Atrios has his nose out of joint because the LA Times has run a spot-on article about hyper-partisanship in America and its dangers. According to a snarky Atrios:
Apparently political participation is bad because the country is much better off when the low information mushy middle decide elections.
Knowledgeable people with well-informed opinions about policy: bad. Easily manipulated people who don’t pay attention and therefore live in some sort of Arcadian plane free of the taint of knowledge: good.
“Knowledgeable people with well-informed opinions about policy” like Pam Spaulding, and Steve Benen, and Joshua Micah Marshall? People who are so “informed” that they’ve chosen to support Barack Obama, a man with all of the political experience of a high school student government officer? People who’ve completely overlooked his lack of qualifications, his sexism, his race-baiting, his practicing of personal destruction politics against Clinton, while he hypocritically decries such practices? People who are part of an online group that has all the hallmarks of a cult of personality and who refuse to acknowledge that he’s not only unelectable, but that he shouldn’t be elected?
Uh, yeah. Thanks, Duncan, but I’d rather be with the “mushy middle” on this one; a majority of that middle has rejected Obama so far, so I think it’s doing pretty well. Certainly better than what used to be called the “reality-based community,” most of which has chosen to eschew Realityville in favor of Obamaland.
Update, 05/26/08 2:47 PM:
Looks like I touched a nerve with Duncan, because rather than, y’know, actually addressing any of the points I raised, he sent Obamabots to spam my comments section. Apologies to anyone who might have had something halfway intelligent to say who never saw their comment posted, but after a certain point the snark, accusations of racism, the same tired anti-Clinton shibboleths being trotted out, and the odd death threat, gets old.
Update, 05/26/08 6:23 PM:
I have decided, upon consideration, to show people just what kind of supporters Obama has online. As you’ll see, if you wade through the excrement that passes for comments from most of these people, most are personal attacks on me or cheap shots aimed at Clinton; few of the commenters (or shall we just call them trolls?) attempted to actually engage me in a discussion (of course even the few who did outnumber me and I simply don’t have the time or patience to issue dozens of more individual rebuttals). There are also the usual tiresome cries of “It’s over goddamit! She’s LOST!” Which is something that Obama supporters have been saying despite the fact that she keeps on winning.
Some comments were deleted, but I’m sure those zealous few will come back to do more trolling.
Update, 05/26/08 7:33 PM:
Anglachel said something that perfectly encapsulates my own experience with the blogosphere of late — before today (and no, this isn’t some thinly-veiled barb at Atrios):
I’ve watched too many otherwise reasonable people become raving morons on their blogs, and the common thread to all of it appears to be [Clinton Derangement Syndrome]. It’s something that gets you instant praise from hundreds of commenters, it makes you seem very hip and anti-establishment to sneer at the failings of the Clintons, and it puts you in a very chummy circle. It’s a lazy way to look radical without actually doing anything, kind of like hanging out with opportunistic bullshit artists in an exclusive little enclave in Chicago and think you’re doing something daring. The great irony, of course, is that the leading lights of Left Blogistan whose great moral claim is that they stand in opposition to the media whores of the MSM have done little for the last six months except regurgitate the central anti-Democratic meme promulgated by the MSM, that we must band together to destroy the evil Clintons. It would be amusing were it not so self-defeating.
Update, 5/26/08 11:30 PM:
Atrios is in a Snit (Coda) is now up.
in re your statement:
“who refuse to acknowledge that he’s not only unelectable, but that he shouldn’t be elected?”
aren’t you ignoring on little fact? That Obama HAS BEEN ELECTED to be the Democratic Nominee for president. He has won the most pledged Delegates, the most Superdelegates, the most states, the popular vote – he has just flat out won.
Listen, I started out as an Edwards supporter, and Hillary could have easily won my vote – all she had to do was RUN A GOOD CAMPAIGN and WIN THE PRIMARIES.
But she didn’t. Now, she’s just blowing up the party for spite, and ensuring a McCain victory.
Listen, she LOST. She is NOT entitled to the nomination if, playing by the rules, she LOST. And you are NOT entitled to have HRC as your nominee just because you want her – when she LOST.
Just for fun, practice this intellectual exercise. Imagine that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s position were reversed, and she had clearly won the nomination, and he was running around doing and saying the things that she is, just to make sure she loses in the fall.
How would you feel about that?
She LOST.. She ran a lousy campaign, and she LOST. Grow up, accept it, and rally around the Democratic nominee. OR else, when ST. Mcain appoints the looney Supreme Court judge that overturns ROd – you’ll just have to shut up.
I don’t view myself as “hyperpartisan” (whatever that is), but I am “partisan.” I have decided to back Barack Obama because the thought of electing John McCain and continuing down the same path we’ve been on for past seven-plus years is simply unthinkable.
I am not a part of any “cult of personality,” but in America, being a republic and all, I have to either be a “partisan” or a “non-participant.” I choose to stay informed and then, I choose to participate by voting for whom I believe will best lead America. Now, I may be wrong in my assessment of Obama (you apparently don’t agree with my views), but you, also, might be wrong in yours. Neither of us will know until the man is elected.
The positions of John McCain (all 2,000 of them) seem to be very contradictory, not because Atrios says so, but because they ARE! If you can make sense out of every side of every issue that McCain has been on since 2000, please feel free to explain to me how I might reconcile these differences. I am open to being convinced … are you?
Wait. This isn’t satire? “[P]olitical experience of a high school government officer?” There’s hyperbole and then there’s that odd statement. I’d love know how the Senior Class Secretary’s political experience is remotely on par with a sitting United States Senator’s. You sir, should not be lecturing anyone about “eschew[ing] Realityville.” Seriously.
Are you crazy?
What alternative universe are you living on?
When did some Democrats become as delusional as Free Republic?
This post is very moderate!
Reality-based, you are so typical of Obama’s mujahideen.
NO ONE has been nominated the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency. The convention is in August, and there are nearly two-hundred super delegates who have yet to take a side. Then there’s the fact the ALL delegates are free to change their minds at any time.
Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote and she has won the key battleground states that EVERY presidential candidate MUST win in order to win the White House.
Getting Democrats to vote for a Democrat in Democratic Party primaries doesn’t put a Democrat in the White House (see Gore, Kerry). Getting independent swing voters and cross-over Republicans is a vital part of the general election strategy for Democrats, and always has been, whether we like it or not.
Apparently, you’re too uneducated and fanatically devoted to Sir Talks A Lot to know these things.
As for the SCOTUS? Already in GOP hands and will be for 10 years, with or without McCain in the White House.
High school government officer? Really?
Oh, why did Atrios make me come over here? There’s just too much whiney for my taste.
Oh, and just to clarify the above post: she LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST
How very, very sad.
Hmmm. Playing politics with a war vote, horrible campaign strategy, inability to manage huge campaign funds, underestimating the opponent, refusal to admit certain defeat for the sake of party unity…and *Obama* is the one that’s unelectable and shouldn’t represent Democrats in the general?
a man with all of the political experience of a high school student government officer
I tell brave truths.
You are hyperpartisan.
He practices the politics of personal destruction.
Randron, nothing is going to convince me that Barack Obama is better for OR more electable to the White House when compared to Hillary Clinton. Period.
After seeing what Obama and his mujahideen have done to the party, it’s time for the Democratic Party to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground-up. The best way of seeing that happen is contributing to Obama’s defeat against McCain, if Obama becomes the Dem nominee.
Honestly, do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush? The Democratic Party spent 8 years rolling over for Dumbya, failing to act as an opposition party, and America is still here.
PERSONAL DESTRUCTION POLITICS AGAINST CLINTON
Oh the power of subjective perspectives.
And your more votes thing is just poo. Someone’s been getting their information directly from the Clinton campaign. . . .
I see, so your position is that everybody in the Democratic Party except Hillary Clinton deserves personal destruction. Including all those who don’t support Hillary Clinton.
Small wonder that you don’t agree with the Democratic Party on who its Presidential nominee should be, then.
Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote and she has won the key battleground states that EVERY presidential candidate MUST win in order to win the White House
Um, no she isn’t. It’s only true if you don’t count some states that Obama did win just because they don’t have a voting system that you like, not to mention counting states where Clintton had originally said their votes didn’t count and/or Obama wasn’t even on the ballot.
Further, are you really, really suggesting that Obama, a Democrat, isn’t going to win the strongly Democratic states that Clinton won?
What are Clinton people smoking at this point?
Yes, Obama’s delegates could suddenly adopt your opinions and become Clinton delegates. That could, technically, happen. Maybe you think that’s a good enough reason to keep attacking Obama to McCain’s benefit.
I think you’ve got better odds, though, hoping for the gunshot, like Hillary herself is. All that’s important is that she wins, by any means possible, right?
And calling Obama supporters “mujahideen” is pretty sleazy, isn’t it? Sort of like Hillary saying he isn’t a Muslim, as far as she knows, anyway.
It’s amazing how hard it can be to distinguish the Hillary dead-enders from the GOP rumour mongers. Same distortions, same inferences, same tactics. And you guys wonder why she lost.
I don’t get it.
I followed the “sexism” link and found an article about Obama saying Clinton “periodically” does something. That isn’t sexism.
I followed the “race-baiting” link to a post about Obama accusing others of making racially inflammatory statements. That isn’t race-baiting.
The “personal destruction” link goes to an article about Obama using words like “divisive” to describe Clinton’s campaign. Not only are those characterizations absolutely accurate (“white people will vote for me”; “if you don’t like my vote on the Iraq war, vote for someone else”; etc) but they are hardly a reason to disqualify Obama from the nomination.
If those are your reasons for believing Obama to be beyond the pale, I think you should re-evaluate your impressions.
I caucused for Clinton but she lost, fair and square. So I will get out and vote for Obama. Maybe he will turn out to be unelectable because many won’t vote for a black man, or a muslim (he’s not). If that is the case though, America will pay dearly for that with 4 or maybe 8 more years of the current Bush policies.
Oh, and I realized one thing after I saw Clinton meet with the RM Scaife. She *will* do anything to win including meeting with people who see her as more beatable than Obama. The very people who will be funding the groups doing the swiftboating to come.
Your rant just doesn’t make sense my friend. She lost, get over it. Do your duty (if your a democrat) and get behind the winner, Obama.
What #4 said.
I have never in my life, until now, ever heard of the “popular vote” being a factor in the Presidential primaries. Sounds like something a fairly desperate bunch of people made up.
And semidi — I’ve never heard of you before, but I love that irony thing you do where you criticize “Duncan” for his snit and his snark and his out-of-joint nose while making some of the bitchiest, sneeriest posts I’ve ever read. More!
Anyone who dismisses so cavalierly the damage to this country that McCain can wreak with Supreme Court appointments clearly is one of low information mushy middle. And talk about a cult member. Few Obama supporters are as narrow minded as you.
Oh. And take a math course. Or do you also believe the Supreme Court will become progressive because they are free to change their minds?
Obama’s mujhadeen? Seriously? Why are you carrying GOP water and transmitting the Obama is a dangerous muslim meme? Inexcusable.
Yes. Technically Obama has not received the nomination and Hillary could be given the nomination by delegates. But this will not happen. And given the rules of the game, why in the heck should they? Obama has played by the rules and is winning. Handily.
“High school government officer”? Sure, its hyperbole, but still grossly inaccurate.
And anyone who brings up the term unelectable should seriously exam Hillary’s baggage–much of which is her husband’s doing–and see the impact of such baggage in the general. Had Obama not soundly defeated her in many races and was he not polling so well then you might have a point.
Time to reexamine. Cool down. Reassess. And then help get a Dem elected to the White House.
At least get the facts straight: Hillary “won the key battleground states.” Yes, running against another Democratic candidate. That has no bearing on Obama’s ability to win those states in the general election running against a Republican. Apples and oranges, friend.
And Clinton is not beating Obama in the popular vote. Not true. And even if she was, it’s not about the popular vote. It’s about delegates. And no, they’re not going to switch. They ran as Obama delegates for a reason.
Let’s stick to facts, okay?
Dude, you’re crazy.
1) Neither the L.A. Times article nor Atrios’ post even mentions Obama, or Clinton for that matter.
2) This statement is a classic case of projection:
part of an online group that has all the hallmarks of a cult of personality and who refuse to acknowledge that he’s not only unelectable.
See, here’s the thing: I support Obama, but I’m not a die-hard. If Edwards or Clinton were the nominee, I would support them against McCain. And not just McCain–I would support any of the Democrats against Romney, or Huckabee, or Guiliani, or any Republican.
Because to me, the Democrats taking back the White House is more important than the person who does it.
It’s been a crazy primary season, but isn’t it time to step back from the individual candidates, and figure out what you really stand for?
“mujahideen”
Seriously.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote and she has won the key battleground states that EVERY presidential candidate MUST win in order to win the White House.
This argument doesn’t hold water.
Obama will win all those states with ease. It is highly likely that he would beat Hillary at this point were they to redo the vote now. When she won the biggest states she was the presumptive nominee. The Obama rise occurred later. Hillary has too many negatives following her from before, and she doesn’t have all that much experience (First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States? Please.)
