home

Hillary Hate: Exhibit A

Booman:

The non-stop shilling for Clinton continues at Talk Left where Armando is at it full-time.
Have whatever opinion of the actual Bill Clinton Presidency, but you have to deal with the fact that Bill Clinton remains extremely popular and his Presidency remembered fondly.
It's funny, but I don't remember Bill Clinton's presidency all that fondly. The first two years could only be described as a total disaster.

Funny, I do not recall writing that BOOMAN remembered the Clinton Presidency fondly. I cited an article which stated:

Bill Clinton enjoys a 66 percent approval rating in a Washington Post/ABC News Poll released last month.

Booman's hatred of Hillary is so blinding that he denies the obvious - Bill Clinton is popular, whether Booman likes Bill or not. He sounds like a Republican now. Denying obvious facts. That is quintessential Hillary Hate. Makes people idiots.

< Hillary Won't Cross Writers' Picket Lines for CBS Debate | New Crime Reports Call for Prison Reform, Shorter Sentences >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    Funny, I do not recall writing that BOOMAN remembered the Clinton Presidency fondly
    is such an error of logic and/or reading on his part that it's hard not to imagine that he did it intentionally.

    Intentionally was an idiot? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:45:17 PM EST
    Possibly.

    Parent
    Two things (not directed at Armando, obviously) (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Plutonium Page on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    In general:

    1. For the last damned time, Bill Hillary.  Hillary Bill.  Senator Clinton has accomplished things all by herself, kthx.
    2. She has merit, intelligence, and the ability to be a good president all by herself.  She does not need her husband.  No woman needs her husband to help her accomplish anything, ever, end of sentence, Amen.  To say otherwise is just insulting.


    Uh, what has she accomplished?? (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    Some examples???

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    I was responding to Broder in my previous post.

    Parent
    Easy There (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    Yes, hatred or anger does tend to make people sound less rational.  As does this attack on BooMan.  It especially fails since you (intentionally?) misunderstand BooMan's point.  It makes me wonder if you were just offended by his post and wildly struck out using the first attack that came to your mind.  It's pretty weak.

    I don't read BooMan to be saying that he disagrees with polls that Bill Clinton is popular.  He's warning against the tendency to romanticize the past and romanticize the Clinton presidency.  I actually welcome his invitation to reassess the Clinton years.  It's very instructive for those who wish to follow his legacy by continuing to tack to the right to peel off right-wing independents (like Hillary).  It's important to see if the "liberal" victories over the last 20 years were really liberal victories.

    And if you guys are going to have a blog war, at least you can be witty and have fun with it.   This response to BooMan's post was a little hurried and too angry.  You didn't really respond to his points in a substantive way.

    And to all you Hillary apologists out there.  I don't think you really want to go around saying an attack on Hillary comes right out of the "Republican playbook".  Please.  Stop it now.  If anyone can be accused of using Republican tactics--it's Clinton.  And worse yet, she is the closest to the Republicans on the actual issues.

    Easy now? (4.33 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    You and Boo Man get to call me a shill and I am supposed to be nice to you?

    And yet again, you prove that Hillary Hate makes you stupid. There was NO COMMENT, NONE, from me, on WHETHER Bill Clinton shopuld be admired.

    I was stating a FACT, he is admired.

    That you STILL do not get it just proves my point.

    And get the eff out of here with your hypocritical faux civility.

    This is Talk Left, so I can not really let you have it. But you and Boo Man deserve worse than I have written here.

    Parent

    My Civility is Not Faux (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    And I have a pretty good guess what you would say about me if this wasn't on TalkLeft :)  So don't feel any need to be nice to me.  I didn't ask you to.

    And no one is missing your point.  Yes, Bill Clinton is admired.  I understand that you don't think Bill Clinton is the cat's meow.  BooMan just used your comments as a segue to discuss the Clinton legacy.  I think you may be reading a bit too much into it.

    And btw, I think BooMan was a little mistaken when he implied that you were shilling for Hillary.  I don't follow you that closely, but I thought you were an Obama supporter.  I think BooMan probably had Jeralyn in mind when he made that comment.  Who knows.  Is it that big of a deal?  I like both these blogs and read them before most other blogs.  

    Anyway, if anyone is getting a little hypocritical it may be you.  You may be letting a little too much emotion color your writing.  And BooMan may not be perfect, but I wouldn't call him stupid.

