This is *Democratic Underground*

[berni_mccoy]

I've seen a number of posts now call out the overwhelming Obama support on this site and saying it has become an Obama fan club. It's true the majority of posters here support Obama. But no one has really discussed why that is. The small number of remaining supporters, while I respect their tenacity, should consider more deeply why they are in such an extreme minority at this point. Here are a few clues as to why this is:

- When a candidate engages in race-baiting tactics, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate blames early losses on Democratic caucuses and African American votes, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.
- When a candidate agrees to the decisions of the DNC before she loses the early primaries, and then wants to change the rules afterward, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate pays over $100,000 per day to a union busting political strategist who is secretly working on Bush's trade deals, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate threatens to use MI and FL as a divisive tool against the nominee if it isn't her, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate endorses the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate allows a surrogate to say her opponent is "lucky to be black" for 12 straight days before stopping her, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate circulates religiously bigoted emails about her opponent and goes on Rush Limbaugh, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate starts working with Ruppert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife for their news media endorsements, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate sits idly by as racially divisive and religiously bigoted attacks come from places like freerepublic and end up on an ABC debate, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate drinks beers and pounds back Royal Crown shots to hypocritically hide her true elitism, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate hires a third party organization to violate election law and suppress the African American vote in NC as well as several other states, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

- When a candidate attacks her opponent on gun laws with a RW-look-alike hit piece and she has the very same stance on gun law, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.

There are many, many more reasons that Clinton herself is providing for the ever decreasing population of Clinton supporters at this site, but I hope the above list is enough to provide some understanding.

[leftofcool]

1. yawn

[shadowknows69]

4. Great non-response. Truth sucks huh?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

253. judging by 211 recommendations leftofcool is in the minority?

[Kurovski]

314. How could there be a response when the OP was never read by that individual?

They posted in under 60 seconds after the OP went up. :D

[Umbram]

5. That's caused by lack of oxygen to your brain. Might want to look into it. (nt)

[pocoloco]

23. Tough to breath with your head up your ass!!

[swimmernsecretsea]

188. LOL! Touché! nt.

[ladywnch]

193. actually that theory about yawning has been disproven for some time now. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

267. That was before this new evidence came to light.

Now I'm a believer.

[ladywnch]

280. evidence? link please

[Jackpine Radical]

285. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5820399&mesg_id=5820406
:rofl:

[ladywnch]

302. so you got nothing which is what I thought.. can't let that elite science stuff get in the way

[Jackpine Radical]

342. Let that elite science stuff get in the way of a joke?

No, I seldom let that happen.

[Atman]

6. So yawned the desperate hanger-on

:eyes:

.

[urgk]

14. Translation....

"I have no real answer for the points you've made. But, in the great
American tradition of picking a team and sticking with it, I will support Hillary
Clinton no matter how amoral, corrupt, disingenuous and underhanded she may become."

[Umbram]

33. Good translation! (nt)

[berni_mccoy]

53. LOL. Well said.

And welcome to DU.

[cstanleytech]

75. I think you might be reading

to much into it.
It could just as well have been a "yawn" of "Here we go again", maybe the poster had not made up their mind who to vote for so why assume they are a hillary supporter?
I know I am tired of all the divisive postings from "both" Hillary and Obama supporters for example here on the forum as it serves no good purpose other than providing more potential ways for the republicans do to drive a wedge into the party when it comes to the real election against McCain.

[frylock]

124. the reply came from IGNORED..

so yeah, they're a die-hard.

[berni_mccoy]

168. Question: do you consider my OP divisive?

[Brundle_Fly]

192. Facts are not divisive.

this post was well written and makes perfect sense...

[cstanleytech]

204. Except this is not about the facts but

how they are being used and abused by everyone.
Its all well and good to point out when the republicans do it like they have done back in 2000 and 2004 but look at whats been going on here on this forum.
You have pro obama and pro hillary people, mostly all democrats at that, attacking and belittling people.......do we really want to run these campaigns the republican way?

[cui bono]

286. You seem to be missing the point that it's Clinton that is doing things the Republican way.

And that's a lot of what the OP is about. The OP isn't smearing Clinton, it points out what she's done and why those tactics lose Dem support. So, yes, it is about the facts.

[cstanleytech]

202. Yes but not anymore than the others have been doing in "both" camps . NT

[berni_mccoy]

210. Interesting. So pointing out divisive acts that a candidate or her campaign commits is divisive?

I just don't get it. You can't call things what they are anymore.

[cstanleytech]

228. When done to an excessive amount like yours and others then yes its divisive.

You and others on both sides who keep this up might end up costing the party the election, I dont know about you but I sure as hell don't want McCain to win.

[berni_mccoy]

232. What is an excessive amount?

[cstanleytech]

235. Check the forums, if you cant tell that its to much

then you might be to invested in seeing your candidate wins at any and all costs.

[berni_mccoy]

238. That's Clinton's mantra. You really believe exposing the truth about a candidate can be excessive?

Wow.

[cstanleytech]

240. Link inside enclosed for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5820399&mesg_id=5826602

[Jester Messiah]

289. Kind of like Wright-fever?

Can't turn on the news or pick up a paper without reading Wright this and Wright that. So kudos to Hillary for showing us how it's done, I guess.

[cstanleytech]

305. Yup. NT

[BigBearJohn]

307. You're preaching to the choir. There are so few Hillary suporters left here, why bother?

It's akin to a bunch people walking around patting each other on the back.
Who's your audience?

[dchill]

329. Your OP is divisive, but only in the sense...

that it separates reality from the Clinton fumes.

[Ken Burch]

257. FYI, that poster is a hardline HRC supporter.

Not a neutral.

[cstanleytech]

262. Well it sure did not sound that way however

regardless if berni_mccoy is a HRC supporter my main point is both HRC and Obama supporters are doing it and its not doing the party as a whole any good at all.
I'm not saying the debating should stop but the name calling, ridicule and outright rudeness should not be a tactic practiced by democrats against democrats atleast not if people really want change and the Bush administration and its policies out.

[cui bono]

287. I don't see any of that in the OP. n/t

[knixphan]

150. LOL!

[ladeyday]

156. Clinton = Bush

[dsharp88]

281. No, Clinton > Bush. Get real. n/t

[verges]

304. And, Obama>Clinton. Got it? n/t

[mrbluto]

311. Edwards > (Obama||Clinton) = Brokered Convention

Edwards is better than Obama or Clinton.

Let's have a brokered convention!

[L0oniX]

157. LMAO

[Cha]

229. Yeah, you came on yesterday and

are able to translate the yawn from my Ignore, expertly! Welcome to DU, urgk~

One thing I would add..

"So what does that say about me?"

[yurbud]

283. simpler translation: ''I'm a shill choosing from a very short list of pat responses.''

''if they want me to be original, they'll have to pay extra.''

[racaulk]

56. The OP was posted at 8:34am EST, you replied at 8:35am EST.

Did you even take time to read and consider the post? :shrug:

[graycem]

68. P'shh

reading and comprehension are not all they're cracked up to be.

[racaulk]

90. LOL. Good point!

I suppose it's easier to be dismissive and closed-minded than to stop and consider that someone who disagrees with you may actually have a valid point.

Go figure. :)

[ladeyday]

162. Closed ears, closed mind..........

[druidity33]

279. Go Mets! nt

[L0oniX]

159. Damn ...I knew I should have taken that speed reading course.

:evilgrin:

[rucky]

95. That's all the time it takes to...

cover your ears and shout "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[L0oniX]

78. Maybe you can get some sleep in my ignore dungeon.

:evilgrin:

[orleans]

119. 120 recommendations and you yawn? gimmie a break. n/t

[Terran]

121. You've given up trying, haven't you?

Just going through the motions at this point? Can't think of a more intelligent comeback than "yawn"? It's understandable.

[Mongooseflies]

140. There are PLENTY of Pro Shrillary sites...

Why not visit Hinessight? He seems to be one of those desperate clingers on.
A guy dedicated to being the anti-druge, has bee 'drudging' obama for weeks...

enjoy!


:popcorn:

[democracy1st]

234. Richard Mellon Scaife

[IronLionZion]

259. hundreds are recommending this thread while you sleep

just as change is sweeping the political landscape while you sleep. It's coming with or without you. You will wake up one morning and enjoy the peace and prosperity that you had no part in bringing about. Goodnight!

[Jackpine Radical]

266. leftofcool?

Genghis Khan is cool?

[shadowknows69]

2. Spot on. Kicked and freaking R'd

Hillary's unpopularity isn't some smear plot by the Obama supporters. She has done this to herself.

[Harry Monroe]

79. Yep, the old adage "give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves"

Sure applies to Hillary in this case. Her wounds are self-inflicted. Ya think after 7 1/2 years of this Administration and its tactics, she'd be smart enough to see that people are sick of this shit, and are hungering for something different. But apparently in her quest to win "at all costs" she thinks the same scorched earth, divisive tactics will work once again and will win her the nomination. Think again, Hillary. She is becoming as delusional as Bushco is.

[eagertolearn]

166. As seen while canvassing for Obama...

The most popular response was "I don't know who I am voting for but I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton". When I asked why? Many said because she was a liar and will say anything just to get the votes. Many said they would vote for a black man before a woman. This is rural Oregon. Kind of interesting.

[pollo poco]

191. kind of stupid

I live in rural Oregon too. Notice, they don't know anything about the candidates. They just think girls have more cooties than blacks.

[Umbram]

3. Yea, I'm sick of seeing the right wing of DU complain they are being subjugated by the masses here.

It is pretty ridiculous.

[knixphan]

153. ditto.

[IsItJustMe]

288. spot on!!!!

[liberaldem4ever]

7. Excellent post-happy to K&R

:kick:

[BattyDem]

8. If I didn't know who you were referring to ...

I'd think it was a Republican. That makes me angry ... and sad. :-(

[babylonsister]

9. Big K and R from me! nt

[Yossariant]

10. Bullshit. Ya bleated what the MSM was selling:

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) _ First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, Turkish media reported Friday.

In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile, the Aksam newspaper said. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher, cushioning the fall, the daily newspaper Aksam reported.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/ap_050708_sheep_deaths.html

[urgk]

17. Yet, this seems as if you are arguing against Hillary supporters.

Hmmmm.

[melody]

36. That's all the Clinton supporters seem to have to throw at the truth -- the "liberal media" bias

Now tell me who is writing your talking points.

[delt664]

142. This is called "Projection"

Republicans seem to have cornered the market on this (example : Rush and drugs) but like all their other shitty habits, this seems to be leaking into the Democratic party via Hillary.

[DawgHouse]

263. Oh my, that's awful!

:cry:

[smiley_glad_hands]

11. K&R eom

[City Lights]

12. K&R

:applause:

[cjsmom44]

13. RE: WELL SAID

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER...

KUDOS

THE TRUTH SPEAKS....

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE WITHOUT ANY INTEGRITY :nopity:

OBAMA 08

[barack the house]

15. Hear because this is a Democratic site and those are not the values that made the party great. Agree

[shaniqua6392]

16. I think many Clinton supporters left DU.

It is just a horrible place for anyone who supports her. There are many other places on the web that are filled with Clinton supporters and they have gone there to feel more welcome. It is a little ridiculous when an Obama supporter posts a hate filled op on what Senator Clinton is wearing and how they hate her suits, etc. Yes, there is actually a post on that subject here today and it received many recommendations the last time I looked. It is that kind of crap that has chased away many people off DU. Both candidates are equally ridiculous when it comes to variations of pandering. She is not the only one. It is what they do.

[berni_mccoy]

25. Those supporters are free to use the tools the board provides: Ignore, DU Groups, Alert

While I agree with you that many have left due to other posters here (it happens all the time, even non-Primary season), the main reason there are so few here has more to do with Clinton herself than other posters here.

[shaniqua6392]

34. Obama supporters seem to be forgetting

that she has the support of almost half of the Democratic Party. You think it is pleasant for people to be constantly bickering and putting people on alert, etc. Yes, many have gone to the other groups on DU. But, many posters are gone and I have not seen their names in months anywhere. The main reason they have left is not because of Clinton herself. That makes no sense due to the fact that they are her supporters! It is directly linked to the treatment they receive since all of this started. I have talked to many of them that just feel like it was taken over by the same 40-50 Obama supporters that constantly post. The GD-P section posters have pretty much taken over that section on DU. Clinton has millions of supporters and votes. Why do DU Obama supporters like to forget that fact? Yes, he is ahead in delegates. But that does not negate the fact that she is very much in the game until the end. There are just more welcoming places than DU for her supporters. That is the bottom line imo.

[Lisa0825]

39. DU doesn't represent half the entire Democratic Party.

DU has always been farther left, more progressive, more activist oriented. A lot of what Clinton gets from the overall Democratic party is based on 1)the conservative wing of the party and 2)Loyalists who think just because her name is Clinton, we owe it to her.

Progressive and truly left leaning sites overwhelmingly do NOT support Clinton. It is true that Obama is not much more progressive than her on a point for point basis, but he is NOT DLC, and he does have a very populist message and campaign.

There are VERY valid reasons why Clinton is not supported at true progressive sites. And when you add up all those reasons, the conclusion is she is NOT a progressive.

The DLC has always been fairly disliked here. This is NOT a new trend.

[LisaM]

132. You think Obama, who thinks abstinence education should be the first prong of sex education

in the schools, is to the left of Hillary?

You are in for a strong dose of waking up and smelling the coffee.

[Lisa0825]

155. I woudl at least give him the chance to make a difference...

whereas Hillary would be her DLC self tyhrough and through. I don't understand how her DU supporters don't get the repulsion many of us feel for the DLC agenda, and Hillary is their poster child.

There are things I like about Obama, and things I disagree with him on, but he is not joined at the hip with a faction of the party that DISGUSTS me the way Hillary is.

[walldude]

161. Obama is for abstinence only education?

Funny, Hillary supporters didn't think so when they played the "Obama hates babies" card. Obama was clearly saying that abstinence education wasn't working, yet Hillary supporters took his comment out of context and claimed that "Obama hates babies". Now you are saying he's for abstinence only education? Make up your mind.

[LisaM]

165. I am repeating what I heard him say in that weird religious forum thingie

When they asked him about abortion rights, he said that we should focus on abstinence education.

[walldude]

171. Well that's really strange because I clearly remember

tons of posts totally trashing Obama for saying he didn't want his teenage daughters "burdened" with a child. The abstinence comment was probably taken out of context. I'm sure Hillary would agree that abstinence is the best way to avoid getting pregnant or getting an STD, it doesn't mean she believes in Bush's abstinence only education crap.

[LisaM]

175. I remember the quote you are talking about

perhaps Obama was pandering to the religious leaders when he said our focus should be on abstinence. I don't know. I do know that it was the question I was most interested in (abortion rights)and I thought Hillary handled it better than he did.

If people would just have the nerve to flat out support abortion rights (most of the country supports them!) it would serve us all better. But they won't. They won't even call it abortion. It has to be "pro-choice" and "pro-life", euphemisms.

[greiner3]

208. I found this article when I googled Obama;

And abstinence;

Does Sen. Obama support comprehensive sexuality education? Does he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?

Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful. While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire

On another site, the catholics are blasting him. One more reason I support Obama!

[LisaM]

218. I know that's what his written record says

But if you watched the compassion forum or whatever it was called, he said we need to focus on abstinence education. So he said two different things, well, that's politics.

[quakerboy]

217. Or perhaps you are both right, and yet wrong.

It is possible to encourage abstinence, work to provide meaningful and realistic sex ed, and to be fully for a womans right to control her own body. All at the same time and without pandering to anyone at all. Freaky.

[IsItJustMe]

291. That's not at all what he said. He said abstinence was one tool amoung others.

[hfojvt]

147. so they can't handle debate?

Although I think it is funny sometimes when I defend Hillary and the 'debate' consists of telling me that I am a typical blind Hillbot when the fact is that I am a founding member of the HHH (Huge Hillary Haters) club.

There is something wrong with our technique though, if we cannot win fellow progressives to our side instead of driving them away. Or the trouble could be their inability to see past their partisanship.

[complain jane]

59. Or, to move on to more mature discussion elsewhere without having to do any of those things.

[peace13]

54. Your thoughts are interesting.

My first pick had elf ears and was too short to be President. Hey, think positively she could change the way that she dresses. Really my point is you have to have thick skin around here. Many of us have had to change and grow throughout this primary season. Hill has had the advantage of owning the press for the two years prior to the primaries. MSM always saying that she would be our nominee. Now when it isn't served up on a platter it is hard to take.

[Arkansas Granny]

103. Having thick skin is something you need to acquire before posting on this board,

but it gets rather tiresome when you have to drag out that damned asbestos suit every time you want to make a comment. It seems that there is something about Obama's message about hope and change that inspires some of the posters on this board to get overly defensive anytime a Hillary supporter wants to make a positive comment about her.

[peace13]

125. Could be.

I think that everybody is ready to have this thing over with. Not meaning that Hill should drop out, just that everyone is tired. Peace, Kim

[ExPatLeftist]

122. "She is not the only one. It is what they do."

It is pretty pathetic when supporters of a particular candidate don't even try to excuse their candidate any more and start with the "everybody does it" chestnut.

For me, the status quo is just not good enough. And this "logic" is akin to, "It is OK for us to bomb 'them' because 'they' behead our soldiers!" I am not into moral relativism. I do not consider one person great simply because he was slightly less horrible than another (that is, the apparent attitude of many in the US toward the world these days).

True leaders stay true to themselves regardless of what others do. Either your candidate has integrity or she doesn't - "everybody else is doing it" is an excuse that stopped working for me in about the third grade.

That being said, please point out when Obama has committed the acts described in the OP - I mean, if every politician does these things, then Obama must have done them as well, right?

I am jaded and therefore reluctant to believe that Obama is the real deal. But I do know one thing - Hillary ain't. The actions described in the OP are part of the reason. If 'just another politician' is OK with you, then that is your choice, but I will not accept that nor ever excuse anyone that I support by claiming that all politicians are like that, or that "it is what they do". If Obama pulled some of this crap, I would not support him either.


I appreciate the OP a great deal. I am tired of hearing people here make excuses and play the victim because their candidate has run a piss-poor campaign and crapped all over herself many times. When a great number of people turn against one, one has to at least consider the possibility that there is not something severely wrong with ALL of them...

[DMorgan]

18. Exactly TRUE!

A good summary on this thread as to why so many good hard-working Democrats here are fed up with Hillary's campaign.

We all know she means well, but she sure isn't proving it with her campaign tactics.

IMO

[Lisa0825]

41. I honestly don't even believe she means well.

I think she's a corporate shill.

[Dhalgren]

49. Clinton and Obama are both corporate shills.

That is all we have to vote for this election, just like every election...

[complain jane]

55. Agreed.

Anyone who believes otherwise is naive, IMO.

[Lisa0825]

60. When you compare where the campaign funds come from

the difference is quite striking.

I don't trust Hillary to reform healthcare when she's in the pocket of pharma and insurance. The DLC is for big business, and we all know which candidate is a DLC leader.

At least with Obama, I feel like there is a CHANCE at reform. With Clinton, it's an impossibility.

[QC]

211. Thanks you! Amazing how few see this. n/t

[chknltl]

A jaywalker and a bank robber are also lawbreakers.

For some here in the DU, understanding the differences is a particularly challanging trick.

[chknltl]

222. I agree and think she is a bigger corporate shill than Sen. Obama

1. She takes on her husband's corporate baggage.
2. The corporations who supported bush knew that she was the expected nominee, they are behind her too and have been.
3. Senator Obama was too much of a long shot early on so those same corporate ties would not be on him as much....YET.

Think about it, if you were a member of the Military Industrial Complex or the Oil Industry who was getting filthy rich because of bush...if you could see the writing on the wall that it would be Democrats taking charge after November '08 what would YOU have done? Would you have sunk millions more for another bush when clearly We The People are sick of bush? Or would you have continued on by courting established Democrats?

Our problems are not the Republicans, it is the corporatists who are taking over our-THE PEOPLES government! The fact that they are so entrenched on the Republican side of the aisle does not mean that they can't perform the same black magic on the Democratic side of the aisle. It is up to us, the supporters of the Democratic Party, (especially up to those who are watching this cancer within our government), to stop the spread and if possible reverse it. Let us not be the dupes that the Republicans were. We do not need Neo-Progs, Neo-Libs or Neo-Mods...let us not allow history to repeat itself over and over at the cost of America's Democracy.

Senator Obama is but the end to swing to corporatism. Now let us push that pendulum BACK the other direction and who knows, perhaps Senator Obama will surprise everyone and lend a hand.

[tomp]

115. we all know she means well?

really?!

[CK_John]

19. DU general supports losers, so that can be righteous and claim "it's not my fault". n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Nah

that's just a list of lies and spin.

[DrDan]

21. uh . . . it is an election cycle . . .

do you really believe what the candidates are saying? If so, this must be your first election.

[Coexist]

22. if the majority of supports of this site support Obama -

then thats just the way it shakes out. Its not DU's fault, the Admin's fault or the poster's fault.

He just 'wins' here.

[polmaven]

92. Supporting Senator Obama is one thing,

but the invective and the absolute hate spewed at the supporters of Senator Clinton is another.

The OP is actually one of the biggest offenders, and, in my opinion, the racist accusations always being made is far from helpful to the Obama campaign, and only serves to help mitigate the charge when it comes to McCain.

I believe the OP KNOWS it isn't true, but continues to make the charges anyway. For what purpose, I can't even hazard a guess.

The Clintons and their supporters are NOT racists. The Clintons and their supporters are good Democrats. They may not be as far to the left as you would like, but that does not make them Republicans. And, also...The two Senators are almost exactly the same on most issues. Constantly charging otherwise would NOT be approved of by Senator Obama, I'm quite sure of that. If he were to come to this site and read some of the things being said in "support" of his candidacy, I think he would be APPALLED! He is a good man. He is NOT a hater. The haters and - yes- I'll say it - the racists on this board do NOT reflect his values.

Rants like this OP are offensive to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

[crankychatter]

134. Invective, Hate and outright RACISM comes from the HRC supporters here

not all but far and away MORE from that side than Obama supporters

I saw some vile filth coming from them when I got here and was SO ALARMED that an AA person... or new voter... would come here and be turned away permanently... perhaps from the Democratic Party.

In one ten minute sweep I document 25-30 Thread headers that were incendiary, inflammatory, racist filth... directed at Obama.

get OVER it... ya'all are the worst and can't own your own to save your life... you don't even care if it destroys the Democratic Party.

Your leader just hit the boneyard... he really was the best of ya... smarter, faster and better...

I guess he was just so prolific it was inevitable

THAT HIS TRUE COLORS WOULD SLIP OUT EVENTUALLY

what are YOUR true colors?

victim posturing is just a deflection tactic with no merit or substance

[polmaven]

145. Please show me some of that

"vile filth" and "outright racism" from HRC supporters, and that the majority of the hate comes from us.

My "leader"????? Excuse me???? Senator Clinton's supporters are not a cult, we are on the whole NOT racists, and I resent your question about my "true colors". I have been a member here for a very long time, and I will continue to be a member here, despite your remarks. If you took some time to look at some of my posts, you will see that I am a Democrat. I was born a Democrat and will die a Democrat. Support for someone other than YOUR choice does not make me otherwise, and does NOT make me a racist!

And, by the way, if victim posturing is just a deflection tactic with no merit or substance, don't you think the same applies to charging racism any time anyone disagrees with you?

Racism is not a term to be thrown around haphazardly, and you are just going to have to prove it.

Grow up!

[delt664]

163. You answered the question from your first sentance with the second.

This cult/koolaid thing is ridiculous. It is so incredibly elitist and condescending. And can be applied to any Hillary supporter with at least as much validity.

And I happen to agree with you with regards to the racist and misogynist memes. It should not be tossesd around so casually. In either camp.

[polmaven]

172. I did not call

the supporters of Senator Obama a cult.....I stated the Senator Clinton's supporters are NOT a cult, in response to the poster's reference to a TSd member as our "leader".

[delt664]

182. Eh, I took that as a backhanded way of tossing out the cult barb again

If it was not intended as such, my apologies.

[polmaven]

183. Accepted!

I kind of figured that is what you had in mind.......:toast:

[Rockholm]

220. I would say the same exact thing about Obama supporters.

Invective....check
Hate.........check
Racism.......check
Misogyny.....check

All Directed at Hillary and her supporters.

[katerinasmommy]

149. Racists

I don't think the Clintons are at all racist actually. I just think they use race in order to gain votes.

[polmaven]

178. And, pray tell,

what is the difference?

[delt664]

160. Most of this is valid....

Realize the hate being spewed goes both ways. People on both sides are guilty, and I am not going to sit here and try to point the finger at who started it. It doesnt matter. This is about candidates, not supporters.

That being said, yes, Clinton and Obama are very similar when it comes to issues. What this means is that people in the Democratic party have to focus on the small differences, and use other measuring sticks to choose their candidate. In this race, the way each campaign has been run has been a major deciding factor for voters.

From where I stand, Clinton has been engaging in the "Politics as usual" while Obama has been doing his best to stick to the issues and hold the higher ground. Yes each candidate has engaged in some pandering, but that is to be expected. I honestly feel that its not harmful in anyway.

Personally, I try to stick to the candidates and issues (hence my extremely low post count) and wish everyone would do the same. Supporters on both side have been behaving badly. But not in this OP. Most of its points are valid.

[berni_mccoy]

180. I feel sorry for you. Choosing blind fanaticism over seeing the truth...

That's what you have become.

[polmaven]

200. If you look at some of my other posts,

you will discover that is a completely erroneous conclusion.

I am neither blind not fanatical. Supporting a candidate other that the one whom you support does not make me either. I am, however, a DEMOCRAT! Democrats, to the best of my knowledge, are still allowed to disagree with each other.

Hold your sympathy for someone who needs it. I certainly do not!

[LWolf]

24. And, of course,

those of us who do not support either of the two, and are Democrats as well as democrats, are entirely ignored.

It is entirely possible to think that BOTH of these candidates are bad for the party and for the nation.

Not all those who are sick of the "Obama fan club" phenomenon are Clinton supporters.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Count me in with that

I find them both to be equally objectionalbe in slightly varied ways. Obama voted for the Patriot Act, Cheney's Engergy Bill, all that war funding, he used gay baiting evangelicals to pander to religious bigots, and yet some refuse to see any of that. The man defends Blackwater Mercs. Love nuclear energy. Voted for gas tax holidays in Ill three times.
In addition, I find it amazing that any Democrats can define themselves entirely with a candidates image. Do any of these candidate boosters have issues or principles that matter to them? Congressional candidates? Or is it just a universe of people who spent a year wanting to hang Pelosi and Reid for funding the war, and now support other Senators who funded the war?
I wish we had a Progressive leaning candidate, and while I used to blame the media, I now blame the rank and file, who reject non profit health care because Obama and Hillary reject it, and so on.

[madmom]

52. I can agree with this, I'm finding both candidates are not to my liking, but

I guess our votes aren't needed (according to some supporters) but they are in for a rude awakening when they find they can't do it without the ENTIRE dem voting block.

[Olney Blue]

275. madmom- that puzzles me too- we all need to band together after this

primary, and it seems like supporters in both camps don't keep that in mind-
why can't we support our individual candidates without getting attacked! I don't understand the venom..... it doesn't help one's candidate!

[LWolf]

300. You're speaking from where I sit.

Why won't Democratic voters vote/walk their talk?

[Dhalgren]

51. I'm with you 100% on this!

The "people" will not be represented in the WH next year regardless of you is elected...

[EstimatedProphet]

64. Well said!

[TahitiNut]

83. I definitely find myself in the "lesser evil" camp again.

My nose is so bruised from holding it over the years that I have some greater limits. That said, I wouldn't dismiss the "inspiration" vote. Yes, it's an ephemeral ... and often vanishes in the cold light of dawn. The question is, as always, what over-the-horizon "Oz" does that "inspiration" envision and is Dorothy able to keep walking?

As I've said before, there's very little 'daylight' between their campaign positions and records, but the little that exists favors Obama, imho. In terms of the manner in which they've managed their campaigns - organization and tenor - Obama demonstrates clear superiority.

I CAN manage to hold my bruised nose enough to vote for Obama. Sadly, the pain is far too great for me to vote for Clinton. I voted for Kucinich - and it was IGNORED by the Democratic Party. When THEY ignore ME, they have absolutely NO claim on my vote. They've not INVESTED in confronting me or my Michigan neighbors and addressing our concerns. We're morally and politically free to "return the favor" and tell 'em to go to hell.

[LWolf]

301. I hear you.

:(

[unc70]

323. Much the same for me, but I was forced to a different conclusion

As an Edwards supporter, I watched Obama attack Boomers, the 60's, and our core values with the language of Helms and Reagan. While Obama flashed a big smile and told a life story that seemed unbelievable (and with good reason), his campaign was very good with the old politics offstage.

Allegations of racism by others arrived like terror alerts before each contest, as did rumors of pending endorsements just after the contest. Seemed almost like "pump and dump".

Accusations that Edwards was just another racist white man keeping the black man down.

After reading a lot of other sources and trying to resolve the differences with his books, when I looked at the things he left out and why the timelines don't work together, etc. I found things that will cause more problems than Wright has, I decided that I shall vote for Clinton in NC.

Given the eagerness of AP and others to spread every allegation about Edwards or Clinton, why have the LA Times allegations involving Robert Blackwell and Obama concerning money laundering been ignored for over a week?

[racaulk]

93. I totally agree.

I don't have a horse in the race this year, and I couldn't be happier. I have objections to both candidates for different reasons, but ultimately I will vote for the person who receives the Dem nomination. Despite their faults, they're both a heck of a lot better than McCain!

[LibDemAlways]

109. I agree with you. I don't like either of them, and think

we, as Dems, could have done better. This should have been the year in which the repukes basically flew the white surrender flag as we steamrolled to victory. Instead we're stuck with the Bickersons while grandpa McCain is being touted by the media as an independent maverick war hero, and the polls are uncomfortably close.

Leave it to the Dems to screw up bigtime.

[susanwy]

185. Agreed!

Thanks for voicing the opinions of many who are just plain worried we, again, have not put up the best we can as a candidate. And all because the MSM and the party want to make history. It is pathetic. Thankfully the republicans put up a LAME candidate as well. We might squeak it out, but I doubt it at this point.

[Forkboy]

203. What he said.

[Arkansas Granny]

26. And since it is *Democratic Underground* it seems to me that all Democratic

candidates should be shown at least a little bit of respect on this board regardless which one you support. It's possible to express your disagreement with a candidate on policy and positions without completely trashing them and their supporters. Many of the Clinton supporters have quit posting in GD-P because it has become a very unfriendly place for them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

246. your argument would have been taken more seriously had Ms. Clinton

not began using rightwing tactics against one of our very own. Respect is "EARNED", and nothing Ms. Clinton has done since Super Tuesday has shown me that she deserves my respect. Indeed, she has taken this opportunity to position herself even further to the right, spouting the same talking points as John McCain. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[Kittycat]

27. K&R

[TheDudeAbides]

28. Actually, it's pretty simple

The noise-to-signal ratio is too high for most people who are busy.
Fortunately, I'm not that busy right now ;-)

I think the Obama "swarm" not only drives away Clinton supporters, but
even Obama supporters who are intellectually engaged. People get tired of
the adolescent pile-on / bury tactics used here by "The Obama Swarm".

I encounter lots of ex-DUers from both camps (Obama and Clinton).
Too bad because I hear this used to be a great place to exchange ideas and learn.

The Swarm makes it very difficult to carry on civil, stimulating discussions...
and I suspect that is precisely it's purpose.

[ElboRuum]

57. Stick It Out

Primaries bring out the bullshit. This has always been the way. Those of us who were here in 2004 are WELL acquainted with this phenomenon.

Once this whole thing is settled out, you'll see the reasonable people make their triumphant return, while those who have been perpetrating the nonsense, having no real purpose but to antagonize and engage in bombast will either leave of their own accord out of boredom or be driven off when the "civility" rule comes back into play as Skinner has stated will happen (I believe) one week after the nominee is declared.

In the meanwhile, I avoid GD:P (yes, I'm leaving the smiley in) like the plague.

[TheDudeAbides]

61. Got it; many thanks for the explanation n/t

[smoogatz]

29. Well said. k/r

[meow mix]

30. K&R

thanks for tellin it how it is

[IsItJustMe]

31. This isn't the Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh or Fox News Hillary supporters. DEAL WITH IT!!!

You're no longer in Kansas Totto.

[TexasObserver]

32. Hillary does not represent the views and conduct we respect. It's that simple.

If it were not for her lying, cheating, and other disreputable conduct the past four months, she would have dropped out long ago.

We have not had such an ego maniac running for president in decades in our party, and we haven't had such a person totally devoid of Democratic principles since George Wallace ran. In fact, she's the second coming of George Wallace.

When she's talking, she's lying. You cannot find in her history as a senator anything to support the themes she is now delivering. She will literally say anything to any crowd to gain a momentary advantage.

[complain jane]

58. Neither do many Obama supporters here.

I can't support anything represented by obnoxious, overbearing, all-caps-typing, hostile, demeaning activists either. If I wanted that I'd vote Republican.

[AspenRose]

84. An observation to your response

The poster you responded to was talking about Hillary...the actual candidate.

Your response was talking about Obama supporters....not the actual candidate.



Just an observation.

[ExPatLeftist]

126. Excellent point

I have been trying to point this out as well, but so many people here want to play the "Well, an Obama supporter said this yesterday, so I am voting for Clinton!" game (or VICE VERSA).

It truly amazes me that adults can actually think like that...

[TexasObserver]

199. Agreed. Thinking adults choose the candidate THEY like.

It has nothing to do with the supporters, because as soon as one picks a candidate, he or she becomes part of the supporters.

There is misconduct by supporters on both sides, but that misconduct is not the reason anyone chooses to support one or the other of the candidates. It's downright silly for someone to say "well I support Hillary because Obama supporters are so hateful!" No, they don't. They support Hillary because they support Hillary, and they find the Obama supporters offensive because they support Obama.

[complain jane]

293. Er...

no, I find some of the Obama supporters offensive because some of the Obama supporters are offensive.

It's really just as simple as that.

[ExPatLeftist]

326. Then by all means, find those INDIVIDUALS offensive

But what has that got to do with Obama himself and his other supporters that do not act like that?

I have been offended by many people throughout my life, but I did not ask them what candidate they support and then vote for the other. In fact, that sounds like it would be a fairly childish thing to do, doesn't it?

[complain jane]

292. Seriously?

You seriously think that a bunch of loudmouthed obnoxious zealots are NOT going to turn people off of their candidate?

When I'm in the booth I'm voting for the Dem. That's without question.

However, if the Dem is Obama, I think it sucks that I'm voting in spite of his "base" and why is some of his base so rude, arrogant and hostile to begin with?

Don't you think that people have a legitimate concern as to what kind of a candidate attracts these kinds of people?

Coming to a board that's supposed to be "Democratic" and being told that a candidate is basically going to be forced on me by that candidate's "supporters" and insisting I vote for him because not doing so somehow makes me less of a Democrat than they are is pretty friggen ludicrous.

It amazes you that adults can think like that? As opposed to what, not thinking?

[ExPatLeftist]

325. As opposed to thinking as an adult

and realizing that there are loudmouthed idiots that support EVERY candidate and therefore ignoring them and judging the candidates on their own merits. I have seen equally offensive idiots that happen to support both current Democratic candidates, and I see them as just that - IDIOTS that happen to support a candidate. I have seen just as obnoxious "zealots" on both sides, as I am sure you have, yet I do not see you railing that this minority of obnoxious Hillary supporters are souring you on her candidacy...

Trying to make a judgment of a "typical" supporter based on some selected postings by the loudest of the fools simply adds you to their number. Rather than listening to the candidates, you listen to a small cross-section of their supporters which you misguidedly choose to dub the "base", and then choose your candidate based on the words of those fools rather than the merits of the candidate - whether that choice is in support of or contrary to the wishes of those fools does not matter - you are admitting to allowing the ranting of imbeciles help you decide who you will vote for for President. What do you think that says about you?

You almost got it when you said, "why is some of his base so rude, arrogant and hostile to begin with?", but not quite. Here you assume that they were his supporters first and then started the rudeness... But the fact is that many people are simply rude, hostile and arrogant to begin with. Those schmucks need to vote too, and tend to be loud about it. Some of those rude, hostile and arrogant people chose to support McCain. Some chose to support Clinton. Some chose to support Obama. And you are openly admitting that because of those dipshits that chose to support Obama, you will not support him (ignoring the other idiots that chose otherwise, apparently).

This is not about the quantity of idiots (though I would suggest that your biased and anecdotal experience is not the best way to judge the quantity of the loudmouths), or the constant attempts by people like you to paint all or most supporters of a candidate with the same brush based on the actions of a relative few. It is about the absolute illogic of selecting who you will vote for based not on the candidates themselves, but rather on some judgment of the supporters over which those candidates have no control. It simply and utterly does not make sense.

"I can't vote for Steve because Mary is voting for Steve and Mary is a total bitch!" I had hoped that we could leave THAT kind of thinking in the high schools where it belongs. This primary is making those hopes seem quite optimistic.

[complain jane]

347. Apparently

you didn't bother to actually read my post. The part that said I would vote for Obama if he was the candidate.

Try reading the whole post before berating me for not supporting Obama because of others' behavior.

What I SAID WAS, I think it sucks that I'm voting for a candidate in spite of his loudmouthed obnoxious supporters. I WILL support him in the election, but in spite of them.

Y'know, the kind that don't absorb someone else's point of view before assuming they know better and steamrolling right over the dialogue.

PS for the record as I've said elsewhere, I didn't vote in the primary because I actually liked both candidates. My questioning of why Obama seems to have droves of unsavory zealots in his camp now is not invalidated by that, either.

[ExPatLeftist]

348. Oh, I read your whole post - all of them in this thread, actually.

And your logic is fatally flawed and your inclusion of nominal supporters' words and actions in your decision making is not only illogical, but immature and mind-boggling. And your "concern" and "wondering why he 'attracts so many'... X" seems more than slightly disingenuous given that there are loudmouthed assholes supporting every candidate.

[complain jane]

349. Well, thank you for illustrating my point.

I don't recall anyone complaining about a problem with loudmouthed assholes swarming the board shoving Kucinich, Edwards or even Clinton down anybody's throat to the point where it caused a posting maximum for new threads in GDP.

Clearly it's become a common theme for many Obama supporters to insult another poster for their thoughts if they aren't in lockstep with theirs, and I'm not sure what the defensive tone is all about.

But again, thank you for illustrating my point.

[delt664]

169. And there lies the rub.

We need to create an "Ad Hominem" strike force that will immediately shame anyone for such posts.

Actually, nah, that would never work. We would need 40 or 50 people working round the clock to keep up.

[TexasObserver]

201. It's fair to attack the candidates. It's not fair to target their supporters.

Any time anyone leaps into that territory, they've gone the wrong way. Hating Hillary or hating Obama is as American as apple pie. Hating other posters because they choose to support someone we don't care for - that's just silly grade school animus.

[complain jane]

294. It's fair to wonder why so many hostile supporters are drawn to Obama.

It's fair to wonder why so many Obama supporters seem to be overbearing and offensive.

[ExPatLeftist]

327. Because there are so many overbearing and offensive people

and they have only 3 candidates to choose from. Therefore, Obama is bound to end up with a large number of that type of supporters. It's really THAT simple.

Or you could ignore logic and start to wonder if it is maybe some sort of mind control...

[TexasObserver]

195. Thank you. I address the conduct of the candidate, not the supporters.

The reason 90% of DU reject Hillary is because of Hillary, not because of her supporters.

Anyone who says they choose a candidate based upon some reaction to the candidate's supporters is simply not being truthful. We choose who we support based upon how that candidate appeals to us. Hillary has been stuck at her tiny percentage here for a long, long time. As candidates have fallen out, most of the supporters of those other candidates have supported Obama. Those of us who shifted from Edwards or someone else, did so because we believe Obama is much closer to our values than Hillary.

Frankly, I don't think Hillary has any values. She's for Hillary, and everything she does is aimed at satisfying some ego need she has.

[complain jane]

290. Why does Obama attract this kind of supporter?

[ExPatLeftist]

127. There are assholes that support every candidate, ever

so does that mean that you will just stop voting altogether?

Come on, seriously - are you completely incapable of ignoring the idiots and judging the candidates on their own merits? Or will it always be about who (in your limited anecdotal observation) has the "nicer supporters"?

TOTAL DISCONNECT.