I hope she steps up to her potential as the Senator from NY. She may do that if she decides to stop constantly running for President.
“Randron, nothing is going to convince me that Barack Obama is better for OR more electable to the White House when compared to Hillary Clinton. Period.”
Well, since you are impervious to new data or knowledge of any kind, it would seem to be pointless to argue with you. Have fun in your world. I’m sure all those folks who voted for Nader because there wasn’t any difference between Bush and Gore will be there to keep you company. The rest of us are going to try to elect a Democrat to the White House and avoid four more years of Republican idiocy.
America is still here
There’s a whole lot less of it than there was 7 years ago. I mean, the land mass is still here, but with torture, unjust wars, and the security state, there’s a whole lot less of ‘let freedom reign’ than there used to be. Restoration needs to happen sooner rather than later. You may hate Obama, but he’s going to be the Democratic nominee. It’s all over but the crying, and you need to stop doing THAT.
semidi,
I know dreams die hard, but you and the rest of the Hillary backers need to get over this. It’s true Obama hasn’t clinched the nomination, but unless he becomes physically unable to continue his campaign through November 8, he will be the nominee.
I wish that Hillary herself were taking the lead in healing the divisions in the party, so that I wouldn’t have to hear her supporters saying things like “do you have so little faith in American that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush?” My ambitions for this country extend considerably beyond mere survival, and if yours do as well, you had best get out of your own “snit” and recognize that backing Obama is infinitely better than “surviving” another 4 years of Republican rule.
Duncan Black and Barack Obama are not the ones standing in the way of a better America, and despite the damage she’s doing to her party, neither is Hillary Clinton. It’s Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and on and on and on, and a person must be incredibly bitter, incredibly short-sighted, or a Bush/McCain enabler not to understand that.
Lets play hypotheticals…
1. If Obama gets the nom and the Clinton teams starts campaigning for Obama will you still take your ball and go home?
2. Do you think that the Clinton team would refuse to campaign for a fellow dem?
3. Do you think Obama would refuse to campaign for Clinton?
4. Would you have the same level of disgust if Edwards was in the position Obama was in?
Don,
Obama has played politics with the war vote, claiming at one point that he and Bush were on the same page regarding Iraq. He has also kept funding the war with vote after vote after vote, until recently.
His campaign strategy has entailed race-baiting and using surrogates to launch a vicious whisper campaign against Clinton (google Dave Davies+Philadelphia Inquirer) while standing by as so many of his supporters and the media have engaged in sexist and misogynistic rhetoric against Clinton.
And in case you haven’t noticed, the primaries aren’t over yet and Obama is NOT the nominee. If he cares so much about party unity, when will he start showing it? Ever?
Too little, too late, if it ever comes, as far as I’m concerned.
” all of the political experience of a high school student government officer”? HA! You’re talking about Hillary.
She’s like Reese Witherspoon’s “Tracy Flick” in “Election.”
Without the charm.
semidi, your concern is noted
“Obama’s mujahideen.”
We can see where you’re coming from …
NO ONE has been nominated the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency. The convention is in August, and there are nearly two-hundred super delegates who have yet to take a side. Then there’s the fact the ALL delegates are free to change their minds at any time.
HRC needs almost 250 to get the number needed. In other words, she needs more delegates than there are remaining. As for your point of switching, can you provide even *one* example of someone switching from Obama to Hillary?
Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote and she has won the key battleground states that EVERY presidential candidate MUST win in order to win the White House.
Clinton is only beating Obama in the popular vote if you count states where she pledged *in writing* not to compete and where he wasn’t even on the ballot (having honored his own pledge not to compete), and at the same time not count 4 caucus states. The argument that in order to not “disenfranchise” FL and MI one must “disenfranchise” caucus states is, well, silly.
You’re right, though, that Clinton won some battleground states. It’s important to realize that Obama now leads McCain in every one of those states.
This scorched earth campaign she’s running now is disgusting.
Semidi: “Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote”
This depends on how you define “popular vote”. The only way Clinton wins is by counting Michigan and not giving Obama any share of the 238,168 votes for ‘Uncommitted’ and awarding Hillary all 328,309 votes cast for her. Put another way, 40% of the voters went to the polls to explicitly vote for no candidate as opposed to Hillary Clinton.
I started the campaign season leaning for Hillary since Dodd dropped out early. She’s completely changed my mind by running a terrible campaign and surrounding herself with people like Geraldine Ferraro and Mark Penn.
That having been said, nothing I write here matters. I’m not coming back and you’ll probably write a couple of paragraphs calling me names, quote a few more fake statistics, pat yourself on the back and call it a day.
“Mujahideen”? Still working on the fear factor, race factor, religion factor? Do you understand that this kind of term is precisely the kind that Bush would apply? He’s done his work well, clearly, even among those who appear to think he’s a Dumbya. I guess he has dumbya’d a few. Pity.
I don’t care who you support, or anyone else supports — the point is that using this kind of language *matters*. It perpetuates the kind of racism and xenophobia that have characterized the dominant political discourse in this country for too long. If you must characterize supporters using caricatures, how about “hacks” or “lackeys” or “jerks” — which seem to all be more accurate in terms of the phenomenon you purport to see.
If there’s one thing that Atrios is right about, it’s that this kind of rabid “if you’re not for us you’re against us” attitude among both candidates’ supporters is just stupid. What’s wrong with you people? We need to win, that’s what we need to keep our eye on.
“After seeing what Obama and his mujahideen [...]”
“Mujahideen?”
Shouldn’t you be focusing on the GOP nomination battle with the rest of the “Reagan Democrats?”
Hah! You said mujahideen!
Way clever!
Thank goodness Hillary and her mcauliffisters would never ever take an Obama misstatement and distort the context for political advantage.
Hey! Where’s my gas tax holiday anyway?
First, HRC has *not* won the ‘popular vote’, unless of course you count Michigan with its soviet-style one-name-on-the-ballot vote. Even with that, Obama is still winning.
Second, HRC won California. Are you saying that because she won California that Obama CAN’T?? If so, I’d suggest that you check the current polling there, where Obama is polling better than HRC against McSame.
Third, Obama has run a masterful campaign and HRC has run perhaps the worst campaign in American history. I’m sure Mark Penn would disagree, though. It’s funny… I actually donated to HRC in 2007. I wonder what Penn bought with that donation? Perhaps a few boxes of chlorine for his swimming pool?
Geez… the HRC supporters are the worst bunch of WATB’s this country has ever seen.