    Parent

    Implied? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    WTF? He EXPRESSLY said it.

    And now you accuse me of hypcrisy from out of the blue. What a piece of work.

    You simply do not seem to understand what has been written. You write:

    And no one is missing your point.  Yes, Bill Clinton is admired.  I understand that you don't think Bill Clinton is the cat's meow.  BooMan just used your comments as a segue to discuss the Clinton legacy.  I think you may be reading a bit too much into it.

    This is simply false. Booman utterly missed my point as my post in no way is segue to anything remotely related to what he wrote. Did Booman accept that Bill Clinton was admired? No. Did he consider what I was addressing? No.

    It was an idiotic post and you endorsed it. What does that say about you?

    Parent

    Only One Sentence of The Post Was About You (none / 0) (#25)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    I liked his post because we all should reflect a bit more on what the Clinton presidency did for liberals.  I myself forget that Clinton was not such a liberal.  Bill and Hillary were attacked by a right-wing smear campaign so I spent  a lot of time defending them and it's easy to forget they are not real liberals.  It goes to show how effective the right-wingers like Rush have been over the last decade--even liberals get fooled into thinking that the Clintons are far left "liberals".  

    Anyway, I enjoy BooMan's posts and I'm sorry you think he's an idiot.  He is currently my favorite blogger and his political instinct is right-on.  Do you guys have a personal beef or something?

    Anyway, it's much ado about nothing.  I guess I can understand your initial reaction to being called a shill.  Maybe that was a little underhanded of Booman.  You get a venue to share your opinion and criticism comes with the territory.  It's not that big of a deal.

    Btw, the hypocracy charge was not out of the blue.  You accused me of the same so I threw it back at you.  Fun stuff, no?

    Parent

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    Now you admit his idiotic, error filled, worngheaded INSULT of me had nothing to do with the rest of his post.

    Exactly my point.

    Frankl,y if you liked that post, then BT in its current Hillary Hate mode is the place for you.

    Parent

    Is Hillary Hate (none / 0) (#35)
    by SFHawkguy on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    something like Bush Derangement Syndrome?

    Cause they  both sound kinda like a disease made up by a Republican.  You know, kinda like an attack line from the Republican playbook.  What are you,  Belicick stealing signs from Karl Rove?  

    If anyone is going a little Clinton crazy its her supporters in the blogosphere.  It's like you guys are anxious for her to put the thorns on her head and strap the cross to her back.  It's just that you're jumping the gun on the martyr act (the Repubs haven't even started their hate yet) so you're left with accusing those of us to the left of her of somehow treating her unfairly.  Look, I don't hate Hillary.  I'm pretty ambivalent towards her as a person.  In fact, I spent a lot of time defending her the last decade.  I think of her as no worse or better than the other right-leaning democrats.  It's just that I think ANY right-leaning democratic candidate would be a disaster.  It's not personal.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:35:42 AM EST
    It's just like it.

    Man you people are idiots.

    Booman is just for you.

    Facts, arguments and reality mean nothing to you.

    Useless.

    Parent

    Your rant (none / 0) (#34)
    by Rojas on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    seems to be missplaced.
    Did Booman accept that Bill Clinton was admired?

    He did say this

    And people may like Bill Clinton and remember his presidency fondly,...

    As to your other point,

    Did he consider what I was addressing?

    I thought he summed it up quite well

    ...but it is mostly selective memory. And, of course, anyone looks good compared to Bush.

    As to shilling, you dismissal of critics of the clintons as haters seems to be a common theme. Of course this tread is just one more example.

    Parent

    making my point (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    yet again.

    You actually think you have addressed the issues raised in my post.

    MAn you Hillary Haters are really stupid.

    Parent

    And can someone tell me what (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    a 66% approval rating of an ex-pres who is now a private citizen have to do with anything??

    Helps if you read the posts and links (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    Helps :most: people (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    to read the posts and links...

    Parent
    it's like the doublemint twins (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    Hehe (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:43:50 AM EST
    That's a good'un.

    Of course I never knew One of Them had been CEO of Wrigley...

    Parent

    Armando, Armando, Armando (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Aaron on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    "Intentionally misunderstand." "Ignoring what a person actually writes"

    These two comments are accurate in describing your behavior Armando.  Whenever you are unable or unwilling to engage in an intellectually honest discussion, you have a tendency to fall back on these rhetorical lawyer tricks.  And I don't think it's a problem with reading comprehension, as I speculated sometime ago.

