22
Assholes
Wow:
I got really emotional about it before I realized that I would vote McCain and a straight top to bottom GOP lineup if Hillary isn’t the nominee and leave the party if Florida isn’t counted.
Its not about winning anymore. Its about whether the Democratic party and its anti democracy is worth defending or if the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in decade is a better use of my vote.
We’re not backing down! The fight has just begun!!!! Pennsylvania is around the corner and a large victory is excepted. Polls in West Virginia also strongly favor her. Polls in North Carolina that have favored Obama are now virtually tied. There will be big surprises in North Carolina.
It’s not over. And I might also point out how inaccurate the Politico article that you quoted/linked to really is. If the superdelegates support Clinton there will be “a backlash of historic proportions”!?!? THEY WOULD BE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE CREATED FOR, JOSH. The superdelegates weren’t created to add fluff to the popular vote, but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can’t. They’re there for the same reason the electoral college is. For example, picking a glorified motivational speaker over an experienced leader (good example, eh?).
Well good.
I hope you guys enjoy four more years of war and a fucked-up economy.
Selfish assholes.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I’m not picking on all HRC supporters here. I have pro-Obama friends who have told me they won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, and I have similarly reamed them out.
Because even if you don’t like Hillary’s instincts on, say, foreign policy (which I don’t), the presidency is about much more than one person - it’s about appointing a cabinet. I cannot stand the thought of four more years of Gonzo-style shenanigans at the Justice Department, nor can I stomach having another labor secretary that doesn’t give a shit about labor rights. Even if you don’t personally like Clinton or Obama all that much, realize that they will appoint drastically better personnel to key positions of power than any Republican.
UPDATE II: And just to prove I’m being fair, I think Mr. Drum is right here:
So fine: Hillary’s chances are slim and maybe it’s time to withdraw. But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November? That’s crazy. There’s just no evidence that anyone in the Clinton campaign actually thinks this way. It’s like the 90s all over again and it’s driving me nuts.
My fellow Obama supporters need to get a grip. I know that resistance to CDS seems futile these days, but resist anyway! Hillary has a long, long history as a partisan animal. She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda. What’s more, on the level of pure political tactics, she knows perfectly well — and so should we — that if she loses neither she nor Bill will control anything and she’ll have no future presidential prospects in 2012 or any other year. It’s either 2008 or nothing for Hillary.
And if she gave even a hint of not supporting Obama wholeheartedly during the fall campaign? Not only would she have no future presidential prospects, she’d be lucky to escape being tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. She’d be the most reviled Democrat on Capitol Hill. She knows that too.
Yeppers.
Hillary knows she’s hated by the Republicans. She knows she can’t be hated by the Democrats as well. C’mon dudes, you may not like Hillary, but she’s not insane/stupid/evil.
OTB Saul said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:39
Bah. Right wing trolls. Divide-n-conquer jive. You’ll hear a lot more like it from random “Concerned Democrats” flooding the media channels.
Crissa said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:39
I don’t know who they are, but they’re hardly Democrats.
Tho, hard to blame the Florida folks.
Why is it so many voters are willing to look at only the image of the candidates and none of the issues?
(Uh, well, except for the part where Obama doesn’t actually look better than Clinton on the issues, I mean)
We do need a motivational speaker right now. Just as we need someone who knows how to run a truly Progressive hiring policy, or a health plan that not only works, but isn’t pre-gutted before it gets passed, or…
Well, any Democrat.
Stupid fairweather friends.
Rob (formerly In Toronto said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:41
I do not for the life of me understand any sane Democrat preferring McCain to Obama.
Of course I also don’t understand how any sane person could vote Republican after the last 7 years.
roy edroso said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:42
I hope you guys enjoy four more years of war and a fucked-up economy.
Well, it will give us more risible subject matter for our blogs.
On the other hand, that won’t matter when, due to hyper-accelerated Republican incompetence, the electrical grid collapses.
So I have to call it a win-win.
Stevious said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:43
wow, morons.
Steve said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:45
Are you going to make me stop reading Sadly, No!? I personally don’t put any stock into what two anonymous “Hillary supporters” that wrote Josh Marshall have to say. Were those the only two emails he got? Were they representative? At this point I would not want to buy whatever Josh is trying to sell me on the Hillary-Obama front.
MB said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:46
There is an INCREADIBLE irony in a supporter of a woman running for president holding up the Electoral College, which was designed to enshire the power of white landed men, as a good thing.
And this….
“but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can’t. ”
Just scares me. Man am I glad I moved to England.
Sniper said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:49
Hmph. I’ve seen plenty of supposedly progressive commenters - some on this very blog - call Senator Clinton a cunt, a bitch, and a monster, and accuse her supporters of having the “vapors”. There’s plenty of assholery going around, but I seriously doubt if anyone who is really a liberal can see a kindred spirit in an anti-choice, anti-gay, asshole who is now favoring torture despite being a victim of it. All the Clinton supporters I know intend to support Obama if he wins the nomination.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:49
What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:53
And Sniper is absolutely correct!
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:58
Sniper, I missed people calling her a bitch, a cunt or a monster here. I will say though that some Clinton supporters do have something like the vapors. Or maybe the heebie jeebies and you can slam me for that if you think it’s inappropriate. But as for the other stuff, why didn’t you call them on it when you saw it? In fact, why don’t you do it right now?
Fozzetti said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:00
Maybe Snipper thinks Doh-boy is Hillary?
Brad said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:01
Ugh, sorry, didn’t mean to start a Hillary-Obama pie fight with this.
This primary sucks.
caune said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:02
“What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?”
Gary my guess is he meant that he doesn’t vote for them so how the heck does he know? But he can’t exactly say that.
I know quite a few Clinton supports (8 to 10) who say they will not under any circumstance vote for Obama but not one Obama supporter who won’t vote for Clinton. and if you want some proof of that go to Taylor Marsh .com…it’s where some of the truly least democratic Democrats seem to be hanging out.
But I tell ya if she and her supporters keep praising Mclame at the expense of Obama it’s going to take every once of Democrat in me to vote for her if she’s the nom…but I live in Arizona and know how truly awful John McCain is, most people don’t.
Steve said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:03
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 16:49
What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?
“I am confident I will get her votes if I’m the nominee,” Obama stressed. “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”
Well I know for a fact that Obama does not engage in the politics of division, so let’s just move on.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:06
Six months ago my sister and I discussed how brutal this was going to get. This primary does suck. And Lawnguylander, I guess I have the vapors, I’d still like to know what Barack meant by his comment about his supporters.
Sniper said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:08
Or maybe the heebie jeebies and you can slam me for that if you think it’s inappropriate.
It is inappropriate, along with “hysterical” or “emotional” or “might bleed all over the constitution”. I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just point out that slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy. I’ve given money to Obama, but he’s not the candidate of my hopes and dreams. For some people he is, and I can see why. Maybe I’m just too old to have that kind of hope anymore.
That being said, McCain is George Bush with, perhaps, a worse temper and two extra I.Q. points. If the American people elect him, they’re literally asking for a continuation of the last disastrous 8 years.
