home

Overnight and Early AM Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:32:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Goodbye to You, Patty Smythe and Scandal.

Will she succed? Here's the male's point of view, Dwight Yoacam and "I Ain't That Lonely Yet."

Once there was a spider in my bed

I got caught up in her web

...but I survived,

....After what you put me through

Oh I ain't that lonely yet

This is another open thread for you late-nighters and early birds.

Comments now closed.

< Late Night Open Thread | Hillary Clinton on CNN's Late Edition >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Overnight and Early AM Open Thread | 194 comments (194 topical)
    frustration with press and dnc (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:48:06 AM EST
    I tried to make a point about the press and media darling status in the previous thread but wasn't very eloquent at this late hour. The bottom line though is that I'm frustrated. We openly discuss choosing a candidate based on media darling status. That is just horrible. Since when is the media supposed to decide who is our candidate or who is the president.

    And on to of that I'm frustrated with the DNC with the rigged, hacked, horrible primary process where the delegate vote is completely meaningless, and we don't count MI and FL.

    As far as I can tell, the DNC and Donna Brazile isn't the only one firing whole demographics of voters and saying they aren't needed, so is the press. And we wonder why there is so much voter apathy. Perhaps they're apathetic for good reason. I never thought that until this year. Sad.

    Truly bizarre (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:02:09 AM EST
    but guess who's been saying that the media is picking our candidates?

    Ann Coulter.

    As much as I oppose everything that comes out of her mouth, she's right on this one.  

    The media has way too much power.  I am glad though, that a lot of people are rejecting the media.  WV is a great example.  It throws off their game.  Pesky voters not listening that Obama says it is over.

    Parent

    Presidential tracking poll not media-match (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:00:43 AM EST
    I wonder why Clinton is gaining on Obama this week.

    Rasmussen, who plans to drop Clinton from the polling soon, shows her steadily getting closer to Obama.  On May 11, they were TEN points apart, and inching closer tonight, she shows up as only TWO points from our presumptive nominee.

    All that princely publicity, and she gains on him.  If I were a superdelegate I'd be worried about all the electoral polls showing him losing in that regard while she wins over McCain.

    But, it may well be they'd rather lose the election this year rather than anger one segment while definitely they'll lose a VERY large and reliable segment of Democrats because they took them for granted and disdained a very strong candidate due to party power plays that furthermore GIVE AWAY Florida and Michigan to McCain.  Great show, Dean and Brazile.

    Parent

    I'm an Independent. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:12:29 AM EST

    And I love Hillary.  Grew to love her after examining both candidates' qualifications and am NOT going to vote just so Americans can feel good about themselves about "overcoming" the "racial divide".

    Parent
    If only (none / 0) (#145)
    by befuddled on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    the new bloggers came with a new script. Don't assume things about independents.

    Parent
    Independents are no longer Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST


    Parent
    That Clinton election juggernaut :-) (none / 0) (#219)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    Don't miss this one.

    Half kidding, it's also very serious.
     

    Parent

    Outstanding! (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    What a breath of fresh air it was to see this in print:

    How long will Barak Obama cling to his shattered dreams of the presidency, and how much damage will be done to the Democratic Party by his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious?

    I've been waiting for that one for weeks.

    Parent

    And when Obama loses it for the Democrats (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:39:43 AM EST
    in November, there won't be anyone to blame but Obama and his fanbase! See you in November.

    Parent
    I'm not trying to convince myself (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:19:58 AM EST
    that Obama will lose in November.  I have been convinced for the longest time. If Hillary does not win the nomination, then I'll just have to vote for the winner:  JM!  I will however vote for all the democratic candidates for congress.

    Parent
    You're funny. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:44:43 AM EST

    You ignore substantive questions about the facts that Obama has put for from his own mouth in favor of trolling other people about your stupid ideas.

    Something tells me that you're just here to troll around and piss people off.  Well of course it's working.  Say enough b.s. and you can piss ANYONE off.

    You having fun yet?  Your sadistic neurons firing real hard now?  Good.  Get another hobby, because the "gift that keeps on giving" here (i.e., keep trolling, keep pissing people off) stops when Jeralyn wakes up and you'll be banned.

    I suggest next time hopping elsewhere to piss people off.  LiveJournal is a good place to do so/to create wank.  But something tells me that you're probably already familiar with LJ.  You've got "that" mentality.

    Parent

    I'll be a winner either way (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:05:33 AM EST
    With Hillary Clinton or
    John McCain.  

    Parent
    Obama would not be the frontrunner today (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Saul on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    knowing the facts we know now about him.  If all the controversies on Obma, Wright, Typical White Person, Bitter, Ayers, Michelle Commets, Sweetie, had all shown themselves in Dec 07 Obama would not be the front runner today.   This would also include his objection in having a re vote in MI and FL making those voters even angrier. Also the egregious in the tank by the media for Obama and the constant sexist attitude toward Hilary by the media and many of the sexist remarks made by some of the Supers who endorsed Obama has to be considered.  

    So to make the front runner legitimate you would have to consider how Obama would have faired today if all these controversies and anti Hilary issued  had been know by the voters  before they voted.  Otherwise you can just say he got lucky.  

    That is why if I my suggestion for next time would be followed no one would have an edge to be lucky.
    My suggestion were as follows.

       

    My answer to all this is the following.

        Everyone goes to a primary method. No Caucuses

        No Super Delegates

        All the primaries will be held on one day.  That day should be in late May.  That way all the candidates will have from Dec to May to campaign where ever they want to.

        This way no one has an advantage and every candidates gets an even playing field. Then it's over.  If no one gets the number of delegates required  then whoever gets the most popular vote is the winner.



    Parent
    This is "red" (none / 0) (#183)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    Write them and tell them! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by itsadryheat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:04:53 AM EST
    They have it all wrong. If there is more than one candidate, the nominee is chosen by one half, plus one of the delegates who eventually become credentialled and seated at the convention, when they vote in secret ballot in their state delegation, the state delegation reports the state's total vote in public outcry, the vote is confirmed and recorded by the Secretary of the Party and witnessed by the entire convention.

     If the magic majority number is reached, THEN we have a nominee.  If not, we go to the Second Ballot, vote again and so on till the magic majority number is reached, and ONLY then.  Often by June it is whittled down to one because the r ace is no close and candidates drop out.  But if we still have two or more, it goes to convention.

     Kennedy did not concede when he ran against sitting President Carter. Kennedy was 976 delegates behind Carter. Carter clerely had long since "reached" the eventual magic number, but the vote had not happened, so there was no nomonee until convention vote.  That is because that is how it is done by the rules in this and many other organizations.  

    No candidate gets the nomination just because he thinks the when the time comes more people would vote for him.  Four months ago what were we thinking? Wonder what we will be thinking four months from now about what's best for the party and who to vote for?
    If you are angry at the press treatment of Hillary, the voters or the process, you can contacr some of the talking heads who will be talking a lot the next three days.

     CNN.com/feedback/cnntv takes you to a page listing most of their shows and a comment box.  They also have a news tip box.

    msnbc has a regular email standard:  name of show@msnbc.com.  hardball@msnbc.com, same for countdown, race08, abrams.  Other shows have a contact page at the web site.

    Fox has a regular email address.  Last name of person@foxnews.com.  Hannity@foxnews.com, Oreilly, Colmes, Ontherecord, feedback@foxnews.com

    Face the Nation is ftn.cbsnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com

    This Week has a contact page at the website

    NEWS

    There is a new article out from the Chicago Sun Times that doesn't look good for Obama.

    Obama attacked the candiddates, charged fraud, had everybody running against him disqualified and instead of 5 candidates, there was only one, Obama , before a single vote was cast (Link)

    Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

    But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like PalmeA close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

    One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

    "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"



    Parent
    Well, it's not a new article -- and Palmer (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    came out working for Clinton as early as Iowa and again in Indiana since this article, which says that she had not decided on a candidate.

    Other than that, it is a good review of Obama's aka the Chicago machine's anointing of him, for those not yet familiar with the story of his start against an older woman and longtime party regular that so foreshadowed his current campaign.  (And this story does not deal with the Senate run, but others have more details on the rather seamy release of divorce records that embarrassed innocent women also under the Obama bus to get at their exes, his opponents.)

    Parent

    Unfortunately, the msm (none / 0) (#232)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    do not report on the process of nomination and by Obama "declaring" victory in Iowa on Tuesday, most voters will "assume" that's it and will vote for him in the GE. I was not very political 'till about 10 years ago and just voted Dem...most voters especially the ones new to the process are not told the rules. All they see is what the campaigns and now the media want them to see.

