May
8

Maybe Lambert & Crew Can Answer Me This …




Posted at 6:29 by D. Aristophanes

I think I pissed off Lambert and the Corrente crowd over the Ramengate post. I’m pretty sure I made my new pal Shystee uncomfortable. For that I apologize – it’s just that all the stuff about Obama supporters being the ‘creative class’ and ‘Obama fan boys’ and ‘elitists’ who don’t care about poor people started getting under my skin. Plus Lambert’s whole re-enactment of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch was funny to me. And the latte-sipping insults were very much an outing into wingnut territory.

I also want to thank Leah and Shystee for sticking up for S,N! over at Corrente. I tried to register to comment over there, but it didn’t take.

I do support Obama, as I’ve said before. Just not very zealously — I would very-very-with-a-grin-on-my-face-happy-happy-fun-time pull the lever for Clinton if she gets the nomination. As I’ve also said before. I literally made my choice for Obama on the morning of the California primary. Not because I’m an out-of-touch idiot who didn’t do his homework, although I am often that. Rather, it was because I liked both of them enough against the Rethugs in the general election that I couldn’t pick between them. Also, I had a good friend who I knew was voting for Hillary, so I figured I’d toss my vote Barack’s way to even things out.

Amazingly, my opinion back then hasn’t really changed much. I like Obama’s chances against McCain a little better, but I think both could clean the floor with him. I would be happy to have either as president.

This blog, unlike Corrente, has not been particularly fervent in its partisanship for either candidate, although my guess is the majority of the regular posters support Obama. I actually don’t know who Clif or Jillian or Travis endorses. Seb supports the Oktoberfest Party for all I know. HTML Mencken could be writing in Gore Vidal. Sadly, No! Research Labs is for a straight falsifiability ticket, barring the unlikely appearance on the national scene of a strong anti-kerning crusader. The point being, primary stumping is not precisely our preferred wicket in these parts, though comment threads do tilt very strongly, almost exclusively to Obama.

We have two very strong candidates to end the nightmare of the Bush years. And that makes me happy. At the same time, I have no illusions that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is a particularly progressive candidate. I’m not such a naif that I think most of the policies I would prefer under either of them wouldn’t get watered down and centrist-ized to the point where I would grumble and moan and start attacking them from the left. I have no doubt, for instance, that either Obama or Clinton would find some way to drag us into a new war. It’s what American presidents do and it ain’t gonna change. Their main advantage over McCain is that he would drag us into two wars.

As HTML Mencken says, ‘both candidates are corporate whores.’ That’s just the facts. On the other hand, I’m getting too old and tired, and I’ve been around the election block enough times, to really put a whole lot of energy into trumpeting that depressing reality to the high heavens anymore. We’re getting a centrist who tacks to the right as our presidential nominee. It’s just the way this country works. The progressive, game-changing stuff will trickle up to the political class from the grassroots, not the other way around. I no longer think that’s as terrible a thing as I used to, because the stuff worth doing gets means-tested at the local level, in the neighborhoods and towns and cities, weeding out the crap and bringing the cream to the national theater. It could be worse. We could live under the Burmese junta.

The other point worth noting is that the Dems may give us a centrist waffler, but the GOP will give us an insane person with one hand on the lever to the bomb bay doors and the other jamming the maxed-out credit card of our national debt into Corporate America slots that give worse odds than an arcade claw machine and charge a thousand-point vig.

There are areas where I think Clinton and Obama have advantages over the other. I like Hillary’s health care plan. I like Barack’s pledge of $10 billion a year for five years to bring the health care information systems and records in line with existing standards. I like Hillary’s plans to expand National Science Foundation funding and grants. I like Barack’s commitment to network neutrality and ideas for transparent government. I like Hillary’s toughness and practical nature. I like Barack’s charisma and ability to bring new voters into the process. I like Clinton’s experience and I like Obama’s freshness.

It’s like an old politician once asked me, ‘Why do I have to pick between the Israelis and the Palestinians? I like them both. I want them both to have peace.’

I want peace, or a relative facsimile thereof, for our country. I want a competent technocrat as president who will appoint Roe-supporting justices, fill the bureaucracy with competent people who never had Bob Jones University as their first, second, third or 10,000th college choice, who will not shit on the Constitution too runnily or gather Straussians in underground star chambers to trade the latest torture porn hot off the presses. Obama and Clinton are our sole shots at that.

Have Obama and his supporters fucked up and been nasty and divisive and shitty at times? Yeah. So has she and so have hers. Both deserve to be raked over the coals when they sling Rovian mud at each other or blatantly and unconstructively break the 11th commandment or fling race and gender cards around or talk about obliterating Iran or invading Pakistan.

But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.

It’s like you project the entire long history of progressive discontent with centrist, party hack Democrats onto Barack Obama, again, fine, but then you turn around and somehow project Dennis Kucinich onto your own candidate. Who is Hillary Clinton. I repeat, Hillary-fucking-Clinton. Who is a real person, with a real legislative record, not some doll you can put overalls on and call Working Class Hero Hills! Now with Gas Tax Holiday Grip!

So I have to ask: why are you doing this? And really, I want to know, because it looks very much like Obama is going to be the nominee and I hope you all come home to support him. Or to turn things out and attempt to be a little more gracious, what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?

UPDATE: I’m glad I got most of the above stuff off my chest. But I also think my apology to Lambert and Corrente will be read as more than a little back-handed, and they’d be right. It’s hard to completely unsnark oneself. But I really do want to mend fences and I want to be clearer about this, so I’ll just ask: What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you? I honestly want to know, because I just don’t get it.


Clif adds: For the record, I am for the candidate that has the best chance of beating St. Bar-BQ. At times the polls have given that edge to Hillary; at times, to Obama. One thing, however, is certain: I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the November elections. I have, it seems, posted more things here ridiculing attacks on Obama than on Clinton, but that is only because Obama seems to have the wingnut-o-sphere so exercised that every time you turn around somebody is saying something preposterous about Obama. It’s hard not to take a hit on that “comedy crack” pipe as somebody said over at Corrente.

2,172 Comments »

  1. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:34

    I can’t believe this! You are denying Obama’s divinity right here in his temple!

    Ooh, I am going to burn so much incense at you…

  2. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:34

    D. Aristophanes, if you think either Clinton or Obama are “centrists” than you’ve been off your meds for too long my friend.

  3. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:43

    You know nothing of economics or political science you dumbfuck. Everything you have said about the economy is bullshit as is your assesment of where Obama and Clinton stand on the political spectrum. A centrist is one who is in the middleground “hence CENTRIST” between Conservatism and leftism. Not marxists who want to redistribute wealth and expand state power. You like most other people on this blog are fucking clueless.

  4. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:45

    Just so very well said, D.

    If I may call you D., that is. I don’t mean to presume.

  5. Marsupial said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:52

    I don’t think we need to worry too much. Other than people who are into this Limbaugh ‘chaos theory’ BS, I really doubt that there are that many Clinton supporters or Obama supporters that are going to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t make it through the primaries.

    Seriously, for what? Spite? That makes sense: I wanted Hillary, but Obama won, so now I’m going to vote for the craziest, most senile, war-mongering, right-wing motherfucker I can find, just to PISS YOU OFF! I don’t think there are that many people willing to destroy everything they stand for just because they want revenge any way they can get it. (Clear-thinking people, anyway.)

    My wife & I have been big Hillary fans since we first heard of her, defended her to everyone, supported her, and backed her campaign at first. But, she lost us, which is amazing. Still, as you said, if she is the nominee I will gladly vote for her without a second thought, and I bet most Hillary supporters feel the same way about Obama — regardless of what MSNBC’s polling says.

  6. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:52

    Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”? Tourettes? Limited frontal lobe activity? Conservatism?

    Just curious.

  7. Matt Weiner said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:54

    Four Yorkshiremen sketch

    We dreamt of living in corridor!

    So awesome….

  8. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:56

    Fighting on means never having to admit you were wrong. Ask the President ’bout that.

    It’s been a long and divisive fight. Some people went into this without an exit strategy, and it looks like they are going to stay out fighting long after the outcome got decided.

  9. Matt Weiner said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:57

    Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”?

    Because he’s John McCain?

  10. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:59

    Something I’ve always wanted to say:

    Weiner for the Win!

  11. Ben said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:11

    This must be that post-wrapping-up-the-nomination-reconciliation I keep hearing about. Well done.

  12. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:13

    DA, I think I know exactly where you’re coming from, because when this whole thing started you could have put “Obama” and “Clinton” in a hat and whichever name you pulled out would have been fine with me. I liked Dodd best, but I knew he had no chance. Anybody but McCain has been my guiding principle from the start of this election, although admittedly the rest of the Republican field was pretty distasteful too.

    And I’ve seen Obama’s warts. I used to drive my wife, a huge Obama fan, crazy, because I just couldn’t get all that enthusiastic about him. I didn’t like his conciliation-above-all rhetoric, he wasn’t liberal enough for my taste, and I didn’t like the fact that he won’t occasionally get down in the policy weeds and demonstrate a sharp grasp of the details. All those things are still there and still bother me, but no candidate is perfect. Then Clinton fell behind, and the attacks started. Obama can’t win. Obama isn’t as qualified for the office as McCain. Obama isn’t a Muslim “as far as I know.” Obama is an elitist snob who looks down on the rest of us on account of his fancy-pants book-learnin’. Liberals hate regyuler folks and are destroying the party. Ignorance is strength. And so on, to the point now where I don’t think there’s a right-wing meme about liberals that she hasn’t embraced and french-kissed at some point over the past month. And given that my goal here has been Anybody but McCain, it’s kind of distressing to me when the second-place Democrat is going McCain’s heavy lifting for him against the first place Democrat. So I became an Obama supporter.

    Now he’s the nominee. Complain if you want but this primary is over. Threaten to go vote for Ralph Nader; hell, go vote for him, or for McCain, or just stay home. President-elect McCain thanks you for your support. The thousands of soldiers who are going to die for President-elect McCain over the next four years, the thousands more who are going to be seriously wounded and/or watch their standard of living continue to plummet to unacceptably poor levels might not thank you so much. Ditto for the poor saps who are going to get themselves waterboarded over the next four years at whatever gulag we pick to replace Gitmo. The working class folks who aren’t going to see a dime of economic relief for the next four years won’t like it, but the mega-rich folks who are about to see their precious Bush tax cuts made permanent will be sure to put you on their Christmas card lists. And when Stevens and Ginsburg retire or otherwise leave the bench, I’m sure you’ll all be satisfied with whomever President-elect McCain will appoint to replace them.

    The best part is, this is all because a sizable minority on the left and left-center would rather lose than risk electing a candidate who is not absolutely 100% undeniably and incontrovertibly perfect in every way, shape, and form. Of course, those people on the left and left-center can’t agree on what the perfect candidate would look like, so that’s a lost cause from the start. But still, better a thousand years of Republican rule than four years of a Democrat who might not be everything we want despite the fact that he’s light-years better than the Republican alternative.

    So hey, Talkleft and Corrente and the rest can keep directing their most vitriolic attacks at the Democratic nominee if they want; there’s certainly no reason they have to stop. But let’s not pretend we’re helping anybody other than McCain, OK?

  13. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:15

    ARGH, “doing,” not “going.”

    I feel shame.

  14. comsympinko said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:16

    Who could have believed the MSM would do its utmost to pit two semi-centrist self-righteous narcissist assholes against one another long enough to generate some serious ratings and for the general public to forget Neanderthal Conservative McSame’s seeming infinite series of politically expedient policy reversals?

    It’s not like elections and war drive ratings or anything.

  15. Joe said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:16

    First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it. Put the message out on matchbook covers or on the back of grocery receipt paper – the ones with with all those coupons.

    We have two politicians fighting for the nomination. Flames erupt when either side pretends they’re something more, or need to be more to matter.

    The worse of our *initial* choices when this primary began is better than the best the GOP had to offer. Something is working.

  16. Jrod said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:21

    I’m just getting really sick of hearing about elitism, which has somehow been defined as drinking OJ and thinking that $30 is not much money. The fact that these accusations of elitism always come from the well-fed, if not the outright rich, does nothing to improve my mood.

    Seriously, if you’ve spent a month barely surviving on spaghetti (without sauce) by selling your plasma, then I’ll listen to you tell me what’s elitist. Otherwise, shut your fat fucking mouth.

    It’s insulting to be told that I’m an elitist because I’m unimpressed by the possibility that Clinton might save me $30 if she gets her bill passed and I spend a couple thousand on gas and the planets align. People who are so broke that $30 is the difference between eating and starving need more help than thirty fucking dollars. I’m an elitist because I notice that? Fuck you.

  17. KC45s said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:27

    Wow. A mature blog post on the Clinton-Obama slugfest. I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf. Kudos. Or is it elitist to use that word? Okay, sorry. Thumb’s up.

  18. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:32

    Hey, Haam,

    You got anything a little more convincing than that? Something with a semblance of coherency or civility or common sense or honesty or decency?

    No?

    Well, I guess you don’t need any of that when all you want to do is repeat the conservative media talking points over and over.

    “Obama is unelectable.”

    “Obama is unelectable.”

    “Obama is unelectable.”

    It just gets truer and truer! I bet you’re all tingly just hearing the growth of its trueness.

  19. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:36

    I can’t disagree with anything you said, which makes me mad.

    What say you, Jonah?

  20. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:47

    If this gas tax thing actually becomes real, I’m not waiting to accumulate $30 – I’m spending my newfound wealth as it happens, 18 cents at a time.

  21. Jrod said,

    May 8, 2008 at 7:56

    Maybe the federal government can make a deal with Maruchan. One free ramen packet with every gallon of gas! Choose between beef or chicken flavor; nothing elitist like mushroom or shrimp.

  22. Jon H said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:11

    Joe wrote: “First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it.”

    And has no right to complain when ‘difficulties ensue’ the next time they seek a new site design.

  23. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:17

    You know, I really wish we had a proportional/parliamentary system in this country sometimes. Just so that assholes like Haam could see what a real leftist or Marxist looks like. And so that the 2% of asshole fascists could have their Asshole Fascist party and have 2% of the votes, and not hijack a whole fucking party.
    Accusing Obama or Clinton of being far left is just ridiculous. Shit, I liked Gravel, but more realistically, Dodd. Then Edwards. Finally, in California I voted for Obama. I’ve got misgivings, but I liked the idea of getting someone in who at least looked different and wasn’t the wife or the son of a former president.
    Democracy truly has yet to take hold in the USA.

  24. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:18

    What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you?

    This is a really good question.

    Please try not to phrase your answer as a conservative talking point.

  25. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:20

    And may I say – GODDAMMIT – I’ve been reduced to drinking fucking BOXED WINE fer Crissake!

    This is a goddamn travesty – And I’m better off than a lotta people out here.

  26. protected static said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:21

    Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 6:43

    Oink, oink, oink, squeee-EEEEEEEE! oink

    Waiter? Could I have another troll? This one’s only half-baked…

  27. protected static said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:23

    Just so that assholes like Haam could see what a real leftist or Marxist looks like.

    To steal my own line, Haam wouldn’t know a Marxist if one rammed a red flag up his ass while bellowing “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation” at the top of their lungs…

  28. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:27

    right – the discourse in this country has been shifted so far to the right that fucking anybody to the left of … ahh fuckit – HTML’s covered that many times.

    Free Mumia.. whatever.

  29. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:29

    actually – Fuck Mumia – he probably did kill that cop.

    Leonard Peltier on the other hand….he might have a case.

  30. Stemler said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:41

    really 30 bucks? I still have a hard time grasping that there exist people somewhere who will absolutely die unless we rush to save them 30 fucking bucks. I mean, if that’s really the case than it’s gonna inevitably happen anyway so why should the rest of us fuck ourselves over just to keep them floating for another two months?

    On a side note, are these same people bitching about immigrants doing their jobs for less. Because, really, if 30 bucks a month is life and death you should damn well love the opportunity to make 2 bucks a day for 10 hours hard labor.

  31. Vic said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:47

    “Creative”. Now there’s a character flaw if I’ve ever heard one.

  32. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:47

    Oh man- like the comedian Doug Stanhope (sp?) said – If you’re complaining that an illiterate peasant with no shoes stole your job – You’re such a loser that you should be fucking too ashamed and embarrassed to tell anyone – much less get all vocal about it.

  33. dAVE said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:50

    Oh and how about the last debate, where the man of the people Charlie Gibson tried to corner that “elitist” Obama on raising taxes on the hard working middle class families that made between $200,000 and $250,000 a year?

  34. Stemler said,

    May 8, 2008 at 8:54

    Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.

  35. Wise old Asian martial arts master / philosopher / waitron said,

    May 8, 2008 at 9:02

    “What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you?”

    Ah, young grasshopper – there really are no answers; only more questions.

    Who ordered spring rolls?

  36. DB said,

    May 8, 2008 at 9:10

    I just want to know how this person’s supporters can seriously attack the “creative class.” How in the tank can you get?

  37. themann1086 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 9:14

    I believe the line is “starvlings from your slumber, arise ye criminals of want.”

    So said my communist chinese friend in high school anyway.

  38. Thers said,

    May 8, 2008 at 9:48

    I’m still mad at everyone for not writing in Gus Hall. Sellouts.

  39. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:04

    Perhaps this is projecting my own miserable, institutionalized racism on Hillary supporters, but I imagine (and strictly just imagine, no proof) that the problem with Obama is that he’s Teh Black. “Of course, I don’t have a problem with it,” they would say “but there’s just no way that millions of blue collar white people are going to vote for him.” Hence, the post-vote emphasis on Hillary getting the white vote in North Carolina.

    Even if I am close to the truth, I further imagine your average, Caucasian, Clinton supporter would never, ever, ever say that in public.

  40. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:24

    Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.

    Not that I probably have to say this but: Bullshit.

    I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.

  41. Kathleen said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:28

    nice post, DA. At the risk of undoing your good work, much nicer than deserved.

  42. Kathleen said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:30

    oh and you beat me to it, IB. Total bullshit.

  43. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:38

    Are you suggesting that there are people in the world who, in talking about the salary of a college professor, would just simply pull numbers out of their butts?

  44. yeah yeah said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:57

    You owed lambert no apology. You were spot on in your first post (and the follow-up), and he knows better than to think that you’re mocking the poor. Unfortunately, the primary has driven him to play the victim early and often. I’m hoping that when the nominee is determined, corrente will return to its regularly scheduled programming.

    98% likely that Obama gets the nomination, and Hillary will endorse him immediately. Hopefully that helps salve the wounds of disappointed Hillary fans.

    Me? I voted for Edwards.

    GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS ALL SUCK EDWARDS WAS THE BEST AND HILLARYBOTS AND OBAMABOYZ ALL SUCK YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING TERRIBLE THEY ARE SUCH PHONIES ONLY EDWARDS REALLY CARES ABOUT PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SO I’M GONNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN JUST TO SPITE YOU REALLY REALLY REALLY.

    Useful, huh?

  45. Just Alison said,

    May 8, 2008 at 11:18

    Hi everyone, and let me briefly derail the conversation once again by thanking y’all for the messages of sympathy. I think I’ll have to head down to the animal shelter sometime soon, because Luschka has turned into a limpet – at the moment she’s resting comfortably on one arm (mine) on the desk, while I try to type with the other.

    Oh and Smut, Abbys in general are loving and well-adjusted animals: you went wrong by naming her after a flibbertigibbet, and she had to live down to your expectations. Qetesh, on the other hand, was named after an Egyptian goddess, and was suitably regal/godly/good with sand.

    I had named the Burmese Luschka because a friend told me it was the pet name that Vita Sackville-West used for her lover, Violet. Imagine my surprise on discovering this information: Google is no longer my friend. At least Lushy doesn’t act like a bile duct, ancillary or otherwise.

    I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf.

    Then you’ll be an orphan on that one, friend, because there ain’t never been no sich animal as a Tasmanian wolf. Tasmanian tiger, yes, but I’ve never heard of the Tasmanian wolf.

    Ack, but wait: this Wikipedia page refers to both names for the graceful (and, sadly, extinct) Thylacine. Well, we live and learn.

  46. Park Menn said,

    May 8, 2008 at 11:31

    Plenty of deal-breakers.

    -Obama did not walk out of Reverend Wright’s sermons.
    -In 2000, an untested Republican candidate promised change and the American people got shafted.
    -He can’t win real people.
    -He’s offering false hope.
    -He gave a speech on the Iraq war, even though actions speak louder than words.
    -We don’t want change you can Xerox.
    -He’s run a campaign right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.
    -He’s trying to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.
    -Obama is not a Muslim, as far as we know.
    -He’s an elitist.
    -He opposes a gas tax holiday, like economists who don’t care about the interests of ordinary american.
    -He can’t win big states.
    -The mainstream media is against Hillary Clinton.
    -He doesn’t have the experience to answer the White House phone at 3am.
    -He can’t stand the heat and should get out of the kitchen.
    -There might be an October surprise with Obama.
    -He’s won’t be ready from Day One.

    Shame on you, Barack Obama! Who do you think has what it takes?

    -Park Menn

  47. justme said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:05

    Haam wouldn’t didn’t know a Marxist if when one rammed a red flag up his ass while bellowing “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation” at the top of their lungs…

    fixed.

  48. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:08

    The nomination was Clinton’s birthright and Obama stole it. And I’m not being snarky. Just expressing the disgust I’ve felt over the last few weeks as Clinton’s supporters have become more vocal and more desperate. He “stole” the nomination; he “played the race card” by – I guess – being African-American; he’s a “frat boy” and “born to privilege” (my personal favorite – a mixed race kid raised by a single mother – now that’s what I call privilege!)
    Seriously DA, you’re missing the point. There is no legitimate argument against Obama. He’s slightly more centrist on domestic issues but far less hawkish then AMUF/blast Iran into the stone-age Clinton yet turn to any pro Clinton blog or comment and see if it isn’t described as if not the beast, at least the neighbor of the beast. And you’re asking for rational, reasoned opinion. From Lambert??? Don’t hold your breath.
    Btw – all quotes above are direct quotes from pro Clinton blogs – and no, the “frat boy” quote isn’t from Tom Schaller.

  49. Chuck said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:38

    I disagree that “we have two strong candidates.” The strong general election candidate is long gone. Neither of the two left standing, with their high negs, would have a strong run against McCain, but I prefer the candidate of wonkish specificity to the candidate of vague notions.
    Anyway, first off, your guy had better:
    – get damned specific, damned soon,
    – lose his naiveté about reaching out to Republicans (wasn’t he paying attention when Clinton, of necessity, tried that with the Republican Congress?),
    – lose his nostalgia for the Reagan years which, like the Bush years, were only good for the moneyed Ruling Class,
    – stop merging the good Clinton years with the horrible Bush years and describing the whole 16 years as one long train wreck, and
    – reign in his Brownshirt disciples.

  50. Major Woody said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:40

    Stemler said,

    Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.

    #

    Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    May 8, 2008 at 10:24

    Not that I probably have to say this but: Bullshit.

    I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.

    Where is this community college where part-timers make 80K/year? I’m all over that! Well, I’m not at any fancy Ivy League university or anything, but I am at a major state university, and I can confirm what Incontinentia is saying. Of course, we elitist professor types are pretty dumb when it come to salary negotiations and such, so maybe we’re just suckers, and all our colleagues are pulling down the big bucks and laughing at us. My “salary negotiation” when I was hired went literally like this: Chairman: “Well, the most we can start you out at is 48K per year.” Me: “Really? Wow! OK!”

    Your field has something to do with it too. I’m a professor of environmental science, and we don’t make what law profs or medical school faculty do, by a long shot. Hell, I’m at the point where, if I need to get much more dental work, I’m going to have to whore myself out to some Exxon think-tank to “prove” that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory. On second thought, nah, I’d rather be toothless.

  51. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:46

    Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:

    1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.

    2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out

    3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ‘sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’

    4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).

    5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ‘supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain – the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then – Clinton won the late deciders.

    6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.

    If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.

    Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?

    We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

    Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

  52. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:48

    Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:

    1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.

    2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out

    3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ‘sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’

    4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).

    5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ‘supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain – the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then – Clinton won the late deciders.

    6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.

    If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.

    Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?

    We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

    Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

    In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’ It’s a fraud, and I’d rather not have the lasting legacy of the 2008 campaign be that we blew it on an empty vessel of faux ‘change.’

  53. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:58

    Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.

    Or maybe this one: which president will be more likely to investigate war crimes and rampant lawbreaking in the executive branch, and which one would be most likely to call a true & let them regroup?

    These are valid arguments, and they are no less driven by fear than Obama supporters’ desire to end the primary as quickly as possible.

    One last thing — and this may seem small but here it is — Hillary said she would not quit, that she would fight to the end, and she has and probably will. Isn’t that what we want, someone who will fight to the finish and make sure every vote is counted, and do it with enthusiasm, passion and grace? She is accused of ‘pandering’ but in a democracy don’t we sometimes, uh, want to get the candidates to commit to things that we want even if they don’t? And this brings us back to the double standard on ‘pandering,’ of course…

  54. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 12:59

    Shit, I didn’t expect my proof to come so quickly. I post at 12:08 and the very next post: Chuck @ 12:38 opens with “your guy”, followed by the absolutely false claim that Obama has “nostalgia for the Reagan years…” (no – he said Reagan’s presidency was a transformative one – that’s a perfectly true statement – and in no way, shape or form does it say the transformation was positive – noted Republican Michael Berube has pointed that out), and, finally, referring to his supporters as “Brownshirt disciples.”
    Seriously, DA, this is your crowd your expecting serious dialogue from?

  55. bernarda said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:02

    I too will vote gladly for Obama though I have long be a Clinton supporter. I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.

    So far among blogs that support Obama, I mostly see two arguments for him: he speaks well and he raises a lot of money. Hardly a political program.

  56. ice weasel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:04

    My message to all the Hillary fans.

    Go ahead, “vote your conscience” or whatever you want to call it. You’ll get what you deserve.

    If you really notice no difference between *any* dem candidate and Taint John of BBQ, then you won’t mind serving under him, in Iran. And probably several other places.

    Now get over yourself. This election is about a lot more than your pet issues or your favoured candidate and if you can’t see that I can’t help you.

    There’s an old saying that misery and poverty is the standard of the human condition and the brief times when humans manage to rise above it are the exceptions not the rule. It’s a bleak outlook but it’s difficult to deflate sometimes.

  57. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:12

    But again, Obama should ask for our votes if he wants them — he assumes that everyone who isn’t going to wouldn’t have in the first place. Wrong.

    Try some more progressive policies, or is that too much ‘pandering’ for Obama to stomach? How about having a landmark speech about health care, one that in the process points out what a crime it is that you have to pay for medical care in the richest country in the world, or what an easily preventable tragedy it is that people die because their insurers arbitrarily decide not to cover an operation? He could come out and explain that he really wants truly universal care but that he thinks his plan is the best we can achieve in one or two years, and it won’t end there. I’d like to be proven wrong, but I’m betting he won’t do anything like that, and the wakeup call is when you start realizing that maybe he doesn’t really care or hasn’t thought about it because he’s so caught up in being a Serious Policy Wonk who listens to the Heritage Foundation as much as anything. Or maybe he’s just afraid to even acknowledge that we want to redistribute wealth from the powerful and the well-off to the people in need. At least Clinton freaking *acknowledges it* even if she doesn’t outright promise to go after single payer right away.

    John McCain panders to his base because he needs their support to win. Guess what, Obama needs ours. And we’re a lot harder to fool. He needs to be competing for our vote, because I have news for you – I am one of the ones who would be out canvassing for him if he had thus far lived up to a fraction of what once seemed to be limitless potential. But sometimes what you see is what you get.

  58. Just Alison said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:18

    Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite

    Pull yer lever for whatever floats yer boat, Iris. But puh-leeze, don’t pretend that a vote against Obama, should he win the nom-nom-nom, is a principled vote.

    Here’s how I see it: the vote in November will be between a crazed, half-senile, wholly warmongering, privileged idiot who knows fuck-all about anything and will doubtless start World Wars IV, V and VI, and a semi-conservative. What can any principled progressive do, but hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

    Jesus Fardling Christ, no-one’s asking you to get “Obama Makes My Nipples Hard!” tattooed on your forehead. But a mature and responsible person would realise that there is not, and never has been, a serious contender for the Presidential Throne who was even slightly progressive (okay, maybe Carter. In some ways).

    So in the absence of Teh Ideal Progressive Candidate, responsible and mature folk will cast their vote for the least worst, recognising, of course, that it is the least worst and not the best that they’re voting for. They don’t stride around bleating about how Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) fails to be the Bestest Ever Progressive Candidate.

  59. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:28

    “I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”

    I think he is. Obama’s got a strong line in bell-ringing jabs, and he’s quick to deliver them.

    It’s been a key part of his platform from the start. He’s always argued that if you want to take on McCain over the Iraq War, for example, you’d better be able to distinguish yourself from him. “I voted for the war before I was against it” is a weak argument. “I’ll bomb Iran” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. “I’m for the gas-tax holiday” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. Voters prefer the real thing over Dems running as “Republican light”.

    …although Hillary would still win against McCain in November. He’s a weak candidate, and it’s a bad time to be from the incumbent side.

    She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

  60. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:35

    A lot of folks commenting at Shakesville yesterday said they were going to vote for McCain because Kos is an asshole, and it’ll be all Kos’ fault anyway. And that Obama is going to ban abortion. And if you tell them that’s crazy, it only means that you yourself are crazy.

    I’ve had to take so very many crazy-ass blogs off my Favorites list in the past few weeks…

  61. Jim said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:39

    Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.

    OK, I thought about it for a while. The answer is ………….. Chris Dodd.
    He endorsed Obama. Do you then dismiss Chris Dodd as an unprincipled charlatan?

    Or maybe this one: which president will be more likely to investigate war crimes and rampant lawbreaking in the executive branch, and which one would be most likely to call a true & let them regroup?

    Well, sort of a meaningless question. Neither candidate has taken any sort of meaningful action on that front.
    I’d say the closest we come is Sen. Leahy – he was fairly vocal about changes to the War Crimes Act two years ago.
    He endorsed Obama.

    I think these are both entirely meaningless issues on which to decide a presidential election – unless your point is that John McCain would be a nightmare on either issue.

    Finally,

    Anyway, first off, your guy had better:
    - get damned specific, damned soon,

    Man, I’m sick of this shit. I’ve seen it adopted as an attack on Obama, but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody raised it against John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or anyone. This is such an empty fucking trope.

    There are campaign websites, with issues sections.
    They’re free! You can read them anytime, even at 3 a.m. or your lunch hour at work, or on a library computer terminal if you can’t afford a computer!
    To complain because a candidate is not presenting these issues to you in hour-long speeches, or in 30-second ads, is just lazy.

  62. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:42

    It should probably be kept in mind that there will be different subjective viewpoints between now (MY candidate is / is not winning, YAY / I wil nevr vot agin) and the actual general election (OMFG after 8 years of Bush Jr we may get ‘nuther Republican / cannot survive).

  63. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:43

    Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:28

    “I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”

    The best way to deal with the Rethugs is to kick even more of them out of office in November of 2008 than in 2006.

    For this task, I am convinced Obama is well equipped.

  64. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:45

    This is more than being asked to vote for the lesser of two evils, this is being asked to nominate someone who isn’t even that proud to be a Democrat (he is post-partisan) and someone who really does believe in Democratic values, even if flawed and compromised.

    I’d also like to direct you here:
    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1504

    And here:
    http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1160

    Go ahead and stick your head in the sand if you want. All I can say is we’d all be a lot more likely to support Sen. Obama if we at least thought he represented our basic message, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what he stands for other than talking to our enemies more and ‘changing the tone.’ Remember, I was leaning towards Obama early on. Not a good sign, folks. The most I’d do is sit the election out, but not everyone detests conservatism like I do or knows the shift (or was it really a shift?) McCain has undertaken from his former status as a ‘maverick.’ And if you’re willing to hold your nose when you vote for the lesser of two evils, why not go ahead and vote for Hillary since she has the most progressive policies?

    The only case you all have that Clinton has run as “Republican lite” is based on distortions from the media about Clinton ‘taking the low road.’ Her policies are certainly more, shall we say, pro-corporate than Edwards, but Obama isn’t even trying. He expects us to fall in line because we have no other viable choice and I’m just saying I know a lot of people are tired of being threatened. Won’t the Democrats in the Senate fight for Roe v. Wade? Won’t they stand for us on torture? It’s blackmail, pure and simple, and it won’t work this time.

  65. Justin said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:48

    She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

    I see, so she’s just power hungry, but Obama “really wants to make things better.” This is an odd mix of mind-reading, sexism and true-believerism.

  66. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:50

    I actually had to fight against a lot of Clintonian / DLC Democrats who were actively fighting for a Republican agenda and against anything I supported.

    Although Obama may not scream every day what an awesome party Democrat he is, he is (a) not the founder and leader of an organized group (i.e., DLC) which has declared its political goals to undermine liberals and labor; and (b) seems to me a great deal less likely to be a hardline fighter against pushes for liberal and progressive bills by the Congress, as HRC would be.

  67. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:51

    HAAM:

    A centrist is one who is in the middleground “hence CENTRIST” between Conservatism and leftism.

    Believe it or not, that’s traditionally / historically been the definition of ‘liberal’. So I guess you’re the one who’s fucking clueless, HAAM.

    (Sorry, all. I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but the idiocy was just too blatant to ignore.)

    .

  68. David Coverdale's Pinched Anus said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:52

    Iris stood in the front of the mirror when she said all that and made little, self-righteous “fist-shaking” motions at certain key emphasis points.

  69. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:52

    What bothers me in all this is the almost total reliance on right-wing talking points. In the end the person who benefits the most from the Republican message is the Republican candidate. Isn’t that obvious?

    If Hillary wins the nomination she’s going to be portrayed as elitist, and half her supporters will be former Obama supporters, that damn “creative class.” (lol) The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.

    Latte-liberal is right out of the GOP playbook, and that’s exactly how *either* Democratic candidate is going to be charicatured. Why give the right-wing ammo?

    Obama and Clinton? Where were all these true progressive purity-trolls when Dodd and Kucinich were still in the race? Oh yeah, I forgot, Kucinich believes in UFOs and Dodd looks old. Silly me. We couldn’t support them but now we have to fight to the death over which identical twin can maybe save those of us with cars $30. Even if that fight tanks our chances in the general election.

    Why is anyone still talking about this horse-race bullshit? Nobody has anything new to say. Yeah yeah, Obama supporters are all yuppie fags and Clinton supporters are old harpies. We got it the first thousand times.

    What possesses anyone at this point to think “wow I’ve got some really novel thoughts about Obama and Clinton that I just have to share with everyone”?

    Seriously? Can anyone answer that?

  70. TR said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:53

    In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’

    Wonderful strawman you created there. His claim to the nomination comes from the fact that he’s won more votes and earned more delegates — you know, from the party non-elites.

  71. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:02

    Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

    I’m very, very tired of that.

  72. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:05

    Iris: You’re right. Let’s see to it McCain gets in. I mean, there is an upside. Before the insane right wing ideologues he appoints to the Supreme Court are able to do much damage he’ll have started WW III anyway, so what difference will the repeal of Roe v. Wade make?
    That’ll show us who’s boss. A damn fine plan and one any liberal can be proud of.

  73. Black NASCAR Star said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:05

    The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day.

    Erm … it is mathematically impossible for her to win now, even with FLA and MICH, unless she wins all the remaining states by 90 percent of the vote.

    Are HRC supporters among those liberal academic elites who contend that math and science are nothing more than “the dominant belief systems of the economic patriarchy.”

  74. Blue Jean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:09

    The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.

    Obama already did that when he said blue collar folks are “bitter” and “clinging to their guns.” I winced out loud when I heard that, because I knew the GOP would jump on it. If anything, Hillary saved us with the working class when she denonced that comment. Lesson One in Dem Politics; If you don’t want to be attacked with GOP talking points, then don’t give them ammunition.

    I think that’s the least we can expect from a GOP nominee.

    Though I agree mostly with Iris, I’ll vote for Obama for the sake of party unity. He’ll need it since he’s pretty much lost the blue collar folks already.

  75. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:11

    The best part is, this is all because a sizable minority on the left and left-center would rather lose than risk electing a candidate who is not absolutely 100% undeniably and incontrovertibly perfect in every way, shape, and form.

    If we felt this way, many of us wouldn’t be voting for Hillary, as many of your criticisms are well-taken. But that’s not it. You compromised too soon, and now you’re lowering your expectations every day and defending Obama’s completely non-universal health care reform plan. It’s about the issues, and these are issues of no small import. We’ve been through this before, asked to sit down and shut up and we have — but Barack doesn’t seem to think he needs the ‘old coalition’ anymore, because he’s changing the nature of politics. God, how fucking naive can we be? Oh wait, I can’t call Obama naive because that would be playing the race card!!!

    Our Dem leadership is getting ready to pass telecom immunity for mass warrantless domestic surveillance, Schumer is already lowering expectations on health care, and Obama scoffs at the idea of taxing rich people. We should just sit down and shut up and vote for Obama because he makes a tingle go up Chris Matthews leg (and many progressives’, apparently)? Because if we don’t the Dems will let the Republicans take away our rights? If Obama does his work he could convince me, and I told the campaign that when they called. Who wants to bet, though, that he won’t? Because it would alienate the former Reaganites…

    I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can. Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that this is overriding the “will of the people” If this doesn’t happen, Obama either panders to the base or he loses. Simple as that. And he may lose even with our support. I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done. It will certainly be historic, though not in the way we had hoped.

  76. Blue Jean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:12

    Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

    As tired as we are that if we say anthing pro-Hillary, or criticize Obama, then we’re KKKers who get a kick out of toasting marshmallows on burning crosses?

  77. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:14

    Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.

    Won’t the Democrats in the Senate fight for Roe v. Wade? Won’t they stand for us on torture?

    Are these joke questions?

    Neither candidate would ever filibuster telecom immunity. They both had their chance and declined. Senate Democrats won’t stand for us on torture, we know that for a fact, that’s been proven beyond all doubt. Neither Obama or Clinton voted on Mukasey by the way. We don’t have to speculate on these things, they are well-established by history.

  78. Jim said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:17

    I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done. It will certainly be historic, though not in the way we had hoped.

    If you really want to convince anyone about anything, stop scolding them – particularly about something they presumably put some thought into.

  79. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:19

    Blue jean: Thank you so much for noble willingness to vote for the centrist candidate who beat your centrist candidate in a nearly year long campaign. You’re a real trooper.
    DA, really man, this is what I meant – Obama the elitist who was saved by Clinton, as were we all.
    Still waiting for that calm, rational explanation.

  80. Matt T. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:20

    I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done.

    Knew we’d be hearing this. “We could’ve won if it hadn’t been for you damn kids! We’re only doing this for your benefit, you know.”

    Bah.

  81. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:22

    Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.

    The nastiness, in my view, started with one simple thing: the Obama campaign deliberately chose to play the race card against fellow Democrats in South Carolina. Unfairly but as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. Big mistake; we take that charge somewhat seriously, you know. So yeah, I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.

  82. Anne Laurie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:23

    Y’know, I think I may have commented here long enough that I won’t be instantly mistaken for a “Hilbot drive-by hitwoman”, and for the record I will state AGAIN that I’m voting for the Democratic candidate be that Obama, Hillary, or a left-handed wide receiver to be named later. But seriously, Obama’s claims to the presidency are no less and no more legitimate than Hillary’s, okay?

    As Aristophanes so eloquently explains, both Barak and Clinton are party-hack “centrists” whose allegiance to the (D) column keeps them from sinking to the nadirs of xenophobic militarism that the (R) column stalwarts demand from their candidates. Barak has the advantage (I’m told) of being New! and Inspirational! and possessing a patent on Hope!!! Hillary has the advantage of having been on the national radar a lot longer. Neither of them have run Ghandian campaigns so far, and Clinton’s advisors have made far more and worse messes in public. And Obama’s been fortunate in his enemies, because frankly “This time, it’s different!” has trumped “At long last, it’s our turn!” So, one way and another, it looks like Obama’s going to be the Democratic nominee that I will be voting for six months from now.

    Which doesn’t mean that I believe Obama’s going to be my friend, or even that I would want him to be. The minute he gets the nomination, if not sooner, he’s going to start disappointing us. By the time he sits down in the Oval Office, he’ll have “betrayed” some portion of his fiercest constituency. He’s a politician, and that’s what politicians do. I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama, so he’ll have pissed off a lot of his “base” by the time he gets around to crushing my dreams for a better America — I hope.

    Although if Obama ‘Reaches Across the Aisle in the Spirit of Bipartisan Comity!!!’ and taps Willard Romney for his VP, I may have to reconsider.

  83. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:25

    iris @ 14:11
    It’s really this simple: McCain or Obama.
    Take your pick – barring death or major scandal one of those two will be taking the oath of office in Jan. 09.
    If you’re ok with McCain – more power to you. Hope you don’t care about Roe v. Wade, peace in our lifetime, the end of torture, tax cuts for the rich, etc, etc, etc.

  84. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:27

    This is not good.

    “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    Although I haz college degree, I must go off to work. As a number of posters at Atrios said, they had to put on their white faces and go work hard.

  85. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:29

    If you really want to convince anyone about anything, stop scolding them – particularly about something they presumably put some thought into.

    It’s nothing personal, but I am at pains to point out that Hillary and her supporters put up with this daily. Everyone seems to have been calling for her to drop out of the race since the Iowa caucuses, and women are made to feel as if they have to apologize for voting for a woman because, you know, we just want to get past those icky gender politics. It seems to me that everyone is allowed to play gender politics EXCEPT Hillary and her supporters, but it’s just played from the opposite side. Go try and defend Hillary over at Daily Kos and see what it gets you…

  86. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:31

    Nice post, D.! Can we get back to teh snark now?

  87. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:32

    How is supporting Obama a “compromise”? Maybe some people just like Obama better.

    Ask a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and another 4 million refugees about their health care. On my blog I have a picture of a kid with his leg blown off above the calf. Who’s paying for his health care? “Universal”? No.

    Our Dem leadership is getting ready to pass telecom immunity for mass warrantless domestic surveillance,

    Hillary has never fought against telecom immunity, and was the LAST one to weigh in on it. She only made a statement on it after being repeatedly pressed and after Obama had already done so. (Who himself only weighed in on it after being pressed repeatedly)

    You appear to be living in some sort of fanatasy-land where Hillary is leading on issues like telecom immunity. In reality she’s bringing up the rear. She has shown zero leadership on that issue, zero leadership on torture.

    That’s what makes me scratch my head about all this. Look at the records of Obama and Clinton. We aren’t talking about Dodd here. Clinton and Obama are not civil liberties crusaders, they aren’t fighting tooth and nail against torture or telecom immunity, they aren’t fighting to close gitmo or to restore Habeas or to stop extraordinary rendition. Neither of them is doing jack shit on any of these issues.

    You need a serious reality check. If we’re counting on the leadership of Clinton or Obama on these issues we’re fucked.

    I don’t care if you support Clinton, but can you find some reasons that make sense? Telecom immunity? The fuck?

  88. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:33

    How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

    Quick pointer: Just because Rove tries to smear your candidate with something, does not mean it is 100% false. The key is turning your weaknesses into strengths, not ignoring that the weakness exist and painting your opponent as racist for pointing them out. Jeez.

  89. javafascist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:34

    And if you’re willing to hold your nose when you vote for the lesser of two evils, why not go ahead and vote for Hillary since she has the most progressive policies?

    Happily. But she will not be an option (unless you happen to be in one of the remaining 6.) To all her supporters, I’m truly sorry your candidate didn’t win. That sucks. I know because I’ve spent my adult voting life supporting the person that loses: in both primaries and general. Perhaps this will help ease the pain as you pull the lever for Obama in Nov. By voting for Obama you will be making the following people cry: Doughy Pantload, Red State, Freepers en masse, the architects of the Southern Strategy, Pam Oshrey (probably be more of a shriek), Michelle Malkin, the krazy k-lo korner kids, etc…

  90. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:34

    Kinky Friedman said it best:

    Fuck ‘em and make ‘em eat Fruit Loops.

  91. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:35

    Yeesh. Clinton supporters. I don’t get you. Yes your candidate is smart, successful and would do well in the general election. But Barack Obama is not the antichrist anymore than Clinton is. I think that in certain areas (e.g. foreign policy for Obama and Health Care for Clinton) one candidate would be better in the White House than the other. Overall? Not really. Either will have (if we are fortunate not to have a 3rd term of Bush) a huge freakin’ mess on their hands that will require all of their energy to even begin to repair.

    I keep hearing about the whole ‘electability’ argument. Which is stupid, because it can be argued that BOTH candidates are unelectable. Also, when the Clinton supporters complain that Barack Obama can’t win working class whites, hispanics or older women, (and that’s the key to November) they neglect to mention that Clinton has difficulty winning Obama’s coalition. You know, the youth vote, African Americans or people with higher educatoin… people we EQUALLY need to win in November.

    Also: Yes Obama’s more rabid supporters wanted Hillary out of the race in February. Why? Because she lost 11 contests in a row and at that point it became mathematically dubious for her to win the nomination through a pledged delegate total. So her campaign started arguing that certain states didn’t count, that Michigan and Florida should be counted as is, (even though they broke the rules, Obama didn’t campaign in either and wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan) and that the supers should decide based on ‘electability.’ Just a question Hillary supporters: but if your candidate had had a narrow but clear pledged delegate lead in February and Obama’s camp started suggesting such things, wouldn’t you feel that he was attempted to win by crook what he couldn’t win at the ballot box?

    I apologize for ranting, just I don’t get it. Neither candidate is a saint. Both can, based on polls, win the darn thing. Each does better with their respective constituencies, each brings something to the table. Yes, both could lose it, and both have weak spots. Anyone who thinks the fight for November is going to be easy is out and out crazy. The Republicans know how screwed they are, hence they are at their most dangerous.

    The idea that either nominee is so terrible and so awful and so out of touch with (insert core democratic constituency here) that you would want to enable (through either inaction or action) a third term of Bush is flat out insane.

    /rant

  92. LauraJMixon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:35

    I may be coming to this discussion too late, and feelings may be running too strong for me to have any impact, but I’m going to try. I’m a Clinton supporter who thinks Obama has plenty to offer as a candidate, as well. Though I think issues matter more, I get a thrill when I ponder how historic this race truly is. The idea of a presidency that might make a true dent in the racial divide in this country, and heal some of the wounds of our past, is huge.

    What has gotten up my nose is the overt and appalling misogyny in this primary, which leaves me and many other women feeling pretty much thrown under the bus. Violet at Reclusive Leftist captures it here.

    I don’t agree with Violet about not voting for Obama. I think we all do need to come together, ultimately. And the misogyny doesn’t excuse the racism that has come from the Clinton side of the infosphere. I’ve been appalled and embarrassed by some of the things Clinton supporters have said and done.

    I must defer to my friends of color with regard to the level of racism they have experienced as directed at Obama — I’ve certainly seen evidence of things that have made me angry on his behalf. I don’t think it benefits any of us to try to weigh whether Clinton has experienced more sexism than Obama has racism.

    But the overt, blatant misogyny directed against her during this campaign has made me just sick to my stomach. In that context, getting a patronizing lecture about how all us Clinton supporters need to fall into line doesn’t sit very well.

    Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist. I spent a lot of time thinking over my choice, before I settled on Clinton. I have good reasons for it, which you may disagree with, and I’m willing to discuss them, but don’t expect to change my mind by insulting me for my choice.

  93. Michael Dietz said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:39

    The last time I gave a rat’s ass about who was going to wind up the Democratic nominee was whenever it was last possible to think of John Edwards as a genuine contender. Since then, from my perspective, it’s been all show. If I’ve had any sort of preference between the two crypto-rightist Establishmentarians currently on offer, it’s for Obama, merely on the grounds that he’s the more talented politician: Hillary has never, ever looked comfortable on the stump, and my guess is that natural (like, ironically, Bill) plays better in the general than sweaty.

    So from this relatively impartial position, I have to say that I’ve been really surprised and dismayed to see bloggers (Lambert, Susie Madrak) who I’ve considered reliably, even eloquently, leftist go off the deep end in these last couple of months. I don’t understand it either–I also don’t see it to the same degree on the Obama side (though I also never touch the orange Satan’s site). When somebody like Lambert does this cute “creative class (cough)” bullshit–which can only be a sniggering way of suggesting that Obama supporters are all big big ‘mos–we’re in the Twilight Zone of political discourse. I no longer read either Corrente or Suburban Guerilla, after having read them for years. It’s not because Hillary love offends me (OK, it does, a little, but so does Obama love): it’s because their politics seem so driven by their class (or other) resentments, whatever they are, that it’s embarrassing to watch. They’ve abandoned intellectual honesty and squandered their credibility because of some visceral dislike of (some caricature of) Obama support, and they won’t get it back.

  94. Justin said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:40

    You appear to be living in some sort of fanatasy-land where Hillary is leading on issues like telecom immunity. In reality she’s bringing up the rear. She has shown zero leadership on that issue, zero leadership on torture.

    No, I’m just choosing the lesser of two evils, as some here have advised. What I’m saying is that Hillary is eminently more sensible of the threat to our republic, to the general welfare itself, that the conservative movement poses. So Hillary has compromised her principles in favor of political survival? Duly noted and acknowledged. But so has Obama – and I refuse to stand idly by and watch anyone paint him as some sort of progressive savior when he’s not whatsoever. He threw his own pastor under the bus after a supposedly ‘offensive’ speech and a press conference – how long will it take him to throw the rest of us under the bus? At the end of the day, all issues considered, I suppose I just have a little more faith in Hillary to not give up so easily.

  95. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:40

    Everyone seems to have been calling for her to drop out of the race since the Iowa caucuses, and women are made to feel as if they have to apologize for voting for a woman because, you know, we just want to get past those icky gender politics.

    Nobody has to apologize for voting for Clinton. What gets my goat is threatening to not vote at all if Clinton doesn’t win. That’s just silly. Not voting makes it easier for McCain to win, and from a logical perspective it makes no sense, period.

    It’s just a dressed-up version of taking your ball and going home.

    I’m not a huge fan of either candidate, but I’ll vote for whichever one wins, because quite frankly to do otherwise would be fucking stupid.

  96. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:41

    Anne Laurie:

    I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama…

    Which, to be fair, is probably a quality we want in the presidential candidate – at least during the general election.

    At least, in that situation, one would think ‘winning’ is roughly equivalent to ‘maximizing the political career’.

    .

  97. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:41

    Iris, all SadlyNauts,

    We have to get beyond our ‘feelings’.

    Some of us are supporting Clinton, others are supporting Obama. For full disclosure, I am one of those who support Obama. I know that there are very intelligent people who support Clinton for what are doubtless very good reasons. Obama appears to be winning at this point, though that could change.

    The important thing, to me, is that we should not attack each other. The ‘Ramengate’ thing seemed to me to be very insulting to Obama supporters, calling us ‘the “Creative Class”‘ and ‘elites’ and other complete nonsense, and that is why it angered us. I don’t doubt but that Obama supporters have insulted Clinton supporters at some time, and if so I am sorry.

    We, (Clintonite or Obama-ite bloggers) need to be the intelligent part of our groups and try to keep the attacks to a modicum. We don’t need a schism in the Democratic party now.

  98. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:45

    You completely have to read economist Bryan Caplan in the NYT on why he supports the gas tax “holiday”.

    Yes, it still makes bad economic sense.

    But he supports it because he fears if something throwaway and symbolic like this isn’t done, the public may demand some actual solution and that would be worse.

    You think I am joking

    I am not.

    From “The 18 Cent Solution“, by Bryan Caplan in The New York Times

    Why are economists so opposed? In the short run, the supply of gasoline is basically fixed; it takes a while to build a new refinery. The demand for gasoline, in contrast, is more responsive to price; we’re already seeing greater use of public transportation and brisk sales of fuel-efficient cars. When you combine fixed supply with flexible demand, it’s suppliers, not demanders, who pocket the tax cut. That’s Econ 101.

    So far, I pretty much agree with the consensus. Economists might overstate the rigidity of supply — it’s possible that eliminating the tax could spur producers to find a way to squeeze out a little more gas — but they’re probably right that the Clinton-McCain proposal will not shrink the price at the pump. Nevertheless, I think it’s an idea worth supporting. In fact, I’ve got two arguments in favor of it, though I doubt that either candidate will want to repeat them in public.

    The first is that the tax holiday is a relatively cheap symbolic gesture that makes truly bad policies less likely. The main causes of high gas prices are probably factors beyond our control, like rapid growth in China and India and low real interest rates. But voters don’t want to hear this; they want politicians to “do something!”

    During our last big energy crisis, in the 1970s, “something” turned out to be a salad of populist nonsense: price controls, rationing, windfall profits taxes, arcane loopholes and lots of lawsuits. That political response turned an inconvenience into a disaster.

    We can do better this time. Since in an election year Congress will feel compelled to show the voters that it feels their pain, let’s do something that at least keeps energy markets in good working order. The tax holiday fits the bill. Markets will adjust to it, no problem. And it won’t cost much — the estimated $9 billion in lost revenue is about $30 per person. That’s not a bad price to pay for a little insurance against a rerun of misguided ’70s measures.

    Second, even a “giveaway” to the oil industry sets a positive course for the future. During the last crisis, the industry was a scapegoat for scarcity. Politicians scrambled to stop oil companies from profiting from the crisis, even though temporarily high profits end shortages by giving businesses an incentive to figure out how to increase output.

    It’s naïve to think that the oil companies have forgotten the ’70s. They know there’s a decent chance that economic populism will return. In fact, it already has: Senator Clinton’s full proposal is to combine her tax holiday with a ’70s-style windfall profits tax.

    In this light, that oil companies might pocket most of the tax cut could easily be a good thing. It helps cancel out the negative legacy of the last energy crisis: public hysteria will occasionally work in your favor. This makes the energy companies less likely to hunker down on their profits and more likely to do what they didn’t do enough of in the 1970s: search for ways to increase production.

    Yeah.

    Tell me again why I hate me, the working class, because I don’t support d*ckhead policies designed to help the poor, poor oil companies avoid burdensome populist reforms and allow the poor, poor dears to make up all that money that they lost when they went broke in the 1970s which I somehow never heard of?

    Tell me again which approach is patronizing and arrogant.

    Yeah.

  99. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:46

    I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can. Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that this is overriding the “will of the people” If this doesn’t happen…

    Ummm, Iris… if your candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, then how does that reflect the will of the people if another candidate gets larger than 50% of the vote? Wouldn’t Hillary winning through the super-delegates and/or seating Michigan and Florida as is without sanctions be something (if not exactly) akin to having the Supreme Court pick the winner?

  100. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:48

    Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:33

    How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

    Let’s think about that one a while.

    Not exclusively whites?: Those are exactly who was referenced.

    “any different than if”: If is different from did.

    Finally, Iris, saying “all the Archie Bunkers out there won’t vote for the n!gger so support me “* is something I never want to hear from a Democratic candidate.

    *My paraphrase, and I think it’s accurate.

  101. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:52

    Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist.

    I’ve honestly never heard anyone say this. Maybe I don’t hang out in the right places…I like to think that when people support a candidate it’s not because they are racist or sexist or “compromised too early” but that they simply like that candidate better.

    I liked Dodd. I guess that makes me both racist and sexist. (But not ageist!)

    As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced – yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.

  102. Suicidal Zebra said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:54

    Damn, and here I thought British Politics were divisive.

  103. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:55

    As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced – yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.

    Some people liked this Saturday Night Live sketch where some black dude was calling Clinton a bitch, or something like that. I thought it was fuckin’ stupid.

    Also didn’t like those “Vote Obama! Bro’s Before Ho’s” t-shirts.

  104. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:57

    I voted for Clinton in the primary, and will gladly pull the lever for Obama in the general – assuming he’s the candidate, which seems likely at this point.

    Frankly, I’m perplexed by the hate/nastiness from both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide. Neither is a perfect vessel for our hopes, but the important point is that they are vessels for the changes we would like to see enacted.

    McCain is a vessel for despair.

  105. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 14:59

    Also can people stop using the phrase “Obamabots”?

    I’m not a big fan of Obama or Clinton, but I dislike Obama a bit less. That makes me a latte-drinkin’ racism-cryin’ robot? I don’t even know what a latte is.

    Literally dehumanizing people because they have the audacity to prefer another candidate?

    How about a tiny bit of good faith and charity? I’m not a robot and I’m not a retard, I just like one candidate more than another. It happens.

  106. The voice of reason said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:01

    Look, the entire Corrente crew has gone off the fracking deep end. No need to apologize to those clueless rubes. Lambert is the worst of the bunch. It is like an echo chamber for idiots attached to Hilary Clinton’s gallbladder drinking bile straight from her right upper quandrant.

    Now that I have that off my chest – I totally agree – I’d vote for either BHO or HRC in a heartbeat against any Republican even if Abe Lincoln himself rose from the grave (because you know, if he were still a R after resurrection then it would mean he must have had a sip of their Koolaid)

  107. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:02

    But the overt, blatant misogyny directed against her during this campaign has made me just sick to my stomach. In that context, getting a patronizing lecture about how all us Clinton supporters need to fall into line doesn’t sit very well.

    Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist. I spent a lot of time thinking over my choice, before I settled on Clinton. I have good reasons for it, which you may disagree with, and I’m willing to discuss them, but don’t expect to change my mind by insulting me for my choice.

    Thank you for putting it so well. But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle? The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama. Hillary has said she’ll fight til every American has health care — that’d be a start. Obama could also rule out using military contractors like Blackwater (no more privatization of the military) or do some “straight talk” about how there is no Social Security ‘crisis,’ ….or that he will not appoint SCOTUS justices solely on the basis that they went to harvard law….anything! I can tell you right now if the Hope and Change seem as empty in November as they do now, I will stay home. And I’ll encourage other progressives to do so also.

    It seems that to criticize Obama I must first prove Clinton to be an angel….but it just doesn’t work that way.

    I really do feel what you mean about not tarring Democrats as ‘elitist,’ but to a degree there is a bit of elitism that we are unwilling to examine, or so it seems. It’s certainly not a good idea to internalize every Republican smear, attack or criticism, but there is some elitism in telling rank and file Democrats to “move past” the fights of the 1990′s — taxes, health care, jobs, the post-cold war ‘peace dividend’ — those were important fights worth fighting. Obama reveals his elitism by dismissing the Clinton and Bush presidencies together in one fell swoop,

    I say if Obama wants to be the nominee that badly, he has to offer us more. If he doesn’t need people like me that care about those issues (and yes, ending the war is important to fund such things as health care) then he can look for votes elsewhere. Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

  108. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:03

    Justin said,

    May 8, 2008 at 13:48

    She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.

    I see, so she’s just power hungry, but Obama “really wants to make things better.” This is an odd mix of mind-reading, sexism and true-believerism.

    No no no – I’m saying that the Dem nominee WILL BE the next President. McCain will not win because, this year, after Katrina and Iraq and the second Bush recession, having an [R] appended to your name is the kiss of electoral death.

    Which is why Hillary is fighting hard, despite being behind and very unlikely to win the nomination from here. Obama’s fighting just as hard. The only difference is he’s ahead and is very likely to win the nomination from here.

  109. LittlePig said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:05

    His Grace said:

    Also, when the Clinton supporters complain that Barack Obama can’t win working class whites, hispanics or older women, (and that’s the key to November) they neglect to mention that Clinton has difficulty winning Obama’s coalition. You know, the youth vote, African Americans or people with higher education… people we EQUALLY need to win in November.

    The unspoken corollary seems to be “where the hell else are they going to go?”, one of the many “tough shit” arguments from Obama electability doubters. I think Hillary is being a horse’s ass of a much greater degree of magnitude than Barack. Sure, I’ll vote for her if she gets the nom, but I think she has become so cynical that she’s now a full-on triangulator like Bill. I believe Barack could sweet talk some better deals than Hillary’s “fold if it’s not a quick win” approach.

    And the $30 argument of Lambert’s is really pitiful, as it reveals he is not well-versed as a poor person either. If $30 is a deal breaker, you ride the damn bus (Here in Little Rock it’s $32/month unlimited) – you won’t be buying gas to begin with.

  110. NickM said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:05

    “really 30 bucks? I still have a hard time grasping that there exist people somewhere who will absolutely die unless we rush to save them 30 fucking bucks.”

    I’ll believe it. There certainly is a limited segment of the population that can’t get a job or is scraping by on minimum wage, has health care problems, etc. to whom $30 is a very big deal. Particularly if kids are in the picture. (I’ve also known basically middle-class kids who have slummed, seemingly so they could spin out poverty tales like Lambert’s, but I’ll give him/her the benefit of the doubt on this). In any case I don’t believe people for whom $30 spells the difference between eating and going without are often found tooling around in their own private cars, which is the whole point of the argument about the importance of saving $30 over three months in gas tax. Lambert neglects to mention whether s/he had a car at the time of extreme poverty. I’m sure s/he didn’t.

    There’s better ways to reach the desparately poor and hungry than with a gas tax break – a point elided by Lambert’s post. I’d much rather the government hand out free food or extend unemployment benefits, etc. than give a tax break to Hummer-3 drivers to target the small part of the population who have chosen car ownership over eating.

  111. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:05

    Yeah, I don’t like being called an Obamabot either. And, if you call Clinton supporters Hillbots or some crap like that, then please stop.

    Does someone think that Clinton supporters are ‘retards’? Well, let me clue you in: James Wolcott is not a retard. Think Obama supporters are ‘retards’? Guess what. Roy Edroso is not a retard.

    Can we just admit that, while neither of them is perfect, neither of them is Satan either?

  112. LauraJMixon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:07

    Er, Random Observer, look up.

    Johnny Coelacanth, May 8, 2008 at 10:04:

    “Perhaps this is projecting my own miserable, institutionalized racism on Hillary supporters, but I imagine (and strictly just imagine, no proof) that the problem with Obama is that he’s Teh Black. ‘Of course, I don’t have a problem with it,’ they would say ‘but there’s just no way that millions of blue collar white people are going to vote for him.’ Hence, the post-vote emphasis on Hillary getting the white vote in North Carolina.

    “Even if I am close to the truth, I further imagine your average, Caucasian, Clinton supporter would never, ever, ever say that in public.”

  113. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:07

    Iris…when puffing up your chest and acting like your grand progressive feet should be kissed by Obama, it would behoove you not to drop lines like this:

    I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can.

    Simply put, Hillary cannot win the nomination without “technical means,” and by “technical means” I mean “Election 2000 Part 2.” And you sincerely hope this happens?

    Wow. Oh yes, you certainly = teh progressive. I couldn’t possibly mistake you for yet another wingnut lackey.

  114. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:10

    The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

    1. Because he’s not John McCain.
    2. Because he’s not John McCain.
    3. BECAUSE HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN.

  115. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:10

    Iris:

    But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle?

    Maybe because protest votes and staying home didn’t work out too well the last two election cycles. And it’s not demand to fall in line, so much as a request to consider the options and the consequences.

  116. Professor Illuminata said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:12

    Two things (and I know I’m coming to this late):

    1. I am a tenured professor (with a PhD) at a private, elitist liberal arts college. I started, in 1999, at 33K. I now make exactly 50K. That’s after three years with tenure. So, no, the American professoriate (with the exception of those in the business schools) are not part of the demographic that is really concerned with capital gains tax hikes.

    2. When did “post-partisan” become a pejorative? Partisan politics is killing our government’s ability to function.

  117. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:12

    So yeah, I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.

    Perfectly and 100% fair and understood. I don’t know of anyone who’s done that, and I haven’t done that myself, but people who said that to you were completely, completely wrong.

  118. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:12

    Blue Jean said

    “Lesson One in Dem Politics; If you don’t want to be attacked with GOP talking points, then don’t give them ammunition.

    No, I think they can make their own ammunition no matter what you do.

    We tried nominating a decorated Vietnam Vet, a true war hero – and see the kind of ammunition they got out of that.

    Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

  119. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:15

    How about a tiny bit of good faith and charity? I’m not a robot and I’m not a retard, I just like one candidate more than another. It happens.

    Same here…I try not to do that personally, but sometimes you do have to use confrontational language to make a point. If you go elsewhere you’ll find that Hillary supporters are mocked as deranged “Hillbots” (Balloon Juice comes to mind) and practically called traitors to the cause (even here) because we won’t just fall in line even though Obama may happen to pull off a very slim victory. Many of us compromised once already and are unwilling to completely sell out and up-end the party into total meaninglessness so that we can have a feel-good moment. I think that’s as perfectly valid an opinion as preferring to keep our heads down and hope for victory. Because even if we do win, what kind of mandate would we have with a campaign based on ‘less partisanship and more unity’? What would Obama do when entrenched Bush appointees in the civil service start to revolt and run ratfucking operations with their GOP pals out of office? Maybe it’s silly, but I have a much easier time imagining Hillary bringing down the hammer on them. This just isn’t the time (not yet) for unity and reconciliation. Would Obama grope endlessly for the middle way?

  120. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:16

    No, I think they can make their own ammunition no matter what you do. We tried nominating a decorated Vietnam Vet, a true war hero – and see the kind of ammunition they got out of that. Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

    Bingo.

  121. Jake H. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:16

    I like Hillary’s plans to expand National Science Foundation funding and grants.

    An NSF plug on Sadly, No! ?!? I’m swooning.

    In all seriousness, NSF funding SHOULD BE the biggest no-brainer for any President or Member of Congress, since it’s the best-run agency in the federal government and basic research is probably the best thing that tax dollars can support. But you know, politicians tend to get distracted by shiny things right around the time they’re supposed to be finishing appropriations…

  122. LauraJMixon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:16

    (But thanks for acknowledging the misogyny.)

  123. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:16

    I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

    He decided to run his campaign without lobbyist money or PAC money. I still can’t believe that. Totally insane.

    Then he won.

    That’s worth voting for.

  124. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:16

    Iris-

    Because I’m ever-so-curious, who did you vote for in 2000?

  125. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:17

    Thank you for putting it so well. But why should we fall into line exactly? So they can take us for granted again next election cycle? The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

    We are talking about in the general election. You want to vote for Clinton now? Knock yourself out.

    I can tell you right now if the Hope and Change seem as empty in November as they do now, I will stay home. And I’ll encourage other progressives to do so also.

    “Other” progressives? Progressives don’t campaign for McCain.

    I’m really starting to believe that this “stay home and protest” meme was started by some clever Republicans because they are the ones who obviously benefit from it.

  126. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:17

    How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

    Fuck off bonehead.

  127. serena kitt said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:17

    This snark-free postage is like Splenda– i know it tastes *like* sugar, but it’s got that unsnarky aftertaste of ass.

    However, i, too, sing Ameri–uh, will vote for HRC should she ride to the nomination on a magic pony after Denver. Of course, given that the black people will shave 5,279 feet off the mile-high city if Obama doesn’t win, because we can’t control the primal urges that cause us to automatically translate pluralities among primary-and-caucus delegates into mandates, we might still end up nominating the boy wonder, John Edwards. Edwards-McDreamy ’08!

  128. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:19

    If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    And by the same token, that is perfectly and 100% wrong. You wanna talk about throwing people under the bus — that’s what you intend to do. If Clinton got the nomination, I, as an Obama supporter, would eagerly and wholeheartedly vote for her. Because I don’t want my sister, mother, and grandmother hurt, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I don’t want soldiers to continue to die in an illegal war, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I don’t want to Supreme Court corrupted any more than it already is, and McCain would work hard to do that. Because I want the economy to improve, New Orleans to be rebuilt, infrastructure to be improved, and McCain doesn’t want any of that. Because torture sucks, and McCain thinks it rules.

    Honestly, Iris, if you really think, after eight years of Bush, that you want things even worse to punish people for not loving Clinton enough? Fuck you, go die.

  129. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:21

    Also, I’ve never from the start given a rat’s ass who won the Democratic nomination. That D lever was getting pulled one way or the other.

    I preferred Hillary from the onset because I thought she’d rip the GOP a new one. Changed to Obama by the fall because I thought HRC was DLC-as-usual. But it never really really mattered. We’ve been splitting fucking hairs for months now.

    If Hillary were to (and let’s be frank, this is the only way at this point) steal the nomination, no protest vote from me. HillRod’s name would get the checkmark. If you want to party like it’s 2000, go ahead. Leave me out of it.

  130. Max Power said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:23

    Maybe it’s silly, but I have a much easier time imagining Hillary bringing down the hammer on them.

    I agree with you on the necessity of doing so, but I think the exact opposite way on the candidates. I think Hillary is less likely to do this; her role in authorizing the Iraq War and continued support of it for years afterwards makes it less likely she’ll be keen to revisit that disastrous period of misgovernance with a microscope and a hammer.

    Not that Obama has promised to do this, but he’s not complicit in it, and he hasn’t ruled it out

  131. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:27

    “But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.”

    Are you kidding me? I know of no Clinton supporters who believe she is the fricking second coming of Christ. She has a lot of flaws, but so does any other politican who is electable. When I take the issue survey I get Kuncinich like I bet a lot of people do. The problem with old Dennis is that he isn’t interested in actually working to govern a nation of diverse and differing viewpoints. He stands up for what he believes in strongly, and we need people like him out there; but he can’t govern. He can’t lead the political system because there are just too many people out there who don’t agree with him. Any politican who actually works to govern and create real change will be imperfect. That is because ultimately our political system is not about trying to achieve perfection, it is about having a system where all opinions, even minority ones, can be heard and have a say in influencing policy. At the end of the day, no one believes our government is perfecrt, and that is one of its virtures.
    Obama claims he practices a new kind of politics, that he is somehow superior to the Clintons because he is honest and trustworthy in a way they are not. This is just a lie, and anyone would half a brain would know this. Obama is a politican like anyone else, will do and say certain things to win that in an ideal world one would rather not do, is a shameless hypocrite who has the audacity to criticize others for doing the exact same things he himself does. I have no doubt Hillary Clinton will do the same things, but her pitch to voters was not vote for me because I don’t these things and the others do. She is not promising to magically change Washington by having a level of honesty and integrity that she claims all others are sorely lacking in. Bashing politics and those who actually bothered to show up and engage in them to get some sort of results in order to advance one’s own ambitions will get you a lot of votes, but it is a fraud, and it ultimately won’t produce any results for anyone.

    If you want us in the car with you, just admitt what a hypocrite Obama is, that he is a politican through and through just like everyone else, that his claims to be practicing a different kind of politics are a sham. You have to do these things to win an election, especially against a more experienced, qualfied, and accomplished opponent. Obama is going to need to go all in on this fraud to beat McCain, and I will glady go in with him, but only if the more savvy of his supporters will give us a little wink to let us know they aren’t fooled by his non sense. If that is the case then we can be certain that a President Obama will be held accountable and then we can be certain we actually would be better off with him in the White House come January.

  132. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:28

    LauraJMixon:

    Good catch, I totally missed that. Guess I have seen it after all.

  133. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:28

    Perfectly and 100% fair and understood. I don’t know of anyone who’s done that, and I haven’t done that myself, but people who said that to you were completely, completely wrong.

    That’s generous of you and it’s much appreciated…I for one am of the opinion that a lot of the insults like that are unintended and maybe even unconscious, but we can see what they have done to the discourse.

  134. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:31

    Get Real-

    Read this blog more. No one here thinks Obama is the second coming. Hell, even John Cole, who hay-hay-hay-hates HRC, thinks Obama’s mostly full of it.

    So no, I don’t think Obama is above it. I think he’s good at fooling people that he’s above it. I think that’ll nab some votes down the line.

    But it doesn’t matter. Know who Obama is? Not John McCain. LISTEN TO ME, YOU PEOPLE, HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN. NOT JOHN MCCAIN. NOTHING. ELSE. MATTERS. THIS ELECTION IS FRIGGIN HUGE. AND HE’S NOT JOHN MCCAIN.

  135. not even an mba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:33

    Iris,
    Even though I think you are wrong and deluded, I have to say that I am very impressed. Walking into the lion’s den and speaking your mind. Brava.

    What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns? The very thought of another media darling campaign genius a la Rove makes some people want to write in Cthulu ’08.

  136. LittlePig said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:34

    Obama reveals his elitism by dismissing the Clinton and Bush presidencies together in one fell swoop,

    Aw, come on Iris. “elitism”, give me a break, that’s Republican meme material. In terms of the Democratic Party, Bill did do a pretty shitty job – there weren’t much coattails there. Sure it’s extreme to paint Bill with the same brush as George, no argument, but it’s not “elitist” – Hillary is not a blue-collar person either, by any means. And Hillary gave props to McCain over Obama (“Obama gave a speech”, instead of “Boy I sure fucked up voting for that war”).

    Most folks seem to prefer Barack. Moreover, the folks that like Barack aren’t going to defect to GOP come November (unlike a blue-collar low information voter that will then have to choose between a white man and a white woman, not between a white woman and a black man). Is he perfect? Aw, hell no. But Hillary has made a lot of piss-poor choices as well. Hillary doesn’t have to be angel, but she does have to be *demonstrably better*, and I am not seeing it.

  137. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:35

    What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns?

    Mark Penn isn’t business as usual, because, um, er, durr, uh…

  138. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:37

    “Leonard Peltier on the other hand….he might have a case.”

    Just so everyone knows, even the FBI knows that Peltier is not the killer. The person that actually did it got away from the firefight and Peltier has refused to identify the man. The Fed prosecuted Peltier because they had him in their control, they had expected Peltier to roll on the actual shooter, but he still hasn’t to this day.

  139. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:40

    Look: Not liking Obama or disagreeing with him does not mean you are a racist. Not liking or disagreeing with Hillary does not mean you are a misogynist. The fact that we have to even state such things appals me.

    There are plenty of reasons to criticize either of them. There are plenty of reasons to believe that one is the better candidate than the other, one candidate is ‘more electable’ than the other, and one will do a better job fighting the republicans than the other. Intelligent people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

    However, it is past the time for these debates really. Obama has pulled off a defacto win, albeit a slim one. But as another candidate so marvellously declared “a win is a win.” In order for Hillary to win, she needs something like 75% of the remaining popular vote and 84% of the superdelegates… unless Florida and Michigan are seated as is, without sanctions. (They aren’t going to do that and reward bad behaviour just so Hillary can win sorry).

    The question is, do you want McCain to win or Obama? Clinton is irrelevant at this time. SHE CAN’T WIN THE NOMINATION. And yes, I would say this wholeheartedly to a hardcore Obamunist were the roles reversed.

    Just one final note: It is absurd to suggest that either Clinton (were she the nominee) or Obama will ignore substantial voting blocks of the democratic base. In the general election, Hillary would need the African American vote and the youth vote as badly as Obama needs the white rust-belt vote or older women. Neither wants to ignore a coalition that represents about half of the democratic base.

  140. bernarda said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:40

    “Either will have (if we are fortunate not to have a 3rd term of Bush) a huge freakin’ mess on their hands that will require all of their energy to even begin to repair.” That is the problem. I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that. The Democratic Congress is and will be mostly a bunch of wimps and they need someone to whip them into shape against the Rethugs. Clinton can do that but I doubt that Obama can.

    Obama’s campaign reminds me of John Lennon’s song “Gimme some truth”.

    “with just a pocketful of hope
    money for dope
    money for rope”

  141. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:43

    the Democratic party: seriously, you can do pretty much anything and we’ll forgive you

  142. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:43

    We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.

    Great. President-Elect McCain thanks you for your support.

    Just please, please don’t ask me for my support when you get whatever candidate you really really want.

  143. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:44

    I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that.

    Too bad. He’s the candidate.

  144. Marc said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:45

    We’ve seen Clinton supporters come in here and parrot the “why won’t the bitch quit” line. Which, by the way, is a lovely recurring feature at the sewers in Corrente. And the “white votes count more than black votes” line. And claim that people oppose their Iraq-war-voting-for, flag-burning-bill, ban-evil-video-games candidate because they hate women.
    Donna Shalala was responding to an appalling white-votes-are-what-matters appeal from Begala. And the Clintonsphere has taken her “new coalition” response (e.g. you shouldn’t pretend only white votes matter) and turned it into some kind of bullshit shunning (they don’t want us in their party anymore.) Forgive me if this sort of nonsense doesn’t provoke sympathy.

    Corrente is off the rails, they’re vicious and thin skinned, and they deserve relentless mockery. I will predict, right now, that the extreme Clinton sites will end up doing a Lieberman or Nader, according to which way the crank turns. “The democratic party didn’t leave me” blah blah blah. Look for Lambert and his crew to go for some third party crap, along with riverdance. (Who, by the way, has a vicious….man, just go look. Those lucky black folks!) Look for the loons at No Quarter to go McCain. Armando will continue to post hate on Obama while pretending he supports him; Jeralyn will avoid general election politics. No idea what Taylor Marsh, Suzie Madrak, and the Hillaryis44 gang will do. The Left Coaster will support democrats with a leftist critique, a ok by me.

    Is it OK to mock youstabees? ’cause that’s what you’re about to be looking at. August Pollack is right – these are warblogger wannabes, for whom EVERYTHING CHANGED in primary season 08.

  145. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:46

    Obama is going to need to go all in on this fraud to beat McCain, and I will glady go in with him, but only if the more savvy of his supporters will give us a little wink to let us know they aren’t fooled by his non sense.

    Why? What possible difference could it make? If you know it to be true why do you need the Obama supporters to validate it for you?

    Look, I’ll spend the rest of my time from now through Election Day with one eye closed if it will help, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why it matters at all.

  146. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:47

    Iris:

    What would Obama do when entrenched Bush appointees in the civil service start to revolt and run ratfucking operations with their GOP pals out of office?

    Agreed. Both Bill and Hill have written about how unexpectedly difficult the transition in the executive bureaucracy was when Bill first took office. Hillary knows better than any candidate what to expect and how to handle it. It’s one of the reasons I voted for her in the primary. And if Clinton doesn’t win, I hope she’ll give, and Obama will take, her advice on it.

    That said, there’s a lot to like about Obama too – for instance, I suspect he has better foriegn policy *judgement*, despite having less experience than HRC. And at this point, I think he’s doing more to build the party – which was never Clinton a strength.

    So, again, I’m happy to pull the lever for him if he’s the candidate. Frankly, Iris, I can understand supporting Clinton, but I can’t understand hating Obama so much as to sit out the election or stay home.

    Iris:

    If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    That’s just nuts. I don’t want to see things get any worse for *America*. Another term or two of Unitary Executives, and the country may be too fascistic for the Democrats to learn or use whatever lesson you’re pushing.

  147. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:49

    If you want us in the car with you, just admitt what a hypocrite Obama is, that he is a politican through and through just like everyone else, that his claims to be practicing a different kind of politics are a sham.

    Umm, ok. Obama is not the second coming of Christ. I sincerely doubt that his administration will be substantially different than a Clinton one. Yes he is a politician. That makes him a hypocrite who will say things to get elected, just like any other one. Yeesh. As for the sham thing, well, the cynical side of me says that you very likely could be right… although declaring him a failure before he even got into office strikes me as a tad premature, any more than it would be to declare Hillary’s healthcare plan DOA at this point. Question: Why is it necessary for me to say this?

  148. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:50

    “We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.”

    Near as I can tell, that something is handing dominionist, “originalist”, right wing extremists up to four more seats on the Supreme Court. Good move.

    “Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite”

    Let me make sure I’m getting this right…this was a Clinton supporter saying this?

    “because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.”

    The effective difference is one more term in the Senate. One.

  149. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:51

    DN Nation-
    Good answer! You have got me leaning Obama with honesty like that.

  150. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:53

    I would invite everyone who thinks not voting is a swell idea to look at the picture at the top of this post:

    http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-we-learned-from-iraq-absolutely.html

    At some point “sticking to your principles” is just selfishness. I don’t like Mark Penn, I’m not a huge fan of Clinton or the campaign she’s run, but I’ll gladly sacrifice my vaunted “principles” if it means McCain won’t be in office, invading Iran, killing a couple hundred thousand more people and creating millions more refugees.

    Perhaps the most important principle, the one most worth sticking to, is not elevating your own ego above the lives the thousands of people.

    if you choose to not vote out of “principle” the principle you are celebrating is extreme selfishness. It takes real arrogance to believe that “being true to yourself” or some shit like that is more important than life or death for others.

  151. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:56

    Not Even An MBA:

    What do you have to say to those of us who can’t support Hillary because we despise Mark Penn with the heat of a thousand suns? The very thought of another media darling campaign genius a la Rove makes some people want to write in Cthulu ‘08.

    I don’t know what Iris has to say, but I’ll say the same thing I’ve said to the anti-Obama crowd. She’s not perfect, and neither is he. The important thing is that neither of them is McCain.

    We simply can’t take another 4-8 years of Republican rule. And that’s what the consequence is of not voting for whomever is the Dem nominee.

    .

  152. Bullsmith said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:56

    In the 90s, the Clintons were champions of triangulation and the new third way between left and right. Now Clinton supporters are saying Obama’s not lefty enough for them? Memory, where are you when we need you?

  153. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:57

    I don’t feel like registering over at Corrente to comment on this (http://www.correntewire.com/an_olive_branch_from_sadly_land), but shystee, if you’re reading this “a pissed-off reaction to the assholish tactics and arguments employed by Obama supporters on and off the blogs” is not a “good” reason to keep attacking the party nominee. Somebody’s hurt feelings aren’t worth electing John McCain.

  154. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:58

    His Grace-
    It is necessary for you to say this so we can have faith that you will hold Obama accountable on the issues when he is President, not do what I have seen to many do in this primary, which is sell out on very important progressive issues in order to rationalize their burning desire to see Obama elected. (Health Care for example.) If I know you know better, then we can create the atmosphere in which a true progressive mandate can rule, not the unity non sense Obama is trying to fool people into believing. A lot of the things that need to be done will be divisive if we do them. We have to know that Obama is ready to create some divison for a greater good, and that people won’t blindly follow him because of what he represents to them, rather than what he actually does. We have seem with Bush and his base how toxic that can be. What you have already said puts me further down the path to Obama though, so thanks.

  155. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:00

    burning desire to see Obama elected

    Thing is, for a lot of us it’s really more of a burning desire to NOT SEE JOHN MCCAIN ELECTED.

  156. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:00

    Too bad. He’s the candidate.

    No, he’s not. Hillary has not dropped out of the race, and until she does the fact remains that Obama has not secured the nomination. If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will? I for one hope she stays in, til the convention if necessary. You only win by getting 2209 delegates, pledged or super. Those are ‘the rules’ and that is ‘the math.’ And Florida and Michigan have to be included — Obama encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted for just this contingency. IMO Hillary played it smart from the beginning…..If she stays in, the fact is that it’s not over til the convention. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that as close as the race is, the superdelegates’ not following the Obama campaign’s expectations would not be stealing the election for Hillary, it would be the process working out exactly as it is intended to. You can’t argue that we have to follow the “rules” and support the pledged delegate leader, even though those same rules allow for party leaders to make a different choice. The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not. Hillary is FAR from perfect, but I feel like we’re getting a litte bit more than simple dogwhistles from her.

  157. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:01

    Anne Laurie:
    “I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama… ”
    Please, tell me that isn’t so – a presidential candidate out to maximize his political career. Why that’s unprecedented.
    And I defended Clinton with the same argument form day 1. The dumbest anti-Clinton argument I heard (mostly from the right) was she’s too ambitious. Yes, in her case there’s obviously sexism at play but regardless of the sexism its just plain stupid to feign indignation over someone running to be the head of the wealthiest, most heavily armed nation in the world actually wanting to be in charge. Well no shit, really, they have a big ego and ambition to burn…while I’ll be damned, never wouldathunkit.

  158. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:01

    Also when your strategy is to do exactly what Republicans want you to do you’re doing it wrong.

    You have Democrats saying that they’ll either force Clinton through as the nominee through some back-room deal that will tear the Democratic party apart or they’ll just not vote and encourage all their friends to not vote as well. This is a Republican wet-dream.

  159. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:05

    IMO Hillary played it smart from the beginning

    Yes, when I think of “playing it smart from the beginning,” I can’t help but think of the former presumptive front-runner who now finds herself with almost no shot at winning the nomination. That’s some smart campaigning there.

    If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will?

    Because her attacks on Obama are weakening BOTH of their general election numbers. She’s running a campaign that’s going to leave WHOMEVER is still standing at the end in a weakened position with respect to beating McCain. Which, at the risk of beating a dead horse, is for a lot of us all we really care about right now.

    If she can run a campaign that directs its venom at McCain and the Republicans instead of sizable factions of her own party, then I think she’d find that most of the people who want her to quit wouldn’t mind so much anymore.

  160. LauraJMixon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:06

    “The effective difference is one more term in the Senate. One.”

    Clinton has many more years on the national scene than her Senate term. It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team. Don’t you remember the “co-presidents/ two for the price of one” business? It’s one of the reasons the Clintons got so much heat — they challenged the paradigm that First Ladies are supposed to be about teas, parties, and at most, children’s health and literacy. Hillary was much more involved in administration policy, and it was a big threat to the Villages and the rightwing noise machine.

    Look, I’m in the same boat with those who say we can’t afford to stay home in November. Too much is at stake in this election. But it’d sure be nice if we Clinton supporters saw more evidence that Obama and his supporters cared about the right to choose, for instance, and didn’t appear blind to — or worse, even indulge themselves in — truly repugnant sexist slurs against US history’s first viable female presidential candidate.

  161. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:07

    If Hillary can’t win, then why is everyone so worried that she will?

    Nobody is.

  162. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:09

    Like another commenter said, I have taken many websites off my list in the last few months.

    I can’t read Corrente any more, just like I can’t goto Kos anymore. I simply do not understand the rancor and bitterness over the obviously Republican double-agents Obama and Clinton.

    Judging solely by their public record, both Obama and Clinton are moderate Republicans. I can not in good conscience support either one. I might be able to convince myself to vote Obama in the General Election were he to win the convention, but there’s simply no way I could possibly vote for Clinton or McCain. I still have a Kucinich lawn sign in my yard, and I was ready to vote for barely-left-of-center Edwards, until the conservative media forced him out of the race.

    Just so you all know, I knew way more about the blatant corruption and right-wing policies of the Clintons back in 1991, and sure enough, as President, Clinton (it seems) signed more pro-GOP laws than during the previous 12 years of the first Bush presidency. After serving as Token Woman on the board of WalMart, where she helped to plan Wal-Mart’s role in the destruction of the US Middle Class, she worked at Rose law firm where her task was to take on the worst clients, the ones that were so evil that the regular partners were scared off. One of Clinton’s efforts was to make sure that a corporate polluter got off scott-free after knowingly killing and maiming children. Hillary is clearly evil and has been for decades.

    The Democratic Leadership has been a subsidiary of the GOP since 1979, making a show of being an opposition party, but consistently voting with the GOP when it really mattered. For example, during the Reagan years, when the executive was violating the holy US Constitution left and right, the Democratic Leadership publicly announced that they would never hold the GOP accountable. And when Clinton came in, the Dems lay down and refused to fight against the Contract On America, where Newt Gingrich pushed America another two points toward right-wing totalitarianism. The Dems refused to stop anti-American extremists from being appointed to the US Supreme Court and lower courts, not only that, but they voted FOR these extremist bastards, (like Scalia).

    So it makes very little difference who gets elected, all three Republican slaves will follow the right-wing agenda as set by their corporate owners. The differences are minor, like what day to invade Iran, not whether the US has any right to start yet-another war of naked aggression (the same thing we hung Nazis for) against the citizens of a foreign nation that never harmed the US.

    So I just don’t understand why people are so crazed by this primary. We have NO choice, it has already been made for us by the wealthy,

  163. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:11

    Good answer! You have got me leaning Obama with honesty like that.

    See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

    There are some sexist assholes out there supporting Obama and saying a lot of misogynistic shit about Hillary. Granted. There are also plenty of starry-eyed Obamacultists who are probably in for a big let down. Those aren’t the people who are going to run his administration. Getting the respect that you feel you deserve online isn’t a principle. In fact, its about as shallow as voting for the candidate with the nicest suits.

  164. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:13

    No, he’s not. Hillary has not dropped out of the race, and until she does the fact remains that Obama has not secured the nomination.

    …but de facto, he has. Popular lead/delegate lead. Soon to overtake Hillary in superdelegates. Hillary’s only shot is some backroom shenanigans at this point. And as much as you say that you’ll enable a McCain presidency if HRC isn’t the nominee, I would advise you to consider what would happen in Denver if the second-place candidate declares victory.

    With that being said, I don’t mind that Hillary’s sticking around. I’m with Steve Benen on this one- if she hangs around, espouses some solid values and spends the great bulk of her time dissing Bush/McCain, then it’s fine. If she keeps slamming Obama, then it only hurts the party. Small sample size has been a mixed bag; the pro-feminism anti-McCain talk has been good, but this new “our demographics PWN his!” stuff is just bullshit.

    But again- She can’t win the nomination at this point without bullshit. Sorry.

    You only win by getting 2209 delegates, pledged or super. Those are ‘the rules’ and that is ‘the math.’ And Florida and Michigan have to be included

    Yes, keep moving those goalposts, even though Hillary herself only started using this math only after it became politically useful to do so. You do know Obama’s name wasn’t even on the fucking ballot in Michigan, yes?

    But sure, count ‘em. He still wins. Moving on.

    You’ll have a hard time convincing me that as close as the race is, the superdelegates’ not following the Obama campaign’s expectations would not be stealing the election for Hillary, it would be the process working out exactly as it is intended to.

    So…

    Hillary wins = Win at any cost, and it’s fine!
    Obama wins = I’ll leave the Democratic party!

    I’m within my right at this point to declare you full of it.

    They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not.

    That’s nice. But look at the numbers. Obama’s been gaining on her for months w/r/t the supers, and will most likely overtake her in a matter of weeks.

  165. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:15

    “In the 90s, the Clintons were champions of triangulation and the new third way between left and right. Now Clinton supporters are saying Obama’s not lefty enough for them? Memory, where are you when we need you?”

    The Clinton’s practiced triangulation as a matter of political necessity to get things done that had to be done. They did this because they were in power and understood the awesome responsibility that came along with that. Obama preaches his unity, praise the Republicans stick as a matter of principle, and claims that he doesn’t engage in evil political posturing. If this is true, which I hope it isn’t and he is just saying that to get elected, than I have a major problem with Obama. I hope that both Hillary and Barack oppose gay marriage because it is a political necessity to do so in our current climate, but apparently Barack doesn’t make calculations like that. So I am worried that when the country has progressed to the point where we are ready to embrace gay marriage that Barack will continue to oppose it out of principle. He is a very religious fellow, called by God to serve and all, and considering he doesn’t take positions for political reasons, it seems to me a legtimate concern that he will adhere dogmatically to some of his more conservative friendly positions, even once the country has progressed beyond them.

  166. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:16

    But it’d sure be nice if we Clinton supporters saw more evidence that Obama and his supporters cared about the right to choose

    I guarantee that Obama wouldn’t nominate the kind of judges McCain will. I guarantee anyone Obama nominates will be pro-choice.

    I’m very sorry about misogyny. Very sorry about it. I have no idea how it feels, me being a man and all. I’m so sorry about it. If there is anything- anything- I can do to fight it, tell me.

  167. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:19

    But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.

    wow, you really are clueless.

    Do you relieve believe that Clinton supporters don’t know about her flaws? Do you think we’ve on the Clinton for President bandwagon for 8 years, just waiting for the chance to vote for her to become President?

    The vast majority of those of us in the blogosphere who support Clinton were ABC (anyone but Clinton) a year ago, because we were well aware of all of her flaws. But when it finally came down to her and Obama, and we looked at Obama, we saw….an empty suit. Someone with no record to speak of, whose ideas and policies were not his own, and whose past provided an abundance of fodder for the right right smear machine. Obama had just as many “minuses” as Clinton, but where Clinton had plusses, Obama had zeroes and question marks.

    The difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is this: we chose our candidate with full knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses — Obama’s didn’t. And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

  168. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:21

    although declaring him a failure before he even got into office strikes me as a tad premature, any more than it would be to declare Hillary’s healthcare plan DOA at this point. Question: Why is it necessary for me to say this?

    If Hillary is not the nominee, it’s going to take convincing from Barack, not his supporters, to get me in the car. And I stress again that I’m a long-time and loyal Democratic voter, not a Naderite. I have faith in the purity of your all’s motives, even though some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now, when it may be too late. But the truth is Obama is still an unknown quantity to me, and that’s a bad thing when you combine it with trying to be as vague as possible so as to protect yourself from attack. The fact that he was all for voting for Roberts until someone hit him with the fact that he could lose the primary because of it, is very disturbing to me. Does he think going to Harvard Law is enough? Does he really think that because he was prepared to vote on ‘non-ideological’ grounds that Republicans will too when he is president? If so, we are in trouble, folks. And, not to pander or anything, but does he not realize that even $30 is a lot of money for some people, and what that says about the US treating its citizens as less than human (as Wright said)? We bailed out the big shitpile, supposedly because we ‘have to’ and bad things will happen if we don’t, but a lot of our people need a bailout. Times have not been good to them. I know Clinton understands, despite her financial success in life….does Obama? Is his health plan the goal or the compromise? Is he just trying to be very generous on the issue of social security to sound moderate? Where do the panders end and the man begin? With Clinton, I know, she talks tough on national security now to protect herself against being too ‘soft’ or whatever…Obama distances himself from Wright to avoid being labeled the “militant black” candidate (also silly) but the truth is I couldn’t tell you how he really feels about Jeremiah Wright’s painfully accurate critique of America.

    Now I have to go to bed, thanks for the fascinating discussion, maybe we can pick it up again sometime..=) Apologies for the harsh language, but as you can see there is passion on the other side too. Although I think you’re giving up too much leverage by readily falling in line, I too share your desire to keep McSame out of office (btw at Balloon Juice the new catch phrase is “Clinton McSame…” have I ever mentioned that former GOP’ers don’t make the best allies sometimes?

  169. tigrismus said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:22

    The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much.

    Holy crap, your FIRST COMMENT referenced “the unity pony” and the misogyny of Obama supporters, the “why won’t the bitch quit” crap.

    Many of us compromised once already and are unwilling to completely sell out and up-end the party into total meaninglessness so that we can have a feel-good moment.

    Then enjoy your own self-righteous feel-good moment, but don’t fool yourself that giving “how do we beat the bitch” McCain the presidency rather than sullying yourself voting by for someone who is nearly Clinton’s political twin is some sort of grand victory for Truth, Meaning, and the Democratic Party.

  170. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:22

    Obama had just as many “minuses” as Clinton, but where Clinton had plusses, Obama had zeroes and question marks.

    Again, oh well. Clinton is not the nominee.

  171. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:23

    And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

    Do you have any proof of this, other than the usual slate of anecdotal wankery?

    Again, *read! this! blog!*. Read all the threads the S,N!-ers started that weren’t in pursuit of teh funnay. Each and every time…”Obama isn’t perfect,” “Let’s be honest, Obama is business as usual,” etc.

    Your strawman = fail.

  172. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:23

    Get Real, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t expect you to love Obama b) Not criticize him or c) not hold his feet to the fire during his administration when he enacts bad policies. Actually I encourage all three.

    In fact, if any of the Sadlynauts here expect the opposite, I would be genuinely surprised.

  173. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:24

    some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now

    Name names Iris you gutless dope.

  174. John Edwards said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:25

    Your candidate sucks and I don’t.

    Too bad I dropped out.

  175. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:25

    In fact, if any of the Sadlynauts here expect the opposite, I would be genuinely surprised.

    Right. Obama is not the perfect option, he is the option.

  176. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:27

    If Hillary is not the nominee, it’s going to take convincing from Barack, not his supporters, to get me in the car.

    Good for you. You’re great. Great great great. Super great, doubleplus great, totes awesome 100% plus infinity times great with a cherry on top.

    I will again say- If HRC manages to wiggle into the nomination, I’ll vote for her anyway.

    And I stress again that I’m a long-time and loyal Democratic voter, not a Naderite.

    Well, good, seeing how Nader is a Halliburton stockholder.

    I have faith in the purity of your all’s motives, even though some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now, when it may be too late.

    Um, you’re the one who’s breaking out the “by any means necessary” talk.

    And, not to pander or anything, but does he not realize that even $30 is a lot of money for some people

    Errrrrrrrrrp. End of discussion. You’re full of crap.

  177. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:27

    The difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is this: we chose our candidate with full knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses — Obama’s didn’t. And as Obama’s weaknesses have been exposed, Obama’s supporters have ignored them.

    I would say that there are a great many Obama supporters who will see no wrong in him, yes. There are also a great many who choose him even after his weaknesses have been exposed. It is possible for good, intelligent people to approach the same question rationally and arrive at different answers.

  178. Blue Jean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:27

    Blue jean: Thank you so much for noble willingness to vote for the centrist candidate who beat your centrist candidate in a nearly year long campaign. You’re a real trooper

    Keep snarking, Bob; I’m sure you can drive more Hillary voters into writing in her name instead of voting Obama if you keep trying. Won’t your centrist candidate thank you for that?

  179. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:27

    Iris:

    The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008. IMHO he does not. Hillary is FAR from perfect, but I feel like we’re getting a litte bit more than simple dogwhistles from her.

    Fair enough. That’s what all this sniping and backbiting is all about anyway. Some people want Hillary to concede the race so the party can focus on attacking McCain, and some people want her to stay in because they think she’s the better candidate.

    My take is that I’d rather see this wrapped up by mid-June or the beginning of July. I have no problem with letting this play out till the end of the primaries, and giving the SD’s a couple weeks to announce their preferences.

    But if it goes to the convention, I don’t see that as a great evil either. It will at least deprive McCain and the Republican Party of some airtime for their attacks, and perhaps keep people excited about the Democratic race rather.

    In the meantime, it really would be good to see both sides refrain from race and gender based political analysis and other Republican memes. And it would be really, really nice to see the intra-party attacks stop, and be replaced by attacks on the Republicans.

    .

  180. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:29

    Name names Iris you gutless dope.

    It’s just a general impression, and I still think it’s fairly accurate to say that we have not noticed sexism nearly as much as we have reacted kneejerk to any hint of racism. It’s not necessarily all of you, I don’t mean to be imprecise.

  181. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:30

    So, can it be said that some significant percentage of Clinton voters simply wouldn’t mind a John McCain presidency? Because that’s pretty much what I see when I read most of these comments.

  182. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:33

    It’s not necessarily all of you, I don’t mean to be imprecise.

    Then don’t fling shit when you don’t know if it should be flung. People here have noticed the appalling treatment Hillary receives and also that Obama is not the savior.

  183. Nancy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:33

    Being a Kucinich devotee, I am suprised to be so strongly in for Hillary.
    This country’s best days were when we had an economically strong and vibrant middle class. The other minor thing is that the world is on the brink of destruction and I want the smartest person at the helm. Like Bill, Hill’s understanding goes 4-5 levels deep on any issue. Obama?
    he needs some time to mature. One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw. Obama is open to privatizing social security, keeping Blackwater in Iraq, is ok with mysogeny and is happy to drop a “racist” accusation for political headway – a mortal sin.

  184. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:33

    RandomObserver:

    Also when your strategy is to do exactly what Republicans want you to do you’re doing it wrong.

    Sometimes. And sometimes not.

    Let’s not forget that the Republicans are often stupid, and frequently like things that aren’t good for them – like lactose intolerant dogs that love milk.

    I think we need to spend less time worrying about what the Republicans want, and more time worrying about how to get the country working for us – all of us, and not just the rich – again.

    .

  185. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:33

    Iris said:

    Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    This may be the most dangerous political statement we’re going to hear in 2008.

    I can only conclude that Iris is just not comfortable with democracy. She’s a narcissist in progressive clothing. I hope her kind are a tiny, tiny minority.

  186. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:34

    DN Nation-
    Your last post has me leaning McCain again.

    The Republican party allows all 50 states to vote, and when its states move up their primaries they follow their own gudielines and strip them of half their delegates, they do not prevent millions of voters from having any say whatsoever in the process.

    I am not sure I can vote for a candidate that would suppress the votes of some, even if techincally the “rules” allow them to do so, because those voters having a say would hurt that candidate’s prospects. If in the future states follow Indiana’s terrible precedent and require ID to vote, and people begin to actively attempt to enforce this rule vigorously disenfranchising many voters, and the Republicans respond those are the rules, what are we are going to say in return? Obviously technical “rules” are more important than ensuring everyone has a right to vote. If people can’t follow the rules and get proper IDs then tough for them, just like it is tough for the people of Michigan and Florida?

    Obama could not win the nomination withou this bullshit of Michigan and Florida voters being screwed over the rules comittee. The Republicans had the same problem and found a reasonable way to solve it. One the Democrats would have found if they had simply looked in their own fucking rules. Having those two big states go early helped the Republicans significantly by sorting out their nomination without all the mess we Democrats had to deal with. If you insist that Obama won this nomination legtimately by blocking revotes in Florida and Michigan then don’t be suprised when he loses those two states come November, and when people like me vote for the party that doesn’t disenfranchise millions of voters in the name of adherence to the rules.

  187. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:35

    The super delegates are there for a reason, to think about the best interests of the party and not to be bound by numbers of pledged delegates. They can use any criteria they want, including whether or not they think Obama can *win* in November and whether they think he best represents the Democratic message in 2008

    Yes, and they can use other criteria, like who is motivating the most new voters, who has the highest favorability ratings, who is raising the most money, and who is competitive in more places. Super delegates are party insiders. Bill Clinton is a former president. Hillary had every advantage with them, but has been bleeding SDs for months now. The whole, “I can still win on superdelegates” line would be more convincing if she were actually winning them.

  188. Bob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:35

    LauraJMixon: “Clinton has many more years on the national scene than her Senate term. It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team.”
    How did Mrs. Clinton do with the Health Care Task Force? I have never seen so great an opportunity for so great a liberal reform so thoroughly destroyed by hubris and incompetence. Secret meetings, the big 5 insurance companies dictating terms, other key players frozen out., a plan so complex the best way to destroy it was to describe it. And yes, I know, big bad Republicans fought her. That’s the point isn’t it? And assuming she gotten it passed it would certainly be her main claim to the nomination so please don’t bother trying to distance her from the failure.
    Furthermore, in 8 years as First Lady Mrs. Clinton never carried a security clearance. Not so much as a secret. I don’t know how much you know about how the federal government works, but a person devoid of a security clearance is a person with no input on foreign, defense or intelligence policy. Half the budget is closed to her. Most cabinet meetings would be off limits. Sorry, new paradigm or not she was not a “co-president.”

  189. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:35

    Your last post has me leaning McCain again.

    That’s stupid.

  190. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:37

    The Republican party allows all 50 states to vote, and when its states move up their primaries they follow their own gudielines and strip them of half their delegates, they do not prevent millions of voters from having any say whatsoever in the process.

    If we gave Hillary half the votes she won in FL and MI she would still lose.

  191. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:37

    Pedestrain:

    See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

    Good point. Thanks for making, Pedestrian.

    .

  192. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:37

    Pedestrain:

    See, that’s great and all, but can we just look for one moment at the absurdity of choosing who will be the next leader of the United States based on who was mean to whom on the INTERNET?

    Good point. Thanks for making it, Pedestrian.

    .

  193. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:38

    Fine, seat the delegates. Every single one of them. I don’t care, and I thought the decision to screw the states was a bad one.

    But what do you do about Michigan? Again, Obama’s name was not on the ballot.

    Also, seriously man. How the heck does what Some Guy On The Internet say figure into your political affiliations?

  194. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:38

    In the meantime, it really would be good to see both sides refrain from race and gender based political analysis and other Republican memes. And it would be really, really nice to see the intra-party attacks stop, and be replaced by attacks on the Republicans.

    Unlike the press, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time can’t we? Some might argue that this primary as well as other recent elections have shown that adhering to Reagan’s 11th commandment will get progressives nowhere. If our party leaders know they can count on us no matter how much they stab us in the back, they’ll never address the issues that matter to us, and we’ll be asked again and again to wait. If Reagan did make the GOP the “party of ideas,” as Obama said, I wish he’d take this advice to heart and run hard to the left. Reagan ran hard to the right…he pissed off a lot of people but amazingly they got stuff done because they won popular support for their ‘ideas’ (if you can call them that). And I am not comfortable with the proposition that Obama is secretly ‘with us’ – I need him to show it, and besides, he is supposed to be the candidate who isn’t afraid to tell us the truth, right?

  195. not even an mba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:39

    JGabriel,
    Indeed, right now all eyes are on the circular donkey shooting squad. Barack and Hillary are dominating the news cycle. This is their opportunity to stick it to Johnny 100 years. I’ll drop my objection to Clinton, despite Mark Penn, if she goes on a two month long McCain-is-going-to-draft-your-babies-get-them-killed-in-Iraq-and-sell-the-bodies-to-Chinese-apothecaries bender

  196. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:39

    I too share your desire to keep McSame out of office

    No, you don’t. You said upthread that you thought things had to get worse to make sure the Democratic party got the picture. You think punishing America with another crazy Republican is a good thing, because maybe people will accept your Messiah in 2012.

    Go away, you awful troll.

  197. Dan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:39

    Sorry, but I feel I need to use caps because I really don’t know how else to get this question across to the people to whom I want to ask it:
    HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY OBAMA IS UNKNOWN AFTER 6 MONTHS OF PRIMARIES, 21 DEBATES AND A BIG FUCKING WEBSITE THAT WOULD TAKE NO MORE THAN 37 FUCKING KEYSTROKES TO PULL UP? HERE, I’LL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
    YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM OR YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM? BE FUCKING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST FOR GOD’S SAKE.

  198. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:40

    A latte is a horrible drink:
    Warm milk with one drop of coffee in it. The Anti-Cappucino.

    What the hell is the point of that?

  199. par4 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:41

    Gore/Edwards 08

  200. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:41

    Yes, I’ll make a statement if it comes to that. If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    Then why stop at 4 more years of war and economic collapse? If you really want to teach us all a lesson you should start setting fires and blowing shit up. That’ll show America!

  201. r4d20 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:41

    This bullshit equivalence is fucking redneck-spooge.

    Obama said “her health care plan is bad because no mandate will ever pass the congress and so its a waste of time to try”.

    Hillary said “this n****** is just another affirmative action hire stealing a white person job”.

    They are NOT equivalent at all.

  202. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:42

    Iris I’m going to be blunt with you: This is not going to the convention. Hillary Clinton would be, well, monumentally stupid to do this. Why? Because that would mean even if she won in spite of not being the leader in either popular vote or pledged delegates, she would have two months as an official candidate, with more than half of the democratic party out and out hating her.

    The party elders are not going to let such a thing happen. I expect that the negotiations to get her out gracefully are already in full swing. By May 20th, Obama will have amassed a majority of the pledged delegates and quite possibly lead in super delegates (he’s down by what 12-13 now?). My guess is that in the interests in both parties, the remaining super delegates won’t storm over to Obama just so she can win in Kentucky and West Virginia and then end the campaign on a high note.

    But if you want her to win, could you explain how exactly she’s going to? She’s behind in the popular vote and delegate count even if you count Florida and Michigan without sanctions. She’ll likely win Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Obama will win Washington and the rest. She won’t close the gap by enough and the supers have been breaking for Obama by far larger margins lately than her.

    She’s lost. What is the point of her continuing until the convention and fighting on the floor? It serves no one’s interest, except John McCain’s.

  203. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:42

    But what do you do about Michigan? Again, Obama’s name was not on the ballot.

    Obama and the Daily Kos both encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted, specifically so that they would be seated at the convention and counted as Obama delegates. Why he ever agreed to take his name off the ballot is beyond me…there was never an ‘agreement’ to do so. Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not. And she still more than likely would have won those states with comfortable margins. Obama will get delegates from Michigan, he just won’t get as many because more people voted for Hillary than voted uncommitted.

  204. Blue Jean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:44

    Max Power;

    Lesson One is to stop fearing what the Rethugs will do or say, and stand up for what you believe in.

    I believe people go to church because they’re religious, and they keep guns because they like to shoot, not because they’re “bitter”. That’s why I voted Hillary.

    And I believe that Obama should have said “I said something stupid, and I’m sorry.” not “What I said was right, and you’re just too dumb to understand it.” That’s the kind of attitude that’s going to lose in November, and that’s why a lot of folks are calling him “elitist.”

  205. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:45

    Then enjoy your own self-righteous feel-good moment, but don’t fool yourself that giving “how do we beat the bitch” McCain the presidency rather than sullying yourself voting by for someone who is nearly Clinton’s political twin is some sort of grand victory for Truth, Meaning, and the Democratic Party.

    Bam.

    This is about ego, nothing more. I think this is how you can differentiate between people who actually give a shit and people who think the election is nothing more than a chance to be smug. That’s what all the “stay home” screeds have in common, the toxic self-righteousness.

    People who care about the right to choose aren’t going to be staying home on election day. People who care about torture and war and endless detention and health care aren’t going to tell their friends to not vote.

    The people telling their friends to not vote are the people who figure they can go to Canada if they need an abortion, and fuck the people who can’t. The people trying to convince us that staying home is a “statement” are the people who don’t care if a hundred thousand Iranians die and a few million become refugees.

    They get to bleat about “sticking to their guns” while people around them suffer. They get to call themselves “true feminists” while millions of women become refugees and are forced into prostitution and sex-slavery. What a joke.

  206. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:45

    One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw.

    Uh, not exactly. One says go in to Pakistan if we have intel on bin Laden and can’t get the Pakistanis to do anything about it. The other says obliterate Iran and its 65 million people if something happens to Israel.

  207. r4d20 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:45

    Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist.

    Stop lying because NO ONE says this.

    If you’ve been called a racist its probably because of the REASONS you gave.

  208. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:48

    Why he ever agreed to take his name off the ballot is beyond me…there was never an ‘agreement’ to do so. Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not. And she still more than likely would have won those states with comfortable margins.

    Yes, and you know what?

    OBAMA WOULD STILL BE LEADING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  209. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:50

    Shorter this thread:

    MY CANDIDATE FUCKING SUXXORS!!!1!

    John McCain is a threat to the free world. Stop the fucking circular firing squad, unclutch the pearls, get off the fainting couch, etc, etc, etc…

    I prefer Obama. Hillary isn’t terrible. Either way I vote Dem.

    Is that so hard, Iris, Laura, GetReal? Seriously, is that so hard?

  210. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:50

    Randomobserver, I think you’re missing the point, and you couldn’t be more wrong. Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ‘symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

  211. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:51

    Obama and the Daily Kos both encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted, specifically so that they would be seated at the convention and counted as Obama delegates.

    No, Daily Kos urged Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney to stir up chaos and because it wouldn’t matter. At least get your facts straight.

    And when asked why she wouldn’t remove her name from the ballot, Hillary said:

    “I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It’s clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.”

    You can watch her yourself

    Nice try, though.

  212. Aaron said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:51

    Being a Kucinich devotee, I am suprised to be so strongly in for Hillary.
    This country’s best days were when we had an economically strong and vibrant middle class. The other minor thing is that the world is on the brink of destruction and I want the smartest person at the helm. Like Bill, Hill’s understanding goes 4-5 levels deep on any issue. Obama?
    he needs some time to mature. One says bomb Pakistan, the other Iran, so that’s a draw. Obama is open to privatizing social security, keeping Blackwater in Iraq, is ok with mysogeny and is happy to drop a “racist” accusation for political headway – a mortal sin.

    If we wanted the smartest person at the helm, we wouldn’t have limited our choices to politicians. I don’t really have a basis for deciding whether Clinton or Obama are smarter than the other; they’re both advised by really smart people.

    Obama is 45. If he’s not mature now, it’s not going to happen.

    While Clinton did, indeed, threaten to obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel, Obama did not similarly threaten Pakistan. He said that if he had actionable intelligence on Osama bin Laden’s location and Pakistan refused to act, he would send in our troops to get him anyhow. A different kettle of fish entirely.

    Obama has not, to my knowledge, accused the Clintons or anyone else in the campaign of racism. His “bitter” comments were delivered specifically to rebut the charge that white blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania weren’t voting for him because of his race. His supporters are of course a different story, but if we were going to make our voting choices on the basis of who has the most civil supporters I would look forward to the Kucinich Administration with great interest.

    The misogyny that Clinton has faced in the campaign comes largely from the media, who unequivocally stink. Chris Matthews puts out more misogyny in any given 15-minute span of time than the Obama campaign has put out since the race started.

    I don’t recall Obama saying he’d be open to privatizing social security. I do recall him saying – incorrectly – that social security was threatened. I can’t imagine any Democrat in the current economic climate favoring putting retirement accounts into the stock market.

    As for keeping Blackwater in Iraq, there’s not much choice; anyone taking office in January will be forced to do the same. We don’t have enough soldiers to do the job they’ve been asked to do, which is one of the compelling reasons for getting the heck out of there.

    Honestly, there isn’t now and never has been a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton or Obama on policy. Clinton’s healthcare proposal is better, but neither of them give us a single-payer system and either of them will have their policy put through the Congressional meat grinder. Reasonable people can differ about which of the two are better positioned to accomplish the moderate, centrist policy goals they’ve proposed. Either of them is light-years better than McCain.

  213. Ruffian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:54

    Not a deal breaker, because I will vote for Obama over McCain. But he has totally turned me off in this election for one reason:

    He allowed (at best) or helped (at worst) the Clintons to be tarred as racists, for his own political gain. He knows that is just false, and he let it happen. Unforgivable to me.

  214. Blue Jean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:54

    If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    Spoken like a Nader voter in 2000.

    Look, Obama’s going to have to accomodate HRC at some point; either offer her the Veep, or a Cabinet post, or Supreme Court Judgeship, or something. Jess Jackson wanted “proportional representation” in exchange for foregoing a floor fight in 1988. He got it, which is part of the reason the delegate count is so messy now. Let’s wait and see what Obama comes up with before we spill any blood on the convention floor.

  215. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:56

    Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ’symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

    That’s nice, Mr. O’Reilly.

  216. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:56

    I think we need to spend less time worrying about what the Republicans want, and more time worrying about how to get the country working for us – all of us, and not just the rich – again.

    I’m not worried about what they want, I’m worried about “progressives” doing everything possible to make sure Republicans win.

    What could be better for Republicans than a small slice of progressives trying to popularize the message that staying home and not voting is the best thing to do if Obama wins the nomination. (Which he almost surely will)

    I’m not talking about accidentally feeding them ammo, or being scared of their tactics. I’m talking about actively and purposely helping Republicans.

    I am not much of a purity troll but this is where I draw the line: if you are trying to help Republicans win you aren’t a Democratic and you aren’t a progressive and you aren’t a feminist.

    Iris is not campaigning for Clinton, she’s campaigning for McCain.

  217. justbrent said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:57

    I don’t think that Obama is capable of dealing with that. The Democratic Congress is and will be mostly a bunch of wimps and they need someone to whip them into shape against the Rethugs. Clinton can do that but I doubt that Obama can.

    Huh? OK, this is my biggest reason for not supporting Hillary (in the primaries, I’m certainly wouldn’t refuse to vote for her in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination). Hillary and her supporters always tout her “toughness on the issues” and go on about how she’s willing to stand up and fight.

    My problem is that they are only half right. Yes, she talks a good game and will be nasty in public. But when its time to vote, she caves. It’s almost like she hopes that nobody will notice the her actions don’t match her words. Here are the two biggest examples:

    Hillary say “the war in Iraq needs to end,” but she voted for it and has never offered a good explanation for her vote, or even apologized for being wrong. In fact, she has repeatedly said that she would do it again!

    Hillary loves to talk about how great her healthcare plan is. I’ve read it. It’s a disaster. I know, I know, everyone else thinks its great. It’s not, because it has one huge flaw—it relies on the insurance companies. Guess what, the insurance companies are the reason that we are in the mess that we are in right now.

    Prices are high, coverage is bad, doctors in vital specialties are making less and less every year, but United Healthcare, Aetna, and Pacificare are all posting records profits in the BILLIONS ever year. That is not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect. The solution is not to simply start forcing everyone in the country to start giving more money to those companies. They treat their insureds and providers like crap right now, and they are theoretically trying to woo more of both into their folds. Things will not get better if they are guaranteed insureds and doctors, and they can stop pretending to be nice.

    Hillary’s plan is not tough on those who created the healthcare crisis, its tough on those who need healthcare. It’s a godsend for the companies that created the crisis. Why? Because she has gotten lots and lots and lots of money from them over the past eight years.

    Hillary won’t whip the wimps into shape. She’s the chief wimp.

    BUT SHE IS NOT JOHN MCCAIN!

  218. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:59

    One says go in to Pakistan

    Also we’re already shooting big rockets at places in Pakistan and the government there pretends it’s their operation.