Ceding elections to the “low-information mushy middle” is what got us Bush in the first place. The collapse of the appeal of these jingoistic mantras is what gave HRC and Obama an opening. Yet, which candidate hands out “I’m not bitter” bumper stickers in a cynical attempt to capitalise on the “low-information mushy middle’s” inability to go beyond sound bites? And why, as others have noted, has Obama failed to return the favour by handing out “I’m not an assassin” bumper stickers?
Gosh, if he were to do that, then that would be “politics as usual”, and Obama would look…as bad as Hillary, maybe? Surely those “low-information voters” know what she meant, and the press should give her a pass, even explain what she meant. And Obama should clear things up, for the good of the Party. Even though she’s the experienced one, the cautious one, the vetted one, the strong one…
Face it, when Hillary stoops low and uses “low-information voters” to her advantage, you consider her to be strong, brilliant, and above all, realistic. And when she screws up, we should all just be understanding and informed and take the high road.
Isn’t that what the GOP has expected the country to do with Bush for his entire term?
I think it’s hilarious that the Party that nominated Bill Clinton and got him elected has somehow become, in the eyes of Clinton supporters, a passel of drooling, gullible, star-struck clods. I think it’s insane that HRC, the Party’s inevitable candidate, took a pledge not to campaign in FL and MI, then violated that pledge with an extended middle finger to the Party, then portrayed herself as some kind of Nelson Mandela that just wanted to see the poor people who cast a ballot in a rigged contest be “heard”, Party be damned.
She lost. You want to vote for McCain? It’s your choice, but don’t pretend that you’re just being a good Democrat by voting for a Bush clone.
As for the SCOTUS? Already in GOP hands and will be for 10 years, with or without McCain in the White House.
so, you’re going for 20 years? 30 years?
Your racism is obvious, and pernicious. You are an idiot and a tool. Your accusations against Obama are baseless and factless. our reliance on rumor and your own hyper-partisan interpretations paints you as one who is stupid enough to believe that McCain won’t put the final nail in the coffin of democracy in the USA. You are actually foolish enough to minimize the damage the GOP has done to the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and America’s reputation.
Say hello to Barack Obama, your next president, and be thankful.
“Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote.”
Really?
Or by this do you mean “Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote among states that hold primaries”?
And here’s a clue: winning the Dem primaries in the battleground states is only an issue if the winning candidate takes her supporters and goes home in the general. There’s no necessary correlation between winning the primary in a state and winning the general in that state (otherwise Bob Barr would be considered a threat in the Georgia general election). This is because the electorate voting in the primary IS NOT THE SAME as the electorate voting in the general.
Also: “After seeing what Obama and his mujahideen have done to the party…”
Yeah, that’s not hyper-partisan or inflammatory at all. No snippiness there, no sir.
Clinton’s supporters seem to be trying to do everything they can to deligitimize an Obama victory, with the expectation that doing so helps their candidate. They’re presenting handy excuses why racist Appalachia can feel good about voting against Obama. They’re arguing that Florida in 2008 is JUST THE SAME as Florida in 2000.
You don’t think this is going to help McCain win?
Sometimes I think that half of the internet Clinton supporters must be pro-McCain trolls.
I’d add about your “mujahadeen” comment:
Shame on you.
I know it’s your blog, and here am i taking a turn at trashing you on your own blog… but “mujahideen”? Seriously?
I submit that you are, in fact, NOT a Democrat. This isn’t the Clintonian Party of American, and she isn’t coronated to be president because you think she should be.
Honestly, do you have so little faith in American that we can’t survive 4 years of Obama after surving 8 of Bush? the Democratic Party spent 8 years rolling over for Dumbya, failing to act as an opposition party – until Howard Dean came along, until Barak Obama came along, until Russ Feingold stood up while Clinton played her games of politics to getting along – and America is still here.
It’s fun to throw around the word “cultist” at Obama supporters. But the fact that your head is so far up Clinton’s head on this speaks volumes about yourself. As Reality Based said – grow up. It was a FAIR campaign, as fair as any get, and she lost on both the rules as they are when they started and as they are as she’s trying to make them (the 40-odd times she’s tried to change them). Quit being a sore loser and accept that fact, and maybe Obama supporters will quit being sore winners.
Oh, and one more thing – rebuilding the party from the ground-up, and you’re a Clinton supporter? Sorry, but the Party is being built from the ground-up, right now. It started with Howard Dean being named head of the DNC. The Clintons are on top, have been on top for the past 15 years, and the campaign of Hillary Clinton has been a top-down affair. Which is why she LOST, and Obama WILL WIN June 4th.
1)There are approx 200 super delegates who have not committed to a candidate, not 2 (accuracy is important)
2)If you don’t count the caucus states and you count FL and MI, but of course that’s apple and oranges (accuracy is important)
3)HRC won the Democratic PRIMARY in those “battleground” states. In some of those states the Democratic turnout was TWICE the Republican turnout. Assuming that 10% to 20% of those HRC voters switch to McCain that STILL gives Obama the win in the general.
4)Insulting a candidate and their supporters by using Rovian, Atwaterite and Swift Boat style insults does not make an argument.
Only a cheap bigot would repeatedly refer to Obama’s “mujahideen .” This is further borne out by referring to the 47 year old Senator Obama as someone with the experience of a “high school student government officer.”
It always amazes me when rabid Hillary Clinton acolytes project their uncritical worship of Clinton onto the Obama supporters, claiming for the Obama supporters the same starry-eyed worship they exhibit.
Reality-based, you are so typical of Obama’s mujahideen.
Bizarre Dog-Whistle Accident Destroys Post
semidi –
“mujahideen”? Seriously. Just what kind of baiting is that?
And “do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush”?
This is rationalization of a scale that’s just incredible… and no, we cannot. Have those of you who spew this rational spent so little time paying attention to what’s actually going on in favor of Clinton fervor that you believe this?
This is quite possibly the new GOP – only it is the Grand Ostrich Paradox.
And may I remind you that in ‘00, the SCOTUS appointment of Bush caused so much uproar because of the way the Rules (in this case the Rule of Law) were broken? Any Clinton nomination will be of astounding similarity in power structures ignoring rules and laws which are the true structure of this country. It is for those rules and laws by which Democrats make their fight for the common good of this country – and their application to all men and women regardless of gender, race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.
It’s time for the Democratic Party to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground-up. The best way of seeing that happen is contributing to Obama’s defeat against McCain, if Obama becomes the Dem nominee.
Some Clintonistas are shitheads, but few or none are anywhere near as bad as you seem tobe, and I doubt that you really are one at all. I can’t be bothered to investigate you furhter, but you sound like a Republican troll to me.
