This blog has a relationship with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Some money musy have changed hands. It's nothing but bad propaganda now.
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 09:35 AMright, nerdoff- just ignore the linked facts and spin a lie. classy.
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 09:44 AMScroll down this blog and peruse the election related coverage. Every single post comes right out of Hillary's war room.
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 09:55 AMyes, nerdoff, we all work for hillary. which is why i was for dodd, and am now for edwards. but we've also been very busy stealing votes for hillary in new hampshire. it's a conspiracy!
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 09:59 AMFrom my window
Folks, as someone who doesn’t vote here (but also someone whom, as the rest of the world citizens, knows the impact that the elections here have for the rest of this poor earth of ours), confess that you are scaring me witless and methinks the time has come to knock it off.
By this I mean that the incessant bickering between the Obama and Clinton followers is becoming hard to stand, and most particularly (because this is such hard issue to raise up without one’s stance on vital matters for them being put into question) the many attempts that I’ve noticed made by some pundits—but also, sadly, by some bloggers, and in different blogs—in which a win in NH was made into a race issue.
Bloody hell, this must have made those who went out to vote with their hearts and souls in that wonderful State feel really good about themselves. Yeah, nothing better than to get up one morning and find out that one has gone from being progressive (when the polls were going one way), and then those same folks are deemed racist (when the votes go the other way). Bloody, bloody hell…
The odd thing is that, if I understand correctly, Obama won about one third of the Iowa vote (not precisely proof that the white voters in that state are racist). Obama also got roughly 40 percent of votes in New Hampshire—not precisely what anyone could call a racist outcome from the white folks there either and, moreover, hardly what any one with even a milligram of gray matter in their brains could call racist. Yet the shrill drums keep drumming on and the badmouthing keeps on spewing vile, and instead of someone like Obama or Clinton coming to the aid of their party (known, at least in principle, as being non-racist and non-sexist), if this nonsense continues every single time that things don’t turn out according to the wishes of the followers of this or that candidate, and the pundits and the bloggers keep hammering the same old tired song, one thing will probably happen. Indeed, low blows such as calling in racism and/or sexism in the moment that something goes wrong could potentially bring a nasty split between the followers of the Democratic Party and, at the end, the one daunting outcome is that the only ones posed to win big by this wicked dissent are those sitting in the opposition.
No doubt, some folks must be clapping their hands and licking their lips with gusto... Yeah, let those ding-dongs slap each other silly and, by the time the elections come, all we need to do is hammer (over and over again) that the Democratic Party is so screwed up that even their followers don’t know what is it that it stands for… democratic tendencies, understanding, color blindness, acceptance, non-sexist notions, pro-choice, no gay-phobia, my foot! So, if they can even agree amongst themselves—and are probably willing to kill each other before accepting even small things as voters right to vote as they well damn please—how in all the holy heavens can any of them by trusted to lead this country of ours, filled as it is with folks with so many political (and many other) differences? So, dear countrymen, vote for us, not precisely the party of seers (or even uniters) but without a doubt, yes, the united party when it comes to screwing everyone—and thus regardless of race, sex, creed, or sexual orientation!
With this here crapoleo spewed out (and outsider can face many disadvantages, but has the advantage of sticking it to whichever party without feeling the normal remorse that one may feel when mentioning one’s beloved party, or whatever subject may come up, and/or however not kosher it may be) I may dare add that, personally, I have two near mammoth beefs.
First: no matter how many pundits (or bloggers, et al) try to make sex and issue, and/or deride to their hearts content because they’d much rather talk about these things than about substance—who in hell wants to hear THAT when a cleavage, a hair style, the color of one’s cheeks and/or lipstick, vile age lines, tone of voice, et al, bring such substance to any serious political race?—following suit by parroting the same imbecilities does little to make those who are looking in from different world windows feel any comfort.
At the end, and no matter what the pundits want to spew, the reality is that about 50% of the population happens to be women and, just like men, any woman worth her salt has the obligation to find the reason why they would want to vote for a woman or not. (Hopefully not merely because one candidate happens to be a woman, but because her stand on the issues matches best with their stand on the issues.) Failure to carry out this little, but ever so important exercise, in my humble opinion doesn’t just point to sexism on the part of pundits (or men in general) but of dismal desire from some women to become politically educated before daring to exercise the sublime right of voting—lest their vote help to “bring on” another calamity, and then what?
Actually, any woman that’s moved by near tears alone, or who dares imply that the near tears of a woman help them realize that she has feelings, must not be too well acquainted with human nature for, who in hell doesn’t own at least a few of those? So, if votes are cast solely with this quaint notion in mind, well…then, who’s being sexist?
At any rate, one ought to think that before entering into the fray Clinton was already keenly aware that with roughly 50% of the voting population being women (who, by default, used to vote for men until now), her chances of winning must have seemed good enough for her to take that leap of faith into the leery political unknown. The voters would have to decide…
On the other hand, the most racist remark that I’ve seen is one that no one seems to comment on either, and the amazing thing is that apparently everyone (from pundits of every imaginable media sort, to a barrage of plain every day folks), seem to often mention it, and, without a care in the world to boot.
And here goes the most racist remark that I’m referring to. Even though I try to put my ear on gear, before anything else must confess that I haven’t heard things such as: that Obama wild probably take South Carolina because he’s the best that there is out there, or because his speeches are superb, or because he brings with him the best ideas to finally take care of the mess that the incumbents have made of most everything they’ve dared touch with their aristocratic filthy fingers. Nope, according to those who are in the know, the reason for this other almost fact acompli (NH anyone?), is that South Carolina will probably go to Obama simply because this State is inhabited by a population that’s about 50% black.
Jeebus, I can’t imagine anyone (pundit or otherwise) mentioning that this or that candidate is posed to win this or that State simply because the inhabitant ratio is 50% white or more.
At any rate, one ought to think that before entering into the fray Obama was also already keenly aware that even with a majority of white folks in this country (I’ve read roughly 75% according to the 2005 census) of which those who can do so are souls who used to vote for white folks until now (due to default as well), his chances of winning must have seemed good enough for him to take that leap of faith into the leery unknown that any political arena presents to aspirants to the White House. The voters would have to decide…
Folks, confess wholeheartedly that if I had a voice here the very first thing that I’m bloody sure I’d do would be to support a candidate who made the notion of peace on earth a high priority (yeah, and the immediate pull out of an invaded country for no reason on earth whatsoever, a beyond supra-priority) so, sadly neither Obama or Clinton fit the bill. But even with this huge problem being part of their baggage I (and firmly believe that many other souls the world over) would rather see Obama or Clinton win—if at the end of the long trail these two are the only choices—than any incorrigible warmonger who may take the lead from the other side of the aisle. Therefore, could democrats, please, mind their blooming q’s and p’s before any further inveterate blabbing takes over and every bloody thing is shot to hell—again?
Moral of this puny fable? If the message is faulty, shoot it, but try not to hit the messenger!
At any rate, once the dust settles the norm is that democrats will happily vote for whichever candidate wins. Something that ought to be not too difficult, particularly after reading (over and over again) that this time along the aspirants to the WH from the Democratic Party are supposed to be superb in their own right. Yet, I wonder if all those nasty spews will become so entrenched that voting for the non-opposition “oppositors” may turn out to be a hard thing to do. Please, take care…
Finally, I’d like to leave this holy mess with the amazing words that a man, whom I admire deeply, apparently said back in 1978,
“The most striking thing about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not merely that Rip slept for twenty years, but that he slept through a revolution… one that would alter the course of human history… We must remain awake through a great revolution.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
PAZ
P.S. I'd just finished writing the above when this other mess came up. Will there be and end to this holy crap?
Posted by quídam at January 11, 2008 09:59 AMquidam,
thanks for the comment. this country is clearly having trouble with both a black and a woman candidate. enough people are voting for them, but some of their detractors and supporters are clearly off the rails. it's important that we don't reflexively cry racism or sexism, but both are out there. even chris matthews's bizarre theory that the polls were wrong in n.h. plays on racism, and ignores the fact that the plurality of white men voted for obama. people like matthews are setting a tone in the corporate media, and tensions are increasing, every day.
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 10:10 AMOther blogs have there biases, but admit them. Come on hacks of Talkleft! Admit that you're shilling for Hillary.
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 10:11 AMnerdoff,
you want to respond to the substance of what i posted, or are you just out for a morning troll?
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 10:15 AMSee post above.
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 10:17 AMi see no substance to anything you write, nerdoff. thank you for playing.
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 10:20 AMTurkana, I'll bet if you checked out nerd's IP address, you'll find a familiar face. Boy, the trolls are getting thick (and dishonest in a rightwingnut sort of way) here.
What's with the Obamabots that they can't conceive of the notion that other people to have their own chosen candidates, or haven't chosen at all? Really is sad...
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 10:21 AMsee post above
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 10:22 AMcoyote,
i get it all the time- because i defend hillary from the outlandish attacks made on her, i must support her, or work for her. apparently, if you don't hate hillary, you must be evil.
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 10:23 AMif you don't hate hillary, you must be evil.
And on the payroll. Sad. And insulting; it's a blatant insinuation that the Hillary supporters aren't able to make up their own minds about their own preferences.
But you see the same thing everywhere - where it used to be Paulbots showing up whenever his name was mentioned, now it's the Obama crowd, accusing anyone who hasn't accepted him as their personal savior to be on Clinton's payroll. Even digby had to put disclaimers every few sentences on a post last week that complained about the media's treatment of Hillary. Nearly every blog on the left showed outrage at the Tweety spew with the Obamans showing up soon after to sneer. Ugly, ugly stuff. As Thersites said yesterday:
As long as we're arguing policy, and remembering that it's about the wider movement, NOT the individual candidate. Obama & HRC & Edwards are for better or worse the vehicles we have right now we have for pushing for specific goals -- like a rational healthcare system (single payer, ultimately) and ENDING THE WAR.Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 10:58 AMNone of them are perfect. One of them, though, MUST be elected.
Turkana,
You say you're an Edwards supporter (as am I) and I'm inclined to take you at your word.
But I have to wonder why no one on this blog has written a single word about Lawrence O'Donnell's nasty attack of Edwards on HuffPO, calling Edwards a loser and saying that if he doesn't quit the race and let Clinton and Obama have the two-person race 'they deserve' (???), then he's just another Southern White Man keeping the Black Man down.
O'Donnell's post is vile, and Edwards supporters should be up in arms about it. Shouldn't they?
Posted by Stranger at January 11, 2008 11:01 AMTurkana, Glenn Greenwald put it best:
"TODAY'S REMINDER: If you find that one (or both) of the following thoughts is entering your brain, it may be helpful to remind yourself that they are fallacies:
* X criticizes negative media coverage of Candidate Y. Therefore, X supports Candidate Y.
* X criticizes positive media coverage being lavished on Candidate Y. Therefore, X opposes Candidate Y.
For a rational person, it is actually possible to criticize negative media coverage directed at a candidate that one does not support. It's equally possible -- for a rational person, that is -- to criticize positive media coverage being lavished on a candidate one likes."
stranger,
i didn't see it, but it certainly hasn't gotten the attention the cuomo smear did. o'donnell's also just another talking head, not associated with a campaign, and rarely on tv. i go after tweety because he has his own show, and is so prominent.
Posted by Turkana at January 11, 2008 11:15 AMi didn't see it, but it certainly hasn't gotten the attention the cuomo smear did. o'donnell's also just another talking head, not associated with a campaign, and rarely on tv. i go after tweety because he has his own show, and is so prominent.
I make a point not to watch too much cable news (after dealing with it for the better part of 10 years it finally burned me out), but I was under the impression that O'Donnell appeared on Tweety's show as well as Olbermann's. I'll be the first to stand corrected on that point if I'm wrong, but should this meme be allowed to fly below the radar like it is, without some sort of response?
Far be it from me to tell you what to blog about (and I apologize if it seems like that's what I'm doing), but I personally found O'Donnell's piece to be reprehensible and I'm frankly surprised that sofew bloggers have pushed back on it by now.
Posted by Stranger at January 11, 2008 11:28 AMThis race is going to "get ugly" because the well connected and powerful Clinton presidential family appears to think that only they can "save" the country and can "keep it from falling backwards", while a large segment of the Dem base is adamantly anti-dynastic and is simply not going to get on board with Clinton II--the Sequel.
This is a recipe for irreconcilable division within the party and I think that's now where we are inevitably headed. This was predictible.
And wait till the Repubs add their anti-feminist/woman or anti-black form of ugliness to the mix. So get used to it. It won't be all that much worse than "usual" for BushAmerica.
Posted by euzoius at January 11, 2008 11:38 AMThis race is going to "get ugly" because the well connected and powerful Clinton presidential family appears to think that only they can "save" the country and can "keep it from falling backwards",...
What a load of crap!
Hillary Clinton has just as much right to seek the presidency as any other natural born citizen does.
And of course you think that only you know what's best for the country too, right?
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 11:48 AMThis race is going to "get ugly" because the well connected and powerful Clinton presidential family appears to think that only they can "save" the country and can "keep it from falling backwards", while a large segment of the Dem base is adamantly anti-dynastic and is simply not going to get on board with Clinton II--the Sequel.
I agree euzoius.
Seems like the Clintons want to keep the "Dino Dems" in power. A lot of moderate Dems will push for the status quo. I personally want to see a changing of the guard in Washington.
Who said she doesn't have a "right" to run? She has every legal right in the world.
Just giving my view of the motivations of the developing "sides", sorry you feel a need to squelch it.
Posted by euzoius at January 11, 2008 12:10 PMStranger, I hadn't seen anything about the O'Donnell post, thanks for the heads-up. I haven't been reading much of Huffpo lately, just look at the headlines, but they seem to push a lot of the anti-Clinton rumors reflexively; doesn't Arianna have a well-known loathing for Clinton? In any case, it sounds like a vile post, and should get more attention!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:12 PM...sorry you feel a need to squelch it.
I did nothing to try and squelch it. I gave my opinion back.
Was the implication of your comment that Clinton should drop out for the good of the country? Or not?
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 12:15 PMThree questions:
1. Are you going to defend this statement by one of Hillary's top advisors? "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool." Racism, anyone?
2. Seems to me Clinton wants it both ways on gender, to be treated equally yet playing the victim when under fire from mostly male critics? Which is it...
3. And, isn't it strange that feminists and Hillary-as-feminist gain gender sympathy for playing to the female stereotype of emotionalism? Isn't that troubling? For an interesting take on this angle, see Judith Warner's opinion piece in today's NYTimes, "Emotion Without Thought." (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/)
One more thing: Snark, about that Hillary has just as much right to run for president as any other citizen line, that is technically true, but patently false. We all know (or should know) that the system is rigged by and for those with large sums of money. There is no real way in hell you are I could ever viably run for president, regardless of how good your ideas might be. That is why the first reform must be public financing of elections...
peace
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 12:42 PMExactly, Gay veteran,
If the message is crappy—shoot it down with all you’ve got! As a matter of fact, at times like these it’s probably not a bad idea to badmouth as high as one lungs can the sticking pundit(s) that fling them out or use, abuse and reuse until they make their mark—regardless of having amply proven than shooting without aim is their favorite sport. Yet, as long as it keeps some people entertained…
Ah, I also agree wholeheartedly that discussing what’s put out there by the media pundits et al (pro or con, but trying to maintain the least of civility, lest everyone end up becoming spin doctors) doesn’t automatically make one in favor of this or that candidate an absolute truth. In my humble opinion, it merely demonstrates the obvious: that voters are interested in what’s going on around them and want to dissect issues until they are cleared up. Not a crime, one should think.
Thinking about the media pundits, brings to mind another thing that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., apparently said. And this is that “A destructive minority can poison the wellsprings from which the majority must drink.”
OK, then perhaps time to test the waters before jumping in with both feet, try to became a CO2expert, and refrain from passing the ammunition!
PAZ
Patrick,
If any top adviser from any camp dares to spew out such asinine remarks (as #1 from your post), lets hope that those who can do something about such abominations take care of the problem by firing (and ASAP!) the bloody biased cretin.
PAZ
Posted by quídam at January 11, 2008 12:56 PMThe initial wrongful headlines re the Cuomo quote cause the heads of so many African-Americans to explode yesterday on the web. Its almost getting comical with the way whites use certain language which to their astonishment angers many blacks even if not used in the context of talking about blacks.
Here me now and remember me later: HRC is not anti-black. Never has been, never will be. And Obama supporters, if he is the nominee, as he well may be, you had all better get ready for the roasting of your lives because the Repubs will throw the kitchen sink at him. Shoot, I heard one sports personality on the radio in my town saying Obam needs to be investigated for Muslim ties, terrorist or not. Thats what you are looking at. So let him take his hits now. It makes him stronger if he is to run in the fall. Thats one of the reasons I am so happy with the NH result. Like Clinton, Obama cannot waltz to the nomination but must earn it through hard work and against a qualified and formidable candidate. Again, whomever is left standing at the convention will be stronger for it. So lets not try to kill each other as Dems. OK? In the end, we will all want the same thing.
Posted by Jammer at January 11, 2008 01:15 PMPatrick,
Three answers;
1. No.
2. I think you could interpret her actions/words as wanting it both ways if you're so inclined to do so.
3. I genuinely believe she was actually ya know...emotional. Campaign fatigue? Perhaps. How the media and online communities chose to spin it was not up to her.
As to running for president, nice spin on that one. You have a terrific grasp of the obvious.
But I do agree with you on public financing.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 01:32 PMBut it does tell you something about Senator Obama, doesn't it? And the type of race he is running? And the race baiting he is willing to employ to win...even if it means turning the African American community against Clinton...is despicable and false.
And this is who we want as President? Progressive women must speak out strongly. It is not OK to elevate race above gender for political advantage. And it is certainly not OK to engage in this type of sexist politics. This isn't progressive. This is right out of the Republican play book.
Posted by lily15 at January 11, 2008 01:37 PMAnd Patrick,
William Jefferson Blythe III was not any more wealthy than I or most of the people I know were when he was young.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 01:54 PMTurkana, congrats on having the top spot on the big orange rec list!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 02:33 PMI thought O'Donnell's remarks about Edwards were just stupid. They come from a guy who is in the Clinton camp and should be dismissed a campaign drivel....except of course that he had to put a racist angle on it with the White Southerner remark. Telling a white candidate to get out of the race so as not to interfere with a black guy or a woman winning is just stupid nonsense. I'm not sure if the guy is a drinker or not, but it sounds like a drunk rant. These are the guys that will be screaming "foul" if it turns out that the country would rather just have a white guy than a black or woman. And the white guy is a Republican.
Posted by T2 at January 11, 2008 02:44 PMThe excerpt uses the word 'race' or 'races' several times. This combined with 'shuck and jive' clearly makes it a racist comment directed at Obama.
Snark. Spin? I was responding to your statement!
"The excerpt uses the word 'race' or 'races' several times. This combined with 'shuck and jive' clearly makes it a racist comment directed at Obama."
This one made me spew my dessert all over the computer screen (from laughing, that is).
Posted by divF at January 11, 2008 09:15 PMMaybe I'm on a different wavelength, but I hear no despicable comments by the co-chair. I'm not a crazy Obama supporter, either, and while I have healthy skepticism that the non-tears --- what JJ, Jr. is talking about --- were staged, I don't doubt that her emotion was real.
It certainly came at the right time for Sen. Clinton --- I don't think this could really be disputed.
My problem is simply that I don't hear any despicable rhetoric.
For the record, I'm a small government conservative who is both socially liberal and sorely disappointed with the selection.
(It's almost sad that I feel I have to inoculate myself this way against crazy comments from fanatical supporters of both Barack or Hillary.)
Posted by Benjamin Baxter at January 12, 2008 12:14 AMbaxter,
i support neither hillary nor obama. but if you don't hear jackson's sexism, and what he's hinting at, i can't help you.
Posted by Turkana at January 12, 2008 01:19 AMHey Turkana,
Geez. Go back and read your last comment and really listen to how you sound. BB was offering a real and genuine view. Why not be courteous to a new guest at your site. Apparently you know all and cannot tolerate an alternative opinion, or engage it genuinely? Apparently, you can't fathom that there might be multiple interpretations of one particular moment? This is what I and others have been saying about this pro-Hillary site for some time now...
C'mon, why not give BB the benefit of the doubt and have some discussion. How condescending, "I can't help you." It didn't sound to me like Baxter wanted your paternalistic "help."
Posted by Patrick at January 12, 2008 10:17 AM"But I have to wonder why no one on this blog has written a single word about Lawrence O'Donnell's nasty attack of Edwards on HuffPO"
Because HuffPo isn't worth reading anymore? The real question is why pundits pushing the 'Bradley' effect forget Edwards was on the ballot too.
I still don't see why Obama supporters think reading race between the lines helps Obama. Some of the pundits--Sullivan, e.g.-- are using Obama to promote their own careers. That's why Sullivan pushes the 'Bradley' theory: If a white voter doesn't vote for the black candidate, that proves s/he is racist. Sullivan knows this hurts Obama, but it keeps Sullivan's name in the news.
Posted by whoframedrudy at January 12, 2008 03:36 PMBeautiful symbol? Um. He's a person not a symbol.
Nor does he shuck and jive, deal drugs, or pray to the Koran. Nor is he lazy, naive, childlike, or unaccomplished.
Entiende?
Posted by Justin at January 13, 2008 10:33 AMThis race between Hillary and Obama is going to highlight something that I have known for years now. Many white, "progressive" women don't have a clue to what racism is or are just as prejudiced as any RepubliCON.
Just as Turkana can see veiled sexism in Jesse Jackson, Jr's remarks about Hillary, blacks can see the veiled racism in Cuomo's remarks. No, he didn't say, "Obama shucks and jives," because those type of direct assualts don't come out of "polite" society anymore; It's unacceptable. Just like Jesse Jackson, Jr. didn't say, "That manipulative bitch is a liar." You just do engage in that sort of language.
Take the fact he is a Clinton supporter. Take the fact that he used the words, "shuck and jive," when the candidate he supports is locked in a dead-heat with a BLACK MAN, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who he's speaking about. I mean, the very phrase comes out of the minstrel shows where white performers got in BLACKFACE AND MOCKED THE WAYS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS, thereby reducing African-Americans and their ideas to jokes to be laughed at. Now, if you think he would have used this term in a primary with all white candidates, then you're a idiot.
And that's the most irrtating thing about this primary -- white "progressives" bemoaning the sexism in the race, while saying or downplaying racist comments.
Posted by LaoBigger at January 13, 2008 02:08 PM