  219. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:01

    “It’s ridiculous to pretend that she was not deeply involved in her husband’s administration. They were a team.”

    So does she get 50% credit for the DMA? For “ending welfare as we know it”? For ignoring the campaign plank to fund university educations?

    So, really, congratulations. She was half of the greatest Republican presidency of the second half of the 20th century. But at least you can stand on your principle not to vote for that irredeemable centrist Obama.

  220. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:01

    If you apportion FL & MI delegates according to the percentage won by the actual candidates, Obama still leads. If you apportion the candidates in any way which yields more delegates (i.e., from MI) to Obama, he leads further.

    Seating FL & MI do not change the game, just the numbers.

  221. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:01

    Iris said, “Dean said to, Obama and Edwards said yes, Hillary wisely did not.”

    I have a totally different take on that. Instead of acting like a Democrat and doing the right thing as Obama and Edwards did, Clinton did the asshole Republican thing, she kept her name on, just to screw everybody.

    And given that the delegate count has been showing the same thing for months now: that only an anti-democratic backroom deal could ever possibly get Clinton the nomination over Obama, I have to ask.

    How obvious does it have to be to indicate that Clinton is a GOP operative? (For full disclosure, I believe Obama is also a GOP operative.)

  222. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:03

    Not a deal breaker, because I will vote for Clinton over McCain. But she has totally turned me off in this election for one reason:

    She allowed (at best) or helped (at worst) her husband to make a racist argument in SC, for her own political gain. She knows that is just wrong, and she let it happen. Unforgivable to me.

  223. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:03

    Ruffian, I will grant you that some of the things that the Clintons have said have been stretched out of proportion to “prove” that they are racists. Whether it was their intent to send subtle signals to racist white voters or not, I don’t know for sure. Either way, it’s been ugly.

    The Hillary camp has also tried to use sexism to its advantage, to less effect. Why that is I don’t know, especially when the % of women voting has been 55-60% in every primary. That is just how things have worked out, and it sure isn’t because the Clintons have taken the high road. Now you want to see dirty? Watch what the Republicans do between now and November.

  224. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:03

    Smug is pissing away a ‘change’ election for faux bipartisan malarkey because your new ‘base’ is as comfortable as you are and so can afford to focus on ’symbolic’ issues instead of real bread and butter issues (including foreign policy, too) that affect people’s lives.

    She has to be a troll. I’m done with this idiot.

  225. r4d20 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:04

    The misogyny that Clinton has faced in the campaign comes largely from the media, who unequivocally stink. Chris Matthews puts out more misogyny in any given 15-minute span of time than the Obama campaign has put out since the race started.

    Sadly, there are an awful lot of people who act like the stupidest members of Hannity’s audience and cant seem to fucking tell their enemies apart.

    Confusing the Obama campaign with Chris Mathews is stupider even than confusing the Shiites and the Sunnis …. and the Sufis to boot.

  226. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:04

    I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days. If I believe Obama has truly built a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a movement for Obama and his charismatic appeal then I will be all on board come November. I will decide that based upon what I see and hear from people who support Obama and encourage me to do the same. I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.

    I supported Hillary because I liked that she was smart, tough, been around the blocks a few times and as a result had a savvy that would allow her to be a competent and effective president. Competence was my major criterion because that is what we have been lacking in the last four years more than anything else. I don’t have any confidence in Obama’s competence. He may master the presidency like Bill Clinton did, but remember that took time. Bill’s first two years were diastrous, and we don’t have time for that come 2009. Obama may one day be able to accomplish a lot as President, but right now I see him soley as someone who makes people feel good by voting for him. That is not going to solve our problems, and there are too many people out their who need help to get caught up in those feelings right now. McCain for all his flaws has shown he gets things done, that he will get in the mud and play the game. I won’t agree with him on everything, but he is not unreasonable. Kerry wanted him to be the VP for us only 4 years ago. he has had to do some shit to get votes in a republican primary, but he hasn’t compromised himself any more than any of our cnadidates have, and in many ways he has done so to a lesser degree. I do not fear McCain the way I do the majority of Republicans. He has a record of doing what Obama only talks about. He is not George W Bush- he fought for this country honorably, his son is doing so right now. He hasn’t been lavished with the millions upon millions that Bush was when he ran for office. His decisions about our military demand respectful disagreement, and he is not compromised by ties to big money to the extent Bush was. Given all that I believe he could be competent and reasonable, and the democrats desire to convince otherwise seems to me to be pure politics driven by their desperate desire to win this election. This is the man they have worked with on numerous occasions, and the man they wanted to run as VP four years ago. I can’t be scared into voting against him very easily.

    If Obama has truly created a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a crock of shit strategy for getting elected the way Bush did by making it about personality and attacks on the nature of Washington, then I can’t not be with him. But that is not what I am getting from him, or more importantly from the people who represent the movement he is suppose to be bringing about.

  227. Specialist G said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:04

    Is it just me or are the grocery lists that Clinton supporters trot out, enumerating what Obama and/or his supporters MUST do in order to earn their votes, really funny in that sad-lack-of-self-awareness way? Look, there will be two viable nominees in November. Barring the live boy/dead girl scenario, Hillary won’t be one of them. If you want to support McSame, either by commission or omission, knock yourself out. But no crying about the consequences, N’kay? And there will be consequences.

  228. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:10

    Feeeeelings…. whoa whoaaaaa FEEELLIIIIIINGS

  229. Michael Dietz said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:13

    Re: Paul Lukasiak’s comment above.

    I’m reminded of a quote from A Man for All Seasons, where Thomas More says to the son-in-law who’s decided to betray him for the sake of a preferment, “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”

    Paul, you’ve done some extraordinary work out there on the Internets. But lately it’s been all about goalpost-moving, and erecting strawmen. (You cannot really believe, can you, that Obama supporters are simply universally deluded or self-blinded? All those by-now millions of voters, not to mention a bunch of smart people in the blogosphere?) And for what, Paul? For triangulating, Iraq-war-voting, second-coming-of-the-DLC Hillary? Is she really worth the sale of your intellectual honesty?

  230. r4d20 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:13

    I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days.

    The evidence is right in front of you. The reason you cannot see it is you own personal failing.

  231. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:14

    I want to be convinced that Obama supporters care about a progressive agenda, and are not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seem to dominate every presidential election these days.

    No, you don’t. Lying is unbecoming. What you want is to produce another screed attacking Obama, his supporters and Democrats in general while fluffing McCain.

  232. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:14

    Again, *read! this! blog!*. Read all the threads the S,N!-ers started that weren’t in pursuit of teh funnay. Each and every time…”Obama isn’t perfect,” “Let’s be honest, Obama is business as usual,” etc.

    how many of the Obama supporters switched when exposed to the evidence of his imperfection?

    Clinton supporters went into this fully understanding her strengths and weaknesses. Obama supporters simply adapt their opinions to whatever Obama says.

    Wright is the perfect example of this. When Wright first became a big controversy, Obama supporters couldn’t praise him enough for his willingness to stand by Wright. Even after Wright said some pretty stupid shit at the NAACP, Wright was a great guy — and criticizing Wright meant that you were, at best, a closet racist. Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

    And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

    Its never Obama’s fault — Obama is never held accountable for his embracing and then disavowing Wright — and never held accountable for turning Wright into a “race” issue.

  233. N.C. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:15

    No, Obama won’t get any delegates from Michigan, because Michigan has 0 delegates.

  234. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:15

    I want to be convinced that Clinton cares about a progressive agenda, and is not just wrapped up in the identity politics that seems to dominate every presidential election these days. If I believe Clinton has truly built a movement for progressive ideals, and not just a movement for Clinton and her triangulating appeal then I will be all on board come November.

  235. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:16

    Again.

    My candidate sucks. So does yours.

    John McCain is the Banality of Evil.

    I will vote Dem, screw my ego. I’ll set it aside for the good of the world.

    What is so hard about that? I’m not asking you to kow-tow, or lose face, or whatever it may be.

    But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

    I really would like to know, my friends.

    PS – If anyone thinks a Universal Health Care package will be passed in the next four years, under either candidate, is more deluded than a Gravel supporter.

  236. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:16

    how many of the Obama supporters switched when exposed to the evidence of his imperfection?

    Zero, because we knew about it from day one!

    The fucking point is to put McCain six feet under. If we don’t do that, that is a major fucking FAIL.

    Capesce?

  237. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:17

    Someone upthread was saying that it was pretty pointless to be referring to each other as hillbots or obamabots, but I think that once someone crosses the line to say that they cannot support the party ticket if their beloved isn’t the candidate, they become a true and official ‘bot’.

    Iris, you are the H2 Hummer of Hillarybots. Almost everyone you’ve argued with has said that they’d be willing if not pleased to pull the lever for Hillary should she somehow manage to get the 120% of the remaining votes required for her to pull ahead of Obama, but all you can do is complain that we’re not with you because we’d also be willing if not pleased to pull the lever for Obama should he continue in his current path and win the nomination thru having the most votes and deligates. Iris, you are full of it.

    McCain must not win. Get that message thru your head. It’s simple and easy to understand, and it’s the ONLY message that matters this election.

  238. EnfantTerrible said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:18

    Welcome to the several Clinton supporters who have posted here and thank you for your input. I just want to say that the most important issue for me in this election is getting the good old U.S.A. back on track as a functioning democracy that promotes real progress, justice and humanitarianism in the world. If we can do that, everything else – ending the occupation of Iraq, reasserting the rule of law, universal health care, fixing our economy – will follow.

    I am not about to sacrifice the Supreme Court, the military, the economy, the environment and thousands and thousands of innocent lives to a McCain presidency if my preferred candidate does not get the nomination. If Obama gets the nomination, great! If Clinton gets the nomination, great! I will happily support either of them. I’ll even support a mop handle with a hat on it, if it has a chance of preventing a third Bush term.

    Gotta get past the “my candidate or eternal suckitude” thinking, peoples. There is too much at stake.

  239. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:18

    You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. The question should be, who would be best to lead us in this times, this place, under these very problematic circumstances? We need someone who will do what is necessary to put the country back on track, which means jailing hundreds of government officials, restoring rule of law, higher taxes, pulling out of the middle east, and dealing with global warming, scarcity and resource wars. None of the candidates will do this, and I think you guys realize that. There’s not enough money, time, or sense of urgency to do any of this, even if the candidates were as pure as the driven snow and wanted to do it.

    We will probably bomb Iran anyway, because the government has spent years telling us that they are a danger and now are killing our troops. Will Clinton or Obama or Congress refuse to bomb “Revolutionary Guard training camps” or “weapons factories” killing our men and women?

    Oil will continue to rise, because global demand is rising and so is the cost of finding new oil and drilling depleting wells. It will fluctuate a lot, including going down as the economy slows, but it’ll never be cheap again.

    President Whoever is not going to pull us out of the Middle East because we need oil. We also will not stop supporting Israel, because the Israel Lobby won’t just go away.

    I’ve already discussed why we won’t put Bush in jail or restore rule of law. We’re on the Titanic, and people are arguing about the best place to put their deck chair to watch their boat go down. It’s just daft.

    If I’m wrong, that’ll be wonderful. But I don’t see a way out here.

  240. Ben said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:19

    p_lukasiak,

    Count me as one of the people who say that Obama shouldn’t have distanced himself from Wright at all.

    What do you say to that, pukeasiak?

  241. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:20

    Wright is the perfect example of this.

    Now you’ve pissed me off.

    If you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

    But you’re probably in the camp that Hip-Hop isn’t music, so of course you don’t know.

    Ya heard?

  242. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:20

    “I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.”

    If as many as Four. Supreme. Court. Justices. doesn’t motivate you then you either underestimate the impact of the judicial branch or overestimate the impact of the executive.

    I was for Brown in ’92, Bradley in 2000, Edwards in 2004 and Kucinich (then Dodd) this year. My candidate never gets the nom. But I still showed up to pull the lever for (D) in every leap year November.

    Bottom line.

  243. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:21

    r4d20 & RandomObserver
    So typical to blame anyone who sees through Obama’s crock of shit as having some sort of personal failing. It is always this way with a cult. I laughed my ass off when I reqad your comments because they just proved a point that was made a little whole ago by a very bright woman:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_the_savior.html

    I can already see that all of Obama’s failings will be blamed on others and not on the fact that people choose an unqualified, untested, unaccomplished leader based on style rather than substance. You people are not pathetic fools, but predicatble ones.

  244. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:22

    Sigh.

  245. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:23

    Note to the Clinton supporters:

    Please refrain from long cloggy single-spaced paragraphs full of arcane logic and unprovable examples.

    Ms. Clinton has all but lost. Tough luck, as they say. Perhaps Obama’s alleged vagueness was a strategy to get him through the primary season. Guess what, it worked.

    He now has six months to firm up his policy proposals, to move to the left, to become a progressive. The GOP is historically unpopular – this gives Obama a lot of room to operate.

    Why not wait and see?

  246. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:23

    And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

    Bullshit. His words are legitimate complaints. Just because you can’t find the compassion to put yourself in someone else’s shoes does not mean that their thoughts are wrong.

  247. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:24

    PLuk:

    Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

    Sadly, no, Paul. At the NPC, Wright said that Obama’s previous disavowals of Wright’s statements were ‘just politics’, i.e., that Obama didn’t mean them.

    That left Obama no choice but to more forcefully disavow Wright and cut him from the campaign.

    I know that you know this, so the question is: When did you start building men and arguments out of straw?

    .

  248. Marc said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:24

    Obama can take politically popular nonsense, like the McCain-Clinton oil company giveaway, and say that things which look good are bad policy. He has been brilliant on race, thoughtful on foreign policy, and has in general really impressed me during the course of this campaign. Neither candidate has impressed in a legislative sense, but neither could have with a lunatic in the White House. So we just have to look at indirect clues. Clinton demonstrated bad judgment on Iraq, bad judgment on Iran, and has been campaigning against people like me for months. The choice for me was pretty clear after my first pick (Gore) didn’t run and my second pick (Edwards) dropped out.

    I don’t buy into the “all politicians are scum” bandwagon, by the way. It’s an extension of the republican idea that the government can do only harm, and it’s a toxic reflex that progressives would do well to abandon. Obama has the potential to persuade people, and sneering at fancy speeches is a good way to ensure that the government is kept from reigning in corporate power. That’s not my preference.

  249. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:24

    Truly it makes very little difference which one of the three GOP candidates win. McCain is clearly the worst, and both Clinton and Obama are barely any better.

    I am amazed that the left side of America is engaged in this rift over their candidates, when both of those candidates have awful records. How did you all allow the media to snooker you into supporting either of these two Republicans? There were Democratic candidates, you know.

    I am severely disappointed that our choices even are Clinton or Obama.

    And to those that say, ‘so what, you have to vote for whoever the Dem is because McCain is worse’, I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different: the date of the invasion of Iran?

    I don’t think for a second that either Obama or Clinton could stop the ruling class from invading Iran, both of them cave every single time they are faced with a critical choice for America.

    So really, what’s worse about McCain? It’s that he’s obvious about it, like Bush is.

    It makes no difference which one you vote for, either way this nation is doomed.

  250. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:24

    Get Real, I don’t know what more that I can say to you. I picked Obama because I’m an elitist latte drinking member of the creative class who thought that he was marginally better on the war over Senator Clinton. That basically is/was my rationale along side of I think he’s the candidate least likely to get us into a third war with Iran. I also think the idea of President Barack Hussein Obama, Stealth Muslim, Communist, Black Nationalist is awesome… though President Hitlery KKKlinton would also make the right’s heads a’splode.

    I have no illusions about his rule. I have none about Senator Clinton’s as well. Each would have a different style and different priorities. But by and large, they would pursue relatively similar policies. I have no doubt that some of Senator Clinton’s would be more effective than Senator Obama’s (or vice versa). To me, I doubt that in the larger picture it would matter.

    If pursuit of progressive ideals is behind your disdain for Obama, why not encourage your candidate to I don’t know, say have Obama adopt Hillary’s Heathcare plan (or even better appointing her as the leader of a task force to bring in healthcare reform) in exchange for her bowing out of the race? If this is about some great progressive cause and not ego, well, she does have negotiating room here.

  251. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:25

    GetReal,

    You have not resonded to any of my comments, which makes me think you have no interest in having a discussion about this. You just want to get your ad hominem on.

    I’ll give you one more chance:

    My candidate sucks. So does yours.

    John McCain is the Banality of Evil.

    I will vote Dem, screw my ego. I’ll set it aside for the good of the world.

    What is so hard about that? I’m not asking you to kow-tow, or lose face, or whatever it may be.

    But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

    I really would like to know, my friends.

  252. Bullsmith said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:26

    #

    Bullsmith said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:18

    1. Mysogeny toward Clinton has been unbelievably widespread and, somehow, unacknowledged. Clinton die-hards (like my beloved wife) are rightly outraged both by how common and insiduous the bias against Clinton’s gender is and by how the MSM basically doesn’t admit it exits. Racism is acknowledged, but it’s far less allowable in common discourse as far as I can see.

    In support of this, I find the general media treatment of Michelle Obama to be similar to the way Hillary was treated in 91-92. She’s uppity, shrill, angry, not a good wife and mother. The smear of her is all about being a professional woman with strong opinions, being black is just a bonus flaw, it’s her feminist side that is under attack.

    2. None of that really has anything to do with Obama, just as the racist issues have nothing to do with Clinton. The campaigns aren’t a core part of either the Mysogeny against Clinton or racist smears of Obama. Frankly both campaigns have been pretty high-minded, Clinton’s toughest attacks don’t come close to the crap Bush/Rove threw at McCain. I did find when Hill labeled Obama “elitist” she shot her own party in the face, because the right will now repeat “well Hillary Clinton said it” ad nauseum to defend their usual smear of elitist liberals. If Hill wins, guess who the most elite and liberal politician in America will be? Hillary Clinton, no doubt. Other than that one gaffe, I don’t see either campaign as having done anything illegitimate.

    3. Obama’s the candidate, Hillary’s already giving signals she’s ready to deal with that. While the huge anger both side’s most passionate supporters have for each other is understandable, I think it’s misplaced. The only real problem is that both candidates have incredible bases of die-hard support, either of which could take the general election, but one of which is going to lose the primary. Obama supporters shouldn’t blame Clinton for having such a strong campaign, and vice versa.

  253. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:27

    When Wright first became a big controversy, Obama supporters couldn’t praise him enough for his willingness to stand by Wright. Even after Wright said some pretty stupid shit at the NAACP, Wright was a great guy — and criticizing Wright meant that you were, at best, a closet racist. Then Wright goes to the National Press Club, and Wright says the SAME FREAKING THINGS he’d said in the past, and Obama decides to disavow Wright, and of course, Obama did the right thing.

    And when you confront Obama supporters with this contradiction, their answer is “its Wright’s fault. He should have stayed hidden away.”

    Instead of pretending that all Obama supporters are a monolithic block why don’t you name names Mr. Lukasiak?

    I recently had an argument with someone who supported Obama but soured on him after Wright’s comments first made it to the airwaves. Is that who you are talking about?

    Put up or shut up. Name the supporters you confronted and point to their arguments.

  254. Ben said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:27

    Iris,

    Earlier upthread you questioned John Cole’s credibility because he was once a republican.
    1. I don’t think someone like yourself who is threatening to defect should be throwing stones.
    2. So do you honestly prefer that Cole (and other ex-GOP voters would stay Republican? If so, can you not see how idiotic that is?

  255. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:28

    The 12th commandment: thou shalt not let on that Wright was right.

    “So typical to blame anyone who sees through Obama’s crock of shit as having some sort of personal failing. It is always this way with a cult.”

    So typical to be blind to the levels of Hillary hate in flyover country. As I said above, my candidate never gets the nod. So I had to pick from two least worst. And from my seat here in the hinterland it looks like Obama’s going to have longer coattails downticket. Wouldn’t any Democrat in the Oval office with more pressure from more (D) legislators be preferable in a contest between two “moderate” “centrists”?

  256. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:30

    I’ve already discussed why we won’t put Bush in jail or restore rule of law. We’re on the Titanic, and people are arguing about the best place to put their deck chair to watch their boat go down. It’s just daft.

    If I’m wrong, that’ll be wonderful. But I don’t see a way out here.

    This is a really good point, Susan.

    Seriously, rather than worry about whose candidate vs. whose candidate, what we really should be doing is talking about strategies for living in a society which is failing. Because it’s quite possible that, no matter who ultimately wins the presidentcy, we will end up there.

    Should we start stockpiling money? Would it be worth it to buy weapons? Would money even remain good? (i.e. perhaps Jewelry would be a better investment). Should we start looking at Canada, and ways to emigrate if things get bad enough?

    Perhaps we should take survival classes of some kind?

  257. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:31

    Triangulating is better than letting Republicans kick your ass all over the place. If the asssholes who voted for Nader had triangulated and voted for Gore we wouldn’t have had 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive. We still need some of it, but now we are in the drivers seat and don’t have to preach unity as a philosophy or a principle, but rather can move forward strongly. We will still have to triangulate on occasion, and we need someone who can make sensible choices about when to do it. The Clinton’s understand politics is the art of the possible and will work to achieve that. Obama promises the impossible and is able to fool people who have absolutely no sense into rejecting what could actually be achieved as a way to advance himself. Don’t worry though, he will disappoint you in just the same way, but at least he will get what he wants. I can’t wait to read you bashing him in 5 years for actually doing politics. How dare those politicans practice politics!!!!!!!

  258. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:31

    “I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different”

    The. Supreme. Court.

  259. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:33

    “Obama promises the impossible and is able to fool people who have absolutely no sense into rejecting what could actually be achieved as a way to advance himself”

    Oh lawsy, I done been foolded!

  260. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:33

    Paul, you’ve done some extraordinary work out there on the Internets. But lately it’s been all about goalpost-moving, and erecting strawmen. (You cannot really believe, can you, that Obama supporters are simply universally deluded or self-blinded? All those by-now millions of voters, not to mention a bunch of smart people in the blogosphere?) And for what, Paul? For triangulating, Iraq-war-voting, second-coming-of-the-DLC Hillary? Is she really worth the sale of your intellectual honesty?

    I think “self-blinded” pretty much covers it, actually.

    The idea that I’m “selling” my intellectual honest is evidence of that self-blindness. When everyone over at Taylor Marsh’s place was praising Stephanopolus and Gibson for the job they’d done as moderators, I went over there and said “stop praising them. They did a shit job as moderators, and just because the shit fell on Obama instead of Clinton this time doesn’t mean it wasn’t shit.” And when Clinton released her “bitter/clinging” ad, I said that I thought it was “dog-whistling” (in other words, unlike all the false accusations of ‘dog whistling” that had been thrown at the Clinton’s this one had at least some substance.)

    So when you accuse me of “selling my intellectual integrity” you’re exhibiting the symptoms of “self-blinding”… seeing what you want to see, and only want you want to see. Its not me whose selling his intellectual integrity here….

  261. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:35

    t4toby

    I like what you have to say, except I don’t think John McCain is evil. Bush was evil, he wasn’t. It can’t get any worse as Obama himself says. But you do make a lot of sense.

  262. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:36

    I still haven’t seen any Hillary dead-enders explain to me how the prospect of genocide in Iran is something I should get behind.

  263. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:37

    “I like what you have to say, except I don’t think John McCain is evil”

    ‘Coure no. He;s a straight-talking maverick. He’s not evil. He just embraces it. Literally.

  264. Ben said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:37

    Ok p, here’s your bone:

    It was good to disagree with Tyrant Marsh. Granted, her commenters probably had a conniption, but it was the best thing for you to do.

    Like I said, there’s your bone.

  265. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:37

    Intellectual Honesty would start by answering simple questions, or by responding to rebuttals of your arguments.

    The trollish behavior serves only to undermine your credit e.g. when you just blast talking points out there and don’t respond to criticisms of said talking points.

  266. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:40

    Thank you, GetReal. We need to have a discussion, not a shouting match.

    I said McCain was the incarnation of the Banality of Evil, which is defined as:

    the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

  267. Senator Hussein X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:40

    On Black Revolution Day this coming January I’ll put Hillary Clinton in a burqa. Women need to know their role.

  268. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:40

    Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive.

    Wow. Losing Congress from 1994 to 2006 is “to survive”? Wow. GIMME MORE!!!

    Gosh, that’s got to be the saddest, most pathetic attempt to justify the DLC strategy possible. At least Bill Clinton actually claimed the policies he backed were intellectually justified.

    The DLC admirers apparently don’t care, they just think that if their policies didn’t purposefully endorse Republican policies and shut out the labor & liberal Democrats, what? The mean Republicans would have said mean things? They would have impeached the President? What?

  269. AnB said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:42

    Ya know, it is after threads like this that I shake my head, stand up, do a backbend, walk outside, and piss on the azalias. Ahhhhhh. The relief mostly comes from the fact I don’t vote. You guys at S,N! are great. I love you all and will buy you a couple rounds at our union bar if you ever visit Baltimore. You are better at doing work in the community and grassroots; *Stop paying attention to this kabuki theatre!*

    I have banned all non-mocking discussion of primaries from my coffeeshop.

  270. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:43

    Name names Lukasiak. Making vague statements where you paint every Obama supporter with the same brush then refuse to name names is a great example of a lack of intellectual integrity.

    Your complaint is that “Obama supporters”, who apparently exist as some sort of hive-mind, did one thing, then those same “Obama supporters” did something hypocritical and silly.

    I’m an “Obama supporter.” Are you talking about me? Are you talking about the guy I know who ditched Obama after the Wright comments surfaced? Not only does that disprove your theory that “Obama supporters” don’t give him a pass on Wright no matter what his stance is, it also disproves your theory that “Obama supporters” don’t defect.

    Name names. Or stop talking.

    Already multiple “Obama supporters” in this very thread have disproven your claims.

  271. justbrent said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:43

    The Rev. Wright thing is stupid. Are we really so shallow as a country that we won’t vote for someone because of their pastor?

    As far as Obama’s treatment of the Wright thing, it has actually increased my regard for him. Here’s the way I see how this all came down.

    Fiery excerpts from Wright’s sermons (which have been clearly edited to make him look crazy and extremist) hit the media. Obama reluctantly makes a statement in which he reaffirms his loyalty to Wright and and tries to steer the debate back to him and his policies. Subsequently, when given the national media spotlight, Wright presumes to speak for Obama, claiming that Obama didn’t really mean anything that he said about finding some of Wright’s statements personally offensive. Later, Wright does a horrifically bad, unfunny, and plain ugly rip-off of Chris Rock’s comedy routines. Obama, who has tried valiantly for several months to avoid thowing Wright under the bus, realizes that Wright—a man whom he has loved and respected for most of his adult life—has become small-minded, pandering, attention-whore and is forced to denounce him.

    Having had to do a similar thing in my life a few years ago (although on a much smaller scale since I’m not a public figure), I can tell you that it sucks in a big way. It certainly, at least in my mind, should not reflect poorly on Obama.

  272. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:44

    All politicians are beholden. All presidents are influenced by the circumstances preceeding their arrival. All presidents are personally ambitious. And they all make compromises. It’s not scum versus Shining Knight, it’s one compromised person versus another by definition.

  273. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:45

    This blog, unlike Corrente, has not been particularly fervent in its partisanship for either candidate, although my guess is the majority of the regular posters support Obama.

    But, because the posters over here actually have a sense of humor, it’s easy to see why Lambert’s crew would assume we’re Obama partisans.
    .

  274. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:47

    Triangulation in the 90s was the only way to survive.

    Only if your “90′s” doesn’t include 1998.

    Triangulation is just political rope-a-dope. It was also a way for Clinton to gamble with other people’s chips. The Democratic party is still paying off Bill Clinton’s political capital credit card.
    .

  275. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:47

    That’s funny, justbrent, because as an Obama supporter, I thought he should stick to his guns, because the Right Wing Noise Machine is going to continue to hammer him on it no matter what anyone says.

    So he lost some standing with me.

    How can we possibly see the same issue from two completely different standpoints? I thought we were a cult!

    So which one of us didn’t get the Hive-Mind Memo?

  276. Zandar1 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:47

    Psst.
    If we just get a nominee, we can then go raid Clownhall and stuff and hit people with pies again.

    You know, instead of EACH OTHER.

  277. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:48

    Sadly, no, Paul. At the NPC, Wright said that Obama’s previous disavowals of Wright’s statements were ‘just politics’, i.e., that Obama didn’t mean them.

    so calling Obama a politician is “shocking” and “outrageous”.

    Obama didn’t say “well, I gotta disavow this guy because he’s telling people that my rejection of his ideas is ‘just politics.’ ” He disavowed him because of the “outrageous” and “shocking” statements Wright made at the NPC.

    Oh, and Obama didn’t call a press conference to “disavow” Samatha Powers when she said that Obama’s position on Iraq was “just politics” — that his pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq was just a “best case scenario” and “some plan he crafted as a presidential candidate”. Indeed, I don’t recall Obama calling a press conference to denounce Powers “outrageous” and “shocking” comments about Clinton being a monster.

  278. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:48

    I think “self-blinded” pretty much covers it, actually.

    I admit, it covers your ass as you run away from a debate you can’t handle.
    .

  279. Michael Dietz said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:50

    Not keeping close enough tabs on you, Paul, on sites I don’t read (Taylor Marsh? really?), to know about those moments when you’ve demonstrated a bit of independence from Hillary groupthink doesn’t exactly count as “self-blinding.” But congratulations on the dissent.

    And yet here you are, still stuffing straw into empty suits. Any remote chance you might be willing to admit that there may be–as there self-evidently are, in this very thread–un-deluded, dis-illusioned Obama supporters out there? That the “latte-swilling elitist creatives” bullshit from your Corrente pals is exactly that? That painting Hillary Clinton as some kind of progressive hero is as utter and complete balls as it is doing the same for Obama?

  280. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:50

    How can we possibly see the same issue from two completely different standpoints? I thought we were a cult!

    Another meme bites the dust.
    .

  281. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:51

    On Black Revolution Day this coming January I’ll put Hillary Clinton in a burqa. Women need to know their role.

    &

    Wow. Losing Congress from 1994 to 2006 is “to survive”? Wow. GIMME MORE!!!

    Hurrah! Some snark.

    The DLC admirers apparently don’t care, they just think that if their policies didn’t purposefully endorse Republican policies and shut out the labor & liberal Democrats, what? The mean Republicans would have said mean things? They would have impeached the President? What?

    Eggsackly.

    Flush the GOP-but-with-5%-fewer-calories DLC stranglehold on liberal politics.

  282. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:51

    Lukasiak says you supported Obama when he said Wright was right, and supported him when he said Wright was wrong, because you are a brainless Obamabot and they all think the same.

    And if that’s not true well…too bad! It’s true! ‘Cause Lukasiak said so! ( Lukasiak 3:16 )

    Seriously what a clown. Another two-bit bloviator waving his hands while speaking in vague generalities. Impressive. Thank god because the world doesn’t have nearly enough people who vomit up talking points minus any specifics and run and hide when called out.

  283. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:52

    Wait- do people think that Samatha Powers was literally calling Clinton a monster?

    If so, do you think she meant like, a werewolf? Man, is it too late to change my vote?

  284. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:52

    My latest Clinton just died dimwittedly and with all the contemporary crap going on here a hard specific Clinton story would make my month. I don’t know how she got stuck in that mug. Just this side of Heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When a Clinton dies that has been insipidly close to someone here, that Clinton goes to Rainbow Bridge.

  285. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:54

    But, because the posters over here actually have a sense of humor, it’s easy to see why Lambert’s crew would assume we’re Obama partisans.

    In all fairness, some of the Obama sites have been pretty ridiculous too. DKos at least hides the “BITCH MUST DIE!!!” posts, but I that before Obama became inevitable I was a little annoyed at all the hysterics and bridge burning.

  286. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:55

    And if that’s not true well…too bad! It’s true! ‘Cause Lukasiak said so! ( Lukasiak 3:16 )

    Lukasiak is over here demonstrating the same ignorance of the Wright kurfuffle that got him laughed off of Balloon Juice.

    Where will he take his dog act next?
    .

  287. thafunx said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:57

    I come here for the snark, but stay for posts like this…brilliant. I’m happy to vote for Obama or Hillary, and you’ve nailed the reasons why…

  288. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:57

    Shorter Iris/Get Real/p_luk:

    Hillary’s great! Hillary realizes the game! Hillary was smart enough to stay on the Michigan ballot! Hillary is a master of politics! Hillary stands for true progressivism! Hillary knows how to properly triangulate! Hillary has smart supporters!

    1) Aaaaand you dare call Obama supporters sheep. Right. Your ad hoc shenanigans smell of Hooters Hewitt.
    2) You do know that Hillary is being beaten in the primaries, right? As in, to the point where she can’t really win, right? So I might temper my overflowing praise just a smidge.

  289. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:57

    DKos at least hides the “BITCH MUST DIE!!!” posts

    The commenter rating system over there hides all kinds of posts, it’s not the site admins trying to hide content.

    I once had one of my posts hidden because my snark was too subtle. It happens.
    .

  290. justbrent said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:58

    That’s funny, justbrent, because as an Obama supporter, I thought he should stick to his guns, because the Right Wing Noise Machine is going to continue to hammer him on it no matter what anyone says.

    I see your point, but I don’t agree for one reason: I really want to see a politician who makes at least some decisions on principle instead of how it might play to the populace. In 2000, I though McCain might be that guy (even though I disagreed with him on most of his positions), but then he sold his soul for an endorsement by The Most Unpopular President in History(TM).

    To me, it seems like Obama has consistently followed his conscience on the Wright issue. At first, he expressed his disagreement with some of Wright’s more extreme views, but affirmed his belief in Wright’s core goodness and principles. He even compared the man to a beloved uncle, for crying out loud.

    Then, when Wright went batshit crazy on the TV and essentially called Obama a liar, Obama had to make a personal choice, again, and cut the cord. I don’t think it had anything to do with political expediency. I think that it had everything to do with Obama expending considerable political capital to stick up for this man that he really cared about and having that same man spit in his face for it.

  291. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:58

    I’ve noticed that HAAM is even more ill-tempered than usual since the police raided his secret basement dungeon and rescued the daughter he was holding as a sex slave and the seven children he sired by her. I guess a trauma like that would put anyone off his feed.

  292. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:59

    Is this Lukasiak fellow supposedly someone of note? He appears to be the typical internet pundit who says something stupid then changes the subject when people point out he’s fibbing.

    That’s the great thing about internet debating, you can say something stupid and indefensible then when people rebut you can just pretend you didn’t hear them.

  293. Ralph Nader said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:59

    I think it’s time I made an appearance in this thread!

  294. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 17:59

    Look, Clinton supporters, what is it you want exactly? I’ve been reading this thread all morning and, well, I still don’t get it. Are you guys mad at us for winning? For pointing out that it is impossible for your candidate to win? Or that you have a choice between Obama and McCain winning in November?

    Sheesh. What do you want from us?

  295. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:00

    No, Ralph, I don’t think that would be prudent.

  296. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:00

    p_lukasiak-

    I don’t like to be ignored. What is it with you guys that I have to ask these questions twice?

    If you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

    Rebuttal?

  297. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:00

    Is this Lukasiak fellow supposedly someone of note???

    He did yeoman’s work on the Bush/TANG issue back in the day. That’s about it.
    .

  298. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:01

    Bush/TANG issue? Bush was on the space shuttle?

  299. lambert strether said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:02

    Dr A:

    Snark more or less off –

    No, I’m not pissed. Why would I be? Suddenly, this obscure little C list blog — this “dwindling band of paranoid holdouts” — is getting hits! “As long as they spell my name right…”

    I’m not pissed about S/N ramen post either, though I confess, truly, I didn’t read past the first few paragraphs. (I was volcanically angry about the real subject of the post, which had nothing whatever to do with the policy implications of the now forgotten gas tax, or indeed any -gate at all.)

    As far as “what would it take,” I’m tempted to say, with Laura Petrie, “If you don’t know why I’m mad at you, then I’m certainly not going to tell you.”

    Seriously, rather than putting the burden on me/us to invest the time in answering — I feel I’ve been writing about that very subject over and over and over again for months — why not do a little research, use your imagination, put yourself in our shoes, and post on what you think it would take? That would be a real olive branch. For all I know, you might come up with ideas we don’t have. Self-insight is rare, after all.

    Shystee has a fine post here — though the comments are a little hot right now, they’ll cool down in a bit, no doubt. Unfortunately, after trolls destroyed Digby’s comments and called her a cunt, we pre-emptively ttightened up our approvals policy, but if you don’t have an account, you will at least be able to read along.

    Au revoir!

  300. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:02

    Bush had beef with the Wu

  301. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:02

    Atheist, if you’re serious, I have no idea what to do. I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know if the doom/gloomers are right. I think they are, but what do I know?

  302. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:04

    Nicely put, DA. The only reason I’m a little more keen on Obama is because he had the courage to stand up to a stupid majority and vote no to the invasion of Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Hillary has never explained herself voting for it. She also accepted a ton of campaign money from health insurers, second only to Mitt Romney. This makes me question her commitment to public health care.

  303. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:05

    Having had to do a similar thing in my life a few years ago (although on a much smaller scale since I’m not a public figure), I can tell you that it sucks in a big way. It certainly, at least in my mind, should not reflect poorly on Obama.

    if it had actually happened the way you describe it, I’d agree with you.

    But Obama wasn’t honest — and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia — and pandered to white people by equating the frustration and resentment of African Americans that comes about from living every day with the impact of this nations 400 year history of slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination with white people’s resentment of Affirmative Action programs. (and he had the nerve to accuse Clinton of pandering to working class white people because of her gas tax holiday proposal!)

    Obama refused to acknowledge that Wright was a race-pimp — someone who took the legitimate frustrations of African Americans and deliberately exacerbated them for his own benefit. It was all about denial of what Wright’s message was (“I wasn’t in church the day he said that”).

    Right now, I honestly don’t know what Obama’s position on racial issues is. I know what he says — and I know that his actions in this campaign belie what he says. I also know that Obama has exploited an only slightly less blantant version of Wright’s own race-pimping in this campaign — so while I still don’t know to what extent Obama has adopted Wrights beliefs about race, I do know that he’s learned from Wrights tactics.

  304. lambert strether said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:05

    One more:

    I don’t really have a “crew.” The Fellows can post whatever they want.

  305. alternative hippopotamus » Blog Archive » A Tale of Two Bloggers said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:06

    [...] at CorrenteWire: D. Aristophanes, in an extremely classy gesture, apologizes and [...]

  306. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:07

    Look, Clinton supporters, what is it you want exactly? I’ve been reading this thread all morning and, well, I still don’t get it. Are you guys mad at us for winning?

    Her supporters watched her get dragged through the mud for years, all for a bunch of black-helicopter bullshit that the GOP drums up to exploit the yokels in the trailer park (I know these idiots, I grew up with them).

    She rose to power in her own right at a very dark time for Democrats. She was an inspiration to women, specifically, since so much of the shit lobbed at her even during the 1992 campaign was a reminder of how much sexism hasn’t changed in this country. She’s the kind of strong woman that scares the hell out of the white-flight morons who made the GOP juggernaut of the last 25 years.

    So, she’s paid her dues, and a lot of people already saw her as riding on a white horse into the White House, saving not just her fans but the whole fucking country. She was going to re-win the 1990′s in the same way that Republicans think they’ve re-won the 1960′s.

    Then, her inevitableness started losing to Obama, who appeals to people who aren’t just trying to win the last war. To them (and I’m just guessing, here), losing to Obama is just as bad as Limbaugh joking about her oral sex skills on his short-lived TV show.

    Hillary losing now reminds them (and I’m still just guessing, here) of being politically humiliated for most of 1979 – now, as “liberal” became a dirty word and Democrats became scarce and Republicans rubbed our faces in it, over and over.

    Naturally, they project their cult of personality on us.
    .

  307. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:07

    oh man xpost of all xpost up there

    two things in response to Lambert:

    Is it really so hard to read that which you are replying to? I know paragraphs be long and shit, but really.

    And furthermore, how long will shitty blogs be holding up poor put-upon Digby as the 9/11 of blog comments or whatever the fuck? If you’re too pussy to have your comments open, just be straight about it. “Someone called Digby a cunt, this changes EVERYTHING.” Please.

    Oh and also in that link you posted there is a plea for more progressive policy from a Clinton supporter, so I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be serious or what.

  308. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:07

    Get Real said,
    May 8, 2008 at 17:31 (kill)
    Triangulating is better than letting Republicans kick your ass all over the place.

    Then fucking triangulate and GET BEHIND THE CANDIDATE THAT HAS WON.

  309. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:08

    and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia

    Fail.
    .

  310. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:09

    Don’t you remember the “co-presidents/ two for the price of one” business?

    Sure do.
    You remember a guy by the name of Al Gore?
    ‘Cause that’s who it refers to.

    You said upthread that you thought things had to get worse to make sure the Democratic party got the picture.

    aka “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

  311. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:09

    Bullshit, lambert!

    I saw you guys rockin’ the cardboard under the streetlight last night.

    And how can you explain that ‘LAMBERT’ bomb on the side of the A-Train?

  312. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:10

    Laura Petrie!?!

    Wow. That’s reaching way back.

    Lambert, if you’re still around, please explain why any of us need to extend you an olive branch.

    For all I know, you might come up with ideas we don’t have.

    Isn’t that what this whole (coming up to 300) thread has been about?

  313. White Male, Jew of Liberal Fascism said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:12

    Only in America would you find assholes moaning about thirty dollars in taxes while the government wastes trillions on a fucking stupid war.

    And then these same moaning assholes have the effrontery to pretend that they are moaning on behalf of the poor, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an elitist.

    Jeebus.

  314. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:12

    Lambert is the guy who can’t tell the difference between Obama’s message and Lieberman’s. Lambert is the guy who’s still pushing the “Obama is a closet Reaganite” meme. Is Lambert really cute enough to play that dumb?

    I picked Obama because for reasons of political machine and demographics (i.e., he’s working with Dean’s DNC instead of against it, and his supporters are younger and broader). But, the Clintonites capacity for just plain playing dumb probably would have put me in the same camp, if I’d been reading their blogs all this time (I haven’t).
    .

  315. JGabriel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:13

    PLuk:

    Obama didn’t say “well, I gotta disavow this guy because he’s telling people that my rejection of his ideas is ‘just politics.’

    Actually, he did – in addition to the other things you mentioned. I think you need to google and re-read the transcript.

    .

  316. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:14

    delete “because”

    sheesh, need more coffee
    .

  317. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:16

    Actually, he did – in addition to the other things you mentioned. I think you need to google and re-read the transcript.

    Lukasiak needs to imagine the Obama he wants to bitch about.

    Lukasiak needs to imagine the Obama cult he wants to bitch about.

    Sounds like a personal problem to me.
    .

  318. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:16

    This reminds me of that website Instapunk that made the post about how black people are terrible niggers. They defended themselves by whining about “A-list bloggers” and the “big boys” and all that…they figured that even though they wrote stupid offensive shit they could cast themselves as the underdogs and change the narrative into one about how some brave rebels stood up to the man.

    That’s what the correntwire people are trying to do here, and it’s both transparent and pathetic.

    He’s not mad, he didn’t even read it, but he was volcanically mad about the “real subject”, which he somehow divined without reading the post, and he won’t tell you why he’s mad, if he even is mad.

    Got it? Yeah.

    Seriously, rather than putting the burden on me/us to invest the time in answering — I feel I’ve been writing about that very subject over and over and over again for months — why not do a little research, use your imagination, put yourself in our shoes, and post on what you think it would take?

    What a cop-out. Here we have another fabulously skilled internet debater.

  319. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:16

    I don’t like to be ignored. What is it with you guys that I have to ask these questions twice?

    do please try and put your ego in check.

    As to your actual question — I can only tell you to look up a recent poll that was done that said that (IIRC) only 9% of African Americans agreed with Wright.

    Of course, that is after Obama finally denounced Wright. Who knows whether the results would be the same while Obama ‘could no more disavow” Wright than he could throw his own grandma under the bus?” or if they even told the pollsters the truth about how they felt (I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans.)

    oh, and no, I’m not going to provide a link. IMHO, you’re bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

  320. jon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:21

    Nicely said.

  321. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:22

    I don’t know how she got stuck in that mug.

    RB, I’m sure that people mentioned that you shouldn’t bring that Clinton home if you couldn’t take care of it. Clinton’s have special needs that are really hard to meet in a typical home setting.

  322. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:22

    What could be better for Republicans than a small slice of progressives trying to popularize the message that staying home and not voting is the best thing to do if Obama wins the nomination. (Which he almost surely will)

    Everyone who feels the need to remind us that a McCain victory would be bad are really not seeing how condescending they are being. Yeah, we know that. We get that, and we don’t need any reminders from you. In case it didn’t occur to you, some of us just might have been the ones telling people in years past that they couldn’t stay home because the Democrats really are better. You’re afraid, rightly, that a discouraged and cynical Democratic electorate could hand McCain victory. But if that happens, it will be because our party leaders and Presidential candidate continue to sell us up a river and we conclude, quite rationally, that they don’t give a fuck what we think because they know we will show up like good little boys and girls every time.

    This isn’t coming from an independent voter, or a low-information, ‘smug’ or ‘self-righteous’ voter. It’s coming from a Democratic voter who is sick and tired of being sold up a river and is considering for the first time that maybe what our candidates need is the very real and motivating pressure of losing to make them earn our votes for once.

    Maybe this would be a good time to state what we actually do believe in, and what things, specifically, we aren’t willing to cave on solely because we are afraid of the Republicans. I thought the Obama campaign was all about real, meaningful change and hope, not fear and cheap threats? Sorry, but my reservoir of patience is wearing thin with this little kabuki game. I’m tired of seeing prominent Democrats reach out to every constituency except their own, and I think it will be quite useful to force them to actually deal with us for once. And rolling your eyes at the ‘laundry list’ of policy concerns that Hillary supporters have in general, as well as in the case of the bafflingly but decidedly less-progressive Senator Obama, my friends, is a step in the wrong direction.

    The truth of it is this: we don’t have unity, we have an alliance of political convenience. We have disagreements. Big surprise!! This is called politics…and because we have been distracted by non-issues like pastors and haircuts and snipers (etc etc) for so long we haven’t had to talk too much about these issues that a lot of us probably disagree on but where we may also be able to find common cause. Maybe now would be a good time to start that conversation.

    f you have listened to any hip-hop in the last 15-20 years, you will know that Jeremiah Wright’s opinions are shared by a gasp large group of influential black leaders. Does that make the white liberal in you feel all icky? Good. The institutionalized racism in this country is still out there, still hurting people. You can act like what Wright said is controversial, but in reality it is no different than what KRS One, Chuck D, Mos Def et al have been saying all along.

    But you’re probably in the camp that Hip-Hop isn’t music, so of course you don’t know.

    What Wright said may have caused controversy, but nothing he said was very worthy of controversy. He is a decent and honorable man who is channeling a more authentic Christian message than most pastors in this country. That message is not kind to U.S. imperialism, hubris and war crimes.

    But we know about the racism…..we’re on your side. We thought you were on ours. This is exactly how this shit gets started, how it became CW that the Clintons played the ‘race card’ – Obama and Obama supporters pull it out at every opportunity against fellow liberals and demonize and parody us while conservatives sit in the shadows and snicker.

    I’m coming to believe more and more that Obama is just a blank canvas onto which many of his supporters project exactly what they want to see (not trying to be patronizing, just honest – call me a Hillbot if you want). But everyone’s seeing something different – which is why he is paralyzed from doing anything substantive or ‘controversial’ at all. His base of support would begin to crumble around the edges as true-believerism wears off.

  323. lambert strether said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:23

    I truly don’t have a lot of time to spend on this thread. Not only is RL calling, I have a blog of my own to tend to. If the S/N posters want to synthesize — I suggested a way that could be done, above — then have at it!

    Henry writes:

    “Lambert, if you’re still around, please explain why any of us need to extend you an olive branch.”

    You don’t, nor did I ask you to, or expect it of you.

    D. Aristophanes thought it would be a good idea. Raise your concerns with the poster if you have a problem with the post.

    Now, really, over and out.

  324. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:23

    you’re [sic] bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

    False analogy. Whether something is representative or not is not the same question as whether certain words are acceptable or not.

    Lukasiak is pushing the FOX News/Limbaugh line that talking about race or racism is the same thing as being racist. In order to reach this pre-determined conclusion, he has to get even the most basic facts wrong.

    Since Lukasiak has already announced plans to sit out the general, why keep pushing the inevitable McCain line?
    .

  325. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:23

    Of course, that is after Obama finally denounced Wright.

    Blah blah blah. Hillary is not the nominee, Obama is, so welcome to the right-wing noise machine.

  326. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:24

    I have been listening to Hip-Hop (what’s ‘rap’?) for over 20 years. What Wright said did not even slightly surprise me, because he was stating opinions that many of my favorite MCs over the years have been saying.

    Read into it what you will, but don’t try to follow this line of reasoning:

    you’re bringing “rap music” into this discussion is on a par with right-wingers who bring up the use of the word “n****r” in rap anytime a white person gets caught saying something racist.

    That dog don’t hunt.

  327. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:25

    What a cop-out.

    unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

    But while I’m sitting out November, there are still lots of progressive Clinton supporters who are on the fence about voting for Obama if he is the nominee, so I will give you a hint.

    Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

  328. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:25

    welcome to the right-wing noise machine.

    That’s pretty much all that’s left of them.
    .

  329. Comrade Rutherford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:27

    GoatBoy:

    ““I ask you to reflect on just what would possibly be different”

    The. Supreme. Court.”

    No. The GOP will only send up more Scalias and fillibuster anyone else, and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable, [B]just as they have always done in the past[/B]. No Dem will be allowed to seat another SCOTUS justice.

  330. justbrent said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:27

    if it had actually happened the way you describe it, I’d agree with you.

    But Obama wasn’t honest — and he tried to turn any criticism of Wright into a “racial” issue in Philadelphia — and pandered to white people by equating the frustration and resentment of African Americans that comes about from living every day with the impact of this nations 400 year history of slavery, segregation, and racial discrimination with white people’s resentment of Affirmative Action programs. (and he had the nerve to accuse Clinton of pandering to working class white people because of her gas tax holiday proposal!)

    I’m not sure which speech you were watching. Apparently not the one that was televised. Or maybe we just have a different way of judging what people say. I try to base my opinions on the actual words that people use, not my speculation about their ulterior motives.

    Let’s recap. A handful of soundbites from a few Wright sermons were edited together, out of context, and put on the internet and MSM. The soundbites, which expressed common resentments in the African American community about various issues, were thrown up in Obama’s face as if he had said them. Rather than justify the ridiculous criticisms leveled at him (“Why didn’t he walk out?” Because he was a prominent member of the church and walking out would have raised a giant stink over something that was really just a difference of opinion about one or two sentences in the sermon. C’mon, I disagree with statements made from the pulpit all the time. I don’t stand up and walk out because I’m not a pompous, self-righteous jackass. Do the people who make these criticisms even go to church?), Obama made a speech about race and acknowledging racial resentment (on both sides of the race line) and moving on to trying to find solutions.

    As far as Wright benefitting from “race-pimping,” you are clearly just making things up here. There is NO evidence that the few statements that showed up on YouTube were typical of Wright’s sermons. In fact, every one that I’ve heard talk about the church from first-hand experience has said that they were the exception rather than the rule. Plus, we’re not talking about Creflo Dollar, here. There are no private jets, lavish vacation homes, and water parks here. Just an inner-city church that has, undisputedly, done a lot of good in its community over the years.

  331. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:27

    unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”

    Hey, it breaks up the monotony of taking lesbians to get their abortions on my magic carpet made out of a burning flag …

    … you Limbaugh-fellating failure.
    .

  332. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:29

    I’m trying to read lambert’s posts at correntwire and all I see is snark and a bunch of “this one Obama supporter on the internet said something mean” posts.

    I can’t find anything there that isn’t just blatant red-meat for the most die-hard Hillary supporters. I don’t even really see anything like “this is why Clinton is good.” It’s pretty much just “lol Obama sux lol” over and over again.

    Am I missing something?

    Oh and also in that link you posted there is a plea for more progressive policy from a Clinton supporter, so I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be serious or what.

    That’s the part about this that really cracks me up.

    Where were all these clowns when Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards were still in the race?

  333. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:30

    Obama made a speech about race and acknowledging racial resentment (on both sides of the race line) and moving on to trying to find solutions.

    Yes, but Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee, now, so her supporters have to pretend they can’t compweehend that.
    .

  334. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:30

    I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans

    Hey, I don’t know what exit poll you are pulling that from, but look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

    Oh and Lukasiak? Go fuck yourself.

  335. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:32

    I have been listening to Hip-Hop (what’s ‘rap’?) for over 20 years. What Wright said did not even slightly surprise me, because he was stating opinions that many of my favorite MCs over the years have been saying.

    I think you’re missing the distinction between “opinions” and “feelings.” Jay-Z isn’t Gil Scott Heron, and there are precious few rappers whose lyrics are as politically sophisticated as those of The Last Poets.

  336. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:32

    The GOP will only send up more Scalias and fillibuster anyone else, and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable, [B]just as they have always done in the past[/B]. No Dem will be allowed to seat another SCOTUS justice.

    fail

  337. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:33

    look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

    The Clinton campaign’s message since Tuesday has been about white voters’ support.

    Oh, but Obama is a race pimp, because … because Glenn Beck told me so.

    Or something.
    .

  338. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:36

    Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

    *Sigh* Why is it that a lot of the demands of progressive Clinton supporters are of things their own candidate has not done? Also note: If your candidate had—I don’t know, made the race about her having the best healthcare plan for example (or gone to the senate and filibustered the darn FISA bill)—instead of the last few months being about how elitist and unelectable Barack Obama is, maybe you would have won us over. Maybe I would be giving this speech to an Obamunist telling him that it is time to quit for the good of the party and the good of the country, although I doubt it would be to any regulars here.

  339. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:36

    Its nice to see that you liberals are so united in your choice for President.

    Because you know what they say, “united we stand, divided we fall.”

    So have fun devouring each other, me and my fellow eeevil Conservatives have to get back to work supporting McCain.

    Hahahaha!

  340. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:38

    Jay-Z isn’t Gil Scott Heron, and there are precious few rappers whose lyrics are as politically sophisticated as those of The Last Poets.

    Jay-Z? The pimp?

    I’m talking Chuck-D. Mos Def. Talib Kweli. KRS-One. Common. X-Clan. Even the Coup.

  341. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:39

    Why are you still talking lukasiak?

    unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

    I’m still waiting for you to name some of these strawman “Obama supporters” you keep talking about.

    Obama supporters all supported him about Wright, then supported him when he said something else about Wright, stammered and stuttered incoherently when you bravely confronted them, accept anything that can be framed as “change”, blah blah blah, drown kittens and sacrifice virgins…

    Wow, random unsupported generalizations sure are a blast!

  342. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:39

    How’s the running, Jonah? Is the Dough sloughing off?

  343. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:40

    *Sigh* Why is it that a lot of the demands of progressive Clinton supporters are of things their own candidate has not done?

    Obama voted for the Dodd amendment. Clinton did not.

    So, who are these “progressive Clinton supporters” again?

    Are they paying attention?

    Hello?
    .

  344. sagra said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:44

    Fast Eddie is da bomb.

  345. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:45

    Hey, I don’t know what exit poll you are pulling that from, but look at the % of white Hillary voters who say that race was a factor in their selection. Guess we can’t trust white people either, huh?

    actually, the percentages of white people who say that race was not a factor, but vote for Clinton, is at least plausible. In North Carolina they split 61-37 for Clinton. In Indiana, it was 58-42.

    And given Obama’s failure to address the issues of concern to so many working class white voters — and his attacks on Clinton for ‘pandering’ to those people for trying to address those concerns (not to mention the fact that Clinton has spent the last eight years working to appeal to white working class voters) while Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from a sophomore year sociology class, I think that white voters that say they didn’t vote for Clinton because she’s white and Obama isn’t are probably telling the truth.

  346. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:45

    Constitutional scholar pans Clinton for fleeing from FISA fight

    Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley criticized the Senate for bowing to President Bush’s demands for more spying power and amnesty for potentially law-breaking telecommunications companies.

    “The fix has been in for some time on the unlawful surveillance program and the torture program,” he said Wednesday on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. “Many Democrats and Republicans were aware of the program and they are actively helping the White House to try to shut down any confrontation on the issue. This is also helped by the fact the telecoms are one of the five most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, and many of these members have close ties to those lobbyists.”

    Turley panned presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who skipped the politically tricky and controversial Senate vote on the spy law Tuesday even though she had been campaigning in Washington that day.

    “It really, I think is symbolic of this disconnect … here you’ve got someone who is campaigning for the President of the United States, making pitches to civil libertarians, but doesn’t even show up — when she’s in the neighborhood — to vote against telecom immunity,” Turley charged. “I’m not just dumping on her. The fact is there has been a lot of really duplicitous work being done by both parties.”

    Republican John McCain and Barack Obama both voted on amendments to the measure; Obama opposed telecom immunity, while McCain supported it. Clinton left town early to get to a campaign stop in Texas.

    So, Lukasiak doesn’t know what Obama said, and he doesn’t know what Clinton did.

    All he’s got is what Sean Hannity jizzed in his mouth this morning.
    .

  347. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:47

    Can we haz sum funnee photoz of Pastor Swank or Daffyd Ab-Hugh now pleez?

  348. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:49

    Oh, by the way, I hear Ralph Nader’s running again. It looks like he’s gonna pick off a few million dumb liberals this election like he did in 2000 and 2004.

    I hope you liberals cast your protest votes. Look how good its served you all these years.

    Bwahahahaha!

  349. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:51

    Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from a sophomore year sociology class

    Obama’s approach to the white working class comes from here.

    And it worked in 2006, remember?

    You know, the approach that Clinton’s DLC-controlled campaign not only opposed, but tried to dismantle after it worked? Why is it that Clinton lacks the guts to take on the GOP’s use of decoy issues?

    I’m running out of space to keep track of what you don’t know, Lukasiak.
    .

  350. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:52

    unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

    At the end of the day, this fucking strawman is still the best you can do?

    Leave, troll. You’re only belittling yourself at this point.

  351. Malfunctioning, Yet Enamored Glenn Reynolds Robot said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:53

    Heh. I like where this p_lukasiak guy is going! Hey p_lukasiak! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning! We’re winning!

