So then why are you surprised that Obama and his supporters see this as a lame issue?

Yet you have out-lamed everyone by whining about the semantics of Obama's condemnation of Rev. Pfleger's remarks.

To be clear, are you saying that GF's comments aren't problematic?  If so, I am shocked.  If, on the other hand, you're merely saying they don't reflect on Senator Clinton directly, then I largely agree.  

As to this "scandal," I suppose Obama could have done a better job of handling it, but I think your own dislike for Obama may be leaking through here Jerome.  This really isn't any different than GF continuing to slam Obama for his "reverse racism," or that union head in Ohio characterizing Obama as a latte drinking, prius driving, out of touch liberal during his introduction of Senator Clinton.  None of that is good for the party, of course, but it happens during primaries.  

Finally, Obama now has a problem with women?  Hyperbole much?  We're still in the middle of a primary.  Senator Clinton maintains a loyal base of supporters, many of whom are women.  Of course her supporters don't love Obama right now.  Dean folks didn't exactly love Kerry when that race was still viable either.  Forgive me if I'm unwilling to extrapolate that to a "problem with women" for Obama.

Clearly, Jerome, you and I live in an alternate universe.  I happen to agree with you completely.  It comes as no surprise to me then that the most recent Pew poll finds Obama's support among white women to be slipping.  It also comes as little surprise that among men his support has suffered little.  Men don't get it but I suspect the will come mid-November.

Am I the only one seeing 2.00 / 0's? Does this indicate that the users who gave 2.00's lost rating rights?

Not to throw a wrench in your argument, and for the record I don't think Clinton intended it in this way, but many have taken this assination comment to heart.  They cite the wording she used where she specifically spoke about the assasination and didn't really say anything explicitly about the long and drawn out campaing.

Her comment was specifically that RFK "..was assasinated in June..." and after that there wasn't a word about how the campaign was running, just that she didn't understand it.

Based on this wording I can see how people could easily think that she saying she was staying in the race because she was there in case this happened to Obama.  So while she did not invoke Obama explicitly, she also didn't explicitly state the '68 campaign went into June.  She said RFK was assasinated in June.

Now raising the specter of assasination in a presidential politics is a big mistake, and her words (intentionally or not) draws a direct connection to Obama since the relevance of assasination is that it would, in effect, give her the nomination.  This is the unintended rationalle for coninuing the campaign (into June).

So as you can see above, there is a very real reason for her to apoligize for invoking assasination while implying Obama.  I, personally, do not think she meant it in this way.  

I understand Clinton's reluctance to apologize to Obama since he is competing against her for the nomination.  But I do not see how it is reasonable to have a call for to have Obama apoligize for words that he didn't say and doesn't agree with, and not have the same call for Clinton on words that she said, conisidered wrong, and apoligized to others over (while disregarding the very real implication that was unintentionally tied to those words).

So yes there was something to apologize for, she did apologize, just not to all the people that she probably should have.

statements more like  very cynical observations, but I would not consider them to be hate filled.  Calling someone a crybaby is not hateful, maybe a little insensitive and disrepectful, but it is line with the Obambi,no balls, wuss, weak, characterizations that have been thrown around by other sides.

Yes this is a ferocious battle indeed, but this is just some more gotchas that supporters can snatch out of the airwaves and toss like grenades to the other side (or other inner side).  

Both sides are doing this and it is soooo old, doesn't anyone feel like doing anything else?

Where is Travis Stark, do you have any leftover virtual margarita's?  

Is this snark?

Seriously?

ok fine that was a little uncalled for, but please take a look at what you're saying here.

While there was no direct explict line drawn to Obama, there was certainly an implied line drawn since Obama is her opponent and this is one scenario where she would get the nomination.  Hence there is no lie here.  Just willful ignorance of something that many people (not only some people in the Obama camp) were justified in inferring.  I would hope it wasn't intentional, but it was there, it was percievable, and people from all stripes picked up on it.