    Few judges would let you get away with these tactics, and neither will the jury here at talkleft.

    And what is this tired stuff about, if you could only speak/write your true mind, but the rules on this blog prevent that.  So you're saying that you can't engage in civil argument over the issues, without resorting to character assassination and personal attacks.  I'm not impressed by this, yet another excuse, for your inability to defend your positions.

    You seem to have some kind of problem with people calling you, on what I assure you is painfully obvious to many of the readers who visit this site.  Perhaps you should listen to some of these criticisms, which are coming at you from all directions now.  :-)

    I submit that you and Jeralyn have been compromised, compromised by the fact that you've both fallen for the tactics of the conservatives, which have convinced you, perhaps on an unconscious level, that a genuine progressive approach is untenable, and the only hope we have of winning in America is to pretend to be something we're not, in the hopes of fooling enough Americans into supporting a candidate like Hillary Clinton.  

    To put it bluntly, you've been suckered, and you put yourselves in a position of having to defend yourself in a sinking bog, were your ideals and principles are hopelessly mired in hypocrisy.  A position that Hillary Clinton has willingly placed herself in, having done an excellent job of painting herself into a corner from which there is no escape.  

    I don't put much faith in polls, but you can't ignore that her negatives are ridiculously high, higher than any other candidate in the race, Democrat or Republican.  You don't actually believe she's going to be able start reversing that trend during the general election, do you?  If so I think you're fooling yourselves.

    Clinton represents the past, just as surely the Bush administration was a pathetic, though on a practical level quite successful, attempt to drag this country backwards.  I have no doubt that her intentions are good, but all the good intentions in the world cannot free her from the enormous baggage that she drags with her everywhere she goes.  If she were to become president, it would be a presidency that will be even more divisive than her husbands, and the Republicans will do everything in their power to hobble and disable another Clinton administration, and they will be successful because a good half of the US population will support them them in their efforts.

    We the American people are tired of this endlessly deadlocked partisan crap, and our country has paid dearly for it, and the progressives and the cause of liberalism has suffered more than most.  Time to move forward, not back.  I urge you and Jeralyn to join us in the future, and let the past remain in the past, lest the division which is crippling our country continue to degrade this nation.

    And as a point of political merit, how far do you think Hillary Clinton would've gotten in politics if she hadn't been married to Bill?  Not very far I imagine.

    The Talk Left jury? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    Listen, you are a blind member of the Obama Cult. I know this. And you know this.

    You are disaqualified from any jury on this matter.

    As for the subject at hand, you say nothing. Bit then that is what you always say.

    Don't waste your breath on me on this subject. I have no respect whatsoever for your opinion.

    Parent

    The only opinion you respect is your own Armando (none / 0) (#73)
    by Aaron on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    Yet another example of your tactics, can't address the criticisms of Clinton or yourself, you try to discredit the messenger, a political tactic straight out of the Bush administration playbook.  Puts me in good company with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

      I don't have a problem with you taking a position supporting a candidate, but you didn't do that, you pretended to be giving us dispassionate objective information on Obama and Clinton, Edwards etc., when anyone who is paying attention knows what you guys are up to.

    At least I'm honest enough to come out and declare where I stand, and when there's legitimate criticism of my candidate, you don't hear me squawk.  But I'm not going to sit by silently while virtually everything here is spun in favor of Clinton, and Obama is slighted at every opportunity. While at the same time when the Clinton campaign does something reprehensible, like planting people in the audience to ask a question that Clinton has been prepared for, not a word from you or Jeralyn in criticism, at least that I noticed.  Am I wrong, did I miss it, or did you completely ignore that incident?    You wanna be the defense attorneys for the Clinton campaign, that's fine, but please stop pretending like you're acting as the impartial judge, it's disingenuous and transparent, and it damages your credibility.

    To your credit, I've recently seen some posts which do seem to be more fair, but in light of your past approach I wonder about your motivation for those posts.

    As to your comment about having no respect for my opinion, well that's obvious, and apparently I'm not the only one who's opinion you have no respect for.  I'm sure many get the impression the only person whose viewpoint you do have any respect for Armando is your own. Perhaps that's something you'd like to reevaluate, if you're genuinely interested in convincing people and winning them over, which seems to be your goal.