“a man with all of the political experience of a high school student government officer? ”
My first introduction to your commentary is that you a hyper-partisan and a liar.
Good to know.
Patrick,
1. I will not support Barack Obama, regardless of whether Clinton does. If she chooses to campaign for him if he becomes the nominee, that’s up to her. I know after the hatchet job done on her by the media and Obama’s Nixonian campaign, she may have to for her own political survival within the party.
2. I have no idea. Ask Wolfson.
3. I believe that if forced to, Obama would campaign for Clinton. If only so that he could launch a future White House bid.
4. Absolutely. I was not an Edwards fan and would not appreciate the media trying to select him over a more qualified candidate like Clinton.
Do you think that a McCain presidency is better for America than an Obama presidency? Seriously? Really?
Congratulations, you have made my rapidly expanding list of hyperpartisans willing to sell their country down the river because their preferred candidate ran a crappy campaign and so isn’t going to win.
For the record, my initially preferred candidate (Edwards) ran a crappy (meaning he didn’t win) campaign too.. but you don’t see me stamping my feet and holding my breath about it.
“Reality-based, you are so typical of Obama’s mujahideen.”
“After seeing what Obama and his mujahideen have done to the party…”
Semidi, would you like to explain what your repeated connection of Obama and the term “mujahideed” is supposed to suggest? And don’t even try to tell us that it is not an attempt to further the worst of Republican Swift Boat smears against Obama- the absolutely baseless claim that he is a secret Muslim Manchurian candidate.
This behavior on your part is shameful. It is, in fact, part and parcel of the kind of politics that the American people are now so sick of. It is what makes Hillary and her supporters no better than George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
I will not support Barack Obama, regardless of whether Clinton does. If she chooses to campaign for him if he becomes the nominee, that’s up to her. I know after the hatchet job done on her by the media and Obama’s Nixonian campaign, she may have to for her own political survival within the party.
Oh, never mind. I hadn’t realized I was talking with a McCain voter.
Isn’t that rant a little, well, hyperpartisan? Are you in a snit?
BTW, Atrios linked to you.
“mujahideen”; that’s a good one. The only tiny problem is that Obama isn’t a Muslim and last I checked he doesn’t want to institute Sharia law in America. But that’s just me in crazy, fantasy “Obamaland.” You’re probably right.
Is there really someone in the US who thinks that Hillary would do a better job appealing to independents and cross-over Republicans than Obama?
Really? Honestly? Someone is living in a big enough fantasy world to write that?
Seriously folks, the Clinton running this year is Hillary, not Bill. And whether you like it or not, and whether it’s fair or not, and whether Hillary has gotten a bad rap historically or not, Hillary does not appeal to independents or Republicans as much as Obama does. For the simple reason that Hillary’s demonization at the hands of the GOP and their media allies for the last 16 years WORKED.
Give me a break.
“Honestly, do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush?”
Jesus. You’re kidding. This is a joke, right? You think this is about America “surviving”? You think it’s about you getting exactly the president you want?
Out here on the periphery of The Empire, we don’t have a vote. We just watch the victims pile up – last time you people bollocksed the election and The Sniggering Child got to continue his reign and you condemned uncounted number of Iraqis to die. This time, perhaps it’ll be Iranians – Christ knows, perhaps it’ll be Belgians, what the hell, something will make a sudden noise and that means someone has to get bombed, to restore McHero’s faith in himself.
Which is why we want an adult elected this time. Obama is an adult. Clinton too. If she’s done – and it looks like she is – get over to it. Work like fuck to elect the adult.
Please.
Your little hissy fit suggests it’s a game to you. It’s not a game. You’re talking about killing more people.
I think this summarizes some of the arguments this former Edwards supporter is hearing:
It is sexist to be winning against Hillary Clinton by playing by the rules that everyone agreed to in advance. And if you criticize her, you have engaged in the politics of personal destruction, no matter what she says or does no matter how tone deaf. And if the black guy running against her addresses any of the issues of race that are used to argue against his electability, he is playing the race card. And Hillary gets all the votes in the primary election where she was the only one on the ballot. And it is Obama’s fault that she misspoke because, well, the fact that he is ahead in the delegate count – far ahead considering how many are still in play – makes her tired. Or something. And anyway, Obama had no right to cut in line, Hillary had a natural RIGHT to be president because she is a woman and it is time, and anything that gets in the way of this is a personal assault on me, even though nobody forced her to put her campaign in the hands of fools like Mark Penn and Terry McCauliffe who would probably manage to get Martin Luther King to lose a school election in Selma Alabama. Because after all, Hillary Clinton is not responsible for her personnel choices or political acumen and her 30 point lead in the polls last November counted for nothing..
So I am going to vote for anti-choice, pro-war, incompetent, corrupt, badly educated, pandering, lose-cannon, Ambien-taking, old, probably part senile, temperamental, angry, dangerous, nutcase judge-nominating John McCain and it is all Obama’s fault. And his supporters.
You probably think this is a sexist post.
Funny how someone bashing the so-called “hyper-partisan” Obama supporters turns around and calls them “mujahideen”, once again pointing to the “muslim” slander.
Semidi, you just lost all credibility in that very moment…
Also: your using right-wing talking points makes me think you might just be a member of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, am I right?
Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote* and she has won the key battleground states that EVERY presidential candidate MUST win in order to win the White House.**
* – Right, but only if you don’t count certain states. And squint really, really hard.
** – This is an idiotic argument, quite possibly the dumbest one that Clinton supporters trot out. General elections and primary elections cannot be compared, for two blindingly obvious reasons: first, the candidate matchups are different in a general election, which means that voters are choosing between different sets of options; and second, the electorate is different, since many states limit primary participation based on party affiliation, which means that the candidates are trying to reach different groups of voters. When you change variables as important as candidate pool and electorate composition, you get apples in one hand and oranges in the other.
Really, I would have thought that this reality would be obvious to a fifth grader, but apparently not.
“After seeing what Obama and his mujahideen have done to the party, it’s time for the Democratic Party to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground-up.”
Semidi, you’re hilarious. “mujahideen”? Really? Nice. And “rebuilt from the ground-up”? By who? HRC and the same people who have been running the party for the last 15 years?
I’m not sure if you’re in the HRC cult of personality or the Obama anti-cult, but you’re definitely no stranger to cult-like language and logic. Maybe it’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror…
Obama’s mujahadeen?
Take a deep breath, step back, and look in the mirror. You’re willing to tear down the Democratic Party because HRC lost the nomination, and you are complaining about Obama’s mujahadeen?
