Winning in November

As many of you know I wrote a diary correcting an erroneous assertion that Jerome Armstrong made on the front page here.

My correction was based on directly contacting the source of Jerome's citation, the Center for Responsive Politics, and obtaining from them a "for the record" rebuttal of Jerome's front page claim on this website. Accuracy and facts matter. They are especially important in the context of a contentious primary campaign upon which the nomination for president depends. Jerome updated his story. (As did Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft.)

Now, despite receiving recommends from well over 60 readers here, many of whom are names I recognize from the MyDD caucus at Yearlykos Las Vegas, Jerome removed my diary from the recommended list claiming that I had violated MyDD policy by personally attacking him.

I did no such thing, and the record clearly shows that. But that's besides the point, my intention in writing that diary was to correct the public record, not to demean or insult Jerome Armstrong. Period.

But please allow me use this moment to address a broader point...

As Democrats and progressives, as advocates of the 50 State Strategy, our goal in November is much broader than simply electing one or the other Democratic candidate to the White House.

We have contests in House and Senate races, in State legislative races, for governorships and within our various Democratic parties that all of us care about.

We need MyDD, like we need DailyKos, TalkLeft, OpenLeft, SwingState project...and local bloggers like those who participate in BlogsUnited, and activists from MoveOn and DFA...to be on board for this effort, to cooperate whatever our personal choice of presidential candidate.

Winning in November is something we all care about and it's an effort in which we are mutually dependent on each other. We're on the same team.

I've written extensively here on MyDD. Here are just a few of my posts written on these very topics over the years, some of which were, at various points, front paged here:

Starting with the Districts: a model of House Targeting, December, 2005
Meet Ollie Ox: why local blogging matters, August, 2006
the power of the long tail blog, May, 2007
Abel Guillen: the rise of the millenials, June, 2007

Now, I know and respect the rules of this website. I've written pieces here...some of which only appeared here...because MyDD has been the premier website/discussion forum for Democratic netroots activists with on the ground experience in politics and campaigns. In my work with local bloggers, it has been clear that MyDD represents, along with SwingState project, one of the original nodes of activity in support of local blogs. Jerome Armstrong is a hero and leader in that regard.

Now, I happen to disagree with Jerome in my preference for the Democratic nomination for President. I think Senator Barack Obama is our strongest candidate versus John McCain, I think he is our best advocate of the 50 State Strategy and I am convinced he will lead our party to expanded majorities in November 2008 and gains in every last state. However, while I probably would have made different editorial choices than Jerome has made these last months, I can respect that he has a different preference in the presidential primary of our party. That's no small matter; we should all be able to respect each other in primary season.

That being said, my diary about the Center for Responsive Politics was meant strictly to correct the record, not to subvert Jerome or this website. I would not post here if I didn't think this venue was important to Democrats and progressives. Period. End of sentence.

I think the folks who recommended that diary would agree. I think even many who disagree with my support of Senator Obama, could well agree with my broader point about the 2008 elections looking forward.

We are committed to winning in November. We are committed to working together as progressives. We need MyDD and every last one of its readers on board for the task ahead of us.

A task that involves not simply taking on John McCain, as I'm convinced Barack Obama will ably do, but expanding our Democratic majority in every last state of the nation, in offices large and small and with every last one of us working together the best we can.

Tags: Elections, meta (all tags)

Comments

203 Comments

MyDD not aging well
MyDD has become a substantially more juvenile place lately, with lots of people saying and doing stupid things.

I only hope that we get our collective head screwed back on quickly, so that we can kick some ass in November.

by PhilFR 2008-02-20 01:05PM | 0 recs
So

how do you feel about Dkos?

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I feel sick to the pit of my stomach

that sickness is a side-effect of your anti-psychotic meds wearing off, has nothing to do with dailykos.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-02-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I feel sick to the pit of my stomach

HAHAHAH

Is this a joke?

by mcdave 2008-02-21 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I feel sick to the pit of my stomach
Somehow I doubt you'd feel that way if DK wsa a Clinton support base.

Just more sour grapes. Can't wait for this phase to be over.

by PhilFR 2008-02-21 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD not aging well

IMHO the biggest win ever for our movement was Donna Edwards knocking off Al Wynn in Maryland but the Presidential race overshadows everything.  Let's feel good about what happened in Maryland and celebrate the change that both candidates say they want.  We need a Donna Edwards in every state!

by howardpark 2008-02-20 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obamaniacs have invaded and

Do you consider this diary to be a representative example?  Looks to me like a well written, thoughtful post that adds important thoughts to the discourse here.  I'm impressed that KO still thinks it's worth his time to write this kind of post here, and you should be lauding him for it.  Instead, you dismiss him as an "Obamaniac."  Pitiful...

by loolool 2008-02-20 10:40PM | 0 recs
The truth

Kid Oakland was bashing Bill Clinton and pushing for Obama back in 2004.

Kid Oakland 1/11/04 - "the legacy of the Clinton years has sabotaged a true "rebuilding" of the Democratic Party.  Bill Clinton was about winning.  Period.  End of sentence.  To the extent that this benefitted our country and party, bully for us.  But, at the end of the day, and evidenced in the Lewinsky debacle....Bill Clinton was also deeply about Bill Clinton....to the detriment of our Party, and I think, even to the detriment of our ability to win elections."
(around 8th paragraph from the top)

Kid Oakland 11/4/04 - "I want to say to you now if you share the dream of someday electing a President Obama..."
(6th paragraph from the bottom)

I don't give a damn what Kid Oakland writes, no matter how long it is.  His crap about Bill Clinton makes him totally unqualified to speak FOR DEMOCRATS!

by SluggoJD 2008-02-21 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The truth

Please.  You may agree or disagree with his statement about Bill Clinton, but it's embarrassing that you actually believe this disqualifies him as a Democrat.  During the 90's, as Clinton maintained his popularity, the Democratic party withered, losing not only our decades long control of Congress, but getting decimated at the state and local levels.   It is this evisceration of the party that Howard Dean finally got us on the track of fixing.  Now, you can agree or disagree that Clinton was responsible for this, but your statement that someone who agrees with it (i.e. most Democratic activists) is not qualified to speak as a Democrat is a joke.

by loolool 2008-02-21 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth

Kid Oakland a voice of reason around these parts, but a good many will have none of it...reason, that is.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The truth

Kid Oakland is no voice of reason--he's a polemicist. If you like his style that's fine. Frankly, I'm less impressed--they always contain appeals to (in many cases spurious) authority, and very little serious analysis. Take for example, his diary on "Obama and Health Care." Now I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like this. "Obama's health-care point person is the Harvard professor David Cutler. He's just great! But don't take my word for it. Here's what Ezra Klein has to say ..."

Here, I'll let you read his piece for yourself:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/ 165422/309

I would love to see Kid Oakland debate someone who understands the other side of the debate. For instance, on health care, I would love to see Kid Oakland debate RonK Seattle, who had a slightly different take on David Cutler and Obama's proposed health care reform. His analysis can be read here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/ 212945/129/822/460898

I know whose side I would bet on if such a debate were actually to take place.

by Inky 2008-02-22 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The truth

Many "Democratic activists" are not actual Democrats, especially at that Orange site, and I for one am sick and tired of not-really-Democrats fucking with my party, trying to crash gates in order to take it over, etc.  

These "progressives" - libertarians, for example, got their own damn party.  It ain't my fault, or the fault of 100,000,000+ real Democrats that they don't like their own party, but I'll be damned to just sit and watch as they invade MY party without respect for MY PARTY's heroes.

Bill Clinton is a hero.  He is my hero.  He is a hero to millions and millions and millions in this country, and billions overseas.

So I will never, ever apologize for blasting someone who was bashing a hero of MY PARTY.  Kid Oakland DOES NOT speak for me, he does not speak for 100,000,000 real Democrats, and he is not qualified to speak for us.

Period!

by SluggoJD 2008-02-21 04:28PM | 0 recs
On what...

...exactly are you basing this?

And who made you the arbiter of who's a real Democrat and who's not?

by thurst 2008-02-21 06:30PM | 0 recs
Obama wins Dems Abroad!

Eleven in a row!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Obamaniacs have invaded and
There are plenty of fool posters on both sides. Frankly, I've seen more crap spewed from the Clinton fans on MyDD.
by PhilFR 2008-02-21 02:51PM | 0 recs
Damn voters.

If only we could hold elections without them.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-20 01:08PM | 0 recs
Let me tell you a little secret.

They are going to make us wish it was November 2004.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me tell you a little secret.
Only if you let them.
by PhilFR 2008-02-20 02:39PM | 0 recs
Let me say just two words.

Barack McMondukakis.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

What are you hoping to accomplish by saying that?  Just curious...

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

establishing a record that you were warned.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

And I assume you'll graciously admit you were wrong if Obama wins big in November?

by leshrac55 2008-02-20 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

You know, it's funny.  If I wanted to win big in November, I would be really nice to my fellow Democrats.  But no, you guys for more than a year attack us, attack our candidate, demean us, push us off blogs, and now, you expect us to come and help you elect your guy.