    Parent

    Count me out (none / 0) (#5)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    of that 66 percent as well. I've got to say, Booman sums up my own views on Bill & Hill with almost eerie exactitude.

    And I wouldn't say I hate Hillary any more than any of the rest of our fabulous candidates at this point...

    And yet (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    what you and/or Booman think aboput Bill Clinton is UTTERLY irrelevant to my post.

    Again, Hillary Hate strikes again.

    Parent

    Mirrors the impeachment discussion, actually (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    Frankly, most discussions today (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    The blogs especially the dkos-centric blogs, suck something awful.

    Idiocy is reaching unmatched heights.

    Parent

    Don't get too disgusted yet (none / 0) (#17)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:27:06 PM EST
    I'm sure there are heights yet waiting to be scaled.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Due respect, you are contributing on this point.

    Parent
    No more than you are (none / 0) (#24)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    All due respect of course.

    Parent
    Everybody has opinions (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    Not all of them are fact based.

    You have not acknowledged a single fact in your participation here in this thread.

    Parent

    Oh, like you have? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:45:20 PM EST
    Hillary Hate strikes again.

    Booman's hatred of Hillary is so blinding that he denies the obvious - Bill Clinton is popular

    Both of these are patently untrue. Quote me anything that rebuts them.

    Parent

    Quote me anything that rebuts that (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    Which part? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:37:42 AM EST
    That Vlinton is popular? I did in two posts.

    That Booman has become a idiot because of Hillary Hate? I suppose you could be arguing he is just a idiot. I prefer to think it is the Hillary Hate talking.

    Parent

    idjet, idjet, idjet (none / 0) (#45)
    by Miss Devore on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:13:51 PM EST
    duking it out with booman? sheesh. that won't get you a column in Newspeak.

    like the "Vlinton". combo of Clinton and Bobby Vinton.

    Sto Lat

    Sto lat, sto lat, niech zyje zyje nam.
    Sto lat, sto lat, niech zyje zyje nam.
    Jeszcze raz, jeszcze raz, niech zyje, zyje nam.
    Niech zyje nam!


    Parent

    It took one punch (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    Didn't even break a sweat.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you.

    Parent

    like the one Aaron dealt to you? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Miss Devore on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    I don't like the sexist stuff dealt to Hillary, but she shows her (or her pointpeople's) secret racist side when she downtalks Obama's geographic background (6-10 in Indonesia) Most Americans never experience cultures outside of their own.Hillary probaby counts her years in Alabama as foreign policy experience.

    The "immaturity" issue with respect to Obama is a tad racist. especially since bill c. was a "young president."

    Parent

    Aaron's punch? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    Here I thought you were smart.

    I guess not.

    Parent

    obviously you're too stupid (none / 0) (#58)
    by Miss Devore on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    to come to the right conclusion. but that's always been your flaw. well. among others.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    We both know I am not stupid.

    Did you have a nice Thanksgiving? You seem plenty ornery tonight.

    Parent

    You can't seriously (none / 0) (#47)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    want to continue your inane line of argument here. But OK, I'll oblige you.

    You're still mischaracterizing Booman's argument (no surprise). He never argued Clinton isn't popular. "It's funny, but I don't remember Bill Clinton's presidency all that fondly" does not add up to arguing Clinton isn't popular (as I'm sure you know). All he says is that HE doesn't remember him fondly. If there's some quote that backs your argument, do provide it.

    And the "Hillary Hate" you applied to me. That would have been semi-true a year ago, but through the campaign I've come to appreciate her if not several of her major policy positions quite a bit. Though I joke about hating them all, I'll actually be quite happy with most any of them as the nominee, though all for different reasons.

    Would it make you happy if I stated the obvious? - that I agree Bill's legacy will only help, not hurt, Hillary in the general, and that Broder saying the opposite is an idiot? It's so patently obvious there doesn't seem to be much else to say about it.

    Parent

    Of COURSe he argued it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    That is the premise of calling me a shill.

    Do you REALLY ewant to continue to act like an idiot?

    Parent

    Don't you know what 'shill' means? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:56:40 PM EST
    It means to act as if you're an innocent enthusiastic supporter of someone while hiding the fact that you're actually their paid agent.

