Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

About five days ago, I shined a bright spotlight on the reprehensible behavior of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's supporters.    Five days ago I said the mainstream media is starting to take notice of how the Obama-maniacs bludgeon their opponents to a bloody pulp through venomous words online, death threats to opinion leaders such as Tavis Smiley, and blatant disrespect to a former Democratic President of the United States.  I concluded my comments by echoing the sentiments of The Politico's Ben Smith who said "it [the disruptive tactics of Barack Obama's supporters] freaks out people in the middle." And finally, I strongly urged Obama's supporters to "show a little respect, show a little class, and show a little tact."

Unfortunately, my suggestions fell on deaf ears.

The National Journal's "Hotline On Call" blog today brings attention to the deplorable antics of the Obama-manics in Texas:

Speaking at an outdoor question-and-answer session on the campus of San Antonio College today, Clinton faced an anti-abortion heckler, rowdy Barack Obama supporters and a tough question about one of her mother's most controversial Senate votes.

As supporters and curious observers gathered before Chelsea's address, chants of "Vote for Obama!" were audible, and a man sporting anti-abortion signage circled the crowd. Almost as soon as she took the microphone, the former first daughter glanced back at the loud Obama supporters with a nervous smile and said: "I'd love to have a conversation. And if it's interrupted, I'd like to keep having a conversation."

Source:  2/22/2008 National Journal/Hotline On Call blog "Can We Talk?"

Over at Daily Kos, David Sirota, a nationally-syndicated columnist generally considered to hold progressive views, took a moment to let people know that he was "confused and a bit hurt" at the brutal attacks he's sustained at the hands of Sen. Obama's legion of followers.

Once again, I say these incendiary actions are freaking a lot of people out, putting a bad taste in their collective mouthes, and quite possibly driving them away from the political process.

Once again, I say that the 20,000 screaming Obama-manics need to tone down the rhetoric and quit the gang mentality.

Your behavior is not helping anyone; in fact, it's hurting the people that you'll need to win in November.  

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

84 Comments

Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

and Obama is the great Uniter, right?! His campaign has succeeded in dividing the Democratic Party -- let's see how he does uniting the country!

by moevaughn 2008-02-23 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

you only think he divided it because he dared to challenge Hillary.  When there is competition people naturally disagree and seem divided, the only way to avoid "dividing" the party is to have just handed it to Hillary which i know is what you wanted.  

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

It's not wrong to have a healthy debate, but there have been bully tactics used.  That defeats the purpose of debates, and serves to alienate your opponent.  This isn't a basketball game where poor behavior is oftentimes witnessed by fans.  When the buzzer sounds, the game score can't be changed or affected by the losing team supporters.  That's not the case in politics.  The kind of intimidating behavior Clinton supporters have been subjected to  by Obama supporters could very well affect the voting score at the end of this game.

by izarradar 2008-02-23 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Bully tactics?

It seems to me we have watched a whole year of bully tactics from Team Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/17/ 15313/5961/322/324095

Last April, New York Magazine:

   "There are some people the Clintons consider Clinton people who have gotten behind Barack," a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary's explains to me. "And there will be total retribution if the opportunity presents itself."

   Total retribution? You're joking, right?

   "I'm not joking. They're not going to audit somebody's tax return or anything. But once you've been in the Clinton camp, once they think you're part of the team, once you've helped them and they've helped you and you then go somewhere else--I just think it's very hard to crawl back into their good graces. I'm not saying it won't happen. But they won't forget. They may take you back eventually, but they won't forget."

LA Times, last year February:

   In Hollywood, Clinton campaign officials have moved aggressively to limit Obama's inroads and force longtime donors to back the former first lady.

   Her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, recently warned donors that Clinton would remember those who did not back her. "You are either with us, or you're against us," McAuliffe told potential donors during a dinner at Saban's house.

   So far, the appeal has not succeeded. Some, such as Geffen and fellow DreamWorks studio co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, have been drawn to Obama, 45, while others are following the lead of Norman Lear in supporting multiple candidates to foster a dynamic debate.

   When Lear, the legendary TV sitcom producer, was told of McAuliffe's comments this month, he responded: "What's Hillary going to do? Jail me?"

Real bullying comes from the top, not from the bottom.

by Dumbo 2008-02-23 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

No difference between Obama supporters and the far right Rush Limbaugh types-I'm ashamed of my party.  And ashamed of Barack Obama for not trying to control the anger of his acolytes.

by ExperienceCounts 2008-02-23 10:36AM | 0 recs
Obama is no fool

He knows darn well that this behavior among his supporters is common.  Tavis Smiley isn't exactly a nobody.  His silence is deafening... and tells me everything I need to know about him.  

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 10:46AM | 0 recs
control the anger?

What has Hillary done to control you or any other loose cannon roaming the MyDD funhouse?

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-23 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Gang Mentally is correct.  Wow!  I'm on on-line groups and they say if Obama doesn't win, there will be riots.  What is all about???

This has turned out to be a cult.  What sad is that Obama isn't even legally an African American, he is Arab American.  He has hurt the people in the US who need help the most by not acknowledging them... the Arab Americans.

People are not hearing, not seeing and not speaking correctly.  

by ceojuliej 2008-02-23 10:42AM | 0 recs
oh, wow, someone goes over the top on the internet

that NEVER happens.

by Teaser 2008-02-23 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

I could see that happening only if Hillary wins soley on the basis of superdelegates.

But then I've heard Clinton supporters say lots of dumb things too. Maybe we ought to collect up all the dumb things some Obama supporters have said, and all the dumb things some Clinton supporters have said, then wad them up in little balls and have a spit wad fight.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will win

that one, her supporters are respectful of him, for bringing out the younger voters, for engaging all of us, and for being the first black man to have a credible shot at the presidency. We're doing it the ordinary way, pointing to real differences, not smears and reporting gossip.  So on that one he'd win in a landslide.  But, they love him and their hearts will break if they lose him. But, they won't, if she gets the nom she's promised party unity and that will mean he'll be invited to join the ticket.  

by anna shane 2008-02-23 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will win

Her supporters are respectful of him? Lol! Some are, many aren't. Do a search on this site for the term "obamabots" and compare the number of search results to "hillbots" or "clintonistas" or whatever you'ld like. You'll be amazed.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will win

You are conflating respect for the candidate with respect for the supporters. I hope you can see those are two different things. Anna was a bit one sided - I have seen disrespect for both Clinton and Obama here on MyDD - posters using names like "Obambi" or "Billary" for example. It's childish, but sadly not uncommon in online fora.

But the subject of the diary is the spillage of such churlish behavior into the wider media world, and even boorish heckling at speeches. I have not heard any reports of (for example) Clinton supporters showing up to a Michelle Obama appearance and trying to shout her down with chants of "Vote for Hillary". And with the way the media hates Clinton, I am certain such an incident would have gotten wide coverage.

by itsthemedia 2008-02-23 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will win

When did Obama engage us?  I must have missed that.  He better start at least glancing my way, or he will be at least one vote short if he tries to scrape some up in the fall  Arrogance has been his number1 back point to me, and that of his supporters has been even worse.

by Scotch 2008-02-23 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Here's a Clinton-ite on MyDD threatening bloody revolution by way of movie poster. If you've seen the movie (Spoiler alert!) the implication is that if Obama wins, he's going to start bashing people's brains in with bowling pins:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/2/23/1 43043/153/37#37

Thoughts?

by Jumbo 2008-02-23 02:07PM | 0 recs
Can we be clear that we are talking about

a minority of Obama supporters.  Most people who support Obama are reasonable people who are merely interested in promoting their favored candidate.  Let's not paint with so broad a brush -- there are supporters who go over the line in all campaigns.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-23 10:43AM | 0 recs
No! When a man like Tavis Smiley

comes forward to tell the press that he and his family are being threatened simply because he said it was a mistake for Barack Obama to skip "State of the Black Union," it is no longer a small problem.  Barack Obama has long had an obligation to address this behavior, and he has chosen--chosen!--to keep silent.  It is NOT excusable, it is NOT acceptable.

You don't unite the country by bullying and abusing those who disagree with you or criticize you, and if your supporters are the ones doing the bullying and abusing, you have a responsibility as a leader to address it and put a stop to it.  He has not done so.

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 10:52AM | 0 recs
I'm not asking if you think its a big problem

I'm asking if you think that the majority of Obama supporters are over the line or inappropriate.  You really think most Obama supporters want Tavis Smiley dead?  Just admit that the allegations you are making pertain only to a small group of people, at most -- not his entire group of supporters -- and then people can have a reasonable discussion about whether they think things have gotten out of control or what Obama should do about them.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-23 11:03AM | 0 recs
Obama supporters...

...all look alike to some people.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:06AM | 0 recs
stick to the point

and stop trying to portray me as a racist.  I've spent the last 20 years of my life working on civil rights issues, and they are the primary focus of my career.