Say, "Please."

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 03:25PM | 0 recs
WTF are you talking about?

If I wanted to win big in November, I would be really nice to my fellow Democrats.

So are you confirming you don't want to win in November?

But no, you guys for more than a year attack us, attack our candidate, demean us, push us off blogs, and now, you expect us to come and help you elect your guy.

Stop your feigned victimhood. There have been ugly partisan attacks all around and your "you guys" outlook is precisely the problem. Reasonable people can disagree about candidate, and can make legitimate none insulting arguments about their reasoning and position if they so choose to. But the ugly vitriol has to end.

Are you going to be an example of being the adult and being responsible, or are you going to be part of the problem?

That is a question everyone here (and elsewhere) in the progressive/Democratic community has to address honestly and own for themselves.

What's it going to be?

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF are you talking about?

You guys are fools.  Total fools.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
Wow have you lost it

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow have you lost it

It's really gotten bizarre.  Comes from a very grandiose sense of entitlement.

by Drummond 2008-02-20 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow have you lost it

I try really, really hard not to let psych terms creep into my blogging, but when Clinton supporters at MyDD talk about bad language, childish insults, and blind support of a candidate with no chance to win in November, I can't turn off the flashing red sign over their heads that says PROJECTION, PROJECTION, PROJECTION.

Obama supporters -- especially over here -- have been very well behaved. Meanwhile there are a small number of Clinton-worshipping prolific posters who seriously need some help.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-21 06:15AM | 0 recs
Grandiose sense of entitlement

coupled with an unhealthy dollop of bitter jealousy.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF are you talking about?

Sweet reason, descend upon our lost brother, for he is lost in the wilderness of bitterness!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

What the hell?  You make a ridiculous statement about what you "know" will happen in November now, and I ask whether you're prepared to admit you were wrong and apologize should what you "know" will happen fails to proceed the way you see it happening.

This is one thing that's been pissing me off, and I've tried to say it before in multiple diaries:

WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER

And, to add to that,

WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER IF THE OTHER PERSON HAD BEEN THE NOMINEE

So, we're all just going by our gut.  A lot of people think Clinton is the stronger candidate, and a lot of people think Obama is the stronger candidate.  Whatever happens in November, it's a question we'll NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER to.

It's been one thing I've been careful not to say, because it's ridiculous.  I think both our candidates could win in November, but I happen to think Obama is the stronger chance.  Could I be wrong?  Sure, but so could you.  Right now, a lot of people are whining and bitching about how "we've lost November now" etc etc... Well, unless you have a time machine, we don't know that at all... and if you want to sit on your ass for this election and help make it happen, then go ahead.  But then don't go and blame it on something completely unknowable.

by leshrac55 2008-02-20 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.


Say, "Please."

No.

by zonk 2008-02-20 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

great, win without the base.  

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
You are not the base

And your comportment here so far begs numerous questions about your ability to reason and/or your emotional stability.

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

You're missing my point.

It shouldn't require a please or any sort of begging, cajoling, or coercing of any type.

If you want assurances that Obama is a true progressive, I can do that.  I'll be happy to do so.  I can give you link upon link to interest group ratings... from Planned Parenthood to the ACLU to the ADA to LCV to you name it.   I can give you legislation links.   I can tell you why I believe in Obama.

But that winning votes should be a matter of 'begging'?  

Nope.

by zonk 2008-02-20 04:07PM | 0 recs
I don't think this commenter is worth it

Almost all Hillary supporters will eventually support Obama in Nov. if he should win.  Especially after reflecting on the differences between his policies and those of McCain and the fact that the fate of Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance to be decided by the next president's 1 or 2 SCOTUS picks.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-02-20 06:46PM | 0 recs
The base came to Obama in Wisconsin

by Moonwood 2008-02-20 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

In case you hadn't noticed, the base is making the switch.  The story made it into the main posts of this very Hillary central blog.

by Drummond 2008-02-20 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

"the base" in this case would appear to be a couple of hyper partisan fringe elements who publish diaries on Dkos and myDD like "If Obama (or Hillary) wins I quit". Outside of their own hyper sensitive inflated egos and the echo chamber bubble these types exist in no one cares.

Most voters have had a really hard time deciding between 2 good candidates and will vote for whomever gets the nomination. They don't see a big difference in their policies because there is not a big difference. So they go with the candidate they feel has some edge in whatever is important to them.

by hankg 2008-02-21 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.
You are not the base whatsoever, you are the DLC/NAFTA/hawk wing of the democratic party, and of course you have a right to your opinion.  But never under any circumstances should you be construed as a member of the Democratic base, which is the FDR/Adlai Stevenson/John/Robert Kennedy/Al Gore proud LIBERAL foundation of this party, then and now.
Obama has ONE MILLION small donors now.  Maybe it's time we recognize that as the current base.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.
No shit. If enough people are like this, and are so petty that they put petty vendettas in front of electing a Dem, then we are truly a weak party, and probably don't deserve to win.

If you need to be asked on bended knee to support a Dem, than you are truly a fair weather friend.

by PhilFR 2008-02-20 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

I think Obama would love to have your support, and would certainly apologize for his overzealous supporters.

I, however, refuse to beg for your support on his behalf, nor do I think you deserve for anyone else to.

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

you people are incredibly arrogant.  you'll see how far it gets you.  in fact, the last time you got this arrogant, hillary turned the race around.

frankly, i'll vote for obama if he is the nominee, but i won't donate money, i won't knock on doors, i won't pick up a telephone, and if he loses, i won't cry.  

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 03:49PM | 0 recs
Your own arroagance is glaring...

...and a bit bemusing when you get all high dungeon about what you perceive as arrogance.

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Your own arroagance is glaring...

i love you Obama people's "let's all be friends and work for victory in the fall" diaries.  You guys are past masters at reconciliation.  Woo hoo.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-20 04:14PM | 0 recs
Again with the "you guys" nonsense

I have often defended Clinton from bogus smears on dKos and elsewhere even though I am an Obama supporter. But the question still stands, are you willing to be  an adult or and own your own behavior or not?

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Again with the "you guys" nonsense

Yes, but are you willing to acknowledge that the Obama people on the web have some amends to make?

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-21 12:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Your own arroagance is glaring...

"dudgeon"

by christinep 2008-02-20 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

Good enough.

Like I said above - I won't say 'please' -- but I would certainly offer apologies for any jackass Obama supporters that have crossed lines.

by zonk 2008-02-20 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.
Whatever. In fact, I don't need you to vote for him unless you live in a swing state. My desire to see a Dem win trumps my desire to see a particular candidate win. (I say that as someone who came to Obama after having my earlier preferences, Richardson and Edwards, not win the day.)
by PhilFR 2008-02-20 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me say just two words.

If please would make a difference in your support, hell, please, please, I'm not above groveling to elect a Democrat.

by mady 2008-02-20 05:41PM | 0 recs
Good job, Mady!

It's called commitment, folks.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me tell you a little secret.

Actually, in terms of disillusionment and despair, we may be headed back to December, 2000.

by Bob H 2008-02-22 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Thanks for trying to reintroduce reason into myDD. At some point we have to start working together and get a Democrat elected in November. While the level of discourse has improved in DKOS in the last weeks, I see a lot of untruths, accusations and blatant lies flying around here.

At some point one has to find out who is actually interested in winning in November and who is just trying to stir controversy between the Clinton and Obama camps.

by marcotom 2008-02-20 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Why was level of discourse horrible, pathetic, downright abject at DKos earlier? (as per your statement).

Why were there lot of untruths, accusations and blatant lies flying around in DKos?

You will need to answer those questions to the people here at MyDD if you want them to believe you.

by Sandeep 2008-02-20 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Because some idiots type faster than me.  

That's my story anyway.  Meteor Blades has done a good job pushing to get some civility back.  It's not my fault, but I do feel tainted when people who support the same candidate as me are rude and mean.

Those of us who want things to be civil and sane need to call out the rudeness and meanness on our own sides.  

I'd apologize on behalf of the rude Obama supporters if it would mean something.  God knows I do feel embarrassed.

by mijita 2008-02-20 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Remember when the "people here at mydd" and the "people over at dailykos" were the same people?

I do...

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

True.  There's only been this segregation recently during primary season.  Most of the Obama supporters on mydd (like myself) stopped participating here because of the kinds of diaries that made the rec list, and the overall level of anti-Obama hatred.  We still lurk, I guess, which the reason KO's recent diaries made the rec list over the latest smear on Obama.

by Skaje 2008-02-20 04:40PM | 0 recs
I'ts October now.

by benmasel 2008-02-21 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

McCain is a nightmare, and I'd vote for HRC before letting him win. However, I agree that Obama is a political sea change. As some of the astute pundits have pointed out, this extended primary is NOT necessarily bad for the party, because Obama has been opening field offices like mad all over and recruiting a lot of new, young voters. Those can swing into action and start contesting EVERY state. And even states where Obama does NOT win in November, his efforts to get out the vote can benefit blue candidates in districts that are on the fence, helping win locally.

