"...But [Obama], you know, won?
Yes, just like Saddam Hussein, you know, caused 9/11? Just. Like. That."
Real subtle eripostal. Real subtle.
Why not just say Barack HUSSEIN Obama; or better yet, talk about a public lynching? That's how Hussein was punished, right? I'm sure that you can find more 'subtle' references to get your point across sub rosa. Too bad that Mrs. Clinton has used up all the assassination euphemisms.
I'm glad that Atrios has come to his senses. Don't worry, there's a large store of Kool-aid in the bunker that you can share with your friends.
-another Kennedy Democrat.
Good grief.
I've been using the Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 analogy repeatedly as an example of Bush-style propaganda. Obviously this was not an attempt to play on Obama's name. But since there is no escape from being tarred with the kind of trash you have tarred me with, I am updating the post to remove "Hussein".
Posted by eriposte at May 27, 2008 06:57 PMi don't read Atrios; I find him too cryptic and smart alecky.
I think the post hits him hard enough for my taste. There is a more general issue that Atrios doesn't seem to get. We fight for our opinions, our ideas, we don't fight only fights we can win. If his view prevail then the left, the real left not the clowns from the Netroots, would have closed down shop long time ago. We can never win with the establishment rules.
Hillary represents me, my fellow blue collar workers, my fellow senior citizen, my fellow women. (I'm male and have a PhD from a great school.) I don't belong to an elite and don't want to. My eilte is universal health care Atrios doesn't seem to care about.
I am happy that someone fights for us and is willing to go all the way. I don't appreciate some smart jack telling us what the rules are. I don't know about Atrios' reading skills, our are fine.
We shall overcome.
Posted by Koshembos at May 27, 2008 07:09 PMYeah, that's your stock in trade isn't it.
You say something insensitive or ouright malignant and then "edit" or "correct" your post. Then you can try to make those who took exception to your post look foolish.
You've done it before, you'll do it again. Most blog editors would have an absolute fit over your 'revisionism'.
Nonetheless ("good grief"), my points stand.
Maybe you could 'revise' my comments by deleting them?
Dang, and they say Clinton supporters are whiners.
Posted by Sharon at May 27, 2008 07:12 PM"Pragmaticprogressive"
I don't want to revise or remove your comments. I want them to stay attached forever to my post because it reveals who you are and what you are.
Posted by eriposte at May 27, 2008 07:12 PMeriposte,
Thanks for 'emboldening' me.
I know who I am and what I am. I am very proud to be a Kennedy Democrat and a member of the reality-based progressive community.
You can join too, ya know...
- pragmaticprogressive (formerly known as tfitznc)
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 27, 2008 07:21 PMGeez, eriposte. Mellow out. Have a glass of wine or something. Obama has SDs stacked up like F-16s on an aircraft carrier, just waiting for the signal.
It's over already.
"Wow...
...post after post of hate. I guess the Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupidity. This will all come back to bite us in the ass somehow."
Just thought I'd share that comment from a Salon blog comments section.
You need to stop viewing the world through Clinton-colored glasses.
This thing is over. And thank God, for if Clinton ran the executive branch like she ran her campaign, we'd be screwed.
Also, Taylor Marsh is a hack and a fraud who has to pay for radio time. Might want to find a better example.
Time to move on to McW. Let it go.
Posted by BMF at May 27, 2008 07:45 PMI think a good measure of the quality of a candidate is to look at the kind of thinking he draws out of the intelligentsia.
Look at Bush: so many smart people totally killed their reputations defending and supporting him for all these years, with the quality of their arguments going down the tubes as Bush got worse and worse.
Tony Blair is a good example of this.
In his last few years he sounded like blithering moron; fitting his ideas to Bush's seemed to require him to dim down the prose as well.
10 years ago Tony Blair sounded smart---even brilliant.
Well, obviously I suggest applying the same criterion to Obama supporters. Atrios is perhaps the last A-list blogger whose reason fell to the Obama mania---for which I respect him---but it is so sad to read drivel such as you posted.
Of course the worst case at all is Josh Marshall, who will never have a shred of credibility in his political commentary after this election (his reporting stands on its own considerable merits, separetely).
Posted by MarkL at May 27, 2008 07:46 PMSteve, I beg you: reconsider your decision to allow eriposte to drag the site down into the muck with all the other Clinton-at-all-costs blogs. Hard-working Americans, white Americans, have enough outlets to delegitimize Obama.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 27, 2008 07:52 PMBack in 2007 Clinton pledged not to campaign or PARTICIPATE in Michigan and Florida primaries. No "adjustment" of the popular vote in MI can change that FACT. Therefore, the popular vote argument is moot. Additionally, primaries are won by delegate count , NOT popular vote. Too late to change that rule now.
Hillary started this race with high name recognition and a 100 superdelegate lead. But Obama ran a better campaign, and has amassed a huge voter base that totally took the dlc Dems by surprise.
What makes you think Clinton a better candidate? Her experience as an elected legislator? Barack has spent as many years split between state and federal service. Their voting record on domestic bills are almost identical. On foreign policy they differ; but voting for the war, and her unfortunate reference to "obliterating" Iran puts her on the wrong side of these issues.
Face it, Obama's message, inspiration, and charisma far surpasses anything Hillary has put out there. I'm a 61 yo ms teacher, and I haven't been this excited since 1992. Bill disappointed (as well may Obama).
But Hillary could not win in Nov - of that I'm sure. Living in NC, I have met many people who are tepid about Obama , but the thought of Hillary will just incite the R base like no other Dem candidate. THe fact that "operation Chaos" was somewhat successful, and that Reps REALLY wanted to run against Hillary should be a clue to her inelectablity. I'm surprised this isn't exploited more by the Obama surrogates - perhaps they are a bit smarter than Hillary's crowd, who have outright attributed Obama's success to his color - totally despicable.