My point is that when the bullying and threatening get out of hand--and when a man like Smiley is threatened, they clearly have--then the candidate has a responsibility to rein it in and directly address it.

There are subtle ways for Obama to do this, without turning it into a major story.  He has failed to do so.

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: stick to the point

Who's trying to portray you as a racist? And when was Smiley threatened? Smiley stopped just short from calling Obama an Uncle Tom on national TV and lots of African Americans were offended by that. They voiced their opinion of Smileys over the top tirade. Unless there's something new to this story then that's all that happened.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:36AM | 0 recs
Here's what Smiley told the Washington Post...

"There's all this talk of hater, sellout and traitor," Smiley said to me [Washington Post reporter Darryl Fears] in a telephone interview. Smiley even mentioned getting death threats, but wouldn't elaborate. He said his office has been flooded with angry e-mails. "I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It's getting to be crazy," Smiley said.

Source:  2/16/2008 Washington Post/The Fix blog "Black Commenter, Criticizing Obama, Causes Firestorm"

by Andre Walker 2008-02-23 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's what Smiley told the Washington Post...

Ah.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:48AM | 0 recs
Yes, I do admit

that the vast majority of Obama's supporters are reasonable people.  But, as with any movement, emotions are charged to a high pitch and the few who are unreasonable tend to go to extremes of behavior.

My argument is that the candidate has a responsibility to recognize this possibility, considering the way he has pitched his campaign, and address it.

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 11:31AM | 0 recs
He has addressed it

See his comments with regards to his supporters:

"Our supporters, our staff, get overzealous," Obama added. "They start saying things that I would not say, and it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign."

Short of physically tracking down people who go over the line, I don't know what more he can do other than tell them to stop.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-23 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not asking if you think its a big problem

Okay, let's just say that in my life, where I know few Obama supporters because I live in a Clinton area, I don't care for how they act. They are rude, johnycomelatelys to politics and not all that tolerable.

by Scotch 2008-02-23 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not asking if you think its a big problem

I doubt that the majority of them want Tavis Smiley dead. And I know that not all of them are obnoxious little bullies. But it sure seems like a majority of them are. Maybe the Obama camp is where all of the Bush/Cheney people ended up.

by georgiapeach 2008-02-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
So now he's being threatened?

The story keeps changing. My understanding is that Smiley invited Obama to attend the State of the Black Union. Obama couldn't go but offered to send Michelle in his place. Smiley rejected Michelle's atrtendance then lambasted Obama on national TV, all but calling him an Uncle Tom, and when other African Americans objected he started getting all whiny about it.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Are you saying

...that Smiley deserved to get threats against himself and his family?  You are actually DEFENDING this behavior?  This is astonishing.

Incidentally, your "understanding" is wrong.  Yes, Smiley rejected Michelle Obama, since he did not want to put a surrogate next to another presidential candidate as if the two had equal footing (I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, who elected to attend the event).

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying

Why do you keep saying Smiley was threatened?

And it sounds like my understanding was right... he rejected Michelle Obama, for whatever reason. He didn't have to put them standing next to each other.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 11:39AM | 0 recs
Here's the link
to a cnn.com article that talks about him and his family being threatened: Obama Takes Heat for Skipping State of the Black Union
by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the link

Yeah, someone else already pointed it out to me. So I assume the police are involved?

And anyway Obama already addressed the issue. (see above) What more would you like him to do?

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 12:04PM | 0 recs
I would like him

to forcefully address the importance of non-violence.  He is trying to put together a movement for change.  I applaud that concept, and I think it's overdue.  But it is precisely his silence on this one single point that keeps me supporting Hillary Clinton.

Great political movements historically have been prone to violence, and every truly great leader of any political movement has forcefully addressed the need to extract change through peaceful means.  Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Rev. Tutu, Ghandi, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton...the list could go on, but there is a point here.

Barack Obama is firing people up.  Good for him.  But flames that are uncontrolled will do far more harm than good.  If he is going to lead a passionate movement for change, he needs to address this issue, because if he doesn't, it's only going to get worse.

When he says "Our supporters, our staff, get overzealous," it does not adequately address what many people see as a growing concern with his campaign.  He needs to directly address the dynamics of group behavior in relation to political movements.

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I would like him

I would like him to do that too, but there's been no violence and to be perfectly honest I get the feeling Smiley is engaging in a certain amount of hyperbole. If he and his family are really being harrased and are recieving death threats we should be hearing about the police investigation or at least that he's recieved police protection.

I could be wrong but I just get the sense that Smiley is pissed because Obama isn't paying enough attention to him and he made some over the top comments which caused a minor firestorm. Now Smiley is exaggerating.