I think the GOP is in for a surprise. With Obama taking a lot of the independent vote and McCain abandoned by a chunk of the party, I think we're going to see a lot of red states turn blue this fall. A whole lot.

by mattw 2008-02-20 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

EXACTLY.

I say this as an Obama supporter... I just do not understand why so many of my fellow Obamamaniacs are calling for her to drop out.

Is it such a bad thing to have Obama barnstorming NC?  IN?  

Another aspect...

The whole financing thing... when does the GE clock start?  In other words - if this thing even technically goes all the way until the convention - can't Obama continue to spend and run ads under the non-publicly financed rules?

when does the cutoff come?  Is there an official date - or is it wrapped up in a certain date?

by zonk 2008-02-20 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

The cutoff is the convention whether or not one of the candidates drops out before then.

So essentially, if Obama and Hillary are still spending money attacking each other up until the convention, that will give McCain basically 6 months of "free" time to spend money against the Democrats.

Some believe this could be difficult for him, as it would create a "moving target", but the consensus is typically that this is bad for the Democrats.

by leshrac55 2008-02-20 03:19PM | 0 recs
Hear hear, Mattw!

I have been around a Long Time, and I've NEVER seen the kind of excitement Obama has generated.  We are looking at a huge victory this Novemeber with the old geezer McCain the sacrificial lamb for the repubs.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:09PM | 0 recs
Winning matters

I, for one, am really sick of all the BS going on in all the national blogs, here, dKos, whatever. Grow up people. Your candidate's not the nominee? Sorry, but the fact is that if we get Mr. Third Term, things are far worse. So, let's let the election play out, civilly. And then when the result is clear, take a day, have a good cry if necessary, then get to working to ensure that Mr. Third Term never becomes president.

No Third Term!

by utbrian 2008-02-20 02:19PM | 0 recs
And your comment helps how exactly?

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 03:35PM | 0 recs
Wow that was so illuminating

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Nobama

NOBAMA!

by bJ Chicago 2008-02-20 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

At this point--and in view of "progressives" adopting a lot of the language of the right wing (see the 1990s) in talking about Senator Clinton--I am not even sure what "progressives" mean anymore.  Myself: I am a lifelong Democrat and liberal.  I did not used to go around and attack strong, effective, liberal-voting women based on their style and gender (and based upon what Karl Rove said.)  So, at this point, you need to consider an apology to all those older women (yep, like myself) who look on aghast at your presumptive approach.  What I learned a long time ago involved a caution about how one treats someone on the way up, because you might meet him/her on the way down (or when you need them.)  So, at this point in my 60+ years--with more than 35 years as a lawyer and married to a man with a doctorate in political science and who has similar concerns--tell us, please, some more about what progressives are or have become in this day and age.  To start with: Are "progressives" now about using the same demeaning language regarding women (on the blogs, anyway) that the right uses and justifying it with an end-justify-the-means argument?  Hmmm.  Or are you realizing that you might need the support of "the base" sooner rather than later?  (By the way: I realize how angry this message is--but, I assure you, it is quite tempered from what I feel when glancing at the accumulation of seething Obama supporters over the past few months.  Please recognize that there are consequences to "rubbing someone's face in it.")

by christinep 2008-02-20 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Now come on Christinep....

I don't doubt you can probably point to some pretty ugly comments by Obama supporters... though - having read KO for more than 3 years now, I doubt you'll find comments from him.

But you know as well as me that I could find a pro-HRC comment just as nasty in response.

We can certainly play the "who's worse" or "who started it" game -- and I'll play if you like -- but neither pool of supporters can claim any sort of moral high ground.

by zonk 2008-02-20 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I would have to respectfully disagree with you zonk, at least as far as dKos goes. KO seems to be the same great diarist he's/she's always been. But dKos has been overrun by Obama supporters who seem to take great delight in demeaning and insulting supporters of any other candidate. Being a baseball fan, I post occasionally on the Braves message board, because there are a few people there my age that I enjoy talking to. But the majority of posters there are immature, and think that the only way to disagree is by being rude and disruptive. I have seen much the same attitude dominate dKos recently. And while there are many Obama supporters who don't fit that profile, they have only started to police their own in the last few weeks. I'm afraid the damage has been done, and Obama supporters still don't seem to understand that demanding that everyone else fall into line behind their candidate might not be the best way to mend fences.

by georgiapeach 2008-02-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Like I said - I don't disagree.

hell - I've handed out donuts to Obama supporters at DK.  I'm not claiming I haven't crossed lines myself  - and I haven't always been the best 'self-policer'.

I would point out, however, that the race isn't over.

It's not that I don't want to start mending fences -- it's that I really do think we're still in  the "try to win" phase, not yet the 'fence mending' phase.

I don't know...  

In the end - I was pissed as all get out when Dean got basically quadruple teamed in 2004.   I actually voted for him in the 2004 IL Primary (which happened to then be the primary that locked up the nomination for Kerry -- and after Dean had suspended his campaign).

There were a lot of hard feelings.  A LOT.  

Hell - it's given me thick skin to the "cult attacks"... believe me - the level of "you're part of a cult" screamatics aren't even CLOSE to what I heard as a Deaniac.

Still - by the convention - I got over it.  I even volunteered for kerry in both WI and IA in 2004.

by zonk 2008-02-20 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I supported Dean in 2004, too. But he was already out of it before the Ga. primary, so I voted for Edwards. I never liked Kerry, but I held my nose and voted for him, even tried to talk others into doing the same. Part of the reason for that was hating Bush so much I guess. I don't hate McCain, but I think he would be a terrible President. But I have heard a lot of people say they don't like Obama, and don't trust him. So far, I haven't been able to find any way to argue with them.

by georgiapeach 2008-02-20 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

2004 doesn't even begin to compare with 2008. The crap that has gone down in this primary has severely fractured the Democratic base for years to come--Obama may well win the presidency because the GOP candidate is so weak, but the idea that Democrats are going to win a super majority or anything close strikes me as laughable.

by Inky 2008-02-20 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Wait a minute...

Why in the world should personal preferences at the top of the ticket have ANY effect downticket?

Hell - I would think if your guy/gal doesn't win the nomination, pouring time and effort into a downticket race would be a superb way to sublimate the anger and disappointment.

by zonk 2008-02-21 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I don't need to "sublimate the anger and disappointment", so please spare me your psychobabble.

I was an Edwards supporter, so I got over the bulk of my disappointment weeks ago. I did develop a preference for HRC because her health-care plan copied Edwards' and seemed to provide a shot at universal coverage and a path to single-payer. I will continue to support local candidates who I know will push for the issues I care about, but I've pretty much given up on Democrats on the national level. And I'm certainly never again going to invest my time or money on a national campaign based on appeals by the blognicenti.

by Inky 2008-02-21 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I have gotten criticized because I questioned someone's logic.  Often there is a very low threshold for people feeling trashed.

by mainelib 2008-02-21 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Get real, please.  If we play tit-for tat, you don't win.  Neither do I.  But, I don't need to at this point.  Don't "c'mon" me.  I know the rules.  For goodness sakes, I've been to three inaugurals; and, I'll be at a cocktail party (for Democratic supporters) at the end of the month.  I also "grew up" politically dealing with the south Chicago crew (which is why I knew what to expect from Obama et al.)  My point is not that politics should be beanbag; my point is that--in all my life--I have never ever witnessed as much open misogyny as on some of the blogs such as Kos.  You don't have to believe me, of course.  Its what I perceive; and, what a number of my same-aged women friends believe.  One option that you have: Try to learn why--listen a bit.

by christinep 2008-02-20 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Well...

No malice intended, but I can't help you.

Have there been plenty of ugly, misogynistic comments at DK?  Sure - I've handed out donuts and called them out myself.

But here's the thing... I can no more answer for any of the ugly commenters there than you should be responsible for answering for some unsavory comments here... or - -say at taylormarsh.com.

I don't see what KO has to apologize for (per your original post).  At this point - the math doesn't add up for Clinton.  She needs big wins in OH and TX.  Increasingly, those big wins are looking unlikely.

I'm just not getting exactly what you want.  

Apologies for comments neither I nor KO made?

by zonk 2008-02-20 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I don't and have never read dKos regularly, but the Clintonistas on this site have been so vicious in their constant unfettered character assassination of Obama that I can't imagine that dKos could possibly be worse.  It's really been sickening to see what tthis place has become.

It's really ironic to hear the Clintonistas cry victim about how Obama is narcissistic and only cares about himself and is destroying the party for his own ambition and has run nothing but a bigoted smear campaign, when all of that that I've seen in this campaign, both from the candidates and from the diarists on this site has been coming from the Clinton side.  The Clinton smear machine is every bit as vile and vicious as Rove's.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-20 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Honestly- and I say this an avowed Obama backer - it's actually about the same.