    Parent
    If Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:00:07 AM EST
    are counted then Hillary leads in the popular vote anbd by the time Puerto Rico votes she is likely to have 300,000 to 400,000 vote advantage.

    You are here to annoy people.

    Parent

    Obama thought FL would count (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:23:47 AM EST
    because he was the ONLY candidate to violate DNC rules by holding a small campaign rally and running TV ads. He'd also received much positive media attention from his SC win 3 days earlier.
    But Obama still got trounced in FL.


    Parent
    Haha...that's funny (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:49:55 AM EST
    really.

    He wouldn't have won -- and the way things are going buddy, he won't win in the GE either, count on it..

    ...oh but like you said, all he needs to do is pick up some VP and then "all of us" won't be necessary, like MI and FL aren't necessary...

    Wake up brother your Strong Arm tactics only work on the Caucus Level, and the GE isn't a caucus.


    Parent

    annoy people? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ccpup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:33:07 AM EST
    I find this Obama Supporter's desperation and clueless grasp of the "facts" -- despite the "inevitability" of Barack's Nomination -- utterly delightful.  

    If this is what the SDs are going to see from St. Obama's campaign when it comes time to convince them who they should support, I'm feeling better and better about Hillary's chances.

    Parent

    Re: "just a junior senator" (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:30:49 AM EST
    What in heaven's name would you call Mr. Obama, then?

    If "just a junior senator" is a pejorative it applies fourfold to him.  She has eight year's experience as a senator.  He has two.

    Now you're just being silly.

    Parent

    You really need to get an education (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    because if you had one, you would know that the nominee is decided at the convention, not by whichever nominee thinks he should have it because he is tired and bored by campaigning. Obama does not have the delegates to get the nomination. Therefore he has NOT won it. And Obama is much more junior in the Senate than Hillary, she is in her second term, he hasn't finished his first term yet. And he hasn't done the work in the Senate that she has. He was busy writing his book, "Audacity of Hope" while allegedly representing the people of Illinois. Hillary has three times as many votes on record in the same term, this one, as Obama does.

    Obama has insulted and belittled so many voter blocs that it will be a miracle if he is even competitive in the GE. She is also ahead in the polls asking who will beat McCain in the GE. So, before you come here and spout drivel all over the place, I suggest you educate yourself on how the US primary system works, how the elections work and stop claiming a victory that is unlikely and hasn't happened yet.

    So much stuff is coming out about Obama that by the GE, he will be political poison, and by that I mean that NO ONE will want to endorse or vote for him. Way to foist an unqualified candidate on the country, kid. Too bad the country is saying NO!! louder and louder every day.

    Parent

    Have You Called The DNC To Voice Your (none / 0) (#231)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    displeasure?  Many are doing that in addition to sending their torn up dem party cards to them.
    At some point, they need to get the message:  "we
    aren't taking it anymore".  We would rather move on as an independent than continue to watch the b.s. going on.

    Parent
    Rise, Hillary, Rise!! (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST


    Parent
    I've been ripping music all night (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:57:48 AM EST
    to my iPod.  Gotta give myself a break from TL and now another fave, No Quarter.  

    i LOVE the video to Goodbye to You. I don't know if any of you know this but Patty Smythe was going to be the lead singer for Van Halen after David Lee Roth left the band.  Things just fell through but that would have been amazing, yes?

    I am going to sleep right through the Sunday talk shows because it will be another Hillary bashing fest.  Man, don't those people ever get tired of treating her like crap?  That poor thing.  I have so much respect for her.  I would have blown a fuse by now.  Guess that's why she's running for POTUS and I'm not.

    Isn't she also married to (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:04:17 AM EST
    John McEnroe, the tennis player? I'm logging off now too.

    One caution, the attacks here are becoming personal again. Please, no race-baiting, no calling anyone, including politicians racist, and no reprinting material from other sites. Link, quote a line or paragpraph, but don't repost whole articles or posts.  Thanks.

    Parent

    She is married to McEnroe (none / 0) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:44:00 AM EST
    I just went back and read all my comments back to Friday...and I didn't call anyone names, race-bait and certainly didn't post articles or anything like that on TL.

    I choose my words carefully as not to violate your rules.  I get a lot of 5's on my comments too.  If I am getting out of bounds, or you feel that I am, I won't post comments here anymore.  I like the blog so I can just read the diaries and comments.

    Thanks for letting me post all this time though.

    Parent

    Don't Think Jeralyn's Comment Was (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:10:19 AM EST
    directed to you personally. IMO it was generic warning to everyone on the site.

    Parent
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#112)
    by gaf on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    There are rumors all over the internets that a killer Michelle Obama video is going to surface in the next couple of days. Any idea if this is true or just idle speculation. It seems to have started from Larry Johnson at NoQuarter. He says he has 4 sources who confirm the video.


    Parent
    No independent verification. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM EST
    As far as anyone knows it's just a Rumor, like Rove getting indicted.

    Parent
    I'll get the popcorn. (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST


    Parent
    If it does break (none / 0) (#166)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    I'll get my beer and popcorn and head over to the Great O.  Then I'll come back here for additional links.

    Parent
    a killer video? (none / 0) (#179)
    by ccpup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    one of those oh so common foot-in-mouth moments?  Or ... ?

    Parent
    Duly noted....thanks (none / 0) (#238)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST


    Parent
    You best shoo. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:23:55 AM EST

    Before Jeralyn kicks you off the site.

    Parent
    She'll kick your a$$ off of here so fast (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:55:30 AM EST

    because you keep calling people names (bitter old hag?  Yeah, that's going to fly with Jeralyn...).

    Namecalling isn't allowed here.  Obamabot/Obamatron are two terms that are quickly becoming entrenched in this election cycle as valid descriptors for the truly rude Obama supporters who come on here (and TaylorMarsh) who think it's okay to parrot nasty names at Clinton supporters.  

    Aren't you people supposed to be the uniters, not the dividers?  All of this slash-and-burn-your-way to the nomination isn't winning you our support.  You're pushing us away and making us either want to stay home or vote for your would-be opponent, John McCain.  We're not going to fall in line like you think, particularly if you treat us like crap.

    Is this the way young Obama people think the path towards victory is?  Is it your impatience of youth showing?  You can't get the nom as quick as you get your "txt msgs", so you yell and cry and denigrate the people "standing in your way"?  If this is the kind of "new politics" Obama's bringing to the Democratic Party, I'm damn glad I'm not a part of it/are registered Independent.  Who would want to be a part of that bunch of misbehaved brats?

    And I'm 34.  I'm not EVEN that old, and it disgusts me to see how people like you behave towards Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    amen, sister! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:26:53 AM EST


    Parent
    That's "brother" to you. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:45:46 AM EST

    ;)  But no skin off my back.  

    Parent
    Um...no... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    His voting record, what there is of it, tends to be more cautious than liberal...voting for things like Cheney's energy bill.

    His choice to almost vote for John Roberts and the fact that he not only had to be talked out of it and then defended his colleagues' choice to support the Roberts nomination speaks volumes.

    He has equivocated or been conveniently  absent from votes where he could've taken a Liberal stand.

    Finally, his efforts to stifle the donations for groups like VoteVets and ActBlue and therefore trying to limit their impact and stifle their voice are practically old school.

    Do. Not. Give. This. Candidate. The. Mantle. Of. Great. Liberal. Leader.

    Parent

    that troll is gone (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    I don't have time to clean the thread of responses, so I'll leave those but 28 comments by a commenter named obamain2008andyouknowit has been deleted for violating multiple site rule.s

    Parent
    Thanks J (none / 0) (#237)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    You run a great site here. Much appreciated.

    Parent
    Still in red mode n/t (none / 0) (#184)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:57:43 AM EST


    Parent
    P.S. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:32 AM EST

    Huckabee IS still running.  He never dropped out.

    The comparison between Hillary and Huckabee is laughable.

    But of course I'm sure you'll say the same thing about Teddy Kennedy, right?  He challenged Carter in '80 when he was A THOUSAND delegates behind.  But I guess it's different when he's "on your side".

    Parent

    Please, just...go drive-by another site. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:09:12 AM EST

    I know BTD is gone and Jeralyn's turned in for the night and the Obamamice think they can play and insult Clinton supporters and Clinton herself, but this is not the place to do so.  Stop wasting your time.  you will find your comments deleted the moment Jeralyn can get to them, your user name banned.