Becca said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:08
Trolls, assholes… it’s all the same. If it’s the former, we know they’re just trying to cause trouble, much the same way some of the folks I knew on the various blogs would go haunt Powerline, LGF, Redstate and the other rad-right sites. Many would create whole personas about being ‘concerned conservative Christians’ — and then wait for a day to flame out in some spectacular way. And usually get banned right off.
If it’s the latter — assholery — well, yeah, if they vote for McCain or any other Republican, they are voting for a torture-authorizing police state, continuous war, economic buggery, an ever more polluted and stressed environment, and an America one step closer to total, irrevocable ruination.
Voting for McCain as a symbolic F-YOU to the Democratic party and the entire country because their (supposed) primary candidate didn’t win the nomination? The sheer self-absorbed infantile egoism of these sorts cannot be more blatant.
MB mentioned being glad to have moved to England. This California ex-pat is glad she’s living in India right now.
jeff said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:10
Brad’s a fine writer at times. It’s a little worrisome to me to see him get out of his depth and question the superior judgement of Clinton supporters. I mean, we like his funny stuff, but let’s let the adults handle destroying the party.
townser said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:10
I’m going to just pretend that I read those comments on say, a humor based site such as this one or poorman, rather than TPM and assume they are a joke. As noted above, how could any dem after the past seven years vote a straight repub ticket with any sincerity? And what point would that action prove? Actually, I can answer that question myself, it would prove you are a complete idiot.
jnfr said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:11
Supreme Court.
That is all.
lil' poopchute said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:14
I asked mom and dad for a pony but they bought me a bicycle instead. I hate mom and dad for not getting me a pony so I threw the bicycle in the lake. Hahaha. I hope they’re happy now.
Brad said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:15
It is inappropriate, along with “hysterical” or “emotional” or “might bleed all over the constitution”. I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just point out that slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy.
Exactly. My pet peeve is Democrats attacking other Democrats with wingnut talking points.
Optional said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:21
To answer your question, gary, it means Barack believes that he can get more independant and republican voters than Hillary can. He believes that all the people who would have voted for Hillary would also vote for him, and that some of the people that would normally have voted for McCain would vote for him instead.
Whether that’s true or not is an entirely different question. The point is, he is most definitely NOT signalling that his supporters would vote republican in a fit of pique if he doesn’t get elected.
And just to be clear, I’ve seen both Clinton and Obama supporters who say they would not vote for the other candidate, and anybody that ends up actually doing that, on either side, is indeed an asshole and a tool.
-me
Sniper said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:21
MB mentioned being glad to have moved to England. This California ex-pat is glad she’s living in India right now.
I have a Canadian passport and several friends who are hoping that Canada further liberalizes the definition of family to include “anyone you damned well feel like bringing into the country”.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:21
Is ANY true dem not going to vote for our nominee? I don’t believe that. I’m quite upset with things Hillary’s camp have done, but I’m just as upset with what I’m reading on the blogs. I half suspect most of the hate nonsense is from State Dept. workers.
gbear said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:25
slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy.
The staff you surround yourself with says a lot about how you approach policy. Hillary’s Leiberman-lite campaign crew gives me the vapors.
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:30
I’ve got the vapors a lot of the time too, Gary. But I think it’s pretty obvious what he meant when he said it. Do you mean why did he say it? To advance his cause I guess. But did you hear or read the remark in context?
I’m not sure I buy that because single women have been a huge untapped voting bloc for the Dems for years and maybe Clinton would have brought them out in the general election but why not argue with his logic rather than just act puzzled by the comment?
He said something else in that interview that sums up why I want him to be the nominee. Not only do I think he can win but it’s how he can win:
My main opposition to Clinton is her war vote. I’d like the historical record to show that if you’re a Democrat and you cave in to Republicans and endorse an insane war because you think you can preserve your presidential aspirations that you end up getting your ass kicked in the Democratic primaries instead. If Clinton wins the nomination and then the general it’s teh fucking wilderness for all us DFHs for years to come and dominance of the Democratic party by DLC types for a long time. We’re a lot better off if the debate about the war in the election is on my man Barry X’s terms. Not Clinton’s or McCain’s
GunTotinSteroidRabbi said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:32
“drastically better personnel to key positions of power than any Republican”
should read “drastically better personnel and judges to key positions of power than any Republican”
Shell Goddamnit said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:36
my guess is that Obama’s remark about his supporters means that he’d bring out some people that wouldn’t otherwise vote - not that they’d vote for McCain instead
MzNicky said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:36
The primary season has been going on way too long. It’s giving the finalists way too much space for attacking each other. Obama and Hillary are both gonna feel pretty sheepish after the convention, when it’s kiss-and-make-up time and they’re reminded of all the mean things they said about each other in the recent past. “It’s time to put our differences aside and pull together for the sake of the party and to defeat our opponent” blah blah blah will sound especially lame this time around.
Well, it’s been 40 years since the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (ahh…those were the days), so maybe it’s time for another rough-and-tumble, complete with protracted, meaningless delegate fight, riots outside, fisticuffs on the convention floor and hurt feelings and nursed grudges all around. And then Richard Nixon was elected.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:37
I was going to vote for Dodd, but he didn’t make Cal. I don’t like Barack’s reaching across the aisle approach. I hope it gets him elected, but I don’t want it as policy.
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:37
“The vapors” is a sexist remark? Really? The other stuff is obviously sexist but I never thought of the vapors as an insult reserved for women. Am I still safe with “the heebie jeebies”?
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:44
If using the word periodically is enough to make you a misogynist pig, then the vapors is definitely enough.
That also means referring to a fainting couch is also sexist, which is unfortunate, as I was looking forward to rhetorically fetching many for our Repugnicant friends when McBain loses.
Blue Buddha said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:45
I wanted the red gumball, not the blue one!! WAHHHHHH!!! I’m gonna hold my breath until I die, and you’ll be very, very sorry!
His Grace said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:45
I make no secret that I prefer Obama over Hillary. Comes down to two things really: One he got it right on Iraq from the start and two I think he has a better chance of delivering a crushing victory in November… One might even dream of 61 democrats in the senate. I’m not convinced that he’s a messiah or anything and on more than on occasion he’s made me wonder.
That being said, I don’t hate Hillary. I don’t think she’s a bad candidate. She’s smart and tough and I think is more than capable of beating McCain in November. Even if she promised to make Micheal O’Hanlon War Czar and Tom Friedman Secretary of Defence, her war policies would be better than a Bush third term.
On a whole, I must say that it is unlikely that an Obama administration will be any great degree better than a Clinton or vice versa. It is likely that in certain narrow policy areas that one would do “better” than the other, but next to President McCain it’s small potatoes.
However, I think that unless a political miracle happens, she is unlikely to beat Obama in popular vote, let alone pledged delegates. I don’t particularly like the fact that the Florida or Michigan primaries don’t count, but both states broke the rules and thus they don’t count (something all candidates agreed to).
Were the situation completely reversed, I have no doubt that Clinton and/or her supporters would be making the argument that she had effectively won and Obama should drop out. I hope I’d have the intellectual honesty to at least consider that my preferred candidate should drop out. I know that I wouldn’t be stupid enough to prefer McCain to Hillary.
I think it should be said though that most supporters on either side of the democratic tent aren’t that stupid either.
Lord Thunderin' Jesus said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:52
It’s March, it’s a tight race, a lot of emotional overinvestment going around. Maybe we need a heated debate about party loyalty right now. A strong signal to the “assholes” that they need to give their heads a shake.
A party that wasn’t addicted to snatching defeat would collectively take a pill when the nominee is chosen and start working hard to make sure McCain’s ass truly gets kicked in November.
gbear said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:53
I wanted the red gumball, not the blue one!! WAHHHHHH!!! I’m gonna hold my breath until I die, and you’ll be very, very sorry!
I think we were at the same grocery store yestereday.
—
vaporsheebie-jeebies from me from now on. sorry. didn’t realize.pessullivan said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:56
I believe there are 2-3 Justices on the Supreme Court that are waiting for a Democrat to be President before they retire. If we don’t get it this year then the Democrats can give up the Supreme Court.
Now I’ll say Hillary’s staff are saying some pretty stupid stuff like
….”African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?”
I do think someone needs to get them under control.
Jennifer said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:57
Can we stop pretending, though, that it wouldn’t be a disaster if Clinton was to clinch the nomination through the votes of superdelegates? Because, you know, it would. It would represent the superdelegates appointing the candidate with fewer pledged delegates, fewer primary/caucus votes, and fewer donors. And the likely outcome of that would be for large numbers of the Democratic Party’s largest voting bloc to stay home on election day. And who would blame them? It would be impossible to paint the Clinton nomination victory as anything other than the Man stepping in to put his thumb on the scale yet again to steal a victory hard-fought and legitimately won by African-American voters. The inescapable fact is that no Democrat will be going to the White House without the support of a majority of African-American voters. We all know this, Hillary Clinton surely knows this, and the superdelegates certainly know this. So you have to ask why she continues to pretend that she can win not only the nomination but the general as well, if in fact she has any concerns about how continuing a failed candidacy might hurt the party’s chances in the general election.
So then the question becomes: if it was any other Democratic candidate - John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, or anyone else - in the position Hillary currently finds herself in, would anyone even bother to pretend they have a shot at the nomination? Somehow I doubt it.
Bullsmith said,
March 22, 2008 at 17:59
It will be good thing once the primary is over. Emotions are running very high and nasty these days, but once it comes time to actually vote, the real issues are so compelling that I suspect the vast, vast majority of potential democratic voters will show up and vote for the nominee.
Four more years of Republican rule? What possible objection could any thinking person have to Obama or to Hillary that would make that outcome acceptable?
(In the meantime I miss teh funny.)
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:00
I took the vapors as meaning full of air, confused, or hysterical.
I took heebie jeebies as meaning nervous. In any event, I don’t qualify.
trizzlor said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:01
Still, I wonder if America is ready for a black man.
Florida No Vote said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:03
Obama will bring the country together! Peace, Love and Understanding — yeah right! Listen to the vile and venom being spewed in these comments by Obama supporters. He’s a politician — he’ll blow smoke up your ass just like all the others. Suckers!
Lord Thunderin' Jesus said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:07
Suckers!
The last time I had smoke blown up my ass I rather enjoyed it.
Or was that a metaphor?
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:10
Hillary is still in it because, right or wrong, she believes she is the best qualified person to run the country. And no matter how convoluted the math, she still has a chance. However, the actions of Hill and Bill and the Clinton machine indicate some entitlement going on. They do need to step aside. It’s clear to me Barack is going to win this and he has my support, I just wish the hate would stop.
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:11
A party that wasn’t addicted to snatching defeat would collectively take a pill when the nominee is chosen and start working hard to make sure McCain’s ass truly gets kicked in November.
I think just about everyone will get behind Obama and I think all the talk from Clinton supporters about not voting for Obama or voting for McCain comes from their candidate being behind in the race. It’s disturbing but if it were the other way around you’d be hearing that crap from Obama supporters instead. It’s easier to stay on the high road when things are going the way you want them to. Still, shit like this and the comments that go along with it are a little disturbing. That used to be a pretty good blog but egalia has gone completely fucking nuts.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:11
he’ll blow smoke up your ass just like all the others.
What’s your point?
taodon said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:12
Okay, I want to set something a little straight here about some of the voters in Florida. I should know because I am one. I voted in the primary with full knowledge that my vote would never “count.” I never expected to, nor did I have any misgivings about the fact that the DNC told the voters here what would happen if we moved our primary. There are rules, the rules were broken, our primary became null and void.
I am sick to death, however, of people telling me that I have been disenfranchised, as if there was some horrific plot after the fact to make silence my choice. No. Wrong. I was not disenfranchised. My vote was not stolen in this primary. My vote meant exactly as much as I was told it would mean up to three months prior to the primary. Which is to say, nothing, nada and zilch. To go back now, screaming do-over, and it’s not fair is not only disingenuous, but also childish.
No one gave a crap about when my vote was really stolen in the 2000 general election, so I can’t comprehend for the life of me why it matters one bit that my vote that was never supposed to count actually doesn’t.
Enough already with the whining about the voters of Florida and the alleged injustice we are currently facing. We aren’t. We are reaping what we sowed, and some, it seems, can’t deal with the personal responsibility of it all. I don’t want a 50/50 split. I don’t want the current “results” to count. I don’t want to vote again. What I want is for the primary season to end and the general to begin. What I want is for my vote to count in the general election this November, when we finally end this horrific period in American history and regain our freedom.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:15
Listen to the vile and venom being spewed in these comments by Obama supporters.
Project much?
jeff said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:15
In all seriousness, too many of us average voters have been personally insulted and attacked and mocked by a former Dem president and a former first lady. I’m not going to wake up the day after the primary is over and suddenly feel fondness for some finger wagging red faced dick head whom MIchael Moore correctly called “the best Republican president” of the past few decades. They can both go triangulate themselves for all I care. However, unlike 1/4 of Clinton voters, I won’t vote for McCain if she’s the candidate. I don’t see how it helps my anger to inflict that asswipe on the world.
Insufferable Grammarian said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:17
“Vile” is an adjective. Thus one cannot “listen to all the vile [and venom]…” Perhaps the illiterate Florida voter meant “bile.”
Some Guy said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:19
I can’t be the only one with no tolerance for people whining about Florida (and not Michigan? Fuck, I don’t even remember which other state it was, people are having such a stampy hissy fit over precious Florida). They broke clearly defined DNC rules, and KNEW their vote wouldn’t count. You wanna bitch, bitch too your state convention officials who fucked you, not the national convention. Christ, why the fuck can’t you people get your shit together for elections? Goddamn Palestine is doing this better then you feebs.
[/annoyance]
Some Guy said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:21
Yeah, see? Taodon’s got it.
MzNicky said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:21
jeff: You were personally insulted, mocked, and attacked by the Clintons? How so?
jeff said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:27
MzNicky, I voted for Obama. (I guess I shouldn’t have said “personally,” since you’ve chosen, cutely, to read that word disingenuously. He push me down at the playground, if that’s what you want me to say.)
Pinko Punko said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:30
There is only one reasonable point to be made here: if the election is so about an individual voter that one thinks a rational action would be to vote for McCain over the Dem nominee, this makes one a narcissistic, shallow chunderloaf.
