anyone using Whitewater as ammo against the Clintons is an idiot. If anyone in Obama's camp is doing it, they are idiots. Obama apparently, so you say, rejected such inferences. You could have stopped there.
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2008 06:47 AMI've been a longtime fan of this site, as well as its now-defunct offshoot, Low and Left. I generally have found the commentary on this site to be both insightful and passionate, but lately I've been rather disappointed by sort of hardline
agitation shown on this site on behalf of specific candidates, most specifically Hilary Clinton.
I plan to vote for Mrs. Clinton, should she secure the party's nomination this summer. That being said, I have my own grievances against her, primarily with regard to her wartime voting record and finance practices. I consider myself to have thought out my preference for another candidate, and am disappointed in what I perceive to be the opinion of this site's owners--specifically, that anyone who supports Mr. Obama is simply gullible or, worse yet, a race-baiter. With so many contributors to this site, I am disappointed by the number of articles devoted to bringing Mr. Obama down.
I'm not asking for the dissenting voices to stop. However, I am saddened that the sort of muckraking for which I first came to love this site has fallen to the wayside in favor of partisan hatchet jobs, which only serve to further divide the party?
I'm not saying we should all hold hands and embrace (let's face facts) the party frontrunner. What I AM saying is, we shouldn't be advocating for a specific party member at all, and should instead return to the sort of hard journalism exemplified by this site's "Treasongate" FAQs.
Candidate shillery seems to be a waste of this site's talents.
Posted by Milo at March 13, 2008 07:12 AMWell said Milo!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 07:15 AMT2,
I guess I could have "stopped there" but I suppose it is now a cardinal sin to point out some basic facts that some Obama supporters seem unaware of.
Milo,
I appreciate your feedback, but there's an election going on and some of us happen to believe in the radical and undemocratic concept that it is acceptable to pick one candidate over the other and write about whatever we feel is important at any given moment in time. However, I understand well that concepts like free speech and democracy may be unpleasant nowadays - especially if it means Clinton supporters are allowed to write blog posts in her defense. We certainly can't have that in a country like the United States, can we?
Posted by eriposte at March 13, 2008 07:24 AMMilo--Everyone's gone nuts, even Paul Krugman. It'll pass.
Posted by nerdoff at March 13, 2008 07:30 AMT2: "anyone using Whitewater as ammo against the Clintons is an idiot. If anyone in Obama's camp is doing it, they are idiots. Obama apparently, so you say, rejected such inferences. You could have stopped there."
what, and ruin a perfectly good rant about "some" Obama supporters?
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 13, 2008 07:36 AMeriposte,
Milo's comments were thoughtful and respectful. Your were not. Please try to regain some perspective.
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 13, 2008 07:40 AMWhether or not the Clintons were personally involved in Whitewater is both relevant and irrelevant.
At best, they were simply business partners with people who were found to be pretty much white collar criminals (which shows some poor judgement at the very least) and at worst, they were involved and got others (like Susan McDougal who took the contempt charges rather than testify about any Clinton involvment) to fall on the sword for them.
My best guess is that they were not as innocent as they would leave us all to believe, but they were probably not in as near deep as some of the other players.
The reality is that the media have held other politicans more to task for having ties to suspected criminals. Certainly the whole Scooter Libby deal became a bigger issue to some in spite of the fact that the underlying investigation did not lead to multiple people being hauled off to jail for multiple counts of felonies and gross misdemeaners (like in Whitewater).
But where I take some issue in this is that Hillary has been attacking Obama quite a bit over his relationship with Resko? How is it not hypocritical to claim that Obama bringing up Clinton business partners who committed crimes is unfair, but it is perfectly acceptable for her to bring up his questionable relationship with a potential criminal? It seems like pretty much the same issue, with the biggest exception being that nobody ever claimed that Obama was personally involved (whereas those claims have certainly been made about the Clintons).
Posted by CH Truth at March 13, 2008 07:40 AMCH Truth: "...the whole Scooter Libby deal became a bigger issue to some in spite of the fact that the underlying investigation did not lead to multiple people being hauled off to jail for multiple counts of felonies and gross misdemeaners....
Did you mean to use a right-wing talking point? There were no other people indicted because Libby was OBSTRUCTING justice, he was blocking the investigation (probably in order to protect that walking pustule of evil Dick Cheney).
Posted by at March 13, 2008 07:49 AMsorry, that last post was mine
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 13, 2008 07:50 AMThis is a classic straw man argument (set it up yourself, then tear it down), using Katie Couric's ubiquitous "some people" as the spring board. I am disappointed in this type of discourse.
Look, I too am upset that Hillary is self destructing before our very eyes with some low political moves. For Gawd's sake, I am still a Hillary delegate for King County in my state. But some behaviors that have occurred since early February are worrisome relative to leadership, and specifically with regard to concern for the democratic party as a whole.
No, it is not over and both candidates deserve every opportunity to achieve the nomination. But straw man arguments today are not going to help the situation.
Posted by jcricket at March 13, 2008 08:06 AMConsidering the special prosecutor knew who outed Valary Plame and has stated for the record that those people did not commit crimes... I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.
After all, Scooter Libby's testimoney was not used (or ever was it intended to be used) to show anyone in particular actually committed any crimes.
But if we want to argue from a purely analytical standpoint, throwing partisanship and subjectivity out the door...
Isn't it at least somewhat suspicious that an investigation where actual charges were brought, where actual people were found guilty of felonies, and where one person actually went to jail rather than testify about other people's involvment? Doesn't it strike you as more likely that there was things being hidden there... rather than in an investigation where the special prosecutor admits that no real underlying crime existed?
Just curious?
Also... do you agree or disagree that it is hypocritical of the Clinton camp to try to tie Obama to Resko and then complain when someone tries to remind people that they too were "thick as thieves" with actual thieves?
Posted by CH Truth at March 13, 2008 08:07 AMThis is a classic straw man argument (set it up yourself, then tear it down), using Katie Couric's ubiquitous "some people"
Oh dear...
For Gawd's sake, I am still a Hillary delegate for King County in my state. But some behaviors that have occurred since early February
Heh. Can you list some of those behaviors, so they can be debated, or are you just using Katie Couric's "some people" straw man...
I have rarely read such an insightful commentary on this blog as the one put forth by MILO. However, true to form this blog attacks anyone who is an “other than Hillary supporter.” Folks there are other things out there that real people care about. I don’t give two shits about "Whitewater" or any kind of "Gate." I think that both Hillary and Obama should cool their heels. The Democratic Party is being ripped to shreds while you guys attack each other in this blog about which dumbass says what.
Talk about these: NCLB, we have an entire generation of kids who don’t know shit from shingles; our constitution which has been literally used as “toilet paper” by the current administration; jobs flying overseas at the speed of sound; people being literally killed by medical insurance companies; kids overseas fighting in the wrong place and the wrong war; not to mention a whole host of fucked up things which are going on in our country. And you are crying about Whitewater? Give me a break!
I'm sorry eriposte, but what exactly were the "basic facts" you allude to? Do you mean the basic fact that Whitewater was a loser land deal that the GOP inflated into some monster in order to get the Clintons? I don't think many Obama fans would take issue with that? If so, who besides this guy Thorne. Is that all you've got for us today? Who else?
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2008 08:20 AMThe resurgence of right wing talking points against the Clintons has been one of the more curious features of this Democratic primary campaign. Wolcott had an interesting post about it
yesterday
*whistles, claps* Milo! Milo!
I said it shorter last night - "Wow, what died and brought the Old Left Coaster out of retirement?" - when I went into a comment thread and fount the insight and short goofiness that was usual prior to December.
Time moves on & things change.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 13, 2008 08:28 AMEriposte
have you any other documentations beside this rather obscure email which got very little public exposure? Certainly you could fill miles and miles of paper with the Whiteater discussion. No Progressive Democrat wants to live through that again. The Obama Campaign has not brought Whitewater or the Impeachment of Bill Clinton up at all.
The Iraq War Vote gets little discussion on this pro Hillary Blog. Untroubled by the constant drumming news of Dead American Soldiers in a war that shuld never have happened, the biggest
foreign policy blunder in American History. A war that costs billions and billions of American dollars, and the loss of Iraqie Lives. This particular topic is more obscure than that very obsure quote, which rated a daily rant against
Barack Obama a fellow Liberal Democrat.
Milo's post was dead on.
Is this blog generating from the Hillary Clinton campaign Headquarters, if she doesn't get the nomination give to John McBush her threshold fellow crosser?
The investigation of whitewater and bill clinton was a fraud perpetuated on the American people by the New York Times and GOP operatives. Barack Obama has wisely distanced himself from it and anybody who uses it as a bludgeon against his opponent.
Therefore, his supports are dicks. (huh?)
What I find most galling is that there's as much evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. none) between Obama and Rezko as there was between Clinton and the Whitewater partnership... yet Clinton herself and her campaign continue to try to use this against Obama.
She should know better
Posted by dbt at March 13, 2008 08:58 AMSo, basically, everyone's saying that unless you have something nice to say about Obama, STFU. Or, if you must write about anything, it has to be what kind of evil Hillary has been up to today. Good to know that the thought police are alive and well on the left.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 09:15 AMThe Clintons were guilty of nothing in Whitewater.