I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I like Obama OK, would have been happy with HRC, too. But the fight is all but over and it’s time to get a Dem into the White House. You seem real bitter over Obama’s “Nixonian” campaign against HRC, but I just don’t see it. I’ve seen more shots taken by HRC’s camp at Obama. And compared to elections past, this one hasn’t had a significantly nastier tone. HRC has seemed quite willing to adopt GOP talking points to attack Obama, but they’re fighting for the same job and I don’t think she’s crossed any lines of propriety.
I’ve got no doubt that most HRC backers will come around to Obama fairly quickly after she stands on a podium with him and they hold hands and raise them in the air. The alternative is a president whose foreign policy is based on being as beligerant as possible to any possible foe, opposes abortion rights, talks tough on torture and then supports it when it comes to a vote, talks sensibly on immigration then says he wouldn’t vote for his own bill, and voted with Bush 95% of the time.
LIke I said, it’s been a tough race, but there’s no reason to be a dick just because your candidate lost.
Barrack Obama wasn’t elected?
I wonder how he got to be a U.S. Senator, then. Was he appointed? Hereditary succession? Magical fairy godmother?
Oh, wait, that wasn’t your point. Your point was to disagree with Duncan Black about “knowledgeable people” about “hyper-partisanship”, and then you go off on a rant about how eeeeevil Obama is. My bad.
All this fighting over who’s less eeeevil, Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, is disheartening to me as long as both Democratic candidates are basically polling within the margin of error against Sen. McCain, and against the worst president in US history. Looks like the “hyperpartisanship” of movement conservatism is still working its magic.
Patrick(11): Read some Chomsky. America has been killing people for a long time, regardless of which political party has been in power. So has every Western nation-state. McCain can’t do any worse than Bush (not exactly a recommendation, I know) but Obama is simply not qualified to be in the Oval Office — unless ruthless, underhanded, and hypocritical campaigning in the style of George W. Bush qualifies one, in which case Obama is a perfect successor to Bush.
Anyone who freely deletes comments that are critical doesn’t deserve to have a comments section. Your intolerance of dissent has been noted.
Honestly, do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush? The Democratic Party spent 8 years rolling over for Dumbya, failing to act as an opposition party, and America is still here.
The America of the year 2000 is NOT still here. It will never come back, either, though there is a chance that, with many years and dramatic changes, it will someday regain most of the moral standing it once had.
The insular — provincial, really — journalism that dominates US airwaves and print make it possible for most US citizens to remain blind to how much has been lost. That the US has allowed its government’s policy of systematic approval of torture and illegal surveillance, not to mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians in Iraq… has meant the loss of the soul of America. If that comes across as too santimonious, then let me put it this way: shove your goddamn complacency up your ass.
On a more civil note, what the hell is it about Obama’s supposed inexperience? Experience hasn’t assured anything even acceptable. The Presidency is a managerial position, requiring a team. Obama can put together a team of experienced people, and I don’t mean a bunch of re-tooled criminals like Elliot Abrams, or whatever other Bush hacks McCain would install.
semidi:
“Honestly, do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of McCain after surviving 8 of Bush?”
I have no doubt that America can survive 4 years of McCain. I have two questions for you: 1) At what cost in lives and and treasure? and 2) Why in the world would any sane person WANT to “survive 4 years of McCain” just because Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination?
That seems both irrational and delusional to me. If you love your country, and I assume you do, why would you subject something or someone you love to such pain just to prove a point? That is dangerously close to the attitude George Bush shows towards our troops, our citizens and our country. Are you not aware that if Obama blows it, Hillary can run again in 2008?
Honestly, do you have so little faith in America that we can’t survive 4 years of Obama after surviving 8 of Bush?
“… you are so typical of Obama’s mujahideen.”
It’s so true. We keep planting IEDs and blowing up civilians! And I just threw acid in my wife’s face because she wouldn’t wear her fucking burka.
Allāhu Akbar!
high school government officer?
wow… that’s embarrassing.
the man is a senator. do you know what a s-e-n-a-t-o-r is?
this whole blog is just humiliating joke. put it out of its misery.
I’m not sure precisely which blinders and cognitive cut-outs one would have to adopt to wind up with a worldview like yours, semidi…but I do know that if you could patent the mixture you’d stand to make a fortune.
Jesus. I was right. It’s a game.
“McCain can’t do any worse than Bush”.
These people who will die, they’re chips in a game, right? And America can afford to cash in some more chips while you rebuild your party from the bottom up?
Here’s the choice:
A) McCain will kill a lot of people.
B) Obama is an adult, doesn’t want to kill people – will probably do it anyway, to some extent, given the pressures from the rest of the machine.
Do the math.
Subtract probable total kill B) from probable total kill A). Celebrate the survivors.
I know, it’s a shitty way to have to make a choice, but that’s the shitty world we live in.
It’s disappointing. Clinton might even have been the better candidate. But every one of those extra chips is a life – with a whole world of parents, kids, aunts and uncles to grieve.
Please. Don’t mess around.
Wow….Hillarybots are quite precious, aren’t they. Especially when they get themselves into an anti-Obama snit.
“Randron, nothing is going to convince me that Barack Obama is better for OR more electable to the White House when compared to Hillary Clinton. Period.”
SemiDi, one thing that will convince you is next January when Obama is sworn in as our President.
You may think Clinton is better than Obama, and that’s fine. That’s the whole point of primaries and caucuses. Frankly, I think Edwards is better than either one of them.
But the fact is that ANY SINGLE DEMOCRAT — and I include that lunatic Gravel — is better than McCain.
So how about we exit the circular firing squad and start guaranteeing a win against the true enemy — conservative, right wing psycho Republicans?
rhetorical tool: First of all, my candidate hasn’t lost. The convention hasn’t been held yet.
Second, Obama adopted GOP talking points against Hillary.
Third, some Clinton backers will support Obama and continue to do what I’ve done for 19 years: Vote Democrat because for liberals, there’s no other game in town, which is something that the party has taken for granted for too long. The Green Party can be turned into a viable national political party — and the process might just start as a result of the DNC’s disrespect for Clinton and her supporters.
Fourth, Obama is running as a centrist who has praised Reagan and Nixon and trashed Bill Clinton and FDR. He’s going to continue courting Republicans and giving them far too much say in the governing of the country, so I can’t see McCain being that much worse.
Any fan of Chomsky ought to really hate Clinton.
That is all.
Please dont take this as just another offhand remark :
You, semidi, are a loony. Seriously.
“Obama’s mujahideen”
Do us all a favor and stop acting as if you were are a GOP operative .
( unless you are one )
“Obama and his mujahideen”
Yes, Obama is a Muslim. Why don’t we all hope he gets assassinate so that Hilllary can be the nominee?
You really suck, you know that?
Semidi,
Obama is unelectable? I’ll bet you a thousand bucks even up that Obama wins the general election. You in? Didn’t think so (and, yes, this is serious).
Put up or shut up…
Steve Terranova
(and yes, I’ll provide you with my real name and address and all the pertinent information needed to make this an actual bet).
“Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote”
No, she’s not. Next talking point please…
Seriously, give it up. I was a Clinton supporter. I voted for her in the Minnesota caucuses. I would have been happy to have her for our nominee. But she has lost, and the kind of campaign she has run in the past couple of months has made me ashamed to have ever supported her. Saying that Obama is less qualified than McCain? Implying that white people won’t vote for him? I’m a white guy who is happily going to vote for him!
She ran a good race, but she lost. The adult thing for her to do is withdraw and start campaigning for him. Didn’t her parents teach her about being a sore loser?
Semidi:
Stop being two-faced. Clinton even pointed to polls by KKKarl Rove’s firm to try and say she has a better shot at winning the general election. She has also whined that she’d be winning if the Democrats ran the process like Republicans(meaning some states .. like NY and NJ .. were winner take all). For you to sit here and say that if Hillary is not nominated as the Presidential nominee that you won’t vote for Obama is just immature and childish. I am sure Bob Barr or Lyndon LaRouche will appreciate your vote.
Interesting that you claim some sort of superiority to Obama supporters, while using GOP-race-baiting calling his supporters “mujahadeen.” I know hyperbole is all the rage on blogs these days, but how many Americans have been killed by Barack Obama’s supporters in political violence? How many fathers and mothers will never see their sons and daughters again because of Barack Obama?
Please try and avoid calling others “uneducated” while you compare approximately one half of a major American political party to radical terrorists.
And for the love of G-d, at least stay consistent within a comment threat. In #14 you say Obama would be a bad President because he’s courting Republicans, but in #3 you say getting cross-over Republicans is “vital” to getting a Democrat elected President, and therefore Obama is unelectable.
Finally, resist what your arrogant urges when talking about “qualifications.” When you try to say that Clinton is undoubtedly more qualified, that’s according to your test. For me, I think it’s important that the President can see a foreign policy disaster-in-the-making like the war in Iraq from the start, or at least have the decency to apologize for their mistake later. Qualifications is in the eye of the beholder–no one votes for someone they consider unqualified.
Correction and apology: Obviously, I meant 2012, not 2008.
The “stomp my feet, pout, take my ball and go home” attitude by both HRC and Obama supporters, with the most fanatical of both sides stooping to the lowest and most intellectually dishonest levels to build their team up by tearing the other down, has grown amazingly tedious.
And yes, I’m quite aware that no one asked foe my opinion…
“Obama’s mujahideen”
My high school students understand what a mujahideen is, apparently you do not.
You are a sick indivdual, please seek help.
“nothing is going to convince me that Barack Obama is better for OR more electable to the White House when compared to Hillary Clinton. Period.”
You can’t get more partisan than that statement, yet you claim to prefer the “mushy middle?” You see things the way you choose to see them, and then spit vitriol at any who seem them differently.
If nothing can convince you, there is no sense in continuing a dialog. You’ve made up your mind, and having done so you now seek to avoid any cognitive dissonance by deflecting any criticism of your views. With each deflection your beliefs will be reinforced, and will ultimately become unassailable (as they now seem). At that point you will become unable to learn, and that is not something to be proud of.
Fifth, you’re a coward.
>Barack Obama, a man with all of the political experience of a high school student government officer
One of the more interesting things about this ridiculous primary is that it’s show that one does not have to be right wing to be a wingnut.
The above is an excellent example; offering hyperbole as reason and reasoning.
A defining moment occurred just recently. After Hillary dropped her RFK assassination bomb, Obama had a golden opportunity to roast her alive with it. And he said:
“I have learned that when you’re campaigning for as many months as myself and Sen. Clinton have been campaigning that, you know, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. And I think that’s what happened here,” Obama told the Puerto Rico radio station Isla Saturday.
“Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that.”
That’s it. Gracious and classy. Now, today I read that Hillary is blaming Obama for the firestorm of critical comment leveled at her over this thing. WTF? What is wrong with her? She is not presidential.
My candidate hasn’t lost yet, either. Just wanted to say. You think _Clinton_ was thrashed by the media! Well, she was. But nothing like my guy.
I can’t express to you how despicable I find this conversation between Obama and Clinton supports that oh-so-conveniently ignore the facts that a) this isn’t over yet and b) there’s another Dem who IS STILL IN THE RACE.
Self-involved much?
randron(14): John McCain is not only far less dangerous than Bush, he’s far less dangerous than Obama. And if Obama is the nominee, you can bet your bottom dollar that McCain is going to be the President of the United States.
Congressional Dems spent eight years rolling over for Bush and the GOP; their new-found feistyness this primary season will last as long as it always does in election seasons, and then they’ll go right back to capitulating Republicans without a strong Democrat like Clinton in the Oval Office. It is for that and many other reasons, not just the abuse heaped on Clinton and her supporters, that I’m pretty well done with the Democratic Party — and , admittedly, out of some spite, I will vote for John McCain before moving to the Green Party.
Semidi,
Even with your vote for McCain (and good riddance to you), Obama will mop the floor with him. You in or not?
The Raven: Obama’s camp lit the fuse on the RFK smear, then kept it going. So much for the politics of hope and change. Obama and his crew have been running a dirty campaign from day one. Ask Dave Davies of the Philly Inquirer.
Man I’m laughing hard. America’s “moronic middle” gave the rest of us Dubya twice, and you’re going to tell me we should praise these asswipes?
No thanks, man, take your moronic middle and shove it up your ass if you won’t wipe it therewith.
Dr Strangelove: If you saw some of the four-dozen comments I’ve marked as spam, you would fully understand that many of Obama’s online supporters act no better than Muslim insurgent terrorists.
Bloix: Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but some of his devotees act like religious fanatics. The worst kind.
Obama was not my first choice (that would be Gore) or my second choice (Dodd), but dude, this is over the top. First off, you really discredit yourself when you say that Hilary won the popular vote. That’s only true if you 1) Count the MI and FL totals (As a resident of Michigan, I can tell you that the lack of delegates killed turnout and led to a number of people to vote in the R primary instead. I didn’t vote in the primary because I knew that it wouldn’t count for anything.) and THEN declare that none of the “Uncommitted” votes in MI were for him even though the Clinton team has repeatedly declared that Obama supporters launched a secret campaign to vote “Uncommitted”, 2) don’t count 4 caucus states, which is like saying my team scored more points if you don’t count the first two periods, and 3) Think that Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” counted for nothing.
Second, sexism. Obama’s “claws” comment was offensive, but other that that, you guys are really stretching, unless you think that Obama is responsible for the entire cast of MSNBC.
Race-baiting? Really? After “working, hard-working, white voters”? After Ferraro’s stunt in which she declared that Obama wouldn’t be the nominee if he weren’t black? After Obama’s primary victories were dismissed as simply comparable to Jesse Jackson’s? Really?
Finally, if you really don’t see a major problem with John “100 years” McCain continuing the same policies of George Bush, after all the environmental damage that has been wraught, the budget-busting tax cuts for the rich, mismanagment of the “War on Terror”, and everything else, you have a serious problem. By the way, Steven is 88. We already have four Borks on the Court. You want a fifth and sixth? If Clinton were the nominee, and at that point that’s not going to happen unless a lion breaks out of the zoo and eats Obama or something, I would vote for her just because I know her policies would at least be generally different from Bush’s and McCain’s. The fact that every Democrat doesn’t have a similar view is disappointing, even disturbing.
Who could have had less experience that GWB?
Obama is going to a fine president.
what was that sound?
your sphincter?
tough shit
Let’s see if I’ve got this right.
You won’t vote for Obama if he’s the nominee in November because he will loose to McCain and a Democratic congress will capitulate to a Republican president. So you’re voting for McCain.
Chasing your tail?
Why not vote for Obama and let a Democratic congress capitulate to a Democratic president?
attn Atriotic rubberneckers:
Something of note from semidi’s “About” page. Semidi “numbers among his discarded college majors Public Relations, Political Science, and Theater.”
Shoulda stuck with theater.
If you want to talk about Democrats picking up Republican ideas, its very convenient to ignore Hillary’s gas-tax pander. Not only is this idea wrong for a variety of reasons, but pushing this idea hurts reasonable congressional Democrats who oppose this, not just her primary opponent.
And the whole “popular vote” fiction is if you count Michigan and Florida’s soviet-style vote-for-HRC-or-nobody ballots, and disregard the caucus states that did not report popular vote. Regardless, picking a candidate based on popular vote while the candidates campaigned for delegates makes just as much sense as basing it on who has the larger campaign staff, or any other silly metric the HRC camp can come up with to justify her embarrassing herself nationally.
Dude, didn’t anyone ever show you how to use the “stupid” filter on Microsoft Word?
Has the country “survived” 8 years of the Bush Regime? We used to be able to make phone calls without fear of government eavesdropping. We used to be able to count on the courts to protect us if the executive branch claimed the right to, say, arrest us and imprison us indefinitely without trial. These, and many other rights, have been “disappeared” by Bush League officials and judges.
Admittedly, John McCain might be a bit more subtle about it – but he might not. What happens when we get 6 Bush League “Justices” on the Supreme Court? Will we see the de facto establishment of a semi-official government religion, like what’s quietly happening in the military (Evangelical Chaplains Test Bounds of Faith in Military)? Further politicization of science and law enforcement in the administrative branch (Committee Holds Hearing on Political Influence on Government Climate Change Scientists)?
The Nader for President folks used to say “how much harm can Bush do if elected” back in 2000. It turned out he could do a great deal of harm. 4 years of McCain might just destroy what remains of this democracy and turn us into a third world paramilitary dictatorship.
Semidi: “Obama’s mujahideen”
Wow, that was sad.
Take your ball and go home, then.
obama is communist
huh?: I won’t vote for Obama because he’s a conservative centrist, a race-baiter, a sexist, he’s grossly inexperienced, has a track record of dodging yea or nay votes on issues in order to avoid committing to a position (with his presidential bid in mind, no doubt), he’s been exceedingly hypocritical throughout the the campaign (and therefore untrustworthy). I could go on. In essence, he doesn’t have what it takes to govern.
And I’d like to remind you that Dems have a history of self-cannibalism (see, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress from1992-1994). Obama hasn’t even finished his FIRST TERM as a U.S. senator; he doesn’t fully understand how the Senate works, or the House, or the White House.
A President Obama is going to be a clown for some members of Congress and a puppet for others. From both parties. A President Clinton, with 35 years of public and private service under her belt, would not be. That simple.
That’s also why some Congressional Dems prefer Obama to Clinton; he’d be easier to lead around by the nose.
RepubAnon: We’ve never been free from government interference with or violation of our civil liberties; look at the COINTELPROs from the 1960’s and 1970’s as a less recent example. Hell, some of the spying and detainment happened under Democratic presidents. The Bush Junta’s actions are on a larger scale (we think) and came out while the Bushites were still in power instead of after they’d left, but we’ve always had a police state-bent to our country. That’s not going to change under an Obama presidency.
And what have the Democrats done to forestall that? Very little. Same with the American Taliban crowd hijacking our armed services with their brand of Christian fundamentalism.
I don’t foresee that changing under an Obama regime any more than under a McCain regime.
“Reality-based, you are so typical of Obama’s mujahideen” has the same tenor as “Jane, you ignorant slut!” LOL
I came across http://www.clintondems.com/ today, and the comments there make me believe that Clinton really is poisoning the well. She has people thinking that Obama is in some way stealing the primary election. That simply is not true in my and Reality-based’s world.
I was originally an Edwards supporter, but became a Clinton supporter when he dropped out. I became an Obama supporter when Clinton started bashing Obama and stopped telling the truth.
“and she has won the key battleground states”
Semi, please do not cast doubt on your own intelligence by conflating “won state X’s Democratic voters vs. another Democrat” and “won state X’s voters in a general election vs. a Republican.”
That has been the single dumbest line of argument this campaign, and it’s just nonsense.
I don’t care to argue you out of your Hillary support — I don’t see how she can win without throwing the election to McCain, but who knows — but I do hope that you would vote for Obama vs. McCain in November.
If not, you may as well join the GOP.
Don’t pretend any longer that you have any integrity. If you truly believed in what you are saying, you would have taken my bet, rather than delete my posts. You are the one who is not “reality-based”
[...] by semidi I could’ve attached this as the final update to “Atrios is in a Snit,” but wanted a time and date stamp that couldn’t be fudged, which meant a new [...]
[...] A majority of Barack Obama’s online supporters still qualify for the mujahideen title I bestowed on them a while back, as Vastleft inadvertently shows. Pour yourself a calming drink, beverage of your [...]