Oh, and back to Bill - he has totally lost it - dignity, crediblilty. His speeches are both condescending and insulting to his audiences.
Excellent snark, cds.
If it weren't for the nick, I'd take you seriously.
There are so many idiots who post that "argument" almost verbatim on the Clinton leaning blogs. Obviously many of them are paid operatives.
They need better talking points though.
Isn't Obama just the worst ever? I mean---there is no nominee in the last 100 years or more as inexperienced as Obama. His dismal performance in the last few primaries is also unprecedented for a presumptive nominee. In many counties in KY, Obama scored under 10%, at a level that even fringe candidates could beat.
What a said state of affairs the Democratic party is in right now.
Probably Obama will be the nominee, but there is till hope for Clinton to pull it out.
Hey, if this thing is over, why aren't you guys out there campaigning against McCain instead of wasting time arguing with Clinton supporters? What's stopping you?
Posted by Frenchdoc at May 27, 2008 08:10 PMFrenchdoc,
Some of us are ambidextrous.
PragmaticP,
typing with one hand I'd believe, as well as using one lobe of the brain.
You are right on. Most of my frontal lobe is preserved.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 27, 2008 08:20 PMPragmaticP,
you miss the point. You guys have been screaming for weeks for Hillary to drop out so that Obama could focus on the GE. Well, you say it's over. So, again, what's the point of swarming pro-clinton sites?
After all, you don't need us for the GE. You've got all these shiny new voters and all these independents and "disenchanted conservatives" who will come out for Obama on election day.
Why don't you make the pro-Obama case to them (or work to keep the momentum all the way to November) rather than to us. Again, you don't need us. It's a waste of time.
What's the logic here?
Posted by Frenchdoc at May 27, 2008 08:20 PMWell, obviously I suggest applying the same criterion to Obama supporters. Atrios is perhaps the last A-list blogger whose reason fell to the Obama mania---for which I respect him---but it is so sad to read drivel such as you posted.
I guess I just don't understand what "Obamamania" is. Does it mean pointing out the obvious? If that's the case, consider me an "Obamamaniac." The definitions sure are strange here, though.
Posted by Bailey at May 27, 2008 08:21 PM"...But [Obama], you know, won?
Yes, just like Saddam Hussein, you know, caused 9/11? Just. Like. That."
Real subtle eripostal. Real subtle.
Why not just say Barack HUSSEIN Obama
Wow! Is that really how your thought process works PragmaticP? Somebody writes something, and you comb through it to find some link, no matter how tenuous, that you can use to impute the character of the writer.
I really thought this kind of speciousness was solely the province of the right-wing, but this primary season has shown too many so called liberals (so called because I thought a liberal was sine qua non a free thinker) engaging in the most egregious of intellectual hackery.
Posted by Dazir at May 27, 2008 08:29 PMThere is no excuse not to count the popular vote from FL and MI. Despite what the Obama supporters would have you believe, the DNC Rules committee disallowed the Delegates, not the popular vote. And even that is NOT final, with an appeal to be heard on 5/31. And while the delegates (and not the popular votes) are the deciding factor for the nomination, THE POPULAR VOTES STILL COUNT IN NOVEMBER. You want to awars FL and MI to the repubs in November? Then just keep telling them that their votes don't count. The SDs are supposed to vote to help the Dems win in November. Throwing 2 states away doesn't do that.
Posted by jwrjr at May 27, 2008 08:33 PMFrenchdoc,
You sound sincere, so I will reply in that manner.
First, I have been reading this blog for years - before it became a "pro-Clinton" site. I do not think that Left Coaster will ultimately be defined by this primary contest and its bias.
Second, I am only one of many so-called "Obamabots" who comment from time to time; many are veteran LCs. Speaking for myself, I only post at this site on a regular basis. I do not "swarm" sites.
Third, you present a series of straw man arguments that I decline to accept as posed. To differ with one does not mean that you dismiss them or their important vote. For Obama to win, he will need a strong united Democratic base and others from across the political spectrum. I'm not sure who your "us" is that Obama doesn't need?
He will need you and me and all the rest.
Fourth, there is indeed some residual anger at being constantly ridiculed early on when we tried to present policy-level arguments in support of our candidate. I will continue to do my best to challenge unsupported nonsense and invective from eriposte and Turkana as I have done today.
Finally, I guess you didn't get my attempt at humor with the 'ambidextrous' comment. What I meant is that I have a career, a family, etc. and actively work as a volunteer for Obama in NC. Commenting at LC doesn'take up much of my time. I don't think that many will complain when I eventually return to my more-comfortable role as 'loyal reader'.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 27, 2008 08:45 PMC'mon, Steve. Listen to DJ. Listen to me. Listen to some of your other long-time posters and commenters. It's time for eriposte and Turkana to be escorted to their own blog if they want to continue in the Clinton-supporting minutiae attacks and statement parsing.
It's time to Move On. Pun intended.
When they want to return to the real fight, they're welcome back into my regard.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 27, 2008 08:45 PMAtrios is one of those people I've held in high esteem over the years and I was terribly disappointed with his crazy post.
Maybe his post wasn't the crazy one.
You know, there comes a time when you go so far to an extreme that even those you once thought of as your allies are telling you that you have lost it.
Maybe Duncan is telling you that, eriposte. Frankly, there isn't much difference between you and a typical Fox News junkies in terms of the "logic" that you use these days -- only the names differ.
Posted by Anonny at May 27, 2008 08:47 PMI'm with Idio and dj!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 27, 2008 09:19 PM""...But [Obama], you know, won?
Yes, just like Saddam Hussein, you know, caused 9/11? Just. Like. That."
Real subtle eripostal. Real subtle.
Why not just say Barack HUSSEIN Obama; or better yet, talk about a public lynching? That's how Hussein was punished, right?"
Wow! Is it now a rule that the words Hussein and Obama can't be within 8 words of each other? PragProgressive- Do you think that people will take you seriously, when you can't understand such a simple analogy and then intrepret it as a subtle attack? I think you're so delusional that you're almost funny.
Posted by rjarnold at May 27, 2008 09:22 PMAs a side note, I would like to point out that although Michigan's numbers in the primary were good, they could have very well likely been much more impressive had it counted and having all names on the ballots:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/michigan-what-would-have-happened.html
I also would like to point out as late as March 6th, our dear Hillary was stating such atrocious, albeit ridiculously contradictory things like this:
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview-clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html
And then, of course:
as late as March 13, the Clinton campaign opposed a Bill Nelson type vote-by-mail primary in Michigan. But at some point in mid-March, the Clinton campaign changed its position. This would appear to have been motivated by the fact that the Clinton campaign had not significantly cut into Barack Obama's delegate margin in Ohio and Texas, and needed some way to add time to the clock.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/27/0491/33233/381/523392
But of course, that would run a little counter to Eriposte's opinion, so we'll just pretend that Hillary never mentioned or did these things.
Regardless, for a moment I want to put aside the comment by Atrios as well as Eriposte's criticism (I also don't read Atrios too often for the same reasons that Koshemobos above describes). Seems like the pro-Hillary folks came out swinging their bats heavily on the poor fella. Right or wrong, I'll come back to it later.
For now, I'd like to address a thought that's occurred to me, one that's likely been stated elsewhere. I've often heard from Hillary supporters on how tarnished Obama is and how burned and pissed off they are at him, and that he'll have to perform an incredible job to woo them over. Hell, some of the posters here won't be pursuaded at all (despite Turkana's efforts to demonstrate common sense in defeating an opponent who's interests are much more egregious than anyone representing the Democratic nominee). While a healthy handful are likely Freeper trolls, it's also undeniable that there's a certain amount of despise towards Obama here, and that there will likely be a number of posters here that won't vote for him as a consequence to that hurt and disgust.
So here's my thought. Let's just say that, despite Obama continuing to pull in the supers at a much greater pace than Hillary. And let's just say that, despite according to former Clinton staffer Stephanopolis, that several dozen supers will end their silence and endorse Obama next week, likely tipping him over the delegate count requirement (no matter what the popular vote may end up favoring):
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4936545&page=1
For the sake of argument, let's just say that the slimmest of chances occurs, and that all of the sudden, the wheels are reversed. The popular vote goes towards Hillary, and the supers, in their infinite wisdom, even the ones who've verbally pledged to Obama, turn on him and jump over to Hillary.
Have any of you Hillary supporters, for just a moment, truly conceived of what this possible outcome may truly bring? You've scared us Obama supporters to death about how wrong Obama is, and how he's going to lose, and that he won't woo you over and the many millions of Hillary supporters just like you. Ponder just for a moment what kind of a sudden jolt of surprise and anger this scenario may actually bring to the many millions of Obama supporters if Hillary suddenly gets the supers instead. Think for a moment, given what so many Obama supporters feel towards your candidate (hint: nearly identical to what you feel towards ours, if not worse), to all of the sudden have everything turned upside down on us and have Hillary jump out and take all the supers who've pledged towards Obama.
Now top it off with the fact that it would be, by all accounts, a pretty big freaking surprise. It would be drastically different than the situation you Hillary supporters are in right now, because you've had to try and come from behind pretty much from the get-go, and especially since Super Tuesday back in Feb. But switch roles for a second and pretend that your favorite candidate (Hillary) has been in the lead this whole time, that most folks except the most hardcore "Obamabots" have all but crowned your candidate the party nominee, and then at the last minute Obama pulls a rabbit out of his hat and grabs supers via a popular vote, counting two highly controversal states who broke the rules in some way. How would you feel about that?
Now granted, I and many other Obama supporters have stated that we would support the Democratic candidate no matter who it would be. But given our support for whoever the Democratic candidate may be, can you honestly believe that Hillary would bring together the Democratic party any better at this point, with the situation I gave above? Can you honestly believe she would help heal these wounds created by both sides, ESPECIALLY if she would miraculously jump out in front via popular vote and supers jump to her ship, and somehow bring our party together better in order to defeat McCain?
All I can say is, if you truly believe this, you need to stop smoking those banana peels and fast.
Additionally, what you may or may not understand is that a healthy portion of Obama supporters feel like she is performing a slash and burn campaign right now, and that she's mucking up the waters for the party's likely candidate, which does nothing but help McCain:
*Her taking advantage of Obama's "bitter" comments in Pennsylvania
*Her discussion of white working class voters,
*Comparing her support of DNC rules to Florida 2000, Zimbabwe, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement
*Referencing the assassination of RFK to her campaign being behind (historically inaccurate, I might add)
*Having her top fundraiser, in essence, conceding that by Hillary dragging this thing out in June, that they may be jeopardizing Obama's chances against McCain if she's not given the VP slot,
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillarys_top_fundraiser_says_t.php
and this is just the short list in the past month or so. Right or wrong, this is how many of us Obama supporters feel. I've heard incessantly here how you won't vote for Obama no matter what. S okay Hillary supporters, putting my commitment to the Democratic party and whoever is the candidate aside for a moment, you really think you can overcome the wave of anger and resentment that would be given to Hillary and the Democratic party by the many millions of needed Obama supporters (voters) with that situation I depicted above?
If so, like I said, the banana peels are just not worth it.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 27, 2008 09:23 PMPersonally I'm just disgusted by all the Hillary hate, I like Hillary, but I think Obama will be a better president and voted for him in my state's primary.
What is wrong with letting the people vote for cryin' out loud!
Have you seen Americablog!!! OMG those people are absolutely apoplectic over Hillary. John Aravosis is seriously, an insane person. I think he was still a "log cabin republican' when Bill Clinton was in office and he has some deep seeded residual Clinton hate going on or SOMETHING... jeeze what a NUT. I will never be able to take that joker serious again.
To see this hyper inflamed rhetoric and just plain hating is every bit as disconcerting to me as anything Bush ever says or does. It seems people just want to pull the plug on the primary because they don't like Hillary and she is interfering with their idol worship of Mr. Obama.
Posted by elrey at May 27, 2008 10:06 PM-"C'mon, Steve. Listen to DJ. Listen to me. Listen to some of your other long-time posters and commenters. It's time for eriposte and Turkana to be escorted to their own blog if they want to continue in the Clinton-supporting minutiae attacks and statement parsing."-
Translation- I can't stand good logic and different opinions! It hurts my brain!
Posted by b23 at May 27, 2008 10:23 PMTranslation- I can't stand good logic and different opinions! It hurts my brain!
More like some of the longest TLC regulars requesting things get back to normal!!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 27, 2008 10:50 PMWhy is it that the super delegates picking Obama is just fine, but if they support Clinton it is sleazy deals in smoke filled backrooms?
Posted by edonyoung at May 27, 2008 11:18 PMI would like to point out that Real Clear Politics at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
maintains popular vote totals for 6 different variations for tabulating the popular vote. These include popular vote estimates for the 4 caucus only states that do not report popular votes and then inclusions of both Florida and Michigan but Michigan without any of the 238,168 votes for Uncommitted assigned to Obama. And clearly some of these were for Obama in a higher percentage than they were for Edwards. So asigning more than half to Obama would not be a streach. So not including only Michigan, Obama leads in 4 of the 6 tallies, and if more than half of Uncommitted for Michigan were assigned to Obama, he would lead in virtually all 6 counts.
I hate to point out that basically, even though Michigan had a relatively high turn out, If Obama had been on the ballot, the results would certainly have been different. So it is disingenuous to claim that Clinton leads in any way, the popular vote. And the issue really is that the goal post have moved multiple times. First it was more delegates via super delegates. Then it was more popular votes including non-sanctioned vote totals. Then this, then that. And then to complain about it all. The last point is my issue with Clinton as of the last 1 1/2 months.
Posted by OhMyGod at May 27, 2008 11:25 PMThink for a moment, given what so many Obama supporters feel towards your candidate (hint: nearly identical to what you feel towards ours, if not worse), to all of the sudden have everything turned upside down on us and have Hillary jump out and take all the supers who've pledged towards Obama. [... ] you really think you can overcome the wave of anger and resentment?
No MrOpus, I don't. You describe the stalemate situation quite well. And yet, it's difficult for me to take your equivalence argument very seriously when there's nothing like this coming from Hillary's side:
“If there were the theft of a nomination, if that was the perception of the Obama supporters, then probably there would be a ‘68 scenario.” -Tom Hayden, NPR 5/23
So it looks to me like Obama's got his DNC & MSM allies with their thumbs on the scales in one hand, and his Bots with their fists in the air in the other. And together they're putting the squeeze on Hillary.
Congratulations, I guess, although I don't think he's got a chance in November.
Posted by madam, i'm adam at May 28, 2008 01:13 AMI used to spend an hour each morning roaming the left blogosphere. It is now down to about 30 minutes, my having seen that many of the top bloggers like Atrios, Yglesias, Josh, Arianna, et. al., are fools, just as the right wing said all along.
Posted by bob h at May 28, 2008 04:05 AMeriposte,
you're inspiring. despite the hate directed your way every time you write the truth, you keep calling them out. history will treat you well. them? not so much. this is exactly like the buildup to the iraq war - nothing but lies and spin in the media. and people bought it then. and they're buying it now. because they're just as braindead and biased as they were.
just look at your commenters. they can't even stand to read something that differs from the media narrative without calling for your termination from this blog. they want to silence all dissenting opinion. scary times again.
Posted by at May 28, 2008 04:08 AMFunny how scathing people were to the newbies calling for Steve Soto to go away when they were commenting on his post that said HRC should go away. Now certain posters are calling for pro-Hillary front pagers to go away. Well, I've been commenting here for a good long time and I'm happy to say even when I disagree with Steve, he has my respect in his cool handling of "dissenters." Thanks Steve, that's what I expect from a liberal, progressive thinker.
Posted by Sharon at May 28, 2008 04:44 AMThe only names on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot were Hillary, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel, and Hillary wants it to count. Well I think thats fair.....in the Soviet Union.
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 28, 2008 05:14 AMSharon, I agree with your comment. I cannot believe that people who have been regulars here for years have turned against one another, and others have just left. It saddens me, as all are good people with different opinions, nothing more. Eriposte, Turkana, and especially Steve (since it is his Blog after all) are free to write whatever in the hell they want, and people are free to disagree with their words. However, the level of disagreement has reached new levels here at TLC.
Posted by Judith#1 at May 28, 2008 05:34 AMSharon, Judith#1, We don't want them to leave. Just a simple request of a return to normalcy.
I'm sure Idio and DJ are like me, we prefer the once great political writing and investigative journalism of before. Steve's open thread above is an example.
Time to bring the Party together and stop the senseless, ongoing Obama bashing.
BTW Sharon there were only 3 of us "certain posters". You can use our names.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 06:19 AMI wonder what this eriposte person going to whine next, after RBC decides not to change the rule and superdelegates are not moving toward HRC.
wait, let me guess: misogyny ?
Hillary and her supporter is getting rather sad now.
Posted by Phill at May 28, 2008 06:23 AMEri--keep up the good work, ignore the naysayers. There's a whole big world of Obots out there if they don't like it here. As for Opus "imagine if the shoe were on the other foot". Yeah, imagine it. The dilemma of reconciliation would be the same, with one big difference: the nominee would be good for the country. And she could win the GE.
RE: If these races didn't represent the wishes of the voters in those states, they are no worse than the representative effect of most caucuses and some of the other primaries.
Turns out the caucuses were a lot worse. This is a great rundown of just how disenfranchising caucuses are:
http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf
Though it doesn't affect Eriposte's popular vote argument, turns out that the best that will come out of Florida and Michigan will be 1/2 the delegates awarded:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AtS03zRL0x1J8wmZ6_4Q_eSyFz4D
Half!
Eddie, I want to talk to yooo. Eddie, I want 1/2! What have you done for me lately, Eddie?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 28, 2008 06:40 AMInteresting story about H. Clinton's "blue-collar supporters" like Susie Tompkins Buell, in today's SF Chronicle. People like Koshembos and eriposte might want to read about the other blue-collars they're shoulder to shoulder with on the picket line. Or is that the canape line? After you read about Buell go wiki her and find out how much solidarity she's shown the working women at her company.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 06:52 AMSeven of Six,
When you post comments like "stop the senseless, ongoing Obama bashing" in response to a post where I'm defending myself against false charges made about Clinton supporters you know I can't take seriously anything you say, right?
When Clinton is being falsely attacked on the assassination comment, and I support her, to ask for me to be kicked out (reminds me of the Bush era, to be very blunt) when I'm trying to respond to the "senseless, ongoing Clinton bashing" is certainly revealing of a certain mindset.
Steve Soto, CA PolJunkie and Paradox have come out in favor of Obama here. If you guys can't stand the idea of dissent then everything I did at TLC during the Bush years is for naught. I have never been one of those who just "fell in line" and I'm not about to "fall in line" just because someone orders me to.
If you want conformity, you are free to petition Steve to kick me out of here and if Steve asks I will gladly leave. If you believe in the First Amendment and think that dissenting views are good for debates and discussion then learn to criticize my posts on the merits.
Posted by eriposte at May 28, 2008 06:56 AMTo Steve: This is one of the few blogs that I read and I normally don't post comments. I thought I would give you my insight as a moderate reader. I am appalled at the Hillary hatred displayed and the fact that Obama supporters want anyone defending her removed from the site. What happened to civility? After reading these comments I believe that I will probably eliminate this from my favorites. I'm sorry to have to do that because my favorites is becoming pretty small. My life is filled with enough unpleasant things that I don't need this extreme hatred. I enjoy a good, meaningful debate about substance but the insults I'm reading here is just awful.
Posted by Boufers at May 28, 2008 07:15 AMEriposte (if you still read my comments),
The Tent is big. I've criticized your continual pouncing on our likely Democratic nominee, and I also feel strongly that your great talents and efforts should be directed at issues that are much more threatening to our country and party. However, I think it would be a shame for you to be removed from TLC, and I highly doubt Steve would even remotely consider that.
I doubt you are willing to take suggestions, especially from someone like me who's bumped heads with you lately. But if I could be so bold to make a suggestion, I would ask that you maybe consider throwing us a bone every now and then and write about something other than the Hillary/Obama conflict. I know there's other bloggers here that do that, and I do read their posts accordingly on their various other topics of interest. Again, it's just a suggestion, so take it as you will.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 28, 2008 07:33 AMeRiposte, You know I'm not asking you to be kicked out. I only ask for a return to normalcy, like a post on McCain or other politics from you. Maybe a united Democratic Party thread.
But there is still a campaign on, so continue your first amendment rights. I'll not deny that.
Just to let you know, and Steve know, TLC is not my first stop anymore. It really hurts... really, really hurts. Not that it matters to you. Used to be, but if I want continued endless Hillary worship I can always stop at Corrente, Taylor Marsh or No Quarter.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 07:42 AMClearest explanation about the significance of the popular vote in the primaries from JED:
"Every state has a different way of electing delegates. Some use open primaries, some closed, some semi-open, and some semi-closed. The ones that are closed or semi-closed have different registration deadlines. Some states have caucuses. Some of the state that have caucuses record votes. Some don't. Some states have huge numbers of registered Democrats who probably won't vote Democratic in the fall. And in some states, there's even a primary and a caucus hybrid.
The point is that under the Democratic system, for better or for worse, you simply can't add up all the various contests and end up with a meaningful number. If all the states used the same mechanism, the results would mean something. But that's not our current system, for better or for worse.
The race is over. Obama won. Why are H. Clinton and her followers acting like Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos, trying to "bloody" Obama for the November election?
Well, some are just true believers who think that by slandering Obama and threatening to stay home in the fall they will somehow beat the math and put Clinton in the White House. Others are Republican trolls who are Republican trolls who indeed are participating in Operation Chaos. Then there is Hillary herself, who is saying she wants to unite the party and doing everything to divide it. Is she delusional or is she really trying to divide the party? You make the call.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 28, 2008 08:13 AM"More like some of the longest TLC regulars requesting things get back to normal!!" ...(7)
...Seniority = sanity?
Dear Eriposte and Turkana: Please stay.
Yours truly, Freedom of Speech.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 28, 2008 08:36 AMYours truly, Freedom of Speech.
Hey TIKI, don't worry, I know when to change the channel.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 28, 2008 09:36 AM
eRiposte, you express dismay at the fact that some of the people who you used to respect now seem to post things that you disagree with...do you ever wonder what the common denominator is with all of these people? It is not that they do not love Senator Clinton as much as you do; the common denominator is you. Perhaps it is time to take a look at yourself and stop pointing fingers at all of these other people.
It is time to take a look at what you are doing and how your behavior is detrimental to the Democratic Party and our chances in November.
I pulled this post yesterday, thinking that restraint of pen and tongue was necessary. In addition, I feel exactly this same way:
"In the past few months, I have had to endure the unfortunate experience of calling out some "top" "liberal" bloggers for their unmitigated B.S. Believe it or not, it wasn't easy for me since I'm generally a person who really likes to try and avoid direct conflict as much as possible (hence the use of "some" or "liberal bloggers" or other general terms in many of my posts). It still isn't easy especially because some of them are otherwise fine people - people I have grown to respect over the years for their unique strengths - and I have nothing against them personally. However, as I read through the mountain of sheer bull**** that gets published on some of these blogs on a regular basis, it gets harder and harder to stay away from criticizing people directly for their ugly posts."
Ironic, isn't it?
I wrote this in response to your "Recount" post:
eRiposte, other than proving that an entire post can be written in nothing but sarcasm (which is getting extremely old btw) your posts have long since ceased to do anything productive.
They do not serve any purpose except to further split the Democratic Party.
You took an issue sacrosanct to the Democratic Party and turned it into a partisan issue for Hillary Clinton. This is not Clinton’s issue – it is all of ours and you have turned it into something dirty, something divisive…our Party simply cannot take anymore of this.
A few weeks ago a poster commented..."I was on the fence between Clinton and Obama until I found TLC and started reading eRiposte's posts, and now I will do everything that I can to make sure that Obama is defeated in November."
I cannot imagine that this makes you feel good, eRiposte. Is this really what you set out to do when you started writing on TLC?
I doubt that your desire was this. I remember the work that you did on behalf of the Party. It now appears, however, that you have mistaken Hillary Clinton for the Party. Or, worse, your devotion to one person has superseded that of devotion to the Democrats and what it is that our Party can do for this Country when we work together.
In your extreme, blind, partisanship you have succeeding in assisting to perpetuate myths, as though they were facts, and offered people self-righteous excuses on how breaking this Party (and therefore this Country) are good things.
This Country has slid into a remnant of what we once were - so close to Fascism that we all feel it breathing down our necks. We cannot afford a McCain Administration.
And please spare me the “I know how important this election is and I will support whoever the nominee is,” crap; it has gone too far for that.
A line was crossed a long time ago and I fear that we will never come back from this. The balkanization of the Democratic Party is now formed in stone – the wall increases with every pebble thrown from the blogs and some posts are boulders.
This is not about Clinton. This is not about Obama. This is much bigger than either one of them and you lost sight of this purpose some time ago.
You have a lot more power than you might think and you have become dangerous. You are condoning and encouraging hatred. That you do not see this is even more dangerous.
I frankly do not care anymore about the nomination - I care about our Party. This division is detrimental.
People come to your comment threads and spew hatred back and forth and any kind of actual conversation has long since been gone. We are all coming with our own set of facts, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but we are perpetuating division rather than celebrating the wealth of talent that our Party has. We have done more damage than the Republicans ever could have.
It is up to us to stop this people. It is also up to us to call out this partisan crap for what it is. Dangerous.
I hope that we, commenters, stop it as well. It would be helpful to all of us if we started to a) speak positively of the Dem candidate that is not our favorite and b) turn the partisanship towards John McCain.
It is time for healing and it needs to start with each of us. We have a lot of power as well and we need to heal this Party.
First, do no harm should be your motto...perhaps you will take a look and see what your motto has become.
***********
Now, I do not hope that you are "banned" - in fact I feel that it would be more beneficial to your following if they were able to read a fine example of what healing and unity look like...this is, of course, supposing that you have some kind of epiphany and realize that what you are doing is dangerous and change your anger inciting posts to something positive.
It is not helpful to consistently post pieces that incite hatred towards our probable Democratic nominee.
People are people and they will still go "fact hunting" across the Internet and search for "proof" that they are correct. I have no doubt that we can all find a shitload of information to back-up our own opinions and spin it all as fact...therefore, subjectively, it is important that we come together and do no harm.
This is life or fucking death. There is no more room for "hurt feelings."
Anjha
Eriposte,
The combined numbers for the Democratic and Republican primary turn out do not add up to the total primary vote number for Florida given at the site you link to in your post.
Republicans in Michigan voted in numbers 3:2 greater than Dems in that Democratic state so the participation in the Michigan Democratic primary was down.
Posted by CMike at May 28, 2008 10:14 AMAnjha--you're kidding, right? And please spare me the “I know how important this election is and I will support whoever the nominee is,” crap; it has gone too far for that.
Correct. It has. And Obama and his supporters made sure of that.
Unity? Healing? You might want to review eriposte's posts over the last six months, as well as those of the many other bloggers who never drank the Kool-Aid. It might help you realize why many of us believe that Axelrod and Obama have run the dirtiest campaign since Nixon and Atwater. Why we no longer believe in the hollow promises of the New Democratic Party--which is what Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile have created: a Party that disenfranchises voters, sanctions misogyny, and abandons working-class men and women.
Which is why some of us won't support "whoever the nominee is." Because it is--as you so deftly put it--crap.
Posted by desert dawg at May 28, 2008 10:40 AM"Hey TIKI, don't worry, I know when to change the channel." ...(7)
You rich folk with your energy wasting heated swimming pools and multiple media choices! None of my business, but shouldn't you be voting your economic interest with Mr Magoo?
Our blue collar hard working black and white guests froze their asses off in our unheated(74 degree)"green" pool yesterday.
Think it just needs chlorine?
PS: Do you have a "Tightwatt" digital pool timer?
It replaces your mechanical timer, snaps right in place of the old one and saves a bunch of money while extending the life of your pump and motor. The digital program gradually reduces the running time for the winter, then gradually increases it again for the summer.
I bought one directly from the inventer in Gilbert a year ago.
Anjha: Isn't the party responsible for this mess?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 28, 2008 10:56 AMAnjha: Isn't the party responsible for this mess?
Yes and no.
When the DNC voted that FL & MI would lose all of their delegates they also knew that the nominee would seat them. They never thought that there would be a contested primary.
Clinton was way ahead in all of the polls and with all of the fundraising right up until January.
It was a complete upset.
She was the presumed nominee and the DNC did not have any contingency plans.
When FL & MI legislators voted to move up the primaries there were other states threatening to do so and the only thing that the DNC had - the only power that they could use - was to threaten and then vote to not seat the delegates.
FL & MI legislators are most at fault.
It is not the fault of the people of the states.
However - it is not disenfranchisement. People were allowed to cast their votes.
Also, no one ever seems to argue for all of the people who did not go to the polls because they knew that their votes would not count. This completely delegitamizes the primaries.
States control primaries; parties control caucuses.
If the DNC would have had a contingency plan and said, go ahead with the primaries, whatever, just like some of the states who chose their delegates with caucuses and the primaries do not count - and the states would have had caucuses instead - after the Feb 5th date - this could have been avoided.
But, the DNC had no contingency because the assumption always was that the delegates would be seated by the nominee.
Also, the agreed upon calculus on choosing the nominee is delegates. If it were anything else then the entire strategies of the campaign would have been different (ex: campaigning hard in large states with lots of voters and ignoring the smaller states.) However, the only metric that mattered were the delegates, which is why the campaigns campaigned the way that they did.
Also, the "you are fucked" meme that gets thrown at people across the blogs is the blogs and the people (front pagers and commenters alike) fault...the Party is not spewing this hatred; we are. So, we are responsible for this mess.
And, no, desert dawg - I am not kidding.
It is up to us to stop this and come together. Eighteen months ago none of us were excited for 2008 because of Hillary or Obama - it was for the Democrats.
Posted by Anjha at May 28, 2008 11:09 AMHere is the thing:
HILLARY IS DISENGENIOUS!!!
Hillary said herself that FL and MI do not count. Hillary said herselft that this is a delegate race. But now this is no longer a delegate race, and FL and MI do count? What?
Also, I don't get the common view that punishing FL and MI will "disenfranchise" the voters and turn those states Red. Didn't the Republicans punish those voters as well?
Hillary's recent actions, combined with her spending 6 weeks in PA campaigning for McCain, and now is going to Florida campaigning for McCain, just reminds people of the stench that rocked the White House in the 1990's under Bill.
I don't love Obama, but at least I can trust him.
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 11:13 AMWhere was Hillary in December and November fighting for the rights of Florida and Michigan?
Can somebody please explain that to me?
Because I am from NH, and I'm pretty sure I remember her telling me in January that everybody knew FL and MI did not count for anything.
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 11:15 AMOh yeah, here is a link of Hillary lying to the people of NH:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858
"We all know that Michigan and Florida don't count for anything...."
This isn't a reporter quoting her, this is her lying on the radio.
DISENGENIOUS!!
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 11:20 AMScott: You are part of the problem too.
At this point in the process no one is going to sway the other camp. Data will only make people dig their heels in further.
One can only be empathetic now and turn to the general. You want to talk disingenous; do some research on McCain.
Posted by Anjha at May 28, 2008 12:09 PMBut Hillary is a liar.
Listen to this clip at the 20 minute mark:
HILLARY LYING TO A NH WOMAN!!
Hillary's lying has to stop!!!
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 01:00 PMGlad to see you posting again eriposte, though TLC has gone steadily down hill the last couple of months, reminds me of the matrix, every time one looks in there are more and more visceral obamites (mr smiths) like a spreading cancer. Seems like TalkLeft is the most balanced site out there at the moment.
A note regarding the GE…
If the FL/MI state verified votes are not counted in full towards this process, I can not in good conscience, vote for the candidate for the DNC, and I think this will be a prevailing position taken by many.
Keep posting, but the amount of crap on this site, paralleling the perverse NBC pro obama dialogue, is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, and contributes greatly to my decision.
And for the pending flames, …you’re making my case.
Joe,
You do realize that the Republicans only counted FL and MI as half, right?
Why would you boycott the DNC for doing the same thing as the Republicans with regard to MI/FL?
Also, the Republican punishment didn't work, MI and FL still received big time campaigning and attention early, which is why they broke the rules.
Posted by Scott at May 28, 2008 02:43 PMIf you want conformity, you are free to petition Steve to kick me out of here and if Steve asks I will gladly leave. If you believe in the First Amendment
That is, of course, what I did. Unlike Seven of Six, who just wants some balance, I really want Steve to kick you out. I think your incitement of Hillary's supporters is completely gratuitous. These comment threads don't have to be filled with this kind of venom.
I don't take issue with Turkana. S/he isn't trying to tear Obama down, or to take whatever rhetorical stance s/he thinks will smear his legitimate claim to the nomination sufficient to put Hilary in his stead. You, however, are.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 28, 2008 02:44 PMHey, Scott--why don't you listen to the whole interview? Funny how that selective quoting works. Guess we know where Hillary was in December and November: fighting for Michigan . And I guess we know who the real liar is, don't we, Scott?
Here's the full transcript:
(caller Q)HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH’s status. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot…(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)…But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn’t in my view meaningful, but I’m not going to say that there’s absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won’t come back to haunt us if we’re not careful about it.
( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)
HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn’t want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008. I’m not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I’m not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, “Goodbye, Michigan” and not take into account the fact that we’re going to have to win Michigan if we’re going to be in the White House in January, 2009.
(Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?
HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.
MisterOpus1,
You said:
I doubt you are willing to take suggestions, especially from someone like me who's bumped heads with you lately. But if I could be so bold to make a suggestion, I would ask that you maybe consider throwing us a bone every now and then and write about something other than the Hillary/Obama conflict. I know there's other bloggers here that do that, and I do read their posts accordingly on their various other topics of interest. Again, it's just a suggestion, so take it as you will.
I have another life than blogging and every minute I spend here takes away from that other life. Let me tell you something. Last summer I had not even planned to blog the primary or endorse anyone. This primary has been an enormous sink for my time and my personal life is the one that has suffered from it. I have so little time to write that I have no time to write about anything more than what I write. If you or others can't understand that and if I have to prove some point by writing about something else, I simply don't have the time to do so.
I have never been averse to taking suggestions even from my worst critics and that's never going to change. I may spar with you - sometimes aggressively or assertively if needed - as long as we have a race and we are supporting different candidates but that doesn't change who I am.
Let me add one thing. You've been trying to get me to talk about HRC's hypocrisy on FL/MI. The reason I haven't responded is that I have been planning to dedicate a post to the subject of FL/MI as soon as I can find some time to collect my thoughts and complete some reading. If you want me to say HRC is a hypocrite, here I'm saying it - she is a hypocrite. But I am not opposed to hypocrites who, in the end, do the right thing as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't agonizing in pain when Obama and Clinton reversed course on timeline based troop withdrawls in Iraq and I'm not going to agonize over Obama or Clinton working to get Florida's or Michigan's delegates seated. That said, I hardly think that it was pre-ordained that there FL/MI would not be seated. It was a game....both Obama and Clinton said right from the beginning that they would try to get FL seated (for example) - so it's not the kind of horrible and terrible hypocrisy that people are making it out to be. More on this later, hopefully.
Posted by eriposte at May 28, 2008 07:03 PMSos,
Again you caricature this site by saying it is "endless Hillary worship" at TLC. This is why it is hard to take comments like yours seriously anymore. Are Steve's posts and CA Pol Junkie's posts "endless Hillary worship". In fact, we have three bloggers here who are pro-Obama to two (maybe 1.5 since Turkana is sorta indifferent at one level) who are pro-Clinton.
Anyway, you're telling me you are hurt. Do you think I'm "enjoying" this? Obviously not. It obviously pains me to see people who I've had very cordial and nice interactions with in these threads for years, feel the kind of strong disconnect from me that they do because I am choosing to criticize their candidate in a way that they disagree with (note that I'm usually much less offensive in my language and means of criticism of Sen. Obama than how Sen. Clinton has been criticized on some of the major pro-Obama blogs).
The thing is....I never get pissed off like crazy with fair criticism of HRC - its the vile language, sexist or misogynistic rhetoric or ugly character assassination of her that pisses me off. I take most criticisms of Clinton in my stride because this is *politics*. I don't hate any of you and I don't have a problem if you publish every single fair criticism of her in the comment threads that you want. I'm not here to claim she is perfect. I've acknowledged she is imperfect - that she has made mistakes and that there are people who may genuinely prefer Obama to her for good reasons. But politics is politics and there will be lively, sometimes aggressive debate. There will be some hypocrisy all around. There will be some silliness from time to time. If we let this come in the way of our interactions with our friends and colleagues, I think we'll only have ourselves to blame.
You asked me for a unity post weeks ago. Guess what....there'll probably be a unity post at some time once we have a nominee, but when I see people claiming HRC was thinking of Obama being assassinated, it just gets more and more difficult to write that unity post. If you believe Obama is the winner, then you ought to act like it. Don't feed these terrible stories that will only wound HRC supporters like me even more and make it more difficult for us to come out and wax eloquent about unity.
On the other hand, if you or anyone else genuinely believe she is capable of thinking just that (and I'm not saying whether you do or not), then we may have a divide that is too great to be bridged.
Posted by eriposte at May 28, 2008 07:19 PMScott,
Since you brought up the RNC, Wayne Barrett at the huffington post makes some great points, if you are interested in reading, it's a long read but here are a couple of points that show the politics/games being played, what has not been explained yet is why those two states were punished while others were not.
“The Republicans don't just control both houses of the Florida legislature. Their combined 103-to-57 majority allowed them to dictate the terms of the bill that moved the primary to January 29. It is true that all but one of the state's Democratic legislators supported the bill. But a closer look reveals that vote to be more an indication of a realistic and productive compromise with the ruling Republicans than any intent to breach Democratic rules.”
“Another factor attracting Democratic votes in the legislature for the bill was one the DNC should certainly appreciate. Governor Crist threw a reform long sought by Florida Democrats into the bill: a mandatory paper trail for all votes cast in future elections.”
“Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.”
“The DNC critique of Florida's noncompliance included a reference to the fact that a Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. Obama even named Ring's 2006 campaign manager to run his statewide Florida effort”
b...b....but Florida! Michigan!
Thanks for your response, Eriposte. I do appreciate it.
I'll try to comment in your latest post on the FL/MI later today if I can. I scanned over Big Tent's post at Talk Left that you linked to to get a bit more background, but admittedly I'm a little confused right now by it and need to read it a bit closer before responding.
Right now political blogs are becoming an unfortunate procrastinating tool for me that diverts my attention away from bearing down and studing for my Physical Therapy Licensure exam coming up in July. So I can certainly relate to you on your personal life suffering.
Again, thanks.
Opus
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 29, 2008 09:46 AM