I think some of the lesser elements here might sink to depths that usually get donuted at DailyKos -- but what MyDD pro-Hillary whack jobs have in venom here, DailyKos pro-Obama whack jobs make up for in volume.

Don't get me wrong... I'm hardly innocent - I've got comments both here and there to my name that I'm not especially proud of.

Neither camp has its hands clean.

Just this afternoon, I've sort of reached the conclusion that the best I can do is:

1. Not engage in it myself for my candidate

  1. Police "my own" to the greatest degree possible
  2. Still not be afraid to attack the baseless anti-Obama smears with righteous fury when they come up!

by zonk 2008-02-20 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Hate to say it about my first blog experience, but DKos is definitely worse.  I'm a refugee from there.

by cameoanne 2008-02-20 07:41PM | 0 recs
I am too

The misogyny just finally got to me. I was there for the pie wars, when it first became apparent, and continued to visit in spite of that because there were some very good diarists and loved the Rescue Rangers.

But, the last month or so I just gave up and wandered over here. It seems much less misogynistic here, and other places I have visited.

Perhaps it will get better over there...

by splashy 2008-02-21 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

It isn't worse.  If anyone trolled Hillary the way Obama is trolled here, they would be hidden PDQ.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

There is a basic irrational premise here that you just need to let go of. It is the idea that every idiot with an internet connection is entitled to speak on behalf of a community -- any community. The number of people who think this sort of thing is an enjoyable or necessary way to spend their time is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of either candidates supporter. Those who become abusive are a tiny fraction of that.

In five minutes on MyDD, you can find attacks on Obama that are patronizing, racist, foul-mouthed, irrational and arrogant. But you don't hold yourself responsible for that. You don't feel it reflects on you.

You can't judge an another community by its worst members while judging your own by another standard. That's how the right decided we were at war with a billion Muslims. Now, both the Obama netroots and the Clinton netroots have their "terrorists." I will apologize for the Clinton terrorists; you can apologize for the Obama terrorists. It makes just as much sense as the other way around.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-21 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

ChristineP, I suspect I'm of an age with you and I'm female.  I have to agree with Zonk and EMTP democrat about the tit for tat on supporters of both candidates having posted vile stuff.

I will say that on dkos, it is a minority of Obama supporters that go over the line and they are generally troll-rated/HR'ed by other Obama supporters.  I certainly have handed out more HR's in the last 3 months than I have since I joined in 2004.  Enough said on that point.

When I watch Obama and Hillary in the debates; when I watch them campaigning with their respective constituencies, I see 2 terrific Democratic candidates.  For reasons that I'm not going to spend time itemizing here, I've decided that Obama is the better candidate but were Hillary to win the nomination, I'd happily vote for her.

I'm not saying that you're one of them but I do think that there are Hillary supporters who really expected her to be handed the nomination because she was female and she would be our first woman president or at least, they really hoped for that.  I think that reasoning is fallacious and a very poor reason to vote for someone for president.  It's not about gender.  It's about qualifications.  I have seen heated discussions over that very point which have been called chauvinistic, misogynistic, and sexist and they are NOT.  I think that card is played a little too quickly sometimes.

I've struggled with all the accusations of misogyny, chauvinist behavior and cult-member koolaid-drinking appellations I've had to listen to from non-Obama supporters.  

And before you accuse me of not understanding, I'm a 50-something woman who had to deal with lots of real sexual harassment in the workplace in the 70's and 80's. I understand the subtle and not-so-subtle points of sexism and how it plays out in our culture just fine.

I have a real problem with the accusations being thrown around as freely as they are.  I won't deny that there has been a few who have been horribly out of line but tarring a whole blogging community and a whole group of a candidate's supporters because of a few, is wrong.

There are a lot of women over 50 who don't agree with you so saying that you have a group of friends who do, really doesn't buy much.  

Let's stick to comparing qualifications and legislative records and stay away from the name-calling.

by vbdietz 2008-02-22 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November
More generally, this is why the blogosphere gets less respect than it perhaps deserves. A newcomer arriving on MyDD or DK could reasonably see it as being too inflamatory, insulting and self-refererential to be taken seriously.

We need to up our game, folks. Remember, we are not our opponents, John McCain is.

by PhilFR 2008-02-20 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Why is it so hard to accept that your choice is not our choice?  Why does the fact that many in the blogosphere choose to support Senator Obama have to morph into "his seething hordes of belligerent followers", or something else to that effect?

Granted, there are many odious supporters on both sides.  It doesn't make it any more right to judge the group as a whole based on the words of a few vocal bad apples...

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I'm pretty sick of the characterizations of Obama supporters as mindless people motivated by emotional attachment to someone they perceive as perfect.

It's never good to impute motivation to others, but it's especially bothersome when these are your comrades in the broader struggle AND when people tell you that's not what they think and feel.

I don't think Obama is perfect. I have shifted to him from Clinton because I think he would be a better president and he is clearly a better candidate. (I say he's clearly a better candidate because he has won so many elections and been able to organize so many people, raise so much money, garner the big union endorsements, and attract more superdelegates since the elections began.) And my approach has been rational.

Clinton supporters have their own reasonable reasons for supporting her and I'd appreciate it if they would accept this with respect to Obama's supporters.

by mainelib 2008-02-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I think it's this.  

In any group, at least one percent of the people are going to be assholes (for lack of a more polite term).  Add to that people who are already racists and/or sexists and use an open forum because they like to troll, and, given a community that numbers in at least the ten thousands, and you've got a lot of, well assholes.

2004 wasn't my first spin around the nomination table, but one of the things that struck me was that the electronic world means that we're actually in constant contact with the other side.  Back before the 'net, the only (for example) Clinton supporters I knew when I was working for Jerry Brown's campaign were already real life friends and we could tease and joke without it being abusive or hurtful (well, not much anyway).  

Now it's so easy just to spew something quick and clever without worrying about the look on someone's face when they read it.  Besides, this is just an nameless, faceless entity, right?  Cyber life is, well, ruder.  And so with the 'net bigger than it was four years ago, this campaign has been an uncivil war.  Couple that with the tendency to read the worst into ones opponents words online and, well, it's pretty ugly.

I do hope we can remember that NEITHER of our candidates would want to see John McCain elected and we can come together.  

Apologies if this comes off as rubbing salt in wounds.  I mean it to do quite the opposite.

by mijita 2008-02-20 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to

Mature...

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to
"Obama" and "immature" are not words that tend not to be found in the same sentence, at least amongst Dems.
by PhilFR 2008-02-20 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to

Barack has actually been quite mature about this race, if you ask me.  There were many opportunities to take cheap shots that he passed up.  

As to supporters, I'm not going to get into a discussion about whose supporters are more or less mature.  Other partisans immature comments should not be an excuse to follow suit.

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to
Obama wins the trophy for cheap shots against Edwards in ads and debates!!
Obama even continued his cheap shots against Edwards AFTER he suspended his campaign.
by annefrank 2008-02-21 11:01AM | 0 recs
What is your guy doing to help

Dems win now?  Every union there is has endorsed Obama, but where's Johnny?  Just asking.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

excellent diary, recommended.. as willl be every one of your future diaries.

by soros 2008-02-20 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Mediocre writing excites you?

Proving the above point yet again.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:16PM | 0 recs
Losing in November
If you want to write pro-Obama Diary and attack people who disagreed with your friken Cult, you have a simple solution: just post your crap on obamakos.
They will like you very much and you will get a lot of recommendations - you will like it!
by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-20 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in November

Exactly!

by bJ Chicago 2008-02-20 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in November

So disrespectful to call it a cult.

by mainelib 2008-02-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in November
what other name you suggest? Church? Religion?
Bunch of Maniacs? you tell me. And by the:
it is not that I just disrespect Obamaniacs - I hate them.
Very different feeling!
by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-21 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in November

Well, at least you openly admit you're unhinged by hatred, unlike so many of your fellows, who hide behind wild charges of sexism.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:17PM | 0 recs
because I hate any Cult

any Cult is evil

by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-21 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in November

I will not kick you out - you are laughing stock her; but Dailykos kicked me out, so I suggest you do the same to yourself

by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-21 12:38PM | 0 recs
I came here to get away from dkos.

Folks there remind me of that last 30% that can't view Bush with a critical eye. It confirms for me that voters from both parties are as equally responsible for the mess we're in.

by JimR 2008-02-20 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I came here to get away from dkos.

That's 19% now...

by tomchaps 2008-02-20 03:48PM | 0 recs
I don't subscribe

to a strategy that weakens the Democratic Party.

If you believe that by bringing tepid Democratic Party supporters into the party will produce the end results you seek, then I have to question your vision of progressive.

We disagree. It is that simple.

by Coldblue 2008-02-20 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't subscribe

We need votes to get our agenda passed.  Not everyone is going to see through our lens, and if they vote for our guys (or girls), that's fine by me.

by turnnoblindeye 2008-02-20 03:46PM | 0 recs
Why are you doing this?

You have your own Daily Obama site. Go there and preach as much as you want. I do not get it. Is it that difficult to accept that there is ONE pro-Hillary site out there? Do you HAVE to do this?  

Your lecturing on how to win in Nov. makes me laugh. After what has been going on in Daily Obama in recent months, do you really think you have any credibility to preach the unity for the party? Give me a break. If you really want to preach the unity a la Obama, clean up Daily Obama site first. Clean up all the hatred toward Hillary. Clean up racist/sexist/classist/ageist remarks/diaries/comments!

I fled Daily Obama. Do you really have to ruin this site too? Please go away.

by praxis1 2008-02-20 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Why are you doing this?

Reminds me of a Clerks line. "This job would be great if it weren't for the fucking customers".

by X Stryker 2008-02-20 07:04PM | 0 recs
I don't understand the sentiment here

You fled dKos because you were sick of rude Obama supporter.  KO is a polite, temperate, well-spoken Obama supporter.  This begs the question: did you flee dKos because you didn't want to interact with Obama supporter, period, or because you didn't want to interact with rude, obnoxious people generally? If the former; well, maybe you should try Hillaryis44 or (to a much lesser extent) TalkLeft; myDD is still a general Democratic blog, so far as I know.  If the latter, then I don't see the problem with KO: his only resemblance to the asshole Obama supporters you fled is that he is, indeed, also an Obama supporter.

Put more briefly, I guess the question is: did you flee dKos to myDD in hopes of improving the debate, or just to turn the tables and be in the asshole majority?

by seand 2008-02-21 06:56AM | 0 recs
But they won't

vote for our agenda imho.

by Coldblue 2008-02-20 03:53PM | 0 recs
You don't get it

The hit piece need to stop, no matter their Dem target or venue.

That "argument" amounts to the same "she started it" nonsense pre-adolecents engage in. Is that really where your head is at?

by lestatdelc 2008-02-20 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't get it

In a word, yes.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:19PM | 0 recs
First: Obama needs to apologize for playing race

card! They repeadedly played the race card against two people who are not now nor have ever been racist.

He also trashed Clinton's presidency while praising Republicans.

With McCain, I don't worry about my tax dollars going to pay for private school vouchers because the Dem controlled house won't let it pass. I do fear the Obama "hands across the isle" approach. He is open to vouchers and a lot of other things and he can get passed what Bush or McCain never could.

Progressives might look back on this and wonder what they were thinking.

by mmorang 2008-02-20 04:09PM | 0 recs
Thanks

for finding another way to hit at MyDD and Jerome. That was big of you.

Also, thanks for trying to "unite" us all under the Light and the Flag of Obamaland.

I AM, Always Have Been and Always Will Be A Democrat and will ALWAYS Vote for Democrats!

Its just that I am NOT an O "kid". I need SUBSTANCE from my candidates.

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 04:10PM | 0 recs
By the way

As I have said ALL along. Any of the Democrats would beat ANY of the repugs. Hillary and Barack would both wipe out mccain.

See, I believe in Democrats. I believe in the strength of our party. I believe that most of our candidates, including Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama and Clinton, would beat anything the repugs put up. Do You?

Current GE polls and head to head polls don't mean shit. If they did, then Edwards would be kicking ass and Hillary would be winning big time.

mccain is already starting to be hit by the press and the left, now it will be Obama's turn to be hit by the press and the neo-con smear machine.

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: By the way

Let's vote for McCain then, because the most important issue facing us is clearly ... school vouchers.

by mddem456 2008-02-20 04:50PM | 0 recs
hahaha

Damn that is FUNNY shit!

Where did I ever say I was voting for mccain or telling people to do so?

Fool.

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 06:45PM | 0 recs
Hmmm

Seems KO puts himself in the same "status" level as Kos and other FP's.

He comes, he writes, he hits post, then he leaves.

hm.

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 04:21PM | 0 recs
Seems as if

He is a small businessman with a job who can't sit on his computer all day.

by Populista 2008-02-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Seems as if

If he's too busy to defend his diary, then he shouldn't post it in the first place.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
Then

why is he here?

No excuse!

by kevin22262 2008-02-20 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Then

Why are you here?  Couldn't you achieve the same thing by screaming at strangers on the street?

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-21 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Then

On the street, I dont see any Obama lovers so I dont get the chance to scream at anyone:-)

by Sandeep 2008-02-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Seems as if

Imagine that, a life!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:21PM | 0 recs
Populista is right

I posted the diary

Read the three or four comments that came up over the first hour.

Then I left to work and when I came back there were many, many more comments. I am a small businessperson.

With all due respect, I wrote this diary to clarify that I was not attacking Jerome personally. I disagree with him and some of his editorial decisions, that's all.  I'm not about to turn this into a "Me vs. Hillary defenders" battle as some in this thread seem to seek.

I've written on MyDD for years. I was there in Las Vegas at the MyDD caucus because I'm a fan of this website.

So were a lot of people who've recommended these diaries. Jerome, Jonathan and Todd know that. That's not meant to antagonize or demean...it's meant to recognize this venue and some honest dissent and to remind us about what we have in common going forward.

That's all.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 05:45PM | 0 recs
Populista is wrong. . . .

. . .and so are you. You both frequently post diaries and do not defend them against substantive criticism. This is a violation of standard, simple "netiquette." If you are too busy with your work--or Popluista too busy with his school--to defend your diaries, then you shouldn't post them. Moreover, as neither you nor Poplulista participate in the discussions here on a regular basis, but do frequently post diaries here, you both give the impression of being "drive by" posters, who are here only to talk, but never to listen.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 06:01PM | 0 recs
Let's take a look

here's your response to a diary I wrote about Obama and Technology:

Yawn (none / 0)

Here we have the daily garrulous and pompous puff piece for Obama, which includes the standard unsubstantiated drive by attack on the Clintons, brought to you by the ubiquitous East Bay Infant.

What, is Obama in favor of technology and Hillary against it? Who knew? And the evidence? A couple of geeks love him, plus a couple of already-committed Obama supporters say so. That, and the fact that Obama announced his candidacy in an "online video!" How cutting edge! This proves that Obama is at least as techno-savvy as the millions of people of who post their videos on YouTube, including that bimbo in the tight shirt who has the hots for him.

Well, I must say that I'm convinced. Experienced leadership? Not important. Demonstrated ability to win elections at the national level against the GOP? Who cares? Having fought the good fight despite every possible personal smear and attack for 20 years? Whatever. Some geek at Stanford says that Obama is the bomb! That's good enough for me!

Not.

Of course, the "Geek" your are referring to is Lawrence Lessig, who's been in the news a bit lately.

Further, you call me names like that and expect me to EVER respond to you?

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's take a look

That was one response of mine to one of your numerous diaries. I have responded more substantively to other diaries of yours, including the one about Jerome. But that isn't even the point. No, the point is that you don't bother responding to anyone's criticisms of your diaries. And that is because you are not here to have a conversation with us, you are here to make your pitch for Obama and move to the next website on your list. That is a clear violation of netiquette, and your cherry-picking one intemperate response of mine to justify your standard practice won't change that.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable

He doesn't "owe" me anything. But he does owe it to the board to defend his original post against substantive criticism. That is basic netiquette, whatever your eccentric "understanding" to the contrary might be. Every serious board I have ever been on has it as an explicit or implicit rule.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-21 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable

This is just the mentality that I am arguing against. This blog is supposed to be about direct democracy. It is supposed to be egalitarian. There shouldn't be "superstar" posters who are exempt from the requirement to engage with everyone else as equals. If this were to cause a Keith Olbermann to refrain from posting, I would say that there is really no loss. Russ Feingold, on the other hand, strikes me as someone who would respond to his critics.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-21 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable

This is just the mentality that I am arguing against. This blog is supposed to be about direct democracy. It is supposed to be egalitarian. There shouldn't be "superstar" posters who are exempt from the requirement to engage with everyone else as equals. If this were to cause a Keith Olbermann to refrain from posting, I would say that there is really no loss. Russ Feingold, on the other hand, strikes me as someone who would respond to his critics.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-21 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable

Well, then so much the worse for him. In any event, what does he really have to do with it? Does anything and everything that Russ Feingold does automatically become the right thing to do?

by freemansfarm 2008-02-21 10:26AM | 0 recs
Why?

The only person here who has given any substantive criticism is desmoinesdem. The rest have been smear attacks of people who are "freaked out that anyone is inspired by this fake" and stuff like that. I'm not going to respond to stuff like that.

I am always happy to have reasonable discussion with anyone. But I will not engage someone to right out the gate attacks me.

by Populista 2008-02-20 07:08PM | 0 recs
Why?

Because it shows that you are here to listen, as well as to speak. Because this is the internet, and not a traditional, one-way medium. I think some members of the blogosphere, who post all over the place, often cross posting the same stuff on many different sites, have forgotten that. They make their point, and then they move on to the next site, where they make the same point again.