[TexasObserver]

197. Correct. It wouldn't matter if we said "pretty please" in every post.

We reject Hillary, and those who worship Hillary find THAT offensive, no matter how it is said.

She's a dishonest person who lies so much it is impossible to keep track of all of them. She has sold out the party on many key issues, like Lieberman, and the things she has said and done the past three months disqualify her from representing the Democratic party.

[complain jane]

296. Maybe those who "worship" her do, but I do not.

Believe it or not some of us who do not "worship" Obama read both sides' posts and that of those in between.

I don't find your post offensive, and what you have to say about Clinton doesn't make me think you're one of the obnoxious Obama supporters I was referring to.

Reject her or anyone else all you want. There's a big difference between that and demeaning other posters.

[Rockholm]

221. Is that the collective "we" or maybe just you.

Hillary DOES represent most of MY views. If Obama had not been coasting along all these months and not been receiving the scrutiny he deserves, he would have dropped out months ago.

Considering some of the sites (professional) that I subscribe to, if Obama is the nominee, it will be "all Muslim all day." And if you want exact quotes, I will provide them. You have absolutely no idea what is going to be (unfairly) directed his way.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. when org of former chief of staffs of candidates launch 182,236 robo calls

thats a sign something is very very wrong with the candidate.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/05/nc-naacp-files-formal-vote-suppression.asp

[K Gardner]

37. Absolutely spot-on, Bernie. Thank you !

[Maribelle]

38. Actually Hillary has not lost many supporters here on DU.

They've left and gone elsewhere because they cannot stand the lies and hatred anymore, more often than not aimed directly at her supporters. They are still supporting her wholeheartedly.


Hillary does not quit - neither will they.

[a la izquierda]

46. I hope to god she loses tomorrow.

Then, even her senior staff have said she'll quit.
Sorry, I supported "your girl" when she announced her bid. Even though I thought it was a crock o' bull when she ran for NY Senator (I'm originally from NJ-most NJ folks were shocked she was able to get elected). I think she has run a conniving, disgusting campaign.

And now, as I type this, her campaign is planning on using a nuclear option to seat Michigan and Florida?
*ch-ch-change....change the rules*

[ExPatLeftist]

130. Where do you get your statistics for this?

Here's ONE she lost here, and in spades.

I am sure there are plenty more. But it is easy to say "not many" or "most" or whatever when you have no clue what the numbers are.

[ekwhite]

40. Great post Bernie

I have gone from "she's a good candidate, but I don't want to see Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton," to actively loathing HRC. My turning point was her statement that only she and McCain were qualified to be president. One rule I believe in: any Democratic candidate for president is better than ANY Republican candidate for president.

[lwcon]

42. You confused me at #1

"- When a candidate engages in race-baiting tactics, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

I thought you were trying to make a case for Obama.

http://www.correntewire.com/youre_a_racist


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[georgecolombo]

43. That About Says It All

There are probably two or three (or more) others that you might have thrown in, but you've basically made the point.

[ruggerson]

44. Most of the netroots, being younger (generalizing) are pro Obama

It's not just a DU phenomenom.

In real life, Democrats are split right down the middle.

[Rottenmac]

47. Aside from the bits...

about the beer & Crown Royal (Why didn't she do a shot of Beam or Jack...?) I agree. Obama had his crappy bowling moment (with beer, I believe...) as well.

But yeah, she is in it for herself and no-one in the US owes her anything. Just as no-one in the US owes Obama anything. I think he would be a better leader, and she would serve the more conservative side of politics. (That includes right-leaning liberals as well as corporatists, and rethugs...)

She doesn't bring anything more to the table than he does basically; he just does it without waddling waist deep into the political sewage to do it.

That's my .013 cent.

[Window]

48. Great post.

:kick:

[goclark]

50. Bravo for you

and your post is just the tip of a huge iceberg in May.
:patriot:

[tammywammy]

62. Recommended

[mtnsnake]

63. This is the Anti-Clinton Underground

where all Clinton haters in the country come to congregate with like-minded people, all in the cause for spreading hatred about the Clintons. It might not have been intended to be that, but that's the way it's worked out for the last few years and counting.

[berni_mccoy]

66. I'm sorry that you feel this way. I think there is more anger here than hate

And the anger is rightfully placed on Clinton. She has betrayed many of the principles that the Democratic party is founded on. Many feel betrayed by her tactics, words and stances.

[mtnsnake]

69. No problem. BTW, DU became The Anti-Clintons Underground long before Obama ran for President

Word has gotten out that if you hate the Clintons, this is the place to come.

[here_is_to_hope]

114. And yet, here you are....n/t

[Harry Monroe]

86. I don't hate the woman...

...but I am ANGRY at and HATE the despicable way she has run her campaign. I've had enough of negative, scorched earth politics. We, as a people, have seen enough of that these past 7 1/2 years and are sick of it. We long for something new and different. Hillary ain't it. She is playing the same old tired worn out and discredited political bullshit game which has helped get this country into the mess it currently is in. Sorry Hillary, we ain't buying it any longer.

[TahitiNut]

89. Poor Nell.

:eyes:

[ExPatLeftist]

328. I think you have confused hatred

with anger at specific actions by the candidate.

I for one used to love both of the Clintons. The tactics in this campaign are appalling. Maybe you disagree, that is fine - but don't try to make those of us that voice their concerns and anger out to be driven by blind hatred.

Unfortunately, Hillary made her own bed and now she must lie in it. I would have loved to support her to the end. Now I cannot, based on her own actions, not some pre-exisiting "hate" as you would like to naively (or disingenuously) surmise.

[LittleClarkie]

65. I've been here since 2004. She never seemed to have alot of support here anyway

I was surprised when someone disputed that. Her supporters and the supporters of the DLC always seemed somewhat beleaguered to me.

Not to mention that I thought Hillary was a centrist rather than a progressive, but someone got upset with me for saying that too. On a site with many progressives on it, she didn't have alot of fans it seemed to me.

[TexanIndian]

67. Are you saying that Dems are overwhelmingly pro-Obama?

If Dems are overwhelmingly pro-Obama, then why the heck does he have such a hard time to close the deal? People don't want to say openly that they do not support Obama because that may be construed as being racist.

Race has nothing to do with this race, sure.. That is why 80% of African Americans support one candidate over another. I get it now, we don't want to "talk" about race and how it influences people's decisions, but we would condone it indirectly by ignoring it?

For the record, I am of color and not part of the 80% crowd.

[berni_mccoy]

72. No. I'm explaining why there is an ever shrinking number of Hillary supporters at this site.

DU does not represent the party at large.

[TexanIndian]

76. Thanks for the clarification

DU does not represent the party at large.

If that is true, then we can no longer make the following statements, agreed?

Just because DU'ers think that the longer Hillary stays in the race, the harder it will be for Obama to win in November.

Just because DU'ers think Hillary is obnoxious, democrats feel much the same way.

Just because DU'ers think Obama is a great leader, democrats feel much the same way.

Perfect!! Basically what is expressed as opinion(s) in DU has little (if any) resemblance to the registered Democrats' opinion(s).

In essence DU isn't really DU, but OU (Obamabot Underground)...

[berni_mccoy]

85. Your argument is not logical. Just because DU doesn't represent the views of the larger party

Doesn't make it an Obama Fan Club. Nice try to link it that way though. If it were an Obama Fan Club, I'm sure all Hillary Supporters would be banned the same way that Freepers are. And yet, Hillary supporters either choose to change sides and support Obama or they choose to leave. No mod or admin is telling them they can't stay and participate in the discussion.

[cornermouse]

268. You're right.

Generally speaking fan clubs tend to be friendly and fun.

[ExPatLeftist]

141. Flawed logic.

While I agree that, at times, what "DUers" think (another underlying fallacy there) does not represent the general attitude of Democrats as a whole, you try to take this a step further into Fallacyland - that because they are not NECESSARILY representative or identical, you make the logical jump to "what is expressed as opinion(s) in DU has little (if any) resemblance to the registered Democrats' opinion(s)." No, the opinions may or may not be similar for any subject. Basically, we simply know that this similarity is not a given, not that dissimilarity is a given - as you claim.

Also wanted to point out that we are all individuals. Saying things like "DUers think" shows a black and white mentality with no basis in reality. In a group of 100 people, you will find 100 different opinions on most subjects unless you go for easy (and fallacious) generalizations. The use of the word "Obamabots" only underlines that for me. IMO if we held INDIVIDUALS to task for their own actions rather than making blanket generalizations with accompanying name calling, then we would be a lot better off. BushCo succeeded, at least for a time, in convincing people to lump others together, label them and go for "class-action punishment" rather than going after those that were actually at fault. We can all see how that black and white mentality works out for us...

[delt664]

How about this.

I wont pretend that Hillary doesnt have the support of about half of the party, and you wont pretend Obama doesnt have the support of about half of the party. And as an olive branch, I will ignore Rush's Operation Chaos when discussing these numbers.

Deal?

[Javaman]

70. ...

:popcorn:

These types of posts never disappoint. :)

carry on.

[quantass]

71. k&r

[Stinky The Clown]

73. I'm a Democrat and i feel marginalized on this site because I do NOT support Obama OR Clinton

I really dislike both of them, for very different reasons. Yet I get caught in the same spew that goes out towards Clinton.

There are some really fucked up Obama supporters on this site. Really fucked up, crazy people.

Not most. Just some. But they're very vocal. And very indiscriminate in who they attack.

Yes, 'attack'.

So yeah ..... it often seems like Obama Underground even when one is not a Clinton supporter.

[cstanleytech]

80. *shrug* I liked John Edwards. NT

[berni_mccoy]

81. When I see someone like that, I tend to put them on ignore.

I don't like to use ignore, and I give people multiple chances, but sometimes, you just have to do it. I have been likewise attacked by Clinton supporters. Check out the response below about shoving my post where the sun-don't shine.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

77. Can I add one more?

When a candidate exploits working people by using the "gas tax holiday" - a very bad Repuke "idea" - to try to win a few votes, that person will lose support from this site.

[chill_wind]

82. Another rec. And bookmarked. Lest we ever forget. n/t

[elocs]

87. I live in Wisconsin and had decided to support Edwards, then he suspended his campaign.

My choice was then between Clinton or Obama. Clinton did nothing to inspire and had the attitude that the nomination was hers and how dare this upstart senator from Illinois interfere with her plans. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and to tell the truth I did not want him anywhere near the White House (let him do good works with Papa Bush). So my obvious choice was Obama and since the Wisconsin primary Clinton has convinced me by her actions that I made the right choice.

After Wisconsin, Obama was on a pedestal as far as attaining the nomination. Clinton decided that it was then appropriate and justified for her to do anything and everything to knock Obama down. Like the analogy of two quarterbacks on the same team competing for the starting job, she felt there was nothing wrong with knee-capping Obama or doing anything it took for her to win the starting job, even if it hurt the team. She claimed that she and Republican John McCain were qualified to be Commander in Chief, but all Obama had done was to have made a speech. That's low, but if I were running McCain's campaign I would be sure to use that quote by her. She is willing to attempt to dig up any dirt on Obama, claiming that a dust bunny is actually a huge monster. She is also more than willing to throw stones, forgetting the glass house in which she lives.

Yes, the longer this goes on the more convinced I am that I made the right choice in supporting Obama.

[speedoo]

88. K&R. Great post. nt

[Guava Jelly]

91. What a laundry list.

Even without all of that.
People vote for who they like, and Obama has a higher approval/likability rating than Clinton.
Hence a better chance of beating McCain.

[BooScout]

94. You ran off everyone else.....that's why.

It's not a matter of people throwing their support to Obama in vast numbers. People have been run off DU in droves. Does that make you proud? Does that show how Obama unites everyone?

[ExPatLeftist]

343. Some people HERE are acting like assholes and others are leaving because of it

Perhaps that is true.

But tell me, how do you make the leap that somehow Obama is therefore not a uniter because of the actions of people with which he has nothing to do?

[me b zola]

96. Thanks, Bernie

Recommended.

[suston96]

97. When a forum board with over 120,000 subscribers loses so many posters for any reason.....

....that is a big problem.

[mod mom]

100. Did they leave? I thought they were just on my ignore list and I wasn't seeing their posts.

I know they are boycotting Kos and if you read comments at TPM or HuffPo you'll find little support from them there. Perhaps their funding ran dry.

[AlinPA]

98. OK, I said I would vote for Clinton if she is nominated. But if she keeps insulting

Obama and supporters with these things listed here, then it will be really hard to do. It's pretty bad, because I'm starting to feel that I need to be convinced that she is worse than McCain now-he has not done 1/2 of those things.

The speech in RI started all this (her insulting and mocking "Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.") started all this.

[Bette Noir]

99. Well said.

But I do like her hairdo.

[WA98296]

101. K&R. Great post.

[LoZoccolo]

102. Recommended! n/t

[grantcart]

104. simple and great

[mopinko]

105. when a candidate sends newt gingrich out to flat out lie about the viability

of your campaign by insisting that you can still win based on a number that does not exist, and would not count if it did, that candidate will lose support on this site.

[happygoluckytoyou]

106. IN THE GREAT TRADITION OF VOTE FOR ME OR ELSE.......

LIARMAN..... VOTE FOR ME OR I WILL RUN AS AN INDEP.

RALPH "vote for me or i'll split the party" NADER

------Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

[Overseas]

107. Hillary Supporters don't realize how many of us have changed

As a member of a presumably HRC-supporting demographic, I have changed my mind since her team began slipping race baiting tactics into the campaign. I held out much more respect for HRC until Bill started the race baiting, which her whole campaign continued echoing, as noted above. Furthermore, not letting the Wright issue rest after the very distinguished speech on race that Obama delivered in response to the initial smearing-by-proxy, was also racist. I was glad to hear Michael Moore express my feelings on that issue very well on Larry King last week. Others (except right wing extremists) were willing to let the matter rest, but the HRC team kept mentioning "the Rev Wright problem," which allowed the shameless lazy cable TV media to keep the easy slander topic alive. They had their hot clips and the HRC team ready to wave it around some more to win at all costs. "That's just politics," doesn't work here. The cruel and illogical right wing can use those tactics, but it is disgusting to see prominent Democratic party elders doing the same. We wanted to see HRC and BHO both attack McSame and let us see which one we'd like to continue doing so in the general election. The Tanya Harding strategy has deprived us of the intense critiques of the Bush-McCain years that we've been craving.

[TheDudeAbides]

133. What if Obama and Jesse Jackson were Asian American; would Bill's comment still be race baiting?

just trying to understand the boundaries of "race baiting"
thanks

[P0pEye]

108. maybe all the Hillary supporters are getting banned ...

Then Hillary or ... "that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

[berni_mccoy]

112. They are getting banned for violating DU rules and attacking the mods and admins

They are not being banned for who they support.

[Apollo11]

110. Your list contains smears, lies and exaggerations.

Hillary endorsed McCain? She "pounds back shots"? She "circulates bigotted e-mails"?


How does this make you any better than those who throw mud at Senator Obama? :eyes:

SHAME ON YOU!

[berni_mccoy]

113. The Truth makes me better than mud-throwers. The fact that you can not see the truth

I can not help you with.

[delt664]

181. I am interested in your counter arguments.

I have seen the clip of Hillary saying that she was electable, and McCain (THE ENEMY) was electable, and that Obama only had a speech. There is an implied endorsement there. If you disagree, please explain why.

The shots thing is really a non-issue IMO politicians pander, and it dont think its worth much brain power. Some people are swayed by it and others see it for what it is. Who cares.

The email thing, if I remember correctly, was regarding the picture of Obama in Islamic garb. I thought that it was verified that those went through Hillary's campaign office, but if you have evidence that this never happened, I would be very interested in seeing it.

[livetohike]

111. When live calls go out before the PA primary questioning Obama's

patriotism - certain PA DUers get pissed.

[lefty2000]

116. When You Slander The Candidates of Other DU Members

They will naturally go away and you guys wind up talking to each other.

Enjoy! Enjoy!

[berni_mccoy]

118. I see plenty of Obama-haters like yourself who are still here who are responding to this thread.

[Catherine Vincent]

117. Yet another dung infested thread from an Obama supporter.

:boring:

[mcollier]

120. You'll be in company at ABCNews and Fox News...

Their 90% Clinton supporters, also not very good with math...

[Triana]

123. Thank You. Well said.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. ROFLMAO!!!! Oh What A Crock Of Shit. Do You Actually Believe This Stuff? LOL

Let's face it: So many here support Obama merely because they're wagon jumping knee jerkers with little if any ability for critical thought, open mindedness, objectivity and rationality. This site is full of zealots that can't even begin to view things on their merits and worship obama for all the wrong reasons, and hate Hillary due to their limited and narrow focus.

Sure, there are many that support Obama legitimately and sincerely. But c'mon, do you really believe DU is a fair playing field as it relates to judging the candidates on their merits and choosing appropriately? What a hoot! LOL

[Umbram]

138. "This site is full of zealots..."

"do you really believe DU is a fair playing field as it relates to judging the candidates on their merits and choosing appropriately?"

No. It is not a fair playing ground - it is heavily slanted towards progressive thinking.

One is only a "zealot" if you disagree with the "zealot", otherwise they are an advocate.

As far as "critical thought" goes, no you will not see a great deal of that here on either side. I'm sure you'll do your part to raise the bar by not engaging in this sort of rhetoric in the future.

[Quixote1818]

271. Most DUers were not Obama supporters but Edwards supporters

Not exactly prime meat to become zealots.

Many of us use to like Hillary and even voted for her only to see her begin to do all the things on the list plus some. My Dad voted for Hillary and now is fully in opposition to her because of her alignment with McCain comments. That was the turning point when he began to change his mind. I changed my mind after Obama won SC and the Clinton's started race baiting to try to get Obama to respond and look like the "Black" candidate. We have seen all this with Rove and we are sick of it.

Note: Over 250 recommends and counting. Should be enough to make you think a little bit about laughing at the OP's points. Unless you can counter those points one by one I wouldn't laugh to hard.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

274. Race Baiting LMAO!!!!!!

There was race baiting, but it wasn't on the part of the Clintons, that's for sure.

Here's a huge smack of reality for ya: In the real world, with real people, the opinions are for the most part NOTHING like what you see in here. Know why? Cause they're not zealots. They're not so wrapped up in the game that they've lost all ability to think and reason. So many here have. You wanna argue that? Don't bother. It's obvious to anyone that still can maintain an objective eye. You think 250 recs means anything? There are thousands here. Of course there are 250, probably even 500, that would bow and woot woot any Hillary bashing thread. It's called lockstep, and it runs rampant here. Sure, some think for themselves and support Obama for the right reasons with true objectivity. I'm one of them. But there are so many who just do so without any real legitimate thought process, and are just knee jerk lockstepping narrow minded posters who have lost most if not all of their reasoning and objectivity skills. That's a fact. So the fact that you think the 250 recs shows anything whatsoever, is quite silly. In fact, I almost find it embarrassing that you used it in such a way as if it legitimized any point somehow. It totally doesn't.

My points stand in reality. DU, in particular GDP, is not reality. Try and figure that out sometime.

[Romulox]

129. The OP reflects *DU:P posters*, but does not match reality w/r/t *Democratic Voters*

So who is "out of step"? DU posters or just a hair under 50% of Democratic primary voters? :shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

135. DU is more reflective of the Super Delegates and people not fooled by political b.s. or the MSM.

[Romulox]

143. Aha. So more like a House of Lords! That sure puts the "Democratic" into DU!

Oh, wait a minute. No it doesn't. :rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

146. Why do you think Super Delegates are a "House of Lords"? That sounds like a right-wing label

[mirrera]

131. Finally!! Well said. There is a reason. n/t

[Limelight]

136. Bam!!!

In the high pitched words of Jon Stewart... "Naaaaaaaaailed it."

All this bullsh*t vitriol from the Hillary supporters on this site against Obama supporters only reveals the type of people they are. Who cares if our candidate has no scruples, as long as we can say we won it doesn't matter.

Damn fine job calling her and them on it.

:yourock:

Oh and... K&R!!!:kick:

[hisownpetard]

137. All good points, berni. The same goes for Hillary's complaining that Barack is *outspending* her

2 to 1 (or 3 to 1, or 4 to 1 - whatever the figure of the day is).

What she should be saying is that Barack is "outearning" her, 4 to 1. Hmm, somehow that has a different ring to it, doesn't it?

Spin is everything to HRC. Thank God the American public is on to it, at last.

[specimenfred1984]

139. This is "Smear Underground"

A place where people come to smear (D)s and get put on permanent ignore.

[berni_mccoy]

144. I don't agree with the generalization

Yes, you are correct. Some people here will unjustly attack Democrats. I've seen it against Obama, Clinton, and both Pelosi and Reed have taken some serious hits from posters on this site. But in general, Democrats are defended here. Some so-called Democrats, like Lieberman, who go too far, are no longer defended. Clinton is moving in a Lieberman direction.

[cbayer]

148. Peeople have not only the right, but the obligation, to choose and support

whichever candidate they like.

I, like you, could make a list of all the objections that have been raised about Obama. I could make a list of all off his mis-steps during the campaign and all the smears perpetrated by the media about Obama.

I could write an OP showing that, without a doubt, Obama is not more *progressive* than Clinton. That's the biggest fantasy dreamed up during this race. I could show how these two candidates have only minor differences in their voting records and platforms. I could make a clear case for why this race is all about style and not at all about substance.

Imagine for a minute that I did that. Now imagine the response I would get. Just imagine. If you are not blinded by hate for Clinton, you may be able to see that the response I would get is the reason that most Clinton supporters have left this site.

[ladeyday]

151. Great list.....

I have to save this, although most people I know are pro Obama

[knixphan]

152. Kick for 'there's only ONE democrat left in this race."

[L0oniX]

154. I'll subkick for that.

[StevieM]

158. Hillary did not engage in race-baiting, that was a despicable lie, and one which may cost

Obama a lot of votes in November if he is the nominee.

Steve

[berni_mccoy]

164. "Obama only won SC because of the Black-vote", "Obama is lucky he's black", "Obama did well in LA...

because he's black". "I'm only being attacked because I'm white." These are statements from the Clinton campaign. Is this not a form of race-baiting?

[knixphan]

167. certainly is!

[StevieM]

173. Michelle Obama has also made blunt recognitions of racial patterns in voting:

"the black voter will come home in the end."

As for Geraldine Ferraro....please. She was not a Clinton staffer and was not speaking for the campaign. People who believe that are just determined to hate Hillary and will find any excuse. Besides, Obama dug those comments out of an obscure newspaper and convinced the media to make it into a story. He wasn't insulted....he was ecstatic.

Steve

[berni_mccoy]

176. Wrong: ABC Headline: "Ferraro Steps Down From Clinton Campaign"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4440551&page=1

After making racially-charged comments about Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., former vice presidential Democratic nominee Geraldine Ferraro stepped down Wednesday as a surrogate and member of the finance committee for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

And go ahead and take Obama's singular comments out of context. Clinton's campaign has engaged in a PATTERN of RACIALLY DIVISIVE TACTICS.

[NanceGreggs]

170. Good one, Berni!

:kick: & REC'D!!!

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[berni_mccoy]

196. Thank You Nance! Love Ya!

[Tarc]

177. yawn indeed

I love watching O-Bots get pissy when reality interrupts their back-slapping parties here.

[delt664]

186. Hmm so many ways to respond.

So I will choose an old favorite from my athletic days when I had to deal with trash talking from the other team.

SCOREBOARD!

[Writer]

179. We are not in the extreme minority in the real world.

Not in this virtual echo chamber.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

184. Know what?

I still prefer Kucinich. He had a lot of support here for the Fun Run, you may recall. And he still has the most progressive ideas. I see Clinton and Obama as more alike than different, and, frankly, I'm amused at the animosity generated between the two camps when Kuch is far different, and in my opinion, far better than either one. Did I say amused? Well, up to a point. Now I feel that the bad feelings are harming the party. My guy dropped out in early February. I got over it. I tried, even when he was in the running, not to put down other candidates. Can't you folks who still have horses in the race do that?

[futureliveshere]

187. Mostly agree with your points

As an Obama supporter I am very happy to be in a place that has mostly fellow supporters of the new political movement.

But, some of the points in your post are based on heresay/interpretation.. There has also been a lot of venom that has been spewed towards genuine Democractic members who suport HRC. However we may not agree with them, she has won a lot of votes and as long as they are not being disrespectful, I see no reason to disrespect them.

Remember in November Barack will need all their support to defeat McConfused.

[berni_mccoy]

189. Which ones?

As far as venom spewed, how does this post do that?

I see far more venom being spewed by Clinton supporters in this thread than Obama supporters.

And how does my post attack them? I'm simply pointing out why Clinton has so few supporters here.

[futureliveshere]

213. Not yours.. There have been many venomous posts directed against them

That is one more explanation you should add to your list just to give it some balance.

These points are not proven are they:

- When a candidate hires a third party organization to violate election law and suppress the African American vote in NC as well as several other states, that candidate will lose supporters from this site.
- When a candidate circulates religiously bigoted emails about her opponent

I think this is not proven and statements like these just rile up pro-Hillary supporters. Don't get me wrong. I am a fervent Obama supporter and have engaged in verbal duels with more than one Hillary supporter. But as this winds down I think its time we write posts that bring us together. There is no way that Obama can lose this nomination so why attack Hillary any more?

Just saying.. :shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

215. Actually one has, the other has enough circumstantial evidence for a Grand Jury Indictment

An the NC robocalls, the NC Attorney General has opened an investigation into the illegal calls. Several of Clinton's staff are or were on the board of the calling 527. Several even have received compensation from that 527 while serving for Clinton's campaign. And it's known at least one Clinton staffer knew about the calls before they were made. So, yeah, there's enough circumstantial evidence there to draw the conclusion. I agree, not proven though. But enough evidence to lose supporters over.

And the emails: yes, it's been proven. A staffer admitted to sending out several 'Obama is Muslim' emails. The campaign's official statement on the emails has to not deny they were sent out by the campaign.

Google is your friend.

[futureliveshere]

252. Yes but,

There was also an Obama supporter on the board of WVWV who denied any wrongdoing. The smear emails have also not been admitted as being sent with HRC's approval. Google is def my frnd, so is HuffPo, DKos, DU, TPM, Politico,The Field, WaPo etc etc etc. But, thats neither here nor there.

Do I believe HRC is innocent. Of fucking-course not. Do her supporters blindly believe her. YES!! Which is why I am saying that to bring them on board we need to start reaching out to them more. The brute force "Open your eyes now or else..." approach will not work.

[Cant trust em]

190. I wish I didn't have to rec this thread, but you make a pretty convincing case. NT

[TheDonkey]

194. When you candidate is groveling on Bill O Riely that is a REAL SIGNAL PEOPLE!!

Some of these hillary supporters are just a lost cause...

[Deep13]

198. Really, because I thought this is...

...Sparta!


Okay, going back to my response to this kind of crap, let's see what is bullshit, distortion and possible fact. See e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5787672

"- When a candidate engages in race-baiting tactics, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

She hasn't. Recognizing that race exists isn't race baiting, so this is distortion.

"- When a candidate blames early losses on Democratic caucuses and African American votes, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

Stating that Black voters typically vote for Obama is simply reality. Causation does not equal blame. She was simply saying that should would not do as badly as in states where the bulk of Ds were Black. Again, it's a fact. If only Black voters could vote in November, you would have a point, but as it is this is just another typical Obama lie. A candidate needs white votes to win too.

"- When a candidate agrees to the decisions of the DNC before she loses the early primaries, and then wants to change the rules afterward, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

I don't care who agreed to what. The voters of those states did not agree to it. Without MI and FL, this race is not truly democratic. Since when did our party stand for less democracy and not more? You see, the real reason I'm a DEMOCRAT is because I'm for DEMOCRACY. Anyway, if we alienate either of those states, neither of our people can win in the fall.

"- When a candidate pays over $100,000 per day to a union busting political strategist who is secretly working on Bush's trade deals, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

She fired him as soon as she discovered his trade deal support, so this is a red herring. Again, a typical kernel of truth becoming the chewy center of a bullshit truffle. I agree that hiring him was a bad idea. Live and learn.

"- When a candidate threatens to use MI and FL as a divisive tool against the nominee if it isn't her, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

Yeah, you covered this one already. Obviously if those states went to Obama, he would want them in and she would want them out. As I said, democracy and our hope of winning in the fall requires them to be in, at least for FL where all candidates were on the ballot.

"- When a candidate endorses the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

You yourself have done this if we accept your definition of "endorse." Of course she did no such thing. She told the truth about relative experience and you don't like it because it is an accurate criticism of your savior. Or more likely, you don't care, but see it as a convenient hate-mongering talking point.

"- When a candidate allows a surrogate to say her opponent is 'lucky to be black' for 12 straight days before stopping her, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

Allows? They can say what they want and don't need permission from HC to do it. First of all, I don't recall anyone saying he is lucky to be Black. To the degree Bill said he was winning in the South where most D voters are Black, it is essentially an accurate observation.

"- When a candidate circulates religiously bigoted emails about her opponent and goes on Rush Limbaugh, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

That is a plain, outright lie. Dude, you are not simply wrong, you have deceptive and otherwise evil intentions. You wonder why we equate you with religious fanaticism. Like fanatics, if the facts disagree with you, you will ignore them in favor of your fantasy. There is no connection between HC and the "Muslim" email. There are plenty of people who don't want someone of Obama's history or ethnicity in the WH without denigrating another D. candidate. You realize, do you not, that this is *Democratic Underground?* If you mean that she criticized the hate-monger that Obama listened to and supported for 20 years, then that is as fair game as is HC on the Limbaugh show or either of them on the 700 Club.

"- When a candidate starts working with Ruppert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife for their news media endorsements, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

Working for them? As with the previous response, I think you pulled that out of your ass.

"- When a candidate sits idly by as racially divisive and religiously bigoted attacks come from places like freerepublic and end up on an ABC debate, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

You understand that they don't consult HC for her permission, right? It seems pretty bizarre that you would condemn HC for Obama's failure to contain damage to his campaign. As his opponent, that is not her job. Frankly, as a supporter, I would be pissed if she did. I don't see him coming to her rescue.

"- When a candidate drinks beers and pounds back Royal Crown shots to hypocritically hide her true elitism, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

Obama's comment was elitist and I take his spontaneous remark as being more truthful than his later explanation. The fact that HC is also an elitist does not change that. Frankly, if Obama had a few shots he might have done better in PA.

"- When a candidate hires a third party organization to violate election law and suppress the African American vote in NC as well as several other states, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

I haven't seen any evidence that this either happened or it was done at HC's direction.

"- When a candidate attacks her opponent on gun laws with a RW-look-alike hit piece and she has the very same stance on gun law, that candidate will lose supporters from this site."

They don't. She is stating she will back off the issue and O hasn't. As far as voting history, well, he wasn't in the Senate when she voted to renew the AWB. That was 04. Less than four years ago. Anyway any hypocrisy on this issue is more than overshadowed by hit pieces like this that have been popping up all over the internet in an obvious concerted effort not only to discredit HC, but to destroy her public character. A Rovian tactic is to accuse ones opponent of what ones own candidate is guilty of doing. That is the Obama whisper campaign in summary.

Dude, you really are a hack.

[emilyg]

282. Bravo!!!

[MaryRN]

320. Great post...and you're right on the money. n/t

[jobycom]

205. Obama praised Reagan, and he was the first race-baiter in this campaign.

"So we're preparing and one of my staff said, 'The thing you've got to understand is, this isn't on the level.' ... so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing..."

Obama, on The Daily Show, explaining that much of what he says isn't true.

Sorry, but Obama's the non-Democrat in this race, and if my principles put me in a minority, so be it. Not the first time.

[L0oniX]

206. K&R

[Two Americas]

207. bullying

Bullying and loyalty tests have no place here - this is after all, as you point out, the Democratic Underground.

The idea that being in the minority makes people wrong is disgusting.

The idea that any and all who fail to get on the Obama bandwagon or who criticize the Obama campaign or his followers are therefore Clinton supporters is false.

Your list of reasons - supposedly to explain why the majority of people here support Obama - is nothing but a list of talking points against Clinton. If, as you claim, the reason people are supporting Obama is because they hate Clinton for all of the things on your list, then I would say that this is a very weak reason. It would have been more honest to say "here is why people hate Clinton" instead of implying "here is why people support Obama."

Your post is, in my opinion, malicious and dishonest. I oppose those tactics, no matter the cause.

Your post strongly suggests and supports and alternative explanation as to why the majority of (remaining active) posters favor Obama - because hatred for Clinton and her supporters, as well for as all neutral people, has been whipped up to a fever pitch. That is a symptom of a very weak campaign, and that is my concern. Is that not everyone's concern - our strength going into the general?

[berni_mccoy]

209. That's the only conclusion you can draw because you only see things one way

How does my post show hate for Clinton. She has done these things, no one else. And is it hateful to point them out? If this post were hate-filled, it would have been locked, deleted or worse. And yet it is not.

The only hate, maliciousness and dishonesty in this thread is emanating from Clinton supporters.

[Two Americas]

212. what way would that be?

By the way, I added a little to my post while you were responding. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Merely saying that a person must have a limited and biased view of this, because otherwise they would not disagree with me, is not a rational argument.

You have claimed now that what I said should be dismissed because I have an axe to grind. What axe would that be? Support your criticism of me that I "only see things one way" so therefore that is why I have the opinions I do.

I don't care what Clinton supporters are supposedly doing. I have never been a Clinton supporter. Using that as an excuse is morally bankrupt - "she hit me first!" or "she asked for it!"

[Deep13]

214. The right way. nt

[Two Americas]

219. thanks

I find it particularly annoying when threads are started to whip up the mob, with people piling on and viciously attacking and maligning people - defying and daring and taunting people to disagree - and then when someone actually makes a coherent and rational argument there is either no response or else a one-liner followed by "nt."

If people were willing to say "you know this is out of control and a little over the top the way that too many Obama supporters are acting in their zealous promotion of his candidacy. Smashing and bashing Clinton and her supporters as well as all who are not on the Obama bandwagon is not the ultimate battle, anyway - winning the general is" all of this shit storm would dissipate. The fact that so many Obama supporters are violently resistant to that idea, and also so temperamental and emotionally out of control when there is any hint of criticism of Obama or his followers, and the continual resort to forming packs and using mob psychology on people, is what is dangerous as well as very weak to take into the general.

[Deep13]

248. That's what worries me.

It's not Obama's ideas which in fact are pretty conventional. It's his fans. There not that much different in reaction than politically-controlled mobs of the past except that they have not yet committed any acts of violence. I guess the night is still young.

[berni_mccoy]

224. You've just answered your own question: you are perceiving a reality that doesn't exist.

[Two Americas]

242. ok I guess

Again, what reality is it that I don't see?

I don't see the things that are very "real" to you, perhaps.

[jgraz]

216. Great post -- K&R.

[DeanDem10]

223. Ditto--k & r n/t

[Roxy66]

225. Exactly.... couldnt have said it better

[EmeraldCityGrl]

226. When a Candidate...

says definitively she will "OBLITERATE" another sovereign nation given a hypothetical scenario.

This one single comment should give every Democrat reason for pause and insight into what would come under a HillBill administration.

[Cha]

227. Bernie, bernie, bernie...

I :loveya: you..that is all..except I am so making a copy of this to read off to my Obama LOVING Friends. B-)

[Th1onein]

230. K & R

I'm SO sick of Hillary and her rightwing tactics. I wonder if Bill did this to us, too, before we were able to come to places like DU and find out this kind of stuff?

[McCamy Taylor]

231. This is Obama Oppo Underground

I have seen almost 200 hundred people at DU reject Clinton for things that she either did not do or which her opponent also did. This indicates to my mind that these are not the reason but are merely excuses being cited to justify an opinion based upon some other criteria. I do not really care why people select a candidate. However, be careful of throwing stones in the middle of a Democratic Primary if your campaign has glass walls, too.


1.Obama played the “race card”. Clinton had higher African-American support than Obama before the “Race Memo” episode and the wall to wall press coverage of three lies it contained. Obama benefited, not Clinton. Here is my journal about what happened with lots of links. Result---Obama is praised by this site.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/203

2. Obama’s supporters blamed the New Hampshire loss on racism and on e-vote fraud. They have blamed California on Asian racism against Blacks, Nevada on Latino racism against Blacks, Texas (until they won the caucuses) Ohio and Pennsylvania on racism. They have also suggested e-vote fraud in a number of states that they lost but never in those they have won. Result- this site loves Obama.

3. The Obama campaign withdrew from the ballot in Michigan but then had a widely publicized campaign to have voters mark “undecided” for Obama. Result-GOBAMA!

4. Obama adviser caught engaging in secret talks with Canada on NAFTA while Obama is publicly pounding Clinton for her supposed NAFTA sympathies. Result—Obama is so perfect!

5.Obama campaign suggests that they can win this fall without Florida---that is leadership that DU can count on!

6.Obama dismisses the last economic recovery until Clinton even though it is the key to a Democratic victory this fall and instead finds a way to praise Reagan---this makes Democratic Underground so proud.

7. Obama allows surrogate Rep. Clyburn to say that “all African Americans” believe that Clinton is only campaigning for president to keep Obama from being elected. Just as Lawrence O’Donnell wrote that John Edwards was only running for president to keep Obama from being elected. Result---Obama is wise to their games!

8. Obama sends out multiple campaign memos pushing the MSM to keep playing the Bosnia Sniper story even as he is imploring them to drop Wright as a “distraction”. That is consistency we can count on.

9. Obama courts African-American voters by associating with anti-gay ministries. It is ok. They will all support the Democratic candidate in the fall, because they have to.

10. Obama does not say a word while the MSM gives John Edwards a tiny fraction of the coverage he gets in 2007—driving Edwards from the race. Nor does he say a word as the media continues its sexist attacks against Clinton, talking about her cleavage, her supposed multiple personality disorder. His camp pushes the Bosnia sniper story. Result—DU praises him for a “new” kind of politics.

11. Bowling? Duck hunting?

12.Obama supporters break caucus rules in Texas, signing in when they are not there, filling out forms in advance (forms they were not supposed to have). All is fair in politics.

13.Obama uses Harry and Louise ads straight from the heath insurance industry to make Clinton’s universal health insurance plan scary, even though he is for universal health insurance, too. Hurray!

These are just some of the many reasons why Obama supporters at Democratic Underground love their candidate (in contrast to the evil witch queen Hillary)

[berni_mccoy]

236. Truly Lame McCamy. The quality of your posts have truly degraded during this primary.

1. Your journal is not evidence that Obama played the race card. He did not and you know your own post is b.s.
2. Obama supporters. Doesn't sound like Obama campaign or Obama himself. In fact, Obama gave an amazing concession speech, something Clinton has been unable to do so far.
3. Obama honored the rules of the party. Clinton did not, even though she said "Michigan doesn't count for anything." The truth is, she wouldn't be saying a word about FL and MI if she were winning.
4. Actually, this was completely debunked and it turned out Clinton's advisers were giving the wink-nod to Canada on NAFTA. Let's not forget Clinton is Pro-NAFTA and her Union-busting chief strategist Mark Penn, Mr. $100,000 per day has been working on Bush's Free Trade Deal with Colombia.

I think I can stop there. You're points are about as valid as your overrated, long-worded posts are.

[McCamy Taylor]

244. My post is the mirror image of yours. If you can see the "lameness" of mine then why can you not

see the "lameness" of your own efforts to smear a fellow Democrat? You have fallen for GOP efforts to divide and conquer to Democrats. Enjoy your wallow in hatred but be prepared to pay the cost the fall.

I believe that both Obama and Clinton are fine candidates, and that the Democratic Party is being brought down by this crazy divisiveness.

[berni_mccoy]

245. The difference is my points are well known truths. Yours, not so much.

The only "hatred" in this thread isn't coming from Obama supporters, as much as you'd like it to be.

[McCamy Taylor]

250. Yours are frequently repeated (at DU) oppo. At other sites, this might not be the case.

"Truth" is in the eye or ear of the beholder and in this case we are witnessing a truth effect that owes much to constant repetition and the general approbation that certain statements receive in this forum and from the corporate media which has been spinning two Big Lies--- Hillary is a calculating bitch who will do anything to get elected and Obama is a scary unAmerican radical who is out of touch with mainstream voters for the last year and a half. The first big lie has had a major effect in hurting Clinton in the Democratic Primary. The second Big Lie is designed to cripple Obama in the general election (Democratic voters do not care if their candidate is left wing or radical).