    His insult isn't premised on proving Bill Clinton isn't popular. It isn't premised on agreeing or disagreeing with Broder's point. It doesn't need to be. All it's premised on is the fact that you're not tearing Hillary down. Therefore to Booman you are a supporter and must secretly be working for her campaign.

    Parent

    This is your defense of Booman? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    All it's premised on is the fact that you're not tearing Hillary down. Therefore to Booman you are a supporter and must secretly be working for her campaign.

    It is obvious then you think him a bigger idiot than I do.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:03:01 PM EST
    it isn't meant to be a defense. Just trying to set you straight on how I see what he wrote and I responded to, versus the mischaracterizations you're trying to hang on me along with him.

    Parent
    I think you are not being honest now (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:05:26 PM EST
    And I think you have behaved quite badly in this thread.

    Truthfully, I think less of you because of it.

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:15:34 PM EST
    Words of wisdom from the arbiter of good behavior.

    I'm always honest.

    The problem is you're an absolutist. You think there's only way to read reality - your way. It wouldn't be so bad - a lot of people do the same - but then you're so insulting on the basis of it. It just makes you look like a not very bright thug, which I don't believe you are.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    You have chosen to twist reality in this discussion.

    Booman EXPRESSLY called my post discussing DAVID BRODER's column about the political effect of Bill Clinton in the WH on Hillary and Dems. He reached what were, imo, absurd conclusions and I cited Bill Clinton popularity.

    Booman called my saying Bill Clinton was popular shilling, explainign that HE did not like Clinton, thereby proving that in fact Clinton was  maybe NOT popular. This against all factual evidence that Clinton IS popular.

    You have contgorted yourself into a pretzel pretending Booman did NOT write what he wrote.

    Look, you have been disingenuous on this. You kow you have. There was nothing absolutist about my posts, my views or my logic.

    Why you felt it necessary to defend Booman on this only you can say. You could hold all your positions, as Booman does, on clinton and it will NOT be germane to what Booman wrote about me and my post.

    You chose to not be honest about what BOOMAN wrote. I have no idea why you did that.

    Parent

    Well, there you go again (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    You say I'm twisting reality - all I'm doing is saying how I see it, and I'm being quite honest, so I don't appreciate being insulted over expressing my view.

    What I saw was NOT that he was trying to prove Bill was not popular. That would be absurd. He was presenting his negative view, his negative memories instead, riffing on your post, simply using it as a thing to react against to develop his own spin, to build a negative buzz to counter your positive one.

    There have been different views of what the netroots should do in the dissemination of information - present as "objective" a view of "the facts" as possible (absurd to me - there is no objective, though one can aim for it as an ideal) or counter the RWNM with a counterbalancing leftward tilt to the what and the how of what's presented. I think this conflict falls within that larger argument.

    Parent

    In what way would that be? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    Ignoring what a person actually writes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    I.e. - Yes, Bush committed impeachable offenses but it is a bad idea to engage in that because the GOP in the Senate will never vote to commit.

    Repsonding comment - You Bush lover you!

    The example is extremely appropriate.

    Parent

    Commenting peripherally to a point (none / 0) (#23)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    is not the same as ignoring the point.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    Put away the shovel.

    If that is your serious response to my comment and andgarden's comment, you obviously have no idea what he is talkiong about.

    Parent

    You say Booman's trying to rebut (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    the fact that Bill Clinton is still popular. Clearly he isn't saying that at all. Nowhere does he say it, just that the Clintons weren't popular with him.

    In fact, what he's trying to do is hit you for advancing in any way the fortunes of politicians he doesn't want to see in power again. I'm sure we're all perfectly clear on that.

    I share his views on the Clintons. But I don't at this point share his opposition to even relatively impartial analysis that comes out favoring Hillary. I'm still assessing ALL the candidates.

    Parent

    Of course he is sayig that (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    What else can possibly explain calling me a shill?

    You are being ridiculous.

    Parent

    What can explain calling you a shill? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    He's calling you out for being too soft on Hillary. Maybe he'd like you to be as critical of her as you've been of Obama over the past year.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    That dog won't hunt.

    He picked out a post where I discuss a Broder column on the supposed political difficulty of having Bill clinton in office. I cited Clinton's popularity. He called THAT post shilling. He called pointing out THE FACT that Clinton is popular as shilling. If it is true, how could it possibly be shilling? He is denying it is true obviously.

    You are making a fool of yourself in this thread.

