Bark however you want and I will respond as I see appropriate.  But drop the crap about me impeding you in any way.  Nothing I have done has had any effect on your unproductive bile and the unbridled animosity with which you have introduced yourself as Ludwigvan to this blog.  Your cliche ad hominem insults and derisive slanders leveled at everyone from your opening chord seem to be flowing just as you choose.

As for my autumn, I taught two courses and wrote a dissertation chapter while raising two children. Now I expect you to insult these endeavors as inferior to your political valor and to suggest that they somehow mean I have less right to engage in political debate than you.  You have been suggesting that you have more of a right to express your opinions than anyone else up and down this thread while crying victim.  It's a very odd way to promote free speech and participatory politics.

I am in no way impeding your "pov." I called you a liar and continue to do so for making shit up about everyone who disagrees with your mode.  I don't pretend it was "clintonites" who went ugly in the primaries.  They did go ugly.  Both campaigns employed tactics I am uncomfortable with.  But a candidate who did not couldn't succeed in contemporary political culture.  I idealize neither of them and I demonize neither of them.  I made a critical choice between two complex political figures.  How entertaining that you cannot even begin to conceive that anyone could have a nuanced view of either Clinton or Obama.

Look, I make no bones about it.  I think you are poisonous.  I don't think you promote dialogue and debate.  Making "I TOLD YOU SO" your central message does not do this and I think you are smart enough to know this.  It's exactly what a punk bully thug does.  So I question your motives as well as your mode and will continue to do so.  I don't expect you to like it.  But let's be clear, I oppose you.  I am not silencing you.  Call it an attack if you want.  I consider these diaries an attack on civil discourse and on the possibility of productive political action.  

Now tell me more fairy tales of how you invest hours a day in spewing sanctimonious bile that doesn't begin to resemble substantive political discourse while "working 2 state house races and raising $ for one freshman congress critter." And for the record, I never said you currently work for HRC.  I pointed out that you repeatedly claim to be connected to the Clintons.  You are the one who accuses me of working for Obama.   But I get that that's not a real claim, just a way to dismiss my opposition to your crap.

you sorta did dispute it

It's really kind of amazing how the history books got written as though the Clintons screwed that one up when it was really a story of unified Republican opposition and a few Dem committee chairs who cared about their egos a lot more than health care.

Wouldn't it be both then? That he screwed up AND that it died by unified Republican opposiiton and ego.

I didn't call you a liar from the get go.  That too is a lie.  But I'm glad you saw so many great gigs at that legendary venue.  Spent many good hours there myself.

Don't fool yourself that the antagonistic drivel you call your "diaries" merits or even can elicit civil and substantive engagement.  You want civil engagement, write a civil diary.  Otherwise drop the posturing ruse.  You have offered nothing here, in your diaries or your comments, that amounts to anything more than posturing and taunts.  I call them like I see them.  Proclaiming yourself as a giant among dwarfs will not bring you the response you claim to desire.

Guilt by association.  But not by my association with anyone else.  Rather by your association of me with someone else.  If I associate you with linguine do I have the right to pour marinara over your head?

Calling you a liar is not a personal attack when you in fact lie about others here.  You lied that I attacked Clinton supporters with venom.  You lied that I hide-rated you.  That makes you a liar.  Stating a fact is not a personal attack.  Suggesting that your posts are morally bankrupt is also not a personal attack.

I'm not so sure why you believe me to be interested in your evaluation of my intelligence.  It seems an odd assumption.  If you are trying to persuade others that you are smarter than me, they can judge for themselves quite well, though again, I don't know why they would find this germane to anything.

But let's be clear, I do not attack you by calling you a liar first and foremost.  I only began to call you a liar when you started lying about me attacking Clinton supporters, which is nothing more than your ad hominem invention.  Even in this bullshit troll thread, I have made some substantive comments, which you have only responded to with more bile.  This seems to convince you of your superior intelligence.  I hope you are getting a charge out of this.

And while you are doing this, may I ask how those house races you are supposedly working on are doing?  Do these "candidates" know that you spend your time on this crapfest instead of trying to get them elected?  If you are indeed working on any campaigns, the minute they find out how much time you have put into this unproductive garbage, I imagine you'll be looking for new work.

Now, I admit that this begs the question of why I am spending time on this.  I'll anticipate that reasonable question and explain that I am waiting for my dissertation committee's response to the chapter I submitted.  I'm writing on the construction of English nationhood through Renaissance poetry and homilies that imagine London as some form of Jerusalem.  I need their comments to revise for a fellowship application and am avoiding grading a stack of undergraduate essays.  So I'm doing this a bit.  Then I will get back to that.  But if I were working on a democratic house race, I cannot imagine I's have time for this today.

and you dont see this as a problem?

oh my.