    But until then, this is how she isn't Huckabee:  She isn't a thousand delegates behind.  She's only a few.  The Democratic Party is practically divided between the two of them.  Your Golden Child gave the know-nothings a dilemma by shoving himself into the race, and now the party's split.  You people keep saying how it's Clinton splitting the party, but you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.  You're talking like the Bushies in '00 and '04 did:  You live in opposite world, where up is down and down is up, as dictated by Axelrod and his creation.  You run away whenever we ASK you point blank that if super delegates are to be voting with their constituencies like you say they should, then Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should be endorsing Clinton.  

    YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION EVERY TIME.

    If you think you're just so above the fray, then answer the d@mned question.  If you can't and you run away again, then we know for sure you're all full of fees n' cees.

    And while you're answering the first question, tell us why you're so eager for Clinton to drop out of the race while Ted Kennedy (again, what's up withthe abhorrent hypocrisy when it comes to Teddy?) challenged Jimmy Carter on the floor in 1980 when he was a THOUSAND delegates behind Carter?  THERE is your Huckabee comparison.

    Parent

    I think you're the one who needs convincing (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:25:55 AM EST
    that Obama has won.  Your coming over here to make your tiresome assertions only demonstrate that you yourself are not convinced.  Besides, don't you realize that you are not persuading anyone to support your candidate?  I am as committed to my candidate, Hillary as you are to Obama.  So why don't we all just wait until the nominee is decided at the convention in Colorado?  That's where the voting of the delegates, pledged and super can be counted officially.  Until then, it is all PR.  

    Parent
    jerks like you are exactly why Obama (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:45:03 AM EST
    will not be able to unite Democrats and will lose BIG to mccain. I wonder if that will wipe the sneer off your face?

    Parent
    Yes SD's should vote for whom they like (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:33:59 AM EST
    which is why I know that come August, Hillary will be the nominee because she will be ahead in the popular votes and would have proven her electability over Obama.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, please ban this user. (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:11:35 AM EST
    Probably a Republican troll.  Wonder what Republican trolls post on prObama blogs?

    Parent
    Sadly, no, Fabian, probably not a Republican (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:45:29 AM EST
    Indeed, this is the new face of the Democratic Party. And it's why I'm no longer a Democrat.

    Parent
    According to DK (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:31:28 AM EST
    Clinton supporters were:
    Really Republicans to begin with.
    or
    Will become Republicans.

    I think "Republican" is code for "racist".  I guess they figured they'd better stop using the little "r" word and replaced it with the big "R" word.

    I'm kind of shocked that I can pick up on these narratives so easily when I only spend about an hour a week there.

    Parent

    ban? heck, we need a flush handle... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:27 AM EST


    Parent
    I'd settle for hacking his account. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    and changing his username to something like Bozo the Clown or Astroscat or Look Ma - no brain!

    Parent
    I Vote For "Look Mom - no brain!" n/t (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:30:12 AM EST


    Parent
    It must be one of the paid 400 (none / 0) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:38:46 AM EST
    that Obama sent out to annoy the grownups. If we ignore the brat, maybe it will go away.

    Parent
    Sheesh! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Burned on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:37:19 AM EST
    Is this a parody?

    Parent
    Laugh on (none / 0) (#164)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:22:45 AM EST
    glad to oblige.  

    Parent
    Over Since March 5 (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:43:26 AM EST
    If that's the case I should think you'd be done gloating about it by now.

    You need a basic math course.  One hundred is a "few" when you're talking totals of twenty times that.  If your talking about a hundred out of two hundred fifty it is not a "few."  

    Your candidate can't close the deal.  The race is not over.  Mr. Wonderful is missing the support of half his own party.

    Parent

    Yep, okay, you (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM EST

    "addressed" the super delegate thing, albeit mildly.  

    So again, I/we ask:  Ted Kennedy.  Should he vote for Hillary at the convention or not?  When Obama was behind on super delegates, he whined (along with that useless Nancy Pelosi) about the super delegates not "over turning the will of the people".  Now that's it very, very possible that Clinton could overcome his lead in the popular vote, it's all about the delegates and the super delegates for him.  It is absolutely pathetic.

    Second question was never addressed.  Yes, please run, run run away from that one, you pathetic drive-by.  

    Parent

    You Are the Classic Example (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:52:19 AM EST
    of why I don't support Barack Obama.  You are a rabid fan who has no idea what his positions are, where he will take the country or how his presidency will affect you.

    Instead of posting in support of your candidate you chose to bash your opponent and her friends.  I learned absolutely nothing about Barack Obama from all your posts except that he's got one really nasty henchman.

    But then, I already knew that.

    Parent

    Question re: sexism... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:31:28 AM EST
    Even as an Obama partisan, I think it is safe to say that sexism is more socially acceptable than racism is in the media.  It may be that racism is simply not as subtle, who knows.  But I know that many women have been turned off by the way Senator Clinton has been portrayed in this race.  To you I ask: What was it in particular, and how do we make it better in the future? To that end I would ask that any response refrain from gross generalizations about any "arrogant demeanor" on the part of Senator Obama.  I think it is too easy to conflate assertions of arrogance, fairy tales, etc. with racism and sexism.  I'm more curious about what I saw as the overt sexism that the media displayed, and a little curious about some of the double standards I thought I saw early in the primary season.  

     Again, I am clearly (as you can see by my posts) an Obama partisan.  But I am curious because I do think this is a serious issue, regardless of which candidate one supports.  

    To me the turning point was (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Serene1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:47:59 AM EST
    when the pro Obama blogs started sprouting nonsense about Hillary. They seemed to be more intent on character assasination than anything else. That kind of behaviour left me stunned and disgusted. I also noticed that suddenly in TV and everyehere Obama surrgogates were constantly pushing the meme that Hillary will say and do anything to win and besides other character flaws. They never were keen to discuss their disagreement on issues but were constantly trying to attack Hillary's Character.

    For the MSM it was open season. They were like frat boys making fun of everything Hillary including her pantsuits. They hardly acted as objective reporters.

    Obama himself has also attacked Hillary plenty with sexist remarks from claws, to periodically down to sipping tea with foreign dignitaries etc.

    Parent

    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:46:19 AM EST
    ...it may be that I've just missed it because I don't frequent non-law blogs.  

     I agree that the "say and do anything to win" meme is troubling.  I think it is more complicated, though, because it is Senator Clinton.  Further complicated by the questions surrounding the Iraq war vote, her very unfair treatment as First Lady and an absurdist right-wing army that has been attacking Senator Clinton and her husband since before they moved in (and well after they moved out) of the White House.  It is exacerbated by President Clinton's centrism, which managed to alienate a significant segment of the Democratic Party, fairly or unfairly.  

     I personally think the media was the most sexist element of all.  Ageist, too, to be fair, because they certainly took the time to emphasize the fact that she was an older woman runnng for office.

     I disagree with your characterization of Obama's campaign, although I agree that he took advantage of gender, just not in a very obvious way.  The first time I saw it was when he (along with Edwards) ganged up on her as the front runner (driver licenses for undocumented workers).  I thought that was pretty unseemly.  The second time was the "likeable enough" comment.  

     Isn't it hard, though, to separate Senator Clinton from President Clinton's administration? I keep coming back to that.  I'm told hindsight is 20/20 and it is unfair to judge his administration from today's perspective, but he royally pissed off a lot of key Democratic constituencies to remain in power.  I guess any Democrat would do the same, but if someone associated with them was running I think the electorate might be just as harsh as it was with Senator Clinton.  

     I would like to see a successful female candidate for the presidency in my lifetime, and I am dismayed by the way this has turned out.  Not the result, of course, as I voted for Obama, but I would have preferred a more astute and fair media.  Although I still believe I had very good reasons for turning to Senator Obama, the media bias does make me uneasy.

    Parent

    It's hard to separate Obama (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:07:00 AM EST
    from the Clinton administration, as so many of his advisors worked for BC.

    Parent
    Another Bill Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:02:31 AM EST
    No.  More like another George W. Bush...a rank amateur who has neither the experience nor the leadership to be President of the United States.

    Parent
    That would be a fair comment... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:14:54 AM EST
    ...if Senator Obama was running on President Clinton's legacy.  He isn't, the advisors clearly aren't interested in doing so, and no one supporting Senator Clinton is suggesting that is the case.  

     What does this have to do with sexism in the media?

    Parent

    You see it your way (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:43:33 AM EST
    I'll see it mine. BTW- were you ever a hall monitor in school?

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:52:26 AM EST
    No, more like the antithesis of such.  But I don't think that's really the question you were asking...  

    Parent
    Respects the public??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:20:53 AM EST

    "Clinging to guns and religion" and "sweetie" is respect, according to you?