    You fail to deal with a single fact related to this issue.

    Please stop.

    Parent

    Not quite (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:01:26 PM EST
    He called THAT post shilling.

    Oh, then that would be why he said "The non-stop shilling for Clinton continues at Talk Left where Armando is at it full-time."

    He's clearly talking about a pattern of posts that he thinks place Hillary in an unwarrantedly positive light.

    As his post demonstrates, it's possible to write about the Clinton years in any number of ways, depending on which facts you choose to put forward and the positive or negative emotions you choose to conjure up around them.

    There's one big fool in this thread all right. T'ain't me. Feel free to stop with your mischaracterizations and name calling anytime.

    Parent

    You remain a fool (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    What do you think the word continues is referring to? That the post referred to was ALSO shilling.

    I wrote about David Broder's column. Did you read Broder's column? I get the impression you did not.

    Sorry, you have been an utter fool in this thread. And let's face it, you know you have.

    You are arguing from the position of an idiot now. And you are no idiot.

    Parent

    Of course I read it (none / 0) (#66)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:22:38 PM EST
    No, that's not what the word "continues" refers to.

    It's a laughable argument. You must be seeing how wrong you are at this point. But your ego won't let it go.

    Parent

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    I am not wrong on this at all.

    What does the word continues there mean? Are you seriously arguing that the post linked to is not identified as "conitnued shilling" by me?

    Are you seriously honestly arguing that?

    Are you seriously stupid?

    Parent

    Continues (none / 0) (#69)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    refers to all the positive posts you've done on Hillary.

    You can usually win an argument when you're in the right. The bullying and insults come out when you're on thin ice and know it.

    Parent

    Not UTTERLY irrelevant (none / 0) (#15)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:20:44 PM EST
    Simply an elaboration of the views of some of those 34%.

    You're trying to reduce this to being a response to the narrowest possible construction of your post, as if every blog comment is expected to be a directly on-point response to a post's central point. Dream on.

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    The narrowest construction of my post? Try again. Booman simply denied the fact that Clinton is popular.

    That is idiotic.

    I agree that idiocy is not part of a narrow construction of my post.

    I could not care less that Booman dislikes Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton.

    I object to the denial of facts and the idiocy.

    You seem to embrace it A comment on you frankly.

    Parent

    Then go over to Booman's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    and argue what he wrote with him. That's not at all what MY comment said. That you ignore what a person actually writes in order to call them idiotic is a comment on you frankly.

    Parent
    I read it quite carefully (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    Let's read it together, shall we?

    "Not UTTERLY irrelevant

    Simply an elaboration of the views of some of those 34%."

    Since the views of the 34% have no impact on the fact that 66% approve, and thus Bill Clinton is popular, UTTERLY IRRELEVAT to MY POST.

    "You're trying to reduce this to being a response to the narrowest possible construction of your post, as if every blog comment is expected to be a directly on-point response to a post's central point. Dream on."

    Actually, comments ARE supposed to be ON TOPIC to the post the comment is in, or at the least, coureously express that the comment is OFF TOPIC.

    I think I got your comment just right. Think about it.

    Parent

    Jeez (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    OK, let's go through it together.

    My initial point was "Booman sums up my own views on Bill & Hill." Not that he sums up my views on whether you're shilling for Clinton or not, the thing that's evidently got you so bent out of shape.

    And besides, Booman never "denied the fact that Clinton is popular." All he did was state his own views on the Clinton years. And I agree with them. So you're not being very fact-based here.

    If he hadn't infuriated you with the shilling accusation "as usual...analytical and calm" wouldn't have gone flying out the window re these obvious points.

    Parent

    crap pile (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:02:16 PM EST
    Wow, see the crap you stir up and the freak posts you get when you say something nice about one of the Clintons.  

    These cretins are the reason I'm voting for Hillary. Hell I'm writing her in if she's not the dem nominee.  I'm not ideological so all these "true believers" just push me over the edge.


    you are an idiot (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jgarza on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:23:46 AM EST
    the fact that other people, who are also idiots, can see you are an idiot, doesn't make you less of an idiot.

    idiot? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by RalphB on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:29:40 AM EST
    At least you admit you're an idiot.  How nice of you.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    Coming from you . . .

    Parent
    I love it (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:50:03 AM EST
    when you folks talk dirty to each other.

    ;-)