What they were guilty of was being a couple of feckless political operatives who were completely schooled by the GOP and the media for the better part of the decade.
Unlike the GOP, that seduces most of the media into ignoring their misdeeds (See Russert, Tim) and takes a fucking sledgehammer to those they perceive as stepping out of line (See Rather, Dan; Mapes, Mary; Jordan, Eason; Norr, Henry; McLinden, Steve and Banfield, Ashleigh), the Democrats generally don't know how to play ball.
Typical for the party in the 90s, the Cintons sat back and let the Jeff Gerths of the world peddle untruth after untruth, dumbfound as to how to stop the onslaught of smears. Then, when it became too much for Clintonite Vince Foster to handle, Foster killed himself.
Instead of using the tragedy to shame the media back into line and to punish the GOP for their antics, the Clintons sat back and let the mainstream media speculate as to whether THE CLINTONS HAD FOSTER KILLED.
Before you say, "wait a second, maybe the Clintons believe in a free press and don't want to strong-arm the media into publishing the their version of events, even if true." Fine, if they take such a position, they should have been on the front lines since 9/11, savaging the Bush administation and the GOP for their media strong-arm tactics. But I saw none of that.
It is the Clintons feckless response to Whitewater, and not Whitewater itself, that renders them poor choices to reoccupy the White House.
All the "bad press" that Hillary gets? All the stories that TLC whines about? All the unfairness and bias? Isn't it time that we elected leaders that have a fucking clue about how to get good press instead of just crying into our beer? David Axelrod strikes me as a bit of an ass-kicker.
Posted by space at March 13, 2008 09:32 AMCH:
You are out of your league. I suggest you go return to the kiddie pool before you get a beat down.
Posted by space at March 13, 2008 09:34 AMI'll see you and raise you one, iamacoyote; if a person connected with the Clinton campaign says something stupid, it's horrible! It's news! It's all over the place and evidence of the rot that comes from the head of the fish.
If someone from the Obama campaign says something stupid, it obviously doesn't reflect the Obama campaign and should not be noticed.
Posted by merciless at March 13, 2008 09:35 AMI appreciate your feedback, but there's an election going on and some of us happen to believe in the radical and undemocratic concept that it is acceptable to pick one candidate over the other and write about whatever we feel is important at any given moment in time. However, I understand well that concepts like free speech and democracy may be unpleasant nowadays - especially if it means Clinton supporters are allowed to write blog posts in her defense. We certainly can't have that in a country like the United States, can we? -- eriposte
OMG. This sounds like the sort of propoganda device we've been dealing with from the right wing all these years.
Milo was not attacking your right to free speech or democracy. Milo was not questioning your right to support your candidate (who is also his candidate -- something I think you missed). Your response to Milo argued against a straw man and entirely ignored his main point.
Milo is calling for a return to rationality. Please stop seeing everything through the pro-Clinton, anti-Obama lens (and yes, sites like Daily Kos are doing the exact same thing, but being pro-Obama, anti-Clinton).
It's GREAT that you feel passionate about your candidate. It's GREAT that you invest so much effort in working for your candidate's campaign. We're all very happy to see the massive energy and enthusiasm this election year. But try to remember: all of us (including Obama supporters) are on the same team.
Posted by Ren at March 13, 2008 09:38 AMWell, then, I'll raise iamcoyote and merciless even one more!
Votes should be counted if they favor Obama, but not if they might favor Clinton! Let's rationalize that!
Posted by at March 13, 2008 09:40 AMno iamcoyote, I think what everyone is saying is that if there is a charge to make, make it well. As far as I see, Eriposte has taken one person out of a huge campaign organization and tried to blanket the entire Obama camp with the charge that Obama's using Whitewater for political gain. And what I've said was that I know of no Democrat that would consider Whitewater is anything but a GOP smear. If there is a concerted effort otherwise, prove it.
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2008 09:44 AMIf someone from the Obama campaign says something stupid, it obviously doesn't reflect the Obama campaign and should not be noticed.
And if you do notice, you're a racist. Yeah, that's gonna last about 5 minutes in the GE, won't it?
As far as I see, Eriposte has taken one person out of a huge campaign organization and tried to blanket the entire Obama camp with the charge
This said without any sense of irony after screaming like banshees about Ferraro all week.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 09:49 AMwell iamcoyote, I figured someone would take the bait on that. Ferrraro is a former House member and vice-presidential candidate. Maxim Thorne is a .......nobody. If you cannot see the difference in the impact of racially imbued comments reported nationally by her and some backwater Obama guy sending emails to "some listservs", well, gee.
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2008 10:10 AMFerraro huh? the democratic nominee for vice president (first women ever nominee) Clinton Chairwomen of the Fianance Committee to elect Hill & Bill, Ferrao Faux News special pundit, Ferraro candidtate for US Senator (lost to Schumer & Holtzman) Ferraro a Leader of New York Democratic Party????????hmmm NY Democratic Party!HOW OBSCURE FROM Hill
Huh Who wrote that Email tell me again daddy I forgot!!! Iamacoyote you are lost in quotation mark space LOL Pay Attention here our soldiers are dying
CH Truth (or rather CH LIES), Libby was convicted of four felony counts: obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the FBI and committing perjury twice before the grand jury
hard to build a case against others when Libby was blocking the investigation (and of course Dear Leader made sure Libby never saw the inside of a prison cell)
you're a troll, go back to your bridge
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 13, 2008 10:17 AMIf someone from the Obama campaign says something stupid, it obviously doesn't reflect the Obama campaign and should not be noticed.
What? Powers resigned immediately. Thorne resigned immediately.
Yet, that's not good enough for the Shillarybots.
Hillary lets Ferraro comments fester for days. Hell, Ferraro claimed at first she didn't even work for the Clinton campaign! Finally, Hillary takes the appropriate action. She helped drag the Ferraro problem out by not taking immediate action. I guess we can count on this same indecisive leadership from Clinton if she is the president.
Whitewater: I would have rather seen a post about shooting the rapids!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 10:20 AMGerry Ferraro ia a very actived member of the NYState Democratic Party Active and Powerful it is sill, stupid, insulting and so much more to even imagine Geraldine made that remark and stood by it... and ridiculed Obama and anyone who disagreed with it for... days Hill & Gerry are NY buddies comme on Mission Accomplished, all the older white women are emmm up in arms and as an aside so are the emm racists. Rovian Politics played well by the Clintons.
Posted by rm forsyth at March 13, 2008 10:33 AMWow, gotta run quick, those goalposts move back and forth so often.
T2, you said:
As far as I see, Eriposte has taken one person out of a huge campaign organization and tried to blanket the entire Obama camp with the charge
You didn't say: Eriposte has taken one famous person out of a huge campaign...
Not to mention the fact that no one has even thought about Ferraro until she said something stupid that could be whined about over and over in the hopes of blanketing the entire Hillary camp with charges of racism. But yes, I know, It's Okay if it's Obama, and anything the Clintons do has an underlying evil intent.
Iamacoyote you are lost in quotation mark space
One would think, forsyth, you'd not want to remind everyone how you were proven wrong once again, but you're not really a model of rationality or wit, are you?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 10:34 AMThis e-mail has blatant lies in the first paragraph. Obama's campaign--not Clinton's--was the one blasted on NAFTA. Even the Canadian government verified the story.
But facts don't matter, right? Hillary Clinton is evil, thus, all things anyone says about her must be true.
Thanks, eriposte. Dealing with this nonsense is insane; it's projection.
@whoever commented about how Axelrod is an "ass-kicker" who gets Obama good press: bull. He's only benefiting now b/c they want Clinton knocked out to help McCain. Just wait. When Obama goes up against McCain then you'll be ranting and no one will care.
@jcricket: Good Lord, just because the TV tells you so doesn't make it true. She's not self-destructing, but being destroyed. Equal standards are sorely missing here, which is, indeed, a reflection of bias. So are our chances in the GE. Obama never fired Jesse Jackson, Jr., Dick Harpootlian, or McPeak. Obama never got personally blamed for Michael Eric Dyson or Shirley Franklin.
Posted by Nathan at March 13, 2008 10:34 AMGerry Ferraro is a very active member of the NYState Democratic Party Active and Powerful it is sill, stupid, insulting and so much more to even imagine Geraldine made that remark and stood by it... and ridiculed Obama and anyone who disagreed with it for... days Hill & Gerry are NY buddies comme on, Mission Accomplished, all the older white women are emmm up in arms and as an aside so are the emm racists. Rovian Politics played well by the Clintons.
Posted by rm forsyth at March 13, 2008 10:35 AMyeah, sure. Maxim Thorne is a nationally known political figure whose every move is scrutinized by the media.....I really don't know how I've gotten this old and not heard of him. At this point, I'd say Thorne is the odds on favorite to get the Obama vice-presidential nod. I asked eriposte much earlier in this thread for any, any real evidence to back up his claim that Obama supporters are using Whitewater to jam the Clintons....I'm still waiting. But you are right about Ferraro being a has-been. In the GOP, they use people like her to say the things their candidates can't say.
Hey, you were the one that moved the goal-posts, not me, T2. But essentially, you agree with me that using Ferraro to paint the entire Clinton campaign is wrong. Good for you.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 11:32 AMGay Vet,
I hate to revisit the whole Valery Plame situation... but I don't "have" to make the argument that there was no underlying crime.
The Special Prosecutor made that argument.
You want to argue with someone, call up Patrick Fitzgerald and demand he reopen the case.
But anyone capable of even taking even a cursory look at the facts would know that Libby was charged with perjury over differing recollections (or lies if you prefer) about discussions he had with reporters... The main points were basically about who had said what to whom and at what time.
Even if Fitzgerald was able to prove that what the reporters said was true, rather than what Libby said was true (which he did according to a jury of Libby's peers)... it got Fitzgerald no closer to actually charging anyone with anything. His argument all along was never about Libby's testimoney being relevant to his case, but about the rule of law.
You're conspiracty theory that somehow Scooter Libby was covering up some still unknown and undetermined crime serves you well on the blogosphere... but not in the real world.
Besides... Hillary's Husband admitted to lying under oath during the course of a federal investigation and while being questioned by fedearl investigators.... yet I am quite certain you defended the action? It's a good thing the WhiteWater investigation actually found real criminals or Starr and his gang may have had to stoop to charging people with perjury.
But my point remains...
The Clintons are hypocrits for attempting to tie Obama to Resko and then crying about Obama bringing up Whitewater. It's the same argument by association.
all the older white women are emmm up in arms and as an aside so are the emm racists.
Yes, because everyone who doesn't think Obama is the Second Coming and Hillary Clinton is pure evil is ipso facto a racist.
(rolls eyes)
But please, keep calling the older white women racists, especially the ones who were working for civil rights before Obama was born. With any luck, they'll stay home on Election Day, and McCain will be VERY grateful to you.
Posted by Blue Jean at March 13, 2008 11:45 AMI have to make an observation... one that I find happening everywhere from the Daily Kos to my own blog...
Hillary supporters are accusing the Obama camp of "right wing smear attacks" while Obama supporters are accusing the Clinton campaign of "right wing smear attacks".
In fact, on my own site some of my more brain dead liberal members often times make assumptions that certain arguments (such as the what if Obama was white issue) are actually started by Republicans... when in fact they have been completely in house attacks.
The reality is that the Clintons have been masterminds at the smear attack for years and certainly the Obama camp for all of their bluster about being above the fray... know how to get down and dirty.
Perhaps it is time for the liberals of the world to admit that mud-slinging is a bi-partisan sport and that certain Democrats are just as good at is as anyone else.
Perhaps?
Posted by CH Truth at March 13, 2008 12:09 PMBut please, keep calling the older white women racists, especially the ones who were working for civil rights before Obama was born.
Funny thing Blue Jean, my sister did work for civil rights in the 60's. Guess what... she's a neo-con now!
Some shit, ain't it... everything I learned from her... now I have to argue with her about what she taught me!
Please ask Geraldine why she's working for FAUX News as a commentator?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 12:18 PMPerhaps it is time for the liberals of the world to admit that mud-slinging is a bi-partisan sport and that certain Democrats are just as good at is as anyone else.
Uh, no one was denying it. Luckily, going to war on a lie so you can rob the treasury to fill the coffers of your cronies, using the justice department to get back at your political opponents, leaving a city to drown because there wasn't any money to be had in saving it, etc. etc. are exclusively Republican ideals. Mud-slinging's nothing compared to the depravity of the GOP and amoral idiots like you, CH, who bendover while pretending you're on top!
Please ask Geraldine why she's working for FAUX News as a commentator?
Why don't you ask your sister? *smirk* Gee, SoS, you're not trying to insinuate that Blue Jean is responsible for Geraldine's actions, are you? Because that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 12:28 PMYes, Milo's concern seems rather heartfelt and fair minded/rationale and objective...It's all about his/her undue concern about people bringing one man down (Senator Obama).
Funny thing is Milo might have done a better job at masking his/her true intentions with this post but s/he left behind a telltale sign of that objectivity and earned coveted title of "concern troll" award today by closing with this.
Candidate shillery seems to be a waste of this site's talents.
Yes,I've found "shillery" is often a name of endearment and high praise used for Senator Clinton in the left blogosphere....it's right up there with Billary.
Oh,and can you imagine Milo's concern for the talented eriposte writing about issues surrounding the candidates for the next Democratic nominee to be president. Imagine the horror of doing that these days. It's a total waste of time dealing with that trivial issue...I mean this only happens what...every 4 years...why would you waste your time and talents discussing this now eriposte?