  352. Nadai said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:54

    The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

    I’m already fed up to the back teeth with the Democratic Party’s utter spinelessness. I don’t want a Democratic President who talks about how important it is to make nice with the Republicans, and how partisanship is such an ugly thing, and how the Democrats should be so much more hospitable to religious concerns and on and on and on.

    To hell with it. I want a fighter to vote for. If one isn’t on the ballot, I’ll write one in.

  353. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:54

    And given Obama’s failure to address the issues of concern to so many working class white voters

    Don’t you mean The Hard-Working Americans?

    not to mention the fact that Clinton has spent the last eight years working to appeal to white working class voters

    Don’t you mean she’s spent the last several weeks downing shots and standing on pickup trucks?

    - Another member of the monolithic Obama Supporters Straw Horde. We all think alike here in the dark corners of Lukasiak’s small, small mind.

  354. Shorter p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:55

    Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter. Because Obama did _____________. Wait, he didn’t? Well, that issue doesn’t even matter.

  355. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:56

    Hey! Get a load of the race pimp!

    (CNN) — In what appear to be the New York senator’s most blunt comments to date regarding a racial division in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that “White Americans” are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy.

    “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY.

    Clinton cited an Associated Press poll “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

    Wow! Obama sure is a race pimp! Right?

    In the meantime, we know that younger whites AREN’T going to Clinton’s side.
    .

  356. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:56

    Nadai, do what you like. But I contend that your are making a mistake.

  357. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:57

    The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

    Cite or leave.

    Additionally, since your write-in candidate natch has no chance of winning, you’re helping McCain. So good for you, shill.

  358. EnfantTerrible said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:58

    One more thing – given the monumental amount of crap thrown at Clinton by goopers over the past 16 years, it would have been very soul-satisfying to see her elected as President, DLC ties notwithstanding. But the fact is (sheesh, I’m sounding like La Ruppert), she and her advisors did not run a very good campaign, and they let their initial advantage slip away.

    Remember, we are not simply voting against McCain. We are voting for up to 4 supreme court justices and a cabinet populated with competent people.

  359. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 18:59

    Lukasiak is living in some sort of fantasy land.

    Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

    This has got to fucking stop, the pretending that Clinton is some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.

    This is right in my wheelhouse. I have no idea if some moron like Lukasiak is bullshitting me on a subject I know nothing about, but this is a subject I know a lot about.

    Clinton had not done jack shit to oppose telecom immunity. Obama made a statement about it before she did, he worked it into speeches before she did. She has been on the back of the pack on this issue.

    I don’t care if you support Clinton, but can you stop just making shit up?

    On telecom immunity Clinton was way behind Dodd, behind Biden and behind Obama.

    I have been following this telecom immunity stuff for a while, reading about it, blogging about it. I read the fucking bills before Clinton did. Clinton and her supporters weren’t saying shit about telecom immunity until recently and she has been pulling up the rear since day 1.

    This is really insulting to the people that have been doing the work. When Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher were putting together a mailing list and Dodd was making noise about putting in a hold and I was donating to Dodd and blogging Clinton wouldn’t touch this issue with a ten-foot pole.

    To now pretend that she is some sort of brave crusader against telecom immunity is the worst sort of revionist history and an example of telling the big lie. Go read some old Glenn Greenwald pieces where Hillary is excoriated for doing NOTHING on this issue.

    Hillary has not done shit on telecom immunity, or gitmo, or Habeas rights, or Iraq contractors,or black sites, (the Clinton admin invented the practice of extraordinary rendition for fuck’s sake) or torture or any civil liberties issue of note.

    Why doesn’t she get her ass back to the senate, actually READ THE FUCKING BILLS for a change then show some leadership on an issue instead of only jumping on board when everyone else has already issued statements?

    Stop lying about things that have happened in the past 6-9 months. This is pathetic.

  360. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:00

    unlike Obama supporters, who accept just about anything as long as it can be framed as “change”, us Clinton supporters demand that if you are going to pander to us, you’re gonna have to figure out what issues we really care about.

    When these same idiots threaten to stab HC (and the Democratic Party) in the back by voting for McBush, how much caring for the issues can there be?

  361. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:01

    The saddest part of Clinton zealotry is that her supporters can’t detect their own obtuse logic.

    She.can’t.win.the.nomination.unless.she.steals.it.

  362. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:02

    To hell with it. I want a fighter to vote for. If one isn’t on the ballot, I’ll write one in.

    When you aren’t winning the game, go play your own game with your own rules! That’ll show ‘em!

  363. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:03

    The dealbreaker for me is that the only thing I see Barack Obama willing to fight for is himself.

    That’s because you’re a fucking moron.

    If you’re throwing your vote away, you don’t deserve a fighter.
    .

  364. maurinsky said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:04

    But what is so hard about VOTING AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN??!?12?

    Seriously! No one running for national office is liberal enough for my taste, but I will find it absolutely delicious to defeat my political enemy, even if the representative from my party ain’t my cup of tea.

    People who will sit out: have you already forgotten what happened in 2000? If your specific desires for a candidate aren’t met, you’ll take your ball and go home? I can’t imagine a more childish position to take.

  365. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:05

    It really makes me angry to see people with such a blatant double-standard, and to see people purposely misrepresent what their candidate has done.

    And to see people riding on the coat-tails of those that have done good work, then trying to claim that their candidate was fucking leading the charge when she wasn’t involved at all.

    This “ends justifies the means” bullshit is crazy wingnut land. Lying about what your candidate has done is just not right.

  366. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:05

    I don’t want a Democratic President who talks about how important it is to make nice with the Republicans

    Do you folks just not know what the DLC is?

  367. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:07

    If you people don’t like the political landscape in America than move to North Korea were I’m sure Kim Jong ll will fulfil your marxist fantasies of a workers paradise.

  368. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:08

    Good one, Jonah! Real zinger!

  369. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:09

    You never answered me about the running regimen. And we already established that my ego needs attention. So:

    Are loads of pounds melting away?

  370. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:09

    Are you now looser in the pants?

  371. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:10

    Where’d the dough go?

  372. Grand Moff Texan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:11

    When bloggers fisked
    his empty head,
    he bravely turned
    his tail and fled!

    Brave, brave, brave Sir Lukasiak!

    Looks like I’m going to have to go find some more trolls to humiliate. This house is clean.
    .

  373. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:12

    Tell Obama to get his ass back to the Senate, and make it absolutely clear that telecom immunity is completely unacceptable to him, and anyone Democrat who supports it is a fraud whose support he categorically rejects. That would impress a whole lot of progressive Clinton supporters.

    If I could find something on the Web(after checking 5 pages of search results at Google and another at TPM) that so much as suggested that Sen. Clinton herself had done something like this in the recent past, I might have taken you seriously about that.

    The scorecard so far shows:
    - Sen. Obama voted against a FISA bill containing immunity provisions for telecomms
    - Sen. Clinton did not cast a vote, as she was not present.
    - both have stated they oppose immunity for telecomms
    I’ve been told that actions speak louder than words.

    If you have an update, I’d be grateful to be directed to it.

  374. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:12

    Random Observer sez:

    “Good catch, I totally missed that. Guess I have seen it after all.”

    No, it wasn’t a good catch, because I did not call Clinton supporters racist, but let me be more specific: I believe that there is a real contingent in the Clinton ranks who are afraid that America is too racist to ever elect Barack Obama. You will never see this admitted in public.

  375. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:14

    I’m already fed up to the back teeth with the Democratic Party’s utter spinelessness.

    So your solution is to vote for the DLC insider? Excellent strategy. They’ve had so much success since being voted into the majority in 2006.

  376. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:14

    The force is strong with this thread.

  377. godlessScum said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:15

    Come November we will have a choice between two corporate lackies. Whether one of those lackies will be Clinton or Obama will make no difference; they are both corporate lackies. But as lackies, they will be lining up their bosses for the big America gangbang. The only difference between McCain and the other two will be that with Obama or Clinton, we will at least be provided with a small jar of Vaseline.

    As far as Hillary supporters, or any other delusional “progressive” deciding to stay home on election day on principle, the GOP thanks you for your lifetime of support.

  378. In Vino Veritas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:15

    The Democratic Nomination interpretaive dance

    Hillary!
    Hillary?
    Hillary…
    OMG…LOL @ OBAMA/WRIGHT/BITTER, HILDOG IS DA BOMB
    HILLARY@#$!%

    Obama!

  379. Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:15

    GO NOW LIBERALS! What are you waiting for. North Korea is only a plane flight away. Go to the Dear Leader where he will satisfy all of your marxist fantasies complete with summary executions of “reactionaries” and all your political opponents which I know would make you liberals all very happy. The North Korean media will spout marxist propaganda about the evils of capitalism and America and how the state is all powerful just as you like. Free universal health care, free housing, free schooling every giant government program you pork barrel spenders have wet dreams about is yours for the taking. What are you people watiing for, you hate capitalism and America so go to your 1984 Orwellian fantasy land of North Korea.

  380. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:18

    Only in America would you find assholes moaning about thirty dollars in taxes while the government wastes trillions on a fucking stupid war.

    And then these same moaning assholes have the effrontery to pretend that they are moaning on behalf of the poor, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an elitist.

    It’s not either/or here – there’s no need to stay silent if we happen to support shifting a tax burden from the struggling to the well-off. In the next sentence, you can also take note of the fact that our country is (literally) collapsing, that the same people to whom $30 is food for a week are often the ones who have trouble finding decent jobs, and their and their children’s future is being pissed away in the desert to support what has been widely recognized now in the blogosphere as an imperial war of aggression, a war crime, compounded by further war crimes including torture. Those are the people you call stupid ‘assholes,’ people who registered as Democrats for the first time in several previous elections because we told them they should, because we told them it would get better if we could just elect more Democrats to office. A great many will get kicked out of their homes onto the street this year. Among the economically struggling are many young people in the military, having been drawn in by the promise of a college education, health care, and believing the bullshit lies we fed to them. A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.” What Obama said about people being embittered by broken promises and failure was not elitist, just accurate, but this sure as hell is some elitist crap.

  381. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:18

    interesting…

    Someone accuses Lambert of “copping out” because he won’t explain what it will take to get his support for Obama.

    So I offer a suggestion — have Obama make telecom immunity a front page issue. Not just issue a statement, or vote against it, but use his position as the “presumptive nominee” to actually stop it from happening.

    But nobody says — “y’know, that a really good idea. Obama needs to do something like this to convince progressives that are supporting Clinton for the nomination that he is on their side — and as a progressive who opposes telecom immunity, I’d like to see that happen as well”.

    Instead, we get this kind of (typical) response…

    Lukasiak is living in some sort of fantasy land. [quote my suggestion] This has got to fucking stop, the pretending that Clinton is some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.

    Now, nowhere did I ever suggest that Clinton was “some sort of brave fighter against telecom immunity.”

    I suggested telecom immunity because it is an issue that is important to ALL progressives — and its an issue that neither Clinton nor Obama have distinguised themselves on. I thought about mention Obama adopting Clinton’s approach to health care, or having Obama apologze to the Clintons and their supporters for the way he and his surrogates have deliberately demonized them for the last eight months, but I decided to go with a suggestion that should have been completely non-controversial on a progressive blog

    Like I’ve already said, I’m sitting out November, because I won’t tolerate a Democratic candidate who uses the same race-baiting strategy to build margins and turnout in the black community that the GOP has been using to build turnout and margins among whites for decades.

    So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

  382. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:19

    If I could find something on the Web(after checking 5 pages of search results at Google and another at TPM) that so much as suggested that Sen. Clinton herself had done something like this in the recent past, I might have taken you seriously about that..

    Read some old Glenn Greenwald posts on the issue, which were basically ground zero for the telecom immunity fight. People were pleading with the Obama and Clinton camps to throw their weight behind the issue and neither did anything. Obama finally issued a very tepid statement and Clinton followed with an equally tepid one. Neither did anything of note and Clinton didn’t even vote.

    If every Senator was a Clinton and Obama telecom immunity would have passed a long time ago.

  383. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:20

    I’ve had it. Look, I’m sorry that your candidate lost the election, but well, a majority of the primary and caucus voters think she’s the lesser of the two remaining democrats. I’m sorry you hate that so much that you want to take your ball home and not vote in November, thus enabling a John McCain victory. I’m sorry you feel that such an action, while essentially dooming the country would be entirely Barack Obama’s fault and not the result of your own petty vindictiveness. I’m sorry you feel that Barack Obama’s coalition of voters, while larger than Clinton’s is somehow less broad and thus less deserving of consideration. I’m sorry that since February, only through the use of wishful thinking, magic and/or a pact with the devil that would split the party were the only options for a Clinton victory. I’m sorry you feel that the DLC backed HRC is a bastion of progressivism, while simultaneously holding Barack Obama to standards that you refuse to apply to her. I’m sorry you feel that Obama supporters here are part of some sort of cult mindset, even though any reading through the thread (let alone previous ones) has us disagreeing with each other and admitting his flaws.

    YEESH. What do you want us to do build you a fucking time machine so that you can bring up Jeremiah Wright during Iowa?

  384. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:21

    Just to recap…

    1) p_luk comes here, and claims that Obama supporters are naive and see things in their candidate that just aren’t there.
    2) p_luk acts like HRC is a trailblazer in the fight against telecom immunity, which is…
    3) completely not true.

    I’m astonished. I didn’t think we could reach the heights of epic fail that we saw during the Liberal Fascism read-through…but here we are.

    You should have a pantload of pride, p_luk.

  385. Tom said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:22

    I will answer it sincerely why I cannot support Obama:

    He is unqualified to be president. Why? He is three years out of the Illinois state senate and a first-term US Senator. He has no real accomplishments in the Illinois Senate or in the US Senate.

    Everything he says about himself is pure rhetoric. He has no substantive record of bipartisanship and no record of new politics (Alice Palmer, anyone?).

    His resume is thin and not suitable for the Presidency of the United States. I live in Illinois. He should have run for governor and proved his worth here before he thought about Presidency.

    There is a huge discord between his rhetoric and his record.

  386. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:22

    But nobody says — “y’know, that a really good idea. Obama needs to do something like this to convince progressives that are supporting Clinton for the nomination that he is on their side — and as a progressive who opposes telecom immunity, I’d like to see that happen as well”.

    Hey, I got a GREAT idea for Obama to convince the progressives supporting Clinton:

    Go on Bill O’Reilly’s show and trash his opponent for being an elitist.

    Will that do for ya, p_lukasiak?

  387. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:23

    Oh, wait, you now say that you don’t think HRC is a trailblazer, it’s just that…Obama’s also not, but needs to win your support like HRC had, even though she, um, wasn’t a trailblazer, and uh, durr…

    You fail. Stop talking.

  388. Batocchio said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:23

    Well said. I shared some of Lambert’s concerns about Obama a few months back, and still do, but since some of the Corrente crew has endorsed Clinton, there are times I don’t recognize the blog anymore, it pains me to say. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Obama, but I really don’t get the sudden polarization, including a blindness toward Clinton’s gambits and flaws. The gas holiday is just a bad policy, and it’s ludicrous and insulting to claim that anyone who opposes it is an elitist who hates the poor. Umm, excuse me? Argue for a policy or a candidate, by all means, but wow, rationality and disagreeing in good faith have really taken a hit in the liberal blogosphere in the past few months. I think it depends on which sites one frequents, but personally, I’ve run into far more crazy Clinton supporters than Obama supporters, in terms of faulty or disingenuous arguments — and I still haven’t seen Obama supporters say, “Send this to Fox News to bash our opponent!” But your mileage may vary, and it’s not as if I’m not going to vote for someone because of their more obnoxious supporters if I think he or she is the best candidate. I also try to defend each candidate from BS attacks and criticize each when they use right-wing framing or advocate bad policies. Neither Clinton nor Obama was my first choice, neither is that liberal, but both are much, much better than McCain would be, especially given that he’s essentially running for Bush’s third term. I don’t care about the primary season dragging on as much as I do about Dems using right-wing framing, which is bad mid-term and long-term politics. Like many others, I’ll vote for the Dem nominee in November. I’m hoping after the nominee is settled, that “cooler heads will prevail,” as the saying goes.

  389. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:24

    So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

    Just a hint, Glenn Reynolds…sometimes the shoe fits.

  390. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:26

    A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.”

    (deep breath)

    PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

  391. OneMadClown said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:27

    A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.”

    The ‘creative class’ decided the surge was working and impeachment should be off the table? What the hell does that even MEAN??? Who are these horrible ‘creative class’ people that you’re angry with? What the bloody fuck are you talking about???

  392. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:28

    Like I’ve already said, I’m sitting out November, because I won’t tolerate a Democratic candidate who uses the same race-baiting strategy to build margins and turnout in the black community that the GOP has been using to build turnout and margins among whites for decades.

    You’re right, Barack has been robocalling black voters telling them Hillary has a illigitimate child with a white father and robocalling to mislead whites on voting dates. Also, Barack has been sending out operatives to polling places to challenge their identifications and intimidate them out of voting.

    For someone who decries GOP tactics, you certainly don’t have a firm grasp on them.

  393. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:31

    progressives that are supporting Clinton

    …are deluded. Obama’s not very progressive either.

  394. OneMadClown said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:31

    Obama played the race card in the single most devious way imaginable — by having teh sheer audacity to be black! *cue sinister music* An evil genius is born.

  395. Screamin' Demon said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:32

    I’m gonna fucking puke

    “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
    “There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

    There sure is, you race-baiting asshole. Only whites work hard, right? And those lazy, no-account negroes are lining up to vote for a brother, hoping he’ll include with their food stamps a taxpayer-funded voucher for a shiny new Cadillac.

    Fuck Hillary. It’s sad to see her destroy her reputation and her husband’s legacy like this. But at least we won’t have the Clintons to kick around anymore.

  396. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:32

    Wow. This thread is really long. Can someone shorter it for me?

  397. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:32

    My candidate Sucks. McCain is worse by a country mile.

    Why does this escape you?

    Oh, and Tom?

    He is unqualified to be president.

    Have you heard of a guy with the initials JFK?

    Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1960.

    But what did Kennedy have to deal with?

    <blockquote.Events during his administration include the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, the American Civil Rights Movement and early events of the Vietnam War.

    What a n00b! JFK’s a piker!

  398. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:33

    The utter derision with which the Obama campaign and especially its supporters treat Hillary and her supporters is too much. I’m still waiting for some solid reasons — ones proudly proclaimed and defended, not regurgitated for web consumption–to vote for Barack Obama.

    I would really, really like to see some evidence of the Obama campaign attacking Hillary supporters.

    Anyone? And not your perceived slights that you cooked up in the bath tub with your homemade gin. Really attacks on Hillary voters from the Obama campaign.

  399. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:33

    I went to see monster trucks this weekend.

    And I like pata negra.

    A quandary.

  400. TR said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:34

    A great many will never come home because the ‘creative class’ took impeachment off the table and decided that “the surge was working.” … this sure as hell is some elitist crap.

    Fixed!

  401. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:34

    “and the Dems will pre-agree to cave and vote to approve only the worst candidates imagineable”

    Worse than Scalia, Alito and Roberts? You actually believe this? Why not go whole hog and vote for the Honorable Congressman Doctor Bircher Klanfoil then?

    “Obama refused to acknowledge that Wright was a race-pimp”

    You forgot to say “megadittos”. Go back three spaces.

  402. The Tailor of Glouchestershire said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:34

    More thread, please?

  403. Arky H8r of VurdPress said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:34

    About that $30 bucks. Sorry if someone’s touched on this but it’s been bothering me that people are pretending (or pretending to pretend) that “the poor” will receive $30 all at once, rather than scattered over the course of a summer.

    Providing they drive enough to benefit from the “holiday” of course.

    It’s bullshit and frankly it’s about as insulting as Hillary’s latest drivel about Hard Working White Americans. “Here’s a shilling for you my good lad, vote for me.”

  404. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:35

    gee between those comments and the rhetoric behind Bill’s welfare reform, one could almost percieve yet another pattern altogether

  405. Oliver Twist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:35

    Please, sir, may I have some more thread?

  406. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:36

    “But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet”

    The ones with functional, adult egos have already decided to vote against the Republican.

  407. El Cid said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:37

    For those using the term, “Triangulating” is not going to “the middle” of some policy.

    It originally meant when it was coined by Dick F***ing Morris to pick a position which appeals to Republicans — “more Republican than Republicans” — so that a small group of conservative Democrats and a majority of Republicans could push it over a majority of Democrats.

    That’s not “centrist” or “the middle” or “bipartisan” — it’s backing a Republican agenda and bringing Democrats into it.

    The “reward” for this brilliant strategy was losing the Congress for a dozen years.

  408. OneMadClown said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:37

    For Marita:

    Shorter this thread: D. Aristophanes extends an olive branch to which BLEEEEYYYYYYYAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH?!?!?!?! is the apparent reply.

  409. The Dragonriders of Pern said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:37

    Threeeeeeead!

  410. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:38

    What the hell does that even MEAN??? Who are these horrible ‘creative class’ people that you’re angry with? What the bloody fuck are you talking about???

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

  411. les said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:38

    Here’s what I don’t get: why is an alleged progressive telling me I have to vote for Hillary Clinton or stay home? Hillary is a progressive? DLC, big money, corporate support, AUMF, obliterate Iran Hillary? Give me a break. There isn’t a progressive or liberal even on the scene in US national politics. Iris, you might as well just say you refuse to vote, ever. Better John McCain? What, are you awaiting the revolution after our economy, justice system, international standing, armed forces and work force are completely destroyed to put some savior in place by force? You just flat don’t make sense.

    And a freebie: what’s wrong with Hillary’s “I got the white vote” mantra? It’s the next question/answer: But Hillary, what about Obama’s advantage with African Americans? Hillary: oh, they’ll vote for me. Her implication, and her surrogates overt answer: but the whites will never vote for a darkie.

    Guess what: Bill C. didn’t win the white, working, Real American vote. And in the general, it’s no sure thing that she will either.

  412. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:39

    It originally meant when it was coined by Dick F***ing Morris, a F***ing Republican

    FTFY

  413. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:41

    Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:32

    Wow. This thread is really long. Can someone shorter it for me?

    I’m mad that Hillary didn’t win, so you Obamabots have to make it up to me by admitting that Obama is a rightwing elitist racist with no experience.. And that still won’t do, because I’m mad.

  414. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:41

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

    OK, even without reading this whole thread — that’s a whole freakin’ straw village right there.

  415. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:41

    “Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.”

    Asked for straw?

    Remind me, how many motions to impeach has Senator Clinton made in the last five years?

  416. handy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:43

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

    What a tool…

  417. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:45

    About that $30 bucks.

    I just thought of something somewhat tangential, but it could also serve to draw this thread out a while longer.

    So, if that $30 is such a big help to people struggling to make ends meet once they have it in their pockets, how is garnishing their wages to ensure they’ve bought into the universal healthcare plan going to affect them?
    That seems like it may be a little more than $30 …

  418. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:45

    I would really, really like to see some evidence of the Obama campaign attacking Hillary supporters.

    and I’d like to see some evidence that Cole (the quintessential Obot — was deranged against those who opposed Bush, then switched his derangement to Bush, and is now deranged about Clinton) knows the difference between the word “derision” and “attack”.

  419. OneMadClown said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:47

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

    I did ask, and you did answer…the only problem is, I have never seen the creature that you speak of, except perhaps in a cornfield somewhere warding off crows.

  420. mikey said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:47

    I just don’t understand how if they prefer Senator Clinton they’re wise, thoughtful, reasonable and intelligent, and if I happen to prefer Senator Obama I’m “in the tank” or I’m a “fanboy” or something.

    See, to me, this indicates that they are not as reasonable or wise or thoughtful as they seem to think…

    mikey

  421. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:47

    I don’t want to just vote against the Republicans in November, and if that is all that can be offered to me, that is a big problem.

    President-Elect McCain thanks you for your support.

  422. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:47

    Ok, so Bush is a complete and utter disaster and his successor promises more of the same. Although very few Americans support Bush anymore, McCain will be able to count on…….the revenge votes of crybaby Hillary-zealots.

    Is it a mad mad mad world or what?

    I sincerely hope when Hillary steps down she mends the fences, puts her support behind the victor and encourages her supporters to blow their noses, get over it, and do the right thing. Anyone who votes for McCain is not a democrat, never was a democrat and is lying through their teeth about being a democrat.

  423. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:48

    Iris is an obvious dumbass, but one of the most entertaining parts of the thread.

    Iris: I promise you candy if you vote for Obama.

  424. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:48

    OK, even without reading this whole thread — that’s a whole freakin’ straw village right there.

    You can put up a new thread now, because WE HAVE A WINNER!!!1!

  425. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:49

    Atheist, if you’re serious, I have no idea what to do. I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know if the doom/gloomers are right. I think they are, but what do I know?

    That makes two of us who have no idea what to do.

    I imagine that, in a real failure of society, I’d be one of the first to die.

    It probably can’t hurt to think about it & try to plan, though. About a month ago, do you remember the thread here where we were talking about this?

    Ideas:
    -Save cash
    -Have strong shoes
    -Get a gun
    -Buy jewels
    -case your neighborhood

    There are probably a bunch of other things that could be done & studied, too.

  426. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:50

    p_lukasiak said,
    May 8, 2008 at 19:45 (kill)

    Okay, what you said might just tip the balance towards Hillary…except that she lost some time ago.

  427. mikey said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:51

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy. Hey, you asked.

    Ok, this constitutes, what? Eleven people? I really don’t think either constituency need be overly concerned with the ideology you describe here, Iris. If they exist at all, I haven’t seen one…

    mikey

  428. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:51

    Why would you be first to go, atheist?

    I got your back…

  429. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:52

    I’m mad that Hillary didn’t win, so you Obamabots have to make it up to me by admitting that Obama is a rightwing elitist racist with no experience.. And that still won’t do, because I’m mad.

    Hee hee.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© wins the thread.

    (Sorry if this is upsetting to white, er, hard-working Americans.)

  430. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:53

    Iris is the Queen of Straw, mikey.

    In her mind, Obama is worse than McCain, so why try and reason with her.

    And again:

    My candidate sucks!

  431. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:53

    -Have strong shoes

    I can jump higher than a building in mine.

  432. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:54

    I like Obama. I support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and if she wants to go to the convention, I say why not? All the hand-wringing about “but she’ll DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!!11!11one!!” is bullshit.

    Here’s what I really hate:

    Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 15:17

    How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?

    Fuck off bonehead.

    No one can accuse Righteous Bubba of being a latte’-sipping arugula-scarfing elitist, because I can’t imagine a latte’-sipping arugula-scarfing elitist saying “fuck off bonehead.”

    Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:24

    some of you defend Obama at the drop of a hat and let the misogyny slide until now

    Name names Iris you gutless dope.

    OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

    Here’s another prize-winning comment:

    Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:01

    The saddest part of Clinton zealotry is that her supporters can’t detect their own obtuse logic.

    She.can’t.win.the.nomination.unless.she.steals.it.

    Really? So playing by the rules and convincing superdelegates to vote for her is stealing? OMG, WE WUZ ROBBED!!!!!!111!1!!!

    Every time an Obama “supporter” opens their mouth and says “Hillary should just quit” and “Obama’s the nominee” and “scoreboard, bitchez!” or coughs up some similar assholery is one more time I have to think, good god, I’m going to have cast my vote with these assholes? This is the progressive movement?

    WTF happened?

  433. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:55

    Obama’s new white affluent educated Very Serious base for whom — John Roberts was a Very Serious Nominee for the Supreme Court, impeachment was just too much nasty partisanship, Clinton is just irksome on a ‘gut’ level and Obama is pure religious ecstasy.

    You’re a friggin dope.

  434. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:55

    I promise you candy if you vote for Obama.

    Bubba, you catch more [redacted] with pie, you know.

  435. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:56

    You know, I don’t think I’ve see many if any in this thread use some stupid in-group lingo to make fun of Hillary supporters, but nearly every Hillary supporter has to litter their posts with references to “obots” and other moronic dehumanizing terms.

  436. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:57

    on what planet is “dope” a gender specific insult

    oh right, Planet EVERYTHING IS SEXISM!!!111ONE!

  437. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba.

    You’ll note that even Iris backed off on specifically calling anyone misogynist, but I applaud your chivalry in defending this gentle lady from danger.

  438. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    I got your back…

    I really appreciate that, t4toby.

    However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles.

  439. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    liberalrob, thanks for that concise collection of reasons that I like this site so much.

  440. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    This thread is indeed confusing. How is “gutless dope” misogyny? I mean, it’s insulting and everything, but it seems like a pretty gender-neutral insult to me.

  441. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    He is not George W Bush- he fought for this country honorably, his son is doing so right now. He hasn’t been lavished with the millions upon millions that Bush was when he ran for office. His decisions about our military demand respectful disagreement, and he is not compromised by ties to big money to the extent Bush was. Given all that I believe he could be competent and reasonable, and the democrats desire to convince otherwise seems to me to be pure politics driven by their desperate desire to win this election. This is the man they have worked with on numerous occasions, and the man they wanted to run as VP four years ago. I can’t be scared into voting against him very easily.

    The same wars, only more of them

    The same disregard for separation of powers and limits on presidential authority, only disguised with McCain’s patented double-talk

    The same kind of SC justices, only more of them

    The same economic policies, only bigger and more permanent

    Seriously, if you’ve been paying attention for the last 10 years and still think John McCain is a good egg, then nothing any Obama supporter or anti-McCain voter says is going to convince you of anything. I’m not entirely sure you were ever open to being convinced in the first place.

  442. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    Ahem.

    Given that 92% of black voters also voted against George Bush, it appears that black voters are simply more inclined to vote for Democrats than they are for anyone on the basis of skin color.

    Did Obama’s race play a role in this primary in their support? I’d be surprised if it didn’t, at least for some portion of the black electorate. Is there anything wrong with that? No, no more than there is anything wrong with white women over 50 supporting Hillary. And given that black voters have been a much more loyal voting bloc for the Democratic party than older white women have been (they voted Republican in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004), I’m inclined to give a bit more weight to their preference than I am to the preference of older white women. And this isn’t a bone that’s being thrown to black voters – their preferred candidate has won this thing fair and square, playing by the rules and against the odds.

    But all that aside – people vote for candidates based on their own personal metrics as often as not. I voted for Obama on the basis of hte following: he actually has more experience in elected office than Hillary does, and I didn’t buy her argument that her years as first lady of Arkansas and the United States were equivalent to experience in public office. And none of the three remaining candidates has executive experience, whether it be as head of a company, a state, a county, or even a city. Not to mention that there really is no job that could really prepare someone for the presidency. Obama shows intelligence, reason, and the ability to remain cool under pressure. I decided that those attributes were as important as, or more important than, many years as a governor or even a legislator.

    A lot of people have complained about the “unity talk”. Well, which is better – unity talk which might succeed in winning over a few of the more reasonable conservatives, or flat-out pandering to the worst of the worst via anti-flag burning legislation? Those far right nuts aren’t going to vote for any Democrat, no matter if they completely sell out to them. So let’s can the unity bitching – because there are smart and non-destructive ways to peel off conservative voters, and then there is completely selling out, which not only doesn’t work with conservative voters but also turns off your base.

    Then there was the issue of the war. If your superior experience led you to vote in favor of the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation, despite the fact that you weren’t up for re-election for another 4 years, despite the fact that you represent one of the more liberal constituencies that was more against the war than for it, then what good is your experience? Not much. So Obama merely gave a speech publicly opposing going to war? That’s still better than what Hillary did. Even if he wasn’t in a position to stop the war or vote against it, he did the right thing in spite of the potential political fallout.

    I was disgusted by the presumed coronation prior to the election, so that played into my decision. I also appreciate the fact that Obama is only a couple of years older than me, because sweet Christ I am sick and fucking tired of rehashing Vietnam every four years. In a Hillary vs. McCain race, that’s what we would have – another replay of how the DFH liberals stabbed us in the back in Vietnam and now they’re back to do the same on Iraq. Count on it. Why do you think anyone ever tried to drag Bill Ayers into this? It’s because the “betrayal of Vietnam” play is one of the oldest plays in the GOP playbook, along with racist dogwhistles. The media by and large doesn’t know how to cover an election other than through the prism of Vietnam, because for 40 years, they’ve never had to. Enough of that shit. What happened 40 years ago has little or no bearing on where we are now, other than the fact that the endless replay of it finally got us to the point where a swaggering moron decided to do it again and show us all how it could have turned out if not for those dirty liberals. Uh, no. And one of the people who protested that war 40 years ago grew up to vote for another just like it, in order to preserve some twisted notion of “electoral viability.” Fuck that shit, it’s time to be done with it.

    Last but by no means least, I maintain the hope and belief that Obama’s years as a community organizer will bring something to his views that we haven’t had in a candidate or president for quite a long time, which is a true understanding and empathy for the poor and working classes. I worked as an organizer for a number of years, and that shit doesn’t rub off. It colors your perception of people and the struggles they face for the rest of your life. Which is not, you know, a BAD thing to have in your president or Democratic Party nominee.

    Is Obama an unknown quantity? Yes, in some measuire he is. But that at least leaves open the possibility that he won’t be a corporatist triangulator to the extent that we KNOW Hillary is. I decided that this was a case in which the devil I didn’t know was quite possibly better than the one I did. I’m sure he’ll do many things to dissappoint me. But with Hillary, I already knew what many of those things would be.

    So, those are my reasons, none of them having anything at all to do with Hillary’s gender; all of them having to do with her actions. YMMV. But these are all valid and legitimate reasons for deciding as I did.

    One more thing – the Edwards love – I don’t get it. Yeah, he talked a good story on poverty this time around, and I appreciate him putting it out there. But his record of his one Senate term is pretty much a zero. I just don’t see the life’s work he’s done on fighting poverty – because it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just makes him another guy saying what he thinks will be most helpful in getting himself elected.

  443. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    (Sorry if this is upsetting to white, er, hard-working Americans.)

    {whispers} I thought I was god-fearing … did the script get changed?

  444. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    liberalrob-

    Sorry, Iris has proven herself to indeed be a bonehead. See the above strawmen.

  445. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    I can jump higher than a building in mine.

    I admit its stupid. I was just trying to think of things.

  446. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    Ack! Travis beat me to it! Travis is obviously misogynist!

  447. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:00

    Every time an Obama “supporter” opens their mouth and says “Hillary should just quit” and “Obama’s the nominee” and “scoreboard, bitchez!” or coughs up some similar assholery is one more time I have to think, good god, I’m going to have cast my vote with these assholes? This is the progressive movement?

    So you pick a few comments out of 420+ and then tell us about what an Obama supporter thinks and says? What were the other people talking about? Bitches and beers? Eel pr0n?

    Yes, you are going to cast your vote with assholes like us, unless you want McCain in office. Period.

  448. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:00

    Have you ever seen a building jump? Even I can jump higher.

  449. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:01

    Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post.

    Calling someone a “gutless dope” is misogyny?

    Come again?

  450. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:01

    What made you select that particular number of comments, t4toby?

  451. atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:02

    I got your back…

    But I know you do mean it, and so, I appreciate that.

  452. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:02

    I was just trying to think of things.

    Seriously, I agree with the shoe thing and recommend Meindl boots. Also, you’re supposed to remind me that buildings don’t jump.

  453. a different brad said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:03

    Man, cognitive dissonance and projection aren’t just for wingnuts anymore, are they? (I know, never really were, they just mastered the forms.)
    Dear Hillary supporters, explain to me voting to illegally pre-authorize a war (read the damn Constitution) based on clear lies because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Explain to me sitting down with Richard fucking Melon Scaife then accepting his “operation chaos” inspired endorsement. Explain to me how the DLC, a group dedicated to corporate enabling, dismantling the welfare system, and not just maintaining but escalating the largely racially based drug war while glossing over it with a salesman’s bullshit pitch of “feeling the pain (we cause)”, is progressive.
    Hillary is not a leader. She’s a standard issue play it safe pol. She takes the positions she has to according to polling and has learned so much from the right wing conspiracy against her family a decade ago that she’s using their tactics and breaking bread with them. She has given me no reason to support her.

  454. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:04

    First off, athiest -

    A good sturdy pair of shoes should be in everyone’s disaster readiness kit. It was not dumb to say so. And..

    However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles

    Details, details. Y’all are welcome out here if the shit hits the fan. I’ve always wanted to live tribally.

  455. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:04

    So I really don’t give a flying fuck how Obama’s supporters react to me. But there are a whole lot of very pissed off progressives that haven’t decided what to do yet — and the kind of sheer idiocy that has been on display in attacks on my character isn’t going to help with those voters.

    They aren’t attacks on your character, they’re responses to the idiotic things you write, and your single-minded insistence on only arguing with this guy.

  456. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:05

    OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

    Ok, I’m at a loss here. Is liberalrob/Iris or whothefuckever, calling RB (and Obama) misogynists? Wtf?

    I call slander and trolldom and stirring up shit for the sake of it.

    McCain called his wife the C word in public. If you’d rather have this guy, this woman thinks you’re an ASSHOLE.

  457. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:05

    Marita –

    Just because? ;-)

  458. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:05

    gbear answers the call.

  459. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:05

    Re: Obamabots or whatever I’m called.

    Sadly, the Hillary-or-nothing attitude and willingness to sink the entire party if fellow democrats don’t condone cheating-to-win was conceived and engendered by Hillary’s campaign.

  460. The Dragonriders of Pern said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:06

    The best article I saw on survival was from, I think, a Serbian. He and others said water, most of all. Since we live on a hurricane path we keep large water-cooler sized sealed bottles at all times anyway. He also said things like toilet paper, soap, toiletriies, sewing supplies, matches, etc, the usual you’d expect. Also some things you might not expect, like romance and mystery novels, just to get away from the situation for a little while.

    Like most people, I can’t spend a lot of money on preparation. I guess we’ll all have to pull together or sink separately.

  461. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:07

    Awesome link, Mantis.

  462. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:07

    Shoot. That was me, of course.

  463. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:09

    Fie. Anyone, commenter, blogger, or whatthefuck, who doesn’t support the Democratic nominee in November, is completely fucking required to quit the Democratic party and join the Republicans where you belong.

    Seriously, you guys go ahead and write up your Yoostabee posts, tell us about how much you love Gingrich and are outraged by Chappafuckingquiddick, and go hug Ace of Spades. GO.

  464. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:09

    Yeah, he talked a good story on poverty this time around, and I appreciate him putting it out there. But his record of his one Senate term is pretty much a zero. I just don’t see the life’s work he’s done on fighting poverty – because it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just makes him another guy saying what he thinks will be most helpful in getting himself elected.

    Oh no, Jennifer brought the smack down!

    Seriously, does anyone bother to look at what any of these people have actually done?

  465. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:10

    The gas holiday is just a bad policy, and it’s ludicrous and insulting to claim that anyone who opposes it is an elitist who hates the poor.

    actually, its not bad policy — at worst, its debatable whether its good economic policy, The lies that Obama tells about it make it sound like bad policy (i.e. that Clinton’s proposal would cost jobs and be bad for the infrastructure, when her proposal is contingent upon replacing any funding lost to the Highway Trust with other revenue — like a windfall profits tax on oil companies).

    You raise the gas tax holiday proposal, and Obama’s shifting position on it, with the Obots and the response is positively Borg-ian.

    “It didn’t work in Illinois”
    “Obama learned from his mistakes”
    “Clinton is pandering”

    except that, of course, the only study of the impact on the gas tax holiday in Illinois shows that it was a success at lowering gas prices. Obama supporters say that because it was estimated that ONLY 60% of the tax found its way to reduced prices at the pump that it was a failure. But they fail to mention that when the gas tax holiday was over, prices increased by only 4% — suggesting that 80% of the tax savings was passed along to consumers.

    The “mistake” that was made in illinois was that the state lost a great deal of revenue as a result of the tax holiday, and that created serious budget problems. Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

    And there is a reason why “working class” voters felt attacked — Obama singled them out as the one group that should not be ‘pandered’ to. Obama — like every politician — panders. What is the promise of a $1000 middle class tax cut at a time when we have a massive federal deficit anything BUT pandering?

    Obama can’t connect with “white working class” voters. He attacks Clinton because she has spent most of her adult life learning how to connect with them (its not like there is some intrinsic appeal among white working class voters toward upper-middle class suburban female graduates of Wellesley and Yale Law — she EARNED their support), by lying about her proposal for a gas tax holiday. And all the little Obots follow along in lockstep, repeating the Obama approved talking points as if they were gospel.

    And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

  466. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:10

    A good sturdy pair of shoes should be in everyone’s disaster readiness kit. It was not dumb to say so. And..

    yep.
    I’m on the east coast. Welcome to stop by if things get weird.

  467. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:10

    Good plan, Scott! If conversion requires hugging Ace, no woman will defect from the Democratic party!

    I mean, seriously. Ew.

  468. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:11

    No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of Barack Obama. I assume you already know that Obama may come to represent the most insidious corruption of ideals yet, but I have something more important to tell you. I doubtlessly hope that his rodomontades were intended as a joke, although they’re not very funny if they were. His codices are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

    If Obama is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. If you can go more than a minute without hearing him talk about totalitarianism, you’re either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Obama once heard a callow, delusional blood-stained criminal say, “There is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” What’s amazing is that Obama was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his subalterns that it is inane to question his teachings, which makes me wonder, “What happened to his common sense?” The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that the majority of oleaginous voluptuaries probably agree that he is so intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices that his perception of reality is absolutely warped. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you’ll understand why we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Obama wants to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. Faugh. Let me sum up. Barack Obama’s unedifying preoccupation with demagogism will create massive civil unrest faster than you can say “pharmacodynamic”.

  469. roseyv said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:11

    ” And really, they’re not hard to miss.”

    I think, based purely on the context of the remark, that you mean “they are hard to miss.

    I don’t mean that in a snarky, “fixed!” sense, I mean literally: If her faults are apparent, which is what you appear to be saying, then they are hard to miss.

  470. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:11

    I guess we’ll all have to pull together or sink separately.

    Bingo.

    That reminds me. We are going to have a NW Sadfest in the very near future. I like the Beveridge Place on Mondays because of the $2.50 micros. Any other NW DFH’s have any input?

  471. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:12

    And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

    I see. He beat Hillary though, so you’re stuck with him. Get used to it.

  472. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:12

    If you vote Republican you’ll have to pay for Jonah Goldberg’s beers and listen to him tell you about the time Ann Coulter felt him up.

  473. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:13

    I am white and work for a living, is it too late to change my vote to the DLC candidate or what

  474. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:14

    O-bots, Borg…all while telling us how more progressive Clinton is than Obama?

    mote, beam, eye, something something.

  475. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:14

    Now kids. Who is playing with the complaint letter generator?

  476. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:14

    No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of Barack Obama.

    I call fake Iris.

  477. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:14

    with the Obots and the response is positively Borg-ian.

    And all the little Obots follow along in lockstep, repeating the Obama approved talking points as if they were gospel.

    What did I say about relying on stawmen, dehumanizing language and in-group lingo?

    This is self-parody.

    Just for the record, all Hillary supporters are lesbians. ALL OF THEM. THIS I COMMAND!!!!!1111!!!!!

  478. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:15

    I am white and work for a living, is it too late to change my vote to the DLC candidate or what

    Unfortunately Travis, yes, it’s too late.

  479. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:15

    Toby, any desire to come to PDX on a weeknight in early June? If so, we should talk…

  480. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:16

    Hope is not a plan.

    Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

    Nor is “probably”.

    I’d like to see it, frankly.
    But given what I know about the legislative cycle, and Bush’s protectiveness of Big Oil, I concluded: “Nice smokescreen.”

  481. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:17

    To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X and tolerating his bruta fulmina, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Sen. Hussein X’s homilies are misleading and deceptive. Let me get to the crux of the matter: If it weren’t for shallow weirdos, Sen. Hussein X would have no friends. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is he hoping that the readers of this letter won’t see the weakness of his argument relative to mine? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that he and his apple-polishers take is that my comments about him can serve as a provisional response to his teachings until a more comprehensive treatment becomes available. When I state that it’s quite sad that Sen. Hussein X chooses to squander his talent on this sort of bestial extremism, I’m merely trying to give our young people the values that will inspire them to invite all the people who have been harmed by Sen. Hussein X to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. As someone who is working hard to put his perfidious anecdotes out to pasture, I must point out that it is hardly surprising that he wants to defend deconstructionism, philistinism, and notions of racial superiority. After all, this is the same out-of-touch psychic whose amoral prattle informed us that we ought to worship hostile stumblebums as folk heroes.

    Ignorance of the law does not excuse Sen. Hussein X from the consequences of violating it. Sad, but true. And it’ll only get worse if Sen. Hussein X finds a way to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. He has vowed that within a short period of time he’ll reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. This is hardly news; Sen. Hussein X has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that he always demands instant gratification. That’s all that is of concern to him; nothing else matters — except maybe to eat our nation to its bones. I tell you this because when Sen. Hussein X hears anyone say that it would help if he realized that education and wisdom aren’t necessarily the same thing, his answer is to contaminate or cut off our cities’ water supply. That’s similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to give him condign punishment.

    This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I’ll provide in a moment. But first, let me just say that I don’t know if Sen. Hussein X is consciously and purposely evil or merely deceitful. I do know, however, that reason, not make-believe, is the best way to deal with the real evils of our world. The logical consequences of that are clear: Sen. Hussein X’s whinges manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. Phase two: go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I’d love to hear about them.

  482. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:18

    p_luk, just quit.

    And this explains exactly why Obama is unelectable.

    Except, you know, the whole “winning primaries often over Hillary” thingy. Two primaries in after the gas tax promise, and he’s beaten her soundly in one state, while damn near beating her in another.

    As for “Obama can’t connect to the workin’ class,” take it away, Alex Koppelman:

    African-American voters are absolutely critical to the Democratic Party. And while it’s true that Obama trails behind Clinton in winning support from white working-class voters, it’s not as if he’s getting no support from that group whatsoever. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost no support left from African-American voters. Even George W. Bush captured a larger share of the African-American vote than she has in some recent primaries. In 2004, Bush got 11 percent of the African-American vote. In the Indiana Democratic primary on Tuesday, Clinton got the same percentage Bush did in ’04 — in North Carolina, though, she took just 7 percent.

    I hope you don’t skidaddle like you did on Balloon Juice. Your ad hoc ravings are fun.

  483. Complaint x Dialectize = mmm, Strawwy! said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:18

    Me complaint about Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Blimey! Obama I ‘ave sumfink important I need ter tell yer. I’ll get out me spoons. I anticipate it will result in me receivin’ a barrage of angry e-mail from Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Struth! Obama accusin’ me of bein’ narrow-minded, but Barack’s deputies will leave us ‘igh and dry as they tear dahn all theoretical frameworks for addressin’ the issue. Read on, right, gentle reader, right, and ‘ear wot I ‘ave ter say. If I said that ‘e is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all blokes, I’d be a liar. But I’d be bein’ completely ‘onest if I said that only frough education can individuals gain the bloomin’ independent tools they need ter take off the kid gluvs and vent some real anger at Barack. But the first step is ter acknowledge that there is sumfink grievously wrong wiv them despicable blowards ‘oo twist the chuffin’ history, sociology, and anffropology disseminated by us mass media and in us children’s textbooks. Shame on the lot of them! Right! I should add parenffetically that Barack is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Evry sentence ‘e writes is filled wiv needlessly long words like “phoneticogrammatical” and “superincomprehensibleness”. Eever Barack is deliberately tryin’ ter confuse us or else ‘e’s secretly schemin’ ter up the ante considerably. We all need ter be orare of each uvver’s existence as intelligent, right, feelin’, right, human beings, even if some of us are wot I call predatory adolescents. Barack’s most progressive idea is ter work ‘and-in-gluv wiv inconsiderate, jejune pettifoggers. If that sounds progressive ter yer, yer must be facin’ the bleedin’ wrong way. Even fough sposedly distancin’ ‘imself from the bloomin’ most debauched urban guerrillas yer’ll ever see, Barack ‘as right not changed ‘is spots at all. Because we continue ter share a common, right, albeit abused, right, atmospheric envelope, right, if we don’t remove the bloody Barack ‘USSEIN! Struth! Obama freat now, right, it will bite us in us backside sooner than yer fink. In purely political terms, evry so often, he tries challengin’ all I stand for, init?Wenever ‘e gets caught doin’ so ‘e raises a terrific ‘ullabaloo calculated ter resort ter ad ‘ominem attacks on me and me family. Blokes used ter ffink I were exaggeratin’ wenever I said that fought should precede any attempt at intellectual writin’, right? After seein’ Barack rebrand local churches as faiff-based emporia teemin’ wiv impulse-buy items these same blokes now realize that I weren’t exaggeratin’ at all. In fact, they even realize that if one dares ter criticize even a singgle tenet of Barack’s philosophies, right, one is promptly condemned as ribald, contentious, paffetic, or wotever epiffet Barack deems most appropriate, usually wivout much explanation. I shall not argue that ‘is newsgroup postings are an auffentic map of ‘is plan ter install a puppet government that pledges allegiance ter his uninformed Praetorian Guard. Read them and spot for yorself. So, in summin’ up, we can establish the followin’: 1) Guvnor Barack ‘USSEIN! Obaman ‘as graduated from occasionally exemptin’ ‘imself from the few principles ‘e ‘as ter betrayin’ them altogeffer, and 2) Barack’s dissolute, duplicitous press releases are an evil wivout remedy. Why do yer ‘ave a complaint about me on yor Web page?

  484. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:19

    Just for the record, all Hillary supporters are lesbians.

    Greek nationals can’t vote in US elections.

  485. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:19

    Bubba said:

    I call fake Iris

    Agreed, that post stinks of concern troll. Only a wingnut douchebag thinks one candidate will bring the Great Downfall of Society.

  486. Arky H8r of VurdPress said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:19

    And re: The I’ll Vote for McCane if Clinton/Obama Doesn’t Get the Nomination! nuts (all 16 of you).

    Go ahead. This is America. It is your right to vote for whomever you please. I’m not sure why you need to say so now when the election is months away and I kind of suspect you’re the adult equivalent of the little kid who says he’s going to run away from home if he can’t have a puppy.

    Except I would never say a little kid is full of shit.

    But if you aren’t huffing and bluffing so someone will come kiss your ass and tell you how great you are, have at it.

    Now shut up about it until November 5th.

  487. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:19

    To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X and tolerating his bruta fulmina, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us.

    This is honestly the funniest sentence of the tread. You win the prize.

  488. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:19

    To convince nutty, immature riffraff to stop supporting Sen. Hussein X

    I call plausible p_lukasiak.

  489. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:20

    Sorry. I don’t understand your thesis well enough to respond. And your usage of “Sen. Hussein X” makes me think either your sincerity or your sanity are questionable.

  490. Dagoril said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:20

    I love the Hillarybot attacks.

    >>You are an elitist, latte drinker!

    Actually I get my coffee from 7-Eleven. And it’s pretty good.

    >>You are a member of the Creative Class!

    Actually I do accounting. I’d like to think I do it creatively, but Sadly, No.

    >>$30 buys a month of food for people on the edge!

    Sadly, No. A pound of ground beef and a dozen eggs each cost over $4 at my local Harvey Nicks Ralph’s. Ramen noodles may be cheap, but you will die if you attempt to live on them. They have no nutrional value at all.

    And I’ve got news for the Desperate Set over there…anyone living within $30 of starvation gave up driving a car long ago. They are either using public transportation, bicycling, or walking everywhere. The gas tax holiday is just yet another Republican talking point that Hillary and her Dead Enders are ass over tincups over. God only knows why these people are embracing Gooper ideas…or why they are still in our Party.

    But Progressives they are not.

  491. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:21

    This thread has put on its leather jacket and is revving up the motorcycle.

    The shark awaits.

  492. Scott said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:21

    Good plan, Scott! If conversion requires hugging Ace, no woman will defect from the Democratic party!

    No, no, no, you ain’t gonna put those words in my mouth. I said “Anyone, commenter, blogger, or whatthefuck” — I didn’t say anything at all gender-specific.

    And the only reason I’m gonna kneejerk about this is that I’ve had way too many people strawman me to pretend I’m a horrible evil sexist, and I’m very, very tired of it.

    Apologies if you didn’t mean to say that.

  493. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:21

    I am not adverse to a trip to PDX, Marita.

    I am also willing to go to Olympia if that is a better central meeting place.

    I would really lie to meet you guys, as you take up a significant part of each of my workdays.

  494. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:21

    I mean the shark awaits with bated breath!

  495. Auguste said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:21

    Toby, any desire to come to PDX on a weeknight in early June? If so, we should talk…

    Me too me too!

  496. mikey said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:22

    #

    atheist said,

    May 8, 2008 at 19:58

    I got your back…

    I really appreciate that, t4toby.

    However, you are on the west coast right? If so, we are separated by thousands of miles.

    I thought we decided when it all went to hell in a bucket we’d all make our way to HTML’s farm, harden it good and apply our diverse skills to surviving and building a community for a better tomorrow.

    Kinda like “The Stand” but without the Captain Tripps and the god ‘n the devil shit…

    Oh. And yeah, shoes. LPCs we called ‘em. “Leather Personell Carriers”. I get my boots from Merrell. Not well known, but the best “rugged” shoes and hiking boots in the world. I have a pair that are actually on an outfitters list of approved gear for Everest…

    mikey

  497. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:22

    Calling someone a “gutless dope” is misogyny?

    When the target is female and the topic is misogyny, yeah, I think it is. Context is important. At best it’s generic assholery; if R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that. He’d certainly not be the only one around.

    I also love how Iris is now a “troll.” That’s awesome. If you stand by your beliefs and disagree with me, you’re a troll. Hell, we’re all trolls then. Me too! Brilliant! Let’s all ban each other from our respective blogs, divide up into tribes of “Obamabots” and “Clintonistas” and bask in the glow of how pure we are vs. how sucky they are. That’s what the progressive movement is all about, don’t you know!

    You wanna know who’s dividing and destroying the Democratic Party? You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments. Congratulations, you have met the enemy and it is you. Heckuva job.

  498. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:22

    Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama doesn’t back up the rhetoric.

  499. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:23

    Hoosier – Don’t be bamboozled by the Complaint Generator.

  500. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:23

    I like how his explanation of why Obama is unelectable doesn’t include any math or delegate counts or state breakdowns, and doesn’t explain how Obama is beating Clinton.

    A credible electability study would probably include a state-by-state count of likely delegates – just sayin’. That is kind of how we elect the President after all.

  501. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:24

    I also love how Iris is now a “troll.”

    I don’t care what Iris’ inner biological workings are.

    I do know that she categorized Obama supporters as the same types who supported John Roberts and The Surge.

    I do know that this is beyond stupid.

    Sorry.

  502. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:25

    Name names Iris you gutless dope.

    OK, I’ll name one: Righteous Bubba. Oh, but I guess that would be someone who defends Obama at the drop of a hat and doesn’t let the misogyny slide, in fact embraces the misogyny and uses it right there in his post. It’s just like “Jane, you ignorant slut” from SNL! It’s a joke! Ha ha ha ha, how snarky and witty!

    Oh… i see. RB combined an adjective and a noun to make an insult. That reminded our friend of a different adjective and a different noun directed at a different woman 30 years ago as part of a comedy sketch. Of course, that sketch wasn’t sexist either, but it did lampoon sexism.

    Game. Set. Match.
    Hillary WINNZZZ!!!

  503. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:25

    liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:22
    a bloo bla bloo bloo bla bloo

    seriously dude, see more shit that isn’t there

    also, really, declaring the Democratic primary “whites only” is totally not divisive

  504. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:26

    “If you stand by your beliefs and disagree with me, you’re a troll. Hell, we’re all trolls then. Me too!”

    No, you’re only one if you insist on arguing against strawmyn and refuse to treat in good faith.

    “You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments.”

    Like that. You too, indeed!

  505. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:26

    R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that.

    Well I won’t say that and you can judge for yourself, but obviously I’m only a misogynist depending on your whims. So much for the charge.

  506. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:27

    Come on, Rob. That is silly.

    Sadly is about the most middle-of-the-road supporter of Obama there is out there. This thread alone probably has 50 comments to the tune of, “We will vote for a polished turd over McCain.”

    I think you think you are at some completely in-the-tank Obot site, which couldn’t be farther than the truth.

    And mikey – Arkansas is hell in the summer.

  507. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:27

    liberalrob, the reason people are getting pissed with on a thread that began with an appeal “why can’t we all just get along” is the absolute refusal of Hillary backers to discuss any points raised by the “Obamabots” in good faith.

    What’s progressive about the DLC?
    What’s progressive about appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show to trash your Democratic opponent?
    What’s progressive about voting for the AUMF, never reading the NIE, and refusing ever to justify either?
    What’s progressive about a gratutious threat to ‘obliterate Iran’ based on a ridiculous hypothetical scenario?
    You want to play up Hillary’s experience in Bill’s administration, fine: own what went with that administration: the very definition of triangulation. What’s progressive about that?

    Now you go on up thread and read the hundreds of comments, including many serious responses to Iris, and then come back and talk about context.

  508. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:28

    “What’s progressive about the DLC?
    What’s progressive about appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show to trash your Democratic opponent?
    What’s progressive about voting for the AUMF, never reading the NIE, and refusing ever to justify either?
    What’s progressive about a gratutious threat to ‘obliterate Iran’ based on a ridiculous hypothetical scenario?
    You want to play up Hillary’s experience in Bill’s administration, fine: own what went with that administration: the very definition of triangulation. What’s progressive about that?”

    Hear hear!

  509. Oregon Guy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:29

    Its very important that this blog return to satire and cruel jokes – and I for one am very grateful that this thread is turning back in that direction.

    Heh, indeedy!

  510. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:29

    What did I say about relying on stawmen, dehumanizing language and in-group lingo?

    its not a strawman. I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian. It wasn’t enough that one or two people had to repeat the exact same Obama talking points. Dozens of people did so.

    Groupthink is very real. You can see it on some pro-Clinton sites, but the level of Groupthink among Obama supporters is nothing short of astonishing, and frightening

    And its pretty obvious where this need for Groupthink comes from — the fact that the rational “positive” reasons for supporting Obama are few and far between, and the rational reasons not to support him are more numerous — and that the only real ‘rational’ argument that can be made for Obama is that he’s better than Clinton.

    Thus, just about any criticism of Obama is met with an attack on Clinton — and on ‘the messenger’. Obama-groupthink evolved because his supporters could not respond to criticism of Obama with a positive argument, because there wasn’t one — at least one that didn’t apply to Clinton as well.

  511. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:29

    liberalrob. Hillary supporters are not morons. Hillary supporters who will not support Obama should he become the Democratic candidate in the general election are morons. Please note the difference. We have.

  512. a different brad said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:29

    Man, Jennifer talks purty when she’s worked up.

  513. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:30

    At best it’s generic assholery; if R.Bub wants to say he’s not a misogynist, just an asshole, I can live with that. He’d certainly not be the only one around.

    I won’t speak for RB, but I’m quite frequently an asshole. Not the only one around? No shit, Sherlock, where do you think you are? We are only discussing politics because we ran out of poop jokes.

  514. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:31

    Remember, when multiple people recognize facts and realistic trends, it’s “groupthink”.

    The Borg were just rather well educated and not shy about pointing it out.

  515. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:31

    Let’s all ban each other from our respective blogs, divide up into tribes of “Obamabots” and “Clintonistas” and bask in the glow of how pure we are vs. how sucky they are. That’s what the progressive movement is all about, don’t you know!

    I see very little in-group language in this thread directed at Hillary supporters, but I see plenty of in-group language directed at Obama supporters. I don’t think it’s possible to read honestly and reach a different conclusion. Lukasiak by himself is using more “oBot” style language than overy Obama supporter combined.

    Basically every Obama supporter in this thread has said they’ll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Meanwhile virtually every Hillary supporter is threatening to stay home.

    The two sides are not mirror images, much as you’d like to imagine so.

  516. Oregon Guy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:31

    p_lukasiak-

    why aren’t you bothering balloon juice any more?

    cause you’re not very funny…

  517. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:31

    “You guys, every time you post these inane “why won’t she just quit” and “Clinton supporters are morons” comments.”

    Point out which posts said those things. Then, when you’re done counting to zero, tell us how many posts deride all Obama supporters as Obots or Omabatrons or mindless followers or any other equivalent way of dismissing more than half the Democratic party as stupid and naive.

    - Another member of the monolithic Obama Supporters Straw Horde.

  518. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:31

    troll homosexuals are aids monkeys couldn’t get any attention so he morphed into p_lukasiak .

  519. Thom said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:33

    Way late – but fuck Lambert for that sad/angry post.

    It’s not hypocritical to love his work and note how bat shit stupid and offensive it was. It’s just the way it is.

    And Shystee says:

    “The worst possible downside to the thousands of hours we have all spent paying attention to this campaign is that democratic voters who supported the losing nominee will be so pissed off that they won’t show up to vote in November.”

    You know who sounds like someone who’d do that? Lambert. (Though I guess he wouldn’t, thankfully.) You know who hasn’t? D. Aristophanes. Jesus. This is dumb.

    Just wanted to say.

  520. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:35

    I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian. It wasn’t enough that one or two people had to repeat the exact same Obama talking points. Dozens of people did so.

    That’s DKos. It’s creepy, I’ll give you that. It’s either group think or pie fight – something about the scale they operate on. They were just as lockstep over Edwards and before Edwards it was Kerry. John Fricken Kerry.

    Secret for you: DKos isn’t running for president. They get exactly zero influence. No cabinet posts, no ambassadorships, no court appointments. The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

  521. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:35

    I’m getting the feeling that p_luk doesn’t even read all of the comments in the thread…

  522. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:35

    P_luk,

    Welcome to a site full of folks who originally supported John Edwards or somebody else, and then picked Obama over Hillary. Based on who we thought was the more progressive.

    You want to argue that decision, than go ahead. But it’s almost 500 comments in, and I’ve seen nothing but tantrums and strawmen from your side.

  523. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:36

    Toby, and all other Pacific Northwesterners…

    Speaking as Mr. Gavin M.’s personal appointment secretary, I do believe I could secure his presence in Portland (he will be coming from south of there, and Olympia would be too far, given the incredibly hectic nature of his schedule for that week) on the evening of either Tuesday, June 3, or Wednesday, June 4. If that works for anyone, let me know, and we’ll make more concrete plans.

  524. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:37

    The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

    Kaye Grogan v 2.0?

  525. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:38

    its not a strawman. I did a diary on DailyKos on Obama’s hypocrisy on the gas tax. (Feel free to find it yourself) The response was Borg -ian.

    Every Hillary supporter in this thread has said almost the exact same things verbatim.

    DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!!

    Thus, just about any criticism of Obama is met with an attack on Clinton — and on ‘the messenger’. Obama-groupthink evolved because his supporters could not respond to criticism of Obama with a positive argument, because there wasn’t one — at least one that didn’t apply to Clinton as well.

    Correntwire is full of attacks on Obama and on the messenger, far more so than this place or DKos or quite frankly any other blog I’ve seen wrt Clinton. So your protestations come off as a little silly and contrived.

  526. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:38

    I’ll need to check my schedule, Marita.

  527. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:38

    sorry… may have missed a comma in there.

  528. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:40

    520 Comments? Five fucking hundred twenty fucking comments!?interrobangtothenthpower!

    Sure I slept in but seriously now. I’m going to go get some lunch and hope for a new thread.

  529. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:41

    Sorry to be so specifics on dates and locale Toby, but there’s an insane amount of other stuff going on that week. If you know what I mean…

  530. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:41

    I’m going to go get some lunch and hope for a new thread.

    It’s been pretty entertaining for me. I’m happy with it. I don’t think I mentioned it before but there’s a fine piece of writing at the top of it.

  531. sagra said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:41

    God, how fucking naive can we be? Oh wait, I can’t call Obama naive because that would be playing the race card!!!

    I’m curious. Why do people always complain that they aren’t allowed to say the thing they just said?

  532. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:42

    Wow I try and take a break from the stupid and, well, it just gets worse.

    1. Hillary can’t win. In fact, if you have been paying attention to things like delegate math and the rate of additions of the supers this has been clear since February. Pointing this out and wondering what she and her supporters are accomplishing is not the same thing as “why won’t the bitch quit?”

    2. It is fundamentally stupid to demand things of Obama that your own candidate has failed to do. If Hillary was our last hope of a progressive president, then maybe she should have, I don’t know, made that the focus of her campaign and not Rev. Wright, elitism, “I got more white votes,” and the ever elusive “electability.”

    3. The gas tax. We’ve discussed this before: a) To save the $30 that feeds you with Ramen in a month, you would have to spend $170 a month on gas. b) It does nothing for poor people without cars an awfully elitist sentiment c) Gas prices are likely to rise more than 18 cents, thus its mitigating a loss and not a real savings d) it is not a long term solution etc, etc.

    4. As a Hillary supporter, do you feel that you can offer anything constructive now given that she can’t win? If so, what and what will your candidate do (seeing as she is a sitting US senator) to help? If not, well, what is the point of all this other than “We didn’t win, so we’re going home!”

  533. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:42

    If you vote Republican you’ll have to pay for Jonah Goldberg’s beers and listen to him tell you about the time Ann Coulter felt him up

    It’s not as exciting as it sounds. He never let her take his bra off.

  534. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:42

    Maybe I don’t Marita. Is that week a wedding or something?

  535. g said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:43

    I think I recall p_lukasiak from years past at salon tabletalk discussing the Bush draft dodging. He was pretty sane then.

  536. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:45

    liberalrob, the reason people are getting pissed with on a thread that began with an appeal “why can’t we all just get along” is the absolute refusal of Hillary backers to discuss any points raised by the “Obamabots” in good faith.

    actually, Rob, the real problem is that the thread is premised on a falsehood (that Clinton supporters are unaware of Clinton’s flaws). Thus, what pretends to be an “olive branch” is really an attack.

    the other problem, of course, is that Obama supporters insist on their own framing, This contradicts the premise behind the final question that was asked (“Or to turn things out and attempt to be a little more gracious, what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?”),

    You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

    Obama can’t do that…. and as we’ve seen here on this thread, neither can his supporters. So instead of the thread being about “what Obama and his supporters need to do”, you get a thread that is personified by the kind of comment that “ifthethunderdog” provided in response to you.

    I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it. Maybe I missed those people in the deluge of groupthink here,… and if there are some non-Obots, I certainly do want to apologize to them.

  537. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:45

    Iris at 20:11

    Either Iris took five tabs of acid this morning and now she’s peaking or that’s a fake Iris.

    If the latter, nicely done.

  538. ice weasel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:45

    What kind of fucking republican troll are you iris? I’m just curious.

    I don’t get this entire debate. It’s like being stuck in a return behind some privileged, self-centered fuckstick who demands to get what they want even though it’s clearly not going to happen, it’s not right and they don’t care who else waits while they have they fucking tantrum. They’re damn well going to have it.

    When iris said she would stay home rather than vote for Obama, I knew it was a troll. Or someone really, really fucking stupid.

    So I’m sticking with troll.

  539. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:46

    Burn some more incense for me, RB.

    I gotta go back to work. I mean be creative and drink some lattes.

  540. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:47

    You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

    as someone wise once said:

    pffffffffffffffffffffft

  541. Hattie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:48

    Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama.

  542. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:48

    It’s pretty clear that people like Lukasiak have mentally checked out, know Hillary is going to lose, and are just looking to score points by calling people “obots” while crossing their fingers and hoping for Republican victory.

    I love how Hillary is supposedly the most progressive candidate evar!, yet somehow the Hillary supporters are fine with a McCain victory. The hell?

    Neither of these people has accomplished much in the Senate, neither has shown leadership on the issues, and neither is terribly progressive. Get real.

  543. Hattie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:48

    I mean attacks from the left, of course.

  544. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:48

    p_luk, you DO realize that under HRC’s plan, the gas companies would just raise their prices, right?

  545. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:49

    Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama.

    Yeah, you hear that kind of thing a lot. It’s almost never accompanied by any examples, though.

  546. Aaron said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:49

    You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

    Interesting. When Obama tries to do that very thing with independent and Republican voters, he’s attacked for not being partisan enough.

    Incidentally, white working class voters support both candidates. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton had a bigger lead among that demographic, but it’s simply false to say that working class white people don’t support Obama. Many do.

  547. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:50

    Psst… Toby… check your facebook messages…

  548. In Vino Veritas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:51

    “You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters?”

    Because the other guy is black. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

  549. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:51

    Earlier upthread you questioned John Cole’s credibility because he was once a republican.

    Not that I really care what some jackass commenter cares about my credibility, but you know, I think my actions speak for themselves. I have helped to raise almost 20k for the Democratic candidate. I am volunteering for the likely Democratic nominee. I have gone door to door for the almost certain Democratic nominee. I am, in an hour, walking down to the campaign HQ to phone bank for another three hours today for the Democratic candidate, even though this is the busiest damned time of the year for me. I will, in all likelihood, continue to do so throughout November.

    Why?

    Not because I hate Hillary Clinton, but because beating John McCain is that god damned important. I don’t know how I establish my street cred with some of you folks, and nor do I really care, but I am thinking my actions are probably a little more important in the big scheme of things than constructing internet arguments displaying my loyalty to the Democratic Party. Truth be told, I am probably not that loyal to the Democratic party- if they start acting like total wankers like the GOP, and I will leave you in a minute, too.

    Beating John McCain is what counts. It really is that simple. If you want to to continue the same hideous economic policies that brought us an almost half-trillion dollar annual deficit (but hey, McMavericky Straight Talk might cut 2 billion in earkamrks!), vote for McCain or sit out because Hillary did not win. You want the shit in Iraq to continue, as is, ad infinitum, vote for McCain or sit out because Hillary was the victim if sexist attacks from Chris Matthews. If you want Ruth Bader and others replaced with Clarence Thomas #2 and #3, vote for John McCain or sit out.

    I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. If you sit out or vote McCain, you are part of the problem. Period.

    As to Clinton, do I hate her now? Yeah. And that probably is in part due to my baggage from being a Gooper fool in the 90′s. However, when I left the GOP and joined the Democrats last October, Hillary was Mrs. Inevitable. It was a foregone conclusion I would be voting for her. The first thing I did as a new Democrat was… DEFEND HILLARY from bullshit when people were piling on her about driver’s license for illegals. I thought Dodd and Obama pulled some bullshit there.

    You remember how that ended, don’t you? She caved and left Spitzer’s dick hanging in the wind- that must have just been the fighter in her, amirite?

    I only turned hard on Hillary when her campaign started acting like the Republican party I left. After the “this state doesn’t count” or the multiple layers of bullshit and direct insults to my intelligence stacked up. That is when I finally had enough. Since then, it has just gotten worse, with nonstop bullshit about Rev. Wright and how black voters aren’t as important as white voters and god knows what else.

    Regardless, it does not matter. Hillary is not the candidate, Obama will be. So, you have a choice- vote for him, or enjoy the next 4 years of McSame. Your call.

  550. mikey said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:51

    …the fact that the rational “positive” reasons for supporting Obama are few and far between, and the rational reasons not to support him are more numerous…

    Nice. Again. You have nothing but reasonable, logical reasons for supporting a particular candidate. Of course, anybody who came to a different conclusion is “irrational”. And yet, it is the people who prefer to support Senator Obama who are “in the tank” and “fanboys”. Man, I’m sorry to say this, but you guys woulda fit right in at the bush white house.

    “We make our own reality”…

    mikey

  551. jim said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:53

    The people running for POTUS whom you’re so fervently arguing about are about two cunthairs & an angel’s-fart apart in either ideology or policy … it should now be obvious to the non-Kool-Aid-imbibers among you that you need to just STFU & pick one of them to UNITE behind, as in right now – or in another year or two you’ll be foraging for stray cats & dogs to eat in a pile of radioactive rubble, not squabbling over telecom immunity or triangulation.
    You’re acting as if the clock isn’t running, but reality will happily give you a Real-Time Tutorial on that score, & you won’t have to wait long for the Exam. History doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you THINK but what you DO matters, a lot. Take a good hard look at what you ARE doing – making the GOP you had totally owned a few months back spring another woody of optimism & energy with every day that this pointless dogfight goes on – & think about the consequences for a change.

    The GOP is hoping you all just keep right on bickering, as long & as bitterly as possible. It’s put tin-plate losers in the White House for them before, & it can again. They’ve been enthusiastically throwing THEIR support behind whoever’s looking weakest, right from Day One, to accomplish just that.

    So why are so many of you so eager to help them?

    Oh … & doesn’t the troll have a John Birch meeting to go to or something? It sounds even more autistic than usual, & is obviously both OT & talking to nobody but itself. Sucks to be you, haamster.

  552. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:53

    This whole “white/working class” thing is pretty terrifying to me. Apparently we’ve descended into full-bore volkism in this country, and the working class is entirely white. Obama’s broad support among black workers is evidence that he doesn’t appeal to the working class. What the fuck is going on here? Why are Democrats so obsessed with a demographic which is going to break hard for McCain, anyway?

  553. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:53

    I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it.

    Ok, what are your terms?

  554. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:54

    actually, Rob, the real problem is that the thread is premised on a falsehood (that Clinton supporters are unaware of Clinton’s flaws).

    YOU’RE THE FREAKING GUY WHO SAID OBAMA SHOULD COME DOWN HARDER ON THE TELECOMS WHILE IGNORING THAT HILLARY HAD DONE EVEN LESS.

    THAT WAS YOU.

  555. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:54

    She caved and left Spitzer’s dick hanging in the wind

    Well, to be fair, Spitzer’s dick…no, never mind.

  556. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:55

    Secret for you: DKos isn’t running for president. They get exactly zero influence. No cabinet posts, no ambassadorships, no court appointments. The fact that you can cry about how the meanies at Daily Kos didn’t like your diary so now you aren’t voting for Obama astounds me. I feel ashamed even debating you.

    well, since you at least seem to be aware that DKos is scary, I’ll just point out that my reason for sitting November out has nothing to do with Obama’s supporters — its about Obama and his campaign’s efforts to not merely demonize Clinton using Republican frames, but going well beyond the pale with the ‘Clintons are racists” stuff.

    My description of the Kos diary incident was merely illustrative of why I use terms like “Obots”. I just explained to Liberal Rob another reason why — if I was in the shoes of Obama supporters, and Clinton looked good for the nomination, the ONE thing I’d be doing now would be listening to what the Obama supporters had to say, and trying to frame my response in a way that was consistent with their own framing. And I’d be doing that not out of respect, but because I’m smart enough to know that the candidate that I support needs their support — and the only way to get that support is to communicate with them in their own “language”.

  557. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:55

    You know why an upper-middle class, female, suburban Wellesley and Yale Law graduate is being supported by white working class voters? Its because she listens to what they have to say, and responds to their concerns from within their own “frame”.

    Yeah, I have to say: I may have clawed my way up to “elitist” status, but most of my family is pretty blue-collar. And they really don’t think Hillary comes across as genuine. They would vote for her against McCain, sure, but they prefer Obama, for pretty much exactly that reason.

  558. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:56

    This thread reminds me of something….

  559. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:57

    I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it. Maybe I missed those people in the deluge of groupthink here,… and if there are some non-Obots, I certainly do want to apologize to them.

    God please tell me this a parody troll.

    Has to be right?

    …someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms…

    Here, I’ll try:

    Blargh blargh if Obama doesn’t win I’m not voting, I have principles and I refuse for vote for a woman who exploits race, even if it means hundreds of thousands of Iranians have to die to soothe my ego. Also Clinton sucks, she’s all sizzle and no steak. WHERE ARE THE DETAILS? I don’t see any plans, just empty talk. And all her followers are groupthinking morons who just follow the queen bee, doing whatever the hive mind tells them!! Blargh blargh!! The groupthink is both frightening and astonishing! There is no rational reason to support Clinton. Blargh!

    That about right? I speaking your language now?

  560. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:57

    point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

    We have been. Your terms are “All Obama supporters are mindless groupthinker Obots who are naive and stupid” and “Obama is not progressive enough, but don’t mention my preferred candidate’s progressive resume, as it is not relevant”.

  561. sagra said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:58

    Actually, although Hillary can pull some annoying stunts, I do like that we have millions of Democratic voters showing up at the later primaries. It’s kept the media focused on Democrats and has given the campaign organizations a good prep for November. I sometimes wonder if there’s been some secret pact between Clinton and Obama that neither would drop out until one won a majority of the pledged delegates.

  562. JAF Rusty Shackeford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:59

    p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 20:10

    “The “mistake” that was made in illinois was that the state lost a great deal of revenue as a result of the tax holiday, and that created serious budget problems. Clinton’s plan addresses this “mistake” by making the gas tax holiday contingent upon replacing lost revenue — probably through a windfall profits tax on oil companies.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    Please explain how Hillary gets the windfall profits tax on oil companies passed with GWB as President? Maybe you have a RISK analogy to share with us that will make it crystal clear? I’ll wait.

  563. g said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:00

    If my candidate was losing ground and I had to think about supporting the other candidate, I think rather than listen to the other candidates rabid nut-case supporters, I’d listen to the sensible one.

    To make a judgement about a candidate based on their most insane supporters over which they have no control is …. insane.

  564. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:00

    Great, except I think that the attacks on Clinton have been far worse than those on Obama

    Yeah, you hear that kind of thing a lot. It’s almost never accompanied by any examples, though.

    I’ve been thinking the same thing. Daily. For weeks.

  565. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:00

    YOU’RE THE FREAKING GUY WHO SAID OBAMA SHOULD COME DOWN HARDER ON THE TELECOMS WHILE IGNORING THAT HILLARY HAD DONE EVEN LESS.

    THAT WAS YOU.

    and? You seem to think that I don’t know that Clinton’s record has been inadequate on telecom immunity.

    but you know what? If Clinton was in Obama’s position right now, I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue — because I think that she would need to establish that she is aware of, and concerned about, issues that concern Obama’s progressive supporters.

    What I wouldn’t be doing is using all caps to scream at someone who supports Clinton but never said that Clinton was even good on telecom immunity, and raised the issue of telecom immunity as a way that Obama could reach progressive Clinton supporters.

  566. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:00

    the other problem, of course, is that Obama supporters insist on their own framing,

    Newsflash: Obama’s frame is now the frame. Hillary did not win.

  567. Mo's Bike Shop said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:00

    You only win by getting 2209 delegates

    Iris, how much are you getting paid to do this? Enough to pay for the daily faxes?

  568. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:01

    my reason for sitting November out has nothing to do with Obama’s supporters — its about Obama and his campaign’s efforts to not merely demonize Clinton using Republican frames

    Listen, my man, you were called out earlier to provide specifics and you refused. You were called out earlier to address Hillary’s performance on O’Reilly and with Scaife and you refused.

    So don’t give me this.

    Screw it. I don’t care if you sit out. In fact, vote for McCain. Marry his daughter. Don’t care, don’t care. You’re a hack. A shill. You refuse to even consider changing your mind, and you refuse to address some pretty thorough smackdowns of your spin. Get lost.

  569. owlbear1 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:01

    Here’s a difference.

    Senator Obama has been working to help Dems across the country not just in the “States that matter”. It has meant a lot of meeting with local party leaders and all the volunteers. In places that hadn’t had a visit from any Presidential campaign in decades. Senator Clinton really only began to make the rounds when it was forced upon her.
    Who will feel more energized to help? Work harder?

    When I have to make a choice between the ‘lesser of two evils’ I try check out how they go about accomplishing their goals. Senator Obama has worked hard trying to bring everyone along on his coat-tails.

    I like that. I like that a lot more than seeing a campaign based on winning a small portion of the population.

    One says “we’re in this together” the other says “I’m in this for the votes”.

    And now that its almost assuredly a done deal (crossedfingers) I woulda voted for Senator Clinton if came down to it.

  570. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:02

    Also, as someone who wouldn’t vote for either Democrat in the primary with Armando’s dick, I think I’m a qualified dispassionate observer, so:

    Point: Clinton and her supporters have been subject to unacceptable sexist attacks from both Democratic and Republican opponents, and the media as a whole.

    Point: Obama and his supporters have been subject to unacceptable racist attacks from both Democratic and Republican opponents, and the media as a whole.

    Point: Clinton and Obama are both deranged right-wing hawks; for every “obliterate Iran” there’s a “the political problems in the Middle East are caused by radical Islam, not American policy.”

    Point: Clinton supporters, by and large, did not arrive at that position for racist reasons.

    Point: Obama supporters, by and large, did not arrive at that position for sexist reasons.

    Point: Some Clinton supporters have, in fact, levied racist arguments or rhetoric against Obama. It is not unfair for Obama supporters to protest this.

    Point: Some Obama supporters have, in fact, levied sexist arguments or rhetoric against Clinton. It is not unfair for Clinton supporters to protest this.

    Conclusion: At this point, both Clinton and Obama supporters need to wipe the blood and spit out of their eyes, shake hands, kick the bigots out of ther ranks, and focus on getting beaten by McCain in November.

  571. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:03

    I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue

    Yeah right.

    What I wouldn’t be doing is using all caps to scream at someone who supports Clinton but never said that Clinton was even good on telecom immunity, and raised the issue of telecom immunity as a way that Obama could reach progressive Clinton supporters.

    So you want Obama to reach progressive supporters on an issue that Hillary didn’t reach them on.

    You make little sense.

    And for what it’s worth, I wish Obama would be more vocal about the telecoms. Because it’s the right thing to do. Not because it would somehow appease (yeah right, again) hacks like you.

  572. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:03

    effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

    One of those terms being that she’s in the race and all?

  573. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:04

    And all her followers are groupthinking morons who just follow the queen bee, doing whatever the hive mind tells them!!

    Guh Guh GASP!!! RandomObserver is a sexist!!!

    Now I am DEFINATELY voting for McCain!

  574. g said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:06

    What are you Clinton supporters going to do when she inevitably moves to support Obama to unite the party?

    I think Clinton is smart enough not to let John McCain win. IfWhen Obama’s the nominee, she’s going to work to help get him elected – I can’t see her standing back and doing nothing and I certainly can’t see her being a spoiler and actively working to deep six the Democratic nominee. You admire this woman so much now – why would you refuse to follow her then?

  575. henry lewis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:08

    effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms

    Entitlement, finely honed.

  576. Aaron said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:09

    but you know what? If Clinton was in Obama’s position right now, I’d be saying that Clinton should get her ass to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue — because I think that she would need to establish that she is aware of, and concerned about, issues that concern Obama’s progressive supporters.

    Either (1) she should do it anyway, because it’s the right thing to do regardless of whose progressive supporters she might win over; or (2) she would be better served to find an issue in Obama’s platform that wasn’t in hers. Telecom immunity, sadly, isn’t big on the list for either of them, although Obama did at least vote against it when they had the chance. Since there’s hardly any difference in their platforms, there really aren’t any issues for “Obama’s progressive supporters” that aren’t also issues for “Clinton’s progressive supporters.”

    So really, they should both “get their asses to the floor of the Senate and make telecom immunity an issue” – not because they need to make a gesture to the Other Candidate’s supporters, but because it’s the right thing to do and would appeal to “progressive supporters” of every candidate.

  577. Patrick said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:09

    I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it.

    Here goes: I can understand how someone who is in the bag for Senator Clinton can come to S,N! or Daily Kos or Obsidian Wings and get enraged at all the criticism and snark directed toward their candidate. Likewise, every time I pay a visit to No KKKuarter or Corrente or TalkLeft, I lose a little more faith in my fellow Democrats.

    But here’s my deal: The Party Is Bigger Than The Candidates. At the end of this nomination process, I will vote for whomever comes out on top because I’m a Democrat, not an Obaman or an Clintonian. What the Democratic Party does in state races, in House races and in Senate races is more important to me than which one of DLC 2.0 (Obama) or Old School DLC (Clinton) ends up running for President.

    My question to you and those who are as committed to Senator Clinton as you are is this: Why are you more committed to the Candidate than the Party?

  578. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:10

    The fact is, what the hell is going on in here?

  579. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:10

    I’ll just point out that my reason for sitting November out has nothing to do with Obama’s supporters — its about Obama and his campaign’s efforts to not merely demonize Clinton using Republican frames, but going well beyond the pale with the ‘Clintons are racists” stuff.

    Of course Clinton using Republican frames (and actually teaming up with Republicans) and using “Obamas are sexists” doesn’t bother you at all.

    And I’d be doing that not out of respect, but because I’m smart enough to know that the candidate that I support needs their support — and the only way to get that support is to communicate with them in their own “language”.

    Guess what, your candidate needs our support (you know, more than half the Democratic party?) and all you’ve done is call everyone Borg-ian “obots.” Practice what you preach?

    Who here speaks idiot petulant child? Your own “language” is in-group lingo about groupthinking, hive-minded, Borg-ian obots. That’s the language of your posts – dismissive, condescending dreck that dehumanizes anyone who disagrees with you.

    I don’t speak that language. I don’t call people obots and don’t call them “Clintonistas” or “Hillbots” or whatever…I’m not fucking five. I don’t think Hillary supporters are misguided or stupid, I just disagree with them a little.

    Your language is the language of sour grapes, childishness and Rush.

  580. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:10

    Please explain how Hillary gets the windfall profits tax on oil companies passed with GWB as President? Maybe you have a RISK analogy to share with us that will make it crystal clear? I’ll wait.

    please explain how Obama accomplishes anything that he says should be done now. Then apply the same reasoning to Clinton.

    actually don’t bother. Because according to Obama supporters, all of the savings from the gas tax holiday would wind up in the oil companies’ pockets even with a windfall profits tax. So, since its something that, according to you, is good for oil companies, Bush would support it, right?

    What kills me about Obama and his supporters is that they don’t understand the opportunity that Clinton gave the Democratic party here. Rather than embrace Clinton’s plan — putting Republicans and McCain on the spot — they use her proposal to attack her.

    That is just plain stupid in a presidential election year.

  581. kind of an off white said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:11

    “…but going well beyond the pale with the ‘Clintons are racists’”

    Bullshit. I thought Obama let people run with the “fairy tale” thing a little longer than necessary, but how hard is he supposed to defend you against charges of race-baiting after you’ve been a patronizing jerk?

    And he defended Ferraro. Early. Also publically.

    He also didn’t make mad hay out of Bill’s stupid Jesse Jackson remarks, which makes him a better man than me. I know the Clintons aren’t racists, but it doesn’t take a PC language cop to recognize that was a racist fucking thing to say.

  582. Get Real said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:11

    I just wanted everyone to know that if Obama was running against George W Bush, or Dick Cheney for that matter, he would get my vote, my money, and my fat ass out there working like a dog for him. He is not running against Bush/Cheney, he is running against McCain. Our potential VP from four years ago. Obama derrides the old kind of politics, but pretending there is no difference between McCain and Bush, like all Republicans are some sort of monolithic evil reeks of that kind of non sense. I am beginning to be convinced all the parties are evil after this primary. Maybe I should just vote for the old white guy- Nader that is.

  583. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:11

    Patrick, expect to get your question either half-assedly answered or ignored.

    I’m outta here. No sense toiling on with this guy.

  584. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:12

    As an Obamaton who only came on board after Edwards dropped out and the Clintons quickly easy made it very easy to support Obama, I think I can safely say that I would vote for Hillary in November over McCain.

    There. How’s that for conciliation.

    Oh. Wait. I forgot to admit that Obama isn’t perfect.

    Obama isn’t perfect.

    (Is there a checklist or something? I’ll do whatever it takes to keep the Republicans out of the White House because I don’t think we can take four more years of an Executive Branch run by psychotic children. Just somebody give me the checklist. Obama is a hypocrite? Fine, I’ll check that box. Obama was as bad (or worse) than Clinton when it came to personal attacks? Fine. If you need me to check off transparent nonsense, I’ll do it. Just give me the checklist. Anything to avoid a war with Iran and to have the barest chance to get out of Iraq and to have sane people in the Executive Branch and on the Supreme Court.)

  585. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:13

    Oh, one more thing- Get Real…get real, McCain troll.

  586. Aaron said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:14

    What kills me about Obama and his supporters is that they don’t understand the opportunity that Clinton gave the Democratic party here. Rather than embrace Clinton’s plan — putting Republicans and McCain on the spot — they use her proposal to attack her.

    How is endorsing a plan first put forward by McCain “putting Republicans and McCain on the spot”? Regardless of the difference in the details of their respective “tax holiday” plans, that gets spun as a McCain victory if it passes.

    That is just plain stupid in a presidential election year.

  587. Auguste said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:15

    Entitlement, finely honed.

    Well said.

  588. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:15

    T Marita: Am in Portland. Would like to abuse alcoholic beverages in the presence of people from the Internet. Can you lift my emale out of my comment, or do I need to post it?

  589. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:15

    Rather than embrace Clinton’s plan — putting Republicans and McCain on the spot — they use her proposal to attack her.

    It was McCain’s idea.

  590. willyjsimmons said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:16

    Listen, my man, you were called out earlier to provide specifics and you refused.

    The Left Coaster

    Covers the campaign up to March, 2008.

    The Left Coaster

    From April 18th.

    Sorry to interject.

  591. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:17

    There is no rational reason to support Clinton. Blargh!

    The media narrative last night and today: it’s over! 2025 is right around the corner!! WWTSBQ? Who would want to donate to a loser?

    Except they’ve been saying this since February. Can we finally get a few people to admit that the thing they fear most is that Clinton will win the popular vote, be chosen by supers as the best Democratic nominee, and that the unity pony (metaphorically speaking) will die an ignominious defeat? And that despite proclamations to the contrary the reason everyone insists that Hill “MUST DROP OUT” only says this because they know she CAN win. As someone else said, what’s bizarre is that defeating Hillary has seemed more important to Barack Obama (and his campaign, which he does not tell to tone it down) than defeating John McCain. The man is no Democrat as I recognize the term. He keeps trying to tell us to “look this way at the bad Republican” – why the attempt at distraction? I think we can handle it, thanks Barack. Vote Hillary, vote your conscience!

  592. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:18

    Given that the Hillary supporters in this thread are mostly non-plussed by the prospect of a McCain victory, what “progressive” values do they claim to hold the high ground on exactly?

    I hate these stupid fucking cockfights about who is more progressive but I’m pretty sure people who are happy with McCain as president aren’t the ultra-progressive wing of the party.

  593. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:20

    And guess what? She’s not quitting and she’s nowhere near giving up. Screw the pundits and the condescending, yammering “advice” of the blogosphere. That’s the kind of candidate I want, one who will fight for every last vote and never pay too much attention to what the media says is “inevitable.” And for those who would make fun of that, remember that your candidate promised to change the nature of politics….LOL!

  594. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:20

    Here comes the blanket statement:

    Anyone who thinks there is any substantiative difference between Bush and McCain is not paying attention. At all. Even a little.

    Here’s a primer.

  595. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:21

    He keeps trying to tell us to “look this way at the bad Republican” – why the attempt at distraction?

    Uhm, because that’s the guy both candidates allegedly want to defeat in the general election???

  596. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:21

    What kills me about Obama and his supporters is that they don’t understand the opportunity that Clinton gave the Democratic party here. Rather than embrace Clinton’s plan — putting Republicans and McCain on the spot — they use her proposal to attack her.

    Uh, maybe because the plan was a piece of shit? Just an idea.

  597. kind of an off white said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:22

    “The man is no Democrat as I recognize the term.”

    Can’t say this thread puts your term-recognition skills in the most positive light, but okay.

  598. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:22

    I’m pretty sure people who are happy with McCain as president aren’t the ultra-progressive wing of the party.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  599. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:23

    My question to you and those who are as committed to Senator Clinton as you are is this: Why are you more committed to the Candidate than the Party?

    I’m not that committed to Clinton. Throw a compromise candidate in (like Gore or Edwards) and I will enthusiatically support him or her — even though I’m really unhappy with some of the crap the DNC has pulled this year.

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign. That’s unforgiveable — not because she’s my candidate, but because as a tactic it would be unacceptable in any Democratic primary.

  600. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:23

    Anyone who thinks there is any substantiative difference between Bush and McCain is not paying attention. At all. Even a little.

    I’m sufficiently terrified by this new and amazing information you have presented to us, terrified enough to forget that I prefer the candidate with the more progressive policies, Hillary. Not.

  601. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:23

    he is running against McCain. Our potential VP from four years ago.

    That’s the second time somebody has brought that up.

    So, if I’m following correctly, the fucking Kerry campaign, the most fucked up campaign in recent history, is now our best judge of character?

    They wanted to float the idea of McCain breaking with Bush to try to peel a few McCain voters away from Bush, not because McCain is a closet moderate. Clearly they felt they needed to do this because their plan all along was to run the most inept fucking campaign since the advent of television.

    Have all of you been in a coma the past four years? Have none of you noticed what McCain’s actual fucking stated positions are? Are you seriously basing your entire opinion of the man on a political stunt that didn’t happen four years ago?

  602. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:24

    Argh, I’m sorry. I can’t escape how enticing this stuff is.

    Except they’ve been saying this since February.

    Yeah, when HRC lost like 40 states in a row.

    And when Obama faltered, “they” started talking like Hillary could make a comeback.

    Rocket science, this ain’t.

    Can we finally get a few people to admit that the thing they fear most is that Clinton will win the popular vote, be chosen by supers as the best Democratic nominee

    If Hillary is able to do that, sure, why not.

    But she won’t.

    And that despite proclamations to the contrary the reason everyone insists that Hill “MUST DROP OUT” only says this because they know she CAN win.

    Um, no, as expressed about a billion times on this thread, we’re nudging her out because at this point, she’s only helping McCain’s cause. Would you care to address that point, or just keep flailing around?

    As someone else said, what’s bizarre is that defeating Hillary has seemed more important to Barack Obama (and his campaign, which he does not tell to tone it down) than defeating John McCain.

    This is a parody, right? Have you read a dang thing we’ve said?

    The man is no Democrat as I recognize the term. He keeps trying to tell us to “look this way at the bad Republican” – why the attempt at distraction? I think we can handle it, thanks Barack. Vote Hillary, vote your conscience!

    Most of us have already voted. Most of us didn’t vote for Hillary.

  603. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:24

    Can we finally get a few people to admit that the thing they fear most is that Clinton will win the popular vote, be chosen by supers as the best Democratic nominee, and that the unity pony (metaphorically speaking) will die an ignominious defeat?

    I don’t give a shit about unity and if Hillary wins I’m voting for her.

    What scares me is that nearly every Hillary supporter in this thread is actively working towards a McCain victory, either out of malice or stupidity.

    On my blog I have a picture of a kid in Iraq who just got his leg blown off above the calf. I fear *that*, replicated by a hundred thousand, because people like you spread the meme that “making a statement” and not voting is an act of genius.

    Nearly every Obama supporter in this thread is saying they’ll support Hillary if she is the nom. And nearly every Hillary supporter says they will support McCain.

    Fucked up.

  604. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:24

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign

    Like Hillary Clinton has?

  605. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:24

    Djur (and also Auguste, and also any other people who would like to do that Portland thing on June 3 or 4) — E-mail me at my screen name (which is actually my actual name) at mit.edu .

    Hooray for internet people!

  606. Jon H said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:25

    “Remind me, how many motions to impeach has Senator Clinton made in the last five years?”

    Clearly, she put her work on the Nixon impeachment into a mental box labeled ‘For Future Defensive Use’, because that experience sure hasn’t made an appearance against Bush and Cheney.

  607. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:25

    Iris, you have officially overstayed your welcome. Seriously. You are not wanted around here any more.

    You logic is poor, you’re reasoning flawed…Wait a second…

    AIDSmonkey Jonah?

  608. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:27

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign.

    1) Evidence, dammit.
    2) Lots of it.
    3) You apparently have ignored the whole “we’re winning with white people!” line of the past two days.

  609. Josh E. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:27

    Posting in an epic thread.

  610. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:27

    Uh, maybe because the plan was a piece of shit? Just an idea.

    even assuming that it was a piece of shit, it was a very small piece of shit that was wrapped up in tons of political gold.

    Obama’s middle class tax cut is a piece of shit too — but if you present the reasons why its such a horrible idea, you lose the election.

  611. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:27

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign.

    Look, when lovable-but-indispensable fuddy-duddy Josh Marshall is calling you out you have race problems.

    Bill and Hillary have done just fine playing the race card themselves thank you: they needed no help.

    That’s unforgiveable

    You’d better forget that come November you ass.

  612. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:28

    Oh, and BTW John Cole?

    You got mad street cred around here, brother.

  613. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:28

    By “evidence,” I mean “supply evidence.”

  614. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:28

    Iris must be a Republican operative no?

  615. Stemler said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:28

    You people are all very sick indeed. The simple truth is pig and elephant DNA just won’t splice, get over it already. I’d also like to point out that you asshats are arguing about an election campaign that is already over.

  616. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:29

    Uh, maybe because the plan was a piece of shit? Just an idea.

    By itself, maybe. Did you take the time to look into the differences in the proposals of the three candidates? Please tell me you don’t buy into the “Clinton McSame” horseshit that they trade in at some of the other blogs? I understand Obama’s inclination against this, because by itself it just transfers wealth to oil companies. Or at least one would think. But Clinton wanted to replace the revenue with a windfall profits tax. Ease burdens on the struggling, shift them to the well-off…Obama’s ‘principled’ attack on Hillary classic case of pointless ‘dem on dem violence.’

  617. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:29

    That’s the kind of candidate I want, one who will fight for every last vote and never pay too much attention to what the media says is “inevitable.”

    Like her candidacy?

    Shorter Iris:

    Even though Hillary has lost, she’s still f*ucking the Dems and the entire country and I love it!

  618. gbear said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:29

    This Iris is a real work of art, isn’t she? I’d make more of a comment but I don’t want to insult actual lemmings. I hear that’s a myth anyway.

  619. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:31

    I love how Hillary is supposedly the most progressive candidate evar!, yet somehow the Hillary supporters are fine with a McCain victory.

    Speaking of strawmen. This Hillary supporter is not fine with McCain and will cheerfully vote for Obama in November, if he’s the nominee. He’s not, yet.

    Newsflash: Obama’s frame is now the frame. Hillary did not win.

    When she makes her concession speech (after June 3rd, or maybe in Denver), I’m with you. Until then, you’re asserting a reality which does not yet exist (and you and your buddies are doing an end-zone dance that would make Chad Johnson envious). Nothing is over until we say it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!

    You’re acting like the game’s over because it’s 20-13 Browns, third and 18, Cleveland 48-yard line (1:47 remaining). There’s still time on the clock.

  620. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:31

    Iris smells a little McMahonish, if you know what I mean.

  621. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:31

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign.

    The Clinton folks have been working overtime to create the impression that Obama has been running a sexist campaign. This is so hypocrtical it’s mind-boggling.

    One set of standards for his candidate, an entirely different set of standards for the other.

  622. JAF Rusty Shackeford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:32

    <blockquote)p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:10

    Please explain how Hillary gets the windfall profits tax on oil companies passed with GWB as President? Maybe you have a RISK analogy to share with us that will make it crystal clear? I’ll wait.

    please explain how Obama accomplishes anything that he says should be done now. Then apply the same reasoning to Clinton.

    actually don’t bother. Because according to Obama supporters, all of the savings from the gas tax holiday would wind up in the oil companies’ pockets even with a windfall profits tax. So, since its something that, according to you, is good for oil companies, Bush would support it, right?

    What kills me about Obama and his supporters is that they don’t understand the opportunity that Clinton gave the Democratic party here. Rather than embrace Clinton’s plan — putting Republicans and McCain on the spot — they use her proposal to attack her.

    That is just plain stupid in a presidential election year.

    So you’re admitting that the Gas Tax Holiday Paid For By A Windfall Profit Tax That GWB Will Never Sign Into Law is nothing but a desperate election year gimmick.

    It’s like you’re upset with us because we won’t play Make Believe with you on the bogus Gas Tax Holiday proposal. Which would make sense because you’re also mad that we won’t play Make Believe that HRC can still win.

    You’re pathetic.

  623. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:32

    Iris said,
    May 8, 2008 at 21:29 (kill)

    Uh, maybe because the plan was a piece of shit? Just an idea.

    By itself, maybe.

    What can you say?

  624. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:33

    Wow, Hillary is going to execute a political maneuver so stunning that it retroactively changes votes for Obama into votes for her? Fuck, if she has that kind of cosmic power, why doesn’t she just reverse the results of the 2000 election while she’s at it?

  625. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:35

    There’s still time on the clock.

    Please supply the specifics regarding how Hillary will win.

  626. owlbear1 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:35

    This:
    ++++++++++++++
    Hart failed to point out that it is Sen. Obama’s own studied opinion that he himself does not have the “experience” to answer a crisis call – only “judgment” (more on that here), but no matter.
    +++++++++++

    Is a truly craven interpretation of this answer:
    =================
    Q: Well let me ask you, what specific experience do you have in handling a crisis that would make you the better person to field that 3 a.m. phone call?

    A: Well, and that’s the point, nobody does, because nobody’s been in that situation unless they’ve been President. The question then becomes who’s got the kind of judgment on these critical issues that shows some evidence that you can in fact understand how the world is operating and when we have to deal with issues in a military way, and on question like Iraq, on questions like Pakistan and Iran, I think that the judgment I’ve shown over the last several, several years has been superior to both Senator Clinton’s and to Senator McCain’s. And if longevity is the measure by which we determine who’s got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he’s been there the longest.

    Q: She …

    A: But that’s not the criteria. The question is who’s got the best judgment, and I think that my record looks pretty good compared to theirs.
    ==============================

    And this analysis is juvenile.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The response that “nobody does” (advertising to the world that Sen. Obama believes that he himself lacks the experience to answer a crisis call) – is one of the worst responses a Presidential candidate could have given and that too on TV and on the topic of national security in a time of war. This to me represents unilateral disarmament in front of the GOP (Sen. Clinton at least made a reasonable case for herself – more on her comments vis-a-vis Sen. McCain below).

    Sen. Obama and his campaign have only themselves to blame with his foolish response that will be used against him by the GOP again and again and again if he were to become the nominee.
    ++++++++++++++

    Anyway, just thought I would mention that.

  627. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:35

    3) You apparently have ignored the whole “we’re winning with white people!” line of the past two days.

    White working class you asshat. This is not racist and this is a perfect example of what we’ve been saying about the Obama campaign pulling out the race card against the Clintons, who spent a good part of their lives in the civil rights movement. Was it racist when Obama said he wanted to appeal to “Reagan Democrats”, even though these groups, if not the same, greatly overlap?

    Lrn2listen

  628. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:35

    And that despite proclamations to the contrary the reason everyone insists that Hill “MUST DROP OUT” only says this because they know she CAN win.

    Iris for the last time. Please tell me how Senator Clinton can win the nomination… IE get the 2025.5 delegates. Try playing here:

    If you really want to seat Michigan and Florida as is, without sanctions for breaking the party rules I suggest reading this article. She can’t win. Even under the most favourable conditions, she can’t win.

  629. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:36

    I know it was a thousand years ago, but upthread “Get Real” pointed to this site and said it was written by a “bright” person. Well, here it is. My excerpt starts with a quote from Michelle Obama:

    “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

    At base, Mrs. Obama’s statement is nothing less than a renunciation of democracy and an embrace of fascism. The basic idea of liberty is that people have a natural right to live their lives as usual and to be uninvolved and uninformed.”"

    And then this “bright” woman approvingly quotes Jonah Fucking Goldberg.

    Get real, indeed.

  630. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:37

    Actually, learn to tune out the stupid pundits. You have been listening to those people way too much.

  631. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:37

    Speaking of strawmen. This Hillary supporter is not fine with McCain and will cheerfully vote for Obama in November, if he’s the nominee. He’s not, yet.

    Strawmen? Multiple people in this thread are not “strawmen.” My strawmen have names: Iris, Get Real, Lukasiak.

    Good for you. You’re sane. You’re a Hillary supporter? Fine. Great. Seriously. Nobody here has a problem with Hillary supporters. What we have a problem with (if I may pretend to speak for everyone) is batshit insane people who complain that Obama isn’t progressive enough while working towards a McCain victory.

    You aren’t a “Hillbot” or a “Clintonista” or a crazy deluded fool. You prefer Hillary. It happens. No big deal.

  632. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:38

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign. That’s unforgiveable — not because she’s my candidate, but because as a tactic it would be unacceptable in any Democratic primary.

    Man, I sure am glad to pass this troll along to you all. I have been dealing with him for months. Last I checked, he was attacking me because he claimed I would leave the Democratic party and vote McCain if Obama did not win. I told him that was, of course, nonsense.

    Looks like all wingnuts, and yes, Lukasiak is a wingnut, they are actually doing what they accuse you of doing. I am going to vote for Clinton or Obama (it is going to be Obama), and Lukasiak is going to take his ball and go home.

  633. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:38

    You’re acting like the game’s over because it’s 20-13 Browns, third and 18, Cleveland 48-yard line (1:47 remaining). There’s still time on the clock.

    And what’s Clinton’s Hail Mary pass? Race-baiting (white Americans are the hard-working Americans). Classy.

  634. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:39

    You’re acting like the game’s over because it’s 20-13 Browns, third and 18, Cleveland 48-yard line (1:47 remaining). There’s still time on the clock.

    I really think that overstates the closeness of the primary race at this particular point in time.

  635. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:40

    White working class you asshat.

    Yes, and then she goes on to mention black working class people too!

    Oh wait, she doesn’t. Oh well.

    Obama’s “problems” nailing down the working class vote are va-ha-ha-hastly overstated. And they’re nowhere near the almost unanimous dismissal Hillary receives from African-Americans.

    Also, she’s not getting the nomination.

  636. Josh E. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:40

    This is not racist and this is a perfect example of what we’ve been saying about the Obama campaign pulling out the race card against the Clintons

    Please point out where the Obama campaign has pulled out the race card w/r/t this latest Tom Joadism. Be specific, and remember that “Obama Campaign” is not the same thing as “Random internet Obama supporter”.

  637. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:41

    Iris for the last time. Please tell me how Senator Clinton can win the nomination… IE get the 2025.5 delegates.

    Wait, I thought it was 2209 now. Or is it still 2025 for Clinton and 2209 for everybody else?

  638. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:41

    1) Evidence, dammit.

    read Sean Wilentz.

    2) Lots of it.

    read it again, because as an Obama supporter you refused to acknowledge the facts in the Wilentz piece.

    3) You apparently have ignored the whole “we’re winning with white people!” line of the past two days.

    and that’s racist because….?

    This is one of the neat tricks that Obama has gotten his supporters to embrace. Any recognization of racial demographics is, by definition, racist.

    I don’t think that the Obama campaign went all out to portray the Clintons as racists in south carolina in order to get more black votes. Obama’s problem was that he already had overwhelming support among SC’s blacks, and his support among whites was anemic. And he didn’t want the media mentioning the fact that he won SC because of overwhelming support among blacks, and despite anemic support among whites.

    So the Obama campaign decided to make it impossible to talk honestly about the impact of race on election results. And it worked like a charm — Bill Clinton was pilloried for stating the obvious about Obama’s win in SC.

    The irony is that the decision to attack the Clinton’s on race was made at the same time that white voters were moving toward Obama — and the false accusation lost Obama white support in SC as a result. Had he not run a race-baiting campaign in SC, I think he would have wound up with a pluraily of the white vote there.

  639. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:42

    Iris, didn’t I banish you? (shakes magic wand furtively)

    Damn, this thing’s outta batteries again!

  640. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:42

    Accurate sports metaphor:

    Obama’s up 12 with 2 minutes left (basketball). Turns the ball over. Hillary cans a three. Obama cans a three. Hillary gets fouled, goes to the line, and makes 1 of 2.

    And so here we are.

  641. RobW said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:42

    Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”?

    Because all of his friends are dumbfucks?

  642. Five of Diamonds said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:44

    “Iris for the last time. Please tell me how Senator Clinton can win the nomination… IE get the 2025.5 delegates.”

    Allow me to answer for Iris while she takes another swig from the antifreeze.

    She can “win” by pushing her unsupportable arguments about experience, important states, scary black pastors and gas taxes until she finds the right number of insider Supers to subvert the popular vote, pledged delegates, most states won, and most money raised.

  643. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:44

    So a victory only counts if the plurality of white votes is won?

    So many rules…

  644. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:44

    So the Obama campaign decided to make it impossible to talk honestly about the impact of race on election results.

    Yeah, it’s been simply impossible for anyone to talk about the impact of race on election results. Haven’t heard a peep about that!

  645. Rugged in Montana said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:45

    What you LIE-bruls don’t seem to understand is that those of us in the heartland will vote for President George Willard Bush, not Hitlery or that colored fella. Neither of them was a jet pilot hero of the Battle of Iraq, like General Bush, who led his squadron to victory against the fearsome Iraqi Air Force, and against all odds, single handedly exploded hundreds of Arab top-gun aces in mid-air. When Saddam pulled out his secret weapon, gigantic flying saucers (no WMD’s huh? Foolish LIE-brals!), our patriot President flew straight into the spaceship and nuked it from the inside, barely escaping in time to land on that aircraft carrier to tell the nation “Mission accomplished!”. When was the last time Hitlery did anything like that?

    If you socialist-traitors think that one of your Islamocandidates can stand up in front of the USA of America and ask the heartland for it’s votes while Mr. President George Willard Bush is running as a war president *for life*, then you’re stupid. No patriot is going to vote for LIE-brul Shania Law until you pry our M1 Battle Rifles™ from our sticky fingers! Plus, you want sexualists to be required to teach evolution in our churches, which is against the Geneva Convention, so that the Islams will take over our country…..NO WAY, HOE-ZAY!!

  646. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:45

    because as an Obama supporter you refused to acknowledge the facts in the Wilentz piece.

    And this matters because Hillary can win. Yup.

  647. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:45

    I embarrassed I have to do this.

    p_lukasiak-

    When using the interwebs and commenting, remember to include links to your ‘zinger’ sources. That way the other t00b surfers may actually, you know, check said sources.

    (and here I thought I was the n00b!)

  648. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:47

    Iris for the last time. Please tell me how Senator Clinton can win the nomination… IE get the 2025.5 delegates.

    Obot alert.

    Obama can’t get to 2025 either based on pledged delegates. He has to do the same thing that Clinton does — convince enough SDs to vote for him on the first ballot at a convention that isn’t taking place for another three months.

    NEW RULE:

    whenever you see someone talking about how clinton can’t get to 2025 WITHOUT mention the same thing about Obama, the person should henceforth be identified as an Obot

  649. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:47

    Theory: White working class people decide elections.

    Given: Clinton has white working class people locked up.

    Observation: Clinton is losing.

    Conclusion:???

    The argument that Clinton has the broader coalition that provides more votes would make more sense if she actually had more votes.

  650. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:47

    I have to pronounce that Rugged is by far the best troll we have around here.

    I daresay he is part of the Creative Class.

  651. Tim (The Other One) said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:48

    Can we just merge Sadly, No and Balloon Juice and get it over with ?

    Also; “bruta fulmina”. Does this come with fries ?

  652. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:49

    The irony is that the decision to attack the Clinton’s on race was made at the same time that white voters were moving toward Obama — and the false accusation lost Obama white support in SC as a result. Had he not run a race-baiting campaign in SC, I think he would have wound up with a pluraily of the white vote there.

    This is like reading a right-wing blog, when they explain that the brown guys are always the racists. And why are we taking post hoc campaign advice from the guy who is backing the losing candidate or not voting at all?

  653. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:49

    Hey, Sadly’s!

    You’re lucky I don’t know your login, because I would post a new thread just to get rid of the troll smell!

  654. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:50

    Actually, learn to tune out the stupid pundits. You have been listening to those people way too much.

    Iris this isn’t punditry, this is basic math.

    At present Obama is 176 delegates away from clinching the nomination. Clinton needs 328.5. There are only 217 pledged delegates remaining. To win Clinton would need to win 100% in all the remaining primaries, plus 46% of the remaining super delegates.

    Not gonna happen.

    But fine, you want to change the rules midway throughout the contest, and seat Michigan and Florida as is, no penalties. This isn’t, for many reasons going to happen, but let’s accept your argument at face value. Obama would still be about 85 delegates ahead and still ahead in both the popular vote and pledged delegate total. SHE CAN’T WIN. I may be an elitist member of the creative class, but on Planet Hillary does addition still matter?

  655. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:50

    Theory: White working class people decide elections.

    Given: Clinton has white working class people locked up.

    Observation: Clinton is losing.

    Conclusion:???

    Obot alert!

    the theory is that white working class voters are the key to victory in a 50 state general election.

    NEW RULE:

    Whenever you see someone deliberately misconstruing an argument made by Clinton supporters, that person shall henceforth be designated an “Obot”

  656. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:50

    She should run hard for the popular vote, as many delegates as she can get, and the super-delegates should put her over the top because she has the most progressive message and the most progressive policies….simple as that. This isn’t the general election, this is about choosing the best candidate to represent our party. If our party stands for the empty vacuum of pandering that is Barack Obama, who is trying to ‘declare’ victory and disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, as well as intimidate Clinton supporters (along with media surrogates) into thinking it’s a lost cause.

    And for the record, it’s 2209. You have all lost it if you think Obama can get away with throwing away the votes of 2 major states like that.

  657. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:50

    We’re not, John. We’re feeding trolls.

  658. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:50

    as expressed about a billion times on this thread, we’re nudging her out because at this point, she’s only helping McCain’s cause.

    I disagree. Even if it’s a losing cause in the end, a) McCain can’t focus on tearing down Obama because there’s still a chance he won’t be the nominee, b) by raising “right-wing talking points” now in the primary and forcing Obama to deal with them, she blunts their effectiveness if McCain were try to use them in the fall, c) the ongoing primary keeps the media focused on the Democratic Party, and there’s no such thing as bad publicity; Obama can use all the name recognition he can get. I still wouldn’t really know who he is, if the only info source I had was the media.

    There was a comment earlier about how if we were concerned about Obama’s substantive policy proposals, we should just go read his website. Yeah, he’s got a website where all the substance is, big deal, who reads a website? I bet even half his most ardent supporters don’t know exactly what’s on his friggin’ website! So quit pointing to that as the ultimate answer to any questions about Obama’s “lack of substance.” I don’t want to read his fucking website, I want HIM to fucking TELL ME himself what he stands for. If he can’t do that, if he’s not familiar enough with his own “substance” to be able to articulate it himself and explain it to me and make it interesting while he does it, how am I supposed to believe that what’s on his website is truly what he believes?

  659. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:51

    What I won’t do is vote for a candidate whose campaign has deliberately worked to create the impression that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been running a racist campaign. That’s unforgiveable — not because she’s my candidate, but because as a tactic it would be unacceptable in any Democratic primary.

    I take this to mean that you won’t be voting for Hillary, since it’s her campaign that deliberately worked to create that impression.

    I think the highlight for me was when, after Obama had kicked her ass in 11 states in a row, she started talking about how he’d be a great vice president. What that sounded like to me was, “come on Barry, get on the bus…you can ride in back.”

    And I’m white. I can only imagine how it sounded to black voters. It was the kind of condescension that once upon a time found its expression in calling grown black men “boy”.

  660. Josh said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:51

    read it again, because as an Obama supporter you refused to acknowledge the facts in the Wilentz piece.

    Wilentz’s opinions aren’t facts, you see. I know that the Wilentz piece is gospel to Lambert and his douchebag coterie, but if you actually look at what Wilentz says, there isn’t much there. For example:

    Since then, Obama’s strategists and supporters in the press have whipped the story into a full racialist subtext, as if Shaheen and Penn were the executors of a well-plotted Clinton master plan to turn Obama into a stereotypical black street hoodlum–or, in the words of the fervently pro-Obama and anti-Clinton columnist Frank Rich of the New York Times, “ghettoized as a cocaine user.”

    Which strategists? Name names, Professor. Frank Rich, of course, is not affiliated with the Obama campaign. Pretty thin ramen for Lambert and the boys. Let’s see if esteemed Professor Wilentz does any better on his next issue.

    Senior Clinton campaign officials later told me that reporters contacted them saying that the Obama camp was pushing them very hard to spin Clinton’s victory as the latest Bradley Effect result. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a cheerleading advocate for Obama, went on television to suggest the Bradley Effect explained the New Hampshire outcome, then backed off–only then to write a column, “Echoes of Tom Bradley,” in which he claimed he could not be sure but that, nevertheless, “embarrassed pollsters and pundits had better be vigilant for signs that the Bradley effect, unseen in recent years, has crept back.”

    My goodness. Unnamed Clinton campaign officials told Wilentz that similarly anonymous members of the “Obama camp” were pushing the Bradley effect meme? At least the distinguished professor didn’t use the “some say” meme to disguise his inability to name names or provide anything more concrete than his second hand account.

    And then we get the citation of another member of the press, not associated with the Obama campaign.

    One is left with the depressing impression that Sean Wilentz is shoveling shit and Lambert, Paul, and the rest of the HillBoyz like the taste of it.

  661. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:51

    No, Plutz, you do not get to make rules.

    GO AWAY!

  662. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:53

    Betamax is by far the superior format. You people swallowing the VHS Kool-Aid are a bunch of fascist socialist retards. And DVD is for elitists — it will never win the hearts of working-class white people.

    What the fuck is Blu-Ray?

  663. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:54

    Cole scooped me.

    Additionally, I read the piece back in Feb. Was POed at Obama for it. Saw Hillary do worse. Remained an Obama supporter. Will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

    As for you, well, a few ugly words has you running for McCain. A winnar is yuo.

  664. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:54

    whenever you see someone talking about how clinton can’t get to 2025 WITHOUT mention the same thing about Obama, the person should henceforth be identified as an Obot

    So this pretty much seals it on the whole parody troll thing right?

    Talk about using lingo as crutch. When you strip out all the borg obot talk this guy has nothing to say. LOLZ BORG is pretty much his whole message no?

  665. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:55

    she has the most progressive message and the most progressive policies

    say
    what

  666. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:56

    Yeah, he’s got a website where all the substance is, big deal, who reads a website?

    I dunno, who?

  667. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:57

    At present Obama is 176 delegates away from clinching the nomination.

    obot alert.

    Obama has 1850 pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries. In order to “clinch” the nomination he needs 2025 (without FL/MI) or 2209 (without completely disenfranchising voters in two key states).

    NEW RULE:
    Any time someone says or implies that its possible to “clinch” the nomination based on what super-delegates (i.e. people who can, and have, changed their minds) have said to date shall henceforth be referred to as an “Obot”

  668. Susan of Texas said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:57

    I think someone’s ben nipping at the cooking sherry.

  669. E.W. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:57

    I have to pronounce that Rugged is by far the best troll we have around here.

    In the spirit of disunity I ahve to violently disagree. The Truth is the best troll since the first Gary Ruppert.

  670. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:59

    for super lolz, do some googling on ol’ p_luk

    he’s apparently a more subtle Gary Ruppert (although no hits on wrestling boards yet)

  671. Senator Hussein X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:59

    That tears it. If I don’t get the nomination I’m voting McCain. Or Nader. Or staying home or something.

  672. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:59

    McCain can’t focus on tearing down Obama because there’s still a chance he won’t be the nominee

    Sadly, No. Look at the wingnet. Look on the op-ed pages. The nutters have already moved on to dissing Obama. Hell, Kristol even likes Hillary now.

    by raising “right-wing talking points” now in the primary and forcing Obama to deal with them, she blunts their effectiveness if McCain were try to use them in the fall

    Pure psycobabble.

    the ongoing primary keeps the media focused on the Democratic Party, and there’s no such thing as bad publicity; Obama can use all the name recognition he can get. I still wouldn’t really know who he is, if the only info source I had was the media.

    Which is fine, and as I said way up yonder, I’d have no problem with Hillary sticking around as long as she was shoving it in the craw of McCain/GOP. Which, Sadly, No!, she ain’t doing.

    Yeah, he’s got a website where all the substance is, big deal, who reads a website? I bet even half his most ardent supporters don’t know exactly what’s on his friggin’ website! So quit pointing to that as the ultimate answer to any questions about Obama’s “lack of substance.” I don’t want to read his fucking website, I want HIM to fucking TELL ME himself what he stands for.

    Unless you’ve got a flying DeLorean on hand, we aren’t going back to the days when politicans could pontificate for 6 hours at a time. And he has told you what he stands for…in writing. So, you know, go read it. Bragging about your laziness is some weak shit, man.

  673. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:00

    No way. the Truth and Gary have no where near the imaginative chops that Rugged possesses. Come on, when did The Truth ever obsess about pelicans?

  674. E.W. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:00

    without completely disenfranchising voters in two key states

    You can blame the party dudes for that one.

  675. Fast Eddie said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:00

    Theory: White working class people decide elections.

    Yeah, um, see, the thing is, votes decide elections. If you don’t have enough of them, you don’t get elected.

  676. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:01

    p_lukasiak, you’re a damned fool if you think the supers are going to hand Hillary the nomination at this point. It’s as simple as that.

  677. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:01

    NEW RULE:
    Anyone who has never commented here before this thread and thinks it’s somehow clever to declare “new rules” shall henceforth be referred to as an “Asshat”.

    Please adjust all future posts accordingly.

  678. Saul said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:02

    Shalom, gentlemen.

    (looks around)

    Wow, screw this. The fact is, I’m outta here.

  679. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:02

    obot alert. obot alert. Danger Will Robinson. obot alert!

  680. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:03

    Damn, p_, you have less of a life than I do.

    And you still don’t get to make any rulez, dawg.

    You have no standing here. Go Back and Bug Cole!

    (Sorry, John, but he was yours first.)

  681. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:03

    Rugged took the lead with the pelicans and badgers. How can you lose with pelicans and badgers?

  682. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:03

    whenever you see someone talking about how clinton can’t get to 2025 WITHOUT mention the same thing about Obama, the person should henceforth be identified as an Obot

    Woo hoo. I’m an obot. I love how math is now the immortal enemy of the Clinton campaign. Plus I’ve said numerous times how much I hate Hillary and wouldn’t vote for her if she was the nominee, so I’m in the tank right?

    Also straw man, I didn’t say Obama could win without SD… he can’t either… Just his job is much easier than Clinton’s. He will have a majority of pledged delegates by May 20th. There is a good chance by that time he will lead in SD as well. Thus the argument to the remaining SDs will be: So are you going to vote against the popular vote and pledged delegate leader? It isn’t mate, it’s mate in 3 moves. If Hillary is smart (and I keep hearing how much she is), she tips her king over late May early June, and exits gracefully.

  683. E.W. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:04

    I wonder what Prussian Blue is up to these days …

  684. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:04

    NEW RULE:
    Bill Maher sues for gimmick infringement

  685. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:04

    luk luk, you already call all Obama supporters Obots. While we appreciate that you realize you should have rules to reign in your childish behavior, it’s rather pointless when you just use it as a blanket term for all Obama supporters.

  686. Dagoril said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:05

    Yeah, I have to say: I may have clawed my way up to “elitist” status, but most of my family is pretty blue-collar. And they really don’t think Hillary comes across as genuine. They would vote for her against McCain, sure, but they prefer Obama, for pretty much exactly that reason.

    Yeah, it’s hard for Hills to pass herself off as working class when the cameramen following her around filmed her unable to figure out how to operate a fucking coffee machine.

    I am related to working class people. And quite frankly, they don’t want someone like them in the White House. They didn’t even need the example of Chimpy to realize that a beer-chugging tv watchin dude was a poor choice to have their finger on the Button. A working class Preznit is neither needed nor wanted. Genuine and honest however would be swell.

    Oh, and for the record, she ended up getting a cappuccino that day!

  687. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:05

    Wilentz’s opinions aren’t facts, you see.

    but wilentz’ facts are facts. I personally think that Wilentz goes overboard in his interpretation of events. But the facts he cites are facts, and pointing to things that aren’t ‘facts’ doesn’t make the facts disappear.

    and while I can’t be absolutely 100% certain, I’m 99.9999999% sure that you’ve taken as gospel truth reporting based on “unnamed” sources that confirm your own opinions/beliefs/prejudices, and only get skeptical about such sources when they say things you don’t want to hear.

  688. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:05

    NEW RULE:
    Bill Maher Elementary School sues for gimmick infringement

    Fixed.

  689. JAF Rusty Shackeford said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:06

    p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 21:57

    At present Obama is 176 delegates away from clinching the nomination.

    obot alert.

    Obama has 1850 pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries. In order to “clinch” the nomination he needs 2025 (without FL/MI) or 2209 (without completely disenfranchising voters in two key states).

    NEW RULE:
    Any time someone says or implies that its possible to “clinch” the nomination based on what super-delegates (i.e. people who can, and have, changed their minds) have said to date shall henceforth be referred to as an “Obot”

    Quick question – has any Super Delegate switched their vote from Obama to Clinton?

  690. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:07

    Oh, great. Now E.W. has summoned the neo-nazis to the thread.

  691. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:07

    NEW RULE:

    When we pass 700 comments in one thread, someone has to post something, anything new.

    kthxbai

  692. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:09

    I personally think that Wilentz goes overboard in his interpretation of events.

    Says the dood who’s gonna sit out the election because of these events.

    Niiiiice.

  693. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:10

    Please supply the specifics regarding how Hillary will win.

    Sure, no problemo! Pinned to the top of the front page at Kos, it’s right there:

    Total delegates remaining: 484.5
    Delegates needed by Clinton: 328.5

    All she has to do is win about 67.8018576% of the remaining uncommitted delegates. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. Though that .5 of a delegate might be dicey.

    1964 Philadelphia Collapse

    At the end of play on September 20, 1964, the Phillies led both the Cardinals and Reds, who were tied for second place, by 6 ½ games. At the end of play on September 27, the Reds led the second place Phillies by a full game. In seven days, the Phillies lost a 6-½ game lead and were never again in first place.

  694. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:10

    Dear Jeebus, please give me back the two hours I just spent reading and commenting on this thread. I promise not to touch myself ever again, or at least until I get out of the shower.

  695. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:10

    NEW RULE:

    The candidate who gets a half pound of pata negra delivered to my front door by the first Tuesday of November gets my vote.

    ANOTHER NEW RULE:

    Real presidential candidates and their supporters drink their espresso black.

  696. Homosexuals can kick your stupid ass said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:10

    even assuming that it was a piece of shit, it was a very small piece of shit that was wrapped up in tons of political gold.

    DING DING DING DING!!

    We have a winner!

    Now listen very carefully. I’ll use small words.

    One of the major reasons I support Obama is HE TELLS ME THE FUCKING TRUTH!! He doesn’t necessarily tell me what he thinks I want to hear, or lie to me because it’s politically expedient, or piss down my back and tell me the rain is quite warm this time of year.

    Obama represents an approach many of us have been desperate for. He doesn’t assume I’m stupid, he doesn’t pander, he lays it on the table and talks about things with us like we’re fucking grownups with a stake in our own futures and the brains to understand the fucking issues.

    Hillary, McCain, Bush, Clinton – it’s not that their IDEAS are the same. It’s that their METHODS are…

    mikey

  697. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:11

    NEW RULE THE THIRD:

    Refrain from reading the comments that precede your own. It makes the thread more palatable.

  698. His Grace said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:12

    NEW RULE:
    Any time someone says or implies that its possible to “clinch” the nomination based on what super-delegates (i.e. people who can, and have, changed their minds) have said to date shall henceforth be referred to as an “Obot”

    Yup, because if the roles were reversed I wouldn’t be telling an Obama supporter that he had no mathematical chance to win the nomination. I would be saying things like “he can still win ’cause, umm, mumble… mumble” so it has to go on longer. You truly are an asshat. By your reckoning this has to go to a fight on the floor of the convention because the supers can change their minds? Would you say the same thing if Clinton had the lead in pledged delegates but needed the supers?

  699. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:12

    New Rule:

    Every time pluk sez “obot” take a drink.

  700. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:13

    p_lukasiak, you’re a damned fool if you think the supers are going to hand Hillary the nomination at this point. It’s as simple as that.

    the point I’m making isn’t whether its likely that Clinton will get the support of enough superdelegates in the immediate future to become the presumptive nominee.

    my guess is that its highly unlikely right now.

    my point is that Obama supporters are full of crap, have had it pointed out to them that they are full of crap, and repeat the same crap anyway.

    Obots are stating as FACTS things that are not facts, or are highly selective facts.

    That is a fact.

  701. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:14

    and while I can’t be absolutely 100% certain, I’m 99.9999999% sure that you’ve taken as gospel truth reporting based on “unnamed” sources that confirm your own opinions/beliefs/prejudices, and only get skeptical about such sources when they say things you don’t want to hear.

    Some say you’re awfully dense.

  702. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:15

    In case anyone is wondering why we think there’s some serious misogyny issues at work here, and that there’s just a little bit of a cult of personality surrounding Obama, I give you Wil Wheaton:

    As many of you know, I’m an enthusiastic Barack Obama supporter. I have never been so excited or inspired by a candidate — or, really, any leader — in my life, and I view this election as an historical opportunity — maybe even a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — to not only save my country from the disaster wrought by Bush and Cheney, but fundamentally change how my government interacts with the rest of the world, and how it works for me and my fellow Americans.

    That’s just so beautiful, and tragic, it brings a tear to my eye. Is there anything that Obama is not seen to have or be in the process of transcending? Again, I ask, change in what direction?

    Then there comes the subtext: Hillary is trying to deny him his wankfest

    Knowing all of that, I’m sure it will come as no surprise that over the last 10 weeks or so, I’ve gone from respecting to feeling sorry for to actively despising Hillary Clinton.

    Yes, sadly it comes as no big surprise that, the more transcendentally enthusiastic he has become about the big but subtle changes Obama has the promise to implement, the more he has come to hate, hate Hillary for ruining the party.

    It’s over. She knows it’s over. It’s been over for almost three months

    Then why worry so much?

    No, it’s all about her. It’s about her ego. … It’s particularly galling, because she can only win if her campaign can force Democratic superdelegates (one of the worst creations in the history of politics) to tell millions of Democratic voters — many of them first time voters who, like me, finally feel truly inspired by someone — to go fuck themselves.

    Careful folks, this is true believerism in action. I don’t think you’re prepared for the fallout. You’ve heard it said that hope is a dangerous thing….because when you let people down, they become more cynical than ever. I for one don’t feel that we should throw away this election on a feel-good wankfest for first-timers who finally feel “inspired” over a weak bromide of bipartisan happy talk.

    Does anyone have anything to support or discredit this, because it’s pretty worrisome. Not one of those things you’d want to just explain away without some pretty solid evidence:

    http://hominidviews.com/?p=1504
    http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1160

  703. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:15

    Obots are stating as FACTS things that are not facts, or are highly selective facts.

    Shorter luk luk,

    “The supporters of the candidate I don’t prefer are telling met that 98% certainty is 100%, therefore I want McCain to win.”

  704. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:15

    Gary, someone’s pushing in on your proprietary domain of factuality. The fact is, you better act fast.

  705. kenga said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:16

    We are only discussing politics because we ran out of poop jokes.

    And when the dire warnings of a poop joke gap were being disseminated, did we listen? Noooooooo.

    Hey Toby – you gotta plug a Magic Wand in – they don’t take batteries.

  706. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:17

    Uhm, where’s the sexism there?

    Also, Wil Wheaton???

  707. A Not-Stupid Hillary Supporter said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:18

    Hey guys. Yo. What’s up?

    I like Hillary. It’s cool that you guys like Obama, but I prefer Hillary for a bunch o’ reasons. It would be shame to miss a historic first of a woman president but really she’s just the better candidate. More experienced, tougher. She knows how to handle the GOP noise machine and has a long resume of impressive accomplishments.

    Her chances look slim, but she can still pull this one out. If any of you have yet to vote I encourage you to do some more research into the issues, I think you’ll find Hillary is the better choice.

    That said, if Hillary can’t pull it out I’ll gladly vote Obama in the general because while he’s no Hillary he’s no McCain either.

  708. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:18

    Some say you’re awfully dense,
    stubborn, bloody minded and arrogant
    hard of thinking, full of pride
    your dog won’t hunt
    your horse won’t ride
    attacks on Hillary cause such pain
    you’d much prefer
    president McCain

  709. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:18

    All right, I’m hopping on the shuttle and going home. Keep the thread warm for me, ok guys? I expect a lot of new thread rules when I get there.

    Also, can someone else explain to liberalrob why his last sports comeback comparison was a bad one? kthxbai.

  710. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:19

    Has someone directed some of our new found friends to this?

  711. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:19

    All she has to do is win about 67.8018576% of the remaining uncommitted delegates. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

    So you’re saying there’s a chance…

  712. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:19

    Unless a Democrat is an asshole of Joe Lieberman proportions – that is, unless they repeatedly throw everyone in the party under the damn bus – then they deserve to be defended from BS right-wing attacks, no exceptions.

    Welllllllll

  713. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:20

    By your reckoning this has to go to a fight on the floor of the convention because the supers can change their minds? Would you say the same thing if Clinton had the lead in pledged delegates but needed the supers?

    I’d be calling her “the presumptive nominee”, and I wouldn’t be lying about “the math.”

    here’s a hypothetical for you. Suppose that the right-wing noise machine goes into full gear in the next three months, and by the time the convention is held, Obama is down by double digits in all but a handful of states.

    Should super-delegates who supported Obama in part because they assumed he was electable be allowed to change their minds without being vilified by Obama supporters? Will you insist that he be the nominee, on the off chance that pictures of John McCain with both a dead girl AND a live boy get published?

  714. Josh E. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:20

    and while I can’t be absolutely 100% certain, I’m 99.9999999% sure that you’ve taken as gospel truth reporting based on “unnamed” sources that confirm your own opinions/beliefs/prejudices

    I probably have. Do you think that’s ok? Is this an admission that you’re taking as gospel truth reporting simply because it confirms your own opinions/beliefes/prejudices? Sure sounds like it.

    And it’s worse than “unnamed sources”, it’s stuff that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, as Wilentz himself admits w/r/t the the Bradley effect stuff, with a conflation of “newspaper columnists” with “the Obama campaign” to give the thin allegations extra weight. Surely a principled and rigorous researcher such as yourself would never base something as important as your vote on such dishonest hackwork. So why do it now?

  715. DocAmazing said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:20

    Iris, you’re calling Wil Wheaton out on misogyny?

    And you don’t see the “hard-working, working white people” quote as containing any racism?

    I want some of whatever it is you took this morning. Seriously.

  716. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:21

    Every time pluk sez “obot” take a drink.

    Even drinking water you’d die.

  717. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:21

    Iris, are you kidding? An argument against Obama that references…Wesley Crusher?

  718. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:21

    D’oh, kenga, I knew there was something I was forgetting!

    But I’m not sure that’s the way to get rid of her…

    Backstory on Wil Wheaton – John Cole just linked to his blog.

    So Iris is feverishly going from blog to blog, certain that she will get someone, anyone to take her seriously.

  719. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:22

    1964 Philadelphia Collapse

    That’s nice and all, but a lost state still nets you delegates, while a lost game nets nothing in baseball.

    Still, the optimism is kind of sweet.

  720. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:23

    here’s a hypothetical for you.

    This is why you fail.
    This is why you fail.
    This is why
    This is why
    This is why you fail.

  721. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:23

    Wil Wheaton is not a misogynist. He can’t be a misogynist. His mom was the medical officer on the Enterprise, for God’s sake.

  722. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:24

    INDISPUTABLE FACT:

    Really long threads increase the possibility of a visit by Bruce. It happened with Dogstar. It can happen again!

  723. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:24

    Suppose that the right-wing noise machine goes into full gear in the next three months,

    They won’t even need to, as Clinton will do it for them. Maybe she’ll write an op-ed for Scaife’s rag about how the hard-working Americans are white.

  724. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:25

    Obama has 1850 pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries. In order to “clinch” the nomination he needs 2025 (without FL/MI) or 2209 (without completely disenfranchising voters in two key states).

    About that “disenfranchisement”….stop using that word.

    The Democratic Party is a private entity. No one is “entitled” to vote in an event sponsored by that private entity except on the say-so of the party and in accordance with the party’s rules. You have no constitutional right to participate in selecting the party’s standard-bearer. Obviously it’s in the party’s best interest to involve as many people as possible, but it’s not a right – it’s a privilege. And you know what happens when you break rules? You lose privileges. There is no such thing as “disenfranchisement” in a party primary for all the reasons given.

    And that’s all that need be said about Michigan and Florida.

  725. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:26

    You know, I sure hate that the primary schedule generally makes the election in Oregon a farce. I wish a more equitable system could be instituted to avoid the ludicrous Iowa/New Hampshire pander dance. If if the Oregon state Democratic Party decided to move our primary up, and the national party informed us that the results of the primary didn’t count, I’d consider the Oregon DP boneheads and the national DP assholes.

    If the Oregon DP, in the face of completely disenfranchising their voters, proceeded to hold the early primary, I’d consider them both boneheads and assholes; if all but one candidate pulled out as a result, I’d be kicking someone in the mouth — and it’d be whatever boneheaded asshole decided to throw their state’s delegates away.

    The Democratic Party’s primary schedule sucks. It would have been far smarter to broker a deal, or let Florida and Michigan get away with it and promise a review and restructuring of the primary system. As a result of this brinksmanship between the national and state parties, two states have been disenfranchised — regardless of whether the delegates are seated. The delegates cannot be said to be representative, despite however inevitable the results were in your head.

  726. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:26

    Should super-delegates who supported Obama in part because they assumed he was electable be allowed to change their minds without being vilified by Obama supporters?

    Obots don’t change their minds. Obots support Obama.

    Fail.

  727. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:27

    723 comments and counting. We can push this past the 1K mark, people!

  728. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:28

    That said, if Hillary can’t pull it out I’ll gladly vote Obama in the general because while he’s no Hillary he’s no McCain either.

    I love you.

  729. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:28

    NEW RULE: When waving your magic wand to make trolls and idiots disappear, refrain mightily from doing it furtively.

    Wave it proudly! Wave it like a tree bough in a Force 4 gale wind! Wave it for America!!

  730. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:29

    Wave it like a GOP senator in an airport bathroom!

  731. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:29

    Should super-delegates who supported Obama in part because they assumed he was electable be allowed to change their minds without being vilified by Obama supporters? Will you insist that he be the nominee, on the off chance that pictures of John McCain with both a dead girl AND a live boy get published?

    Of course not. I’ll even go one more – he could be DEAD by the convention. Then I definately want delegates to switch, unpledged and otherwise. We aren’t asking anyone to pass a law, or really even demanding that Hillary drop out. All I have seen any Obama supporter on this site ask is:
    1) Try not to give McCain too many clips to use in attack ads against Obama
    2) If Obama is the nominee, vote Obama over McCain.

  732. Vast Left said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:29

    DA, I saw the question in your update. I’ve made the case for my Obama skepticism in my (I expect) swan song from posting about Hillary vs. Obama.

    Your claim that we think Hillary is perfect is nothin’ but a straw man. In fact, when I endorsed Hillary, it was with a belief that Obama might be a little better than she is on policy, though recent weeks have convinced me otherwise, but only by a little. They’re both centrists, and their voting records aren’t all that different.

    But their framing and their campaign tactics have been markedly different, and that says a lot to me about character and about how they’ll move hearts and minds to reclaim this country. I like what Hillary’s been putting out there a whole lot better. It’s not perfection by a longshot, but I get from her respect for the reasons I’ve been a lifetime Democrat, and from Obama I get disregard, condescension, and a fundamental denial of today’s political realities. I’m well aware that there are scads of people who are convinced that Hillary is the low-blow artist, yadda yadda yadda, but I’d rather trust my lyin’ eyes, and those eyes are horrified at — among other things — the Obama camp’s masterfully orchestrated racism smear that has, it seems, successfully taken the Clintons down.

    If you genuinely seek to understand what the likes of me think, please read the linked posts and reflect on the fact that a lot of good progressives feel this way, and most of us (as best I can tell) did not start this race as Hillary partisans.

    I have pledged my vote to Barack Obama. I profoundly hope he whips McCain in November and proves me wrong for being a skeptic. I’ve always thought this was a “change year,” and that most any Democrat will win.

    What I’ve heard from Obama about “change” and “hope” and “unity” seems like a bunch of empty feelgood malarkey that’s making a new generation of voters (and some older ones, too) take their eye off the ball — and become pretty hostile to those who aren’t buying this fewfangled faithiness.

    Maybe he’ll be so awesome that all that will be a happily forgotten memory before too long. Let us, y’know, hope….

  733. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:30

    Although the space allotted here can’t possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Obots’s hectoring precepts — including the squalid, the dangerous, the mawkish, and especially the mentally deficient — I’ll use what little space I have to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Obots to you. Obots is gutless, disagreeable, and distasteful. Furthermore, it yearns to adopt approaches that have not been tested to try to solve problems that have not been well-defined. We are at war. Don’t think we’re not just because you’re not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We’re at war with Obots’s indecent slogans. We’re at war with its unimaginative indiscretions. And we’re at war with its anti-democratic, offensive epigrams. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that Obots likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of pessimism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, it invariably instructs its associates to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Obots’s belligerent, collectivism-oriented manifestos.

    Obots’s propaganda machine once said that Obots would never seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging its monographs. So much for credibility! To those readers who believe that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape, you have not been paying attention. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: According to the dictionary, “Obots-ism” is “any of a set of apologues that move sinister boosterism from the disgusting fringe into a realm of respectability”.

  734. kind of an off white said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:30

    Iris actually as a point–that “psycho ex-girlfriend” bit struck me as pretty sexist, and I’m a sammich fan, not given to taking offense at such things.

    Also, my VCR totally nailed Eastern Standard time about 4 and a half hours ago.

  735. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:31

    NEW RULE: When using the complaint generator, limit the resulting screed to one paragraph and make sure the terms you program in are amusing!

    Always.

  736. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:31

    here’s a hypothetical for you. Suppose that the right-wing noise machine goes into full gear in the next three months, and by the time the convention is held, Obama is down by double digits in all but a handful of states.

    Well shit, p, why even bother with delegates? Why not just let the polls pick our candidate?

    For that matter, why bother with voting at all? Opinion polls can decide who the president should be. Never mind that the decision will be made by a lot of people who can’t be bothered to learn anything about who’s running or actually get off their asses to go vote – I’m sure those 30 second attack ads will provide them with all the information they need to tell a pollster who they think should be president.

  737. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:32

    “Obots would never seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging its monographs”

    Hey, you challenge my monographs, you die. Simple as that.

  738. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:33

    the Obama camp’s masterfully orchestrated racism smear that has, it seems, successfully taken the Clintons down.

    Well, that and, you know, more people voting for him than her.

  739. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:33

    NEW RULE: When discussing politics, NEVER evoke any Star Trek series. Same goes double for Star Wars movies.

    Never. None. Nada.

  740. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:33

    Yumpin fucking yiminy!

    I had a lovely lunch – a Tavern Pup and Terminator Stout Milkshake at my neighborhood McMenamins. Aahhh.

    But there’s now over 700 comments and I’ll be damned if I’m going to wade through this pool of dreck even it means missing some of RB’s (as always) excellent commentary. Hell, I’m probably missing some Smut too which is a damn shame. And there’s not nearly enough profanity in here people!

    Please please please, kill this monster; just shoot it in the head already. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to do actual work, damnit.

  741. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:34

    Obots is gutless, disagreeable, and distasteful.

    Hyuk. Obots is just no damned good! Sheeyit!

  742. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:34

    Yeah, I’m calling him out.

    she refuses to put party and country over personal ambition and drop out of the race, forcing Barack Obama to not only run against McCain and the Media, but also against her.

    Poor Barack, that he was forced against his will to hurl charges of racism against 2 Democratic party icons completely without foundation….all because Hillary wouldn’t quit the race! She made him do it! Any woman will recognize that rationalization, and I’m sorry if that’s ‘playing gender politics’ but that’s one of the double standards to which Clinton has been held. The fact that it’s so hard for some to recognize is evidence to me of its insidiousness.

  743. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:34

    Who would Yoda vote for? I mean, I’m pretty sure I know who Jar Jar Binks is going to pull the lever for, but Yoda is the opinion leader to watch in this race.

  744. Jon H said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:34

    Iris wrote: “She’s not quitting and she’s nowhere near giving up. ”

    Great. But at this point, she’s like a person in the Boston Marathon running in a bear costume.

    She can’t win, so the only question is whether she’ll lose at the finish line, or sooner.

  745. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:35

    Peej,

    It’s hilarious! Marita sez we can make up rules ‘n’ everything! Go crazy, man!

  746. FYAD said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:35

    POSTING IN A LEGENDARY THREAD

  747. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:35

    p_lukasiak said Obama has 1850 pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries. In order to “clinch” the nomination he needs 2025 (without FL/MI) or 2209 (without completely disenfranchising voters in two key states).

    NEW RULE:
    Any time someone says or implies that its possible to “clinch” the nomination based on what super-delegates (i.e. people who can, and have, changed their minds) have said to date shall henceforth be referred to as an “Obot”

    …even Ms. Clinton’s top aides acknowledged the daunting task the former first lady now faces to capture the Democratic nomination.

    Mr. Obama has now accumulated an estimated 1,845 of the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination under current party rules. Ms. Clinton has won 1,693.

    Even if contested Michigan and Florida delegations are seated, Ms. Clinton’s campaign said the New York senator would likely still trail Obama by about 100 delegates after the final primaries.
    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=499115

  748. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:36

    Johnny,

    I’m giving you a stern look right now!!

    Violating a new rule mere seconds after it is implemented?

    For shame! For shame!

  749. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:36

    Sorry, Doodle, no choice on the terms. It is Automatic.

  750. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:37

    PeeJ: Which McMenamin’s? I’m trying to make an accounting of which ones pour decent beer and which ones apparently use it as drain cleaner first.

  751. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:37

    this may be the longest thread in SN history
    744 comments

  752. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:37

    Poor Barack, that he was forced against his will to hurl charges of racism against 2 Democratic party icons completely without foundation

    Specific example please, or STFU.

  753. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:37

    And you don’t see the “hard-working, working white people” quote as containing any racism?

    Not inherently, no. Is that so hard to believe? If Obama has the African American vote locked up, as he supposedly does, is it so awful that Clinton would appeal to another of the Democrats’ natural constituencies? You have really gone off the deep end with this racism garbage. You will never find a more anti-racist person than myself, and you’re committing a big mistake. You want to split the party, fine, but I remind you that Obama was supposed to be the ‘unity’ candidate? Get back with me when you figure out what went wrong…

  754. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:39

    The main problem with the Complaint Gnerator is that it doesn’t have much Muscle.

  755. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:39

    Sorry, Doodle. I meant to say, who would the Cylons vote for?

    Roslin ’08. So Say We All.

  756. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:39

    oh man how did I miss “icons”

    this shit is genius

  757. Yoda said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:40

    Who would Yoda vote for? I mean, I’m pretty sure I know who Jar Jar Binks is going to pull the lever for, but Yoda is the opinion leader to watch in this race.

    Samuel L. Jackson will I vote for. Call yourself a fan, do you? Much to learn, have you, young grasshopper. Oh sorry. Karate Kid that is.

  758. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:41

    Iris: If you can’t see how grouping together “hard-working people” and “white people” as opposed to Obama’s base is racist, I think that says all that needs to be said. It also has nothing to do with you being racist, but you being blind to overtly racist statements as long as they support your football team.

  759. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:41

    T4toby, At least you aren’t rickrolling us. I guess that counts for something, right?

    (and I’m just snarking. The Pointer Sisters and Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy kept me sane on a wild, 3.5 day, solo cross-country drive I did way back in Ought-91…)

  760. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    NUEVA REGLA:

    Senator Clinton is required to stay in the race through the Puerto Rico primary. It is imperative that J— be entertained by both Democratic candidates’ attempts to speak Spanish and sport guayaberas in their efforts to woo voters on the island.

  761. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    Specific example please, or STFU.

    How about “Bill Clinton used the race card in SC” If Obama didn’t support his campaign making this claim, why did he stand by? And can we say ‘kitchen sink politics’?

  762. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    Bill and Hillary Clintons sure are icons of the Democratic party, yep. Seems to me the Dems could use some iconoclasts.

  763. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    My Clinton just died tensely after nearly 134 minutes – she was the love of my sloppy idiotic life. What she had was an irritated carapace and if I had the money she would have lived many more years. She used to cross those legs with that sense of concentration each time she used the litter-box.

  764. Clutch414 said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    Using the “Obot” moniker for Obama supporters is lame. It’s like Playstation 3 fans calling people who prefer the Xbox 360 Xbots.

    Protip: If it’s lame in videogame fanboy bickering then it is REALLY lame in Democratic primary bickering.

    Plus…as others have said before…it makes absolutely no sense to me the Clinton supporters who trumpet her “progressive” policies and positions say that they will vote for conservative McCain in November. Really?!?

    I am an Obama supporter, but if Clinton somehow wins the nomination I would happily vote for her in November.

  765. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    And it’s worse than “unnamed sources”, it’s stuff that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, as Wilentz himself admits w/r/t the the Bradley effect stuff, with a conflation of “newspaper columnists” with “the Obama campaign” to give the thin allegations extra weight. Surely a principled and rigorous researcher such as yourself would never base something as important as your vote on such dishonest hackwork. So why do it now?

    because in addition to the facts about which you are skeptical (and which the Obama campaign has not disputed), there are facts that are indisputable.

    do you dispute what Jesse Jackson Jr. said?

    do you dispute that when the campaign was asked to comment on Bill Gray’s statement that it was “outrageous” that some Obama supporters were taking Clinton’s statement about MLK and LBJ as racist that Obama spokesman said “no comment” but ““Voters have to decide for themselves what they think about those comments.”

    Do you dispute that the Obama campaign put out the “how to play the race card” memo — and that no one was fired for doing so?

    That’s just a few facts that I believe are beyond dispute — also beyond dispute is that when a Clinton supporter did say something that could be construed as “racially insensitive” they were off the campaign — and that no one in the Obama campaign has ever been fired for race-baiting.

  766. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    NUEVA REGLA:

    Those aren’t even words!

  767. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    Rickrolling. I learned something new.

  768. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    RULE WRITTEN IN STONE:

    Regardless of the number of comments attached to a particular Sadly, No! post, there is only one Long Thread.

  769. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    Oh and how about Mickey Kantor? “White n****rs,” anyone? And it was a complete fabrication. Whether it was a ratfucking or not, the Obama campaign welcomed and fostered these things as an escape from their own problems.

  770. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    NEW RULE: O.K. you clowns, when discussing politics nobody can evoke any science fiction writing, movie or tv series. My mentioning HGTTG in passing just up there doesn’t count!

    I was discussing insane cross-country drives, not politics.

  771. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:44

    How about “Bill Clinton used the race card in SC” If Obama didn’t support his campaign making this claim, why did he stand by? And can we say ‘kitchen sink politics’?

    I said specific example. Who said “Bill Clinton used the race card in SC”?

  772. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:45

    If Obama has the African American vote locked up, as he supposedly does, is it so awful that Clinton would appeal to another of the Democrats’ natural constituencies?

    Alright, fine, it’s too subtle for you. Because she is losing that way. There just aren’t enough poor ignorant white people. She chose one demographic over all others, betting that it would get her a majority of Democrats, and it didn’t. Obama’s slice of the electorate is bigger. Sucks, I know, but that’s democracy, kids.

  773. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:45

    Djur: Pool and Tavern (I think that’s the name of it) on NW trendy-third near Thurman. (in PDX, of course)

    The Terminator Stout milkshake was excellent although I don’t know if varying quality of the brew would make a big dent in the overall concoction.

    We get to make rules?

    NEW RULE: Commenters must include one or more profane words per submitted comment. ‘Hillary’ counts as a profanity. ‘Obama’ does not.

  774. AG said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:46

    faux bipartisan malarkey
    Please see Coburn-Obama, Lugar-Obama. If you or Tom or whoever really really does care about progressive (or at least “good and sober”) legislation, such as the above bills against nuclear proliferation and government financial transparency, his record of authored bills is better than hers. (Their voting records are similar).

    To those still charging him with being an “empty suit,” this post is filled with linky-goodness to the many, many substantive policies that he works for and continues to work for. Comparison of both Clinton’s and Obama’s sponsored legislation here and here. Yes, I lean heavily on that site for posts, but she did a lot of legwork to compile the data (and all bills are listed by number, if you want to verify).

  775. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:46

    Did you see that Gav and Marita may show up in your fair city, PeeJ?

    And that it may also include your favorite Naderoid, t4toby?

  776. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:47

    Iris: If you can’t see how grouping together “hard-working people” and “white people” as opposed to Obama’s base is racist, I think that says all that needs to be said. It also has nothing to do with you being racist, but you being blind to overtly racist statements as long as they support your football team.

    Wrong! “Hard-working people” as opposed to relatively comfortable people who can afford self-actualizing but empty slogans of change.

  777. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:47

    California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of Clinton’s earliest and most staunch supporters, said she now wants a clear explanation on how [Clinton] plans to win the nomination.

    “I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party,” said Feinstein. “I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

    Ms. Clinton also endured a symbolic setback when former senator George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, switched his support to Mr. Obama.

    Mr. Obama has won the nomination “by any practical test,” said Mr. McGovern, who is not a superdelegate but has been a longtime Clinton friend.

    The big question many Democrats are now asking is how vigorously Ms. Clinton will contest upcoming primaries. After West Virginia, votes are still to be held in Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.

    If she decides to “end with a scorched-earth” campaign against Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton could do irreversible damage to his general election campaign hopes, said [Michael] Munger[, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, N.C.]

    “At some point you’ve got to say, let’s stop sniping at each other,” he said. “It doesn’t matter now who wins, it matters how the loser loses.”

  778. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:47

    My Clinton just died tensely after nearly 134 minutes – she was the love of my sloppy idiotic life. What she had was an irritated carapace and if I had the money she would have lived many more years. She used to cross those legs with that sense of concentration each time she used the litter-box.

    And after a long day wrestling with the noobs, an inside joke for the win.

  779. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:47

    Oh and how about Mickey Kantor? “White n****rs,” anyone? And it was a complete fabrication. Whether it was a ratfucking or not, the Obama campaign welcomed and fostered these things as an escape from their own problems.

    Some shit somebody put on youtube? How is Obama responsible for that? How, exactly, did they welcome it?

    You can’t provide specifics, because they don’t exist.

  780. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:47

    Obots are the Nazis of liberal fascism.

    Just wanted to make that clear.

  781. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:48

    You want to split the party, fine, but I remind you that Obama was supposed to be the ‘unity’ candidate?

    Obama has captured some of the working-class-white-low-income vote. Not a majority. But not zero.

    Hillary, meanwhile, has been offering goose eggs in the African-American department.

    Additionally, Obama has more delegates/votes than does Hillary.

    NEW RULE: Give it up, man.

  782. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:48

    Wrong! “Hard-working people” as opposed to relatively comfortable people who can afford self-actualizing but empty slogans of change.

    Ok, but everyone still gets one vote and Clinton didn’t get enough of them. Maybe you think her voters are better people, but we all have a voice here.

  783. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:49

    relatively comfortable people who can afford self-actualizing but empty slogans of change.

    Yeah, inner-city blacks sure do have it easy.

  784. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:49

    NEW RULE:

    NO MORE FUCKING NEW RULEZ!!!1!SQUAREROOT OF 12321!!!!11!

  785. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:50

    Pure psycobabble.

    Says you, D.N. And with no spell-check, to boot.

  786. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:50

    T4toby,

    You are just no fun.

  787. John Cole said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:51

    “Hard-working people” as opposed to relatively comfortable people who can afford self-actualizing but empty slogans of change.

    Anyone who uses the phrase “self-actualizing” is not, themselves, a working class blue collar worker and can please quit pretending to be at one with the dock workers and coal miners and truck drivers.

  788. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:51

    Guys, remember when we were talking about 420 comment? Those were the days, right?

    Memories….

  789. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:52

    Say, how well is that Massachusetts insurance plan that Hillary is emulating working out for working class people. I won’t specify race, but if anyone has that stat I can’t stop them from breaking it down along those lines.

  790. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:52

    Well shit, p, why even bother with delegates? Why not just let the polls pick our candidate?

    so, you’d rather saddle the democrats with a nominee that would almost certainly lose who can only get the nomination with the support who people who would never have supported him had they known he was going to turn out to be unelectable?

    Is that really what you are saying?

    Seriously? Do you really care that little about the fate of this country?

    I mean, you can still oppose Clinton, and insist that someone besides her be the nominee — but you’d rather see a Republican president?

    change you’re nick to Veruca Salt so I know not to pay any attention to you in the future.

  791. Douche Baggins said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:52

    I miss Bruce…

  792. R. Porrofatto said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:53

    [In which I think so little of myself I am going to be comment #783*]

    While lots of folks seem to think that the Democratic candidate is a cinch to defeat McCain, I certainly don’t. I am no big fan of Clinton or Obama, and there hasn’t been a presidential candidate yet in 40 years who I was a big fan of. But I’ll vote for which ever one wins the nomination. Hell I’d vote for a dead armadillo with halitosis if it had a (D) after its name. But I do wish that people would just grow the fuck up. It’s hard to believe that people can be this naive about politics and still know how to type.

    We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.
    [...]
    If things have to get worse for the Democratic party to learn a lesson, so be it.

    Iris, I don’t know if you’re a arch-Republican plant or just so gushingly in love with Hillary Clinton and in loathe with Barack Obama that you have lost all common sense, but juvenile sentiments like these make you not only stupid, but dangerous, politically speaking. (And I feel the same way about Obama supporters who say similar things, or anyone so unconscionably selfish as to “sit it out this November”.) Please stop.

    *Pretentious Goldstein-like title

  793. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:53

    Do you dispute that the Obama campaign put out the “how to play the race card” memo — and that no one was fired for doing so?

    Yes, I dispute it, because it’s a fucking lie. Liar.

  794. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:53

    Ok, but everyone still gets one vote and Clinton didn’t get enough of them. Maybe you think her voters are better people, but we all have a voice here.

    What pedestrian said. For the past month, the gist of the Clinton campaign’s argument was that the preference of older white women should count more than the preference of African American voters.

    I’ve already explained why that’s a crock, but just to elaborate: no Democrat will get to the White House without the energized support of black voters. They’re a third of the base, or roughly 3 – 4 times as many as older white women.

  795. Nim, ham hock of liberty said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:53

    Jesus Christ. Almost 800 posts, and like….zero jokes about K-Lo or Jonah.

    Where the fuck did my S, N go?

  796. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:53

    I also want to thank Leah and Shystee for sticking up for S,N! over at Corrente. I tried to register to comment over there, but it didn’t take.

    Ironically, I believe Lambert does the registration confirmation, D. — or at least he confirmed mine in April…

  797. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:54

    Nearly every Obama supporter in this thread is saying they’ll support Hillary if she is the nom. And nearly every Hillary supporter says they will support McCain.

    The trolls aren’t Hillary supporters, they’re Limbaugh operatives.

  798. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:55

    Re:

    NEW RULE:

    NO MORE FUCKING NEW RULEZ!!!1!SQUAREROOT OF 12321!!!!11!

    NEW DECREE:

    t4toby is off the blog roll!

  799. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:56

    Says you, D.N.

    Says you that says me.

    Look, you can think that right-wing smears on Obama now will help him later on. I wouldn’t go around using that as a good excuse, though.

    And with no spell-check, to boot.

    Oh wow, you got me good on that one. Double points to you.

    Thanks for addressing the rest of my post.

  800. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:56

    You missed it, Ham-hock. I made three jokes about Jonah around the 500 comment mark.

  801. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:57

    awww, j–, I’m sorry!

  802. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:57

    Did you see that Gav and Marita may show up in your fair city, PeeJ?
    No! When? Why? Do I have to pick them up at the airport or something?

    And that it may also include your favorite Naderoid, t4toby?

    Er, ummm, okay. Do I have to shake your hand? Cuz you know I can NEVER EVER forgive you for your betrayal of all that is right and decent in the world? Cuz I will never ever gorgive you for causing um….Hillary to unleash her mighty nipple of acid unto the sainted Democrat Party. And by the way, you like Scotch? There’s a nice place in the Pearl that does Scotch flights; they have a fabulous selection.

  803. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:57

    The fact is, this p.lumaniac is trolling up the threads, and generally taking attention away from me. Here in the Heartland, we don’t appreciate that at all.

  804. Jonah Goldberg said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:58

    I’m a big fat dummy with a stupid book and a Cheeto addiction.

    Happy, Nim?

  805. J— said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:58

    ONE RULE TO RULE ALL RULES:

    Strike first, strike hard, no mercy, sir!

  806. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:58

    change you’re nick to Veruca Salt so I know not to pay any attention to you in the future.

    Who the fuck do you think you are? I’ve got an idea…Go away and never come back. Then you’ll never have to worry about who uses whose name.

  807. Candy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:58

    I think you’re missing the distinction between “opinions” and “feelings.” Jay-Z isn’t Gil Scott Heron, and there are precious few rappers whose lyrics are as politically sophisticated as those of The Last Poets.

    JFC – and we Obama supporters are supposed to be Teh Elitists?

    Also, I’ll agree that Hillary’s health care plan sounds better on first hearing, but if anyone really thinks that Ms. Big Health Care Industry Contributions Queen is ever gonna do anything that makes the insurance companies even a dime less money is, well, gullible seems like a real good word.

    I was an Edwards supporter. I’m now an Obama supporter, although I’ll agree he ain’t all that. What kills me is the way all these Hillary supporters are wanking about Obama needing to do something to win the support of progressives. These are probably the same people who thought John Edwards was talking about fucking class warfare when he proposed his health care plan and making it possible for more students to actually go to college. This really fucking pisses me off. I don’t think, Iris, that “progressive” means what you think it means. If you think Hillary is progressive, or ever was, that is.

    And choice? Hillary was running around not all that long ago calling abortion a “tragedy.” Fuck me but some people are dense.

    Still! All that being said, I’d vote for her if she stole the nod. But I won’t do it happily. I’ll drink a couple shots and hold my nose real tight and afterwards I’ll go home and vomit, but it isn’t about me and my hard-core libertarian socialist/anarcho-syndicalist political principles. It’s about beating that fucker McCain. And MOST IMPORTANTLY IT’S ABOUT GETTING SOMEONE TO NOT VETO PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION SENT TO THEM BY CONGRESS AND NOT APPOINT INSANE CHRISTIAN LOONIES TO THE SUPREME COURT.

    Ahem . . .

    Oh, a little demographic information about me, for the grist mill. I’m a 46 year old white single mother who has never made more than $34,000 in her life and who is currently living on student loans and Pell money and food stamps and who listens to baroque and alternative rock and reads prolifically. I am going to be the first person in my immediate family to graduate from college. I’ve lived in Des Moines, Iowa most of my life. I guess I don’t fit into the nice little Obama niche nor do I fit into the Hillary niche. Go figure.

    Oh, and fuck people who want to make assumptions based on the pure dumbassery of identity politics. A pox on all your houses.

    One thing more, although this comment is already ridiculously long. The only thing about this Wright business that bothers me is that smart people like Obama and Clinton have to go to church and profess idiotic religious beliefs in the first place. If a candidate came out and said, “You know, it’s none of your business what I believe or even if I believe. We have separation of church and state in this country. If you don’t like it, bend over and insert your opinion B in slot A.”, I’d vote for him/her, maybe even if he/she was a Republican. (Barring Hitchens.)

  808. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:59

    Ok, but everyone still gets one vote and Clinton didn’t get enough of them. Maybe you think her voters are better people, but we all have a voice here.

    I think that everyone should be equal under the law, but that common sense should dictate whether the votes of 18,000 people in Idaho should be considered more important in determining the nomination that the votes of 110,000 people in New Jersey.

    In fact, common sense should dictate that if the will of some voters has to be ignored, the ones that should be ignored are those from states that Democrats haven’t won since at least the time that Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan — that if we’re gonna piss one candidates supporters off, it should not be the candidates who has the most support in the crucial swing states.

  809. A dock worker said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:59

    I’m not a lazy rapper or a thug or a crack dealer or a welfare queen. I make an honest living working the docks, doing whatever it is that dock workers do exactly.

    However I voted for Obama, because I was afraid that if I didn’t someone would check out my voting record at the public library and call me a racist. That’s probably the only reason he’s winning.

  810. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:01

    p – well, thanks for clarifying that you’re not a fan of the democratic process.

  811. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:01

    In fact, common sense should dictate that if the will of some voters has to be ignored

    Are you asserting that the will of some voters has to be ignored?

  812. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:01

    You, sir, have a confusing straw-man style.

  813. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:01

    I think that everyone should be equal under the law, but that common sense should dictate whether the votes of 18,000 people in Idaho should be considered more important in determining the nomination that the votes of 110,000 people in New Jersey.

    You have no idea how an election works, do you?

  814. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:01

    In fact, common sense should dictate that if the will of some voters has to be ignored, the ones that should be ignored are those from states that Democrats haven’t won since at least the time that Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan — that if we’re gonna piss one candidates supporters off, it should not be the candidates who has the most support in the crucial swing states.

    OLD AND WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE:

    First you make up the rules, then you vote.

  815. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:02

    We’ve been dealing with that all morning and into the afternoon, Peddy.

  816. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:02

    Common sense should dictate that Hillary wins and I get a pony.

  817. Iris said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:02

    Let’s backtrack. Hillary was tarred as having suggested Obama was a Muslim because after repeating EIGHT times that no, there is no basis for that, it is a ridiculous lie, expressing sympathy as she had herself been the victim of unfair and baseless lies, they finally got her to say “as far as I know.”

    Obama stood back and enjoyed the electoral benefits of some anonymous youtuber (admittedly, it could be ratfucking) saving him from the Jeremiah Wright story. You’d think after what he’d been through, he would have issued a correction to the smear or expressed solidarity with Senator Clinton, having been unfairly smeared himself. Something…maybe told his supporters to cool it? But remember, this man kicked his pastor ‘in the junk’ as John Cole puts it, and it took a surprisingly small amount of elite media pressure to make him do so. Hillary has faced tremendous pressure to bow out for the past 4 months….personally I like having a candidate with some spine, not one who’ll shift with the prevailing winds.

    If these criticisms hit a little too close to home, then I sincerely apologize. I wish Obama was the candidate we were all hoping he would be. But I just don’t think there’s any substance to it. Have him prove me wrong.

  818. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:03

    There’s no way in hell anyone in McCain’s camp is a supporter of Hillary or the Democratic Party. These trolling knobs are Bush-loving Republicans stirring up divisive shit for fun and pleasure.

  819. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:03

    Thanks for addressing the rest of my post.

    The rest of your post did not seem to require comment.

    My co-workers decided to ruin my roll by coming in to discuss some new piece of mortgage legislation. Now I have to start over.

    What were we talking about, again?

    Will we get to the magic comment #1000?

  820. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:03

    Uh, T4toby? Brad has just followed your ’700 comments’ rule.

  821. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:04

    hey look guys liberalrob has some kind of important job let’s all vote Hillary

  822. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:05

    Will we get to the magic comment #1000?

    It is inevitable.

  823. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:05

    change you’re nick to Veruca Salt so I know not to pay any attention to you in the future.

    OH SNIZZAP!

    Obot got fucking dissssssssssed!

    Seriously, is lukasiak 12?

  824. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:05

    I saw, Doodle. I got the Zed!

  825. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:06

    I wonder how the circumcision thread is going…

  826. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:06

    Yes, I know how the election process works. But the fact is, Hillary should be the nominee because she can beat McCain, while Obama and his fragile coalition can’t. End of story. Whatever means gets us there must be used. Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

  827. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:07

    Must. Keep. Commenting…

  828. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:07

    Creating new election rules based on Jimmy Carter v. Ronald Reagan? In 1980?

    LOLZ!!

    Thanks for that! Although I laughed so loud one of my co-workers looked over the partition to see what about charge corrections was so freakin’ funny.

    Still, HEEEEEEEEE!!!!

  829. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:07

    Dude, you sound like Gary Ruppert.

  830. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:07

    T4toby,

    Congrats on the Zed. I’m just a little amazed that Brad followed anyone’s rules but his own!

  831. D.N. Nation said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:08

    My co-workers decided to ruin my roll by coming in to discuss some new piece of mortgage legislation. Now I have to start over.

    See, I don’t think you’re a parody troll, but damn do you ever get close.

  832. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:08

    Hillary isn’t a what now

  833. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:09

    Let’s backtrack.

    Why, because you can’t provide the specifics? Because you’re clearly full of shit? Backtrack and answer my damn questions, or STFU.

    Obama stood back and enjoyed the electoral benefits of some anonymous youtuber (admittedly, it could be ratfucking) saving him from the Jeremiah Wright story.

    He was saved from a story that dominated the news for what, four weeks? By a youtube that was barely a blip in comparison, and that he had nothing to do with? Wow, you are delusional.

    Is your standard is that a candidate should come out publicly repudiating every idiotic thing that pops up on the internet about his/her opponent? When would they have time to fucking campaign?!

  834. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:09

    Pedestrian,

    Is the circumcision thread the one I ducked out of last week to go get tortured operated on?

    Or is it the angry vagina one?

  835. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:09

    NEW RULE: (it’s actually an old rule of thumb but what the fuck, eh?)

    Anyone using “liberal” as part of their moniker shall be ingored for the obvious non-liberal troll fucktard POS they are.

    (typographical error included at no extra cost)

  836. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:09

    pedestrian – it’s still populated by paranoid loons convinced that anonymous women on the intertoobs are out to clip their cocks.

  837. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:09

    Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

    bullhorn GARY! THE GIG IS UP! COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP. WE HAVE YOU SURROUNDED. PUT DOWN THE THREAD AND SURRENDER! /bullhorn

  838. Josh E. said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:10

    do you dispute what Jesse Jackson Jr. said?

    Nope. And we haven’t heard from him in quite a while, have we? Does that tell you something?

    spokesman said “no comment” but ““Voters have to decide for themselves what they think about those comments.”

    I see. Now it’s Obama’s responsibility to clean up after Hillary Clinton shits on herself, or he’s playing the race card. Persuasive.

    Do you dispute that the Obama campaign put out the “how to play the race card” memo — and that no one was fired for doing so?

    Mantis has already dealt with that lie.

    Do you really care that little about the fate of this country?

    You’re already on the record as sitting out November, big guy, so you’re hardly in a position to ask that question. These internets make it pretty hard to play concern troll, don’t they?

  839. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:10

    Whatever means gets us there must be used. Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

    See, if you weren’t talking about overturning election results, I’d assume you were speaking metaphorically…

  840. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:11

    Unless you’re Rugged. he has Pelicans. and Badgers.

  841. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:11

    You’ll never take me alive!

    (morphs into another poster, The Thing style)

  842. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    Some shit somebody put on youtube? How is Obama responsible for that? How, exactly, did they welcome it?

    yeah, I agree that, absent evidence that the Obama campaign was involved in disseminating or promoting the Kantor ratfuck video, you can’t accuse them of it. (you can suspect them, becuase none of the A-list Obama supporters like John Amato will identify the “good friend” who brought the video to their attention, but you can’t accuse them of it.)

    but you sure as hell can point out that all the Obama supporters jumped onto the video as if it were really significant the moment it came out, and Clinton supporters had to first point out that Kantor’s “shit” comment was taken out of context by the video’s captions — a fact that is CLEARLY evident if you actually listen to the video. I mean, this video — in which Kantor says something that NO ONE can actually hear — went viral in record time, thanks to Obama’s lunatic supporters.

    And these were the same people who screamed bloody murder about the shitty job done by George and Charlie at the debate, and how important it was to keep the focus on the issues….

  843. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    All I have seen any Obama supporter on this site ask is:
    1) Try not to give McCain too many clips to use in attack ads against Obama
    2) If Obama is the nominee, vote Obama over McCain.

    What’s so hard about this. All the Obamatons here have stated baldly and repeatedly that they would vote for Clinton if she gets the nom.

    Also, HURRRR I ar teh Clintonista, I iz a stupit raceist!

  844. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    Yes, I know how the election process works. But the fact is, Hillary should be the nominee because she can beat McCain, while Obama and his fragile coalition can’t. End of story. Whatever means gets us there must be used. Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

    Ok, that makes no fucking sense, but also explicity arguing that it’s ok to subvert the Democratic process because the ends justifies the means?

    This is wingnuttia folks. This is *the* wingnut mindset – we’re the good guys so we can literally stomp heads to get what we want.

    Glenn Greenwald wrote a whole book on this flavor of crazyness.

  845. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    Man, if we could just incorporate brussel sprouts, foreskins, and Boston sports teams into this thread, I think we could achieve an internet singularity.

  846. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    Angry Vagina.
    And thanks for checking for me Jennifer, you kept my morbid curiosity from getting the best of me.

  847. Auguste said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    End of story. Whatever means gets us there must be used. Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

    Wow. And to think I used to wonder how situations like Bush v. Gore came about.

  848. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:12

    C’mon, people, only 162 more comments to go.

    We Can Do It!

  849. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:13

    Iris said,
    May 8, 2008 at 23:02 (kill)
    Let’s backtrack.

    My hand has been forced: LOL.

  850. Jon H said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:13

    ” the Obama camp’s masterfully orchestrated racism smear that has, it seems, successfully taken the Clintons down.”

    Mainly what has taken the Clintons down is their ham-handed campaign strategy. Writing off Caucus states, not planning a campaign for a non-winner-take-all system, not planning ahead past Super Tuesday, bad money management, etc.

  851. Rugged in Montana said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:13

    All of you people are communists, what with your repeal of the latte tax (which will, of course, just go straight back to the latte companies anyway) and your arguments against torture, which we need to protect us against the looming threat of the Geneva Convention ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOrG1r3S6ZA ).

    Proto-Islamists, like Hussien Osama X, will never get the votes of the heartland (never, ever, ever) as the Democratic super-delegates have already pledged their troth to American President of the USA of America, President George Willard Bush. Hitlery can never win the popular vote because she had sexual relations with Mitt Romney while he was being serviced by John McCain and that kind of marital infidelity is frowned upon by the religious citizens of the heartland (trust me, I know). Thus, your Democratic infighting is for naught, even Democratic Congessman Wolf Blitzer now admits this.

    While you’re obsessed with trying to win an argument here for a candidate who can’t win anyway, our beloved nation is being threatened by the Iranian Armada (which has blockaded all rice shipments to Costco) and the Syrian Nuclear Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile System. The one man watching over the nation in this crisis is President G. Willard Bush and his beloved Vice, Richard Cheney, the only heros left who can lead us to victory against both the Islamophiles and their slanty-eyed allies, the evolution spouting sexualists (who claim that your grandparents were shellfish). We Americans of the USA of America must take a stand against Democrats everywhere by voting for Christian heros who will protect us from threats on land, sea and air (badgers, the Iranian Armada and pelicans).

    I only hope that the Jesus who died for you will send you all to Hell for voting for America-haters (i.e. Democrats) who would spend all of America’s money on something other than war. And I am NOT a troll, I’m a heartland patriot in the basement of the American Army of the Internet (volunteer, at the moment, but soon to be promoted), dedicated to saving America through typing.

  852. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:13

    Red Sox fans suck
    brussel sprouts suck
    let babies keep their ski hats

    do I get a prize

  853. Auguste said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:13

    Or, for that matter, Uganda.

  854. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:14

    Brussels Sprouts are the Broccoli of Liberal Fascism?

  855. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:16

    do I get a prize?

    You win an Obamatron! It’s like an Orgasmatron, but without the Kleenex.

  856. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:16

    162 bottles of beer on the wall tidbits of snark to go, 162 tidbits of snark.

    Type on up, press submit, 161 tidbits of snark to go.

  857. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:17

    Yes, I dispute it, because it’s a fucking lie. Liar.

    dude, maybe you should read the crap that you link to.

    at no point does even that steaming pile of bullshit that you cited dispute that the memo was sent out by the Obama campagn, nor does it say that anyone was fired for it.

  858. sagra said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:18

    I can tell you right now if the Hope and Change seem as empty in November as they do now, I will stay home. And I’ll encourage other progressives to do so also.

    Iris, if you aren’t voting in November, fuck off.

  859. p_lukasiak said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:19

    Mainly what has taken the Clintons down is their ham-handed campaign strategy.

    yeah. I’m sure that 92% of North Carolina’s and Indiana’s black voters would have supported a white guy with Obama’s record and schtick over Hillary Clinton.

  860. RandomObserver said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:21

    I think it’s pretty clear that p_lukasiak is batshit insane and a pre-teen to boot.

  861. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:21

    If these criticisms hit a little too close to home, then I sincerely apologize.

    Whoa, my Smarmy Mendacious Smugostat just exploded.

  862. Travis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:22

    So…Obama cheated…by being born to a father of African descent?

    Does his villainy know no bounds?

  863. Senator Hussein X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:22

    If this jive ass honky shit doesn’t stop, and I mean right now, I will cancel dollar store spaghetti sauce night and Hillary Clinton won’t even get ramen at Reparations Camp. Barry don’t play, chumps!

  864. Smedley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    yeah. I’m sure that 92% of North Carolina’s and Indiana’s black voters would have supported a white guy with Obama’s record and schtick over Hillary Clinton.

    Good lord. People vote for candidates who look like them! It must be race baiting!! Please pay no attention to my candidate’s “This one’s for the girls” video.

  865. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    But the fact is, Hillary should be the nominee because she can beat McCain, while Obama and his fragile coalition can’t. End of story. Whatever means gets us there must be used. Even big guns, which Hillary likes because she’s not an elitist like Obama.

    I smell a Ruppert.

  866. Nim, ham hock of liberty said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    #

    Jonah Goldberg said,

    May 8, 2008 at 22:58

    I’m a big fat dummy with a stupid book and a Cheeto addiction.

    Happy, Nim?

    It’s a start ^_^

    Better than a one-paragraph, 400-sentence screed about why your candidate of choice sucks.

  867. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    But the fact is, Hillary should be the nominee

    The fact is, you’re stealing my hard work. The fact is, I’m a working, hard-working person.

  868. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    Foreskin? You can’t have mine. I’m keeping it!

  869. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:23

    I think it’s pretty clear that p_lukasiak is batshit insane and a pre-teen to boot.

    Yeah, but he/she/it wrote a diary on DailyKos that he/she/it wants us to search for! Surely that counts for something? Right?

    Guys?

  870. mantis said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:24

    at no point does even that steaming pile of bullshit that you cited dispute that the memo was sent out by the Obama campagn, nor does it say that anyone was fired for it.

    No, dumbass, what it points out, with links to the memo, is that it was not a “How to play the race card” memo, it was a memo containing a list of articles of the issue, that was not even sent out!

    You misrepresent the memo, and falsely claim it was sent out to the press. You are a liar.

    I would ask what makes that MyDD post a “steaming pile of bullshit,” but I would expect just more of the same from a McCain supporter like yourself.

  871. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:24

    That’s what I’m saying, Lesley.

  872. Your candidate said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:24

    I suck.

    McCain sucks orders of magnitude more.

    Any questions?

  873. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:25

    The fucking Saux fucking Sux!

  874. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:25

    t4toby, I thought we agreed never to use that word again! It summons… bad people. My idea for a euphemism was kosher calamari, but so far nobody is biting.

  875. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:26

    Rugged,

    You forgot to capitalize ‘Heartland’,. I thought you were a troll, man! I’ll never forgive you!

    NEVER!

  876. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:28

    p_lusiak aka Gary Ruppert/ShalomgentlemanSaul/monkeytroll/Montanaredneck thinks Obama has a fragile coalition and can’t defeat McCain. Read a poll lately? The entire country is fed up with Bush and McCain is promoting Bush policies. The sooner the successful Democratic candidate can focus on the issues the better.

  877. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:28

    …but so far nobody is biting.

    Isn’t that a good thing?

  878. A convincing Hillary supporter said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:28

    Obama is only winning because black people are black. Also lazy. Or is that redundant?

    And Hillary has never appealed to women by saying something like “vote for me, like you I have a vagina.” Simply hasn’t happened.

  879. Jennifer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:28

    pedestrian – I liked your euphemism; I just haven’t had a chance to use it yet. However, I do have to point out that “kosher calamari fundamentalist” doesn’t have quite the ring of “foreskin fundamentalist”.

  880. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:28

    “Do you really care that little about the fate of this country?”

    Asks the guy who will sit out the election if Hillary isn’t the nominee. Lick my syphilitic piles.

  881. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:30

    Right on, pedestrian. Kosher Calamari it is.

    I was trying to bring ‘em in. we must reach 1000!

  882. Allienne Goddard said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:30

    D. Aristophanes, thank you for this post. Blog reading has become a real bummer for me these last few months, thanks to the bitter supporters on both sides. Both candidates are playing hard-ball to get the nomination, and I’m glad they have. Their supporters, however, have lost all sense of proportion and become raving lunatics. I like to think the loser’s supporters will get over it, and support the non-completely insane candidate, but I am startingto worry. Anyway, it is very nice to still have Sadly, No! as a refuge of hilarious semi-sanity in these trying times.

  883. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:32

    NEW RULE: No one may bring up vagina-dentata or anal-dentata even if someone runs the subject of foreskins up the flagpole.

    Oops.

  884. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:33

    However, I do have to point out that “kosher calamari fundamentalist” doesn’t have quite the ring of “foreskin fundamentalist”.

    Truuue… Damn, and the acronym is so close to KFC.

    As for biting it… they can do whatever they want with it. Where is it, anyway? It was around here somewhere…

  885. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:33

    Iris, if you aren’t voting in November, fuck off.

    That’s the ol’ Obama spirit! Yes we can! And if you won’t, go fuck yourself!

  886. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:34

    Pedestrian-

    This palce in Seattle, Mashiko Sushi (SushiWhore.com, I kid you not) has a Trojan Roll, which is a sushi roll made with a squid body. Very…interesting looking.

  887. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:34

    I am not a Hillary supporter. Neither am I an Obama supporter. I just want the candidate with the “D” after their name to win. I was, originally, a John Edwards fan but now I understand I liked him only because he was not black nor female.

  888. Jacob Singer said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:35

    Obama picks up another Superdelegate:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

  889. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:36

    That’s the ol’ Obama spirit! Yes we can! And if you won’t, go fuck yourself!

    Lose. Please pick up your marbles and go home now. NOW!

  890. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:37

    The entire country is fed up with Bush and McCain is promoting Bush policies. The sooner the successful Democratic candidate can focus on the issues the better.

    Why? Will the entire country be any less fed up with Bush in August? Will McCain no longer be promoting Bush policies then?

  891. Hillary Clinton said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:37

    p_lusiak is an embarrassment to the party and particularly to my campaign. p_lusiak does not reflect my views or the interests of the Democratic Party. I may be invested in winning and I may be delusional about my chances. One thing is certain, people like p-lusiak aren’t helpful.

    Some fans you don’t need, if you dig what I’m saying.

  892. pedestrian said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:38

    This palce in Seattle, Mashiko Sushi (SushiWhore.com, I kid you not) has a Trojan Roll, which is a sushi roll made with a squid body. Very…interesting looking.

    NICE. There just isn’t enough erotic food. Alright y’all, hate to duck out early, but my shift is done and the sun is out. Don’t stop till you hit 1K!!

  893. billy pilgrim said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:38

    Gary Ruppert is no longer necessary.

    Sadly, No has become self-trolling.

    Seriously, 750 comments? WTF?

    Might as well hang out at Firedoglake.

  894. A convincing Hillary supporter said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:38

    I just want the candidate with the “D” after their name to win.

    Look, another fucking Obot!

  895. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:38

    So PeeJ, it looks like it is possible that we will have a Sadly event in Portland in early June with Marite and Gav. Are we together on that?

  896. Ted said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:39

    That’s the ol’ Obama spirit! Yes we can! And if you won’t, go fuck yourself!

    Well, what the hell else are we supposed to do? Beg and plead for you to vote for Obama if he’s the nominee? If you’re a whining cry-baby about the primary result, and say you won’t vote for Obama, I don’t see anything else that we can do other than to tell you to gfys.

  897. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:39

    Aww, billy, don’t you see the fun in it?

  898. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:39

    Billy, this thread rules. I’m a fan of Iris.

  899. Hillary Clinton said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:39

    liberalrob is an embarrassment to the party and particularly to my campaign.liberalrob does not reflect my views or the interests of the Democratic Party. I may be invested in winning and I may be delusional about my chances. One thing is certain, people like liberalrob are divisive, destructive, and essentially are poseur tools of the Republican party.

    Some fans you don’t need, if you dig what I’m saying.

  900. handy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:40

    Why? Will the entire country be any less fed up with Bush in August? Will McCain no longer be promoting Bush policies then?

    Will the spate of Hillary trolls infecting this thread continue to do the Yoeman’s work for Saint John BBQ McSame when Obama takes the convention?

    Stay tuned…

  901. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:40

    C’mon Peej,

    If you can make new rules, thus violating your rule of no more new rules formation, than I can!

    NEW RULE: If you refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hillary’ then you must refer to Barack Obama as ‘Barack’. Similarly, if you refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Clinton’, then you must refer to Barack Obama as ‘Obama’.

    There. It is done. Don’t make me make you refer to both of them with the honorific, ‘Senator’!

  902. Dick Hertz said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:40

    “So PeeJ, it looks like it is possible that we will have a Sadly event in Portland in early June with Marite and Gav. Are we together on that?”

    Can I come too?

  903. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:40

    Please pick up your marbles and go home now. NOW!

    No.

    Why should I? I want to get to 1000 comments, I hear there’s a prize.

  904. handy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:41

    And I call fake Hillary Clinton.

  905. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:41

    “That’s the ol’ Obama spirit! Yes we can! And if you won’t, go fuck yourself!”

    If Iris, or P-Luk or any “progressive” is going to sit out the election if Hillary isn’t the nominee, then Fuck Off seems appropriate. All the reasons to vote for the Dem candidate have been expressed (supreme court, competent cabinet members, et al). If that isn’t reason enough, then please. FOAD.

  906. GoatBoy said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:41

    The prize is McCain gets to pick up to four supreme court justices.

  907. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:41

    Geez. First Toby accuses me of being Libertarian, now he spells my name wrong.

    [sigh]

  908. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:42

    I’m partial to Hills and Barry.

  909. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:42

    Typical libertarian.

  910. Senator Hussein X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:43

    Say my name right, cracker bitches!

  911. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:43

    Oh sure, Mr. Hertz. Anyone else in Portland in early June?

  912. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:43

    Buck up, Marita! He wants to get together with you and Gav in Portland!

    And it looks like you will be able to meet the infamous and reclusive Dick Hertz!

    I’m jealous.

  913. protected static said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:44

    Mashiko rules. I don’t get over to West Seattle that often, but when I do, they’re usually on the itinerary…

  914. Lesley said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:44

    the prize is a bill kristol pie in the face in a cast iron pie pan without any pie

  915. Stemler said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:45

    man so close to 1k

  916. Unconfirmed Supporter said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:45

    I believe that the Senator is the best candidate, and the other Senator is a hopeless lost cause that will only drag the country in the wrong direction. Why, if my Senator does not win, I don’t think any Senator will get my vote.

  917. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:45

    NEW RULE: If you refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hills’, you must refer to Barack Obama as ‘Barry’.

    Sheesh!

  918. Dick Hertz said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:45

    I was only wishing. See, after the holocaust that was done to me I’m afraid that, much as I’d love to, I simply can’t come.

  919. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:46

    How was drinking commie-ly last night, Doodle Bean? I was working late, so couldn’t be there.

    [boosting the comment count up, one aside at a time.]

  920. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:46

    You live in Seattle, static?

  921. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:47

    Senator Hussein X — you really need to pursue InstaPunk’s invitation to “debate your black nationalism.” You must. Put his cracker ass in Reparations Camp.

  922. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:47

    All right liberalrob, want 1000?

    LIMERICKS.

    There once was a liberalrob
    Who had Hillary’s ass in his gob
    The seduction of Iris
    Failed due to virus
    As greenish goo dripped from his knob

  923. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:48

    And I call fake Hillary Clinton.

    I kind of suspected as such. That ‘if you dig what I’m saying.’ bit was a tad out of character for a Wellesley grad.

  924. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:48

    925 comments and all I got was this lousy eyestrain headache.

  925. protected static said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:48

    Paging 1000, 1-k to the white courtesy phone.

  926. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:49

    DL was great, although not one Sadlynaut took me up on my invitation. Thus, my new implant stayed veiled and I earned NO extra income.

    Oh well.

  927. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:50

    What? No one showed up, Doodle? Now that is a shame!

  928. Johnny Coelacanth said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:50

    “That ‘if you dig what I’m saying.’ bit was a tad out of character for a Wellesley grad.”

    Oh, Hillary was just trying to show how “street” she was. You know, throw down some wack slang for the mad uhm, hell. I have no idea where that’s going.

  929. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:51

    I know all about your implant, Doodle. It’s a shame you didn’t get to share it with the others, though.

  930. liberalrob said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:51

    915, we’re sooooo close!

    It’s a good thing Hillary Clinton decided to drop her maiden name Rodham in public, because otherwise under the NEW RULE I’d have to call Barack Obama Barack Hussein Obama and then I’d be promoting right-wing talking points even more than I supposedly already am just by being a Hillary Clinton supporter.

    If I’m poster #1000, do I get to have my brain downloaded into an Obot body?

  931. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:52

    Well, lots of commie pinko liberals showed up. It was actually a great DL. Just none of youse guys, apparently.

    I mean, I was doodling and everything!

  932. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:52

    So PeeJ, it looks like it is possible that we will have a Sadly event in Portland in early June with Marite and Gav. Are we together on that?

    Absotively! Is that all the detail currently available? Cause, y’know, I lives here and all. I kin do stuffs.

    I’m Senator Mrs. White Clinton Working Hillary Non-elitist Rodham (did I mention white?) and I approve this message. And as far as I know, there’s no evidence Barack Hussein (did I mention black?) Obama is a dwarf-nun-raping cannibal.

  933. ice weasel said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:52

    Pathetic people just cannot let go of their love for one candidate. Hillary people, let go. It’s ok. You lost but in the end, all of us dems are headed in roughly the same direction. Hillary can take a whack at it next time. Why this whole “Hillary or the end world” shit?

    Oh, because you’re fucking trolls! That’s why.

  934. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:52

    Thus, my new implant stayed veiled and I earned NO extra income.

    Be careful. They’ll arrest you for public display of a flipper with immodest chainmail.

  935. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:53

    Yeah, Marita,

    Speaking of which, Ben doesn’t want to violate HIPPAA. So, how’d it go and how is healing going?

  936. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:54

    Paging 1000, 1-k to the white courtesy phone.

    Sen. Obama is losing support among the crucial white courtesy phone base.

  937. PeeJ said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:54

    The closing tag was stolen by the Obama campaign.

  938. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:54

    PeeJ, it’s a fairly new idea. It would have to be either the 3rd or the 4th (yes, I know those are weekdays). That’s all the detail I have. :)

  939. Kathleen said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:54

    jesus christ on a cracker, every time I get caught up on this fucking thread, I refresh and there are 150 new comments.

  940. LuigiDaMan said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:54

    The dealbreaker for Obama with me? Easy.

    He doesn’t know s–t. The last boob who mesmerized his “base” put us into a hundred years war, jacked the economy, and spit in the face of our allies while telling the Middle East to “just send oil, baby!”

    And you want another neophyte in the White House. Well, it ain’t gonna happen. Ohio & FL are both heading Repug, so you and all the boyz screwed the pooch on that one this year!

    Keep your Obama gear and recycle it for 2012!

  941. Kathleen said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:55

    Marita took her damn shuttle and she’s back in the time it took me to read down from her last comment.

  942. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:55

    The once was a man from Racine
    Who invented a sex machine
    Concave or convex
    It could do either sex
    But boy, what a bitch to clean.

  943. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:55

    You see? This is why I hate being dyslexic. My post up there would of been much better in this order:

    Well, lots of commie pinko liberals showed up. Just none of youse guys, apparently.

    It was actually a great DL. I mean, I was doodling and everything!

    My brain irritates me sometimes — Which is highly ironic if you know anything about neurology!

  944. Hillary Clinton said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:55

    I’m as fake as my supporters are genuine in this here threadarooni!

  945. t4toby said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:56

    There once was a man from Nantucket..

    Nah….

  946. Doodle Bean said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:56

    Marita took her damn shuttle and she’s back in the time it took me to read down from her last comment.

    More and better public transportation!

    I actually have to go catch the train home. I’ll probably miss the magic 1k. Oh well.

  947. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:57

    It went as well as could be expected for that sort of thing, and he’s doing fine, other than he’s not supposed to smoke. I may have to create an amazon wishlist consisting of nothing more than nicotine patches and lozenges and link it here. :)

  948. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:57

    NEW RULE:

    Everyone gives me a dollar.

  949. Djur said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:58

    Everyone who comes to the PDX Sadlyfest has to split a handle of HRD with me, or else they’re a latte-sipping East Coast elitist, out of touch with hard-working/white Americans. Then comes the beer bong hits of Rainier Ale.

  950. Hoosier X said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:58

    I am so saaad that I have to start work now.

    I hope you guys are still at it when I get home from work in 10 hours.

  951. Marita said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:59

    But, Djur… I think I am technically a latte-sipping East Coast elitist.

  952. les said,

    May 8, 2008 at 23:59

    Do you think if I ask Iris to define “progressive,” we could hit 2,000????

  953. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:00

    NEW RULE:

    And the horse you rode in on!

  954. Jon H said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:01

    p_luk wrote: “yeah. I’m sure that 92% of North Carolina’s and Indiana’s black voters would have supported a white guy with Obama’s record and schtick over Hillary Clinton.”

    I’m sure that explains why Clinton lost in Washington State, Idaho, Wisconsin, and so many other places. All them black voters.

    Hillary’s strategy has sucked *all along*. If she and her people had a clue, she probably would have been the nominee long before NC and IN voted.

  955. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:02

    Sen. Obama is losing support among the crucial white courtesy phone base.

    I thought about using the red courtesy phone, but didn’t want to be accused of being some kind of elitist, coastal, Socialist member of the creative class or anything like that.

  956. Marmoset said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:02

    Hey, I’m one of those elitist nurses that supports Obama while sipping mint juleps at my palatial estate in the Hollywood Hills.

    You Royalists need to move to England where they still embrace rule through lineage to some degree, but even there it’s almost over so why are we turning to it here? We can just switch back and forth between Bush’s and Clintons for the next hundred years.

    In Europe both Obama and Clinton would be considered to be on the Right.. only in the USA are views that the two of them are scary Leftists considered “mainstream.” But then, there as Left as it’s allowed to get around here.

    Hillary is Bush-Lite and Obama is only marginally better. I lost a lot of respect for Obama when he turned on that wacky Reverend Wright. Sure the guy’s a little unhinged, but there’s a lot of truth in what he says that the average American is conditioned from birth to refuse to consider.

  957. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:03

    I think I recall p-luk doing some good stuff way back when on the whole Washington Post ombudsman Bloggers are Evil and Profane shenanigans. Crazy to think it’s the same guy in this thread.

  958. PeeJ said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:03

    Weekday schmeekday. I get spifflicated pretty much every night anyway. Hadn’t you noticed?

    Less than fifty to go…….

  959. Stemler said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:04

    Not only did Hillary run as a republican she apparently thought she was running in the republican race: her strategy worked perfectly for a winner take all system. This should also shed some light on why the electoral college’s current winner take all system is giant bag of ass.

  960. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:04

    What if my courtesy phone has a red base and a white handset?

  961. Oregon Guy said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:04

    New rulz:

    No inventing new rulz unless you are walking through your local mall whilst wearing a fat suit.

    Or if you have any giant sammiches as relatives.

    But they have to be at least second-cousin or closer.

  962. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:05

    What if my courtesy phone has a red base and a white handset?

    Triangulator.

  963. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:05

    So was it established whether Iris is an overinvested Hillary supporter who’s made it personal for herself or just a comparatively talented operation chaos troll?

  964. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:05

    I lost a lot of respect for Obama when he turned on that wacky Reverend Wright. Sure the guy’s a little unhinged, but there’s a lot of truth in what he says that the average American is conditioned from birth to refuse to consider.

    I was saying the same thing around comment #300.

  965. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:05

    t4t –

    then not only is your phone a scary COLORED phone who accuses everyone of PLAYING THE RACE CARD, but it is also so white it is not “colored enough” to win.

    And it is probably a Muslim.

  966. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:06

    PeeJ: I find deviling the Mahometan weed to be highly useful for my pressure-filled day job as an elitist gay abortionist.

  967. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:06

    I have always wondered why instead of ringing, it ululates…..

  968. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:06

    a different brad said,
    So was it established whether Iris is an overinvested Hillary supporter who’s made it personal for herself or just a comparatively talented operation chaos troll?

    not yet.

  969. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:07

    1000 get!

    NEW RULE: Calling a female a “dope” represents the very heights of vile sexism; however, claiming that “hard-working whites” are more important voters than presumably less-hard-working blacks is just being realistic.

  970. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:07

    Post #1000 needs to be Gary Ruppert saying “The fact is, the fact is” and nothing else.

  971. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:07

    Have you checked your schedule yet, Toby, because it looks like we’re gonna have a raging party going.

  972. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:08

    Oh shi-

    There’s another thread up! We have to get to 1000 quickly!

  973. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:09

    I dunno, I think if a bear or puma were responsible for post 1000 it would be a symbolic victory. For someone.

  974. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:09

    BTW, I think my favorite comment of the thread was Gary Ruppert:
    “The fact, what the hell is going on here?”

    I dare anyone to disagree with me.

  975. kenga said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:09

    Stay on target …

  976. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:09

    There once was a lad named Gary
    That thought all dark people were scary
    So through blog after blog
    This dickhead would slog
    Leaving comments without any bearing

  977. Arky H8r of VurdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:10

    Regle nouveau:

    Posts by p-luckshake shall be read aloud in a high pitched Mickey Mouse voice.

  978. Guppy Rarepert said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:10

    The fact is, people posting on the new thread are traitors to our cause.

  979. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:10

    Have I ever mentioned that I have been in several Gilbert & Sullivan shows?

  980. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:11

    I know, that’ll take me down a few in mikey’s book, but it is a fun fact.

  981. Post #1000 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:11

    The fact is, you are all too fat from sammiches to catch me.

    SHIT!

    PUMAS!

  982. Jon H said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:12

    1,000? Only obots use that number. The real number is 2000, unless you want to disenfranchise FL and MI.

  983. Jon H said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:12

    NEW RULE: This is comment 1000.

  984. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:12

    So who is going to count the comments to determine the ‘Winner’?

    And is there a prize? Gavin? Brad? DA? Mister Leonard?

  985. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:13

    2000? You think I can blow another entire day on this shit?

  986. His Grace said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:13

    I wonder if we reach 1000 comments we will have actually gotten somewhere.

  987. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:13

    There was once a one-thousand post thread
    Full of Iris and Pluk the braindead
    And though I really knew better
    I read all and each letter
    Now I have this sharp pain in my head

    Oooooooowwwwww……

  988. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:14

    I think when the thread reaches 1000 we all win, Toby.

    Except for Clinton supporters. Losers.

  989. kenga said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:14

    But, Djur… I think I am technically a latte-sipping East Coast elitist.

    I find a splash of milk usually cools it enough that gulping becomes feasible.
    I mean, that’s the only reason I sip it.

  990. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:14

    if you count the comments posted by Michigan, I am already the presumptive winner.

  991. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    My fav Iris move was trying to defend Hillary’s is Obama a muslim, “no, as far as i know” line.
    Iris? If, say, Bill Maher were asking Obama questions and he tried to get Obama to call her a bitch (I’M NOT SAYING SHE IS ONE, OR IMPLYING IT) and he said “no” 7 times then said “at least she hasn’t been one when I’ve been around her”, would that be ok with you?
    No, and not because you’re either hopelessly partisan or actively seeking to foment trouble.
    And you’re probably not here so I’m talking to myself, ah well.

  992. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    Yeah, Splitters!

  993. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    I actually meant that “losers” comment as a joke, but given the tone of this thread, it probably won’t be taken that way.

  994. The Secret Longest Thread said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    I AM JEALOUS

  995. His Grace said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    If we used the same commenting system as Talk Left, I would have the 1000th comment.

  996. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    I can see the post number. Jrod’s poem is #984.

    t4toby: I’ll take Leonard as a prize. I’ll shrink him down and put him on my shoulder and he can abort gay fetuses with his eyes.

    His Grace: No. We will not have gotten anywhere.

  997. The Secret Longest Thread said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:15

    But you have no Pinko in your thread SO EAT IT

  998. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    NEW RULE: Only some kind of fucking elitist would even want the 1000 get.

  999. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    How come I can’t see the post #?

  1000. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    First! Oh wait, I mean…

  1001. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    Are we there yet?

  1002. liberalrob said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    There once was a Righteous Bubba,
    whose brains were made out of rubba.
    Thoughts of Clinton/McCain
    almost drove him insane
    ’cause he considered Obama a cool brotha.

  1003. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:16

    ???

  1004. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    getgetget

  1005. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    Got it!

  1006. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    Oh, whoever is right under liberalrob is the winner.

    No, I didn’t mean it that way, you sickos.

  1007. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    fie on the duplicate comment trap

  1008. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    !!!

    t4toby for the win

  1009. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    WIN

  1010. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    Everyone try posting for 1000…. now.

  1011. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    Bam!

  1012. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    toby wins.

    ; ;

  1013. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    t4toby wins by a landslide!!!!

  1014. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:17

    Curse you Toby!!!

  1015. kenga said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    Well, the pig’s happy.
    That’s gotta count for something.

  1016. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    the last five commens are disqualified for playing the Word Press card.

  1017. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    Congratulations, boyz. Toby is unelectable. You really screwed the pooch on that one.

  1018. His Grace said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    I’m taking this to the convention

  1019. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    Or back when it happened.
    Either/or.

  1020. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    The fact is… D’oh! Missed my cue.

  1021. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    Toby only won by pandering.

  1022. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:18

    I will gladly forgo the win if you take back that fucking comment about Liberalrob butt humping me.

    Wait, you didn’t say that?

    forget it…

  1023. liberalrob said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:19

    We did it!

    And I think “a different brad” gets the prize!

    What would you like on your Obot, a.d.b.?

  1024. PeeJ said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:19

    t4 takes it by my count. Fucking bastard cunt prick shite!

    And Djur: please don’t abort any more of my elitist gay brothers. There’s not enough of us as it is.

  1025. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:19

    Congratulations, boyz. Toby is unelectable. You really screwed the pooch on that one.

    If we need 4 years of McCain to teach Sadly No a lesson, then I guess we have to go into the dark before we can come out into the light.

  1026. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:20

    Toby is unelectable.

    Not if you use Euclidean Geometry and count the Armenian vote!

  1027. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:21

    And just like George Castaza, I’m out on a high note.

    I feel like we really bonded today (wipes tear, Boener-style, from his eye)

    C-ya.

  1028. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:21

    Jeez, it’s like television. The crappiest thread gets all the action.

    There’s been some hilarious threads that couldn’t bust fifty…

    mikey

  1029. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:21

    PLUS it is just like a bunch of male commenters to presumptively declare t4toby the winner over Kathleen without waiting to see what the voters of West Virginia say. I’m not saying you hate women, but if the duck fits…

  1030. Rugged in Montana said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:22

    You people won’t be laughing when the Iranian Armada releases it’s herds of Syrian pelicans to spearhead it’s attack (per the recent press conference of the Arab navel general).

  1031. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:23

    Dood, if you can wipe a tear with your Boener, I bet you’re spectacularly popular…

    mikey

  1032. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:23

    I want a Michelle Obot.
    Does she have a younger sister?

  1033. Hills said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:23

    No no no, you need 1240 posts to win.

  1034. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:27

    Librulrob had a swell in his weenie:
    He’d a propeller on top of his beanie!
    If he flicked it enough
    And was hopeful and stuff
    He could fly like a ghost or a genie!

  1035. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:29

    Oh, btw, did Iris ever acknowledge that Hillary said she wouldn’t campaign in Florida, then broke that promise?
    Didn’t think so kthxbai.

  1036. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:29

    Did anyone think to seat the posts from Florida or Michigan?

  1037. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:31

    does anyone else need a cigarette after that?

  1038. Simba B said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:31

    I sincerely hope this is not the ‘jump the shark’ moment for S,N! The last thing we need is another liberal blog with an unreadable, inane comments section. The last thing we need is to lose the best comments section around, bar none.

  1039. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:32

    funny…you all have fun with your Kerry re-run election this fall:

    http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/5/8/155140/1536/50#50

    When all is said and done, the fact of the matter is Obama is floating on a base of support that can’t be sustained in the general election. Having alienated a good portion of the Democratic base, it will depress turnout or cause enough defections now to elect John McCain, the very thing Obama (and some left blogs) have betrayed their party to supposedly prevent.

    We really need Hillary as the nominee, and she should pay the nay-sayers no heed and press onto the convention. Her support is growing, the media and the Obama campaign just keep changing the goalposts (not projection – if you recall it was said that if Hill won Indiana it would be a ‘game changer,’ now once again they insist she must drop out. You all need to unplug and try standing up for something, not selling out to who the media seems to like. They will turn on you in an instant and by the time you figure out what’s happening and Obama gets done repositioning, John McCain will have completed defining him.

    And I’ll just say this one more time. Superdelegates should feel free, as is their role in the “rulez” that everyone insists on when talking about ‘pledged delegates,’ to make their best considered choice about who can best represent our party in a general election fight. Ignoring this is the height of naivete, because the Republicans have already succeeded in defining Obama. Superdelegates are under NO obligation to throw their support to whomever has managed to cobble together enough delegates to hit the ‘magic number.’ This is the most foolish nonsense I have ever heard – this is an exceedingly close race, and I for one am going to get out there and fight to keep Hillary in this race and get her towards a popular vote lead or at least a tie, because we need her. 50% of the Democratic party has said that she is their choice. And she still performs better against McCain — this despite a despicable smear campaign of misogyny, faux-psychoanalysis, recycled 90′s smears (Harry and Louise comes to mind), accusations of racism and constant urgings to drop the fuck out for the sake of Unity(R), Talk about beating the odds! So please, supers, do what is best, not what you are threatened into doing by a candidate who can’t bring himself to stop directly linking the Clinton and Bush presidencies as if they were remotely comparable.

    We’ve tried unity several times, and we end up getting stabbed in the back every time. It may be cynical or ‘old-style politics’ but this is the same mistake that John Kerry made in 2004 – ‘let’s have an honest campaign about ideas and respect each other.’ Bush kept his distance to maintain plausible deniability, and they utterly smeared the unsmearable war hero into the ground on completely baseless accusations, rumor-mongering and manipulation of the press. McCain will do the same in 2008…it’s already taking place, and I fear many of the ‘creative class’ newcomers to the game don’t get that yet. They continue to blame Hillary for the ‘racism’ in the campaign, when most actual racism has come from either Matt Drudge, e-mail forwards and, well, miscellaneous Republicans or at worst isolated individuals on comment threads.

    Incidentally, I got a call from an Obama staffer the other day who had never heard of the word ‘ratfucking’ before….oh boy, if Obama gets the nomination we’re in for a ride, folks.

  1040. jim said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:33

    “If we need 4 years of McCain to teach Sadly No a lesson, then I guess we have to go into the dark before we can come out into the light.”

    But, hey! That nuclear-winter thing will really teach the hippies a lesson, huh?
    Global Warming, take THAT!

    I hear stray dog is actually quite nice with curry.
    Lots of iodine tabs will help with the radiation. For a while.
    As for the marauding gangs, sorry, I got nada for you there.
    Besides, if you print out this thread right now, it should keep you warm for hours, once you’ve used up the last of the furnishings for kindling.

  1041. Jon H said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:35

    Iris babbled:”the very thing Obama (and some left blogs) have betrayed their party ”

    And how exactly has he ‘betrayed his party’?

  1042. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:35

    What madness is this?!

  1043. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:36

    I’m sorry, Iris isn’t a Passionate Hillary – Supporting Democrat.

    She’s an escaped mental patient.

    Get the net…

    mikey

  1044. John S. said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:37

    funny…you all have fun with your Kerry re-run election this fall

    Iris, I hate to burst your bubble (literally) but at this point anything coming from Corrente, Talk Left or Taylor Marsh about Obama is about as grounded in reality as reading Rick Moran, Red State or LGF for musings on Bush.

  1045. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:37

    Hey Iris, I have but one thing to say to a McCain supporter: Fuck off and die.

    You’ve already said you’ll work to get McCain elected unless Clinton gets the nomination, so what else do you expect? You’re supporting the Republican. Fuck you.

  1046. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:39

    Someone manning an Obama phonebank hadn’t heard of a term coined roughly 35 years ago for dirty politics.
    Oh, fuck. We’re doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed.

  1047. Max Power said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:39

    Blue Jean said,

    And I believe that Obama should have said “I said something stupid, and I’m sorry.” not “What I said was right, and you’re just too dumb to understand it.” That’s the kind of attitude that’s going to lose in November, and that’s why a lot of folks are calling him “elitist.”

    I missed the part where Obama reiterated his remark and insulted people by calling them “just too dumb to understand it.”

    But I did see the part where a lot of folks called him elitist.

  1048. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:40

    Incidentally, I got a call from an Clinton staffer the other day who had never heard of the word ‘Tupac’ before….oh boy, if Clinton gets the nomination we’re in for a ride, folks.

  1049. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:40

    does anyone else need a cigarette after that?

    Not after Iris came along. It was like sex on the porch swing and then the Jehovah’s Witnesses arrive.

  1050. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:40

    seriously. consider my afterglow majorly harshed.

  1051. Dick Hertz said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:41

    I just flew in from the Angry Vagina thread and boy does my…well, you know.

  1052. Djur said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:45

    Methinks Simba hasn’t spent enough time on blogs to note the phenomenon of the spontaneous runaway thread.

  1053. kenga said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:48

    It was like sex on the porch swing and then the Jehovah’s Witnesses arrive.

    Ur doin it rong!

  1054. Hillary Clinton said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:49

    Iris aka allhisothertrollnicks is Lucy pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown. Nothing but a huge time wasting distraction.

    Genuine supporters of Democrats need to stop being so gullible.

  1055. Arky H8r of VurdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:49

    Wow, we’re just a few posts away from the Battle of Hastings.

  1056. Max Power said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:51

    Irisi

    “They continue to blame Hillary for the ‘racism’ in the campaign”

    And they will target McCain with the same charge just as soon as Hillary endorses Obama.

    Since the Republican success of the past decades has been built on the “southern strategy”, there are plenty of not-so-closeted racists in the Republican party. And their desperate prospects will lead plenty of Rs to try the dog whistles or outright appeals to racism. They will get called on it and it will damage them severely, perhaps for a long time. If it’s bad enough, it will damage them permanently.

  1057. Jennifer said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:53

    I just flew in from the Angry Vagina thread and boy does my…well, you know.

    That has even more meaning to anyone who’s actually been to that thread…

  1058. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:54

    Iris, you’re full of fucking shit.

    if you recall it was said that if Hill won Indiana it would be a ‘game changer,’

    Sadly, No. Obama off-handedly said that Indiana was a tie-breaker between NC/PA. Hillary won it by under 2%.

    “Game changer” was the term Hillary applied to NC, where she got her ass kicked.

    Her support is growing

    Proof?

  1059. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:56

    yeah. I’m sure that 92% of North Carolina’s and Indiana’s black voters would have supported a white guy with Obama’s record and schtick over Hillary Clinton.

    DIAF, racist fuck.

  1060. Hillary Clinton said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:56

    Jesus Murphy, people. Iris IS A REPUBLICAN. After Bush, anyone votiing for McCain is NOT A DEMOCRAT, never was, never will be. Iris supports HIllary like Rush supports Hillary (naught! but for shits and giggles.)

    How hard can it be to get that? Rising to troll bait is pointless.

  1061. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 0:57

    Wow, we’re just a few posts away from the Battle of Hastings.

    …and all that.

  1062. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:00

    DIAF, racist McCain operative fuck.

    FTFY

    If the race was going the other way, its handle would be Tyrone and it’d be calling Obama the true progressive and yes, it’d be calling for us to vote McCain. It can eat shit.

  1063. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:02

    Rising to troll bait is pointless.

    You know, commenter 1057, this has been a pretty fun thread.

  1064. Jennifer said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:02

    Trust me, no one will have to “accuse” the GOP of racism in this campaign; it will be so blatant that pretty much everyone will know it when it rears its ugly head. I expect that we’ll go through a honeymoon period where they float a lot of stuff behind the scenes that’s really nasty, while on the surface saying things that they can at least semi-plausibly deny are racist. But when it heats up, in the end, they won’t be able to resist the siren song of full-on appeals to intolerance, and I fully expect for them to be screaming “N****R” from the podium by the time the convention rolls around. Because it’s who they are; they won’t be able to stop themselves. And also, it’s about the only game plan they have. It’s served them well for 40 years, but the country is a different place today. There’s still plenty of racism, but most people these days would be very uncomfortable with the full-on unveiled hostility of the civil rights era. For the most part, this election has thus far shown us that the racial stuff is really only working with the over-60 crowd, other than among hard-core wingnuts, who wouldn’t vote for any Democrat anyway.

  1065. Lesley said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:07

    It would suit all of us to move beyond this petty Obama/Hillary crap and focus only on the Democratic campaign to win the election, exposing McCain for the neoconservative asswipe he’s become and defeating the Repbulicans.

    So Obama and HIllary have a little more duking out to do…who the fuck cares? One of them will win and that person will receive the support of people who don’t want to see another Bush-style presidency. And those supporters will be democrats, liberals, lefties.

    People who opt to vote for McCain, regardless of their reasons, are republicans, period. They are not Democrats, they do not support Hillary and they do not support Obama.

    Anyone who trolls in here about Obama vs. Hillary deserves a firm kick in the teeth, a STFUAD.

  1066. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:13

    No.

    Tell me there isn’t over 500 more comments on this thread since I went back to slave away at teh borg.

    RB, I thought you were going to burn some incense?

  1067. Obamaton said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:16

    Did somebody say BORG?

  1068. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:20

    RB, I thought you were going to burn some incense?

    It worked! Now everyone’s incensed!

  1069. Matt McMahon, destroyer of all things said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:21

    Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Barack Obama and his legatees, I feel it is my duty to write this. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, if I had my druthers, Barack would never have had the opportunity to contaminate clear thinking with his pompous positions. As it stands, there is something grievously wrong with those distasteful peculators who pass off all sorts of apolaustic and obviously morally questionable stuff on others as a so-called “inner experience”. Shame on the lot of them!

    Barack believes that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. That’s just wrong. He further believes that he is a man of peace. Wrong again! But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that while we do nothing, those who bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we scuttle his evil attempts to calumniate helpless brutes.

    Barack uses a lot of fast patter and sleight of hand to persuade people that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Am I aware of how Barack will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because he would not hesitate to doctor evidence and classification systems and make intransigent generalizations to support dishonest, preconceived views if he felt he could benefit from doing so.

    Even though supposedly distancing himself from uncouth rubes, Barack has really not changed his spots at all. If you were to ask him, he’d say that he doesn’t remember breaking down our communities. Not only does Barack undeniably have a very selective memory, but he contends that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. What planet is he from? The planet Squalid? If you claim that the rigors that Barack’s victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement then you won’t understand my answer no matter how carefully I explain it. You won’t understand my answer if you allege that Barack never engages in mutinous, malicious, or lousy politics. However, you have a chance at understanding my answer if you’re open-minded enough to realize that Barack’s ignorant subalterns accept on faith that it’s perfectly safe to drink and drive. We can therefore extrapolate that when I’m through with Barack he’ll think twice before attempting to regulate absolutism.

    Documents written by Barack’s apologists typically include the line, “Genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world’s people are all absolutely justified”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that Barack extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. Before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Barack’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his hatchet men or the nature of his criticisms. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that Barack doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. Don’t make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Barack does, and that’s why it’s a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of uncontrollable wonks like him can still be heard, worse still that they’re listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Wherever you look, you’ll see him enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You’ll see him suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you’ll see him crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity.

    Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of ill-bred, sanctimonious blockheads. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Barack doesn’t want me to get people to sign a petition to limit his ability to cause trouble. Well, I’ve never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to act as a positive role model for younger people. His viewpoints manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. Phase two: sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future.

    As stated earlier, we wouldn’t have a problem with revisionism if it weren’t for Barack. Although he created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Barack insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naïve does he think we are? Truly, if Barack continues to throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation, I will be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. He is unquestionably up to something. I don’t know exactly what, but Barack maintains a “Big Brother” dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? First, I’ll give you a very brief answer and then I’ll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, Barack focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, he attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that Barack has convinced a lot of people that the Earth is flat. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

    Even with no further evidence than what I’ve previously presented I would think — and no person on Earth can alter my opinion — that it’s easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Barack and about hypothetical solutions to our Barack problem. It’s an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that his behavior might be different if he were told that his favorite scapegoats are the government, the economy, the environment, society, parents, teachers, and just about everything else. Of course, as far as Barack’s concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” That’s why I’m telling you that he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. From what I understand, some people think I’m exaggerating when I say that Barack arrogates to himself the right to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. But I’m not exaggerating; if anything, I’m understating the situation.

    Not to be rude or anything, but Barack’s reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that the future of the entire world rests in his hands) and therefore — not surprisingly — he always arrives at that very conclusion. Contrary to popular belief, someone has to be willing to advance freedom in countries strangled by tyranny. Even if it’s not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people’s feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the best way to serve one’s country is to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature.

    If Barack wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Even if cheeky, humorless derelicts join his band with the best of intentions, they will still substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence eventually. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. Accompanying this recognition of the indeterminateness of verifiability with regard to an external, objective reality has been a crisis regarding our ability to know that if he believes that women are spare parts in the social repertoire — mere optional extras — then it’s obvious why he thinks that hanging out with unregenerate, vindictive pests is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Even though Barack has aired his disapproval of being criticized, I still profess that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart.

  1070. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:22

    Ha! My Matt McMahon routine seals the Battle of Hastings!

  1071. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:22

    Bubba, are you burning fucking patchouli scent?

    You couldn’t burn the sandlewood or the evergreen?

    Nooo, y’had to go for the incense punch-line.

    No wonder everyone’s incensed!!

    mikey

  1072. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:23

    Sure, so I have my commute home and I find that not only did I miss 1k (which I expected), but I missed the Battle of Hastings?!?!?!?!

    Fuck!

  1073. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:27

    Somebody called me a dawg!

  1074. kenga said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:27

    Let’s not forget Lesley, that people won’t just be voting for a President.
    There’s Congresscritters, and state legislators and governors and Secretaries of State and state AGs and sheriffs and holy shit, this could be a lot of fun.
    And wow – talk about changing the playing field at the town, county, state AND federal levels. I mean, somebody might actually have to make an Epic Win t-shirt.
    I’m not saying that Eyes on the Prize is not a very sound idea and strategy, just that Prize has the potential to be mind-bogglingly big.

  1075. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:27

    If you lived in Cambridge, you’d have been home in time for the Battle of Hastings.

  1076. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:28

    The Battle of Hastings is old news.

    Next target: The First Crusade!

  1077. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:31

    First the Angry Vagina Thread and now this. Are vast tribes of lunatics migrating across the blogosphere, overrunning peaceful websites and leaving ruination in their wake?

    Sure, so I have my commute home and I find that not only did I miss 1k (which I expected), but I missed the Battle of Hastings?!?!?!?!

    Don’t worry. The First Crusade is just around the corner.

  1078. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:32

    Oh, I dunno, Jrod.

    I’m feeling like a little music.

    Let’s go with Battle of Roncevaux Pass…

    mikey

  1079. mantis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:35

    Let’s go with Battle of Roncevaux Pass…

    The Pyrenees! What are you, some kind of elitist?

  1080. D. Aristophanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:36

    This rapprochement(1) jive grows tiresome. I feel like a second head is growing out of my neck and it looks just like Kevin Drum. Snooze. So in the interest of driving this thing to long thread territory, a contest: Funniest smear against your own candidate (or supporters) wins. So:

    Obamabot 3000: *SPRKKKT* THIS UNIT IS THE OBAMABOT 3000 THIS UNIT HAS BEEN DELAYING ITS COMMENCEMENT OF THROUGHPUT FOR *BRZZZT* *BEEEEEP* *PLPPPZT*

    (1)Creative-class Frenchiness

  1081. John Cole said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:39

    <blockquote.Incidentally, I got a call from an Obama staffer the other day who had never heard of the word ‘ratfucking’ before….oh boy, if Obama gets the nomination we’re in for a ride, folks.

    Well, that seals it. Since a 19 year old volunteer at an Obama HQ has not heard of an obscure Nixon era term, the election is surely loss. Hell, we all might as well join Iris and Lukasiak and vote for Nader.

    Are these people for fucking real?

  1082. John Cole said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:40

    Incidentally, I got a call from an Obama staffer the other day who had never heard of the word ‘ratfucking’ before….oh boy, if Obama gets the nomination we’re in for a ride, folks.

    Well, that seals it. Since a 19 year old volunteer at an Obama HQ has not heard of an obscure Nixon era term, the election is surely loss. Hell, we all might as well join Iris and Lukasiak and vote for Nader.

    Are these people for fucking real?

    Stupid damned formatting.

  1083. themann1086 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:41

    Funniest smear against your own candidate (or supporters) wins

    Obama is trying to steal the election from Hillary using superdelegates!!!1!!

  1084. tontocal said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:41

    To Iris:

    The only case you all have that Clinton has run as “Republican lite” is based on distortions from the media about Clinton ‘taking the low road.’

    As someone who heartily supported Hillary in the beginning, I’d like to take issue with that statement. My support gravitated towards Obama precisely because of some of the ‘Rovian’ tactics that her campaign was using. (which made me feel quite ill) I still love Hillary and will always feel a sense of disappointment in her not getting the nomination but I certainly don’t blame Obama supporters for being upset over some of the ‘machinations’ that were employed.

  1085. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:42

    D. Aristophanes said,

    This rapprochement(1) jive grows tiresome.

    DA, I think you won the olive branch after this:
    lambert sez “I’m not pissed about S/N ramen post either, though I confess, truly, I didn’t read past the first few paragraphs.

  1086. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:43

    Around here, we say FUCKING FORMATTING!1one!!, John.

    Of course, we’re all Obamabots, so your borg mileage may vary.

  1087. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:43

    No way, themann. Obama is trying to steal the election from Clinton using voters!!!

    The nerve of it all!!!

  1088. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:44

    In response to an earlier prompt to define progressive, I’d just have to respond that I ‘know it when I see it’. John Edwards was getting it, then he bailed. Thankfully our girl Hillary has picked up the banner and is running with it. I’d rather re-enfranchise Florida and Michigan and follow her all the way to November than blow this year’s opportunity for the sake of the Obama fantasy.

    Maybe they didn’t show the full version on the Obama News Network, so here’s the link:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaqyGcAJ-CA

    “And yet today, I have met so many people here in Indiana and across America who feel invisible. You sure feel invisible when you’re paying $60 or $70 to fill up your tank. You feel invisible when the money you took to the grocery store no longer meets your needs for the next week. You feel invisible when your health insurance disappears and college is out of reach. And you can’t believe how invisible you feel when your loved one who served our country in war is ill-served back at home.

    I know these stories. And I see you and I hear you. And I know how hard you’re working, working for yourselves and working for your families. And I will never stop fighting for you, so that you can have a future.”

    “And I know that we’ve got an important debate going on right now about how we’re going to help families deal with these gas prices. They have gone up so fast, so out of sight in the minds of the people that I talk with, and I think it’s time that we really had a concerted strategy. You’ve heard me say this, and I’ll say it again: I think it’s time to give Americans a break this summer and to make the oil companies pay the gas tax out of their record profits.”

    “I say it’s time to cover every single American with health insurance. And I say it’s time to freeze foreclosures for families most at risk of losing their homes, including our soldiers, who are in harm’s way and are being foreclosed on here in America.

    Fundamentally, I believe that Americans need a champion in their corner, that for too long we’ve had a president who has stood up and spoke out for the wealthy and the well-connected.

    But I don’t think that’s what Americans need or what they’re looking for now. And I think standing up for working people is about the American dream and the Democratic Party. And I think standing up for the middle class is about who we are and who we can be, if we stick together.

    So it is important that, as we go forward in this campaign, that we recognize we are all on the same team. We are going to be standing up for you. We’re going to be looking for a way to turn this country around and bring it back to what it should stand for and be all about: better futures for you and your children, solving the problems that affect us here in America. ”

    Sorry for the long transcript posting. I just wanted to get the point across. Will Obama ever make one of his great speeches and say these things? I just don’t think so. He either doesn’t believe these things or he’s too bipartisan to plainly state that he is. Both are problematic — Democrats want someone who will speak for them and their values, not an empty shell. Hillary is the key to victory, she has already overtaken Obama on his main selling point: appeal to Reagan Democrats (it’s now called racist to even refer to them), even though many of them certainly see themselves as whites and, what do you know, a lot of them are.

    FWIW the improvements in the Clinton campaign have fairly confirmed to me that Mark Penn’s ignorance and stupidity cost Hillary early on, but it’s not too late, fellow Dems. We don’t have to have Obama shoved down our throats. Go Hillary – I’m canvassing in KY.

  1089. hipparchia said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:46

    deal-breakers?

    well… i live in florida.

    seriously, if all the math still adds up in obama’s favor, even when all the votes for clinton are counted [not split 50/50] why is he, and his supporters too, not asking for all the florida and michigan delegates to be seated, and to have all their votes counted, just as they were cast? it’s not the voters who monkeyed with the schedule, but they’re the ones being punished.

    yeahyeahyeah, i know, rulez is rulez. how very authoritarian of y’all.

    speaking of voting, this is the first time in years and years that voters in the very last primaries have felt like they’ve got a voice in choosing the nominee. democrats are turning out in droves. damn it, stfu and let them vote!

    the misogyny, really, we’re tired of it. apologize for it and then cut it out.

    except for that, i pretty much agree with everything else you’ve said here.

  1090. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:47

    Democrats want someone who will speak for them and their values, not an empty shell.

    and they have proven this by voting for the empty shell in greater numbers.

  1091. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:48

    Obama can’t win, because his supporters are all shiftless, lazy niggers elitists.

    Wait, actually that’s not funny. In truth I’m just showing off my elitist strikethrough skills. EAT IT!

  1092. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:48

    Random Observer said:
    Perhaps the most important principle, the one most worth sticking to, is not elevating your own ego above the lives the thousands of people.

    if you choose to not vote out of “principle” the principle you are celebrating is extreme selfishness. It takes real arrogance to believe that “being true to yourself” or some shit like that is more important than life or death for others.

    This is the soul and centre of the general election. If your pique at being denied your perfect candidate is more important than thousands upon thousands of innocent human lives, that’s your business. Jesus, I’d vote for Saddam fucking Hussein over McCain, if he got the Dem nomination. Satan and all his little wizards. The Wicked Witch of the West. Anyone other than John McCain, because there’s a good chance that electing John McCain as Prez might be the last thing democratic America ever does.

  1093. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:50

    This rapprochement jive grows tiresome.

    Waz thees a rapprochement?

  1094. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:51

    Oh dear
    the only ‘funny’ smear that springs to mind is too close to racist, even as a mocking type thing.

    Ok, since you insisted.
    I heard an Obama surrogate suggest the other day that Hillary is secretly half black with weird recessive genes or summin.
    Then they asked whether Aunt Jemima is really who we want running the country.
    *runsplzdon’tkillmeireallydon’tmeaniteeeeeek*

  1095. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:51

    Aaaaaand another thing: personally, I don’t give a tinker’s cuss which of the two virtually indistinguishable candidates get the Dem nomination, but I wish they’d bloody well hurry up about it. The delay only benefits the Repubs, while the Dem partisans chew each other to bloody scraps.

    Frankly, I lose confidence daily in both candidates. Neither is perfect, and honestly, neither is worth getting excited about. Both are infinitely better than one more Republican prez.

    Fergodssakes, toss a coin. Get it over with.

  1096. Doug H. (Fausto no more) said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:53

    No board was spared, not even Teh Sadly.

  1097. SomeNYGuy said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:53

    Is it true that if she doesn’t get the nomination, Hillary is voting for McCain?

  1098. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:54

    So it is important that, as we go forward in this campaign, that we recognize we are all on the same team.

    we are all on the same team

    we are all on the same team

    we are all on the same team

    we are all on the same team

    Why don’t you get that through your thick fucking skull and quit talking about voting for McCain, you dumbfuck? Or better yet, just fuck off already.

  1099. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:56

    Oh, BTW, CRUSADE GET, BICHES!!!!111!!1!!!!

  1100. tontocal said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:59

    t4toby is such an elitist!

  1101. PS said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:59

    sheesh! Over 1090! Havent read them all, but what the heck, I liked Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina (and a search indicates it has not been quoted here):

    … This primary season may not be over, but when it is, we will have to remember who we are as Democrats – that we are the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy; and that we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose – a higher purpose. This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country. Because we all agree that at this defining moment in history – a moment when we’re facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril – we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term. We need change in America.

    The woman I met in Indiana who just lost her job, and her pension, and her insurance when the plant where she worked at her entire life closed down – she can’t afford four more years of tax breaks for corporations like the one that shipped her job overseas. She needs us to give tax breaks to companies that create good jobs here in America. She can’t afford four more years of tax breaks for CEOs like the one who walked away from her company with a multi-million dollar bonus. She needs middle-class tax relief that will help her pay the skyrocketing price of groceries, and gas, and college tuition. That’s why I’m running for President.

    The college student I met in Iowa who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill – she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy; that allows insurance companies to discriminate and deny coverage to those Americans who need it most. She needs us to stand up to those insurance companies and pass a plan that lowers every family’s premiums and gives every uninsured American the same kind of coverage that Members of Congress give themselves. That’s why I’m running for President.

    The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet inscribed with the name of the son she lost in Iraq; the families who pray for their loved ones to come home; the heroes on their third and fourth and fifth tour of duty – they can’t afford four more years of a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. They can’t afford four more years of our veterans returning to broken-down barracks and substandard care. They need us to end a war that isn’t making us safer. They need us to treat them with the care and respect they deserve. That’s why I’m running for President.

    The man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one – he can’t afford four more years of an energy policy written by the oil companies and for the oil companies; a policy that’s not only keeping gas at record prices, but funding both sides of the war on terror and destroying our planet in the process. He doesn’t need four more years of Washington policies that sound good, but don’t solve the problem. He needs us to take a permanent holiday from our oil addiction by making the automakers raise their fuel standards, corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future. That’s the change we need. And that’s why I’m running for President. …

  1102. PeeJ said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:59

    Is it true that if she doesn’t get the nomination, Hillary is voting for McCain?

    Win. (In a thread this long, there can be many winners)

  1103. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 1:59

    I wanna sack Jerusalem!

  1104. GoatBoy said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:00

    “We don’t have to have Obama shoved down our throats.”

    I am sick to death of the rampant misandry regularly displayed in the groupthink of the hive-minded Hillbot borg. That’s it, I’m voting for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!

  1105. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:03

    something tells me that Obama speech won’t satisfy Iris, even though it is exactly what she asked for.

  1106. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:06

    We don’t have to have Obama shoved down our throats.

    Usually what happens when you, y’know, win fucking elections.

    You’re pathetic. ESAD.

  1107. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:06

    Next up: The Battle of Ourique

  1108. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:06

    Hillary is the key to victory, she has already overtaken Obama on

    Jack shit.

  1109. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:07

    Another smear:
    Obama personally created this.

  1110. Matt McMahon going for the win said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:07

    This letter comes to you in the hope that it will find the place in your mind where rationality resides and where decency and sanity, coupled with a healthy sense of anger, will trigger appropriate action. To get immediately to the point, the public is like a giant that John McCain has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and McCain leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. That’s why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that just because McCain and his cohorts don’t like being labelled as “quixotic, pudibund guttersnipes” or “foul good-for-nothings” doesn’t mean the shoe doesn’t fit.

    In retrospect, McCain has always been more randy than most capricious nobodies. Accordingly, I oppose his biases because they are infantile. I oppose them because they are brusque. And I oppose them because they will place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives sometime soon. If I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. In fact, that’s exactly what McCain does as part of his quest to offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. If he had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” he wouldn’t be so keen to stand in the way of progress. Maybe he’d even begin to realize that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. Of course, he keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that his vituperations enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. The purpose of this deception may be to turn our country into a nerdy cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. Or maybe the purpose is to distort the facts. Oh what a tangled web McCain weaves when first he practices to deceive. A final word: As soon as John McCain’s expositors obliterate our sense of identity, their ruses will cease to call for proper disciplinary action against him and his disciples and instead will help crude money-worshippers back up their prejudices with “scientific” proof.

  1111. kind of an off white said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:08

    Hipparchia, that’s not what “authoritarian” means. See, it would actually be authoritarian to ignore the rules if your leader (loosely defined) would benefit from your doing so. You can probably see where I’m going with this so I won’t overexplain.

  1112. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:09

    I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron!I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron!

  1113. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:09

    and they have proven this by voting for the empty shell in greater numbers.

    You have me there…so they have. Maybe you can explain to me how that happened and why so many Obama supporters are just now making an attempt to find out why we might have favored the eeeevil Hillary?

  1114. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:10

    Just wanted to say that I didn’t post that spam above….