But I could be wrong and I agree it would be great if Obama addressed the topic of non-violence.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: So now he's being threatened?

Tavis Smiliey never called him Uncle Tom. That is made up nonesense. Tavis has gone on record as saying that he and his family have recieved death threats. That's what he was "wining" about.

Black office holders have been threatened to support Obama or they will be challenged in the Dem primaries.

The Republican are running a corpse against us, and the way things are going now, I'd bet on the corpse to win despite the current polls.

by mmorang 2008-02-23 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: So now he's being threatened?

He 'all but' called him an Uncle Tom. On that radio interview he went on and on about how Obama didn't care about black people or black issues simply because he declined to attend Smiley's little party. That's why so many African Americans were so upset.

And if he and his family have recieved death threats then the police would be involved. Are they? Or is this just Smiley engaging in hyperbole?

Time will tell.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-24 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So now he's being threatened?

First you "all but" admit you were factually wrong: Tavis never called him an Uncle Tom.

Second, you question whether Tavis received and death threats. The man was critical of a national hero to many of his supporters. I couldn't imagine him not receiving death threats. You believe that amongst all the millions of his supporters there are no crazies?

That says something about your intellectual honesty or your judgement.

by mmorang 2008-02-24 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: So now he's being threatened?

This comment--

First you "all but" admit you were factually wrong: Tavis never called him an Uncle Tom.

And this one--

That says something about your intellectual honesty or your judgement.

Are nicely ironic when juxtaposed. As you well know I never said he called Obama an Uncle Tom, I said he "all but" called Obama an Uncle Tom, which is a fact.

On the Tom Joyner Morning Show, which has a mostly black audience, Smiley went on and on about how, because he declined to appear at Smileys conference, Obama didn't care about black people or black issues. That's why so many African Americans got so mad. Smiley stepped WAY over the line.

The facts speak for themselves.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-25 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So now he's being threatened?

So, he was critical of Obama and that makes death threats ok? I know, you question whether or not Obama actually received any death threats as its hard to imagine a famous person receiving death threats, especially after they are critical of a popular political figure. Besides you and I don't have a police report so it must not have happened.

I'm going to support Obama but I think its sad that a class act like Tavis has to take abuse just for giving his opinion.

by mmorang 2008-02-25 04:07PM | 0 recs
that's what isn't clear

for one thing, when I'm called names and wrongfully tr'd no Obama supporter sticks up for me, and the offending comments get rec's. the offending diaries make it to the rec list and that one about Chelsea got over a grand of comments.  He says if she wins his supporters won't vote for her and he's telling fence sitters to support him before he's won our they're out of a job.  He's a lot like Bill Clinton, actually, they both like to show their stuff.  I hope we can for once get a girl president.  

by anna shane 2008-02-23 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

From the New Yorker

"Going negative" has been a bust. It could never be anything but a bust, because there is no audience for it in the Democratic Party... Barack Obama is a phenomenon that comes along once in a lifetime. Unfortunately for Hillary, it's her lifetime; fortunately for the rest of us, it's ours.

by Drummond 2008-02-23 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Obama had a mildly negative week and he is already trailing Mccain in head to head according to rasmussen.

He is 3 points behind Mccain , same as Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore Gallup has her leading Obama nationally now.

I don't know if it is directly tied to his mild negative week but that has to be considered.

Imagine if he is subject to Hillary Clinton's negative barrage day in day out.

by lori 2008-02-23 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

It doesn't matter.  He's drawing packed crowds in Texas and Ohio, each of which has a multiplier effect with voters.  He even keeps it close in those states and it's over.  Everyone knows it, and the party leadership is starting to get anxious about putting this one to bed.  So let her rail for a couple of weeks.  Then it's time to get to work.

by Drummond 2008-02-23 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

People are hopefully looking past the glitter for some substance and demanding more of him now that the campaign is wearing on.  Even though the plagerism charge isn't supposed to be a big deal, people were mesmerized with him based on hiswords and presentation before.  They were thinking that he was able to create magical words and say them is such a great way.  That has been his main draw ever since he spoke years ago at the convention.  Now it has been pointed out that he is not writing or coming up with the words, that he isn't as creative and brillant as people have been thinking.  All he has left now is the way he presents the words, which isn't all that much.  People are looking beyond the shine for some substance and he is going back down in the polls because of it.  Unfortunately it is getting too late and when some in this country discover they have elected someone as a candidate and they are not knowledgeable of what he stands for, there might be some buyers remorse.  It is too bad this realization is coming on some too late in the campaign to stop his "movement" of very little from going forward.

by Scotch 2008-02-23 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

A Clinton/Obama ticket could win, it would be a tough fight though. Obama at the top of the ticket will be destroyed by John-Weekend-at-Bernie's-McCain.

Obama supporters don't see it, they are giving way too much weight to the recent primary wins and current polls. They don't take into consideration the effect all the attacks on Obama will have. He has barely been attacked. Hillary has done him no favors by being so timid with him. He will be destroyed by the right.

Given his treatment in the press, he should be up by 20 points right now. I will vote for Obama in the general but he will lose big like McGovern.

by mmorang 2008-02-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

It is possible that Hillary Clinton has a strategy for the presidency in this "timidity."  By falling back, not roughing him up, and allowing the media to treat him as the front-runner, but staying in the race enough to stay close, she could be setting him up as the primary target of the Republican attack machine.  Come May, they are close in delegates, Obama is suddenly being lambasted by the media and Republicans, his poll numbers dive and--presto chango!  All the superDees jump off him like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

by mtnspirit 2008-02-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

That is a plausible strategy and at this point the only thing Clinton has left. She will have to win Texas and Ohio to keep going IMO. It does not look good right now.

She's a fighter and I respect that and I hope she pulls it off. If she comes up short at all on March 4th, I think she will bow out and if that happens, I think Obama would have to seriously consider puting her on the ticket because McCain might put Kay Bailey Hutchington[?] on the his ticket.

by mmorang 2008-02-24 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2
What disgusting, abhorrent, pathetic behavior. You'll notice we never see Clinton supporters doing any of this.

Diary rec'd.

by sricki 2008-02-23 11:16AM | 0 recs
look harder
I know that most Hillary supporters are reasonable people, but please understand that supporters of all politicians go over the line -- Hillary's re no exception. Noonan: Pro-Hillary Reagan-Haters Sending Death Threats Then the author of "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" revealed: "I have received not hundreds but thousands of the most personal and obscene denunciations; I have received death threats; I have been threatened with blackmail; I have been informed that I do not deserve to live; I have received a three page typed double spaced letter with perfect grammar and syntax the first sentence of which was 'Dr. Ms Noonan, Let me explain to you why you are a . . .' and here I cannot suggest the word used..... I used to hear regularly from a woman who'd tell me she hopes I have a brain hemorrhage."
by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-23 11:47AM | 0 recs
look closer

that's pug stuff.  

by anna shane 2008-02-23 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: look harder
Link to article?
by sricki 2008-02-23 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: look harder

I wouldn't put it past Noonan to be lying. She is not all that innocent on adding to the nasty debate in this country now, and has always been a pusher of Clinton hatred.  Too bad it was her who invented "Read my lips, No new taxes"  which sank her beloved Daddy Bush.  Maybe she doesn't have all that good of a judgement skill.

by Scotch 2008-02-23 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

You obviously haven't been around here for long.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2
You misinterpret my reaction. I'm not saying Clinton supporters haven't been rude online. A lot of us definitely have.

What I mean is, I haven't heard anything about Clinton people actually disrupting Obama's rallies/speeches. I may be wrong, in which case, give me a link so I can read about rowdy Clinton supporters for myself.

by sricki 2008-02-23 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Oh. You're talking about the thing with Chelsea? I don't think those were Obama supporters. Those were pro-life Republicans just out making asses of themselves.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

"You'll notice we never see Clinton supporters doing any of this."

give me a break.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-23 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2
Give me a link to articles that indicate that Clinton supporters regularly show up at Obama rallies and heckle. Then I'll gladly rescind my statement.
by sricki 2008-02-23 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Pot and kettle, friend.

Clean up the hateful cesspool that is MyDD, and then you'll be in a position to chastise "rowdy" (how dare they!) Obama supporters.

If your response to a relentless positive and uplifting campaign is to fling around allegations of sexism and voter fraud, question the candidate's "loyalty to the Caucasian race" (actual MyDD quote!), level specious allegations of terrorist sympathies whilst attacking the candidate's Muslim middle name at the same time you attack his church, then I have a message for you: we neither want nor need you.

Clinton supporters need to stop projecting the childishness, arrogance, fanaticism and blind hate that they have been practicing whilst their favorite has been throwing away dominating institutional advantages with an insular, sloppy, tone-deaf campaign.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-23 11:23AM | 0 recs
your'e sooo silly

most of us like him fine, we want him vetted, we want the eventual nominee to be vetted first, so it's old news, and we don't spread hate, we'll be behind the nominee.  She says she's honored to be running against him and she says there will be party unity, and he does not say the same. He isn't discouraging his nastier supporters, and in that way he encourages them. she's clear to all of us, the party comes first, she says it in speeches, she says it out loud, she says it every time it's asked.  Ask him?  Maybe his followers will tone it down if he says that he'll be behind the winner and that he does not appreciate his supporters spreading hate.  Try it?  

by anna shane 2008-02-23 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: your'e sooo silly

Try this hateful screed, hot off the press: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/23/2144 1/0739

The "We just want him vetted" line is laughable. First, you people have an unconcealed, seething hatred of the man. There's no rational decision-making process there. Second, propagating vicious, untruthful, bigoted filth on the excuse that a Republican might do so later is preposterous. You are helping future slanderers, not hindering them, and you know it.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-23 05:20PM | 0 recs
WI

Did you guys see WI, He won 58% of the vote with almost no blacks, 62% of white men, 54% of <50,000yr, split women, who is her base?  He is winning now with everyone, the groups expand EVERY SINGLE WEEK.  All or most of Obama's people can't be this evil, if they were nearly everyone would be.

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 11:49AM | 0 recs
he's won some

she's one some, right now he's ahead and there are more states, including a few big ones. The florida delegates may be seated, and the Michigan votes may get split between them, it's not over.  If he wins no one on my side with squawk, but if she ends up winning someone will need to unite his supporters behind the nominee, now who has enough creds to do that?  Maybe a good idea to start now?  

by anna shane 2008-02-23 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: he's won some

my point is, is that he gets more and more of her core group every week.  He even grew 8% among seniors from Feb 5 to WI.  His less than 50K rose by 12%, White women, 2 to 1 on feb 5, 52-48 in WI.  His support is growing every single week and you cant deny that.

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: WI

It was an open primary, a lot of his margin was made up of republicans who already have a candidate and some time on their hands to mess with a democratic presidential primary.

by Scotch 2008-02-23 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: WI

did it ever occur to you that younger voters (obama's strength) are much more likely to call themselves "independents" than older voters(Clinton's strength) who tend to stick to a strict party ID even though there both actually Democrats in principle?

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: WI

What you don't get is that what happens in a Dem primary has no effect on the general election. Obama will not win one red state. He will not come close to winning one southern state even though he won most of them in the Dem primary.

The current head-to-head numbers are scary. Given his treatment in the press (which will change) he should be up by 20 points to McCain, but he is behind by 3 as of today per Rasmussen. That means trouble. Hillary is also down by 3 points to McCain, but she has already been beat up, her numbers will climb, Obama's will fall.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_trackin g_poll

He has had very little bad press. Nnow they will rake him over the coals and he will lose badly.

by mmorang 2008-02-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: WI

her numbers haven't been climbing and she's been running for a yr aganist someone who only started bringing her up (in even a slightly negative context) in January.  Her negatives by many measures are actually slightly higer than they were when she started!  

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: WI

I'm not saying this because I don't like Obama. I'd like to see the man in the Whitehouse for the next 16 years.

I'm telling you I've seen these races for decades and I've been following this one closely. Howard Kurz of CNN did a study of how each candidate is treated in the press and Hillary has been pummeled. Obama has hardly been touched. That will change.

Hillay was getting hit from her main two rivals on the Dem side from day one and also hit by all the Republican candidates. All I can say is this, watch the next few months. Take a good look where Obama is now and see where he's at down the road. I have seen this movie a few times and it rarely ends with the liberal winning the election.

I have no doubt that Hillary would be the best general election candidate but it is proably too late.

by mmorang 2008-02-24 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Thanks for the diary. The damage being done is great, and the argument that it is only some BO supporters doesn't work because BO himself has been silent on the issue.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-23 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Read before you post. Obama has been silent and there is a quote above.

Meanwhile you and yours are silent on the topic of the pathetic hate-fest that is going on on this very blog. The hypocrisy is just staggering.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-23 05:23PM | 0 recs
I think you mean has not been silent

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-23 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

I agree the hypocrisy is staggering -- one thing we know for certain, democrats are not feeling more hopeful nor more unified.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-23 10:20PM | 0 recs
The Sirota point is BS and damages your argument

Did you actually read the things you were linking to... Sirota was writing a Pro-Obama, anti-Clinton diary about NAFTA.  Some DKos posters objected to his promotion of his column.  

I didn't focus on the argument enough to have an opinion, but you state this like it was a bunch of Pro-obama posters attacking a pro-Clinton person.  It wasn't.  Sirota was very anti-Clinton, very pro-Obama... So how do you say this is an example of your point, it in fact proves the opposite, that things get heated over the internet.  

Also, comparing even heated discussion or TR on the interent to physical violence is just dumb.

by labor nrrd 2008-02-23 12:16PM | 0 recs
Tactics Right Out of Karl Rove's Playbook

"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged," Hillary Clinton said today in Ohio.

As she said these words, she was finally showing the same kind of anger I've been feeling about Obama and his supporters for a long time. Obama's campaign is too Rovian. In 2000, Bush succeeded in strongly dividing the country even though he claimed to be a uniter. I've never seen the Democratic party as strongly divided as it is today. Karl Rove must be proud.

by zenful6219 2008-02-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2
Both sides are incredibly heated right now. As a Edwards supporter who voted for Obama last week, I think this diary is spot on.
However, let's not excuse the cheap shots from the HRC camp either.
by astronautagogo 2008-02-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Over at Daily Kos, David Sirota, a nationally-syndicated columnist generally considered to hold progressive views, took a moment to let people know that he was "confused and a bit hurt" at the brutal attacks he's sustained at the hands of Sen. Obama's legion of followers.

Interesting take you have there.  I never saw David Sirota complain about the attacks of Obama supporters.  It would indeed be ironic if it was Obama supporters attacking him for the anti Hillary diary he wrote.  Somehow I think if you actually read the diary he was referring to you might have figured out what it was all about.

In no way could any reasonable person infer he was  referring to Obama supporters.  Read the diary and comments and then decide who he was referring to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/ 154057/227/653/462100

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
&quot;Obamamania&quot;? come ON.

it's just another extension of the "Obama cult" meme.  it's not only an empty attack, it's also highly insulting and demeaning for us Obama supporters who believe he's the right candidate.  we didn't come to this from some sort of delusion, from some trick that the Obama campaign is somehow pulling, we came to it because Obama's positions, his knowledge about the country, and his political ability are the right thing we need right now.

with Hillary's campaign, we've started to see horrible financial mismanagement and nonexistent ground operations.  Obama's campaign, as a contrast, has been lauded as an example for which future campaigns will follow, a well-managed, grassroots, COMMUNITY ORGANIZING campaign.  if Hillary's campaign is going to be so badly mismanaged, I DO NOT WANT THAT in the general election.  now more than ever, we need a campaign and a candidate that is on point and showing real leadership.  Obama's done that through-and-through.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right. Just look at Daily Kos

This wonderful blog where they accuse the probable democratic candidate for the presidency of "voter fraud" -- a felony -- because his campaign is bringing new voters into the party in full accordance with voter registration laws. (And it has been on top of the rec list for hours.)

You just can't handle a place where most people don't agree with you. That takes a strength you don't possess, is all. So go ahead and hide, if you want to, but quit blaming the people you are hiding from.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-23 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

The outrage..on both sides..if you really feel it can be expressed in your city or neighborhood at we approach March 2003...2004..2005..2006..2007..2008.

Where will you be when the same dedicated folks who gather each year without you gather in protest? If all those who support Obama or Clinton would take a few hours out of your lives and add your physical presence in opposition to our continued activities in Iraq..
it would send a clear message.
But that won't happen.
Millions of $$ raised or contributed are easier than showing up at a local rally. Posting on the web is easier...
I am fed up..
When either Obama or Clinton calls for their supporters to recognize our illegal invasion and occupation then I will believe.

Until then..both candidates and their avid supporters are just...pretending to call for our individual commitment...

Neither Clinton or Obama
or their strongest supporters would consider this...from last year..When Edwards called for action. Remember? Pox on both who pretend either are willing to call on the supporters to stand up..stand out this terrible March Anniversary.

This is why I supported Edwards
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201512. html
 

by nogo war 2008-02-23 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2

Oh yeah I am tired of Obama was against Iraq if he is not willing to make a call to his millions of supporters to stand up. If Clinton really wanted to make a statement she would call for action..

These candidates can not have it both ways..
a word from either of them..
If they want to lead. If they are truthful. They will make the call. If they don't?
Then their fear of backlash from an established minority will speak volumes.
Their failure to make a call now will be addressed in the streets of Denver...which will be the most political harmful?

by nogo war 2008-02-23 02:48PM | 0 recs
Get REAL Omamaniacs, PT 3

There is another aspect to consider, to be FAIR...and that is this:

There are folks like myself, who admire Senator Clinton, though for very logical and well-though out reasons, support Obama.

When I post a thoughts regarding the state of the race being that HRC needs LANDSLIDE wins (nothing short of 25-30 points will do it both TX & OH), and when I discuss unifying behind Obama for the good of the party and to expand on the slight majorites we now enjoy, and when I discuss calmly and logically my resons for supporting Obama over HRC, I get attack mercilessly.  

I have been articulate, fair, and generally repsectful.  But in return, for the simple crime of believing more strongly in Obama over Hillary, I get called a sexist, a cultist, a mindless drone, etc.  I have SO fair that some of you (and you know who you are) have called me a troll...suggesting perhaps that there is no middel ground to be found.  Pish-posh.

There is a small segment of truly unreasonable people on both sides who have wrapped this race into their personal psyches; indeed, they are taking their personal identification with each candidate, and intepreting even logicla critiques as PERSONAL attacks.  In some cases, the attacks ARE personal which makes it worse.

There are also trolls who are doing a damn good job of turning us against each other.  My simple message IS:

Unite...don't fight.

Let's really get real and think logically here. HRC has to win by 30 points in both OH and TX in order to catch up ...or rather have a CHANCE to catch up with Obama.

That is not going to happen.  HRC no longer has a pathway to the nomination that DOESN'T include changing the rules in some way to her exclusive benefit, OR using political arm-twisting to change or  overturn the agreed-opun and elected delegates.

It is time to forget ego, to let go of the trappings of gender and race, and get behind the eventual nominee.  We NEED to defeat McCain.  We NEED to expand congressional majorities.

To do this...we must stop fighting amongst ourselves and get behind Obama.  

I would have supported HRC had she accumulated the sort of lead and steam the Obama has NOW!  REALLY. Come on folks.  

by a gunslinger 2008-02-23 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Get REAL Omamaniacs, PT 3

"To do this...we must stop fighting amongst ourselves and get behind Obama."

There are many of us Clinton supporters who feel very strongly that Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief, and we would be doing a disservice to our consciences and fellow Americans if we did not speak out strongly against his candidacy. I cannot support him, based on everything I know about his positions, past history, voting record, campaign tactics, and overall lack of experience in governing. I believe deep in my heart and fully supported by my mind, that electing him would put the lives of Americans at risk, and would be a grave mistake, possibly equal to the mistake made in electing a similarly ill-equipped George W. Bush to office. That is how bad I believe it would be, based on research and critical analysis of his policies and record.

I do not see him standing firm for progressive causes, or taking principled stands on the issues most meaningful to me. I believe he has in fact co-opted the progressive movement on false pretenses, aided by the fact that he has been an unknown entity and many people are projecting their own beliefs onto him with no evidence behind it. He has been a blank slate for such fantasies about who he is.

I couldn't care less whether he is electable in the general election. I care about whether he could govern our country. I don't see the evidence that he could. He has not done enough to prove that he could be an acceptably able president.

I question his judgement even more because he was not willing to wait and gain the experience necessary to lead the country well, but prefers to sneer at experience as "seasoning... boil all the hope out of me", a complete mischaracterization of the concern. It reflects a grandiosity and narcissism that I do not trust, the evident lack of the self reflective capacity that provides one's judgement with restraint and wisdom. That is how I see this candidate.

And I caution you that I definitely started out favoring him, went to fundraisers to experience him and his message in person, read all his proposals, and saw many of his speeches and roundtables from around the nation on CSPAN. My doubts and concerns only grew greater over time, quite a different outcome than what I went into this expecting. I am not easily swayed by charm or what is called "charisma", it is true, so that is not a selling point with me. I am all too aware of it's manipulative and seductive quality. Nevertheless if such a candidate has integrity in record and position I would be supportive. I don't see that in Obama, and until I am convinced he has the skills, maturity, and judgement to be president I will not support him.

I will write in Hillary Clinton's name on my ballot, because I will not be part of electing someone I do not trust at all. That comes from sincere conviction, not unreasoning hatred at all. I am speaking from my heart.

by 07rescue 2008-02-23 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Get REAL Omamaniacs, PT 3

Yes, you're speaking from your heart.  And you have a right to do so.  When you want to start speaking from your head, please provide the reasons behind your convictions with links to third party reference material supporting your assertions.

by shalca 2008-02-24 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama-manics need to cut the crap, pt. 2
07...finally. I support your choice in writing in Clinton's name on the ballot because this means you will be supporting other Dems on the same ballot.
I also appreciate your reasonable, rational thoughts.
by nogo war 2008-02-23 09:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads