Is It Everyone's Fault?

(cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

I'm going to get flamed for resurrecting the primary wars. Maybe I shouldn't, but with the recent influx of PUMA members, I figure it can't hurt - we're already back to attacking and arguing with each other, which is a real shame because we were doing so well for awhile there. Some of us - including myself - are being pretty rude to the people with whom we disagree, and I doubt it's helpful. Still, I'm disinclined to stop because I have little patience remaining for people who refuse to support (or even tolerate) Obama as Hillary so openly has.

The two warring factions - the PUMAs and the people who are supporting the nominee - tend to blame one another (and the other candidate) for the divisions within the party, but I've begun to think that everyone involved shares some of the responsibility for the rift. Hillary and Barack certainly contributed to it, and their supporters magnified each point of contention and kept it alive. Outrage fueled outrage, and somewhere along the line, everything spiraled out of control.

So how did we get here? Is Hillary partially responsible?

Absolutely. While I will never buy into the "Hillary is a race-baiter" meme (and please, let's not start that argument in the comment thread), I'll admit that she was very harsh sometimes. The "shame on you" episode comes to mind, though I agreed with her. She was occasionally unfair, and she hit below the belt - when she grabbed hold of bittergate and employed a Republican tactic by calling Obama an elitist, I shook my head in disappointment. When she released an ad invoking Osama bin Laden, I watched it with wide-eyed horror. When she piled onto Obama during a debate in which he was being attacked by the mods, I frowned and sighed in exasperation. She mocked him at one of her rallies. She contributed to the problem.

Is Barack partially responsible?

Sure. When he attacked Hillary's healthcare plan with a flyer that strongly resembled the Harry and Louise ad from the `90s, I was furious: I saw it as not only an attack on my candidate, but an attack on universal healthcare, which was my top issue. When his campaign sent out a memo about what they perceived as an "insidious pattern" of allegedly racially insensitive remarks, I saw red. When he called her "divisive" and said she would do anything to win, I clenched my teeth until my jaw ached. I considered his "You're likeable enough" joke mocking and rude. He contributed to the problem.

But here's the thing: They were both fighting for the nomination, and they were supposed to attack each other. It was inevitable, and though they both took it too far at times, it was not unexpected. It wasn't unusual, it wasn't unprecedented. So from whence do the vitriol and animosity stem?

I think the hatred comes from their supporters (though most people know nothing of the blog wars). For one thing, each of us supported either an African American or a woman, and we expected to see discrimination. Many of us were overzealous and hyper-vigilant - we were constantly on the alert for any hint of bigotry or sexism, and though both were unquestionably present, I think we began seeing them when they weren't really there. We manufactured our own controversies. We parsed every phrase, analyzed every word, and scrutinized every expression. Not everyone did, but enough of us engaged in it to create a great deal of division. We were cruel to each other. We stopped listening. Obama supporters ruled DailyKos, and Hillary supporters fled here and largely took over. We developed resentments not only against Hillary or Obama, but also against each other. We stopped communicating, and our dialogue often devolved into vicious ad hominem attacks. We called each other cult members, racists, Republicans, and sexists. For a long time, I was angry at Obama supporters in general and decided that theirs was a top-down mentality; my disdain for them was deeply ingrained.

But just as our candidates' supporters contributed to the division, in my case they healed it. On MyDD, I discovered quite a few Clinton supporters who had come somewhat unhinged - their vehemence disturbed me; as they offended my sense of fairness and moderation, they inadvertently helped me forget my anger. They accidentally opened my mind toward the decent and reasonable Obama supporters. Several of them listened to my concerns and treated me with respect, despite my loathing for their candidate. In particular, I began getting along with Student Guy, ragekage, brit, fogiv, thatpurplestuff, Kysen, Setrak, hootie, mady, Spacemanspiff, and map (pardon me if I forgot your name - there are a lot of you). Those people were always thoughtful and helpful to me. Ragekage did manage to shame me on one occasion, but he wasn't hateful about it. When I explained my anger to him, he listened and responded to me politely and intelligently. I also remember thinking, "Brit supports Obama and cares about his candidacy. I must be missing something..." I believe he had a similar thought about Hillary. I came to like a lot of Obama supporters, and I got to know them better than Clinton supporters because our relationships required more compromising, talking, explaining, sympathizing, and sharing to maintain. As I got to know them, I began looking at their candidate differently; surely so many smart, funny, considerate people wouldn't be supporting a dud.

So who can we blame for most of the division in the party? It's hard to say, though at the moment I tend to blame PUMAs the most, but to some extent, both candidates and their supporters are at fault. I don't know how to go about unifying the party; I've tried to reach out to several Hillary holdouts, but they've universally rebuffed my efforts. I lose my patience with them quickly, so here I sit, unable to do for the PUMAs what so many Obama supporters did for me. Maybe it would help if we all tried to put ourselves in each others' places. Maybe we should try to walk a mile in our antagonists' shoes, as they say. Unfortunately, I seem incapable of properly doing so, and if anyone should be able to understand PUMA, it should be someone like me, who once claimed I could never vote for Obama. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for long-time Obama supporters to see things from those people's perspective. Maybe it would help if we all admitted we were sometimes at fault, maybe if everyone accepted some responsibility.

Or maybe we should just ignore people who can't be reasoned with and hope they come around in their own time. Sadly, that may be the only solution.



Display:


It's just a difference of opinion (2.00 / 2)

Why is it wrong for people to disagree?

As a Clinton supporter, I fear Obama will be a terrible manager of our tax dollars.  Where do you think, e.g., his faith-based initiative money will go?   To incompetent political supporters?   Will it be badly misused like this money was?  http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob ama/1050869,CST-NWS-garden11.stng

As a state senator, Barack Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer who failed to deliver on a plan to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods.

Obama -- who was running for Congress when he announced the project in 2000 -- said the green space in Englewood would build ''a sense of neighborhood pride."

Instead, what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.

Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through.

"We gave up," said Smith, who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association. "It was a losing battle."

Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it. A Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity spokeswoman said officials would look into the matter.

Smith blamed the site's current poor condition on construction material dumped there during the state's recent reconstruction of the Dan Ryan Expy.

But a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.

It looks like for 100 grand a gazebo got built.  And the taxpayer got fleeced.

So what's wrong with complaining about Obama's adequacy as an administrator?  (It is not just this one case -- you can read, e.g., about how the money he handed out when he headed the Annenberg program did not accomplish anything.  Links in this article --  http://globallabor.blogspot.com/search?u pdated-max=2008-04-25T06%3A43%3A00-07%3A 00)

What's wrong with dissent?


by strongerthandirt on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST

But a lot of it isn't just dissent. (2.00 / 8)

There's some sniping going on here that seems to have little to do with legitimate concerns.

Hillary supported faith-based initiatives too, by the way.

Also, if you're just raising some questions about Obama but intend to vote for him in November, it's good that you're here. But if you're like some of the PUMAs who come here only to sow division and create conflict, it's pretty pointless.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's just a difference of opinion (2.00 / 7)

OK, Barack hired the wrong guy for that project apparently. But does it "concern" you that Clinton didn't manage her campaign finances very well and spent millions on Mark Penn?

Anyway, the point is, it's not about whether there's a difference of opinion about Obama or Clinton anymore. It's about if there's a difference of opinion about Obama or McCain. Clinton has given up the fight. She's not a candidate anymore. It's Obama or McCain. Of course there's nothing wrong with dissent, but I would not call your reference to $100,000 misspent dissent. I would call it circulating an obscure and irrelevant republican talking point on a democratic site.

I have two questions for you: are you supporting Barack Obama or John McCain for president? What are your reasons for supporting who you support?


by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's campaign funds (none / 0)

and Barack giving my tax dollars to an incompetent volunteer of his are not similar in any way.


by LatinoVoter on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's campaign funds (2.00 / 1)

You're right! They're not the same at all! You win. You convinced me. Barack is evil and I should vote for McCain. Thanks for your guidance.


by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's just a difference of opinion (2.00 / 3)

Depends on the dissent. If it's meant to advocate for a cause, it's helpful. If it's meant to dissuade or even piss off supporters, it's less helpful. Your goal should be to inform and persuade, not to criticize. If you tell me about the issue above and say that's why you have a problem with the faith-based initiatives idea, I would understand, and I would agree with you. If you tell me about the issue and say that Obama is dangerous and you won't support him, that's not helpful or good for discussion at all. Because you don't want anyone to talk about anything with you, you just wanted to poke a finger in the ribs of everyone here.

For issues like you listed above, then push and SHOVE your way through to make sure that Obama puts through his transparency legislation. If we can see where the money is going and do our own investigation, we have less chance of losing accountability.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's just a difference of opinion (2.00 / 1)

I oppose faith-based social initiatives because many of them are fundamentally dishonest. I don't mean they steal money; I mean, they'll feed or house you if you're in need, but they'll also force you to listen to and agree with their religion. I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and think that holding life-saving food and shelter over a person's head, or the heads of her children, unless she "accepts Christ as her personal savior" or agrees that "There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet" is simply unAmerican.

The only way I could support faith-based initiaves from ANYONE -- Republickers, Barack OR Hillary -- is if the supporting of these initiatives was accompanied by strict rules that there must be NO proselytizing -- and that they be subject to vigilant oversight to prevent this. But providing such monitoring would destroy any governmental savings the initial program might accrue. Much better just to make it secular support to begin with.

I know there are good religious institutions out there who help the needy of any creed and do not try to convert them, but they're in the minority. Faith-based initiatives are largely recruiting tools for various religions. Can you imagine what the Scientologists would do if they got their hands on one of these grants for faith based initiaves? It makes my skin crawl.

Aid for the needy should not be dependent on creed -- not in the US where we believe (supposedly) in the separation of Church and State. The idea appeals to people who think that being exposed to religion will probably be good for those shiftless poor people and their starving kids, and even if it's not, hey, they're getting free food/shelter, so what if they have to "pay" for it for listening to lectures, being forced into prayer groups, and having to abstain from anything their benefactors don't approve of?  Big deal -- at least they're fed and warm.

Unfortunately, I think most of the people who are willing to sell out their spiritual beliefs for a bowl of pottage and a place out of the snow and rain have already done it. People involved with a faith already have access to life assistance from those groups.  It's only the people who already don't like being forced into someone else's religion who are partaking of public, secular support. They're the ones who would be left hanging.

I don't think anyone who genuinely respects the US Constitution could support basing public assistance on involvement with religious groups selected by the government for monetary support.  (Whether or not the Constitution supports public assistance at all is another question, but I'm certain it cannot be read to support handing it out based on religious criteria.)

So none of the current candidates meet my criteria on this issue, sadly. But there are other issues I vote on (though I admit this one sticks in my craw. I'm very much against religious coercion.)


by SuGeAtARC on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but that's not... (1.90 / 10)

"Dissent". That's only sowing more division. Critiquing the Democratic nominee is dissent. Actively opposing the nominee is division.

Get the difference?


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's just a difference of opinion (2.00 / 2)

Uniformed dissent is just trouble making.

If you bothered to separate your knee from its jerk, you might have discovered that Obama's concept of 'faith-based initiatives' is much more progressive than Bush's. Check out ChitownDenny's excellent diary on this subject.


by duende on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yesterday I got a call (2.00 / 10)

from a local Obama supporter.  In the beginning I went to all the websites of all the candidates, and contributed to two, Clinton and Edwards.  I also have worked for the local democratic party so it is no surprise I was called.
He was young (29 I found out as we conversed) and polite.  I told him the truth. As a Hillary supporter I was still angry, still hurt and still not ready to let that anger go.  Instead of chiding me, or trying to dissuade me or guilt me, he said "I understand."  Those two words, I believe, in the long run will better serve the democrats than any cry for unity.  We all need to end the blame game, but in particular right now, those supporting Senator Obama, need to use those words with those Clinton supporters who remain angry.

At this point, I remain committed to vote for the democratic nominee.  I remain committed to NOT VOTING for a republican ever.
Because this young man was kind, understanding and allowed me to speak to my issues, I am more inclined to do more down the road.  
Not all will come to where I am, but not all want to stay angry either.  
Smart tactics are needed on the part of the democratic party.  Dean and Brazille have turned me off. It will take a lot before I trust them but personal contacts with reasonable and fair democrats can make a difference.


by Jjc2008 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST

That's exactly how I feel. (2.00 / 6)

It wasn't Obama who convinced me to work for him -- it was his supporters. That's what advocacy is all about. Understanding, civility, and compassion can go a long way.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:07:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And accepting that not everyone (2.00 / 6)

has the same timeline.
I will know when I am ready to move on.   It's that simple.
by Jjc2008 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that's a fair point. n/t (2.00 / 5)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's exactly how I feel. (2.00 / 5)

McCain did it for me.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's exactly how I feel. (2.00 / 2)

funny it is his "supporters" who convinced me that while he will get my vote that since if any voice is raised to question anything about him will be met with insults and cries that I am a racist and somehow a "traitor" to allow any questions at all occur to me that he does not need more then just my vote. so that is pretty much all he will get from me at this point.


by zerosumgame on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's exactly how I feel. (2.00 / 9)

You should find and talk to some Obama supporters in the real world.  They are much more sane.  The ability to hide behind a keyboard makes many people much more aggressive than they would and should normally be.

I certainly can't apologize for all the Obama supporters on the internet but I can let you know we are all not like that.

I would love to argue with you strictly from  a policy perspective anytime you want.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the obama voters i've met (2.00 / 7)

just like hillary supporters (of which i was one and i campaigned for her in 2 states) were really nice, mean, or inbetween. some cultish on both sides. i, a hillary supporter, got cursed at in an intersection by a man who yelled "FUCK OBAMA", probably because i was black and they thought i was for obama. no matter, i was still ardently for hillary even though i went through a lot of hatred. i was called an "uncle tom" by a white Ron Paul supporter one time for wanting to support hillary. I was baffled. So dont let internet hatred get you down, for all you know it could be a troll.  and lets not lose the forest for the trees.


by iamold on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's exactly how I feel. (2.00 / 1)

You understand of course that by baiting people and putting the word supporters in "" you only fuel the fire right?

Not all of us are crazy, not all of us hate Hillary or her supporters and not all of us are unwilling to engage in discussion about Obama's weaknesses as a candidate.

My problem is this; I am tired of feeling like I should apologize for supporting Obama and I am really tired of feeling like he is expected to apologize for winning.

It was an ugly primary. It is pointless to argue over who got ugly first or who was uglier. It was an ugly primary. The candidates got ugly, the surrogates got ugly and the WE got ugly. To pretend that one was somehow worse than the other or that one somehow was above it is stupid. We have to admit what happened and move on from it. Not that I think that is going to happen


Hey guys? You know we won right? You can stop the doooooomsaying now.
by JDF on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, sricki... (2.00 / 6)

The same has happened to me as well. When my real-life Obama friends weren't yelling & screaming at me on June 4, but rather at jerks harrassing me to "fall in line NOW!", that made it much easier for me to move over to Obama shortly after Hillary endorsed him. And when I encountered Obama folks here who were happy to see me back, that made it even easier. Maybe if we all stop playing "the blame game" and start real dialogue, we can finally put the past behind us & move on. :-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can understand not being ready... (2.00 / 9)

...to support Obama.  I absolutely can.  If Obama had lost, I don't know if I'd be ready at this point to support Clinton.  A lot of stuff went down this season and there's a lot of reconciliation to do.

What I can't understand are people who call themselves Democrats and continue to actively oppose Obama.  It's one thing to say you (the general "you," not you in particular) aren't ready to come on board yet; it's another thing entirely to work against the presumptive nominee.  People who do that, either overtly (by supporting groups like PUMA) or covertly (by continually engaging in destructive and undermining, rather than constructive, criticism) - those are the ones who really piss me off.

I think that's a crucial difference - between the people who just don't support Obama (with or without a "yet" added), whose non-support of Obama will likely translate into more energy getting Democrats elected downticket; and those who continue to oppose Obama now that it's all but clear that he'll be our nominee, and thus help John McCain and his anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-conscience agenda.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I think in ANY group (2.00 / 2)

politically or otherwise, there are always extremists.  It is human nature.  In the end, it is a small percentage.  Here's my real life example.
The overwhelming majority of my democratic/independent friends (talking here about the female ones only) were Hillary supporters.  We are all fifty and sixty something females (mostly caucasian, but AA and Hispanic also, two lesbians, just to give you the demographics).   All were angry as heck about the perceived by us unfair tactics of the Deaniacs, the DLC and Axlerod and the blatant sexism of the media.   But all of us except one will vote for Obama.  So far, none will commit to working for Obama although a few of us suspect at some point we will.  
The one who is so angry she will go McCain has her reasons. I disagree with her but I cannot change her mind.  Other than telling her I think it is a mistake, there is no point.  

In the end I think the overwhelming majority of Hillary supporters will vote Obama.  However, most of us will not let go our feeling that the sexism of the Dem leadership played a part.


by Jjc2008 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can understand not being ready... (1.83 / 6)

not only those who actively oppose Obama but now actively support McCain... that's what gets me. These <u>few</u> HRC supporters who think McCain better represents the policies of HRC than Obama.

Hey, go ahead, be angry and bitter. Lick your wounds. Even go ahead and show the DNC your anger by not voting for the Dem candidate. But to vote for McCain? Jeez, why not start a write-in campaign for Senator Clinton. In fact, it would better show your numbers and your effect come election day than voting for McCain. If that is your intent... If it isn't just pure childish temper tantrums.

Gee, sricki, I have also gotten nasty when dealing with this small crowd and I don't like it one bit.

Your diary was spot on. Thanks.


by batgirl71 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can understand not being ready... (none / 0)

batgirl71, the reason I rate you with a one (1) is due to the fact that you gave me a one (1) after I'd basically recanted my words to the person involved. You probably should read a little further before you go out traipsing to the song of anything for Hillary is bad for Obama and anti-democratic.


by Check077 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 8)

Looking strictly from a historical perspective and trying to interpret thngs, I think we can infer a lot from what Obama says he told Hillary in their first meeting. "You're the only one who knows what I went through, and I'm the only one who knows what you went through." We don't know what is in Obama's head. Clintonites can't understand what is in the head of Clinton.

And I think you hit the nail on the head. All that animosity that legitimately did build for awhile between them, that's on us and the media, not them. Things just got out of control.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST

Yes, I think the MSM (2.00 / 6)

in particular exacerbated everything. The way they distorted and ran with Bill's "fairy tale" remark was shameful.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I think the MSM (2.00 / 4)

That certainly wasn't race-baiting but I also don't think you should deny that there was race-baiting in the primary.

I know you asked not to bring it up but I would like to make one quick point:

Many people I know do not feel that there was sexism in the primary.  I am sure that angers you because it is factually accurate that there was sexism in the primary.  Do not be the denier that angers the african americans that feel the pain of racism.

This came up yesterday and MeganLocke said it much more eloquently:

"I think recognition of racism and sexism has to start with giving the aggrieved parties the benefit of the doubt.  You and I do not get to be the final arbiters of what is and is not racist, just as say, African American men do not get to be the final arbiters of what is and is not sexism."

I don't want to fight but it is very important for people to realize that racism did occur just as much as people need to realize that there was sexism.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i don't disagree. (2.00 / 1)

but there is one - huge difference....  only one campaign made a concerted effort to push this meme that its rival was engaging in this behaviour.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i don't disagree. (2.00 / 2)

I think Clinton played the victim/hero/feminist game too.


by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

please no flame wars. (2.00 / 1)

but i was responding the CAC's comment that we should stop minimizing people's feelings.  i agree.

but i also think that while all of these sensitivities to race and gender were out there - one WITH PROOF - not hunches - exploited the issue for political gain which did A LOT of damage.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please no flame wars. (none / 0)

What do you mean by please no flame wars? Serious question.


by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

flaming each other... (none / 0)

about what he said, she said.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: flaming each other... (2.00 / 3)

Ok, thanks for the explanation.
I don't really understand this conversation then. Are you saying that it's ok for you to lob out there a "but his campaign did X..." but then say "no flame wars"?

by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: flaming each other... (none / 0)

Yes.  She is very good at recognizing when other people are starting flame wars but not so good at recognizing when she starts one.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: flaming each other... (2.00 / 4)

And you are very good at both.
AND, added bonus, very good at jumping in on ones already in progress.
Good grief.
Drop it.
You are just trying to fan a flame war in a great diary.
by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kysen, (2.00 / 5)

you are our knight in shining armor.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kysen, (2.00 / 5)

Actually, today is Batman Underoos Day.
;)
by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: flaming each other... (none / 0)

I will not.  Canadian Gal does this kind of thing all the time and I find it very very very annoying.  She needs to realize that posting flamebait and then calling for a truce is passive aggressive, counterproductive or just plain annoying.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop. (2.00 / 5)

CG is not starting a flame war. She responded to someone's comment because she disagreed with it and then respectfully tried to put an end to the conversation before it became an argument.

Look, I understand why a lot of people on this blog piss you off, but you consistently pick the wrong targets. Spanish Fly, for example, was never a Clinton supporter, yet you lashed out at him. There's no need to be so antagonistic.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i do 'what' all the time? LOL! (2.00 / 4)

i really do not pay much attention to what you write anymore because you generally have proved your intentions and while i would suffice is to say that your intention is to annoy me and a wide variety of others - its not working with me.  not annoyed - mildly amused and slightly pitying.

so while with most - while i would be distraught that i was annoying them - with you - im kinda diggin' it.  


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: flaming each other... (2.00 / 5)

No, YOU need to realize that YOU are the one who has become annoying.

Annoying to everyone...no matter who they support.

Canadian Gal was a respected MYDDer long before you showed up on the scene.
Is still a respected MYDDer despite your persistent whining about her.
Will remain a respected MYDDer long after you have moved on.

Again, your 'Trolldar' SUCKS.
You should retire.

Now, you can drop it and move on....or not.
Either way I'm done wasting time here with you.
(I expect you to continue, though, because that is your M.O...flame..flame..flame...)


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good (none / 0)


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop trolling so hard. (2.00 / 4)

C'mon dude. I'm beginning to think you only come to MyDD for the flame wars. Not a diary goes by the you don't take the time to antagonize or attack longstanding users on this site. Their are plenty of trolls on this site, pick one and hit him hard.

Why the need to jump (uninvited) into a conversation and talk your smack?

Chill the fuck out.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hhmmm.... (2.00 / 3)

no that's not what i am saying.  to be clear - i responded to CAC's comment to sricki about race-baiting/sexism and its use in the campaign to not minimize people's feelings on them.  to which i agree - HOWEVER - not an argument or flame war - beyond hurt feelings and interpretations....

only one of the campaigns (at least with evidence) exploited these feelings for gain.  you'll note that i didn't mention other things (and there are many) to prove either side was racist or sexist - just proof that it was employed as a tactic.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hhmmm.... (2.00 / 5)

I guess I just don't see the point in agreeing that racism/sexism went down against both candidates, and then saying a big BUT, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE, WHAT THE OTHER GUY DID WAS WORSE, (but please, no flame wars).
Anyway, we both agree with the main point of this thread. We should just leave it at that.
by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: please no flame wars. (2.00 / 5)

We are way off topic now.  Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up.  I know it is a touchy subject for all and don't want Sricki's diary to turn into a primary argument.

If we can all agree that both racism and sexism were used as tools in the primary by both sides, then we don't need to argue about specific instances and tactics.

Sorry Sricki.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. ;) (2.00 / 5)

This is the one topic I can NEVER discuss politely.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I respectfully disagree (2.00 / 2)

and so do many others, even some who were Senator Clinton supporters.


by batgirl71 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they were making an effort to make race (2.00 / 2)

an issue. HRC at times, and Obama at times, depending on when it benefited them. (full disclosure i campaigned for hillary and worked for her for 2 years, and im black, and i saw the code words thrown around esp by surrogates on fox news where anything sexist or racist can be said without consequences) also a HRC supporting congressman from NJ, who was immediately silenced, said after the primaries that there was an effort from the top to divide jews and blacks. as a black person i was offended at times. as a woman i was offended at times. both candidates hands arent clean, but neither is a racist or a sexist, whether they used the race/gender card or not.


by iamold on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

see this is precisely what i didnt want to do.... (2.00 / 1)

using the term 'code' words about another democrat is never a good thing - especially one as diligent about race issues as HRC.

nevertheless i am going to let the steam pass from my ears and say to you that you are precisely proving my point.  people saw racism and sexism in the primary everywhere - some unfounded - and some not.

so when there is documented proof that it was used against one its pretty unsettling.  but not productive at this point.  therefore - let's put this in a drawer and forgive but not forget.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But... (none / 0)

The memo you mentioned is a compilation of statements by the Clinton camp.  I think it proves the opposite of what you think it proves.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I think the MSM (2.00 / 7)

And the MSM will continue to do it...because they WANT it to appear to be a horse-race. The only way that can happen is if it looks like McCain has a neck and neck chance against Obama. The only way that happens is if they make it look like LOTS of Democrats will be turning away from Obama. They will push this meme until the election....even if it is patently false.

It is all smoke and mirrors.
There are not millions of Clinton supporters not voting for Obama.
There more NEW voters and gasp Republicans who WILL vote for him than Dems who won't.
McCain is gonna get his clock cleaned.
Obama will be our next President.
The media will do everything in their power to make it seem like that might not happen.
Don't fall for it.

As to who is to blame for the rancor?
NOT ME!!!
I am as pure as the driven snow!
Well, after as it has lain on the interstate for a few hours......
lol
;)

Great diary, sricki.


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hi Sricki (2.00 / 9)

As always your diary is excellent.

I have said from the beginning of this primary that no matter who the nominee is I will sport the T-shirt, the bumper sticker, a hat, a few buttons, everything short of a tattoo.  I will work to GOTV, phonebank, donate, whatever is needed.  I will personally drag as many Democrats to the polls as I can.  :)

For 8 long years I have been trying to help wrest control of this country away from disastrous Republican rule.

During the primaries there was a lot of talk about how the rightwing was going to turn on the smear machine as soon as the primaries were over.  I think PUMA and those other groups are it -- the Republicans as sowing dissent from within.  Nobody will listen to anything someone who claims to be a Republican says anymore so they have to pretend to be disaffected Democrats.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST

Hey, I haven't seen you (2.00 / 7)

much around here lately. I bet you can guess which diary on the rec list prompted me to write this.

I agree, I think a lot of the PUMAs are Republicans. But I know there are plenty of disaffected Clinton supporters in there, too. One minute I feel bad for them, the next I don't.

I haven't gotten an Obama bumper sticker yet -- I wanted to wait until he picked his VP. I have a limited amount of space on my bumper. ;)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:44:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, I haven't seen you (2.00 / 4)

I'm with you, waiting for the VP.
For now I have my:

Had Enough?
Vote Democrat.

on my rear window.

(which bothers the heck out of me that it says 'Democrat' rather than 'Democratic'...but, oh well, I like the succinct message)

I also have:

McCain = Bush

in my rear driver's side window (so if people have a problem with it they can tell me to my face).  ;)


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's see, my car has (2.00 / 4)

two Hillary stickers, a Darwin fish, a rainbow "Celebrate Diversity" sticker, a "Don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church" sticker, and a "Lord please help me be the person my psychiatrist medicates me to be" sticker.

I'm running out of room fast.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's see, my car has (2.00 / 1)

Ha, I love the one about school/church.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok. (2.00 / 7)

So it was a little bit my fault.

I admit it.

But I think I'm making up for it.

Good diary.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST

Re: Ok. (2.00 / 6)

You are most definitely making up for it. ;)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You've got one crucial fact wrong (2.00 / 1)

The party isn't divided.  According to the latest Newsweek poll, (link) 81% of Dems support Obama.  According to the same poll, 83% of Republicans support McCain.  I don't see a division and neither does the polling.  Soon after Clinton conceeded the Dems were as united as the Republicans (who didn't have a close primary fight).  

In short, the only Democrats who aren't on board the unitymobile are the Democrats who will never be on board the unitymobile.   You are right that "the only solution" is to ignore "people who can't be reasoned with and hope they come around in their own time".  I personally don't want the No Quarter crowd on the same side as I am but YMMV.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM EST

More polling (2.00 / 3)

According to CNN's 2004 Presidential election exit polling, (link) 89% of Democrats voted for Kerry, and 93% of Republicans voted for Bush.  It seems the Republicans are more divided then we are in comparison to 2004.  The Repubs are 10% away from their 2004 numbers while we are 8% away.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More polling (2.00 / 4)

Meanwhile the number of people calling themselves Democrats has grown while the number of Republicans has contracted.  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More polling (none / 0)

You are looking for problems.  

Anyone who was motivated enough to recently register to become a Democrat is not going to vote for McCain or stay home.  It is people like you and Catfish who are the "problem" and Obama is going to win or lose the race regardless of what this "problem" bunch does.  There are a group of malcontent Democrats every four years who don't vote for the Dem nominee.  It is better to ignore people like you.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More polling (2.00 / 4)

WTF are you going on about?
Do you know how to read?
Spanish Fly just commented that more people are calling themselves Democrats and fewer are calling themselves Republicans....he said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Dems voting for McCain.

You need to A) work on your reading comprehension, and B) quit lashing out at the WRONG PEOPLE.

As it is....YOU are the one who seems to be looking for problems.
YOU are the one that is starting to be ignored....by BOTH sides of the issue.

Your 'trolldar' SUCKS.
You should retire.


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Take it easy. (none / 0)

With all the flamebait being passed around, it's not impossible to misread someone's intentions and have a knee-jerk response. I know I've been guilty of this at least once.

This has been one long campaign - we all need to take a deep breath and try not to let the trolls get to us.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kysen is criticizing him because (2.00 / 3)

with this guy, it hasn't just happened once. Or even a few times. He has a pattern of attacking almost everyone. It's difficult not to argue with him, though he should probably be ignored. Kysen has had run-ins with him before.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take it easy. (2.00 / 2)

The problem with the commenter in question is that EVERY response from him is knee-jerk...emPHAsis on 'jerk'.

He has quite the knack for attacking long time, respected MYDD members who support Obama....'calling them out' as trolls, Republicans or whatever else strikes his small mind at the time.

He may well be an Obama supporter...but, he may well also be a Troll himself. The jury is still out on that.


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More polling (2.00 / 1)

I don't have a history with him so I'll assume it was a simple mistake.  Thanks though.  I clearly was making a point backing up the idea that better numbers for Dems are even BETTER because there are more of us now.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More polling (none / 0)

You misread my post.  My point was very pro-Dem.  Read it again, I'm sure you'll see you were mistaken.  No biggie.  Happens to the best of us.  Peace.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I realize the division isn't (2.00 / 6)

as deep as the PUMAs (and even the MSM) would have us believe. I wrote this diary because that ridiculous trash catfish put on the rec list got on my nerves.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I realize the division isn't (none / 0)

Catfish only wrote the diary.  A bunch of MyDD'ers decided to put it on the rec list.  These are the people who are never going to be satisfied.  I find the best way to respond to them is to point out how irrelevant they are.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I realize the division isn't (2.00 / 6)

See, you are wrong...it was not a 'bunch of MYDD'ers' that put it on the rec list.

It was a bunch of Alegre's Corner members and Hillary's Voice members who HAPPEN TO HAVE a registered name here on MYDD that put it on the rec list.

Note that the VAST majority of those who rec'd it did not bother to comment in it....nor do they often bother to comment in ANY MYDD diaries.

They just swarm in to rec diaries when messages begging for recs go out on sites that they do participate in.

They are no more 'MYDDers' than I am an 'Alegre's Corner'bot' (and, yes, I have a registered name over there..and my wife has one for Hillary's Voice).

The ability to rec diaries does not make one a supporter of MYDD. There are o'plenty Trolls with full rec/ratings abilities. This is why I am REALLY looking forward to the 'update' that has been promised.


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to answer your question... (2.00 / 5)

yes.

and i think even supporters on all sides who were quiet/willfully ignorant when seeing abuse, trolling and despicable language in the blogosphere helped to exacerbate the problem.

i also think the group you mentioned in the diary, for the most part did a wonderful service to fostering discussion and representing democrats.

oh - and highly rec'd of course.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST

A phenonmenon I noticed (2.00 / 6)

I've also spent time trying to understand how there came to be such a wide chasm in our party. Although I think that the people in the PUMA movement are actually a fairly small but very loud minority, the ideas that they cite as sources of anger resonate with many more, and they therefore have something of an audience.

I voted for Edwards in the primary but after Edwards dropped out I donated to Obama's campaign. I didn't even bother to get a sign or bumper sticker, so I don't consider myself to have been an enthusiastic supporter. I supported Obama because I liked his foreign policy rationale (I didn't see it as one speech in 2002), and I thought he was bringing new democrats into the party in a way that would give him a good chance of winning while building the party ranks. I never saw him as perfect, and I don't think I have ever even tried Kool-Aid.

My opinion is that the chasm widened to a difficult point starting in late February. At that time, after Obama's string of wins, the calls for Clinton's departure from the race, or at least her softening of her attacks, were beginning to grow louder. There became two very different ways of looking at the state of the race. Many in the media and in Obama's camp assumed that Obama had the nomination wrapped up, and only became more negative about Clinton when she seemed to be tearing down the very likely nominee for no good reason. On the other hand, Clinton's fighter/hero status was growing legendary among those who supported her as she refused to let anyone else suggest that she stop fighting for what she believes in. The more she fought on in March, April, and May, the more she became perceived as a hero/fighter against the male dominant society telling her to quit, while at the same time she built her image as the out-of-touch, power-crazed politician that refused to acknowledge that she had lost the fight.
Then she gave up. That left a very passionate following of supporters with intense loyalty and anger as well as the other side of the party who was more ready to move on and start dealing with McCain.

I remember noticing in myself some anger at bittergate. I couldn't understand why she would want to create a right-wing attack perspective that could be used effectively against Obama in the general. I remember venting to a friend who was supporting Clinton and through that conversation I remember beginning to understand that the fighter/hero characterization is just as valid/invalid as the insane power-hungry characterization was. I was lucky I had this friend and had the conversation at the right time. I think it helped me be able to frame the rest of the primary in my mind so that even though I still was rooting for Obama, I could admire how Clinton was increasingly inspirational, and I can understand to some degree the leftover feeling of being cheated that some Clinton supporters still feel. I don't, by the way, think it's accurate to claim that she was cheated, but I have some idea why, emotionally, that makes sense.
Like you, Sricki, I am at a loss for how to narrow this chasm. I think when we put politicians up on  pedestals and look up to them as something more glamorous or evil than egotistical politicians we set ourselves up for irrational consequences. Unlike some suggestions I've seen on MyDD, I don't think it's solely up to Obama-primary supporters to make nice until Clinton-primary supporters forgive. But I do think that conversations would go better if more Obama-primary supporters took some time to try to emotionally understand the inspiration that Clinton created, even if they think it was counter-productive to have kept fighting the way she did.
All that being said, I have faith that with time comes emotional distance, and by November, most people will be ready to vote for their own perceived political interest. In the mean time, I think one of our jobs as conversationalists on this site is to counter attempts by sneaky McCain supporters to leverage the chasm that exists to try to persuade some who are not enthusiastic about Obama that it might not be so bad to support McCain, or that staying home or writing in Clinton would be a useful protest. We need to see this for what it is: opportunism by Republicans.


by glopster on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM EST

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 1)

"I figure it can't hurt - we're already back to attacking and arguing with each other, which is a real shame because we were doing so well for awhile there. Some of us - including myself - are being pretty rude to the people with whom we disagree, and I doubt it's helpful."

What I noticed is that you and spacemanshiff argues and getting angry because people don't agree with you. And many Obama supporter calls PUMA republican - like some one who don't support nominee makes you republican!!!

If you and people like you are convinced that Obama is a right candidate, than it is up to you make your points without getting angry or rude or calling names or asking for proof of their party affiliation, and most of that using any curse words or bad language or "f" and "a" words!  

If Obama wants to win, than he needs support from not just his supporters and independents but also from some republicans. If you are going to call republicans name, than how are you going to win them over! And PUMAs are not different - they need to be convinced, without getting angry, that Obama is not flip-flopper or going to give money to Churches haded by likes Rev. Wright, and.......

Remember election is not for personality... all politician including Obama creates this illusion to build up their personality with the help of the professional image makers!!! It is your job to find out who is real behind that illusion! Their past actions and words gives indication of what they really are --- whether their actions supports their words or are their WORDS JUST THE WORDS.... Proof is current Mass. Governor - he is proving that he is just a WORDS!!!

One shall not vote by those illusion but they shall put country before party!!!

It is now Obama to convince PUMAs and his distractors that he is the right candidate by his actions which supports his words... and so far his actions is not supporting his words, e.g. FISA, Abortion for woman with mental problems, etc.  He still has 3+ months to convince others to vote for him..

If McCain wins, than will it be disaster... NO, because Senate (if the Democratic leadership is not spineless) will prevent him from nominating SC Judges who are too conservative or against abortion. Congress will force McCain to pull troops out of IRAQ. Remember most democrate still opposing Obama are probably - and rightfully so - convinced that Democrates are going to get majority in both house of congress this election.

Remember to get majority in Congress and Senate is more important than winning presidency because they can make laws and stop president from misusing his/her power!!! And to achievee this majority you don't want to offend people who are not supporting Obama - you need them to achieve the goal of getting near fillbuster proof majority in Senate, and to get near veto proof majority in both houses of congress!

So cool down and control your anger!!!


by PK on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST

Not true (2.00 / 1)

Obama can win without you and the other PUMA's.  What makes you think he can't?


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope, you're wrong! (2.00 / 8)

If McCain wins, than will it be disaster... NO, because Senate (if the Democratic leadership is not spineless) will prevent him from nominating SC Judges who are too conservative or against abortion. Congress will force McCain to pull troops out of IRAQ.

Obviously, you don't know how "successful" the current Congress has been in getting George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq. THEY HAVEN'T! And without a Democratic President in office in 2009, there isn't much that Congress will be able to do on Iraq... Or for that matter health care, energy, education, civil rights, or judges.

Look, I'm all for being civil and being able to convince people like you. But if you can't let go of your (wrong!) preconceived notions about John McBush & Barack Obama, there isn't much I can do.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 6)

(if the Democratic leadership is not spineless)

And what, exactly, would lead you to believe that they will not be spineless? Sad to say, but, spineless is EXACTLY what they have been for the past 8 years. A McCain Presidency will change that...and might even exacerbate it.

To be willing to risk the health of our Nation on whether or not our Dems in the Legislative Branch will grow a spine or not is WAY too much of a gamble for me.....I care WAY too much about this country to play those odds.

McCain will harm our Nation. Period.
McCain is a continuation of the past 8 years. Period.
To vote for McCain or work against Obama is to co-sign approval of the past 8 years. Period.


by Kysen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 3)

Many people are quick to anger when talking with PUMAs because some pumas intentionally twist Obama's positions to make their points.  By doing this, they are refusing to have a rational discussion before we even have a chance to start.

Example:  "going to give money to Churches haded by likes Rev. Wright, and......."

From this I take it that you do not like Obama's position, and Clinton's, position on faith based initiatives.  We could have a substantive debate on this issue but you also needed to jab at Obama with Wright and so conversation breaks down.  I will continue the conversation anyway.  I am an atheist and think faith-based initiatives make sense.  Churches, synagogues and mosques do a great amount of good and they already have infrastructure to do that good.  For example, it is much cheaper for the government to fund an already operation soup kitchen than to start one.

Example 2:  "and so far his actions is not supporting his words, e.g. FISA, Abortion for woman with mental problems".  Obama supports abortion for women with mental illness so you are again intentionally distorting his position.  He also believes that having non-medical mental distress in the third term is not grounds for an abortion.  He is talking about "feeling blue" or having misgivings not have a medical mental issue.  We could discuss the difference between your positions on abortion if you did not begin with a non-factual position.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (none / 0)

Faith-based initiatives are horrible.  They're nothing but a patronage trick.

Back in the 60s or 70s, Pat Moynihan figured out that rather than having the government deal directly with the people, which was efficient but fairly anonymous, they could build a system of interlocking loyalties by picking a local leader and funneling the money through them.  It's where the phrase "poverty pimp" comes from - there are churches all through New York City that run on kickbacks and political favors because they're loyal to the politicians that allow them to distribute state money.

Hillary Clinton comes out of that same system.  The Republicans do it through their churches.  And I'm sure something similar works in Chicago.

I just want there to be clarity on the issue.  It's ludicrous to single out Barack Obama over this though, because wherever you have population density, you have poverty programs, and wherever you have poverty programs, you have patronage.  Sorry to sound like Elmer Fudd with all the 'p's.

A bunch of members of my family work either for the state welfare agencies or their unions.  We deal with these folks all the time - mini-empires run out of churches or wards.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for the info.  I understand that good ideas can be twisted into ugly practices which is what has happened here.  It is sad.  I still think it is a good idea if it could be applied without corruption.  I know that is impossible but it is nice to dream.

Still I don't understand why Pumas try to use this issue against Obama because Clintonn agrees with him.  It is very strange.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 2)

They're not terribly informed.  I honestly don't think they're aware of their own alleged candidate's positions, let alone Obama's or McCain's.

Anyway, that's a brief outline of how it works in New York; you cannot separate the corruption from the system.  I don't think the idea is inherently without merit though.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is It Everyone's Fault? (2.00 / 2)

The Presidency is more powerful than both houses combined.  ESPECIALLY on the Supreme Court - the Senate hasn't rejected a nominee in over twenty years.

I think with a bigger majority in the Senate we could have stopped FISA, but on major issues like war and the Supreme Court, even a relatively principled opposition isn't going to be able to stop the President.

How do I know this?  Because it literally never, ever happens.  There has never been a time when Congress managed to stop a war from starting (or even managed to pull troops out of combat zone), or blocked more than say, one Supreme Court nominee ever few decades.  I mean it never, ever happens.

Even the Vietnam War, which was about as unpopular as they get during a time when the opposition was about as robust as it ever gets only ended when Nixon decided it should end.  Not one second earlier.  He even expanded it into Cambodia, and Congress was powerless to stop him.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fewer exclamation points, please!!!ONE1!11!!! n/t (2.00 / 2)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, party disunity is a bit of a non-issue... (2.00 / 6)

...at this point in the year. The numbers support my sentiments. (I don't have links in this comment, but they're fairly widely available. I think Todd or Jerome did a diary on this about 4-5 weeks ago.)

I don't have the link, but the numbers--in terms of registered party voters that support the nominee--track virtually identically with where we were with Kerry, Gore, etc., at this point in the calendar in '04 and '00, respectively.

In response to the headline in the diary, "Yes, it's everyone's fault."

And, looking at the last sentence in the diary, I'd agree that either one's onboard or they're not; life's too short, and we certainly have bigger fish to fry than to waste valuable hours and days and weeks not discussing the especially critical issues facing U.S. society this cycle. It's an exceptional time for this country, in terms of ongoing, top-down decision-making, and how and why that will affect all of us for generations to come.

The folks that will come around to their senses between now and Election Day will do that on their own accord. The folks that won't...won't. All we can do is be polite; lend an ear; and attempt to keep the dialogue rational and focused. (IMHO.)


by bobswern on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST

I'm not happy (2.00 / 5)

.... with Obama as our candidate.  I preferred Al Gore.

BUT .... look at the way things have turned out.  With Al Gore NOT running for President, we actually have more attention going to the global warming issue.  I see more and more and I feel the excitement of a real change.

After Al was a no show, I teetered between Edwards (who disappointed me as Kerry's nonexistant running mate) and Clinton.  Hillary was competent and as a woman, I was excited about the possibility of FINALLY seeing a woman as President - even IF she was married to Bill Clinton, a great President who could have been greater still.  And I say great President relatively speaking - for the times and the times of cruel and offensive press were ridiculous.

With Hillary bowing out - losing to Obama, I'm left with bitterness over some bad words and with Obama.

I'm NOT voting for McCain.  In the past he might have had my vote, but he's totally lost any support I might have had long ago.

So ... I'm watching Obama and plan to vote for him and I'm beginning to have hope that ... although Obama will NEVER live up to the hopes and dreams and aspirations that some have, his election ALONE tells Americans "Things CAN be different."  There IS hope that America can get back on a more correct path.  

A great American, a Great President said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  That great American was a DC insider deluxe.  But he suffered with polio and the loss of many dreams, but he overcame with the help of many, especially a wonderful wife, and help set the ship of state on a steadier course.  I'm hoping the same for Obama.


by</