So please reconsider when you start throwing around words like "lie" when in this case there was no "lie".  Clinton deserves no apology for the RFK flap, it was of her own making.  Obama did not make the link between the two.  This was a product of her poor choice in words and how they were interpreted by people at large.

Yea if I remember right, she took a week, and kind of condemned her.

And Ferraro has come out and bloodied Clinton's reputation several times over, each rant more bigoted than the last.

Why does Hillary let her do it?

No, Jerome is nitpicking. Barack Obama doesn't have to apologize for what other people do. He correctly distanced himself from Fr. Pfleger's remarks. Jerome is simply trying to make this more than it actually is (probably because he's angry that the candidate he has shilled for lost).

But is there REALLY a problem reaching women?  The majority of his voters have been women.

I think the problem isn't with Obama- it's with Bill getting on TV and declaring Obama sexist.  It's with Hillary complaining about the "treatment" she's gotten.  And now the blog audience (us- who ARE tradtionally more informed than Joe "got my 5 minutes worth on CNN" or Jane Average) reads this, over and over, and declares "Obama has a woman problem!!!".

Obama has no woman problem.  Obama has no white problem.  Obama has a Clinton supporter problem, one that, for the most part, will be resolved by next week.

I've criticized Obama on a few issues, and so have other Obama supporters, but to think we don't criticize him at all is silly.

People just get the wrong idea, when Clinton is NEVER criticized by the same who think it's cool to criticize Obama on a daily or weekly basis.

Once Obama is the nominee - in about 5 days or so - are you going to purge the dead-ender Cassandras, who pronounce doom constantly upon the party for picking him?

So people who speak up and say this site shouldn't be used to legitimize attacks on the Democratic nominee are going to be banned?

Whatever happened to "this site is dedicated to electing Democrats?"

Ridiculous GOP talking points on the rec list day, after day, after day... but it's the Obama supporters that need to be 'housecleaned'?

Jerome, I think you raise a good point. I think this idea that there can be no criticism of Obama at all is a serious drawback in gaining support from other dems. I know I feel this way.

Would you also agree we need to houseclean Clinton supporters who think there can be no criticism of Clinton at all?  

You run this site and can do whatever you want, but I would love to hear an answer as to why your comment focuses only on Obama supporters when it is clear that both candidates have supporters who don't accept criticism.  

As an Obama supporter, I am certainly willing to accept criticism about him.  I think you are right that he should have reached out harder on this, though I also think HRC should have apologized to him.  Neither DID anything to the other (I agree the RFK criticism was over the top), but they are both unwilling to be particularly gracious with the other when these things happen (it's probably because they are extremely angry with each other; which I can understand).

I must also say that when a sweeping threat like you made addresses only one side when it clearly is an issue on both sides, it comes accross as showing severe bias for the supporters of your preferred candidate.

For my $0.02, I hope you don't think it is necessary to purge ANYBODY only because they refuse to accept criticism.  As long as everyone follows rules of civility as dictated by your web site when arguing, why can't everyone argue against criticism they don't agree with?

Yes, it will be interesting to see the housecleaning after Tuesday.

Right now, it is very difficult for a rational person to tell the difference between republican McCain trolls and Hillary supporters on this site.  They both use GOP talking points and quote Karl Rove's maps and math.  They both bash Obama with trivial or irrational arguments.  

What happens next week?

troll rated & its my first troll rating ever on this site.

you're better than that jerome.  or, you used to be.  if you didn't want obama supporters on here bursting your little reality bubble, you should've said so earlier.

feel free to delete my account.
s.

A purge? Dude... really? A purge of partisans of only one side? Because, you know, just spitballing here, if you where to actually institute a purge across the board on both sides based on what you just said you would probably lose a particular poster who ends up on the recc list ever day, even when they re-post old diaries.

Your site, do what you want, but that one-sided rhetoric by the admin is lame.

>>>>I gotta feeling we are going to be doing some serious housecleaning here of the Obama supporters<<<<

Ha ha ha, Jerome. You're joking, right?