    Now I KNOW you're talkin' crazy.  How old are you, 18?  Not even in middle school when Bill was elected?  Yeah, go home.  Your generation has no idea what "respect" is.  It seems to me that my own generation, the one born when Nixon resigned, is the LAST generation to:  Know what respect is, know how to write coherent sentences and know what hard work means.  We wouldn't have DREAMED of crying home to mommy because the "red marker looks so MEAN!" on our graded papers.  Such whiny crybabies.

    Parent

    I have always felt that though (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Serene1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:13:00 AM EST
    Bill C was a flawed politician yet he was one of the better Presidents. He was very shrewd and intelligent and he was the one who gave America both a national and international standing. He truly bought to fruition the strength of America domstically and internationally. Countries abroad respected us most during his tenure.
    I know its kind of become fashionable now to diss Bill C's presidency (again I feel Obama is responsible for the same), but let's not play republicans and revise History to distort one of the better presidencies marred by a sex scandal.
    I think a lot of goodwill for Hillary in this campaign from the core Democrats is also because of the fond memories of Clinton rule.


    Parent
    I certainly agree... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:33:13 AM EST
    ...with this sentiment:

    but let's not play republicans and revise History to distort one of the better presidencies marred by a sex scandal.

     I'm no puritan (as a gay guy I'd be hard pressed to be).  I was mortified when I went to France the year after he was impeached and was mocked for coming from a country where that was possible.  

     I also agree that much of Senator Clinton's core support comes from those years of good will (I try to use their...titles, for lack of a better word, just seems more professional than Mr. or Ms.).

     Still, it is hard for me to ignore the bad.  And bad there was.  

     And then I have moments of doubt, as anyone involved in this process should.  When Russert backed her into a corner on her Iraq vote and acted....well, appalling is the right word...I kind of wanted to slug him then and there.  At the same time I just had this feeling that she did not vote her conscience.  But it is always too difficult to know.  

    Parent

    This campaign has cut your chances (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    and mine of a woman (preferred adjective, btw) president in our lifetimes.  I study women and politics and the media, and there are a lot of studies that show the impact of such dirty campaigns as this one that discourage other women "in the pipeline."

    And the media are well aware of such studies -- they're used in journalism courses, for those in the media who actually study journalism -- so I am confident that their role in this campaign was a "twofer" to drive out Clinton and to discourage other women from having done to them what media (and others, but you want to talk about media) did to her.

    Of course, that it was done to all of us to continue to discourage the majority of Americans, women, from providing us with more and better leaders -- well, that's the story of American history for centuries now.  We never have allowed ourselves to really encourage the best and the brightest of all Americans.

    We always have allowed media to assist in limiting leadership -- limiting power -- to the best and the brightest of about 15% of Americans, adult white males.  Plus one half-white one this time.  And we call that progress.

    Parent

    Trashing Hillary (none / 0) (#206)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    This is exactly what drove me away from dKos and compelled me to cancel my subscription to "The Nation."

    Endorsing one candidate does not mean you have to trash their opponent...especially in a primary.  

    I'm beginning to wonder about Obama's legendary "people skills".  If he's so good at dealing with people why is there such opposition to him within his own party?  

    Are posters like Obama2008 actually an accurate reflection of Barack Obama?

    Parent

    95% of Obama's campaign (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    is about trashing Hillary.  I have yet to hear one compelling reason to vote for him based on his beliefs or his qualifications.  Most of what I hear from his campaign is that people should vote for him because of Hillary's voting record or the things she and/or her surrogates have allegedly said.  Pathetic, really, that he brings virtually nothing of his own to the table.  

    Parent
    Let's start with... (5.00 / 8) (#136)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    • describing her as 'shrill'
    • referring to her 'cackle' when she laughs
    • accusing her of 'crying' to get votes (even tho a tear never fell; she just got choked up)
    • constantly belittling her role as 'first lady' as though she was just polishing silver for 8 years
    • stating that she owes her success to her husband
    • calling her 'witchy', 'she-devil'
    • comparing her to a 'strip-teaser'
    • constant references to her pantsuits
    • signs that say 'iron my shirt'
    • citizens united not timid website
    • comments about her 'crazy eyes'
    • comments about her being 'hysterical'
    • comments aobut having her 'claws out'
    • comments about 'throwing china'

    That just represents a portion of what has been said by Obama, his surrogates and the pundits (redundancy alert).

    Parent
    There were so many "last straws" (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by befuddled on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:45 AM EST
    they make up a bale for me. Can you say "Bros for Hos" tee shirts? It may be a private enterprise, but if it's printed and a message people can read, it's media. To say nothing of YouTube vids. If there were any "higher ground" in the Obama campaign such attacks wouldn't be happening in such frequency at the low level because they wouldn't reflect core values and be tolerated.

    Parent
    Well I don't think... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    ...they can control a lot of that stuff, any more than they can control Rev. Wright.  They can condemn it, and maybe they haven't been vocal enough.  

    Parent
    That Is The Whole Point (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST
    They have not condemn it anymore than Obama has condemn the Tavis Smiley death threats and harassment of his family members. IMO that was much too serious to let slide.  

    Parent
    Not Vocal Enough, how about (none / 0) (#236)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    not vocal at all.

    Parent
    They haven't been vocal at all (none / 0) (#239)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    I cannot think of a single instance where Obama or any of his campaign staff even deigned to notice the misogyny of this campaign, let alone spoke against it.  They can't control what other people say or do, but they have complete control over what they don't say and don't do.  I will never vote for that man.

    Parent
    racism, sexism (3.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:50:59 AM EST
    I think there is too much -ism being thrown around.

    I'm impervious to Obama's charm; it reminds me a little too much of the Werner Ehrard-type (as I wrote once on DKos) but that doesn't make me a racist.

    I don't like Hillary either. I respect her achievements (as I do Obama's) and I don't doubt her abilities, but she reminds me of Michelle Forbes' character on 24. Her seeming inability to come to terms with being wrong on Iraq is another thorn to me.

    I disliked Maggie Thatcher, for kind of the same reasons as I don't like Hillary, even though her politics were different. I like Madeline Albright however. I'd vote for her if she ran for office.

    I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, because clearly it's the right thing to do, of course.

    Parent

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:22:50 AM EST
    I'm clearly not impervious, as I voted for him.  Of course, I had to vote for somebody, and my primary wasn't disregarded.  

     she reminds me of Michelle Forbes' character on 24

     I own up.  Never watch that piece of garbage (although I've liked her since Ensign Ro, but I'm a geek).  As long as she doesn't bring Admiral Cain to mind I'd be fine.  

     Racism and sexism was bound to surface once they became the frontrunners, though.  Demographics if nothing else.  They're both imperfect candidates.  I tend to think that the media is more comfortable exploiting sexism, though.    

     I think you and I are roughly on the same page, of course.  Which makes it easy to find agreement, although I do think race and gender played a complicated role in this primary.

     I wasn't really around for the Thatcher era (thank God), but I don't think she and Senator Clinton are equivalent.  Senator Clinton reminds me more of Blair...which, a few years ago, would have been praise.

    Parent

    I was totally wrong... (none / 0) (#227)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM EST
    ...about Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro).

    I only watched the first two seasons of 24 before walking away in disgust. The President's wife -- Sherry Palmer -- was played by Penny Johnson Jerald. She was Cassidy Yates on DS9, hence my amazingly stupid confusion.

    I voted for Edwards in the California primaries, absentee ballot, so in effect I didn't have to choose between Obama and Clinton. I have no idea who I would have picked.

    Maggie Thatcher was a tough cookie, like Hillary Clinton; I recall reading recently that she is still the most admired Prime Minister in British history.

    I have a genuine dislike for authority figures who are self-righteous and will never admit to a mistake. Hillary Clinton (at least from a distance) comes across as that kind of person.

    But ultimately there are bigger issues here than my personal likes/dislikes.

    I am amazed and appalled that women on this site would rather jeopardize the right to abortion (amongst others) than vote for Obama.

    I expect that kind of behavior from redstate.org members, not TalkLeft's.

    Parent

    Did anyone see SNL this week? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:22:58 AM EST

    I have to say that I don't want to LIKE John McCain, but I LIKE HIM.  He was freaking hilarious in both segments he did, particularly the message from John McCain (re: the highways and the post offices, LOL)...his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren...and his great-great-grandchildren...LMAO!  You would never see Obama be so self-deprecating...or even humorous, and that's what might win John McCain some fans of his own.