Lastly, I also noticed Milo says s/he will vote for Senator Clinton should she win the nomination....shocker Milo...so who you supporting for the nomination...let me guess it's not Shillery.
Better concern trolls please.
--------
PS. Eriposte...how do you keep from laughing at this stuff.
--------
PSS. Shorter MIlo: stfu eriposte and write what I deem is important enough for you to use your talent on.
Gee, SoS, you're not trying to insinuate that Blue Jean is responsible for Geraldine's actions, are you?
No, more like she is a "Dino Dem" who has republi-con leanings.
emal, Milo just did a 15 month tour in Iraq. He has a lot riding on this next election. Hopefully he won't be stop-lossed and sent back.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 12:55 PMWhitewater investigation: six years, $60 million.
9/11 Commission: one and a half years, $3 million (initial budget; the commission later requested an additional $8 million, which the administration resisted).
Posted by kirkaracha at March 13, 2008 01:13 PM7of6,
I respect and thank Milo's for his service to his country. My father and his 4 brother's served their country. My uncle (whom I never got to meet) and 2 of my cousins gave their lives while serving their country. I have the greatest respect for people who've fought and served their country.
We all have a great stake in the future...all of us. That is why it is imperative that the Democratic nominee no matter who it is be ready for prime time in the upcoming general election campaign against McBush.
Posted by emal at March 13, 2008 01:17 PMYes, Milo's concern seems rather heartfelt and fair minded/rationale and objective
Yes, they did.
Milo, thank you for your post. Many people feel the same way.
concern about people bringing one man down
Actually, I read it as concern about bringing the whole friggin' Party down.
We are going to end up losing the election in November and our chance for all of the down ticket Dems if we can't stop this Anti crap.
Please, tell us who you support and why you think that we should support them. That's great.
But pointing out all of the negatives that one can possibly come up with about the other candidate is just no good for Democrats and no good for this Country. Also, it does nothing to bring people into the fold to support your candidate (if that is really the intent.)
Instead it turns people off to everything that felt so exciting just a couple of months ago. It also continues to tear apart the electorate into the childish crap of:
"I will never, ever vote for Obama."
or
"I will never, ever vote for Clinton."
The former of which I have seen all over TLC in the comment threads. One of these people will be our nominee.
Hello, when commentors say this, what do you think that they mean? They will vote for McCain or stay home which will not help our Party at all. Where do you think this hatred is coming from?
There are plenty of places to read shit that is anti-Dem. Especially in the "related news" to this article.
We should be defending both of our candidates against attacks from the GOP. There are plenty of anti-McCain, anti-GOP, stories to be written.
I cannot see a benefit to posts like this, I don't get it. Neither one of the candidates left were my first choice but I cannot see that Hillary will be so wonderful and that Obama will be so bad as to justify 90% of TLC dedicated to these kinds of posts.
Posted by Anjha at March 13, 2008 01:32 PMcoyote, I'm not sure I'm actually agreeing with you. My initial post was to indicate that eriposte's article was extremely slim on evidence to support his claim that Obama's campaign was basing strategy on a Whitewater angle. I'm still waiting on the evidence. Then you jumped in, due to the fact several posts were also negative about eri's post, and started singing your typical "everybody's against Hillary" theme. But thanks for agreeing with me that using some 4th tier functionary's remarks to paint the entire Obama campaign is wrong. Tell eriposte. Everyone else but you has.
Posted by T2 at March 13, 2008 01:37 PMMaybe my math is bad...but I just scolled down the site for the last 10 post or so...I didn't see 9 out of 10 being against obama or pro Hillary post.
Not even close! Erring on the side of caution maybe 50% of the post were about the democratic nominees. But of them not even all of them were attacking or even critiques of Senator Obama! Some were criticizing Senator Clinton or her surrogates.
Methinks some Obama supporters might be losing some perspective here and need to get a grip about what really is being written here or is happening at this site.
And,If I'm not mistaken many longterm regulars have stated they'd support the nominee no matter who it is. Even eriposte.
Oh and what's that on this site down a bit. There's a post by turkana with a link stating that Senator Clinton would "enthusiastically support" Senator Obama should he win the nomination.
That claim by some here that the site is pro Hillary All the time or Obama isn't teh Awesomemest candidate evah is just bunk. Bunk! But if it makes you happier believing that despite the facts to the contrary well then go ahead.
Posted by at March 13, 2008 02:01 PMThe whole Whitewater mention is for the 20-somethings.
They've heard of Whitewater, they knew it was a "scandal," but they don't know enough about it to realize it was a manufactured scandal.
Therefore Whitewater hits the right target, while everyone else just laughs.
Posted by Whitewater at March 13, 2008 02:59 PMYeah, nothing to Whitewater, nothing at all.
Just go ask Vince Foster.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 03:04 PMOh my, do you have a copy of the Clinton body count too?
You pseudo-Republican Obama supporters really make me laugh.
Posted by at March 13, 2008 03:07 PMThat's it, I must be a Republican.
LOL!
I'm just kidding about Whitewater and Vince, mostly. Same with the "Clinton Body Count." Still, you never really know, do you? If only Barry Seal or Ron Brown were still around, maybe they could help clear things up a bit for us. Or maybe that's why they're not around!
LOL!
Posted by Brian Bell at March 13, 2008 03:50 PM7o6,
Funny thing Blue Jean, my sister did work for civil rights in the 60's. Guess what... she's a neo-con now!
Yeah, and Darth Vader went over to the Dark Side. But that doesn't mean every Judi Knight did.
Gee, SoS, you're not trying to insinuate that Blue Jean is responsible for Geraldine's actions, are you?No, more like she is a "Dino Dem" who has republi-con leanings.
I am? I've been voting straight Dem since I was old enough to vote (back when we had to fly ptrodactyls to school). This is the first time I've been accused of being a Republican.
Shh, coyote! You don't want to blow my big mind control experiment, do you? ;-)
Posted by Blue Jean at March 13, 2008 04:23 PMNo Blue Jean, I was talking about Geraldine.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 05:07 PMNow that's funny! SoS, you silly - we've got to work on the subject/pronoun thing that's always getting you into trouble!
Blue Jean - (back when we had to fly ptrodactyls to school). Good times, good times...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 05:27 PMSusan MacDougal was imprisoned, her ex-husband Jim died, never mind the neglect of genuine governmental business -- we have seen horrors through the veil of the press.
Posted by boomerg'ma at March 13, 2008 06:37 PMT2,
Did you read my post properly? You said:
My initial post was to indicate that eriposte's article was extremely slim on evidence to support his claim that Obama's campaign was basing strategy on a Whitewater angle
Did I say that the Obama campaign is peddling Whitewater in a negative way? No, I did not. I said some Obama supporters, not Obama campaign. You don't believe Obama supporters are doing it? Have you checked out the "left" blogosphere lately?
A couple of examples to just vet your appetite:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/whitewater-v-rezko-the-_b_83040.html
Here, you even have a guy pointing to Jeff Gerth's claim to certify his opinions about Clinton and Whitewater:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/a-clinton-scandal-primer_b_87792.html
T2 - I don't make these statements lightly. The amount of nonsense I read and see daily about Clinton influences my choice of topics. You may not like it and I don't like that I have to write about all this crap but that's what this election has reduced to. Compared to the traffic that Daily Kos, Americablog and other Clinton-hating sites get, TLC is small.
Posted by eriposte at March 13, 2008 07:19 PMThere is some discussion of Whitewater that I've heard from conservative Republicans, you know, the kind of people who've been voting for Clinton in open primaries lately. But I haven't heard much talk about Whitewater at all. Talk about who's giving large to the Clinton Library. Talk about Clinton's failure to abide by her pledge regarding Michigan and Florida. Talk about the racist rumblings that keep coming out of her campaign. But, really nothing much about Whitewater that I've seen.
I am curious about Mena, though. How'd all that cocaine come into Clinton's state without anyone noticing or doing anything about it? But I haven't spent much time thinking about Whitewater.
Is it good to keep all this straw around here? Isn't it a fire hazard?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 13, 2008 07:45 PM...we've got to work on the subject/pronoun thing that's always getting you into trouble!
How cute of you coyote! I've told you that english was never my strong suit and you knew that my grammar sucked, yet you still twist the words around to suit you.
Heh. Can you list some of those behaviors, so they can be debated, or are you just using Katie Couric's "some people" straw man...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 08:13 AM
Sure thing, imacoyote! Here ya go:
1. the last week of February decrying "shame, shame on you Barack..." and when given the opportunity to discuss the issue at the debate a couple of days later Hillary alluded to having visionary differences with Barack, specifically concerning the issue of mandated coverage. Suddenly something shameful was a visionary difference? Lame.
2. why was the term "as far as I know" added to her assertion of her opponents faith? Before she uttered those words she was right on. I was with her 100% But, saying them removes her from a position of authority. Hillary is a walking encyclopedia. She knows. The coyness of those added words gave others who are supporting her permission to continue to question his faith. It's a stupid criterion for elective discussion and she should have stuck to her guns and said so.
3. her statement relative to John McCain being qualified to be Commander in Chief has NO place in a Democratic primary race. She may as well have recorded an ad endorsing him.
4. Allowing for a period of time former congresswoman Ferraro to inject race into the elective vernacular. It was not just once, but several times over a period just short of a month. It was only once the national newswires got a hold of it that it was regrettable.
enough for today? Who knows? there may be additions to the list tomorrow or the next day!
I hope to gawd that these missteps were simply a short run of bad luck. I truly do. On April 5th, I will be attending the county democratic convention. By then, it will be clear to me whether this was just a run of bad luck or not.
by the way...the Katie's use of the words "some people" are NOT what the term straw man was referring to. Maybe your local community college is offering a night class in logic to help you out with that.
Posted by jcricket at March 13, 2008 10:25 PMSeven, Anjha, Coyote, and everyone else... "Hi again." :) Thanks for getting my back. Didn't realize I'd stir up the hive so bad.
Look, I'll be straight--I'm angling for Obama. He's my first choice, with Hillary second. I'll be candid about my preferences, but I'm not going to waste my effort trying to destroy Hillary, because when it comes right down to it, we're going to need her too, possibly as the Democratic nom. Just because she's on my B-Squad shouldn't make me a bad progressive.
Eriposte, nothing I said was intended to be a slam against either you or the candidate. But when did questioning the liberal credentials of your site's readers, based on their candidate preference, become the province of this site and its authors? Truthfully, I miss the old Left Coaster, back when we were all united behind that flag of, "Let's take back our country." What happened?
I have my preferred candidate. But just like my faith, my candidate is my own. I'm not going to tell people who to support or why. If Hillary gets the nom, then she's got my vote. But there's no still need to jump all over me.
Hey, Milo! Don't worry about stirring up trouble, it's been here for a while now. And your comments made me think - a lot of the vitriol from regulars here and on lot of other blogs that have shown a preference may be anger at the blogger not showing the preference the regulars would like them to show, and that gets them up in arms and fights break out. I think the blogs who haven't declared for a candidate aren't having nearly as bad a problem in the comments. Nature of humans to fight for their team, I guess. Good to see you tho! It'll get back to normal soon, I hope.
Thanks, jcricket, it's as I suspected. Manufactured outrages. Each one, a hew and cry is put up, and then there's gnashing of teeth, and then everyone runs around saying she's done horrible horrible things. Straw men, in other words. After watching the right do the same process over and over, you'd think people would recognize the pattern. Digby's written a lot about it over the years, maybe you should check it out. Obama's mastered the manufactured outrage, and the online community has taken the ball and run with it. Pretty disappointing.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 05:38 AMI think "shilery" was not meant as a reference to or a play on "Hillary"
Milo wrote, "Candidate shillery seems to be a waste of this sites talents."
In other words, "Shilling for a particular candidate seems to be a waste of this sites talents."
Shilling for a candidate = Candidate Shillery. A verb. Not a noun.
shorter CH Lies: IOKIYAR (it's ok if you're a ReThug)
and remind me of how many people died because of Bill Clinton's lies. Your kind has mainstreamed torture and led this country into a moral sewer.
iamcoyote: "...Mud-slinging's nothing compared to the depravity of the GOP and amoral idiots like you, CH, who bendover while pretending you're on top!...."
good one, iamcoyote! and isn't it odd how psychopaths like CH aren't posting from Iraq
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 14, 2008 05:56 AMMilo, really good to hear from you... again. Glad things are going well and you're still safe. How's Anne?
Ya think this is bad, you should have seen a month ago! The defecation definately hit the fan.
A lot of us will be glad when this primary season is over, I know I certainly will.
Wouldn't "shillery" be a gerund?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 14, 2008 07:42 AMMilo, my mistake on the misreading...it's been a bad week for my family but certainly absoulutely no excuse whatsoever for my behavior. But it was pretty clear from your post just who you were knocking and what candidate you were angling for from the rest of your comment.
As for the other's who typically knee-jerk here and then come back and act all holier than thou after someone like myself makes a mistake and admits it...well good on you.(you know who you are).
I've constantly been one to remind people that contrary to populuar blogosphere belief neither candidate is perfect, neither are my favorites, but that both are far far better than anything McBush would be.
Posted by emal at March 14, 2008 10:20 AMMy apologizes as well emal. Sorry about the family difficutlties. I'm having some problems as well.
I'm going for a real cool down on my blogging. I need to step back and stop reacting so much.
Yes, I will vote Democratic this year!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 14, 2008 10:43 AM