It's your playhouse, and everyone who doesn't agree can go home? But of course the Clinton supporters--and McCain trolls--who will seek the Democrats' defeat in November if Obama is the nominee will be A-OK here.

That's so sad....I can't believe how far you've fallen. It's almost Shakespearean, except that Shakespeare probably wouldn't use "gotta."

Uh oh, more house cleaning?

Jerome, I came to this site because dailykos got boring with its homogeneity.  I liked that there was actually still a discussion here (degenerated as it has lately).

But I barely rec and rate, because you've sufficiently chilled Obama supporters' desire to speak up in that form.  I can only speak for myself, but you might want to at least consider that aspect of how you regulate this site.

As for the comment...don't misunderstand the attitude of Obama supporters here.  I don't think Obama shouldn't be criticized.  I just think that, as far as double-standards go, this is pretty much the apex.  Obama said

I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric

...now compare your lambasting of Obama on topics such as this to how you handled Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment, or the ongoing Ferraro fiasco, etc.

My perception is that you come down on Obama for things you never would have come down on Clinton for.  And, in that sense, you're not defending him as a Democrat as many of us expect you should.

And I still want dissenting opinions.  But fair dissenting opinions.

Go ahead and disagree...I just wanted to share my perspective.

The issue is, quite obviously, that you seem to do NOTHING but criticize Obama.

I'm all for a eyes-wide-open look at our candidate and constructive criticism.  But when, over the course of many months, you post nothing but negative articles regarding Obama (our presumptive nominee), can you really be surprised when people question whether you want the Democrats to win this Presidency this year?

And I don't think I'm exaggerating here, I read this site every day and don't recall a single pro-Obama thing you've posted, well, ever.  Even if I've missed one, the ratio has to be at least 20-to-1, negative-to-positive.

In all honesty, can you read what you wrote there and not see a glaring bias that effects, not only the reputation of this site among bloggers but gives support to the absolute worse among Clinton supporters right here who can accept no criticism on Clinton?

from you that does not 'call out' Obama or point out how he is getting it wrong.  We have republicans for that.  I would like to see one where you point out what he is doing right and why he will be a great president.

But that's just me.

Jerome:

The Obama campaign came out with a response IMMEDIATELY after they heard of the Pfleger comments, and Pfleger apologized. Then the Clinton camp attacked and said it wasn't enough. So retarded.

"I mean, sure he threw the guy under the bus, but he could have backed over him a few more times, and why are there no studs on the tires?"

I guess guilt by association is back in style again.

But there is the concept of "bread and circus"

I know you didn't intend to insult. But us Catholics are not as stupid as you appear to assume.

Hillaryis44 is a web site. You can choose to go there, but it's basic premise is lifting Hillary up as the inevitable winner of the '08 race. Period.

Trinity Church is a house of God.

Big difference.

Posting youtube videos of our nominee joking around with reporters and calling him "our version of Bush"? Or posting hilariously misleading graphs and insulting the users who point it out?

This strikes me as a bad plan.

Count on it.  

I wouldn't put Jerome in the same category as Larry Johnson regardless of their views on a floor fight.

Just out of curiousity, though, Jerome, are there any circumstances under which you would like to see this go to the convention?

I'll agree that Hillary Clinton has had a tin ear responding to Obama's charges of racism, and obviously she has not handled the problem effectively. But both Bill and Hillary Clinton have apologized for and spoken out against even perceived racism in the campaign. Here are a few:

CNN: Clinton apologizes to black voters

Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama's success.

And she personally apologized to Obama over Shaheen:

The fallout is still measurable from Senator Hillary Clinton's apology to Barack Obama yesterday morning at Reagan National Airport for comments made by a top adviser relating to Mr. Obama's adolescent drug use, which he had disclosed years ago in his memoir.

It doesn't matter now...if Obama is the nominee he is the one who has to repair the hurt feelings, not the other way around.  If Clinton was in his position then yes I would be urging  her to speak out to his supporters to gain their votes.  I think you are missing the point.  

I see both. You'd have to be pretty badly in denial to deny the existence of either in this campaign. A dozen Chris Matthews moments and exit polls on "did race influence your vote?" from West Virginia are enough.

It isn't just his job, but he needs to move towards these alienated people. Not the dead-enders who crawl from NoQuarter to here and back, but sensible voters who may be on the fence.

He loses nothing by reaching out at this point, and he needs to have a serious talk with Hillary, including about the behavior of surrogates.

Obviously, talking to Ferraro won;t happen, but the endgame has to include some discussion and ground rules for how supporters will behave going forward.

He has long since rejected and renounced sexism.

But he is addressing you every time he makes a speech.  And I'm sure after this is wrapped up next week, he'll have a speech tailor-made for Clinton supporters.

But don't think for a second that this "problem" isn't being fanned by the Clinton campaign.

unfortunately...if Obama did this...they would probably conclude that he was being pratronizing.  They would conclude that he decided that she can't defend herself because she is a woman.

He's always telling us to treat Clinton and her supporters with respect.  He does it even when the crowd boos at her name.

Obama has always been appropriately respectful, except when Clinton's been attacking him over specious stuff (and even then, why go out of your way to be respectful to someone who's not returning the favor?).  It's these manufactured controversies and saying "oh, you didn't do ENOUGH just by coming out right away against them.  You needed to quote the offensive stuff verbatim and then wait five seconds to repudiate them so everyone can let the offensiveness sink in."

It's bizarre and silly.

We are on opposite sides of the party.  I love the fact that real people now run the DNC and the Washington insiders have been marginalized.  I think that is why this is such a passionate primary.  We the people of the party are involved.  You may not like it but all organizations change and evolve.  I will not kiss up to anyone, IMO there is NO good reason not to vote.  Think of the consequences, if you can live with them, go for it.

With America?  With the world?  Seriously.  This isn't a kid's game.

I don't like pissing of Clinton supporters.  I want to reconcile with the reasonable ones.  I'm quite fond of and impressed by canadiangirl and sricki and the like.  But I do love to piss off people who are passively or actively campaigning for McCain.

It's the "What if Hillary suspends..." diary.  I should point out that lori found the claim "bizarre," so I was wrong in saying that it was completely ignored by Clinton supporters.

None from the people who dominate the rec list here.  Where is alegre or TexasDarlin denouncing a blatant racist attack from an alleged Clinton supporter?  I appreciate those who do, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that the fights are going both ways and are being fed by trolls as much as anything.

she wants Obama as V P?

Nope, this is a speaker at Obama's church. Obama needed to leave the church after Wright's scandalous mockery and he didn't do it. What speakers at that church know is that you can say pretty much anything about Hillary Clinton.

What is clear is that they need to lose their tax exempt status now. They're a bunch of bigot promoting their bigotry. Misogyny is as deadly as racism, and this is most overt misogyny I've seen in decades.

This isn't some tiny church that no one sees - I mean, if he did this at his own church no one would care. But this is the church Obama continues to belong to, and these are the men he exposes his daughters to.

There is a huge problem here. And the Obama camp just doesn't understand that you cannot behave like this and unite the party. You can't win without Clinton supporters and you can't win Clinton supporters with rhetoric like this.

I hate to admit this to anyone, but I thought the Father was funny.  His imitation of Hillary's crying was funny, and it was not anything that we haven't seen on SNL.  I am saying this as a woman who cries all the time.  Nothng wrong with that.  The problem is that he is a spiritual leader who was in a church talking about politics.  Not good. Also, he was being sexist which is not good either.  He should have gone to a downtown comedy club or something if he wanted to do a comedy routine.  Also, the comment about the white entitlement was not true about the Clintons.  What is true about the Clintons is that they feel entitled to the nomination because they are the Clintons, not becuase they are white.

Its contrived. The battle between jerome and markos. gimme a break. they're best friends.

Both Jerome and Markos are from what I can see the #1 offenders.

While most folks on both sites are trying to restrain themselves, both these jokers are posting the most heinous attack pieces to be found.

Get a life, both of you.  Go beat each other up in a closed room.  Stop being jerks.

I've already asked if Jerome is a troll based on his behavior - to be fair, Kos deserves the same question.

Grow up you big goofs.

-chris

That you can divine what Senator Clinton actually meant in that interview is wasted here. Why not head out to Vegas and try to get a booking as a mentalist.?

If Obama has this all sewn up and it's just a matter of time before Senator Clinton realizes it, why all the hate?

There's nothing Obama could have said that would have satisfied you. If he had called Pfleger an "idiot", you would have complained he didn't call him a "massive idiot". If he had begged for forgiveness, you would have complained that he wasn't on his knees. If he had slapped Pfleger in the face, you would have complained that he didn't kick him in the balls.

You see the world through this prism, where everything said or left unsaid, every breath and gesture and scratch of his face is a thinly veiled attack on Hillary's gender. He could withdraw from the race and you'd still be whining that he wasn't differential enough.

So Obama has repeatedly praised her, told his supporters to leave the RBC meeting alone, nipped the RFK comment story in the bud in one news cycle, and has run the gentlest campaign against her imaginable...

...but because he doesn't mention every supporter who disparages Hillary by name, he's lacking and also offending Hillary supporters?

Please. Nothing short of dropping out and begging on his knees to be HER running mate would placate these people. How much coddling must be done for adults to get over their individual candidate and look at the good of the party?

Edwards supporters did it...

Dodd supporters did it...

Biden's did...Richardson's did...

Why can't Hillary's supporters do it? That's a pretty insulting view of them you have.

Jerome, no offense but perhaps you should practice the party unity standards you suggest.  Party unity is not the sole responsibility of one canidate or another, same goes with supporters.  Some of us have posted respectful diaries trying to start a dialog only to have the discourse derailed by yet another attack, or diary like this which only inflames.  

There is diary after diary posted here that not only critique and criticize Sen. Obama but some that are downright GOP cut and paste talking points, yet no public notice like the ones that are directed at Sen. Obama supporters.  

I have noticed the "warning" comments are specifically addressed to Obama supporters, why?

Do you not see the same or worse behaviors from Clinton supporters?  I'm not talking about administrative actions, I'm talking about your public warnings and threats.  

Unity does not mean one party must prostrate themselves to sooth the others feelings.

Unity comes through mutual respect, something currently lacking in tone and content.  

Really?

You have obviously never had to experience real hate of the kind you allude to here.  For some reason when Black institutions make statements of the same candor as Hillary did when she called on her army of hard working white americans you get your panties in a bunch.  Well it is the same kind of obfuscation that got us into this orwellian world and Iraq adventure.  The Catholic priest did not call on anyone to hate or destroy he said Hillary felt white entitled and couldnt stand the fact a black man was beating her.  

I'm seriously asking.

How do you know?

Do you have more background on either Pfleger or Wright beyond what you've heard on YouTube?  Were you even aware of who they were before this campaign started?

As a Chicagoan, I most certainly was -- Pfleger in particular is very much a firebrand priest (certainly quite a rarity in the Catholic church).

Name the rally - immigration, community violence, living wages, affordable housing - it's a near certainty that you'd hear Father Pfleger's name attached to it.

I suspect virtually every Chicagoan that has spent any amount of time listening to the news was well aware of who he was before this clip.

I'm not defending his disgusting performance this past Sunday - what I AM defending is the man himself, because he most certainly HAS done a lot of good in the community.

He's directly helped one heck of a lot more of the forgotten in our society than either Obama OR Clinton.  He's living it every day.

Again... I'm not defending what he said - I'm defending him.

I think it's unconscionable that you're trying to turn him into a pawn and a caricature.

Regardless of how this election ends up - I guarantee you that Father Pfleger is going to go right back to doing what he's been doing for decades before this election season.

He'll go right back to advocating for affordable housing.  He'll go right back to rallying for immigrant rights.   He'll go right back for fighting against gun violence in his community.