[berni_mccoy]

254. You are now pretending to be without bias, but your first response shows it clearly (Obama Oppo)

You constantly waver between showing your dislike toward Obama and saying that the party needs to be unified. Which is it?

And you are using defamatory statements not made by me in an attempt to link them with my post. You say my statements from my OP are a repetition of one of two big lies: "Hillary is a calculating b**** who will do anything to get elected". Those are your words, not mine. And anyone who chooses to repeat those words about Clinton, be they Obama supporter or Clinton supporter, I let them know how inappropriate they are. You should know better than to use them in your response, but you do anyway, trying to denigrate me. Now, that's truly despicable.

[Two Americas]

276. "well known truths"

"Endlessly repeated talking points" does not equal "well known truths."

[BigBearJohn]

308. I love me one McCamy Taylor! Smartest voice on DU, bar none!

[AZ Criminal JD]

233. If you are reflective of an Obama supporter

Then it is no wonder Obama will go down to a McGovern style defeat in November if he is the nominee.

[apocalypsehow]

237. At this point, any remaining HRC boosters here are just trolling.

They are a sad, hateful, pitiful band that have been reduced to cheer-leading for Sean Hannity and using the tactics of Karl Rove against the presumptive Democratic nominee. It's time for them to go - or STFU.

[berni_mccoy]

239. I do not agree. I do not know why the remaining supporters stick with her, but some are very smart

I will not degrade them to just being trolls. Certainly some are, but most are, IMHO, misguided or misled by Clinton and her campaign.

[Califooyah Operative]

241. Amen. nt

[blogslut]

243. Hells, yeah

I yam what I yam. I supports me Obama and me spinach.

[knixphan]

249. ditto for Obama AND spinach.

[ooglymoogly]

247. There is far too much at stake for us not to be calling a spade

a spade. Excellent post berni. kr

[Ken Burch]

258. Uh, you might have considered using a different expression, given the context of this year's race.

:eyes:

[Hekate]

317. ROFL!

:rofl:

[DrFunkenstein]

251. Whatever. I Want My Gas Tax Relief Now! This is a Call to Action!

We need a politician who is more than just words. We want someone with words connected to bad ideas!

[maxpower]

255. Well said

It saddens me to see this happen. I have been a supporter of Bill Clinton for a long time now. I am dissapointed to see it come to this.

[Pharaoh]

256. In other words

Hillary Blows! K&R

[evolvingsteve]

260. Love the list! stick it to the ignorant!

....this read reminded me of all the reasons why I don't support her, kind of like a short youtube film...of course, just within the context of writing a political post...does that make sense to anyone, lol.

anyway, I'm glad you put this up.....the words that come to mind are intelligent, beautiful, and honest. This is a list is worth keeping with you all the time to remind Hillary supporters who they are passionately standing behind.....kind of like, kucinich with his pocket constitution, lol.


Leave the dark side Hillary supporters, and join the rest of the bright and intelligent DUers here and get with a campaign that isn't as screwy as Hillary's....

and to the Extreme Gung-Ho women activists out there that want to see a woman as President soooo badly,....don't want it and be obsessed with it so much that you would vote for the Devil....in Clinton's clothing...

Our Country United should come first, regardless if it's brought by a Man or a Woman....it just so happens to be a Man that can do that, but I would have been "All Game" even if it were to come from a Woman....I like personally like Gov. Sebelius as a future DP nominee for President....let's get past the evil and wait for a woman that can offer a lot more!
....but now, it's Obama's turn to shine and Unite the Country for all of us, including women.

[democrank]

261. The Underground is about change.

If I wanted more of the same old crap from Washington,I`d go above ground and hang out with the status quo.

[jillan]

264. Then why do you spend so much time bashing Democrats that are not named Obama?

Your whole post is filled with hatred towards Hillary and her supporters.

[AntiFascist]

265. When a candidate tries to marginalize left-wing internet activists...

as Hillary has done to MoveOn.org, for instance, then of course many of us will not support her.

[uponit7771]

270. Yeap, thank GOD we she's not going to get the nomination

[Quixote1818]

269. K and R. I use to really like Hillary, but have lost all respect for her. nt

[whathappened]

272. me thinks

both of these canadates suck big time , why in the world did we get down to these 2 are a brain drain on me , we had so many good canadates to choose from , so this whole election sucks but time and the whole thing looks like a setup by the gop and the msn , good luck to all of you and your choice for whom u vote for , and then set back and watch nothing happen for 4 more years , thanks for your ears

[berni_mccoy]

273. I'm sorry whathappened. I do understand where you are coming from

But I'd like to know what it is about Obama that has you concerned. Is there anything that would persuade you to reconsider your thoughts about Obama?

[whathappened]

284. reply

i'm thinking this is all a sham , i just heard all of these canadates say the other day , THEY WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PRICE OF GAS , i say bs to all of them , these people have been in office and have done nothing about anything , we still got a war , we still got high gas prices , we still got no help with our health ins , food is going sky high , and what are all these nuts doing , makeing promises they can't keep , i'm dam pissed about this whole mess , now if obama is elected and starts this march as he promissed , we will see , i have'nt seen nothing coming from the senete or congress , which all 3 are part of , so no i'm not sold on any canadate thus far , i have never missed a election since i was old enought to vote , but i mite draw the line this year , thanks for asking

[berni_mccoy]

295. I have a handful of friends who have expressed the same perspective to me

Here is what I tell them.

Obama was asked at a rally by a woman who was struggling financially in our failing economy, what he could do for her. His answer: "In the short term, unfortunately, not very much". He didn't make promises, he didn't paint a pretty picture of a hopeful picture. He gave her the honest truth. But he also laid out his plan, one that he intends to execute. This plan would take away the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and add new tax breaks for the poor and middle class. His plan would stop rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas and reward companies for hiring Americans. He would make healthcare available to all Americans and decrease costs through reduction of beuracracy. He would end the War in Iraq and take care of veterans, properly, who have served the country. He would stop the wasteful spending of the Republican Neocon Agenda and start investing in America and it's middle class. He laid out specifics and kept it real.

It would not be easy. It will require effort from everyone, every American. We are going to be challenged. But if all Americans work together, we will find we are not as divided as our politics suggest. We are all in this together. And we can build a better country and provide a better tomorrow. There are those who will tell you that we can not do this. That it won't work. But to them, we have three simple words. Yes. We. Can.

[pokercat999]

277. Hey this is important!

Royal Crown is a COLA; Crown Royal is a Canadian Blended whiskey and a fine one at that.

[berni_mccoy]

278. Damn. NOW you tell me!!!

Waited ALL day, didn't ya?!

;):P

[Cha]

297. That's okay..I didn't know

the difference.:P

[Djinn]

298. And some reasons why some of us don't support EITHER

of the pro-business, pro-war, pro-empire corporate whore that have been dished up by your betters. The list below details just some of the reasons not to support Obama (or Clinton - they apply to both)

* Obama supports CFR

* Class Action Fairness Act - Obama supported it - hardly surprising given his former employers

* For Profit Healthcare – no plan to make the change people actually want

* Continuing presence in Iraq - He has not once supported a pull out. He support keeping troops in Iraq to fight "Al qaeda" (meaning he's swallowed that particular bullshit or is happy to continue perpetuating it)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0415-07.htm

He claims to want no bases but the "embassy" in Iraq will be staffed by 1000's of CIA and other intelligence staff, that IS a base. The size of this "embassy" is a dead fucking give away. The troops Obama says are needed to "guard" the "embassy" provides cover for continuing troop presence.

There is also the small issue of lack of democracy in Iraq. Obama has made no mention AT ALL about one vote one value in Iraq because NOT ONE SINGLE US POLITICIAN WILL EVER SUPPORT THAT as it would lead to nationalisation of iraqi oil.

*Possibility of preemptively attacking Pakistan and Iran. He's stated this on NUMEROUS occasions. The US STILL has NO right to preemptively attack a nation that has not threatened it. It was illegal and wrong when Bush did it and it will be EVERY bit as wrong if Obama does it

"But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

During a speech to the CFR he said:

"Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists – probably in the tens of thousands – who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world"

There we go with US as Sherrif of the world again - different to Bush, how?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...ewsbreaking-hed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

Has expressed the possibility for "surgical strikes" (like those surgical strikes in Serbia that hit the wrong fucking country) in Iran?

Then there's the Patriot Act which despite being a constitutional law "professor" he voted to pass

* Obama voted for the "border fence" One of the most insane ideas ever to be spawned in the great factory of bad ideas Washington DC. Apart from the offensiveness of agreeing to "trade deals" that screw Mexican workers ad then building a great big fence to keep out people looking for something like a liveable wage, it is simply an inane sop to the redneck vote.

*Columbian Free Trade deal - voted for by Obama - a nation that habitually murders union activists and Obama supports the deal as long as the Bush government take human rights abuses seriously

*Brzezinski - he is using the butcher of Bamiyan of all people as an adviser

*War on terror - has he called this "war" what it is at ANY stage? ie a complete and total crock. Has he explained that the US has been the worlds larges terrorist for decades?

He HAS enunciated his view that Gitmo detainees have habeas corpus restored so US courts can decide on the legality of their detention, only problem with that (something one would think a constitutional lawyer may have picked up) is that US courts have ZERO jurisdiction to decide on the legality or otherwise of people kidnapped by the US on foreign soil for supposed crimes committed on that foreign soil. He has not called for all those illegally arrested and transported to be instantly repatriated. He has NO interest in upholding international law in relation to Gitmo detainees.

From his website:

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Oh puhlease, Kopassus are not known for their distaste of repression, giving money to them for "anti-terrorism" means it will be used to arrest, detain and kill evil terrorists like housewives in West Papua who dare to raise the West Papuan flag

*War on drugs - has he at any point called this what it is? Has he at any point called for legalization or even decriminalization? Has he made mention AT ALL of the prison industrial complex this "war" feeds? or how it disproportionately effects the poor?

*Israel - Obama's support for Israel's illegal attack against Lebanon and his "child & helicopter" speech puts him squarely in bed with Clinton and every Republican.

He talks about Palestinians renouncing violence but has never pointed out the MASSIVE disparity in that violence nor demanded Israel stop killing in order to gain peace

Then there's a host of other stuff on his campaign page (there's worse elsewhere but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume these are his most up to date views) that prompt serious doubts as to his "progressivism" (that word has a meaning - and it's NOT non-Republican/Clinton)

"God is constantly present in our lives, and this presence is a source of hope."

A popular belief 1000 years ago generally doesn't make the progressive ballpark

Yet he also expects us to believe he is sincere when he says:

"We are a nation of many faiths and of those with no faith at all. The religious practices of all must be respected."

Riiight, so we have to respect the atheists by having our politicians faff on about God's fucking presence in our lives?

Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.

Time and time again it has been shown that when workers have the right to bargain it's the BEST way to improve their circumstances. Relying on government regulations to protect workers is useless and dangerous.

If Obama gave a flying fuck about the rights of workers he’d be talking about repealing Taft Hartley and burying it in deep in salted land.

He also wouldn't have sided with employers in the "Class Action Fairness" Act.

Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

Yeah cause voter fraud is the problem with your elections. Not that 1 out of every 4 (or 5 depending who's stats you read) black men is barred from voting at any given time, not that parties control the process, not that upwards of 35% of Americans don't bother voting at all, not that thousands were disenfranchised illegally in 2000. Not that that election was decided by the COURTS not the people.

He talks about drug counseling programs to stop recidivism but makes no mention that non violent drug offenders shouldn't be in prison, that people on "three strikes" shouldn't be there, that people too poor to afford representation often shouldn't be there.

Why not talk about reducing the situation in which having an insanely large prison population makes some people very wealthy.

In his entire protracted waffle on "Homeland Security" (way to parrot the language of the Nazi's and Bush admin) he makes NOT ONE MENTION of Saudi, not one mention of perhaps CEASING your support of several brutal dictatorships.

He does however mention the need to tweak PATRIOT (an actual progressive would just dump it) the act that HE voted for. If it was a shite law why did he vote for it?

Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust.

Who gives a shit that they deny the Holocaust? The US denies 1 million dead Iraqis, millions affected by Agent Orange in Vietnam etc etc. So fucking what?? And if Iran is threatening Israel presumably there's some proof of this? No, Iran has not acted with aggression towards ANY foreign nation since the Islamic revolution.

Several Israeli MP's (a nation that DOES have nuke weapons btw) however HAVE threatened to destroy Iran.

Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization

Oh how nice of Obama, if Iran gives up the right to defend itself from US and Israeli aggression Obama will invite the people of Iran to be fucked by the WTO

He neatly avoids mention under his "record of achievements" on nukes that Exelon are large campaign donors and waffles on about a bill he "passed” (first watered down by nuke executives) and then NEVER passed. If Clinton’s bullshit about landing under fire was telling, exactly what does it mean that Obama presents himself as a nuclear warrior because he “passed” a bill that was never passed? Surely lying about ones legislative record is more worrying for a potential President than over dramatizing something that really isn’t all that relevant?

Obama says we need to bring Charles Taylor to justice, nice idea but how come just this ONE piss ant African warlord? Why not the US generals and politicians responsible for FAR more destruction, in Iraq and elsewhere?

How much blood does Taylor have on his hands compared to Bush’s actions in Iraq, ACTIONS THAT Obama has said “There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

Bush LIED to the US about why he needed to start an illegal war opposed by the entire world community. He then illegally wire tapped citizens.

Yet St Obama, the “constitutional professor” thought that “"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority,"

Riiight, illegal offensive warfare, the deaths of MILLIONS, ongoing occupation and fascistic “investigation” at home. What exactly would it take for Obama to consider something a grave breach?