In your case, to give only the most recent example, you posted a diary purporting to tie in
Obama's victory in the Maryland presidential primary with Donna Edwards' victory in a congressional primary in that State. When I, and another poster, both questioned the correlation you were positing, pointing out, among other things, that Edwards' opponent had endorsed Obama weeks before Edwards herself did, and that no statistics had been presented to support your claim, you never responded.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 07:23PM | 0 recs
Wow

just wow.

by zonk 2008-02-20 04:28PM | 0 recs
When I left DKos, I also left all of the....

things I used to donate to there.  Every time he asked, I donated.  And then I realized that DKos, et al hated and mocked me and my support for my candidate.

And I left.

Everything.

Sorry.  But that's the reality of life.

by Shazone 2008-02-20 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: When I left DKos, I also left all of the....

It's all OK. No one needs you. No one noticed you were gone.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Honestly, all the trolls don't really matter at this point. This is the top diary right now, meaning that there are a lot of people who agree, and are willing to have this conversation. Fact is, all he is saying is that he disagreed with something Jerome did, and he still respects him intensely. If you want to troll his thread by writing things like "nobama" and attacking Daily Kos, you are missing the point of the diary, and are adding nothing to the conversation, so please stop.

by JewishJake 2008-02-20 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I am not working toward getting Obama elected President even if he is the nominee. He is clearly unqualified as well as using Lieberman talking points. If I wanted a weak Dem to be President then maybe we should have a nominated a Blue Dog.

Its always nice to Bob Johnson aka Obama surrogate on a blog..great laugh

by bsavage 2008-02-20 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

(1) The original diary was a personal attack on Jerome. This diarist went behind Jerome's back and got his source to issue a weasel-like "clarification," which criticized Jerome for relying on its statement, without actually retracting it.

(2) If this diarist is only concerned about "facts and accuracy" and "correcting the public record," then why does he continue to whine and complain that his original diary did not make the rec. list? Jerome updated his post to reflect the diarist's claims. The diary itself was neither censored or edited. And the diarist, no doubt, cross posted it elsewhere. Thus, whatever small contribution the diary may have made towards the discussion of any substantive issue has now been fully registered.

(3) This diarist concludes his current post by calling for everyone on the left blogosphere to work together for the good of the Party in November. A fine sentiment, no doubt. But perhaps the diarist should consider that his continued insistence on determining the practices of a website that he does not own is not the best way ensuring that cooperation.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 05:56PM | 0 recs
Factually inaccurate

and in violation of the rules Jerome was claiming to enforce.

Typical stuff here lately.

I stand by my track record here.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 06:32PM | 0 recs
You saying something. . .

. . .doesn't make it so. Nothing I wrote was factually inaccurate or in violation of any rules. If I am wrong about that, show me.

It is easy enough to "stand by" your statements, but harder to prove them to be true.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 06:56PM | 0 recs
If you call me

a weasel and then expect me to respond to your factual inaccuracies (ie. stuff you just made up), you are not understanding the first rule of blogging.

It's about the readers not "the battles."

You're not alone in doing this, but it's a pretty fundamental mistake people make. They focus on the battle and not how the battle communicates to the readers who are the vast, silent majority on the blogs.

At any rate, don't call people weasels and maybe you'll have better luck engaging them in a discussion is my advice.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: If you call me

(1) I didn't call you a weasel. Here is what I wrote:

"This diarist went behind Jerome's back and got his source to issue a weasel-like 'clarification,' which criticized Jerome for relying on its statement, without actually retracting it."

"His" (ie Jerome's) source issued the weasel-like clarification. I was clearly accusing the Center for Resonsive Politics of being weasel-like. Not you.

(2) You have now twice accused me of "factual inaccuracies," but you have yet to demonstrate that I made any. That is because I did not.

(3) Your use of the word "readers" is very telling. It shows that you consider yourself an author in a traditional, one-way medium, rather than a person engaged in a public dialogue on the internet. We are not your "readers." We are here to have discussions. And it is impolite for you to act otherwise.

(4) Failure to respond to one's critics is never a good thing, even for traditional authors. It "communicates" to one's "readers" that one either is afraid to engage in debate and/or that one has no response to the criticisms.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 07:46PM | 0 recs
Listen

I haven't ever name called you.

I don't do that.

You write that I've posted this diary elsehwere.

I haven't.

You assume I did some kind of fancy weasel-like manoever.

I didn't.

Jerome had a fact wrong.

He corrected his piece in what I think was an insufficent way, but that's done.

He pulled my diary and justified by saying that I insulted him and violated the rules of the site.

I just don't think that holds water.

Yes, blogging is a two way medium and you are obviously a smart person who thinks about these things alot. Kudos.

You also have slung multiple insults my way. No worries, I'm not sure you actually know my history online, but, let me just say that insults are nothing new to me..they come with the territory.

However, here's the deal, there's simply no reason anyone has to ever, once, respond to someone who name calls me like you have done.

No one has to. You forfeit a two way discussion when you do that.

Stop the name calling would be my advice. It get none of us anywhere.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 08:05PM | 0 recs
No, you listen, for once

(1) Backtrack much? You are now admitting, I take it, that I did not call you a "weasel." I guess that means you committed a "factual inaccuracy," huh? Still, you won't let it go. I did not say, or imply, that you committed some "fancy, weasel-like manoever." The CENTER acted like weasels, because they would not retract the statement that Jerome relied on, while at the same time distancing themselves from it with their "clarification."

(2) I never wrote that you posted this diary elsewhere.

(3) Jerome did not "pull" your original diary. He simply did not let it stay on the rec. list because it violated the rule against personal attacks.

(4) The only "names" I have ever called you were playful little take-offs on your screenname. As you say, you have been around the block in the blogosphere, and I assumed you were not so thin-skinned as to be put off by that. I don't have one one-millionth the prominence that you have, and I have been called far worse things than that. And continued the dialogue anyway. Nevertheless, I apologize if I have hurt your feelings.

(5) You are missing the larger point, which was originally made by Washington Woman, and not by me. You are simply not responsive to ANYONE on this website. As WW wrote, you compose your diary, hit post, and then you are gone. You are not at all interested in dialogue or conversation with me or ANYONE else. So, please, stop hiding behind my history of "insulting" you to justify a practice that you apply to everyone at MyDD.

(6) You patronizingly grant me "kudos" for being "smart" enough to figure out that blogging is a two way medium, but it is a basic fact that you seem to have forgotten. My advice to you would be to stop treating the members of this and other left-blogosphere websites as the audience for your writings and more as equals to engage in dialogue with.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 08:33PM | 0 recs
lol

You wrote: "the diarist no doubt cross posted this elsewhere"

And then you go on to talk about me "whining."

Ad hominem. False accusations. False assertions about not having made false accusations.

I've been blogging almost daily since the fall of 2003 and accusing me of not being responsive to readers and fellow bloggers is a stretch.

Honestly, most bloggers I know, and I know one or two, wouldn't give you the time of day after the gratuitous insults you've lobbed.

All I'm saying is that you should back off the insult stuff and concentrate on defeating the GOP and winning in November.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 08:48PM | 0 recs
Willfuly missing the point

Yes, you cross posted the alleged fact of Jerome's error, not that you cross posted today's diary. And, that makes the rest of your accusations, as you like to say, "factually inaccurate." In any event, way to focus on the least important point and ignore the real issue.

It doesn't really matter what you did or didn't cross post. It doesn't matter how long you have blogging. It doesn't matter what you think of me. It doesn't matter whether you think "most bloggers" would give me the "time of day" or not. Nor how badly you think I have "insulted" you. Nor what you think I should be "concentrating" on.

No, the real issue is that you are not here to engage in dialogue with ANYONE as an equal. You are here to make your campaign pitch for Obama and move on. You treat this website as a billboard, and its members as a passive audience for the campaign advertisement that you paste on that billboard.

And, unless you address that, you are simply dodging the issue.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 09:20PM | 0 recs
I'm guessing you didn't read the post

you didn't follow the links.

You've consistently used insults and surmise to make statements that just don't hold water.

The idea that I "use" MyDD, or don't respond to comments, is just not true. Yes, I've blogged long enough that I don't respond to idiocy like "Nobama", but most folks would cut me some slack there.

Follow that first link. The piece about targeting Congressional Districts from December of 2005 "Starting with the Districts." That piece was the result of three weeks work. It's a very early argument for local blogging. It was a good blog post.

by kid oakland 2008-02-20 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm guessing you didn't read the post

Dude, instead of endlessly rehearsing the alleged "insults" that I have called you and unilaterally determining what does or doesn't "hold water," why don't you try to stick to the point.

You do NOT respond to your critics. And, no by "your critics" I do not mean just me, or the person who wrote "Nobama." You don't respond to anyone. And you do use this site as a billboard. As for your links, I am not under any obligation to read your post from 3 years ago. Nor do I care how long it took you to write it, and still less that you consider it to be "good."

by freemansfarm 2008-02-20 09:48PM | 0 recs
This is my first post on mydd

I had to note that in this long exchange, ko comes off as a much more reasonable commenter.

I can see why his diary is at the top of the rec list.

by thejives 2008-02-20 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This is my first post on mydd

I think the other way around. Why?

by Sandeep 2008-02-21 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This is my first post on mydd

KO is talking about things I want to read about.
What's going on now in the race.

Freemansfarm reads like a spurned lover or something. Lamenting that KO doesn't stick around to talk. Making media theory arguments ... just don't get it.

by thejives 2008-02-21 10:07AM | 0 recs
Things should calm down considerably

March 5th.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Wow.  The comments in this thread are off-the-hook.   This diary, about uniting the party, is fairly tepid.  How could anyone be so enraged by it?  It's quite scary, and I do sometimes wonder if there aren't malcontents and/or Republicans lurking in the midst sowing the seeds of dissension.

Beltway Dem would be my top candidate.  But who knows.

by foxsucks81 2008-02-20 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Please, less accusing people of being Republicans. It doesn't help. Unfortunately, our party has a long history of people who threw our candidates under the bus because they didn't get their way. It's sad, but the GOP does not have a monopoly on small-mindedness.

by X Stryker 2008-02-20 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to

win in August.

by geothenes 2008-02-20 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to

Yeah, that's going to happen.

by Drummond 2008-02-20 09:10PM | 0 recs
Winning what?

Who is going to get me and my family healthcare that we can use if we actually, you know, get sick?

by votermom 2008-02-21 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning what?

That is MY question. So WHAT if Dems win, if universal health care is put on the shelf, ONCE AGAIN, because Obama won't make it happen?

I may DIE for lack of care, as could others I know. We won't give a crap whether Dems are in or not if we are suffering and dying because folks WITH decent insurance elected people that don't give a crap about us.

Sorry for my emotion, but that's how I feel about this. I am one of those that are likely to fall through the cracks with Obama's plan, because a plan that doesn't include everyone will NOT work.

by splashy 2008-02-21 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Hopefully progressives in the House and Senate where our numbers will remove Republican obstruction.

by nogo war 2008-02-21 05:02AM | 0 recs
Winning in November: Unite, don't fall for Trolls

I would have fallen behind HRC if she had become the nominee, depsite my support for Obama.  Real progressives of loyal stripe would have done so.  

The new voters (youth and AA's, and some right-leaning moderates) for Obama, probably would not have followed my path...but that is not the point.

The point is that REAL, long-time supporters of progressive ideals and long term democrats who suppoted the Clintons WILL line up behind Barack sooner or later.  

For Baracks REAL people to antagonize Hillary's people now that there is no longer a legitamte path to the nomination for her is UNFAIR and Counterproductive...just as it is for Hillary's REAL supporters to attack Barack.  I think that this is a minimal problem though.

The truth, I beleive is that there ARE a number of GOP Trolls here who are doing the 'ol "Less filling, tastes great" inciting-a-fight bit.

As intelligent, thoughtful folks, let's stop falling for it. We need to unite behind Obama..all of us.  McCain just received a wound, furhter bolstering Obama's chances in November.  Let's not blow it by allowing Trolls to divide us!!!

If we unite, we will not only win the presidency, but will also make gains in the Senate and HOR to the point where Obama's agenda will be GOP-proof.  

I think we can ALL agree that this is just what we need.  A strong majority in the Congress to implememnt the Democratic/Progressive's agenda!!!  

Had it been HRC, I'd be saying the same thing today.  I am sorry for those of you who have put so much time, energy, and desire into Hillary's campaign...I have felt the sting of nomination defeat myself a couple of times... but when your candidate has lost their ability to compete with honor and certainty...it is time to brush yourself off, get up, and fight the good fight for yourself, your family and your nation.

Please Join me in Uniting behind Obama.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-21 05:10AM | 0 recs
Other side of some supporters

Please join me in Uniting behind Hillary.

Why is that not accepted? Because talking about unity is easier now as you need Hillary supporters? I thought Clintons are past, and whatever obscene things one can call them on the planet, isn't it?

What if Hillary wins with superdelegates? Rules are rules, isnt it?

by Sandeep 2008-02-21 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Other side of some supporters

Good luck with that.

We can't get our fearful Dems to consistently stand strong against Mr. 19% -- and you think they're going to be "brave" enough to vote Clinton if Obama continues the current trends of winning 1)the total, nationwide popular vote, 2)the pledged delegate race, and 3)doubles or even triples the number of state wins?

You know what?  I'll bite.  If the superdelegates do something incredibly stupid and outright impossible -- and hand Clinton the nomination even if she's clearly losing the pledged delegate race, then I will tattoo "Hillary is 44" across my ass.  I promise.

It. won't. happen.

by zonk 2008-02-21 09:38AM | 0 recs
If Hillary wins with superdelegates

sure, I'd "Unite behind her" in the sense that I'd vote for her.  She'd have won by the preestablished rules.

But she's not going to.  She's bleeding supers at an alarming pace and I don't see them bucking the voters' majority preference and sliding en masse to her.

Get ready to swallow your aversion to Obama for the GE.

by corph 2008-02-21 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

You keep repeating you support a 50-state strategy.  Wonderful!! Please join me in getting the DNC to include Florida and Michigan in those 50.  The DNC has disenfranchised and alienated millions of committed Democrat voters in FL and MI. Let's see how it goes in the general election without their support.

by moevaughn 2008-02-21 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

FL and MI should be included - after they have real elections where all candidates can compete with their names on the ballot.  

Why not revote?

by mainelib 2008-02-21 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

All the names were on the Florida ballot, and Florida voters came out in record-breaking numbers.  Since there was no voter apathy, I see no need for a re-vote; but if there is one, who's going to pay for it? Maybe the DNC?

I know more about the Florida situation because my mom lives there, and I'm not happy that she has been disenfranchised -- and neither is she.  The voters have spoken, and need to be represented.

p.s. I'm originally from Maine -- greetings to a fellow Mainiac!

by moevaughn 2008-02-21 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

And my greetings to you!

By the way, I saw a proposal for a "mail in run-off" for FL between the top two candidates - Clinton and Obama.  Although this would certainly cost money it would be a lot cheaper than doing a primary with voting booths.

What do you think of the idea?  

by mainelib 2008-02-21 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Maybe this would do!  But since Florida voters already voted in record-breaking numbers; and all the candidates were on the FL ballot; I personally think the voters have spoken and there's no need for another primary.

by moevaughn 2008-02-22 09:01AM | 0 recs
It'll go fine

Obama (or Clinton) can win 47 states (or 45 without FL and MI), if you extrapolate Bush approval ratings to vote share.  And most FL and MI delegates don't care about the primary delegate allocation.

Your post is a transparent strategy to get Clinton more delegates.  But there is no way in hell (look up the credentials committee rules) FL and MI will put her over the top, and it's highly unlikely the supers will.

Bill Clinton tried to lower the bar again yesterday.  She doesn't just need to "win" Texas and Ohio.  She needs 58% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch Obama.  Better start hoping for a debate gaffe or personal scandal.

by corph 2008-02-21 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It'll go fine

Of course I want Hillary Clinton to get all her votes -- and Obama too.  Florida voters turned out in all-time record-breaking numbers and should be represented fairly.  Why on earth do you think Floridians "don't care about their primary delegate allocation"?  Do the voters in your state care about theirs?  Obamians keep saying they have a 50-state strategy, all the while telling 2 of those states to go fly a kite.

by moevaughn 2008-02-21 11:52AM | 0 recs
I think the 50-state

strategy refers to investing in local parties in red states so as to perform better in Nov. Not pardoning or pandering to big swing states that screw up the primary calendar while trying to gain influence.

I say [most] Floridians don't care about their primary delegates because few of them even know how the nomination process works and even fewer of them vote in primaries.  And of those who do, how many will be mad at the DNC for trying to keep some sanity in the primary calendar?

I find the argument silly and self-serving.

by corph 2008-02-21 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the 50-state

Please check the voter turnout rate for the 2008 Florida primary.

by moevaughn 2008-02-21 01:07PM | 0 recs
Ok, I did

about 1.5 million primary votes.  Compared to the 2004 GE totals of 7.5 million cast, that's 20%.  Of those, half voted for Clinton (10%).  Now, I don't know how many of those will stay home because their primary delegates weren't seated, but neither do you.  I'm pretty sure anyone who was paying attention to the delegate seating flap is damn well going to vote in November anyway.

by corph 2008-02-21 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

please tell the local Democratic parties in MI and FL to stop dicking around and work with the DNC for once, and we can talk.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-21 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Your language is offensive, but you should know it was not the state Dem parties who changed the date.  It was the Republican-ruled state Legislature and the Republicam governor signed the date change into law.  The states of IA, NH, and SC broke the rule for date changing, but were not disenfranchised.  Besides the voters had nothing to do with the date change, so why should they be punished? The DNC has punished its own voters for something the Republican-ruled Legislature did. Go figure.

by moevaughn 2008-02-21 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Yes, by all means, let's include the results from the state where Hillary Clinton was the only one on the ballot.  This is certainly the most fair solution.