    The little "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" bit with Obama and Clinton was a bit eh.  But John...love him.

    Self-deprecating side of McCain is going to hurt (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    Obama with his image of arrogance -- you called it.

    That and the POW hero narrative, the military leadership, the long experience . . . the Repubs, for all their floundering at the start, couldn't have culled a better candidate against either of our candidates.  But with her own historic narrative and long experience plus finally letting her warmth (which many of us had seen in her for years) come through, Clinton is the better contender for us.  

    She does the self-deprecation well, as well.  Obama, not so much; it seems so scripted, an act, as with so much else he does.  He has gotten better on the campaign trail, but I don't think it's enough yet.

    Parent

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#225)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST

    Clinton is the better contender.  Better than Obama, definitely.  Better than McCain...yeah, she's a modern Dem.  Usually better than a modern Repub.

    But like Breitweiser said, Obama--if he becomes the nominee--is going to have many, many problems attacking McCain on any level and winning the GE.  He would be a fool to try the approach of the war, with McCain's sons serving in the military...he would be a fool to attack his age (his comment about McCain "losing his bearings" is already getting some bad press for him)...and he's painted himself into a corner re: the Republican slant, since Obama has been extolling the virtues of the Reagan Years since...well, since forever.  Some people see him as a closet Republican.  And you know...come to think of it...I don't think I've even heard Obama say ANYTHING positive about the Democratic party.  It's all about the Obama Party.  And that's just not going to fly in the GE...especially if he truly believes he can coast to the Presidency via rich latte drinkers with college degrees and young people only.

    Parent

    If the Republicans (none / 0) (#240)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    had nominated anyone but McCain, I'd think the Democrats would have an easy win no matter who they ran.  Clinton, Obama, PeeWee Herman for that matter - any of them would stomp Huckabee or Paul or Romney flat.

    But McCain doesn't seem like a nut or a Bush clone, no matter what his voting record actually is.  He comes across as a smart, likable guy, a little hot-tempered, maybe, but hey, nobody's perfect.  There are worse things than getting riled up, right?

    The Republicans aren't stupid.  Unfortunately.

    Parent

    Please ban (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:40 AM EST
    Obama 2008 you know it...I'm guessing it's a republican troll trying to drum up McCain votes because I've never seen an Obama supporter act that rude.

    And for the record, I wont vote Obama...but I don't like to see people mid/disinforming voters.

    i like (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:06:22 AM EST
    kittens and bunnies and log cabins?

    Parent
    Isn't it fascinating how like Obama (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:07:10 AM EST
    many of his supporters are:  coming around at a time when posters are not usually around?  Like their candidate using every excuse in the universe not to debate his main competitor. I don't know why they do it seeing that they are not exactly persuading anyone to their point of view.  I have to give them credit for some persistence.  But no one is as persistent and focused as Hillary Clinton; poised, intelligent without the arrogance, calm under pressure.  That kind of nobility of spirit cannot be duplicated.

    Parent
    Because Obama can't think on his feet (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM EST
    that's why he does so poorly in debates.  I can't blame him for not wanting to debate.

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    Ever see Obama's press conferences? Painful....Bush is more articulate on his feet--and that's scary.

    Parent
    Surely You Must Be The Republican (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:17:58 AM EST
    posting on this site. Only a Republican would go out of their way to anger voters that Obama needs in November. Please do us a favor and crawl back into your hole.  

    Parent
    Never seen an Obama supporter be that rude?? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:49:09 AM EST
    Are you kidding? Have you been to the comments section on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost? These are some of the most foul-mouthed, obnoxious, adolescent, bullies I've ever seen in my life.

    Parent
    Because his movement (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    is full of a***holes like you.

    Parent
    Because I don't like him. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:43:18 AM EST
    he's inexperienced and is not nearly as knowledgeable on the issues as Hillary.

    Parent
    Why won't I vote Obama? (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:58:19 AM EST

    • Very LITTLE experience getting legislation passed on his own, without other peoples' help/taking credit for their hard work.

    • Tough to pin down on his positions.  From abortion to energy, the guy doesn't have a solid position on anything, and whatever positions he DOES say that he has speaks to localized audiences (i.e., he changes positions all the time/panders).  He supported Roberts before he voted against him (because someone TOLD him to).  He held leftist pro-Palestinian views before he was told to dump them in order to become politically viable to Jews/Zionists.  Is he, or isn't he? is a question that he can't make go away on ANY issue.

    • He's dumb.  He may've graduated from Harvard, but I know dumb people who've graduated from Harvard (see:  Current President).  He will be a figurehead leader (if he gets that far) who will rely on other people telling him what to do.  He pushed the wrong buttons on votes at least six times;  Hendon (they guy he stole that "landmark" bill re: videotaped confessions in IL) defends him by saying "It can happen!" but then Hendon admits that he's never done it himself.  His writing is no better than the most educated LiveJournaller.  He may be a decent storyteller, but we don't need a storylteller in the WH.  We need a doer and a fighter.

    • He is NOT the FIRST viable "black candidate" for President.  To say so would be an insult to all other black candidates that came before him.

    • He is immature.  All of those hand gestures, the snide comments about Hillary, the tantrum he had in front of reporters after tanking badly after OH and TX..."sweetie"..."PA people clinging to guns and religion".  Shifting goal posts during this entire primary season ("Super delegates mustn't overturn the will of the people...oh wait, super delegates SHOULD overturn the will of the people if it works for me!").  Not even bothering to tell his supporters (like you) to cut the $hit and stop being so rude to Clintonites because you're gonna need us to win the GE.  Not bothering to muzzle his wife the way Hills muzzled Bill...everything Michelle Obama's said in this cycle is ten times worse than anything Bill said.  It's all a sign of immaturity.

    • Michelle Obama.  I don't want her as First Lady.  She disgusts me with her blatantly angry, anti-American comments.  I'd rather see Cindy McCain up there.

    I could go on and on and on....

    Parent
    where have you been? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:58:47 AM EST
    i see/hear that tone constantly from o-bots, both on blogs and in person.

    Parent
    sadly, this troll knows too many (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    ...Obama talking points to be GOP. He sounds like your average Kossack to me. It's just jarringly disrespectful and provocative to see those remarks folded into a pro-Clinton discussion.

    Honestly, if he's a GOP troll, he's getting his material from DK.

     

    Parent

    That's hardly surprising. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:45:00 AM EST
    I've suspected there were Republican shills and mobies this primary, and I wonder if you could see an uptick in them after McCain nailed the nomination.

    Being from Daily Kos does not rule out being a Republican or Independent.  In fact, some of the most obsequious and fawning comments I've seen were to diarists who were Republican but have seen the light and come to Obama.

    The "feminist for Obama" got a similar reception - which implies that there's not that many outspoken feminists there anymore.

    Parent

    Probably did get this stuff from Dkos (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Burned on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    And the one trolling DKos this morning for Clinton got hers from some seriously vitriolic anti Obama site. I don't go round to read them so I couldn't name any in particular. I won't quote it but the diarist does use the word cockroach and pig and fraud. A few commenters said she came from talkleft.

    If all this isn't a republican scam it is accomplishing the same end, so it should be treated the same way. I think it is well past time to not take this stuff seriously anymore.

    Parent

    boredmpa- sad to say, Obama supporters act (none / 0) (#133)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:49:57 AM EST
    this rude and worse every day. I and others have been chased off sites simply for supporting Hillary and called every foul name in the book- even "republican." Thes Obama people call her the "b" name as casually as we breathe.

    Parent
    When you're called a Republican... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:02:40 AM EST

    ...remind yourself that the Republicans were the ones who freed the slaves and signed the Civil Rights Act a hundred years later.  It was the Dixiecrats who became Confederates and who didn't really want to sign the CRA into law.

    Also, it was a large group of black Republicans who got elected to Congress after the slaves were freed.

    In the elections of 1867 and 1868, to the shock of Democrats everywhere, the Republican Party swept the elections--with 90 percent of eligible Black voters participating. But in only two states were there Black majorities. This meant that across the South, poor whites were also exercising their newfound rights in the hopes of forming a new society by giving their support and votes to the Republican Party.

    Blacks for the first time--two years removed from slavery--were elected to state governments and the United States Congress. Six hundred Black Republicans joined state legislatures, fourteen went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and two went to the U.S. Senate. Six became lieutenant governors, and thousands more took lesser offices including as judges and sheriffs.


    source

    Parent
    LBJ was a Republican? (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    Since when?? It was the DEMOCRATS who pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress. LBJ pulled in every favor he was owed, did a bit of judicious blackmail, and knowing it would cost the Dems the South for a generation, got the Civil Rights Act through. It was TRUMAN, a Democrat, who desegregated the military when he heard that German POWs were getting better seats on trains because they were white and the black GIs were made to ride in second-class. And all those black legislators after the Civil War were put in place by carpetbaggers to vote the way they were told. That caused a backlash that lasted for 100 years. Didn't do much for the black community other than make people more determined to keep them down. Which the Republicans have been doing ever since, in case you didn't notice. Read the Congressional Record for the real story on what happened and who did what. It will give you a whole different perspective on the history of the Civil Rights Act.

    Parent
    Hate to rain on your parade, but... (none / 0) (#223)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    Here are the stats for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, via Wiki;  by "more" I meant percentage-wise within their respective parties:

    By party

    The original House version:

    • Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
    • Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

    The Senate version:

    • Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)
    • Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:

    • Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
    • Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

    More NORTHERN Democrats (percentage-wise) passed it than Northern Republicans, yes, but in all, more Repubs passed it than Dems w/in their own parties.

    And it was the Republicans in Congress who overrode Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

    Your writing as if the Republicans have always tried to keep the black man down.  So that was Lincoln's intent?  To keep them down?  This victim mentality doesn't get anyone anywhere.

    And all those black legislators after the Civil War were put in place by carpetbaggers to vote the way they were told.

    You're completely wrong about that, BTW.

    Parent

    You're not your, whoops. n/t (none / 0) (#226)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:35:37 AM EST


    Parent
    i meant (none / 0) (#235)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    never on this site.

    i've visited dailykos less than 10 times in my life, ditto with huffpo.

    Parent

    Was that before or after.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
    Obama ran the commercials pointing out that Republicans could change their registration to Dem throughout PA?

    Parent
    Hello, Karl? (nt) (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:30:01 AM EST


    You are so outa here! (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:29:28 AM EST


    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:36:52 AM EST
    I don't know what you are smoking but you should share. It must be nice to live is such a state of denial. Taunt all you want. Nobody here cares. The people that will have the last laugh are those millions of working class Americans who cling to their guns and religion because they are gonna turn their ammo on your candidate and vote McCain.

    It couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people

    With any luck, you will go to Canada.

    Poster is a Coward (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by ccpup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:48:20 AM EST
    and Troll.  Best to ignore and let him do his thing in a corner by himself.

    Parent
    Troll-Rated (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:22:35 AM EST
    for being the filthiest comment I've ever seen on here.


    Parent
    I support Obama but NOT this poster (none / 0) (#180)
    by HelenK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    If  you are really an Obama supporter, why would you come here just to insult, to give Obama supporters a worse reputation than they already have?  

     I come here to engage in discussion. It ususally devolves into something less than an actual discussion, but I call foul on your ugly rhetoric.

    How dare you call people old ladies? What does that accomplish?

    ugh

    Parent

    Come on... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:54:18 AM EST
    ...there's no need for you to post here, and judging by your comments, anywhere.  I'm an Obama supporter.  You're making us look bad on one of the more prominent Clinton blogs. Go away.

    And you wonder (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:12:30 AM EST
    why there will be no unity.

    Parent
    Has SuperObamaMan gone now? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:40:28 AM EST
    I just registered -- been reading this site (and NoQuarter thanks to this site as well), and thought it's time to register -- that "Uniter" we just had gave me no choice, why?

    Because I SEE it clearly now!

    And it's quite possibly the most ASTOUNDING thing I've ever experienced!

    The Double-Talk, and Fuzzy-Logic -- wow! Shocking!

    So Obama1884? Is this your way to woo Hillary Supporters? You're mad really.

    Btw, I'm male, I'm extremely educated, I'm of the "Creative Class", and I'd rather burn in Hell than join ObamaClan, you "supporters" make me sick - seriously.

    Parent

    No thank you (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:57:14 AM EST
    I am not voting for Obama. Not now, not in November, not ever. I won't be happy until he is out of politics.

    And you can't count either (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:03:00 AM EST
    You're funny junior. But I'm going to bed now. Thanks for the laugh before I turn in. I will be chuckling in my dreams over that one.

    Do you self a favor and go take your meds. Your friends, family and fellow students will appreciate it. If you don't have meds, I can recommend someone for you.

    Good night

    I shouldn't bother but what the hell (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:10:00 AM EST
    Did you not realize that getting the nomination doesn't get you the presidency. You have to win a general election and you don't have the states or EV. As for all those OLD women, apparently you don't realize they live in FL and PA lol. And those bitter rednecks clinging to their guns live in OH, MO, NV, NM and all points in between.

    Ok, that is it for me. If I get banned for going head to head with you it will be worth it. You are a deranged idiot. You know they have people that can address that....in all states.

    Parent

    That comment (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:03:16 AM EST
    is going to get you banned. She has said that she will vote for the Democratic nominee. She spends countless hours running this site, a small fortune to maintain it and you accuse her of this.

    Jeralyn will vote her conscience and I will vote mine.

    Soooo...how 'bout them Cubbies? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:16:31 AM EST
    I think we're going all the way this year!

    May I prescribe a dose (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:27:02 AM EST
    of Weird Al YouTube videos?

    They'll change your life!

    Or at least a fry a few brain cells...

    And just for today's troll... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:28:55 AM EST
    Dare To Be Stupid!

    Parent
    Where Is Autoban (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:23:25 AM EST
    when you need it?

    Wouldn't work. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    The dk autoban often takes days to work.

    However, Trolls are a great excuse to practice replying rationally to the clearly irrational.  (And also practicing great restraint when we choose our words.)

    Parent

    Thanks For the Info (none / 0) (#212)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    on autoban.

    One interesting aspect of this individual's now-removed posts is that I learned there is no restriction on the number of 1's I can hand out.

    He/she got a bunch of them.

    Parent

    An Honest Question (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    So, I'm sure the Obama troll here with his disgusting commentaries about bitter old women, old hags, etc. will get disappeared when Jeralyn returns. But he reminded me of a question that I haven't been able to answer for myself - can someone explain to me what it is about Obama that has attracted such kinds of sorry excuses for human beings? And, no, I do not think he was a Republican - I have seen too many Obama supporters use the same kind of trash talk and worse at Daily Kos and other places.

    If I were a parent of one those guys, I would be so ashamed of them and so disappointed.

    Why does Obama attract these kinds of creeps? In the old days, I would have thought that people like that - people who are willing to refer to Clinton supporters as c*ts, b*ches, bitter hags, etc - would be attracted to the republican party, not the democratic party.

    Dr. Molly... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:32:34 AM EST
    I don't think this is an Obama troll.  Even the most radical of Obama's supporters wouldn't be THAT rude.  This is a Republican troll.

    Parent
    well, (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:49:31 AM EST
    I respect you and your answer, but I respectfully disagree. I have watched closely the Obama supporters at DailyKos, BoomanTribune, HuffPo, and other places. They are democrats and Obama supporters and they are this bad and worse. The latest phrase they use for Clinton supporters is The Dry P**sy Club and the Women's Studies Set (dogwhistle anyone?)

    What I've realized during this campaign? With respect to women, there is little difference btw many democratic and republican men. How else to explain the similarities btw Rush Limbaugh's trashing of Hillary and other women as 'feminazis' and the kind of phraseology use by the Obama supporters today?

    I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I wish it weren't true.

    Parent

    That whole "Women's Studies Set" thing (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:06:34 AM EST
    is what got kos in trouble during the pie wars.

    The other? Geeze...

    Parent

    digdugboy wrote (none / 0) (#163)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    a now-deleted diary that I would have loved to read.

    If you look it up the title makes it obvious what his stance was.

    I consider this the Great Blog Pie Fight, the inevitable sequel to the original Daily Kos Pie Fight.  Different trigger, same battle.

    Parent

    I'll Bow To Your Experience (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    I gave up on dKos months ago.  In retrospect, it was comments exactly like those of this poster that drove me away.

    If this is what the Democratic party has disintegrated into we're in more trouble than anyone realizes.

    Parent

    Dr. Molly Does Have A Point (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:53:50 AM EST
    There is a segment of Obama supporters who have descended to a similar level of discourse on DKos and other Obama blogs. They, unfortunately, are not Republicans since they were members of those communities before the primaries began. My vote for this troll is Republican also, but it is hard to tell sometimes.

    Parent
    I think Mister Misogynism (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:57:42 AM EST
    should about cover Obama2008.

    He never misses a chance to insult women specifically.  No matter what his political leanings, I think we can be sure that he's suffering from intransigent sexism.  Perhaps he would be happier in an all male environment, since he seems to think they are the superior gender?

    Parent

    No I Think His Inferiority Is Showing (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:01:43 AM EST
    Little man, little brain and little .... (fill in the blank)

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:05:51 AM EST
    I'm going to leave for the day now - I am so upset about Obama2008 and his commentary that I know if I continue here I will soon be banned myself. And, no, I do not believe he is a republican. I think he is a democratic Obama supporter. Sad.

    I think it's worth comparing the language used decades ago by republicans against Hillary and other women (feminazi, etc.) and the language being used now by some democrats against Hillary. I think it is a very important lesson.

    Bye.

    Parent

    College or Prison? (none / 0) (#195)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Respectfully disagree here, too. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:19:27 AM EST

    The Republicans are too bust laughing at BOTH Obama and Clinton fighting it out to care.  Plus John's having barbecues...I can only assume that his supporters are also just as amused and are waiting with open arms for the Clintonites who're too peeved off to come join them and bring the potato salad.

    Parent
    I'm bringing this one (none / 0) (#199)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    Dang, that sounds good. (none / 0) (#229)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST

    Seriously, the best barbecue I've ever had was made by Republicans (in Texas), LOL.  Texas-style barbecue.

    Well dang, now I'm starving.  For barbecue.  At 8:30 AM in the morning.

    Parent

    i'll bring the ambrosia (none / 0) (#203)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM EST


    Parent
    This is but a glimpse (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:49:07 AM EST
    of the "New ODemocratic Party," I think/fear. It's the party of "The Manchurian Candidate," with a few added twists.

    The kool-aide runs heavy in the streets; they have taken to mainlining it now.

    Parent

    An honest answer to your question... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:41:29 AM EST
    ...would probably go something like this:

     Dedicated misogynists would leap to Camp Obama.

     Dedicated racists would leap to Camp Clinton.

     At least, within the Democratic primary.

     I'm an Obama supporter and to my knowledge I haven't used that kind of language.  

     On the other hand, I genuinely believe that sexist language is more acceptable to more people (not that it is right, mind you, but for whatever reason more people find it more acceptable) and online it is way more acceptable.  That helps explain what you see on the blogosphere (at least political ones; the law blogs I frequent are way less political).  

     For what it is worth, I think using any of the terms you cite to describe female candidates is shameful, regardless of party affiliation. Of the ones you mention, I think "bitter hags" may be the worst.  It doesn't have the punch of the C or B words, but for some reason it seems more demeaning.  

    Parent

    I totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:50:26 AM EST
    with your last paragragh, Alec.

    Parent
    Bitter hag (none / 0) (#241)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    implies that the woman in question is that least-valued creature of all - a woman no man wants to f*.  A b!tch or a c* is simply one he doesn't want to deal with afterwards.

    Parent
    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:39:57 AM EST
    and everyone in my family! (7)

    If you'd been paying attention (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    you'd know that Jeralyn has announced that as soon as the primaries are over and there is an official candidate (nominated at the convention...not self declared), this site will turn over and work to get the Democratic nominee elected.

    So kindly take your divisive form of discourse and go somewhere where your really rather cliched, actually, POV is appreciated.

    At this point, you've become the type of representative for your candidate that Senator Feingold cautioned against months ago.

    The primaries are not over.

    And I for one... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    ...look forward to that day!

     The Democratic nominee will be the Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be...

     Plus, more crime talk.

    Parent

    Ignore the troll (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    the more you feed it, the more he responds.

    Ignore him and he will go away.

    The commercial wizard waves his magic schtick. (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by wurman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    Hey, Jeralyn.

    Maybe you can get your web guru to banish this fool's IP address.  He must have registered under scores of names, because as soon as you ban him on Monday, he's back on Tuesday.

    I don't get it either.  His website can't appeal to anyone here.

    He's dumber than the GOoPer troll pretending to be an Obama supporter.

    What about a smite button for a couple of your "trusted" regular posters when all the working adults are asleep?

    W

    Oh Timmeh (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by ruffian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    Anyone see that? Russert and his panel were ridiculing Clinton's comments about the press (yesterday she said they don't have to worry about being unemployed, putting their kids through college, etc) as being sure signs of being in the end stages of a dead campaign.  3 minutes later Timmeh congratulates his son on graduating from Boston College.

    He sure doesn't suffer from any troubling self-awareness.  Must be nice.

    Bitter (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    You keep flinging that word around.  It appears in almost every post you make.

    Methinks you doth protest too much.  Methinks YOU are the one who is bitter...bitter because your candidate isn't experiencing the cakewalk you expected to see.  Bitter because your sense of entitlement has been offended.  Bitter because thinking people have the gall to question your candidate's abilities.

    I note that nowhere...NOWHERE in any of your posts is there anything in support of Barack Obama.  They're all direct shots at Hillary.

    Now there's "bitter".

    Check out this article from a progressive (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by bjorn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    article African American polisci professor at Univ o Pen

    Obama is no JFK or RFK (none / 0) (#202)
    by bjorn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST


    Parent
    And not even a TFK... (none / 0) (#213)
    by fperkins on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    (Well, I actually don't know Teddy's middle initial).  It's just that comparisons to two men who died relatively early in their political careers and about whom rather significant information about their personal lives was either concealed or destroyed during their lifetimes is a little spurious.  Teddy Kennedy, as second longest serving senator, has had quite the opportunity to pick up baggage, as it were, and his reputation has certainly seen some highs and lows. And I may be misremembering as I didn't live in the US at the time, but it sure seems like the Kennedy comparisons were broadly invoked (perhaps even by tfk?) when the mantle was being handed to WJC.  Did the family ask for it back before the Feb. 5th primaries?

    Parent
    Teddy (none / 0) (#222)
    by michitucky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    Edward Moore Kennedy

    Parent
    Outstanding Article! (none / 0) (#218)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    Thank you for posting the link.  I hope everyone reads this.

    Parent
    Wow - it must have been quite a Late Nite (5.00 / 4) (#214)
    by Anne on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    here while I was sleeping...glad I didn't get to see the offending comments.  The little bits that showed up in all of your responses were enough to tell me they were really over the top.

    I have to tell you, my news media blackout - no Sunday shows, no nightly news - is great.  It was time, since about all I was doing was hurling insults at the TV, and shouting, "what about this, you a-hole - why don't you tell us all about that?"

    Oh, well...guess I'm officially a "low-information voter," huh?  Since I don't have the likes of Timmy and Brian and the rest telling me what I need to know to make an informed decision about the election...

    I guess the saying is true: ignorance IS bliss!

    ;-)

    Obama2008 You Know It.. Read THIS (4.66 / 3) (#47)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:44:03 AM EST
    You don't seem to get something fundamentally different about your posts compared with others on this site.

    You seem to be behaving like all other Obama supporters that some of us are so tired of. Insisting, telling us how we should feel, how we should vote, how "you lost", and how we should "deal with it".

    It does not demonstrate respect. This election is about our country, not a game of pick-up basketball.

    When Hillary's supporters post about Obama or about their own candidate or about their own dilemma(s) they now face - they are talking about their own selves, their choices, and how they feel about this country, the Democratic Party.

    I doubt you'll get the difference. Since, personally speaking, I have found Obama's campaign, and his support has been all about "the other", and rarely about "the self". But if you do get what I am saying, and modify your posts  accordingly, then perhaps people will read your posts -- instead of, as I am going to do, simply put you in my .ignore file.

    See you in November!

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:52:28 AM EST
    You seem to be behaving like all other Obama supporters

     Watch it.  He's clearly just trolling.  His comments are beyond the pale, he'll be deleted and banned soon enough.  No need to respond his posts, no need to attack Senator Obama's more sober supporters in the process.  

    Parent

    This is why (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:01:46 AM EST

    we're tired of you.  You don't quote in full/take stuff out of context.

    You seem to be behaving like all other Obama supporters that some of us are so tired of.

    That's his FULL quote.  If you're an Obama supporter that we're not tired of, clearly his comment doesn't apply to you.  However, when you chopped off half his quote, you certainly are making yoruself out to be "one of those" Obama supporters.  D:

    Parent

    not to mention (none / 0) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:10:55 AM EST
    the innocent questions on whether sexism has really happened or not and, if so, where. good grief - i don't even bother to reply to those kinds of things anymore. if, at this point, someone has to actually ask whether sexism has been all that bad during this campaign, ya really have to wonder if they're choosing to be blind and deaf.

    Parent
    If all I read were (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:27:06 AM EST
    Obama Is Great! articles maybe I'd...