Legalize said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:31
I am not a Democrat and have absolutely no allegiance to that petty, ineffectual party. The party is an embarassment to liberty and to the consitution. That said, I obviously line up with the ideals the party pretends to espouse. I’ve voted Democrat for president only one time, and I want to do the same this year. However, if Hillary manages to scare the superdelegates into trumping the popular and delegate vote, I will not vote for her in the fall. I have little use for this limp-dick party in the first place and will not go running over to it if Hillary wins by behaving like a GOPer and slitting Obama’s throat. I won’t vote for McBush either. But I sure as hell won’t be inclined to get involved with Democrat politics for quite a while either.
The only thing that would give me pause, is the state of the federal courts. I
That said, if she wins the popular vote in the primary, and the super delegates move over to her, I will support her. If she wins the primary fair and square, I’m all for her. I’ll help out in any way I can. If this is not going to happen, however, then Obama is the candidate and he needs our full support. The end.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:32
Here’s a picture.
(H/T d r i f t g l a s s)
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:32
I’d guess jeff is talking about Clinton’s penchant for saying that every state she’s lost doesn’t matter, and that all the real Democrats voted for her, and yadda yadda yadda. I don’t think she meant to be insulting, but it certainly wouldn’t help her in the general when she’s already dismissed over half of the Democratic party as unimportant. Realistically though, the way the electoral college works, she’s right.
I find her supporters’ willingness to abuse reich-wing style talking points (Obama threw his granny under the bus! Obama’s mentor hates whitey and America!) far more offensive.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:33
I remember a time when we went to the mattress for the Florida voters.
owlbear1 said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:33
Its really very simple. Hillary Clinton started out as a Republican. Decided it wouldn’t get her anywhere and switch parties.
She has been a Republican pretending to be a Democrat her entire career. I’m NOT going to pretend voting for yet ANOTHER Republican is going to fix the Democratic party.
And as for 4 more years of Republican control?
Maybe Planet USA would learn a few things…
Me said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:34
Drum:
<She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda.
Hmm, perhaps not, but Lieberman is rooting like hell for a McCain victory, and may even speak for him at the R convention. Is it really that much of a leap from that to Clinton doing the same? Especially given all the nice things she and Bill have been saying about McCain lately?
I dunno, I really have no idea what she’ll do, but neither does Drum.
Me said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:36
Sorry, posting again for clarity.
Drum:
She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda.
Hmm, perhaps not, but Lieberman is rooting like hell for a McCain victory, and may even speak for him at the R convention. Is it really that much of a leap from that to Clinton doing the same? Especially given all the nice things she and Bill have been saying about McCain lately?
I dunno, I really have no idea what she’ll do, but neither does Drum.
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:40
Didn’t the Clintons, along with a pile of other prominent Dems, campaign for Lieberman against Lamont?
I’m sure glad they kept his political career alive so he could shill for the Republican presidential nominee. Real smooth move, Bill.
I just hope that the rumors of McCain tapping Lieberman for veep are true. May he be as helpful to McCain as he was to Gore.
Typical Democrat said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:49
I’ve just recieved a memo from our Soverigen Lord George Soros that says regardless of who the Democrat nominee is we need to support it in order to protect our sacred institutions of abortion.
In fact abortion should be expanded up until the child is seven years old. We all know that children are a big resposibility and that they get in the way of our welfare checks and leaching off society.
Evil neanderthal Conservatives would say that God will punish us for abortion. But all of us super elite enlightened liberals know that God doesn’t exist. Except for Allah who is totally real.
We all know that something can be formed from nothing. I know I’ve seen it happen all the time when I’m stoned.
Consevatives. hmf.
another jim said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:49
Jnfr said it for me. It bears repeating though:
Supreme Court.
Want another Uncle Justice Thomas, Robbing Roberts, Scalito? Vote other than Democrat. See how well that goes for women’s rights.
And don’t even get me started on Nader.
Andy Axel said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:54
Didn’t the Clintons, along with a pile of other prominent Dems, campaign for Lieberman against Lamont?
In the primary, actually, that would have been Obama at the top of the pile.
Not that it should count against Obama, necessarily — but it’s at least historically accurate.
mikey said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:59
Look. Stop breaking your toys and peeing in the corner.
Anybody who believes that a President McCain would be in their economic self interest, would be in the best interest of america the nation and the culture and would be beneficial to the world should absolutely vote for him, work for his campaign, raise funds for him.
But to believe the opposite and still choose to vote for him because the Democratic candidate hurt your freakin feelings is dishonest and a waste of your vote.
Can’t believe anybody would be that selfish and stupid. Just wish they’d all stop saying it…
mikey
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:59
There are hundreds of elected democrats that won’t say boo to Bush. Iraq, wire tapping, the environment. Politics is a river of shit and we all swim in it. And don’t get me started on Lieberman.
christian h. said,
March 22, 2008 at 18:59
I don’t like either of the Democratic candidates, or the party in general, for that matter.
I completely understand if someone isn’t a Democrat (but, for example, a Green) and won’t vote for Obama or Clinton. I’ve never thought voting for policies one opposes simply because other policies are even worse is necessarily a good idea.
But the Democrats quoted in this post need to learn some lesson in democratic centralism. You fight all out for your position, but once you’re outvoted you support the majority position. Period. If you think of yourself as a Democrat, there’s no excuse to let bad blood from the primaries keep you from voting for your party’s candidate.
Dan Someone said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:02
Here’s the pathetic thing about that poll Lawnguylander linked to: the “support Hillary/will NOT vote for Obama” crowd outweighed the “support Hillary/WILL vote for Obama” by a factor of 2.5+; meanwhile, the “support Obama/WILL vote for Hillary” choice got twice as many votes as “support Obama/will NOT vote for Hillary.”
So maybe the Obamistas are bilious and venomous… but at least in this poll, they’re not spitefully willing to cut off their nose — and the noses of 300 million compatriots — to spite their faces.
WhattheH said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:12
Upfront, I’m a Canadian. I have been coming to this site for years, just to read the wonderfully witty satire, irony, in essence, for a break from the dull, repetitive, collective corporate dumping of what is considered news today. I always marvelled on how the denizens of this site meshed, and as time went on, almost seemed to read one another’s mind. It is what made it a special site, one I was privileged to visit, and once in many years, make a comment. It was here I first encountered shoelimpy and annieangel, and the ingenious ways that trolls could be ignored - hmmmm, pie..
Today, I’m not sure I want to come back anymore. I see some of the regulars trying to bring the discussion back to the irony/satirical level, but…..this primary season is taking it’s toll like none I have ever seen. I cannot believe the vitriol, and it’s infecting every site at which I used to lurk. KOS, don’t go. NoQuarter, don’t go. Taylor Marsh, don’t go, Huffington Post, don’t go etc etc- and note, these are all Democratic leaning sites. This sickness is spreading. Now I’m worried that I won’t be able to come back here either, and as a lurker, it was one of my most favourite sites - even with the fake Gary Ruppert and his assorted troll names. PS, I’m in love with mikey.
Is this the same site it was a month ago? Sadly, No.
Before I leave until after this insanity has passed, please allow me a shout out to MZNICKY. Hey, glad to see you’re okay. Haven’t run across you lately and was worried! You take care!
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:15
Thanks for the link Andy. I should have been more clear that I was talking about the general election rather than the primary, but it still lowers my opinion of Obama a notch.