Hillary '08 - Gaming the System All the Way to the White House!

by JK47 2008-02-22 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

All the candidates names were on the Florida ballot.  And the primary voters in FL turned out in all-time record-breaking numbers.

by moevaughn 2008-02-22 09:06AM | 0 recs
MyDD must change focus!

I posted this as a diary elsewhere but:

I am so disheartened by the state of this blog right now. We have an amazingly strong candidate preparing to win the Democratic Nomination, a dynamic, forward thinking leader who is bringing untold thousands of new Democratic voters into the process and day after day we are treated to featured diaries tearing him down in a base and unpleasant way. It is obviously one thing to pick a horse in the race and fair enough to do so, but when will enough be enough. At this point if Hillary wins the nomination it will come through means so controversial that it will tear the party apart. Please, I am begging you guys in leadership on this blog, change the tone of this blog. Make it more respectful towards Obama and towards the process overall. Make it a place where people can discuss the ins and outs of how to get a democrat elected in November, not a place where we needlessly weaken our almost certain general election candidate. Anyone who agrees please respond and forward and if you don't agree let me know (try to be respectful--I know that is a stretch right now). LEts get it together people!!!!

by wasder 2008-02-21 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD must change focus!

You are wrong in your claims based on the following statement:

"At this point if Hillary wins the nomination it will come through means so controversial that it will tear the party apart."

For you, it's Obama or tear the party. That's the mentality which has been there since the very beginning.

And I say it respectfully, I dislike hypocrites calling for unity!

by Sandeep 2008-02-21 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD must change focus!

I am a Democrat and I never vote for Obama. He is not a good person.

by BlueSea 2008-02-21 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD must change focus!

why?

Just asking!

by marcotom 2008-02-21 09:50AM | 0 recs
He is not a good person?

What are you, 12?

by Skaje 2008-02-21 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: He is not a good person?

There are certain lines you don't cross like insinuating someone is a racists. The Clintons deserve better.

I'm over 12 and think Obama's race-bating tactics are unforgivable. Sure he ended up getting 90% of the black vote instead of 60-70% so it worked out pretty well for him, but it is slimy!

by mmorang 2008-02-21 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

I am a Democrat but Inever vote for Obama.

by BlueSea 2008-02-21 09:03AM | 0 recs
Then you're a Republican now.

by benmasel 2008-02-21 07:19PM | 0 recs
Said it before...

...I'll say it here once more.

The real enemy is not Senator Clinton.

The real enemy is not Senator Obama.

THIS is the real enemy...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/h bc-90002293

THIS is the real enemy...
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2008/02 /004237.html

This is the beginning.

This will get worse.

Focus, people.  Focus.

by palamedes 2008-02-21 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Said it before...

Actually, I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but I don't see McCain as the enemy. I disagree with him on many issues but I can't hate the man.

At least he did not insinuate that the Clintons were racists like Obamas official surrogates have. Many centrists will who would have voted for Hillary will be voting for McCain.

I know he's riding high right now, but Obama can get routed in the general election just like Michael Dukakis did in 1988 or probably more aptly, Mcgovern in 1972.

Real genius puting up a 1st term Senator when the nation in in two wars....and it wont matter that he was against one of them.

by mmorang 2008-02-21 03:51PM | 0 recs
Pity you didn't click to my links....

If you had, you would note that McCain is directly (and, perhaps, even indirectly mentioned) in neither of them.

Stop putting up your shingle on my point, please.

At the end of the day, we two sides MUST work together, or we WILL fail separately.

If you can't do that at the end of the day, then you're wasting our time and contributing to putting the future of the nation all the more at risk.

Fight like hell for Hillary if that's who you support - but backbiting won't get the job done, neither now nor in the general election.

by palamedes 2008-02-22 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Pity you didn't click to my links....

I wouldn't get so worked up. It seems to me that the fix is in. Maybe the Republicans don't even want to win this one.

The next president will inherit a nightmare. McCain is being sacraficed. He's older than dirt and has no money.

The public is so dumb they'll blame the new Dem president for the higher unemployment and stagnation instead of Bush.

Botton line: If Hillary is not on the ticket I will sit out this election.

by mmorang 2008-02-22 01:03PM | 0 recs
Then you care...

...more about your personal political "cathartic moment" than about realizing it's a competition between two good candidates within our party against an opposition that would take great pleasure in crushing you, or anyone else that stands in its way, under its boot to salvage one more day in power.

You shouldn't waste any time - you should opt out now.  You're hardly helping your favored candidate as it is with such a mindset.

People like you, whether Obama or Clinton supporters, just make me tired.  

by palamedes 2008-02-22 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Many Centrists who would have voted for Hillary will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Obama will probably do a little better than Dukakis but maybe worse.

Check out this article. I have seen a recent poll that backs up the authors assertion.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/political_commentary/com mentary_by_froma_harrop/vaporous_obama_t urns_off_many_centrists

by mmorang 2008-02-21 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

Obama consistently fares better than Clinton in head-to-head matchups against McCain.  His stellar ground game and rabidly motivated base will more than make up for the small number of squishy centrists who might flip to McCain.

Over the last few weeks, Hillary has lost to Obama in blue states, red states and swing states, by extremely large margins.  How is Hillary supposed to be the better GE candidate?  I just don't see it.

by JK47 2008-02-22 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Winning in November

It was known all along that she would have a much tougher time in the primaries than in the general election.

Obama will not win a southern state or even come close. He will not even force McCain to spend a penny in Florida. Obama will not win one red state.

Obama has done exceptionally well in the Dem primaties. He will be a terrible general election candidate. The current head-to-head polls mean nothing now. That is the huge mistake people are making. Once the media turns on Obama it will be a different story. He and his wife have already given the Republicans plenty of material to use against them.

Obama will get bloodied and lose big!

by mmorang 2008-02-22 12:21PM | 0 recs
You want to trash the only two-time elected Demo-

cratic president in the last 60 years. A president who balanced the budget and increased college access for minorities, brought stability to Bosnia without one U.S. casualty, helped bring peace to Ireland. Sure he made mistakes as all presidents do, but it was largely a very successful presidency.

You don't hear Republicans tearing down Reagan, they talk him up because it is good for the Republican brand name. Some Democrats take cheap shots at both Clintons and then want their support.

Party loyalty is a two-way street. The Clintons have been involved in public service for decades and they deserve a little respect, not the terrible treatment they get from many Obama supporters like the one who wrote the diary above.

You know, McCain really isn't that bad a guy, he really isn't. At least McCain didn't insinuate that the Clintons were racists.

by mmorang 2008-02-21 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: You want to trash the only two-time elected De

No, he's just a philandering, flip-flopping political whore who will do anything, including French-kissing George Bush, to further his own ambition.  He's not a bad guy, he just wants to keep the Cheney/Halliburton war machine cranking so they can continue to profit off the blood of innocent people.  And women, they don't need that right to choose after all.  Nice guy McCain will make that choice for them by appointing nice wingnutty judges to the SCOTUS.

But at least he never insinuated something negative about the Clintons, who by the way, started the race-baiting.  

Good luck with that McCain candidacy and your newfound home in the Republican party.  Too bad McCain is going to meet the same fate as Hillary.  You'll always have Rush to console you.

by JK47 2008-02-22 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to trash the only two-time elected De

I've never voted Republican in my life and won't start now.

Obama played the race card not Clinton. I may not vote at all. I certainly won't be working for Obama or sending the campaign money because I don't support people who call the Clintons racists.

It seems to me the fix is in anyway. The Rebublicans have a "weekend at Bernie's" strategy. Their running a 71 year old because they don't care if they win this one. There will be a huge recession, maybe stagflation. Obama and his numnut supporters will inherit a disaster with high unemployment.

Clinton could have effectively dealt with it but Obama will flounder.

by mmorang 2008-02-22 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to win in Nov? obama needs to

we will never win in november if michelle obama refuses to apologize for her unpatriotic comments.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 06:03PM | 0 recs
Let it go Kid O, it's the General now.

by benmasel 2008-02-21 07:18PM | 0 recs
So sad.

This is the first response to a nice diary.

Why would Obama drop out now? He's winning and it looks less and less likely that Hillary can win.

by OsoDelMar 2008-02-22 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: So sad.

I believe it was an attempt at humor. The diary's title is "Winning in November." The commenter was suggesting that the best way to assure winning in November would be to have Obama drop out if the race. Now that's certainly a controversial opinion, but he wasn't commenting on Obama's likelihood of winning the Democratic nomination--almost everyone agrees that he has that practically sewn up.

by Inky 2008-02-22 07:45AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads