Obama didn’t diddle an intern in the back office of the White House.
Barack Obama didn’t ejaculate on Monica Lewinsky’s dress.
Barack Obama was not the second U.S. president to be impeached.
The Other Steve
Oh come now, don’t be obtuse. We’re used to dealing with obtuse Bush supporters around here, an obtuse Clinton supporter doesn’t fool us.
The only way Obama could become radioactive, is if someone was pushing the idea that he was radioactive… which is where you come in.
Your parsing of the word ‘is’, really isn’t helping us to forget the worst aspects of Bill Clinton’s administration. Thus far all you’ve done is remind us that Hillary will bring the worst of Bill, as well as the worst of Bush… together into something really putrid.
The Other Steve
Are the attacks not true?
Daniel Koffler
Ed, right — even if you grant extra chromosome cases like Lukasiak and the Talk Left Branch Davidians the benefit of the doubt and say they’re just stating facts about what Republicans will use to run against Obama, and not cynically exploiting a series of half-truths in a lunatic effort to resurrect a dead candidacy, the argument is still patently senseless. The freak show bs the Republicans would employ against Hillary vastly outweighs anything pertaining to Obama in number, scope, severity, and (let’s face it) correspondence to reality.
Paul Lukasiak: the fact that you weren’t long ago embarrassed into a cowed silence is a token of severe cultural rot in this country.
The Other Steve
The thing to remember when attacking your opponents within the party using negative phrasing, is that this in turn is what is used by Republicans to attack Democrats.
They say things like “Hillary Clinton thinks Obama’s relationship with Wright is wrong.” See, Republicans like plausible denial themselves. They aren’t going to say it outright, they’ll pass the buck to a third person.
Do you want to be that third person, p.luk?
It all has to do with how to respond to the issue. Do you fan the flames, or do you try to neutralize it and get onto something important?
Bibblesnæð
I never heard of Jeralyn Merrit or whatever her name is, but I read her piece, and then the next one, where she was talking about how Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. er big source was Michael Barone! Now I may not be the best informed guy in the world, but I know that Michael Barone is a Republican tool; how could she not?
These Clinton drones are amazing. I go to MYDD every day just to look at how far it’s sunken and to annoy myself. They think over there that there’s nothing rong with Clinton sucking up to Richard Mellon Scaife, for Lord’s sake! One poster even said it showed “leadership”!
What a bunch of delusional freaks. I almost feel sorry for them.
PaulB
Attacks, even personal ones, in a primary campaign are all part of the game and I, for one, have no problem with them. Where I draw the line is when those attacks echo Republican memes: elitist, out-of-touch, “soft” on security, radical, and so on, all of which Clinton has done. Clinton is attacking Obama from the right, something that just is not done. Were she attacking him from the left, I’d probably be cheering her on.
PaulB
Oh, and the latest attack, and one that answers John’s question above: Clinton is indeed going after Obama on the gas tax issue: