Thanks for the update! I don't even need to go to Hillary's website anymore.
Posted by nerdoff at January 11, 2008 10:16 AMClinton is rightly questioning Obama's experience as compared to her own. And she's rightly asking what changes he's ever brought about with all his inspirational talk. It's time for Obama to start answering. It's not like he has nothing to say. He has done some good things and he needs to start talking about it. Sure, he sometimes talks about being a community organizer, but what IS that? What did he do? I heard him say he helped expand health care in IL as a state senator. That's a good start--talk more about it. She's challenging him and he needs to answer. He needs to say why he voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act after he said he'd like to repeal it. He probably actually has a very good answer. He needs to give it.
I like Hillary. I've been leaning toward her. But honestly, the idea of someone being president who doesn't come into office with a large number of people and a media who already hate him is appealing.
Posted by CG at January 11, 2008 10:19 AMPersonally, I think that it would behoove the Clinton campaign to be leading the investigations into the monkey business in the funny voting patterns that have showed up in the New Hampshire primary election last Tuesday. This whole mess may be a Republican setup to nail her in October...
In another vein, do you believe In Diebold We Trust? Many "progressive" and "liberal" websites do not seem to want to talk about or investigate any possible electronic vote flipping in the recent New Hampshire Democratic Party. Check out www.bradblog.com or www.blackboxvoting.org or www.opednews.com for some detailed info on the monkeybusiness that went on there on the optical scanning equipment by Diebold on Tuesday. It would seem that the Obama votes were flipped for Clinton votes (exchanged), thus giving Clinton her "amazing" "come from behind" blah blah blah election "victory." I am not suggesting that this was done by Hillary operatives, no it was mostly likely done by the Bush gangster regime, just to screw up Democatic primary politics… There seems to be no limit to which the Bush gangsters will stoop…. The coming "Super Tuesday" primaries may be "Super Diebold Tuesday" for all we know…
Progressives and liberals better get their heads out of the sand and start demanding 100% hand-counted paper ballots in all elections or we are going to see a repeat of the Bush electronic theft of the 2004 Presidential Election.
As long as we have Republican corporations, such as Diebold or ES&S, "counting" our votes in private with secret proprietary software, we are going to be ruled by Republican fascists…
I wonder: Hillary says she has these many years of experience, and her detractors say that she was only the wife of the pres and that doesn't count. Then they go ahead and say NAFTA's all her fault. So which is it? No experience, or responsibility for everything that happened during Bill's admin? I mean honestly, what's the explanation for it?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 10:36 AMMy friend, an Obama supporter, said the only experience Hillary has is her attempt at health care reform which she didn't get done. I said she learned a lot from the effort--learned from mistakes Obama hasn't had the chance to make yet. I also don't think you hang around the White House for 8 years and not get some valuable experience. I'm not saying Laura Bush is more qualified and experienced than Obama, but I think being at the center of it all is valuable training.
Posted by CG at January 11, 2008 10:43 AMI'm not interested in the "who has more experience" debate and I wish Obama's supporters wouldn't be so reflexively and sexistly hostile to that discussion. The question isn't whether being a state senator is more or less significant than being a governor's wife in a small state (a very political situation) and then president's wife and then senator). I'd be very willing to argue that its *not* as much experience because its just *not as much experience*. Most of his life before law school Obama was just like anyone else, screwing around--that's true for Hillary but she left law school and entered the political arena as a watcher and as a player. HRC got some of her experience *the way women did* in those days and discounting that is discounting the reality for women of that age. To my mind its like discounting Obama's experience as a black man because of this stupid right wing trope that he's "half white" as though that means he isn't authentically experiencing racism every day of his life in this country. Part of Obama's *experience* is his experience of race in his own body and I don't think that should be challenged because its *the way race is experienced by black males* and not "earned" or learned.
But here's the thing for me: I'd be d-dmned thrilled if Obama said "I *don't* have much national experience but here's *what I'm planning to do* and I'll need your help to do it." I dont' care whether he has more or less age or experience than HRC. But he has consistnetly refused to say *what he'd do with power* when he got it. That's the real question for which the "experience" thing is a proxy. people want to know who he will call up, what his strategies are, how he will twist arms, how he will *get things done* and they just have nothing to go on in his admittedly short political history. That can be a feature or it can be a bug. Obama's supporters want to have it both ways. He's young and has a short political history so there's nothing much for his opponents to criticize, but there's also nothing much for a would be supporter to, you know, support other than the nice feeling stuff.
And can the anti hillary trolls please get over their anger that anyone, anywhere, would ever support Hillary's candidacy? She and her supporters are entitled to post blog entrires. There isn't some fairness doctrine that applies to blog posting that requires every blogger to balance their pro HRC position with a pro obama post.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 11, 2008 11:04 AMbut I think being at the center of it all is valuable training.
That's my impression, too, CG. There are things that happen behind the scenes of the Oval Office that even Senators don't see. Plus state dinners abroad and stuff. Of course, until the responsibility's on your own shoulders, you don't really know what you'll end up doing, experience or not. Frankly, though, I think the "experience" meme is pretty weak as a basis for a campaign, and really, anyone with a smart team could get into the swing pretty quickly. Still, the worldwide cache of connections the Clintons have is probably vastly larger than Obama's or Edwards' I think. But again, a good team would be able to fill the gap. See, that's why I can't put any one of them above the other, really; all would be better than what we've had for these past 7 years, and none would do the kind of damage the bushies have done.
Heh, aimai beat me to it and prolly said it much better!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 11:19 AMI'm so glad she's back on track. The more I read about Obama the more I worry. The lack of experience, the fuzzy ethics around Tony Rezko, the Alice Palmer story. I feel like there's too much unknown and/or questionable. All of the adulation and worship seems a bit premature--as if people are projecting their own emotions on to him. I think it would be better to have him as VP for 8 years, get more experience, and then president.
Posted by at January 11, 2008 11:36 AMI am really sick of people discounting Hillary's service as a first lady! Yes, she had the OPTION of sitting on her ass and/or holding tea parties. But SHE DIDN'T. She does not, nor does she need to claim Bill's accomplishments as her own. Besides famously and unsuccessfully tackling health care reform, she spent a great deal of time as 1st Lady travelling overseas and visiting/consulting with poor women and NGOs all over the world. She is a LEADER in women's rights, advocating for children and women on the grass-roots level in countries where women have little hope and virtually no support. She often travelled to places that were too dangerous to send the president. And she has been to 82 countries, not like, 4. Most people I know (including ME!) would be hard pressed to spontaneously NAME 82 countries. Is no one aware of her speech on women's rights to NGOs in China that was so "inspirational" it was BANNED from Chinese TV?
In additional to this, while 1st Lady she also published a book, "It takes a Village," which I am reading right now. It is highly impressive. Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime researching, advocating and defending the rights of children. As a fellow human being invested in children's rights, this is one of the most appealing things about her, IMO.
Having said that, I never would've known any of this if I hadn't read her biography. Why her campaign does not tout these accomplishments more specifically, I don't know. Maybe she thinnks they won't appeal to voters? Or will make her look too feminine? I dunno. I wish they would; like I said, it really does give her a unique experience and connection with disenfranchised people all over the globe.
Posted by lima beans at January 11, 2008 12:06 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/)
peace
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 12:18 PMNice post, lima beans, I had forgotten the Village book; boy, there was a lot of right wing sneering at the time. It would seem like she's got a lot of stuff she's not using - maybe she's saving it for the GE, or later in the primaries?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:30 PMI don't see Hillary winning in Nevada. The population is very young. It's a caucus state. Obama has the union endorsements.
Posted by factotoum at January 11, 2008 12:40 PMI see Newsweek has weighed in on the false Obama is a Muslim Infiltrator emails we discussed yesterday. Glad that some MSM is willing to call blatant lies blatant lies, at least once in a while.
Posted by T2 at January 11, 2008 12:43 PMMr Hope:
I am a uniter, not a divider.
Bush Jr:
I am a uniter, not a divider.
See the difference?
Posted by john at January 11, 2008 12:46 PMthanks, iamcoyote! I hope they use this stuff later; I assume they are saving it, although for what I'm not sure. They should lean heavily on the women's vote, I think. Why the hell not?
And, isn't it strange that feminists and Hillary-as-feminist gain gender sympathy for playing to the female stereotype of emotionalism?
I don't even know what that means.
"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."
HA!! I dunno, that made me laugh out loud. Who said this? Do you have a link? If someone from the campaign made this statement in any offical capacity, I'd be a) shocked and b) find it incredibly stupid. But if you overheard it in a bar (which is what I suspect), then yeah, I'm just gonna laugh. :)
Posted by lima beans at January 11, 2008 12:46 PMBut honestly, the idea of someone being president who doesn't come into office with a large number of people and a media who already hate him is appealing.
Give it a couple of months.
Posted by merciless at January 11, 2008 12:48 PMlima beans - Patrick is new here and already has a reputation of making things up and now name-stealing. Pointing and laughing is pretty much all you can do with him at this point.
They should lean heavily on the women's vote, I think.
You know, I was thinking about this, too. I've heard a lot about how African Americans might flock to vote for Obama, and the fighting about whether it's true or not. Same with women voting for Hillary. But why would that be a totally bad thing, I wonder? Truthfully, there's only a tiny bit of difference between the top 3 candidates policy-wise, and voting record-wise, so the final decision comes down to whose message appeals to you more? Why do I feel the need to insist that I would never vote for Hillary because she's a woman, when, to tell you the truth, if she ends up with the nomination, I'll really be happy to vote for a woman president. I'm sure African Americans who will vote for Obama feel the same way, and I'll feel good about it, too, if he's the nominee. It's obviously not the only reason people are liking Hillary or Obama (at least for the more informed voters). Why should we feel bad about feeling good about an historic vote?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:59 PMFor the record, I have not made up any info about any campaign. I did mess with iamcoyote who has been lame since I arrived here.
Here is the cite for the quote by the Hillary advisor. Guardian UK is a great newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 01:04 PMLima beans,
I'm happy to clarify. What don;t you understand in that passage about Hillary playing to stereotype? What I meant is that the age old stereotype is that women are overly emotional and not as rational as men. So, when Hillary cried and supposedly everyone rallied to her, it was playing into that strreotype of women as weak, emotive and in need of saviors.
For the record, I, too would LOVE a first female Prez, but not Hillary. They've done enough damage in my mind to the party and the nation. I am a small 'd' democrat, on the left of the party spectrum. I have never bought their belief (and that of the DLC, which they helped create) that the way to power is to coopt conservative policy positions of the Repubs and make them your own. They have been a HUGE part of dragging the party to the right over the last two decades and I believe the party needs to move back to its liberal and progressive roots. We need a choice, not an echo party.
peace
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 01:10 PM1. 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?
The answer would be NO. Because it's not racism.
Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race, with members of some races being intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.
What it really happens to be is a satirical comment on behavior.
satirical: exposing human folly to ridicule; "a persistent campaign of mockery by the satirical fortnightly magazine."
All he's saying is what he's saying. Despite your red herring and, no doubt, future goal-post shifting. And, NO, I'm not a Hillary fan. But neither am I an Obama fan, finding him to be a light-weight and a pansy who, despite running for Senate as an "agent of change" fast became a "good old Senator" and joined the "boys club."
If I had my druthers, Feingold would be our next President.
Posted by Moses at January 11, 2008 01:20 PMIf today is any measure, Hillary is going to lose the African American vote badly.
Posted by factotum at January 11, 2008 01:34 PMFor the record, I have not made up any info about any campaign.
Well, except for that non-racist comment from an unnamed source in an overseas news story. And I'm a bit suspicious about your specific wording about any campaign. Does that mean you've made shit up about other stuff, then? Like being a teacher of Women's History, perhaps?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 01:35 PMOh I see! Hillary's moderate show of emotion Monday was a calculated attempt to prey upon and "play into" the sympathies of the obviously irrational and emotional female electorate.
Thanks for breaking it down in a way my feeble wimmin'z brain can digest!!! :)
Posted by lima beans at January 11, 2008 01:57 PMSeriously, let's all take it back a notch and restart, shall we?
No, I have made nothing up, except that one time I messed with you. Honest to God. I am a college professor (junior faculty member) at a major research institution in the U.S. I teach modern American history with an emphasis on social movements, electoral politics, African American Studies and gender. I teach about social justice, in essence, so I know very well what sexism, racism, classism, etc. are all about and how social change happens. I have published many times on these and other subjects.
So, let's agree that we have all been jack-a**es to each other over the last few days and try to find a better way to communicate... the blogosphere, and politics in general, can bring out the jerk in all of us.
I submit that Moses is wrong about racism. racism = prejudice + power... but that is not my point. The comments by that Clinton official play into long established racist stereotypes about African Americans, as do the previous ones about drug dealing, or Rove's about being lazy and playing basketball, etc... It is embarrassing to hear so-called progressives/liberals/Democrats/whateveryoucallyourselves go through contortions to make excuses for this stuff.
If you are not aware of the Guardian, check it out. It is one of the very best newspapers in England and unabashedly progressive. It has a fine reputation for journalism.
Also, honestly, you have attacked me and anyone else on this blog mercilessly for liking Obama and Edwards over Hillary, but you do not call out Moses when he smears Obama as a "pansy." That is precisely what the Republicans did to Kerry in '04! I am left to assume that Obama doesn't live up to your standards of machismo/masculinity... Because, of course, what we need more of in this world is tough guys who swing first and ask questions later. That's done us all a world of good over the last several years... Or, I wonder if, perhaps, because Moses was smearing Obama in Hillary's honor, you give him a pass. C'mon, be consistent. Seriously.
And, why not address the substance of the Hillary gender issues I posted?
so, here's to a new era of peace and cooperation on the left coaster...
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 02:02 PMLima,
No, it's not like that. My point is that it should trouble us, if in fact it is true that that particular moment was some sort of turning point because it plays into gendered stereotypes. My interest is in breaking those stereotypes down, rather than reinforcing them. All I am saying is that it makes me feel very uncomfortable. It bums me out that Hillary is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't on gender. I don;t like her conservative approach to the Democratic Party, but I do support her as a woman candidate breaking barriers and facing what she faces. Precisely because of that, I would like to see her resist falling into those stereotypes, cynically or genuinely.
Please go read the opinion piece I referenced in the NYTimes on this subject. I think it is well-reasoned.
Hey, also, why that last comment. Why try to stir up some gender war here. I was being honest and sincere in trying to clarify my point for you when you wrote you didn;t understand; I was trying to help. You might not agree with my take, but it is a valid line of reasoning.
peace
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 02:08 PMHmm, I just saw someone else pushing the Guardian quote at Kevin Drum's place - looks like a viral thing coming out of the Obama camp to me.
Patrick - as I said, your first words to us came after the Iowa caucus when you came to gloat over Obama's win. "Don't be crybabies," you said. Now you're experiencing a pile-on, and suddenly, it's "why can't we be civil about this?" Funny. I don't have the time right now to address your other points, but I find it hilarious that after you reinforce a few female stereotypes in earlier comments, you profess to want to banish those stereotypes. Sorry, but it's really hard to take you seriously here. You're all over the map, and pretending I'm the problem isn't going to fix it.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 02:21 PMThe comments by the Hillary advisor have a racist subtext, given the meaning of the terms in historical context. You think these people don't know exactly what they are doing and saying with these comments? C'mon. race has been the great dividing issue since the 1968 election when Nixon coopted George Wallace''s racially coded language to divide the electorate and win power. So, racial reaction to the civil rights movement was the first pillar of the New Conservatism, followed by a reaction against the gains of the women's movement (so-called "family values" politics) and later a reaction against the gay liberation movement. These are the "cultural wedge" issues that have been wreaking havoc on our politics for the last 30 years. See Willie Horton ad in '88. See Reagan campaign kick-off speech in Neshoba County Mississippi in '80. See, Bill Clinton's exploitation of the state sanctioned murder (execution) of a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector, in '92. Or, see the Harold Ford ad from '06 for a modern equivalent. They are all playing the same (sadly very effective) racial game...
In 1968, Nixon, brought in all these ad people to run his campaign (this was the birth of modern campaigning; see this book, "The Selling of the President"). What they said was very cynical about American people, but it has ruled American politics ever since. They said that the American people are lazy and not very smart. They won;t actually go and be a good citizen, meaning doing the hard work to think for themselves, to check out the facts behind the rhetoric and be the responsible overseeres of democracy that they are supposed to be. As such, they realized that facts or data don't win elections, emotional impressions do. So, they point is to say whatever the hell you want, regardless of facts, to brand your opponent with these emotional impressions.
For instance, in 2004, any reasonable look at Kerry's record showed he was a war hero and, in that sense, a "man." yet, the Right effectively branded him with this emotional sense that he was a "wuss," feminine, "faggy." The facts were irrelevent, as the swift boat thing made clear. It was those emotional impressions.
So, that is why I am very, very cynical that the Clinton campaign has not been a conscious part of this never ending stream of little dings on Obama over race, manhood, religion, etc. They are trying to brand him in the electorate's mind and emotions. It has nothing to do with the record. not the reproductive rights mailer that went out in NH. The Clinton;s knew that was totally disingenuous, that Obama has a really great record on reproductive rights (100% from PP and total supprot from NARAL), women's rights more generally and GLBT rights, too.
And, I wish it were not so, because there was a time in 1992 when I had great hopes for the Clinton I presidency, but it is well evidenced today that the Clinton's play just as dirty as the Right and that they punish people who have different views than them, even when they are in their own party. This is well established. And, as I've said before, it is one thing to be strong and stand up to the Republican attack machine, but quite another to use similar tactics against someone in your own party. I know of no credible evidence to suggest that Obama or Edwards are anything but good, decent men... And, if Obama does pull this out, the Clintons will have played a major role in giving the Repubs all kinds of bogus fodder. For this, I have a hard time forgiving them.
So, open fire and attack me personally, if you must, but this is the real deal.
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 02:23 PMWhat previous gender stereotypes have I pushed?
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 02:24 PMiamcoyote,
C'mon. I've tried to reset. you won't. Since I've been at this site over the last couple of weeks, many many users have come and then gone (for good) complaining of the same thing I have: that this site is so obviously a pro-Hillary site and that you and others do a lot of personal attacking when someone criticizes, legitimately, Clinton, or supports Obama/Edwards. Yes, politics and blogs bring out the petulent brat in all of us from time to time, but this blog seems really loaded with that from Hillary backers...
For my part, yours and snarks comments that first day I came really pissed me off and seemed lame as heck. So, I tried to engage on issues, but the mindless attacks kept coming. Thus, I began messing with you. And, of course, as is the natural course of things, it all escalated...
i do want to say, though, in my own defense, you all were doing a lot of crying after Iowa. It is true. Now things look rosier, so you are willing to be more magnanimous. But, c'mon, to claim your s**t doesn't stink is silly. Go back and read your own transcripts!
I would respectfully suggest that the blog would be better and would be more inviting to outsiders if it weren't such a one candidate show. It seems like there is a little click of people who are self-reinforcing here. That might make you feel better, but it makes for a fairly boring blog. So, again, I would respectfully suggest we all reset and that those of you who really dig Hillary rethink your approach on this blog. Either open it up and be fair to other ideas, or be straight forward and honest about the fact that it is a pro-Hillary site.
I was first attracted here from another site by the name. I thought Left Coaster meant it was a bunch of progressive folks from California. I know many of those and they are usually really great. Unfortunately, I have found none of that here. I (and apparently many others) have been very disappointed to see that it is a Hillary site. Again, that is cool, but be up front about that. otherwise, it makes the blog and those of you who are here all day, seem like hacks. I'm not trying to be lame or rude, just giving you my outsiders view...
So, maybe there is a learning in this for all of us?
peace.
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 02:36 PMPatrick, with all due respect, I think that facetious, snarky remark about wanting Obama to be an 'imaginary hip black friend' would only offend white liberals who see themselves in that comment. It is a tongue-in-cheek, albeit snarky swipe at white liberals, not at blacks.
As for all that "sterotypical female" stuff... all I can say is that you (and a number of Hillary's detractors) have seemed to turn the seeming HUMAN EMPATHY of female voters in NH into some kind of indictment of femininity and the expression of emotion by a woman in front of other sympathetic females. STOP IT.
Furthermore, I've been advised not to feed you, so I will stop. Feel free to get in the last word after I leave.
Posted by lima beans at January 11, 2008 02:39 PMI have always wondered what Obama has done. We are trying to elect The President of USA and we do not know what he has done before. When we hire a fresh college graduate, we want to know what he/she did in the summers. How come we can not ask what Obama has done before? He claims was against war. What does that mean? Wjat did he do to express his opposition against the war? When Martin Luther King wanted to express opposition, he marched and millions marched with him. What has Obama done to oppose the war?
My next question is about what he did when he came to the U.S. Senate? When I look at his record, it does not look like a real war opponent like Finegold. He looks tame. I think us bloggers have to seek these answers.
Lastly but notthe least, I have not heard of any plans from Mr. Obama. I do not want to see any position papers. They can be written by professors. What we need to know, is why he is the man to do it. Then even if I disagree with his plans I will respect him.
Posted by Rajan Gadkari at January 11, 2008 02:49 PMAdvised by iamcoyote? Whatever.
If you all want, I'll just bail out, as most other non_hillary supporters clearly have from this blog. Let me know. It ain't like there aren't forty zillion of these kinds of blogs out there! I have made a number of very reasonable, substantive and respectful posts this afternoon and tried to reset...
Lima, go look at the archives to see how snark, iamcoyote and to a lesser degree Turkana have treated guests here, not only me. Judge for yourself.
And to your slam of my comments: I am not dissing Hillary for the crying incident, or whatever we should call it. I am just saying, as a feminist, that it makes me uncomfortable that the thing that rallied people (not just women, mind you) to her side was apparently what can be seen as stereotypical behavior. Note that the same coming together does not happen when she stands up tough, because that is not seen as womanly behavior (which I think is BS). Both illustrate the sexism in our society. When she doesn't play the prescribed part, she is ripped. When she does, she gets the love. My point is not to bash Hillary on that episode, but to ask us all to dig a little deeper into it to analyze what is going on there... Both Hillary and Obama are, in some ways, empty vessels that voters pour their own desires into. We see what we want to see in them. We see what we wish them to be and what we wish ourselves and our nation to see...
On another note, since many of the good white folks here have been minimizing race, or at least not playing it with the same intensity as gender, here is a good piece by politico about how the Clinton's are beginning to feel a racial backlash:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html
We'll just take it a day at a time, Patrick - as long as you understand, it's rough and tumble here, but in the end we want the same thing: a Dem in the White House. At least you've learned (I hope) that name-stealing anywhere on blogs is almost as bad as voting for Bush.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 02:56 PMI think a more important thing to point out to Patrick is that a) he could get his own blog if he wants and not waste everyone's time here multiposting the same thing over and over again and
b) there is a huge and not unsubtle distinction between an "unnamed advisor" quoted in a paper and a "top advisor" as Patrick so deceptively put it.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 11, 2008 03:15 PMPatrick...you just keep dismissing the points people bring up and many of the commenters here who are a bit more objective in their feelings toward the Democratic candidates. And as others have said, if anyone appears to print anything negative about Obama then you automatically infer they are against him and when they print anything supportive of another candidate (Not Obama) then that means they are against him too. HOw many times have people said that is just not true or the case. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
Just because I may agree with some of the Hillary information being written about here doesn't mean I don't like Obama too...and it certainly doesn't mean I love, love Hillary.
And the funny thing is the only people complaining and yes even whining about it constantly are the Obama supporters. Perhaps that tells you something about the supporters bias's because many Edward's supporters, former Dodd supporters, and undecideds aren't necessarily complaining...doesn't that tell you something?
Plus if you believe that this site has point of view and bias toward a particular candidate (nor your favorite one)and that the commenters at this blog just can't see it and don't immediately agree with everything you write, then maybe this blog isn't for you?
There are many, many other sites out there that you may enjoy reading ...Huffington Post, and yes (sad to say and imo) even the usually neutral Josh Marshall's TPM would seem to be more your cup of tea these days. I hate to admit that about TPM because that is one of my favorites....but is my opinion.
In addition I remember reading a comment of yours to someone a few days back that said you'd be leaving here. Personally I hope you stay and reflect upon what many others who I feel are being a bit more objective are saying. You're starting to sound like a victim...and that is not very becoming.
Lastly, I hope that the anonymous sourced Clinton advisor who spoke to the Guardian gets exposed and hope Hillary gets to the bottom of this type of crap and gets this person the hell out. But...I also hope the whole context of the quote is also revealed ...because as this site has often shown, is that there can be many cherrypicked comments and quotes in articles and one can get totally blown out of proportion and can change the intention and true meaning. Who knows maybe the true context is even worse than the one quote...and I'd like to know either way it goes. I'm not saying that is what happened here but stranger things have happened. I condemn the quote as it stands...it's just plain wrong.
Posted by emal at January 11, 2008 03:19 PM
When I have time, I might also comment on some of the many, many totally unwarranted assumptions Patrick makes in his posts - just off the top of my head, everyone here is a Clinton supporter. Not true at all.
But I'm off to my Friday evening fun, maybe we'll see you later. And maybe we can try again, Patrick, once your double-secret probation is over... If it weren't for the primary battle, we'd probably get along swimmingly.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 03:28 PMHere is TPM editorial remark about the race quote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063477.php
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 04:51 PMFor my part, yours and snarks comments that first day I came really pissed me off and seemed lame as heck.
You mean like this;
You all are getting further and further away from reality. Your desperation for a Clinton restoration has clouded your political judgement. Yes, this campaign will be close to over by 9pm tonight. Rats are beginning to jump ship on Clinton already. Donors are soon to follow...-Patrick, 01.08.08 @ 6:30am.
That’s perhaps the first comment you left on this blog. A nice how do you do?
Needles to say you appear to have had your head up your ass.
And what exactly did I do that was so offensive to your pleasant old self? Tell you to be on your wa when you cried about how you were gonna take your ball and go home? Boo hoo!
FU if your sensibilities are offended here. You came in here acting like a douche bag all high and mighty and now you’re all offended. Reset! Reset! Piss off.
I love you, Snark. Will you marry me? I'll cry at the wedding...
Posted by Patrick at January 12, 2008 11:45 AM