    Wait, no, strike that.  I've seen "Obama is great!  He sure showed that _, __ __, didn't he?" flavor of posts.

    It's almost impossible to find Obama support without the CDS, unless you are deliberately trying to do it - and that implies that you are aware of the thing you are trying to avoid.

    Parent

    My question... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:24:50 AM EST
    ...wasn't "if" there was sexism, but in which way, and how Senator Clinton's supporters perceived it.  And yeah, it is a complicated question.  As I said before, questions about sexism and racism were bound to emerge when they became the frontrunners.  Hardly controversial.

     

    Parent

    It's really not too complicated (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM EST
    just look at the language used here by the Obamabot - this stuff is all over the internet and the media.

    Parent
    Yeah but come on... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:49:18 AM EST
    ...he's a troll.  And I guess I'm not as interested in the open universe of the internet as I am in the more controlled environment of the news media.  

    Parent
    Can't agree... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:17:10 AM EST
    ...not when the "qualifier" is "all other Obama supporters that some" of you are tired of.  I thought of that when responding, but the language you are suggesting is not the language that was used.  

     "All the other" would give some nuance.  Not "all other."

     And I don't think that responding with "this is why we're tired of you" is particularly helpful either. I think I understand what you're getting at, but nuance is (unfortunately) important, particularly when one is dealing with bare text.  

    Parent

    You can't see it. (none / 0) (#150)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:08:38 AM EST

    But we can.

    Original quote:  You seem to be behaving like all other Obama supporters that some of us are so tired of.

    Take out the specific:  You seem to be behaving like all that some of us are so tired of.

    Replace it with something else:  You seem to be behaving like all other apples that some of us are so tired of.

    It still means the same thing, and does NOT lump ALL Obama supporters together.  

    And either way, never chop off the end of a quote to suit your needs.

    Parent

    Please.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:15:44 AM EST
    ...you're trying to rewrite the rules of the English language? To what end? I get attacked here even if I say something in support of Senator Clinton.  

    Parent
    No, not re-write, enforce. (none / 0) (#167)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:26:59 AM EST

    It's still not cool to cut off part of a quote that's integral to the quote's meaning.

    Parent
    Fine.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:35:28 AM EST
    ...full quote:

     "You seem to be behaving like all other Obama supporters that some of us are so tired of."

     Shocking. No change in meaning, no matter how you slice it.

     All other Obama supporters.

     Only some "of us" are tired of all other Obama supporters.  

     Even if I quoted the whole thing it makes no difference.  

    Parent

    I'll be honest... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST
    As a first year comp prof, I read it not as an attack on you...rather as a comment on a particular type of candidate supporter that seem to be more intent on denigrating the opposition than supporting the chosen candidate.

    But that's speaking only for me.

    Parent

    Like this one (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    Only I only love only you. Pick your only and the sentence meaning changes.  I loved my English comp professor.  I was in an engineering school where most profs thought you wrote well if you knew enough to put a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and a punctuation mark at the end. Not him.  My thanks to you on behalf of your grateful students who forget to say it.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:05:32 AM EST
    This was a NY Times article on Obama a few months ago:
    Mr. Obama spent much of his time alone, curtailing his dating life after his first summer, when he met his future wife, a Harvard Law graduate named Michelle Robinson who was working in Chicago. He often played pickup basketball, replacing his deliberative off-court style with sharp elbows and aggressive grabs for the ball.


    Parent
    I don't know why (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Serene1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:22:08 AM EST
    but Obama is still a blank slate for me. I mean I know his story in his own words, the msms' words, his enemies words etc. etc. But yet I know nothing about him  - his motivations, his belief, his priciples, his values, his likes his dislikes nothing. As a candidate he mostly mouths platitudes and his talks border on the spiritual. His actions though show him as nothing other than a good politician. His friends, associations wtc. is another mystery.


    Parent
    Blank Slate (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:14:28 AM EST
    Barack Obama is a blank slate to me, too, and I live right across the river from Illinois.

    Ever since his 2004 keynote speech I've watched eagerly for news of Barack Obama's accomplishments and/or leadership.  Nothing.  Zip.  Zero.  Nada.  

    For a while there I thought he was the best thing since sliced bread but I've learned that, like bread, he's mostly air.

    Parent

    Evidently (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:06:01 AM EST
    he had a wildly successful voter registration drive when he was a community organizer in chicago.  that and hillary voting for the war clearly qualifies him to be leader of the free world.  oy.

    Parent
    You might like (none / 0) (#224)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    this cartoon then.

    Obama on Obama

    Parent

    Loved It! Many Thanks. n/t (none / 0) (#234)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Watch out too for the good cop/bad cop routine. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:49:14 AM EST
    As of today, I am an independent for Hillary.  I like the idea of checks and balances in govt.  I want the democrats to continue in control of congress and the president from a different party if it is not Hillary. Hillary I trust not to abuse the powers of the presidency.  I'ld like the senate to be in democratic hands so that a republican president cannot insist on his nominations for the judges and other vital cabinet positions.


    Parent
    Ain't That Lonely Yet (none / 0) (#5)
    by bridget on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:23:00 AM EST
    is my alltime favorite Dwight Yoakam song

    the first years in the 90s were such a fabulous time for country music then things went downhill and I lost interest although my fav. music remained country.

    Then one day I drove to the supermarket and the radio played "Ain't That Lonely Yet." I couldn't believe my ears. What a great song that was. I stopped my car until the song was finished. Dwight singlehanded saved country for me again at that v. moment. Bought the cd right away.

    thanks Jeralyn :-)
    I  always liked that video and watch it often.

    Obama's True Colors... (none / 0) (#86)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:45:06 AM EST
    will shine through in time....

    I just read that Chicago Tribune article that was posted just above (thx btw)....very insightful and telling -- Obama is the ultimate opportunist...

    California has a good chance of turning red. (none / 0) (#102)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:16:08 AM EST

    But of course, you're going to spout some nonsense about Devil!Hillary in response.  And I'll spout some "nonsense" facts about how California was a red state before Bill Clinton turned it blue, about how our REPUBLICAN Governator is highly popular, about how the Latino vote here in California is NOT afraid of voting for McCain...all down the void of hot air that goes between your ears.

    Sweetie, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    I see it now!  Obama, I coming to you, my Lord, My Savior, my Messiah!  You will save me and lift me from my despair. [snark]

    Obama will also probably make Dukakis look like a political genius in the GE.

    I doubt if NY will go red, (none / 0) (#157)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    but MA is going to go to McCain if Obama is the nominee.  And CA could easily go red again also.  To use your words, "Deal with it."
    Boston Boomer (none / 0) (#171)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:29:07 AM EST

    What makes you say that McCain will take MA?  I ask because I lived in MA for 22 years and I know the climate there (MA isn't afraid to elect Republicans, and neither is California), but I'm wondering what makes YOU say it.

    Parent
    in at least one MA. poll in April (none / 0) (#174)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST
    McCain and Obama were tied. Generally, Obama does not poll as well as Hillary in Massachusetts. Plus, Deval Patrick, whose Axlerod-managed campaign was the template for Obama's--including some cut-and-pasting, has proven to be UN-inspiring in office to a lot of people there. Buyer's remorse has set in on Patrick and is splashing over onto Obama, his political ("hope and change and inspiration" and "just words") twin.

    Parent
    Hillary Interview on Late Edition (none / 0) (#189)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    Wolf Blitzer is going to have Hillary on Late Edition in about an hour!  

    It's all about the oratory (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:32:09 AM EST
    and to some extent the youth.  That's it.  Ridiculous to jump from there to real JFK comparisons, IMHO.

    But Vidal doesn't miss many chances to knock Kennedy, so I would take it with a grain of salt.

    But he's not that great a speaker... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    He's okay. But as far as oratorical skills go, Bobby and Jack were tons better.

    I can think of at least 10 different people who have better oratorical skills...including Edwards.

    Parent

    It is good relative (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by ruffian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    to what we have had lately though.  Most people don't really remember JFK and RFK. They think they are seeing the same thing, but of course they are not.

    Parent
    That is (none / 0) (#204)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    the Nightmare. Talk like that feeds the worst in us as a people. If this kind of rhetoric picks up steam, we are only adding new problems to the already burgeoning list of problems we can no longer afford to ignore or compromise away to ineffectiveness.

    Climate change, healthcare, inflation, energy shortages, Iraq and the whole Mideast and now we throw racial unrest into the mix?

    I see a bad moon rising.

    Overnight and Early AM Open Thread | 194 comments (194 topical)