  1115. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:12

    Maybe you can explain again how you’d prefer McCain over Obama.

    Or you could, I dunno, fuck off.

  1116. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:12

    Yes I did! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron! I’m a fucking moron!

  1117. Lesley said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:12

    I’d hate to see the gas bill for this thread.

  1118. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:13

    I should fuck off! I’m a pathetic sack of shit!

  1119. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:14

    Maybe you can explain to me how that happened

    voters researched the two candidates and voted.

    why so many Obama supporters are just now making an attempt to find out why we might have favored the eeeevil Hillary?

    Hardly anyone is wondering why Hillary voters support Hillary.

    the questions on the table were (1) Why is Corrente Wire/Lambert being such an asshole and (2) why are some Hillary voters saying they’ll support McCain over Obama.

  1120. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:14

    I was away from this for most of the day, and there’s no way I’m going to read 1100 comments, but I can see that there’re some truly amazing examples of delusional jive and limp-dick rationalization in this thread. How did these people get so wrapped up in this?

  1121. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:15

    I’ll support McCain because I’m a stupid fucking clown!

  1122. Ann Althouse said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:15

    Over 1100 comments and not one joke about me?

  1123. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:17

    No need to namejack Iris. It’s plenty stupid all by itsself.

    So, tell us again how it’d be far better to campaign for McCain than allow Obama into the Whitehouse. Tell us how doing so proves that you’re the true progressive, while the rest of us are dupes.

    Note I didn’t say dopes, since that would be sexist.

  1124. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:18

    Wow, the Obama Fan Base is now resorting to spamming “I’m a fucking moron” over and over…welcome to the New Democratic Party…sort of like the old Democratic party, except even more immature and sexist.

  1125. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:19

    I’m a true progressive because I make poopy!

  1126. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:21

    Iris said,
    May 9, 2008 at 2:10
    Just wanted to say that I didn’t post that spam above….

    I am a moron. Note the difference when I say it.

  1127. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:21

    Because apparently I think “fucking moron” is sexist. Wanna know why? Becauuuuuuuuuse…I’m a fucking moron!

  1128. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:21

    The New Democratic Party = people who won’t vote for McCain. Sort of like the old Democratic Party, except we tell people who will vote for McCain to fuck off and die.

  1129. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:22

    Also, the fact is, Gary Ruppert is hot.

  1130. Gary Ruppert said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:23

    Wanna go out?

  1131. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:23

    The fact is, YES, YES!

  1132. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:23

    Any chance of getting this troll banned that keeps impersonating me?

  1133. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:24

    Shalom gentlemen.

  1134. Bon Scott said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:24

    If you want blood, you got it.

  1135. Iris Ruppert said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:25

    Oh yes, Iris, you’ve earned the right to call the shots around here.

  1136. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:27

    Sorry, around here we ban McCain supporters, not those who mock them.

    Are you going to respond to me, Iris? Are you going to defend voting for McCain on progressive grounds? Or will you fuck right off?

  1137. Lesley said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:27

    Iris, people are fed up with your divisive trolling tactics. Perhaps you can find another thread to pretend to be a democrat in.

    The so-called Obama fan base has repeatedly mentioned it would vote for Hillary. If she wins the nomination (which she won’t, but anyway…) she’ll have the support of Obama voters. There’s nothing for you to sink your gums into here.

  1138. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:28

    If you lived in Cambridge, you’d have been home in time for the Battle of Hastings.

    If I lived in Cambridge, I’d be poorer and gardenless! Though I have to admit I like strolling up Mass Ave from Central Square, admiring the rich tapestry of life – from homeless to elitist…

    Still, unless you can find me a two-bedroom with garden for under $700/month, Marita, I’m staying put!!

    Well, for now. Just until I win the lottery. Which I never play because what? I’m a fool?!?!?!

  1139. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:28

    What’s wrong with a protest vote? The Obots will realize the error of their ways (not appeasing me), and everything will end up fine after four years of McCain, who is a fine man.

    Also, I make poopy.

  1140. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:29

    Ah. I understand now. It’s bracket slash i bracket at the end of the quote! Interesting!

  1141. Marita said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:30

    When you put it that way, Doodle Bean, can you hook us up with a 2 BR with a garden for $700?

  1142. Lesley said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:31

    Iris: Any chance of getting this troll banned that keeps impersonating me?

    Gary Ruppert’s peeved that you’re impersonating him. Should we ban you? (not that I have the power to ban anyone…if I could I’d probably accidentally ban you and conveniently forget how to unban you).

  1143. Blue Buddha said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:31

    This will surely draw 1,000 more comments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

    * pokes trolls with stick *

  1144. Simba B said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:31

    I’m just surprised it took this long for someone to namejack Iris, because that’s our usual method of dealing with trolls around here—they become part of teh Sadly Borg.

    Surprisingly effective.

  1145. Jason Ambrose said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:32

    Have I scared off that fucking dope?

  1146. Simba B said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:35

    Also, I just want to point out that it takes several seconds for this page to load on my 10Mbps Road Runner line.

    SEVERAL SECONDS, people.

    Think of what you’re doing to the hamsters! Maybe someone should check on them…you know…just in case.

    Don’t want the place to start smelling.

  1147. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:36

    Wow, the Obama Fan Base is now resorting to spamming “I’m a fucking moron” over and over…welcome to the New Democratic Party…

    As they say ’round here… Sadly, no! It’s just Sadly, No! See, you might want to get a feel for a site’s culture and rules before trolling posting for the first time. So let me be the first to officially welcome you to Sadly, No!, where the art of creative sock puppetry is held in high esteem, no matter what Ann Althouse says. Mockery in all flavors from erudite to juvenile – that’s S,N! If you did check things out first and still expected a prolonged, polite debate here, well… …you’re a fucking moron.

    If you didn’t, then you’re just a clueless internet n00b. Or a troll. Your choice.

  1148. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:37

    You’re right! I am a fucking moron!

    (I don’t think she’s coming back.)

  1149. vast swaths of innocent Iranians said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:42

    Hello, American friends. Are you remembering that time after September the 11th when we held candlelight vigils to be showing our solidarity with you? We hate to bring this up as a–how you say? Quid pro quo? Anyway, we were wondering if maybe you could think of that come November, and perhaps to be thinking twice before casting a protest vote that would be resulting in the election of a man who would… hold on, my english is not so good.

    (flips through phrasebook)

    Ah, yes. A man who would bomb the living shit out of us, is what I mean to say.

    Also, I believe the president of America chooses judges for some kind of very important court, though I am forgetting what it is called. The Top Court? The Bestest Court?

  1150. Lesley said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:44

    welcome to the New Democratic Party…sort of like the old Democratic party, except even more immature and sexist.

    John *I call my wife a cunt in public* McCain is Iris’ idea of a mature and feminist-thinking candidate.

    Clearly, Iris is not a fan of the Democratic Party. Nor has she ever been.

  1151. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:46

    (I don’t think [Iris is] coming back.)

    Oh, what a fucking shame.

    Genghis Khan’s birthday coming up at 1162 (approximately).

  1152. fupDuck said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:52

    Damn, I started reading this thread almost eight hours ago, my eyes got too bleary after 900 odd posts, and now I come back, and it’s still going!

    Glad to see that wonderlicious S,N! snark has come back, though. It got kinda Great Orange Satan around here for a while.

  1153. themann1086 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:57

    Will this thread reach official leet status?

  1154. thelogos said,

    May 9, 2008 at 2:59

    Hillary supporters are the new dittoheads.

  1155. justme said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:00

    Jeezus Haploid Christ on a used corn dog stick. This thread has to be a record of some kind. I’d say for trollish uselessness, but I think the thread a few down where “The Toof” lets his hair, possibly singular, down might have that covered.

    Also, though it’s from fark, I thought I’d mention that Hil has even managed to piss off Wesley fucking Crusher.

  1156. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:02

    …can you hook us up with a 2 BR with a garden for $700?

    Such damnably bad timing since the unit next to mine rented on April 1… and last Sunday night I had to call the cops on the new tenants who had ‘a domestic’.

    I’ll let you know if the loud, awful, disturbing, oh-no-I-do-not-want-to-listen-that, OMG-was-that-a-body-slamming-against-the-wall-? noise recurs and continues. If so, I will get them out of there.

    Although there would be a problem for you guys if it worked out: the garden is mine!

  1157. A fucking moron said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:03

    I resent the association. I have known many fucking morons. I worked with fucking morons. I are a fucking moron. And Iris is…pretty damn stupid.

  1158. henry lewis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:04

    Does DA get a free toaster oven for generating over a 1000 comments?

  1159. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:05

    Does DA get a free toaster oven for generating over a 1000 comments?

    I’m hoping he gets one of the moderately priced ones. The bugs haven’t been cleaned out of the free ones.

  1160. thelogos said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:06

    #

    henry lewis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:04

    Does DA get a free toaster oven for generating over a 1000 comments?

    No, but hear that Iris may finally catch a clue.

  1161. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:10

    Dood.

    Three goddam beautiful words.

    “Open Source Toaster”.

    I want to do an advertising campaign and see what I get for hitz….

    mikey

  1162. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:15

    I get it now, I was confused at first. I’m breaking up the unity so I must be a troll.

    And FWIW here’s the ‘creative class’ used in context:

    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

    Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types.

    There’s your definition, I guess. You tell me what it means. Sounds to me an awful lot like the educated, affluent or at least ‘comfortable’ class…the kind that isn’t really demanding substantive political change, just substantive image change.

  1163. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:16

    No, but hear that Iris may finally catch a clue.

    Sadly, No!

  1164. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:17

    Also, though it’s from fark, I thought I’d mention that Hil has even managed to piss off Wesley fucking Crusher.

    I’m too old and cynical to be as enthusiastic about Obama as he is, but otherwise he wrote a pretty good piece.

  1165. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:20

    No Iris, this:
    “Will Obama ever make one of his great speeches and say these things? I just don’t think so. He either doesn’t believe these things or he’s too bipartisan to plainly state that he is.”

    is why you are a troll. see here: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9403.html#comment-602752

  1166. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:25

    “Open Source Toaster”

    That is indeed great. Trademark quick.

  1167. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:25

    Iris – Have you not picked up on our utter contempt for your nitwititude? Or are you just a masochist?

    You’re tedious. Fuck off.

  1168. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:37

    If you insist that Obama won this nomination legtimately by blocking revotes in Florida and Michigan then don’t be suprised when he loses those two states come November, and when people like me vote for the party that doesn’t disenfranchise millions of voters in the name of adherence to the rules.

    Whut!?! The Republicans don’t disenfranchise millions of voters? Man, oh man, where the hell have you been for the last decade?

  1169. PeeJ said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:37

    If you’re not a troll, Iris you’re just stoopid. “Creative Class” is a fairly well defined term – oh if only there were some way you could look it up…

    Now fuck off, moron.

  1170. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:42

    Iris, you’re not a troll for breaking the unity. You’re a troll because you’re encouraging Democrats to vote for McCain.

    You might think we forgot about that, but we haven’t. Now come on, explain, in detail, how voting for McCain will help further progressivism.

    Also, some substantive criticism of Obama would be nice. Just so we’re clear, “Obama supporters are sexist meanies” and “Obama must be an empty suit because I choose to ignore his stated policy goals because loading up his website is too hard” are not substantive.

    Or you could fuck off. You know, whatever.

  1171. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:48

    The creative class would like to have some modern art and a new latte machine.

    Otherwise, we’re good with war in Iraq, torture, and nuking Iran, just like the salt of the earth blue collar shot-drinking gun-shooting champion of the lower class.

    kthxbai!

  1172. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:48

    Oh please! Parody the trolls*, mock them, skewer them with your wit, ignore them, but please don’t engage them in any sort of debate! We’re snarkier than that!

    *Yeah, I know it’s difficult nowadays. I tried it with “The Troof” and people thought it was real. Yes, I’m lookin’ at you, g!

  1173. hipparchia said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:50

    you do have a point there, off white.

  1174. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:51

    Actually, I expect nothing but the purest of lulz if Iris tries to defend her calls for true progressives to vote McCain over the Obamination. Sadly, it’s just not interested, cuz like that’d be hard, and Netvocates only pays a nickel a post.

  1175. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:51

    Will this thread reach official leet status?

    What? It hasn’t already?!?!?!?!?!

  1176. kc said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:53

    Damn, 1170 comments?

    Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?

  1177. RobW said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:54

    Obama refused to acknowledge that Wright was a race-pimp — someone who took the legitimate frustrations of African Americans and deliberately exacerbated them for his own benefit.

    Plukasiak’s credibility circling the drain…

    I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans

    And… down it goes, as he pulls a statistic out of his ass, only to declare that it must be false, AND pointedly refuse to provide a link.

    Ok, I’m not even close to halfway through this thread and I’m done with it.

    Who knew olive branches could be so incendiary?

  1178. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:54

    If our party leaders know they can count on us no matter how much they stab us in the back, they’ll never address the issues that matter to us, and we’ll be asked again and again to wait.

    Iris, let me try once more: hang on, here’s an analogy. Imagine you’re on a train, a speeding train (okay, it’s historical, there are no trains any more). The speeding train, having rushed through a dozen level crossings, killed countless schoolchildren, old folks with Zimmer frames, what have you, is headed towards a cliff. Not Clif, just a generic sharp end to the landscape.

    There’s a bunch of other people on the train with you. Some of them wanted to go to Kansas. Some of them wanted to go to Normal. Some of them wanted to go skiing in Aspen. Some of them just wanted to get out of their home town. And some of them, a whole lot of them, want to remove the brakes and see the train go over the edge.

    Do you:
    a) Join whoever’s trying to slam the brakes on and slow the fucker down enough to stop it going over the cliff, and then worry about how to get home; or
    b) Stamp your little foot and say that you’re going to help those sabotaging the brake effort unless everyone promises to take you to St Louis.

    Because it’s that serious now, Iris. I’m not talking about who I’d choose for the Dem nom, because that would have been Kucinich/Dodd/someone else. I don’t give a single solitary fuck. This is about stopping the US’ headlong rush to world annihilation.

    Once the train is stopped, once the Democrat is safely installed and Bush booted out, then and only then can we return to business as usual, political arguing as usual. Until then, Iris, this play-school politicking is insane. Really.

    And before you start complaining about how Hilary’s better than Obama, and you’d rather tip the scales for McCain than vote for Obama, and how we’re all misogynist, please remember that I have never, once, not fucking once, expressed a preference for either Hilary or Obama. Not once.

    Know why? Because from where I stand, they are virtually indistinguishable. You may think differently. You may think that another few thousand foreign lives are worth sacrificing to ‘show the party leadership that we can’t be pushed around’ or whatever. But from here they’re almost identical. Clinton says 97 where Obama says 98. Obama says magenta where Clinton says carmine. Both say trees are good. Both say murder is bad. Big fat hairy deal.

    But if you can honestly believe that it’s more important to punish the party leaders (as if they’d ever even notice, or care) than to possibly prevent the murder of more innocent people, and possibly prevent a global thermonuclear war, then you’re a fucking idiot.

  1179. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:57

    kc said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:53

    Damn, 1170 comments?

    Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?

    Okey Dokey!

  1180. henry lewis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:58

    Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?

    Mrs. Dash rules but if you think Chef Paul’s is better I’m gonna chug-a-lug a whole bottle of Tabasco Sauce.

  1181. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:58

    Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?

    Barack Obama is a misogyinist asshole.

    Hillary Clinton is a racist asshole.

    Anybody who supports ANYBODY is a fuckwad.

    If you don’t stay home in November or at least vote for McCain you are a traitor to your party and a racist misogynist.

    That should do it….

    mikey

  1182. PeeJ said,

    May 9, 2008 at 3:59

    Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?

    Sure. Waaaaahhhh. You Obamabots are so mean. We’re all morons. McCain makes me wet.

    That pretty much sums it up.

  1183. kc said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:01

    So in the interest of driving this thing to long thread territory, a contest: Funniest smear against your own candidate (or supporters) wins.

    Obama in response to a reporter’s foreign policy question: “Why can’t I just drink my latte?”

  1184. atheist said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:03

    Just Allison, your handle used to be Qetesh the shaved Abyssinian, right?

    If that is so, then welcome back! Your comment at May 9, 2008 at 3:54 shows why you were welcomed. I remember you used to write these long, and rather powerful, comments.

  1185. RobW said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:04

    Oh, fercryinoutloud… There were already 500 posts when I made that comment and had only read up to about 300. Now it’s over 1100?!?

    Fuck this, I’m outtahere.

  1186. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:04

    Henry wins!

  1187. kc said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:08

    Thanks for the summaries. Oy.

    This is why I’ve cut way back on blogreading the last couple of months. I just don’t get how anyone who supports Hillary OR Obama could even think about voting for McCain if their pet candidate doesn’t win. I don’t know what the hell is wrong with those people. If enough Democrats think that way, then fuck, we just don’t deserve to win an election. Ever.

  1188. kc said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:09

    I mean, when 92% of African Americans who say that race was not a factor in their choice for President support Barack Obama, you gotta be skeptical about the results of polling done among African Americans

    Sweet Jesus, tell me a Democrat didn’t write that. Please.

  1189. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:13

    A Democrat didn’t write that.

  1190. mikey said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:22

    Ultimately, while it’s honorable and commendable to be passionate about your political beliefs, you can only be responsible for your own vote.

    You will take it to your polling place and cast it. Right up and down the ballot, participating to the extent possible in the remainder of the representative democracy that our founders envisioned.

    Or you stay home. You sit on the couch and watch cable news, gripping shreds of newsprint in your sweat – soaked palm, screaming clever epithets at the candidates, who live and die on aggregate, not individual votes, and so of course, do not, and will not, hear you…

    mikey

  1191. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:26

    I just don’t get how anyone who supports Hillary OR Obama could even think about voting for McCain if their pet candidate doesn’t win.

    Bear in mind that we’re talking about someone whose brain isn’t plugged in.

  1192. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:31

    would like recognized is
    Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Thu, 2008-05-08 19:02.
    I would like recognized is that my perception that some Obama supporters exhibit cult-like behavior is reality-based. Apparently, for some, even that is too much.

    have you every noticed how cult members always deny that they are members of a cult? That the best you can get out of a cult member is that some of their fellow believers are a tad over-zealous at times — that not only are they personally not “cultists”, but there is no “cult” at all?

    Login or register to post comments

    The thing about interventions? Someone actually has to care enough about you to go through the suffering and the hassle.

  1193. lambert strether said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:32

    Kathleen writes:

    The questions on the table were (1) Why is Corrente Wire/Lambert being such an asshole…

    Let me answer that: I enjoy it.

    Quality work, Kathleen!

  1194. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:41

    EnfantTerrible said,

    If Obama gets the nomination, great! If Clinton gets the nomination, great! I will happily support either of them. I’ll even support a mop handle with a hat on it, if it has a chance of preventing a third Bush term.

    Gotta get past the “my candidate or eternal suckitude” thinking, peoples. There is too much at stake.

    Because this is too great a comment to only be posted once.

  1195. RandomObserver said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:48

    From correntwire:

    What Does Obama Need To Do To Get My Vote?

    1. End the caucuses. Secret ballot primaries only.

    2. Regional primaries. Five of them, in rotation, beginning in February and ending in June. Iowa and New Hampshire can get in line with everyone else.

    3. Closed primaries. Democrats should select our nominee.

    4. Select the nominee by popular vote. Delegates should be used for other intra-party buisness at the convention, but let the voters select the nominee.

    How to you even mock this? To get their vote Obama needs to build a time machine, the re-do all the voting under new rules…gotcha.

  1196. jim said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:51

    “Could someone please summarize this whole thread for me?”

    Shorter Thread:

    Prima: STFU FGT
    Secunda: NO U
    Prima: U 1ST
    (repeat X 400)

    I don’t really have a horse in this race, but I sure am curious: how do the HRC supporters rationalize the support she now has from the likes of Ann “Those 9/11 Widows are just Attention Whores” Coulter & Rush “Oxycontin Warrior” Limbaugh, let alone her making huggy-kissy with the likes of Scaife & Murdoch? If she was my preferred candidate, that shit would lose me faster than a fat-deposit up a liposuction hose. Sort of hard not to notice, what with it being all over the Interwebs & the TeeVee & all.

    Also, please note how Berlusconi won his throne back recently in Italia, in a manner very unusual for a media magnate & attention-whore – he did it by NOT campaigning much at all, & letting his opponent hang himself. Heaven help you if McCain’s people use that tactic: you won’t have 1/2 as much ammo as you’ll need to take him down, & at this rate, you might just be doing his heavy lifting FOR him by the fall.

    The GOP’s most deadly Secret Weapon?
    The Democratic Circular Firing Squad.

    Oh, I keep forgetting: election campaigns are no time for conscious thought – silly me.

  1197. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:54

    lambert strether said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:32

    Kathleen writes:

    The questions on the table were (1) Why is Corrente Wire/Lambert being such an asshole…

    Let me answer that: I enjoy it.

    Quality work, Kathleen!

    Was that supposed to be ironic, lambert?

  1198. The Hamsters of Sadly, No! said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:57

    [gasp] Oh god, our paws are killing us! At least give us some more pellets you bastards!

  1199. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:59

    Don’t worry though, he will disappoint you in just the same way, but at least he will get what he wants. I can’t wait to read you bashing him in 5 years for actually doing politics. How dare those politicans practice politics!!!!!!!

    Hey, Get Real, I’d be thrilled to the marrow to have the opportunity to start bashing either Prez Barry or Prez Hill in January 08. I’d giggle my knickers off, on a daily basis. Truly, it would give me nothing but pleasure to be able to finally breathe a sigh of relief and join the club holding a Dem president’s feet to the fire. Honestly, nothing would give me greater pleasure.

    You see, you fail to understand one very simple thing: we here aren’t fanatical Obama supporters. Nor are we fanatical Hillary supporters. We’re simply rational, sensible, somewhat scared folk, who realise that (a) we’re never gonna get the candidates we want, or even anything that comes close, and (b) this particular general election is far too important to the entire breathing world to fuck around with.

    And yes, atheist, I was Qetesh. Alas, the poor Abby has shuffled off this mortal coil, so I’ve dropped the nym. Glad you liked reading some of my comments. I sometimes expected to read a textual raspberry for wiffling on so long.

  1200. atheist said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:59

    In order to get their vote, Obama needs to fly, like Superman did in the movie, around the Earth counter to the Earth’s rotation. He needs to do this so fast that he actually reverses the flow of time. Then he needs to save Lois Lane from certain death.

    Then they will think of voting for him.

  1201. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:05

    Next target: The signing of the Magna Carta

  1202. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:07

    Not quite, atheist.

    He, and every single one of his Borg Obamabot supporters, has to apologize for all the mean things done to them from 2nd grade until now.

    And that still won’t be enough, because on the internet you can’t see who is crossing their fingers.

  1203. gbear said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:10

    OT at comment #43,570,344,593,409,745

    I picked up my new scooter and drove it home tonight. If there was a malfunctioning gbear bot this evening, it would be saying this:

    fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun! fun!

  1204. A Raccoon said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:13

    Man, it still just tears me up that you guys get pellets. Delivered to your door no less. what elitists.

  1205. RandomObserver said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:17

    And yes, atheist, I was Qetesh. Alas, the poor Abby has shuffled off this mortal coil, so I’ve dropped the nym. Glad you liked reading some of my comments.

    Ah that’s too bad. Count me as one who enjoyed your Qetesh posts.

    You’re still a fucking Obot though! The more you deny it the more it only confirms it!

  1206. Jim said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:22

    I ….
    I posted here this morning, and went to work. I ate lunch, I read a book, and did a lot of work. I went to the gym, ate dinner, watched some TV and talked to friends.

    There are 1,200 comments here. I’m sorry, I’m just not reading them. Even my ego isn’t enough to get me to look for responses to what I said this morning.

    So, what’s on for tomorrow?

  1207. Brendan Calling » Blog Archive » What Sadly No Said. said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:25

    [...] Sadly, NO!: Have Obama and his supporters fucked up and been nasty and divisive and shitty at times? Yeah. So has she and so have hers. Both deserve to be raked over the coals when they sling Rovian mud at each other or blatantly and unconstructively break the 11th commandment or fling race and gender cards around or talk about obliterating Iran or invading Pakistan. [...]

  1208. themann1086 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:26

    What? It hasn’t already?!?!?!?!?!

    No, it hasn’t reached 1337 status.

    I was being punny.

  1209. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:32

    Sounds to me an awful lot like the educated, affluent or at least ‘comfortable’ class…the kind that isn’t really demanding substantive political change, just substantive image change.

    Get lost, you fucking troll.

  1210. Karate Bearfighter said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:33

    First!

  1211. The Sadly, No! Troll Players said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:34

    Greetings, ladies and gentlemen! For the upcoming summer season, we will be featuring a new character, Isis! Buzz phrases will include “creative class,” “fake change,” and our favorite, “New Democratic Party”!

    So join us as we present our newest treasure. All your old pals- Gary Ruppert, Matt McMahon, Jason Ambrose, even the Malfunctioning Glenn Reynolds Robot- are still here too.

  1212. The Sadly, No! Troll Players said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:35

    Er, Iris. Fuck off, it’s late.

  1213. Fast Eddie said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:43

    Iris, for the love of God, just go vote for McCain. Get an absentee ballot and send it in today. Then shut the fuck up about it.

    And in four years, when you and yours are about to come to me telling me I need to fall in line behind your candidate in the name of party unity and preventing another disastrous four years of President McCain, let me invite you to go fuck yourself now and save you the trouble of bothering me over this later. If this election goes south because a bunch of sore losers decided to protest not getting their way, then I will officially be done with this party. I don’t need to be in a co-dependent relationship with a bunch of people who are addicted to losing every four years.

  1214. The Sadly, No! Troll Players said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:47

    And to warm up the audience, we’re proud to present Rugged In Montana with His Badgers & Pelicans Extravaganza!

    Free pemmican to the first 100 seated!

  1215. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:56

    How

  1216. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:56

    Quaint

  1217. Giant Sammich said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:57

    I have a walk on in the third act.

  1218. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:58

    Mmmm… pemmican.

  1219. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 5:58

    Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”, literally “Great Paper”), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (“Great Charter of Freedoms”), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

    Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.

    Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by his subjects in an attempt to limit his powers by law. (It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated that his own powers were under the law).

  1220. Jrod said,

    May 9, 2008 at 6:11

    No more easy shit!

    Next target: The Singularity!

  1221. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 6:24

    No more easy shit!
    Next target: The Singularity!

    No way! You ain’t skipping the Inquisition of Toulouse. I wanna burn me some heretics!

  1222. protected static said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:07

    Alas, the poor Abby has shuffled off this mortal coil

    Oh, Alison… I’m sorry ’bout Qetesh.

    And Iris? Fuck off. No, really. If you think McCain would be a better choice than Obama, just Fuck. The. Hell. Off. Should Clinton win the nomination I’m gonna pull the lever for her despite my substantive disagreements with her.

    If you can say the same thing about Obama, please accept my apologies; otherwise, well… Fuck off, troll.

  1223. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:15

    Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

    That gawd damned right wing cipher!

    /hillary’s left wing

  1224. Mrs. Bates said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:22

    Funniest thing the blathering Iris troll did was ask if a person who called her a moron twice could be banned.

  1225. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:30

    That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron! That’s becoz I am a moron!

  1226. Black NASCAR Star said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:44

    Since Iris sez she ain’t gonna vote this fall, why is even writin’ ?

  1227. Auguste said,

    May 9, 2008 at 7:50

    The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries

    See, there’s his problem. As Clinton knows, you’re supposed to shift right in the runup to the primaries. And then when that strategy tanks, start talking race.

  1228. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:06

    Since Iris sez she ain’t gonna vote this fall, why is even writin’ ?

    I believe she said she was going to vote – for McCain, rather than Obama.

  1229. Kathleen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:08

    lambert sez I’m an asshole because I enjoy it!

    well, jesus I would hope so. I’d hate to think you spend all that effort and be unhappy.

  1230. Pinko Punko said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:12

    I didn’t think Iris was that bad. I think there are a lot of dum dums on the internet. She was fine.

    I denounce this entire thread for attempting to overrun and disgrace the entire greatness of the long thread.

    If I may for a moment, the entire season of coverage has made it impossible for us to know things that have been going on. It is true that supporting Obama takes a leap of faith because he has not announced a jihad against the war criminals currently among us. We certainly hope this is for the sake of appearances only. However, it may be that he will just out-Clinton the Clinton of 92-96 who decided to play ball with Republicans, not even realizing what the rules of the game actually are.

    We got Obama-Clinton because the media chose to ignore Edwards. Dodd was the only one to continue to lead in the Senate, while Clinton and Obama both played it somewhat safe. Clinton has been spun very unfairly to the point that even if she is now on the low road she was assumed to be on the low road many months before she was now, thanks to a stream of innuendo and obnoxious “horse race” style reporting from Drudge, the Politico, and in my mind the disgraced Talking Points Memo.

    I wash my hands of it all.

    I declare this thread to be illegitimate, and that I have certainly typed the most thoughtful and deserving 1000th comment.

  1231. HillBZZT KKKlindroid said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:27

    You may have found a loophole for the thread win, but this isn’t a big enough thread to count. And you didn’t win it by enough anyway. So obviously the ultimate win will be mine. Real soon now.

  1232. robert green said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:27

    to this post i can only add (really at over 1000 comments? fuckin’ a):
    word
    word
    also

    word

    but i’m pretty sure i said it first and often around here.

  1233. Senator Hussein X said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:40

    Where de white wimmen at?

  1234. ¡El Gato Negro! said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:44

    And yes, atheist, I was Qetesh. Alas, the poor Abby has shuffled off this mortal coil, so I’ve dropped the nym.

    no. No. ¡NO!

    ¡¡¡NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000000000000ooooooooooooo!!!!

  1235. dim-witted badger said,

    May 9, 2008 at 8:56

    See guys. I’ve been warning you and nobody listens. That “Iris” is a fucking pelican. I just know it. How do you like having to deal with it?

    fucking pelicans.

  1236. Smut Clyde said,

    May 9, 2008 at 9:40

    Plus Lambert’s whole re-enactment of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch was funny to me.
    I am going to have nightmares tonight about the Four Yorkshiremen of the Apocalypse.

  1237. Jack Benny said,

    May 9, 2008 at 9:42

    Dennis, is it time for my violin solo yet?
    I’ve been practicing for *hours*.
    Dennis?

  1238. Senator Barack Obama (D, IL) said,

    May 9, 2008 at 9:53

    If Senator Clinton is nominated as the Demoratic Party’s Presidential candidate in the 2008 general election, I will, of course, vote for her, and gladly. And I hope my supporters and campaign workers will do likewise.

    This is a crucial election cycle in the history of our great nation.
    Eight years of secretive and essentially lawless government from a monolithically-united Republican party have taken the United States of America far down the path to an authoritarian form of government that is antithetical to our traditions and ideals.

    Senator Clinton will make a fine Democratic President if elected.
    I’d like to think that I could unify the electorate in a new way if I gain the nomination, but if that is not to be, we must unite as a party and as American citizens to reject the discredited policies of the past eight years of Republican governance.

    Good luck to us all, and thank you all for caring so much and working so hard to bring about the change that our beloved country so desparately needs.

    Good night.

  1239. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 10:10

    Jennifer said,
    May 8, 2008 at 19:59

    …something incredibly intelligent and salient that’s well worth a read.

    Hey, just trying to help those who have something to do for the next 3 days, by sorting wheat from chaff (and straw).

  1240. a different brad said,

    May 9, 2008 at 10:33

    Yay for the Alison formerly known as Qetesh returning. Sorry for your loss.
    You should have seen Jennifer back in the long dead Scrutator threads. She brought such wonderful whup ass with amazing regularity.

  1241. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 10:37

    I keep hearing “we’re not all Obots”….but if you can point me to someone in this thread who has made the effort to communicate with Clinton supporters on the Clinton supporters terms,…well just do it. Maybe I missed those people in the deluge of groupthink here,… and if there are some non-Obots, I certainly do want to apologize to them.

    Jeebus, PL, there’s about a thousand (count ‘em!) comments up there from people saying something along the lines of “Neither of them are really progressive, but I’d rather vote for a dead dog’s arse than McCain”. And you think they’re Obama-bama-hey-oh-bama-bama-bots?

    Okay, I’ll try to make this clear to even Clinton supporters: I personally have nothing against Clinton, Obama, or their supporters. I do, however, have something against anyone who would rather passively or actively support McCain in November just because their pet candidate didn’t get the guernsey. Those people are complete and utter knobheads.

    Thank you for your attention.

  1242. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    May 9, 2008 at 10:52

    “I picked up my new scooter and drove it home tonight.”

    I said it before, and I’ll say it again – you meet the nicest people on a Honda.

  1243. themann1086 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 11:01

    Just for the hell of it…

    I’ll admit, right up front, that Clinton was right near the bottom of my preferred candidates when this thing got started. I was, well, bitter about her vote for the war, her refusal to apologize for it, her pandering to the authoritarians with stuff like flag burning and video games (full disclosure: I’m an avid gamer) and “damn kids these days” stuff. I probably had her over Joementum II and Vilsak, but that was about it.

    My preferences were pretty fluid; back in 2004, during the Democratic convention, I wrote about Obama’s keynote “I think we just saw the first black president speaking” but had become mildly disenchanted during some of the legislative battles of ’05 and ’06. Still, I liked him.

    Edwards… Oh John, how we miss you. His apology for his war vote, his strong populist message, his unwavering support for universal healthcare… of the Big 3, he was my favorite, no question. Before the Iowa caucus returns came in, which I watched with 2 close friends from back home, I told them my choices were 1A. Edwards, 1B. Obama, and 5. Clinton.

    Dodd was fantastic. The fighting for a free America he has done in the Senate has been outstanding. I hope we can pass him Senate Majority Leader in January 2009, cause Reid is just too cautious for my tastes. Hopefully we can get a strong progressive to take his seat when he retires in 2010.

    I’ve soured on Denny Boy over the past 4 years. I honestly view him as, not an idealist, but a pandering fool who peddles snake oil via grandiose proposals and statements. So I was mildly contemptible of him this cycle.

    Brief flirt with Gravel, it was nice having a crazy uncle type in the race. But it was last summer and, again, brief.

    Richardson I thought was a great addition to the race, even if I had him ranked behind Dodd, Edwards, and Obama. I really hope Obama taps him for SecState; he knows the value of diplomacy.

    So, there you go. A “full disclosure” type thing of why I’m an Obama supporter. Plus, maybe it’ll provide this thread ammo to keep this thing burning to 1337! Come on, Hundred Years’ War!

  1244. Smut Clyde said,

    May 9, 2008 at 11:11

    ‘Pelican’ is a politically-unsound term for a skeptic:

    This suggestion so outraged ufolgists that many of them still use the term “pelican” or “pelicanist” as a pejorative term for a debunker.

    Pelican suit, meet mall.

  1245. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 11:48

    Iris said,
    May 8, 2008 at 22:34

    She made him do it! Any woman will recognize that rationalization, and I’m sorry if that’s ‘playing gender politics’ but that’s one of the double standards to which Clinton has been held. The fact that it’s so hard for some to recognize is evidence to me of its insidiousness.

    Hey Iris, that’s a load of cobblers. This particular woman, who has been reviled as a fairly strident feminist at times (had a friend once who had a lapel badge saying “I am a humourless feminist”. The fact that he was the quintessential bearded lefty made it particularly piquant), sees nothing sexist in that comment whatever. Really. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton’s pink bits: it’s to do with the fact that the November election is crucial to the future of all life-kind.

  1246. Just Alison said,

    May 9, 2008 at 11:51

    Righteous Bubba said,
    May 8, 2008 at 22:42

    My Clinton just died tensely after nearly 134 minutes – she was the love of my sloppy idiotic life. What she had was an irritated carapace and if I had the money she would have lived many more years. She used to cross those legs with that sense of concentration each time she used the litter-box.

    Uhhh, RB: bad timing, dude. Seriously bad timing.

  1247. wordyeti said,

    May 9, 2008 at 11:57

    #

    The Hamsters of Sadly, No! said,

    May 9, 2008 at 4:57

    [gasp] Oh god, our paws are killing us! At least give us some more pellets you bastards!

    Creeping Crippled Christ on a ’64 Impala Dipstick! This brings back the unpleasant memories of ’06 on this board, when the purity trolls first raised their mushy little heads and bleated about all the dire consequences of electing anyone that … well, pretty much anyone.

    I did dig the vid referenced above about Hillary going apeshit in The Bunker and screeching at Bill, Carville et al. “I will fuck you in half! The goddam superdelegates were supposed to take the vote away from the people! I have the dumbest supporters ever! Half-blind geezers and illiterate dropouts!”

    That alone was worth trudging thru all these comments. I even went over to Corrente. Sheesh. I remembered it as a semi-decent blog where from time to time, you could read something interesting about the media and the ongoing death of newspapers. Not as this dark screechy batcave where precious souls clutch their pearls and wail until they feel satiated with all the attention they get for … for … well, for not having enough attention devoted to them at that point.

    Oh yeah –

    Iris?

    Fuck you right directly in the ear. Right past the anvil and stirrup of the middle ear, past the cochlea and through the dim retarded fog in your head and out your other ear.

    Hissy fits and getting people to vote McCain because your Hil didn’t get her oh-so-earned anointing is the kind of shitsmear cowardliness that makes Rove and his buddies squirt all over their $5,000 suits. You claim to be a progressive and you bring that shit to the party? Progressivism is supposed to be about bringing rationality and actual value judgments to the political system, rather than patronage and good ol’ boy bonhomie. Progressivism means you suck up your hurt feelings and DO THE RIGHT THING because you believe in doing the right thing, not because somebody held your hand long enough so’s you’d feel all warm & special again.

    All the Hillary supporters (and I have at times, been one, mainly because it’s amusing to see the wingnuts’ neck veins start to pulse) screech about how she’s better because she’s tough, and politics is a tough game.

    Well, right back atcha. This is not the time to get weepy and pull the prima donna act.

    I’m serious. Right in the ear, lady.

  1248. wordyeti said,

    May 9, 2008 at 12:03

    BTW –

    I miss Qetesh.

    She would always bring perspective to kerfuffles like this.

    If, by perspective, I mean that she would “play the viola” and ignore the trollbaiting.

    (in honor of Qetesh)

    *rasp* *rasp* *rasp*

    Sorry to hear she’s gone, Alison. My kits will get an extra helping of catnip tonight in her honor.

  1249. wordyeti said,

    May 9, 2008 at 12:09

    …aaaaannnnd …

    OK, I’ll admit it: I’m posting this one just to add to the comment count. Nothing much to really say by this time in the thread.

    (*whistles tunelessly to self. flips quarter a few times*)

    Say, you guys been watching the Lakers struggle to beat the Jazz the last coupla times? I’m thinkin’ when the series moves to SLC, the Lakers had best hope that Kobe has a few Superman-like 40+ point games in him, else they’re gonna hafta take this series to a Game 7.

    Anyone?

    Shucks.

    (*tugs vintage 30s cap down to eyebrows and shuffles off, head down*)

  1250. themann1086 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 13:03

    word,

    Go Flyers? :D

  1251. Banbury Cross said,

    May 9, 2008 at 13:10

    Grand Moff Texan has been transformed by the unity pony’s magical post partisanship awesomeness. Hope it was the one you have been waiting for.

  1252. Doodle Bean said,

    May 9, 2008 at 13:39

    This thread is still alive?!?!?!

    I call Zombie Thread! Impossible to kill!!!!

  1253. spencer said,

    May 9, 2008 at 13:52

    Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year

    Um, as someone who has just recently got a PhD and has tested the job market, let me respond by saying, um, no.

    Actually, salaries depend a *lot* on the state you’re in, and for a private 4-year university, you might be right. But community college? No way.

  1254. Lisa said,

    May 9, 2008 at 14:08

    Fucking long thread.

    Awesome.

  1255. Arky H8r of VürdPress said,

    May 9, 2008 at 14:20

    The thing about interventions? Someone actually has to care enough about you to go through the suffering and the hassle.

    [Coyotes howl]

  1256. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 14:32

    Damn! It’s still going.

    The Mongols are almost ready to sack Baghdad.

  1257. Howling Coyotes™³²®© said,

    May 9, 2008 at 14:36

    We will have the last word on this thread.

    Thank you all for coming, it’s been lovely.

  1258. FYAD said,

    May 9, 2008 at 15:32

    THIS THREAD MAN

    THIS THREAD

  1259. Number 1258 said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:06

    Just curious.

    And hopelessly out of it.

    What’s the significance of the number 1337?

  1260. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:07

    Legendary thread. It would appear to be coming to an end…that is, unless we get a random influx of Creed fans or neo-Nazis.

  1261. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:09

    Number 1258- 1337 is leet for, well, leet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

  1262. Galactic Emperor Xenu said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:20

    What’s the significance of the number 1337?

    It is the standard leet transliteration of the “leet-speak” term “leet”,
    which, in Internet history is derived from the Englist word “elite”.
    “Leet” is insider jargon, minimally denoting the set of people who
    recognize 1337 for leet, pwned for “owned”, |-|/\XX0R and relatives for “hacker”, etc.

    (In the late Usenet era, swappers of “cracked” binary files constituted themselves into several notional “elite” corps, who would reputedly exchange file-sharing secrets only within the circle of initiates. Hence the subject line “I am elite. Give me warez.”)

  1263. Blue Buddha said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:22

    If the MSM & Hillabots bash Obama supporters as being “elitists” does that then make them leet?

  1264. Dennis Day said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:22

    Gee, Mr. Benny, you were supposed to play your solo just after scene 256.
    I’ve been looking all over for you — the show’s over.
    I guess you’ll have to wait until next week.

  1265. Jack Benny said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:24

    We’re out of time? The show is over?

    Oh.

    Well.

    Rochester, I need my hat and coat.
    Rochester?

  1266. Lawnguylander said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:41

    John Edwards said,

    May 8, 2008 at 16:25 (kill)

    Your candidate sucks and I don’t.

    Too bad I dropped out.

    No, you suck too, John. It’s nice that you apologized but that didn’t make any Iraqis or soldiers come back to life so you can fuck off too.

    Does this lukasiak guy know that the internet is forever? That he’ll always be known as a bigoted asshole for the rich Correntean lather he’s worked himself into here? This is the most embarrassing performance I’ve seen here since the Fauxhammer showed up. He’ll never live this down. Time to get a new pseudo. Shystee should probably do the same.

  1267. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:47

    If the MSM & Hillabots bash Obama supporters as being “elitists” does that then make them leet?

    Not in the 133s7.

  1268. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:50

    rich Correntean lather

    Oh, that’s *good*.

  1269. shystee said,

    May 9, 2008 at 16:59

    rich Correntean lather

    Will Retardo Montalban do a commercial for us?

  1270. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 17:33

    Interestingly, according to wiki in 1269, King Otakar II of Bohemia inherits Carinthia and part of Carniola, making him the most powerful prince within the Holy Roman Empire.

  1271. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 17:35

    Or maybe that should be Al-Carinthia

  1272. Travis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 17:49

    Does this lukasiak guy know that the internet is forever?

    Google his handle for a clear answer. He’s been at this for a while, it seems.

    Also, “google his handle” hee hee

  1273. les said,

    May 9, 2008 at 17:51

    “I don’t really have a horse in this race, but I sure am curious: how do the HRC supporters rationalize the support she now has from the likes of Ann “Those 9/11 Widows are just Attention Whores” Coulter & Rush “Oxycontin Warrior” Limbaugh, let alone her making huggy-kissy with the likes of Scaife & Murdoch? If she was my preferred candidate, that shit would lose me faster than a fat-deposit up a liposuction hose. Sort of hard not to notice, what with it being all over the Interwebs & the TeeVee & all.”

    It’s progressive ‘cos Iris sees it. And because SHUT UP.

  1274. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 18:15

    Back on topic, a question for all the progressives who switched from Edwards to Clinton and are now contemplating sitting out:
    “If Barack is the nominee, the question is, will we all be together and united in ensuring that all these voters that we’re going to need in November come out and vote for Barack Obama?”

  1275. Adrian said,

    May 9, 2008 at 18:46

    Enough of the conciliatory bullshit.

    I respect the progressive critique of Barack Obama, he is, after all, a lame-o bourgeois politician.

    I do not and cannot respect any progressive defense of Hillary Clinton. As the public face of the party in 2002, her vote, more than anything else, gave this imperialist war the Democratic Party’s seal of moral approval. SHE MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THIS. As far as her metamorphosis into a working class hero….sweet Lord! I am speechless.

  1276. Zombie Thread That Cannot Die said,

    May 9, 2008 at 18:50

    brains.

  1277. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 18:54

    I waited all night for my 1000th post prize, but it never showed up.

    I CALL SHENANIGAN! GET THE BROOMS!

  1278. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 18:56

    SHE MUST BE PUNISHED…

    Looks like she’s lost the B&D vote.

  1279. commie atheist said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:03

    Is this the right room for an argument?

    Wow, it took awhile just to get through the first several hundred comments, but seriously: Iris is a paid Republican troll, no? Nobody could come by that kind of pure stupidity honestly.

  1280. Travis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:06

    Taylor Marsh?

  1281. ben said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:14

    So Nazis and Creed freaks aside, is this like the Longest Thread Ever, or what?

  1282. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:31

    OMG!!!!11!

    LTE!!!!

  1283. Snowwy said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:34

    I hate you all. I have spent all my free time for the LAST TWO DAYS reading this fucking thread.

    HATE.

  1284. Travis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:38

    Enough of the conciliatory bullshit.

    If this phrase were slightly shorter I’d re-name my blog. OTM, bingo, etc etc etc

  1285. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:38

    Wow, it took awhile just to get through the first several hundred comments, but seriously: Iris is a paid Republican troll, no? Nobody could come by that kind of pure stupidity honestly.

    As a final comment in tis thread, and as a warning to Obama supporters. Being part of a ‘movement’ means you can’t see yourself or the movement from the outside. I realize how protective and tribal we are against the Republicans, and it can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing. If you really believe this, and if this is representative of the Obama fanbase, then it only confirms what I feared. The once-promising online ‘progressive’ movement is subsuming itself into a charismatic personality cult and sniping at anyone and everyone (ESPECIALLY fellow Democrats) who dare to stand up and say that it’s completely empty and vacuous. You talk about trolling…I don’t even know where to start. From the beginning this “olive branch” was just a little insulting (“how do we get you in this car?” – read: BANDWAGON), but I respect the motives in posting it. The responses by the Obamanites have quite convinced me that we need Hillary, not because she is perfect, but because Obama needs to be stopped. Your masturbatory ‘movement’ needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.

    Thankfully there’s still time, and a chance for Hillary in WV and KY. Look carefully before you jump off this cliff, and vote Hillary! Oh, but I’m just practicing the ‘politics of fear’, I’m sure someone will say. I’m a paid Republican troll, others will say. What you need to understand is that I am a strong DEMOCRAT who was willing to give Obama a chance this year…I was on the bandwagon….but all the promise and hope has failed to materialize. Instead it’s “Obama can raise a lot of money” and “Obama appeals to the creative class.” Forgive me to think that Obama’s not going to have much of a base or governing coalition, IF he becomes President, which at this point I do not think he can. “Fans” derives from the word “fanatic,’ lest we forget – and Obama’s fans will move on to the next fad very quickly…

    And what happens when Obama’s hyper-masculine and misogynistic ‘movement’ gets their hopes dashed and they realize that Obama could not ‘transcend politics’ and ‘change everything’ with a “nod of his head”? I’ll tell you what – and the answer isn’t pretty — FASCISM. We reap what we sow…

    I’d like to think that some will listen, I’m not trying to point fingers because I was duped myself at one point…..I think the predictable reaction will be mockery and suspicion because I’m daring to question the unquestionable precepts of Obama’s candidacy. Let the flaming begin…..

  1286. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:40

    I hate you all. I have spent all my free time for the LAST TWO DAYS reading this fucking thread.

    But wasn’t it worth it, if only for the opportunity of reading the thought-provoking political insights of Iris?

  1287. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:42

    Obama’s hyper-masculine and misogynistic ‘movement’

    Missed the “bowls like a fag” memo obviously.

  1288. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:42

    I’d also like to throw out a lament to what used to be the ‘reality-based’ community and a wonderful forum for exchanging ideas. Is it any wonder Hillary supporters left the Daily Kos?

  1289. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:46

    And what happens when Obama’s hyper-masculine and misogynistic ‘movement’ gets their hopes dashed and they realize that Obama could not ‘transcend politics’ and ‘change everything’ with a “nod of his head”? I’ll tell you what – and the answer isn’t pretty — FASCISM.

    I love it. This mammoth thread is ending with stupidity of Goldbergian proportions. Well done, Iris.

    Now fuck off.

  1290. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:51

    I love it. This mammoth thread is ending with stupidity of Goldbergian proportions. Well done, Iris.

    Believe it or not, I knew you’d say that. Goldberg is a piece of shit fool…I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about what happens when you hype an essentially religious vision and then let people down bigtime..I’m talking about the lengths you will go to to defend an image of Obama. Smear me as a GOP’er all you want…it makes you look even worse.

  1291. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:52

    You may hate us, but we love you, Sword Boy.

  1292. ben said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:54

    No seriously, Creed fucking sucks.

  1293. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:56

    Now fuck off.

    You probably knew I was going to say that, too.

    And by the way, upthread Pinko Punko said:

    I didn’t think Iris was that bad. I think there are a lot of dum dums on the internet. She was fine

    Uh, no.

  1294. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:57

    And Neo-Nazi Skinheads who post at Stormfront are Teh Girlie.

  1295. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 19:58

    I’m talking about what happens when you hype an essentially religious vision and then let people down bigtime..I’m talking about the lengths you will go to to defend an image of Obama.

    You may wish to read the post at the very top of this thread.

  1296. ben said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:00

    And chunky reactionaries should be mocked for thier physical appearance, perhaps with amusing photoshops.

  1297. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:02

    Iris, I’ve read, carefully, everything you wrote in this thread.

    It’s clear that you see no merit whatever in Sen Obama, or his candidacy, and you believe that his supporters are deluded, blind to what you see as his defects and lack of substance. Believe me, you’ve made that perfectly clear.

    It’s also clear that you strongly valorize Sen Clinton, and believe that she is what’s needed, the Real Deal, a strong fighter, and an actual liberal/progressive.

    And you have very clearly communicated your rage at and contempt for those of us who disagree. I don’t think we’re confused on that score any longer, if ever we were.

    Message received. Got it. Roger. 10-4. Acknowledged. Check. We hear you.

  1298. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:04

    Oh, sure, joel, come in at just shy of 1300 comments and start talking sense.

    What are you, an elitist?

  1299. Travis said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:04

    Is it any wonder Hillary supporters left the Daily Kos?

    And nothing of value was lost

  1300. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:05

    Were you guys aware that there is a website called Die, Creed, Die?

  1301. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:05

    You’ll have to go way back, 1000 or so comments to yesterday to find Iris’
    Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:

    1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.

    So here’s the question again, asked by Mr. $400 haircut hisself:
    “If Barack is the nominee, the question is, will we all be together and united in ensuring that all these voters that we’re going to need in November come out and vote for Barack Obama?”

  1302. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:14

    Music critics slammed Creed because they thought they were generic, hyped and because music critics are generally a very fickle breed.

    They would justify themselves by saying things like the lyrics were “trite” when Creed’s lyrics are often extremely strong, especially compared with other bands in the mainstream around the time. As for the music being lifeless…..I find that laughable.

    Unfortunately music critics are mainly interested in one thing…making themselves look good and appearing to be on the cutting edge of “cool”. Most of them listen to so many albums that it if something doesn’t stand out in a pretty obvious way at first, it may not get a chance beyond that. This is half the reason why such gimmicky crap gets such good reviews. It stands out right away.

    Most music critics tend to be bitter little individuals who have little idea about music beyond stylised idea’s and using words like “eclectic”. Snobby little twats who wouldn’t know true meaning if it smacked them in the face.

  1303. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:18

    I really only know that one song by the guys, which seemed pretty Yarly.

    I’m just pushing for 2000. I could honestly care less about the guys.

  1304. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:19

    Breaking 1337 on Creed-bashing would be a tainted victory.

    But that’s okay, becaus Creed sucks.

  1305. Jennifer said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:20

    well, if you want to make sure this thread goes on forever, just post something about how circumcision is medically recommended….

    one two three four
    I declare a FORESKIN WAR!!!!

  1306. ben said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:21

    Most music critics tend to be bitter little individuals who have little idea about music beyond stylised idea’s and using words like “eclectic”. Snobby little twats who wouldn’t know true meaning if it smacked them in the face

    And that’s why I voted for John McCain. Teh party left me, etc.

  1307. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:23

    But that’s okay, becaus Creed sucks.

    Apart from the fact a lot of intelligent people (including Dr.BLT the song blogger on this site) would find your statement stupid…..

    Pretty much anyone with any sense realises that it’s a matter of opinion, and doesn’t use terms like “sucks”.

    And I mean really.

  1308. Righteous Bubba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:23

    I recommend in-utero circumcision.

  1309. Lawnguylander said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:24

    This piker of a post would be at well over 2000 comments by now if Lambert had participated over here more instead of hiding behind the Corrente gates. I was just reading this ~2,000 word comment to Shystee’s post about this post and apparently we have no idea what kind of scary untapped potential lives inside of Lambert:

    And if I wanted to play the game in the same way, and really go tit for tat, and take the low road as low as it could go, I could have; anyone who knows my ouevre and thinks for two seconds about the ways Obama could be attacked can readily imagine the subject matter and the techniques I would use, how hard I would have worked to put them across, and, with my track record, how successfully they would have propagated. Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson wouldn’t have been the half of it. All things considered, I think I was, if anything, gentle. And certainly fair.

    When did Big Chief tablets start coming with wi-fi capability?

  1310. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:26

    Thankfully there’s still time, and a chance for Hillary in WV and KY.

    Dummy, even if Hillary gets 100% of the votes in the next two primaries, she still loses.

    You fail. Go away. Your pod person has now taken your place.

  1311. not even an mba said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:27

    Pretty much anyone with any sense realises that it’s a matter of opinion, and doesn’t use terms like “sucks”.

    Okay. Creed exerts negative pressure to its surroundings.

    The one good thing about them is that they hastened the end of my watching WWE.

  1312. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:27

    I’m talking about what happens when you hype an essentially religious vision…

    At the dawning of the day, I pray for guidance and spiritual sustenance at my Obama shrine. I am but a simple man, but my faith in Obama is strong, and the power of Obama gives me the might to rise up and smite my foes, and the word of Obama as revealed in press releases provides me with my moral compass as I walk through Valley of the Shadow of Death. When my corporeal body is cast aside, my spirit will rise to a higher plane and enter the Great Campaign Headquarters of Obama where I will man the Celestial Phone Banks for all eternity. This I do believe. Amen.

  1313. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:28

    Also, I’m a pathetic shill.

  1314. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:29

    I, as someone who blew an entire day of work on the thread yesterday, am thankful than Lambert was so magnanimous as to not really bring out the big guns on us.

    Because in addition to putting off work, I would have been rolling on the floor and hyperventilating, which might have tipped my bosses off…

  1315. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:31

    er, not than. That.

  1316. ben said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:31

    Yeah i have no real feelings about creed plus or minus. I just figure arguing about a half forgotten 90s band would be more productive than yelling about Hillary.
    Who, you know, also sucks. Or at least voted for the Iraq war, which is the same thing.

  1317. Snorghagen said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:34

    1316. Only a little more than 30 to go before we reach the Black Death.

  1318. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:36

    I’m such an elitist that I sneer at Starbucks latte.

    Those who say they like Starbucks latte are caught up in a cult of coffee personality, have been swept away by an emotional fad. Starbucks will disappoint them in the end. I will be there when their pitiful hopes for a delicious expresso experience are crushed again, and I will laugh at the pathetic rubble of their liberal dreams. HA HA HAAAAAAA

    Fools.

    Peets has more actual experience, has been a fighter for progressive expresso for its entire life, and if you don’t agree, especially if you argue with me, and double-especially if you support your arguments with evidence, I hate you with burning hate that burns. Peets supporters have been shouldered aside again, unfairly, by stupid Starbucks customers who cannot see what’s before their eyes. When the election comes, Starbucks will LOSE, and it will all be YOUR FAULT. PEETS COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER, AND YOU RUINED IT, YOU BIG POOPYHEADS.

    [actually, I prefer Caffino.
    Or better yet, Wild Cherries in Truckee. ]

  1319. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:36

    Can we have the comments turn off at 1337?

    Because that would be cool.

    NEW RULE:

    No comment thread can go farther than 1337.

  1320. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:38

    NEW RULE: Iris, can you become a regular poster? I’d love to see you go at it with your parody again.

  1321. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:38

  1322. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:38

    !!!

  1323. D.N. Nation said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:39

    ???

  1324. Lawnguylander said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:39

    Most music critics tend to be bitter little individuals who have little idea about music beyond stylised idea’s and using words like “eclectic”.

    This seems about right. I think it was Ted Nugent who once said that rock critics loved Elvis Costello because they all look like him but wished they looked like the Nuge. Nowadays they all look like Thom Yorke but they wish they looked like Scott Stapp.

  1325. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:40

    I’m tired of iris.

    Cornea.

  1326. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:41

    I have never seen a first-time troll call for the banning of a regular poster for nym-stealing.

    Classic.

    Gary Ruppert? He might have a case. But Iris?

    LOLzers!!1!

  1327. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:41

    fovea

  1328. t4toby said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:42

    We’ve got 1337 in the bag.

  1329. Iris said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:42

    The ‘new coalition’, from TalkLeft:

    In 2005, Barack Obama voted for CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Who voted against it? Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and other progressive Democrats. Even Harry Reid. Who voted with Obama? Republicans, from Trent Lott to Lindsay Graham to Jeff Sessions and Democrats Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein (big surprise.)

    CAFA was a gift to wealthy corporations:

    Equal access to the American system of justice is a foundation of our democracy. S.5 would effect a sweeping reordering of our nation’s system of justice that will disenfranchise individual citizens from obtaining redress for harm, and thereby impede efforts against egregious corporate wrongdoing.”

    And we’re still supposed to accept that Obama is some kind of progressive hero? I’m sorry, but Hillary IS better, despite her flaws on some issues.

  1330. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:43

    retina

  1331. joel hanes said,

    May 9, 2008 at 20:44

    vitreous humor