Does Bush have to personally execute thousands of a small children on the lawn of the White House before Obama considers it “grave”

What about the US supported warlord government of Afghanistan, are their crimes OK? - this is like acting tough because you can take out an ant in one easy step

We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

What the fuck for? You already have troops covering half the fucking globe. What will Obama DO with these extra troops? Perhaps more theft of other people resources and land given that is the ONLY THING US forces have ever been used for.

“There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

He voted against capping credit cards rates

He sponsored the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005, rewarding hospitals for malpractice (as long as they say sorry) by limiting economic recovery.

For a guy who cares about the little people he has CONSISTENTLY voted to hamper their economic rights.

Obama opposed reform of the Mining Law of 1872 which allows wealthy mining concerns access to billions of dollars worth of metals without paying royalties – yeah enviro Obama!

He pushes corn ethanol despite it’s bogus enviro savings (8 barrels of oil to produce 1 of ethanol) and that corn as fuel will further push millions into hunger. Obama voted for billions of dollars of corn subsidies padding the pockets of his backers.

In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA. AP reported that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA.

Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.

PHEW - that's a WHOLE lotta "same" from the "change" candidate huh?

Obama has been sainted as the “change” candidate by MSN and all the other corporate spinmeisters. I’ve seen people back Obama because Clinton is supported by the corporate media – my god, I know the US education system is woeful but surely this is as stinking as a shit lagoon. Every corporate media outlet is pushing Obama as the front runner. He IS THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE

It's a sad indictment on the US school system & the intelligence of the US voting public if they’re gullible enough to swallow this 100% bought and paid for corporate whore as “change”

[LaStrega]

299. Proud to say

I was the 265th person to recommend.

:toast:

:yourock:

:kick:

:bounce:

[MindMatter]

303. Well, yes. But other than those things

What's your beef? :)

[HDPaulG]

306. Simply....

Amen...

[FrenchieCat]

309. Uh.....Ye-Ah!

[John Q. Citizen]

310. As an Obama volunteer, I agree with some of your statements and I disagree with some.

For instance, I could care less if a candidate attempts to drink beer and shots to demonstrate that they are regular folks. Doesn't bother me a bit, any more than when another candidate went bowling to appear like a regular guy. Who cares?

Candidates do a lot of things in a long campaign and 95% of the things they do aren't worth worrying about one way or the other. I have about 3 things that I think were over the line as far as the Clinton campaign goes.

First and foremost was the endorsement of McCain over her Democratic opponent. That is way over the line and no political party puts up with that. This was the beginning of the end for Sen. Clinton. This is when the supers really started moving to Obama. You can't do that and be viable.

The second problem was the race baiting. Sen. Clinton probably could have nibbled around the edges of that and not gotten burned, but it was too much, to often and it was completely ham handed. This too made her inviable as a candidate.

The third problem was FL and MI. I don't hold it against her that she attempted to try to change the rules after the fact, but I do hold it against her that when it didn't work, when the party stood by their own rules and indicated in no uncertain terms that they intended to enforce the rules, then to continue to cause division and discord in an attempt to prevail is very bad for the party.

You are correct that some of your other points are valid as to why people here have made the choices they did. She hurt herself with some of them, but they aren't necessarily over the top. Candidates often attempt to make their opponent appear worse than they are, but that's pretty standard. The gun piece? Well, these things happen especially when a candidate is trailing. Not nice, but not particularly novel or campaign changing.

It's true that a majority of DU participants do seem to favor the nomination going to Obama over it going to Clinton. But there are a lot of reasons for that, some of them connected to her campaign and some connected to past actions, like her IWR vote for instance.

But I do have to say that everybody has to decide for themselves who they are going to vote for, not vote for, or ignore. But just because someone decides they are supporting Sen. Clinton does not make someone a bad person. In fact I would go so far as to say even if someone were to choose McCain it doesn't make them a "bad" person. I might think their judgment wasn't the best. I might be disappointed in their choice, I in fact would disagree with their choice but it doesn't make them a bad person.

My hope is we can quit attacking people because we don't agree with their choices. There are plenty of other better reasons to attack people. For instance if they are acting like an asshole. And yes, some Obama supporters act like assholes. It's just a fact of life.

Personaly, I'm not going to attack Sen. Clinton because she drank some beer and 7 Crown. I may roll my eyes, but it's not that big a deal.

I will attack her though for endorsing McCain, for what I perceive as race baiting, and for driving a wedge into the party over the party rules she agreed to.

I will attempt to be magnanimous in victory. And I will try not to attack people for their choices I don't agree with. That's about the best I can do.


By the way, as far as I know there has been no charge levied that Clinton "hired" WVWV to attempt to suppress the vote. I think the situation with WVWV needs to be thoroughly investigated, and it smells, really bad. But I doubt even if it's proved there was an insider group running a vote suppression operation that you can trace it back to Clinton directly. To Clinton's friends/supporters quite possibly but not to her. It still makes her look bad though. It looks like someone was cheating to benefit Sen. Clinton.

And it needs to be well investigated.

[New Dawn]

312. K&R

[Missouri Blue]

313. Thank you for making it explicit.

There's no great mystery of why people are preferring Obama over Clinton.

[Neshanic]

315. Oh happy day, you converted me. Not only am I now straight, I am going

on tour with Obama's ex-gay sideshow preacher, and will sing the praises of our leader to be.

Praise straight baby Jesus!

[Hekate]

316. KnR # 287. You Rock...

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

I am very disillusioned and disappointed in BOTH of the Clintons. There's no question in my mind that they are a team and always will be, so this is on both of them.

I used to admire both Bill and Hillary Clinton -- and I used to excuse his behavior even while deploring it. I figure it's their marriage, not mine. I know that both of them are formidably bright and well-informed. Last year I really struggled over who to vote for in the California primary --> Edwards, Clinton, or Obama?

But by the time John Edwards dropped out, I knew I would vote for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Even then, I believed she would make a very good president if she were elected, and I believed I would work for her in the GE wholeheartedly if Obama didn't get the nom.

I feel so sad, disgusted, and betrayed by how the Clintons have conducted this campaign. I mean, for the love of God, Scaife?! What does she expect to get out of pimping herself out to people who have done so much evil?

Sure, if she somehow gets the nom I will do voter reg and other things like that for the GE. And there is no question that I will vote for whoever has the (D) by their name on the ballot. But my heart will not be in it. The feminist joy I expected to feel at the first viable woman presidential candidate is simply not there.

I can't go on with the litany -- you said it all very well.

Hekate

long edit to complete my thoughts

[guruoo]

318. Beginning to sound more like Tailgunner Joe underground n/t

[Hekate]

319. Today Hill said she "doesn't stand with the economists or the elites" but with the working people...

:wtf:

What. The. Hell. does she mean by that? That she's parked her brains, education, and experience in a lockbox for the duration? Or that she will now say ANYthing to get the nomination?

:argh:

Hekate

[BzaDem]

321. Right...

I could come up with a list equally as long for Obama, and I would if I actually thought you or anyone else had any objectivity. Obama has lied through his teeth over and over again. He has refused to push hard for revotes so 1.7 million people can have voting rights in our primary. He says stupid things that any objective person would see lowers his chances of being elected dramatically (as if he doesn't already have enough problems in that area). But no one ever calls him on it.

[StevieM]

322. Isn't it ashame for you that she has the support of half the party. If Obama gets the nomination

I suspect that you will not enjoy seeing him heap praise on her and retract all the disgusting things he has said.

Steve

[berni_mccoy]

331. LOL! Thanks for the laugh.

[StevieM]

345. OK, berni, I'm sure that you're right. If Obama wins he will reach out by saying that

we should offer Hillary forgiveness and understanding. He will allow her to campaign for him as a means of redeeming herself. He will smile glowingly as Hillary explains that she now understands that she was the status quo and the master of a broken system that needed to fixed, something she could not do but he could. And Obama will repeatedly highlight that we need to let new people into his new era of politics, even those who once epitomized the old era, like Hillary Clinton.

That will be the basis for reunifying the party.

Steve

[Perry Logan]

324. The continued support for Hillary virtually proves these accusations are false.

Otherwise, you are saying that half of Democrats are sleazebags, racists, and dopes.

If that's what you think of your party, you urgently need to GET OUT OF THE PARTY.

[mcollier]

332. No Perry, don't do the guilt by association thing...

Turniing a blind eye to the obvious tactics of the Clinton Campaign doesn't make her supporters like her. It's just many now expect and are demanding a different type of politics, one that offers more opportunity to get things done... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you burn your brigdes on the campaign trail, they'll be nearly impossible to cross once elected. Do you understand?

[berni_mccoy]

334. Wow. You really can't read can you? THIS IS DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

And my post explains why the number of you and your friends is dwindling HERE AT DU. Good luck with your life.

[The Doctor.]

330. Proud to push it to 300.

Also glad to be on the side of sanity.

[Sparkly]

333. In my view, it's like you've got a patch over one eye.

What you see from the eye you're using is magnified and even distorted; the other eye sees nothing.

This is the unrealistic good/evil dichotomy you've set up, and I'm sorry, but it strikes me as fanatical. It's a mob mentality that's swept over the site, and instead of discussion, it's a loud bandwagon.

This is politics. Both campaigns do whatever they believe will help the candidate win, period. That includes, of course, accusing the other campaign of horrible tactics, as you are doing.

[berni_mccoy]

335. Sorry Sparkly. Clinton has done this to herself. No one is accusing her of horrible acts

She or her campaign didn't commit. Following the eye-patch analogy, you have blinders on brother.

[Sparkly]

337. By your standard of proof here, Obama and his campaign committed horrible acts, too.

Apply the same standard, and it goes both ways.

[berni_mccoy]

338. Uh. yeah. Good luck with that.

[Sparkly]

339. Really! Won't fly around here, I know!

[berni_mccoy]

340. The nature of the responses in this thread says you are wrong.

[mcollier]

341. Is this accurate?

Clinton disclosures didn't list $24 million of Bill's income
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Monday, May 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton excluded nearly $24 million of her husband's earnings from Senate financial statements from 2004 through 2006, capitalizing on rules that permit senators to limit disclosures of some of their spouses' income.

Her decision, while fully consistent with Senate rules and norms, delayed the release of financial information about former President Clinton's soaring income until the couple released their tax returns in early April, under pressure from Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama. By then, about 40 states had completed their Democratic primaries and caucuses, meaning that those voters didn't get a clear look at Bill Clinton's finances.

snip

The Clintons' tax returns show that Bill Clinton earned nearly $51 million from 2004 through 2006. His wife informed the Senate of about $27 million of it, consisting almost entirely of fees from his globe-trotting speaking tours, from which he has fetched as much as $400,000 for a single appearance.

Reporting rules for senators and presidential candidates allowed Hillary Clinton to describe the amounts of her husband's other income sources as ``over $1,000." These included his more than $10 million in advances and royalties from two book deals, as much as $11.5 million from offshore partnerships that invested in a Chinese media company and more than $2 million from a Nebraska firm whose chairman reportedly spent $900,000 flying the Clintons aboard corporate jets for personal, business and campaign trips.

snip
Hillary Clinton's financial statements for the years 2001 through 2003 were more consistent with the couple's tax returns because her husband's income in his first years outside the White House came mostly from speaking fees that senators must disclose. The financial gap between her Senate reporting and her husband's 2004 to 2006 earnings coincided with a period in which Bill Clinton began to enter private business deals that caused the couple's wealth to mushroom.

snip

THE DISCLOSURE GAP:

2004 — Hillary Clinton reported on her Senate financial statement that her husband earned about $9.5 million in 2004, plus unspecified income from his writings, consulting and a partnership with private equity fund chief Ronald Burkle. The Clintons' tax return showed that he made $17.98 million that year, including as much as $4 million from the offshore partnership with Burkle, the billionaire founder of the Los Angeles-based Yucaipa Companies LLC.

2005 — Clinton reported on her Senate statement that her husband earned about $7.5 million in 2005, plus unspecified income from his writing and consulting. The Clintons' tax returns showed that he earned $17.33 million that year, including more than $5 million from the Yucaipa partnership.

2006 — Clinton reported on her Senate financial statement that her husband earned about $10.1 million in 2006, plus more than $3,000 in unspecified writing and consulting income. The Clintons' tax returns showed that the former president earned $16.42 million in 2006, including $400,000 from INFOUSA, an Omaha-based company that sells marketing information. He also received $2.6 million, some of it in ``guaranteed payments,'' from the Cayman Islands-based Yucaipa partnership, which invested in Xinhua Finance Media Ltd., China's leading, government-controlled financial and entertainment media company.

Sources: Senate financial disclosure statements and Clinton tax returns

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/35929.html

[StevieM]

346. Actually, Hillary has been unfairly smeared by a mean-spirited man who will do anything to get

elected. And she hasn't done anything to herself. She's a presidential candidate competing for the nomination. And she won the last contest, in spite of being outspent by 3 to1--not exactly a sharp rebuke.

You really seem to believe that an Obama victory means that Hillary has been permanently shamed and repudiated and will then be banished to the back benches. Do you have any comprehension of the fact that it doesn't work that way? He has no say in her standing in the U.S. Senate (where she is well-like). He has no say in her re-election in NY. And he has no say in whether people continue to contribute to her.

I think you will be very unhappy--if he wins--when he has to reach out to her and in a big way. That won't involve teaching her about the error of her ways, it will involve infuriating you by discussing the greatness of her ways.

Steve

[Darth_Kitten]

336. "Popularity" by ambush, annoyance, and turning long time DU'ers away...

is a very hollow "victory".
Clinton supporters are here, but they aren't falling for all the bullying by the OBAMA supporters. Yes. The OBAMA supporters.

Hang in there, long-timers..... ;)

[mcollier]

344. Read the original post kitty cat

the frustration is real and have been provoked