In any case, Gizoogle isn’t finding any mention of Clinton support in the general, so I guess I’m wrong about that. All sources I’ve found have Hillary pledging to support the primary winner, though like Obama she backed Holy Joe in that primary. Clinton and Obama are equally lame on this one. Bob Kerrey, on the other hand…
foreigner said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:16
(love that picture, ifthethunderdontgetya)
After eight years of a closet alcoholic who claimed he was guided by personalized instructions from some imaginary being, I can’t believe Americans are stupid enough to vote for his hug-buddy. It’s true that you have all the racism and misogyny and bible-thumping needed to provide evidence of a delusional people. But while half the population is of below-average intelligence, the other half is above average. Even if you have very little capacity for hope, you may justifiably hope that morons will not dominate the polls in November.
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:20
WhattheH, there’s always been plenty of vitriol around here. If calling nominal Democrats who will vote for McCain rather than Clinton or Obama idiots is too harsh for you, I don’t know what you ever saw in this place.
That reminds me, what ever happened to Mencken? If there was ever a time we could use a dose of his righteous anger, it’s now.
Pinko Punko said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:21
The world of bloggery is filled with a bunch of people that are the same as we run into in comments. Smart, selfish, incompetent, good spellers, bad spellers, misguided, right on, awesome, idiotic. The difference is that once people get a big bad trumpet they start to fall in love with their words, and their overly personal identification with a particular candidate becomes poisonous. I have to say that I have lost respect for almost every single left leaning blog voice over this entire affair, except for digby, Somerby and Drum. All three because this election hasn’t changed them, Drum because I never really liked him that much in the first place, but he’s been shown to be teflon in terms of his milquetoastieness. It is dominant over crazy. It is fine to prefer a candidate, but it becomes this good versus evil, even though the candidates are almost exactly the same, and people attempt to find any excuse to be mortally offended, even thought that offense is only cynically used to support their initial choice, then I really feel like the universe can just fuck off.
owlbear1 said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:29
Mikey, voting for Hillary means a slow death by poisoning. A continuation of the Bush Dog/Republican lite bleeding off of America to to the highest bidder. That will certainly happen under McCain as well. But unlike Clinton, McCain will be an ACTUAL Republican doing it instead of a DEMOCRAT doing it to America. See the difference?
But presidential elections aren’t an either/or scenario. McCain is not getting my vote either…
owlbear1 said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:34
The candidates aren’t “Virtually the same”. One actually believes ALL of America should be heard. One believes only those who can get her elected need to be bothered with.
One candidate sees ALL AMERICANS as voters. One candidate ONLY sees voters who might get her nominated…
SomeNYGuy said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:34
Having watched these people (?) come out of the woodwork as they’ve been emboldened by the Rev. Wright flap, I was inspired to come up with a name for them:
HILLAREPUBLICANS.
You can thank me later.
g said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:35
Follks, will you just relax? It’s March. Remember how you felt in January? That’s just three short months ago. How will you feel six months from now?
BoiseNick said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:37
search :
Hillary Clinton and the secretive Religious Right network known as “The Family.”
…and then we’ll see what you think , , ,
mikey said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:38
Owlbear, I will say this.
Sitting it out, leaving it blank, that’s at least honest. If you can’t vote for either, to choose to not vote for either is a statement, and a not unreasonable choice. I just hope most people don’t do it.
For the record, I don’t agree with your assessment of Senator Clinton. I’ve never been “for” her presidency, I was Edwards until he dropped out, then I’ve been Obama. But I don’t think she’d be anywhere near the disaster that bush/cheney have been, and that mccain would continue or even accelerate.
But that said, I don’t believe it matters. It has been obvious for weeks now that Obama will be the nominee. Clinton is doing something that is her right, but that makes no positive contribution. But soon enough, it will be over, it will be Obama’s intelligent, elegant calm and reasoned conversation against McCain’s temper, bombast and hate.
And it will be no contest at all…
mikey
Notorious P.A.T. said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:38
I don’t hate Hillary. She’s smart
Yes, it was *brilliant* to trust George W Bush to do the right thing as far as Iraq. And her campaign strategy? Brilliant! “I’m the frontrunner and I’m certain to win, so there’s no reason for me to build organizations in every state.”
and tough
“Wah! Why does Senator Obama get such kind treatment from the media! I always get asked the first hard question! Waaah!”
But I’ll give her this: when it came time to make the biggest decision of her political career–no, her life–she smartly and toughly did not read the intelligence report and blindly voted to authorize military force against Iraq. Which I TOTALLY forgive her for.
Gus said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:50
Anyone who votes for McCain will be complicit in the crimes of his administration, including but not limited to continued war, back alley abortions, the continued fucking of the working man. Any Democrat who petulantly votes for him is doubly abhorrent. I’m an Obama guy, but I won’t hesitate to vote for Hillary if she is the nomination. It’s that important.
owlbear1 said,
March 22, 2008 at 19:50
Mikey, I too was an Edwards supporter and really hope Obama makes him AG.
I am also hopeful that Obama has this locked up and Richardson’s endorsement will loosen a few straps.
And in the interests of full disclosure:
There is only one way I could find myself voting for Senator Clinton at this point. Revenge. If Hillary promised Revenge for the last 30 year of Republican ruin, THEN I might change my mind.
Of Course, Barack is his own special kind of Revenge…
You said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:05
I prefer Obama over Rodham, but I’m not fanatical about it because you know what? THEY ARE BOTH DEMOCRATS AND THAT IS WHAT I SUPPORT ABOVE ALL YOU STUPID FUCKS.
Cali Tejano said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:14
Brad, I won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination but there’s no way in hell I’d vote for McCain.
Those email you quoted from are exactly like the comments you’ll find on each of Taylor Marsh’s posts. She and her minions are batshit insane. That’s why I refer to them as Strom Thurmond Democrats.
Pinko Punko said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:19
Voting for McCain because you are mad about Hillary’s Iraq vote is a non sequitur.
Choosing to vote for Obama because you don’t like Hillary is also fine. Painting dark portraits of the deeply evil and secretive Hillary are not supported by a lot of evidence. Politicians lie. We have no way to understand anything about what their administrations look like based on their campaigns. We can only hope. This is quite sad.
I will add that a large number of left leaning bloggers who are in the Obama camp would have made the same vote as Hillary. It is certainly fine for people to change their minds, and it is fine to believe that Hillary’s Iraq vote is the deciding factor in your choice between Hillary and Obama. It is not fine for it to be the deciding factor between Hillary and McCain. There are about 50 million tiebreakers that Hillary wins in that regard.
Djur said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:24
!!!!!
Oh no, a Leninist!! Hide your serfs, everyone!!
Patkin said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:29
That’s why I refer to them as Strom Thurmond Democrats.
I’m pretty sure we already have a word like that, though.
Dixoncrats?
Dixie Chicks?
Something like that.
Joe Max said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:41
Hillary Clinton could crawl backwards uphill naked over 20 miles of broken glass shards, whipping herself with a cat-o-nine tails through a hair shirt, on her way to give a sloppy blow job to Obama while sobbing uncontrollably how dreadfully sorry she is that she, anyone who ever worked for her, knew her, or passed her on the street had ever said anything even remotely negative about him, black people or Democrats in general (or anything positive about any Republican), then put a gun in her mouth and blow her own brains out, and the Obamamaniacs would STILL not believe she “really means it.”
They’d probably just say, “good, the evil, cheating corporate whore bitch Hitlery is finally out of the race!” on their way to spit on her gore-splattered body.
Barack Obama could crawl backwards uphill naked over 20 miles of broken glass shards, whipping himself with a cat-o-nine tails through a hair shirt, on his way to give a sloppy tongue job to Clinton while sobbing uncontrollably how dreadfully sorry he is that he, anyone who ever worked for him, knew him, or passed him on the street had ever said anything even remotely negative about her, women or Democrats in general (or anything positive about any Republican), then put a gun in his mouth and blow his own brains out, and the Clintonmaniacs would STILL not believe he “really means it.”
They’d probably just say, “good, the conniving, messiah-complex race-baiting bastard HUSSEIN Omabam is finally out of the race!” on their way to spit on his gore-splattered body.
See how this works?
And you know what? I think both sides are being manipulated by the right-wing noise machine, but they’re too stupid to realize it. Right wing noise machine manufactures negative bullshit talking point about Candidate X. Candidate Y’s followers pick it up and start concern trolling it to the lefty blogs. Candidate X’s followers savagely tear into Candidate Y’s followers, and hilarity ensues - for the right wing noise machine.
You’re being played, you idiots. Wise up.
Lesley said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:42
But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November?
A couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher reamed Clinton’s campaign manager over the coals for a statement Hillary made in one of her speeches that she and McCain have more experience than Obama; suggesting that if she isn’t in the running, McCain is their next best bet.
Lesley said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:45
These are the comments Bill Maher referred to, and was critical of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw
Hoosier X said,
March 22, 2008 at 20:48
Yeah. McCain’s foreign policy experience.
Ask him to explain the difference between Shiite and Sunni.
The Repugs will be ecstatic if he doesn’t say one of them is a language of the Indian subcontinent and the other is a North American Indian tribe.
g said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:06
Oh, please. there are nut cases on both sides, and unless I am completely mistaken, they are in the minority.
Both of the candidates are pragmatic - they’re poltiicians. They don’t want McCain to win. Whoever the nominee is, the other candidate will support him/her, and do their damnedest to bring their supporters along.
There are going to be some people who are too bummed out to actually go out and vote, but only the insane ones will vote for McCain if their nominee doesn’t get the nod.
Pinko Punko said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:07
Joe Max for the win!
unrelatedwaffle said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:20
I’m sorry, didn’t anyone else think
The superdelegates weren’t created to add fluff to the popular vote, but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can’t. They’re there for the same reason the electoral college is. For example, picking a glorified motivational speaker over an experienced leader (good example, eh?).
was the most alarming part of this post? Yes, some people are idiots and jerks and Barack vs. Hillary is divisive blah blah blah but this is fucking insane! It’s a slippery slope from the elite knows what’s good for you to the elite are the only members of society who are truly human and LET’S STERILIZE THE POOR!
Patkin said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:28
That’s one hell of a slippery slope you got there. Sure you didn’t miss a couple steps?
mikey said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:39
…LET’S STERILIZE THE POOR!
Umm, I think it might be a little unfair to think that just because they’re poor they have poor personal hygiene habits.
What?
It doesn’t?
It DOES?
Oh. Never mind….
mikey
lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:40
Yes indoozle! The right wing is controlling us all. There’s no difference between the two Dem candidates or the types of campaigns they’re running. Not that the latter would matter anyway. No point debating those differences and how the success of one type of campaign in 2008 might influence political discourse in 2010 and beyond. A pox on everyone’s house! Especially dens of incivility like this.
christian h. said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:44
Oh no, a Leninist!! Hide your serfs, everyone!!
That’s right. I’ve seen faction fights, and I’ve never liked them. Small differences get blown out of proportion. Personalities replace policy and ideology. Once the open threat to split/expel is made, it’s usually too late. I can only advise Democrats who don’t want to see McCain elected to step back from the brink (and comrades who don’t want McCain either to keep out of it and do our own thing).
You know what the correct answer to a nuclear first strike is? Nothing. It’s irrational to destroy the other half of the world, too. The late Arthur C. Clark had a great short story on that topic, iirc.
foreigner said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:45
unrelatedwaffle, you have confused the system with democracy. It’s a common mistake.
Incontinentia Buttocks said,
March 22, 2008 at 21:53
My take on the whole “Hillary-wants-McCain-to-win-so-she-can-run-in-2012″ meme….
I agree this is nonsense. Not so much because “she has a long, long history as a partisan animal” (this is a classic Drumism: Clinton does have a long, long history of partisan activity, but it began when she was a Goldwater Girl!), but rather because Clinton’s campaign has been seemingly incapable of thinking a couple months ahead, let alone four years.
But the real danger from Clinton is not that she wants McCain to win, but that she’ll help McCain win, whether or not she wants to. I agree that there’s no direct evidence that she wants a McCain victory. And Occam’s Razor in this case suggests egotism and political incompetence are better explanations for Clinton’s behavior than support for McCain. Ultimately, It might become an interesting, though largely academic, question if McCain defeats Obama whether Clinton: a) wanted Obama to win but was too politically incompetent to behave in a way that helped him; or b) just didn’t give a damn. But all signs are that her behavior is hurting Obama and helping McCain, at least in the short run.
christian h. said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:03
Arthur C. Clarke of course. Sorry.
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:05
Dogshit. It’s on candidate Y’s supporters if they want to use and abuse right-wing talking points. What are X’s supporters (and the sane) supposed to do about it? Are we not supposed to call bullshit bullshit in the name of unity? Fuck that. Nobody who thinks that harping on Obama saying “typical white person” or his flag lapel pin is OK is on my side, period.
I’d say you’re being overly generous to Y’s supporters. Did Taylor Marsh need any coaxing from the right-wingers before going on a “Obamas hate America, not like us who looooove America” tirade because Michelle Obama said she was finally proud of her country? Nope. She dove into that pile of pigshit with a gusto that made the pigs nervous.
I’m no Dem. I’m voting Dem this fall in self defense. That’s it. Don’t get all high-an-mighty on us because we’re willing to call horseshit when we see it.
Did I miss any barnyard animals? Cowshit doesn’t really have a ring to it, y’know?
senlac1066 said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:13
Well, reading some of the comments here (and at DKos, HuffPost, TPM Election Central, Americablog, blah, blah), it’s obvious that there are an awful lot of people in desperate need of therapy.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:14
“It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”
Marco said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:25
There’s crazy on both sides to go around. Hell, I get a little crazy at times defending Hillary from bullshit as I am sure Obama supporters get when an Hillary supporter tries to make hay out of the ridiculous non-controversy Wright controversy.
However, I am not so crazy that I wouldn’t vote for one of our two fine candidates in November and let McCain get the office. The thought turns my stomach. Hopefully when it’s all over for the Democratic nomination, cooler heads will prevail and people will come to their senses to keep the Batshit Crazy Party out of the White House.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:31
Speaking of Pastor Wright…
Here’s the whole clip.
He’s quoting Ambassador Peck. I don’t see one thing he said that isn’t true.
Please note that the excerpt shown over and over on your TVs is a distortion of the actual sermon.
MzNicky said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:38
WhattheH, dear old friend! Good to see your measured, well-reasoned words again. Yeah, I’ve just about given up on all the old blog haunts, ‘cept this one when I can.
Jennifer said,
March 22, 2008 at 22:43
I never thought Taylor Marsh was much worth reading in the first place, so her Obamaphobia hasn’t really bothered me. All it’s done is convince me that she’s never worth reading again.
MzNicky said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:00
Democratic presidential primaries have broken my heart for decades. DECADES, I tell ya. I’ve been voting longer than some of you guys have been alive, in other words. And without fail, the candidate I want at the beginning has never made it to the nomination. But has that ever made me vote for a Rethug? I’d rather stab needles in my eyes. What the hell is wrong with these nitwits? “Shirley Chisholm would be the best president ever, but since George McGovern got the nomination I’m going to vote for Nixon”?! “Paul Tsongas is the ideal choice, but if Bill Clinton gets the nod I’m voting for Bush (I)” ?! I’ve long suspected the world was being taken over by narcissistic know-nothing children, but holy cow.
Sometimes we vote for Dems in spite of themselves. I used to think that I would vote only for a candidate I supportedly wholeheartedly in every way, and that to do otherwise was somehow a compromise of my purity and righteousness. Then I got over myself. Sort of.
mikey said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:02
Seems to me with my regular morning rotation of:
Informed Comment
Think Progress
Antiwar dot com
TPM
Greenwald
Digby
Sadly, No
I am well equipped to turn off the coffee pot and move into my day filled with information, outrage and poop jokes.
These others of which you speak, not so much…
mikey
Djur said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:02
christian h.: In case it wasn’t clear, I was joking. And I’m a fellow Tomb reader. Hi.
That American Chap said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:10
Even if you don’t personally like Clinton or Obama all that much, realize that they will appoint drastically better personnel to key positions of power than any Republican.
Let me preface my comment with an unlikely but true fact: I am undecided with regards to Hillary and Obama. I’m not happy with either one of them but better either of them than McInsane.
That being said, I think I should point out that Obama (in some sort of absurd “reaching across the aisle” strategy) has stated that he’s thinking of putting three (so far) Republicans in his cabinet (Hegal, Schwarzenegger and Lugar) and he’s using Colin Powell (yes, THAT asshole) as an advisor. Mind you, there are countless numbers of extremely qualified anti-war Dems that should be up for these slots, but he’s more or less promised them to GOP loyalists in some real whoring of his morals, in a completely whacked notion that this will bring over Republican voters (yeah, as if…).
Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus. In fact, they reported on just exactly what he said.
Given that, I find it curious that the most enthusiastic Obamaites are also the most anti-Republican, yet they either continue to insist that this reporting of Obama’s overtures to the GOP is bogus, or they simply ignore the facts on the ground.
I’m going to vote for Obama if he’s the candidate, but with HUGE misgivings about this need to make nice with Republican shit-stains. My question is HOW ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM, given this totally fucked plan of his?
Dan Someone said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:18
Y’know, any idiot who votes for McCain or a third party candidate, or sits out the general, because of which Dem candidate gets the nomination deserves what they get — four more years of Republican anti-constitutional, war-mongering, economy-destroying rule.
Problem is, even though they may deserve that, the rest of us don’t, and I don’t think it’s right for them to impose that hell on us.
Dan Someone said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:19
Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus. In fact, they reported on just exactly what he said.
Perhaps a link…?
mikey said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:25
Oh, geez. This is an easy one.
First, I have not seen anywhere that Obama has promised these positions to anyone. Name floating is historically meaningless.
But more importantly, if he decides to do it, I don’t really care that much. Because I believe absolutely that Obama is committed to and will execute effectively on:
Ending the Iraq Occupation
Using diplomacy more effectively in the world
Not involving the US in any more unnecessary military adventures
Improving the domestic economy
Leading an initiative to solve the healthcare crisis
Reallocating federal funds to improve education and infrastructure
Managing the federal military and law enforcement response to terror threats
Making the american federal government functional again
Ending the toxic primacy of political ideology in governance
And since, as president, he can insist his cabinet carry out his visions, hell, he can put anybody he wants in those positions, as long as they are competent and carry out his agenda…
mikey
That American Chap said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:25
A link? Danny boy, there was a firestorm about this last week….try your magic Google powers.
Gary said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:26
Everyone should embrace the “reaching across the aisle” stuff because that is going to change everything.
Patkin said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:26
Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus.
Let us also acknowledge that Obama has not yet stepped forward to assert that he is not a Muslim/Communist/Weatherman/Manchurian/5%er/Reticulin
Perhaps because all of those are very stupid.
Joe Max said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:29
Platypus shit. Nobody who thinks that harping on Hillary Clinton’s husband saying “two people who love their country” running for office, or her saying “as far as I know” about Obama’s religion is OK on my side either, period.
I’ll see your Taylor Marsh and raise you a John Aravosis. Shall I invoke the Great Orange Satan? So nyah nyah nyah infinity plus-one.
The solution is to call the bullshit but hang it on the real source. Call the bullshit and link it to the right-wing noise machine sources it first came from, not to the Clintion or Obama supporters who stupidly parrot it.
It’s not a matter of “unity”, it’s a matter of refraining from loading a gun, checking the safety, cocking the hammer, taking careful aim and blowing your own foot off.
That American Chap said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:36
First, I have not seen anywhere that Obama has promised these positions to anyone. Name floating is historically meaningless.
Super. So ask yourself why in the fuck he didn’t float the names of Dems instead? Personally, I’d like to see Edwards and Kucinich talked about rather that hose clowns.
And since, as president, he can insist his cabinet carry out his visions, hell, he can put anybody he wants in those positions, as long as they are competent and carry out his agenda…
Uh-huh…..well, why start out with a bunch of guys who are on the same team that has been made up of pro-war Treasury looters? That just doesn’t make any sense and I’m sure most of us can grasp the symbolism of EXCISING this shit from our government, rather than feeling the need to be inclusive about it.
There’s simply no way to excuse this, not when there are SO MANY ultra-qualified Dems who’ve been intentionally excluded by the Democratic powerbrokers who were part of the push for war.
You can -hope- that Obama will hew to your list of wants but when he starts out by talking about a sizable chunk of his cabinet being from the GOP, you have to wonder just what kind of compromises he has in mind.
That American Chap said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:40
Let us also acknowledge that Obama has not yet stepped forward to assert that he is not a Muslim/Communist/Weatherman/Manchurian/5%er/Reticulin
Perhaps because all of those are very stupid.
Wow. So you’re still clinging to the notion that the story isn’t real??
I urge you all to take a good long look at this. It’s called “denial” and it’s mighty interesting shit.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:42
“Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News…”
Too late.
And that would be the British version of the New York Post (Rupert Murdoch, doing what he can to help the Democratic Party, as always).
I do enjoy Hillary supporters explaining to us naive Obamanians how we are being rooked by a cyncial politician.
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:43
Speaking of awesome google skills, American Chap, why don’t you find a link to back up your assertion that Obama floated those names?
Lawnguylander said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:45
If teh thunder don’t get me he’s still going to beat me to the punch. And with a link.
Poopy McPants said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:48
But but but. oh fuck it, im moving to canada. But before i do, let me point out that the HRC campaign has actually done everything in its power to ensure that obama loses in the general. I believe they call it the “kitchen sink” strategy. Its bargain basement scorched earth politics. The actual end game strategy is to make obama so unpalatable to voters that the super delegates choose hillary at the convention, as the only person who can win in the general. This is the all but declared strategy of the HRC campaign. ITs the politics of ‘If i cant have it no one can’. Its going to destroy our country, wait and see. Thats the sad part about being a realist these days; when you aren’t entrenched in either camp, you tend to see the forest despite the trees. I caucused for “none of the above.” All hail president mccain! Read this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123495?tid=relatedcl
it will remove such silly thoughts as “Hillary wants whats best for america.”
That American Chap said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:51
Too late.
Too late for what bro? How does that link address the fact that he never assserted that that interview was in any way false?
I do enjoy Hillary supporters explaining to us naive Obamanians how we are being rooked by a cyncial politician.
Thanks for taking the time to read my comment on this, the one that reveals that I am committed to neither candidate and will vote for either of them. Dipshit.
Jrod said,
March 22, 2008 at 23:53
You misunderstand me. I’m in favor of all, uh, zebrashit being called what it is. The people parroting these supposed RWNM lines don’t get a pass from me just because they’re idiots with chickenshit for brains.
Just for the record, though, I consider impugning a candidate’s patriotism by twisting around a quote to be the worst of it. It was exactly that tactic that allowed the Iraq War to go off without a hitch. Everyone opposed hates America. Then, five years later, people wonder why there wasn’t more opposition to the war. Hmmmm.
That said, if there’s a site that documents these talking points coming out of the right-wing, I’d like to see it. Like I said, I’m no Democrat, and it doesn’t seem farfetched to me that this sort of llamashit could originate with either candidate.
OK, I’m just being puerile now. Alpacashit. Blue whale shit. Jonah Goldberg shit.
Candy said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:01
A link? Danny boy, there was a firestorm about this last week….try your magic Google powers.
Didn’t we have someone visiting a while back who kept asserting some claim and refusing to back it up by providing a link, instead insisting with a markedly arrogant attitude that we use our google skillz and find it ourselves? I wonder if this is the same person
Whether or no, when you make a claim of this nature, it’s considered good manners to back up your assertions yourself. It’s called “citing”.
/Miss Manners
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:01
It was a link (Dated March 02, to be exact) followed by hundreds of comments that you didn’t bother to read, Chap.
But thanks for bringing us this news. We’re pretty naive around here, and we wait for Kos to tell us what to think.
mikey said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:10
Oh, my goodness, That Chap.
I’m SO sorry.
When confronted with the option of believing your spittle flecked tinfoil hat wearing rant or of Barack Obama’s own statements, for a minute there I almost chose Obama’s own words.
Now that would be crazy, right?
mikey
That American Chap said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:28
Whether or no, when you make a claim of this nature, it’s considered good manners to back up your assertions yourself. It’s called “citing”.
When something is discussed at length……the requirement of links becomes a little redundant (particularly when a previous discussion was linked to by thunderwhatziz. And while you can cling to this being an “assertion”, it hasn’t in any way been denied or modified by anyone in the Obama camp. Sorry.
It was a link (Dated March 02, to be exact) followed by hundreds of comments that you didn’t bother to read, Chap.
Actually, whilst skimming it over, I saw no comment quoted from Obama saying that this interview had in any way been “invented” but I’m sure you can provide that for me if it exists, right?
The curious thing about this is that it’s come from a number of sources and at different times. I find it more than a little amusing to see you cats and kittens squirming about something put out by your candidate. Why aren’t you embracing it, if you have as much trust in Obama as you seem to (obviously, I’m excluding you Mikey…you seem to be fine with it, unlike these deniers whose neurons crackle with the disparity of all of this)?
Gary said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:28
Float this! “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.” It most certainly is not clear.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:30
For the record:
g said.
And furthermore, as to putting people from the other party on the Cabinet? That’s how we do it in America, That American Chap. Even shrub did it.
Uh-huh…..well, why start out with a bunch of guys who are on the same team that has been made up of pro-war Treasury looters?
Well, here’s the funny thing about Chuck Hagel (from the same DWT link):
Recently he called McCain’s policy on the surge “intellectually dishonest and, as my friend Cliff Schecter reminded me, “he kicked Joe Lieberman’s ass on national TV for questioning those opposed to the surge and is continually calling the policy a failure.” Another of Hagel’s recent arguments about the Bush-McCain policy of endless war:
It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush policy. The military is– certainly very clear in the Constitution– is subservient to the elected public officials of this country… but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.
That American Chap said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:31
When confronted with the option of believing your spittle flecked tinfoil hat wearing rant or of Barack Obama’s own statements, for a minute there I almost chose Obama’s own words.
????
Ok Mikey, I’m game………maybe you can fill in the blanks and explain just what you’re going on about?
Candy said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:41
I’m getting better at recognizing pointlessness. There’s that.
mikey said,
March 23, 2008 at 0:46
You’ve build an awful fancy cottage on this somewhat fragile foundation is all. I felt it a logical assumption that you might also believe that aliens are controlling your movements through a combination of the neighbors bulldog and HF receivers in your teeth. And that there might be a division of Polish armor with black helicopter support in your back yard.
Put simply. I don’t believe you. I think you’re laughable. I don’t think, between the two of us, that I’m the one that’s fooled or deluded. You will not convince me by shouting louder.
Even more simply. You are either a loon, a liar or an idiot. Or some combination of the three. But whatever you’re trying to accomplish, I very much doubt you’ll find any buyers around here. You certainly won’t find one in me…
mikey
Candy said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:05
tde is that you commenting under “Chap”? It sounds oh so familiar . . .
MzNicky said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:29
I’m getting better at recognizing pointlessness. There’s that.
Candy: And that’s of great value too, especially these days. Just look at this thread, for example.
Trees, lots of trees. Very little viewing of the forest.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:30
I like Mo’s Bike Shop response to tde.
And as long as I’m linking to Sadly, No! comments from the recent past, let’s not forget stryx and his new american anthem (extended version):
The fact is,
America is awesome
awesome
awesome
awesome
The fact is,
America is awesome
And if you don’t agree
we’ll kill you
we’ll kill you
we’ll kill you
we’ll kill you
And if you don’t agree
we’ll kill you
Candy said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:31
And if you don’t agree
we’ll kill you
That’s great. It about sums it up, doesn’t it?
James said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:44
While Obama is slowly recovering from the Rev. Wright “problem”. Obama could recover fuller, and faster, if a comparison study was done on American pastor’s who produce sermons that blame all of Americas bad events as punishment from God. Without this pastor list, what Rev Wright said can not be understood in any shape or form.
However, NOT ONE, none, journalist or blogger has run just such a comparison study to see how useful it would be in debating what the fuss was all about; OR even if a fuss needed to happen at all.
Without that study a persons position on Rev Wright and Obama, or anything else is quite useless; and stupid.
So do the study. So a fun question would be: Which religions would be in the top 10 in the list? (Anyone wanna bet it’s all the same religion? Anyone wanna guess WHICH religion?)
And where would Rev Wright’s position be?
What do ya think Sadly? Top 10, or below?
schwag of tulsa said,