I am so fucking sick of the Billary Bashing

[lwcon]

I fucking hate groupthink, and that's what's going on with this bullshit that the Clintons have crossed some line of propriety, while Obama walks on water with a halo over his head.

Obama's supporters ginned up a convenient twistunderstanding of their comments, in order to pull a racism card from the bottom of the deck. WTF, seriously WTF? Do you asswipes repeating this crap actually believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists? That they disrespect Martin Luther King, Jr.? WTF?

I just watched this week's Bill Maher, and Richard Belzer is trying to sell this crap, and even while Bill rolls his eyes, Belz is successfully catapulting the propaganda -- and then tossing out a new, completely unsourced rumor that... well, fuck that!

I think Obama's win in SC was in a huge measure due to more people believing that the Clintons are hitting below the belt than Obama. I saw this dynamic all over the internet this past week and in quotes from voters on TV.

BTW, I'm voting for this candidate.

___

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

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. Groupthink and sheepthink

[neutron]

82. Obama is running a Shrewd Attack campaign

by whining he's being attacked unfairly, and demonizing
the Clintons. CNN and MSNBC are pounding it into the ground.
Obama was very sneaky about putting operatives in the liberal blogs
to smear Hillary Clinton for weeks and weeks, while he played Pure and Upbeat.

Very shrewd of him to get the public to scream "Muffle Bill." Her great
resource.

The Right Wing always fools us into killing off our strongest candidates.

We are fools.

[lwcon]

89. At first, I thought that Obama was by far the stronger candidate

But his incessant embrace of GOP frames (and if anyone thinks that began with the "Reagan" flap, s/he hasn't been paying attention) turned me off more by the day. Since all three candidates are relatively close on policy, I'm choosing the one who is most dedicated to reframing the national conversation -- e.g., to make it publicly acceptable to discuss progressive issues like poverty and excessive corporatism. That candidate, to me, is the one named John Edwards.

But still, all this Clinton-bashing seriously pisses me off, and I wasn't too thrilled to hear Joe Trippi stirring the pot a little on it tonight.

I don't worship either Bill or Hillary by a damned sight. But this shit is unworthy of our party.

And just like the Repubs shouting "liberal media," when the media is deeply rightwing biased, we have nonstop Clinton-bashing from the Obama side and then boo-hooing about what the big, bad Clintons are doing to them. And people fall for it. Bleh.

___

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

[niceypoo]

110. Obama is playing the victim card

and going along with the media frenzy. He knows that it is based on bullshit, but he goes along anyway.

Why cant he take it on the chin like a man? Hillary has taken it on the chin for 15 years without playing the victim card. Which one has the balls in this race? Obama would get eaten alive in the general election.

[rodeodance]

144. it worked in SC--wonder how far he will carry Bill in his head this coming week??

[Clinton Crusader]

173. 1000% agreed. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

156. He is using the Bush attack plan, and it worked on Gore and Kerry

and with the help of the media, it will work this time too.

That is not what I want.

[niceypoo]

109. Media hype

Some people easily get caught up in it.

[Neshanic]

2. You better get rid of your TV if she becomes our nominee. Republican field day.

[lwcon]

10. Thank you. That reminds me of another raft of bullshit.

If I read one more fucking post here about Clinton scandals, or how "polarizing" Hillary is, I'm going to fucking puke.

This is our fucking turn, if we'll just stand up and proud and tall about being Democrats, instead of this scaredy-cat bipartisanship bullshit, and cowering at and respecting every crap-covered meme the GOP ever coughed up.

That's where Hillary started the race, but she seems to have smartened the fuck up about it. How about you, Obama?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. "scaredy cat bipartisan" I hear you bro. Reagan pandering makes me vomit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. Please don't puke every time you hear that. You'll end up cleaning up every day.

:-)

[lwcon]

67. You're right. That would be full-blown, if you'll pardon the expression, bulimia n/t

[krabigirl]

160. Great post! I totally agree.

Why is it that we never hear Republicans go on and on about cooperating with Democrats and bipartisanship. ESPECIALLY back when Shrub also had a Repub-controlled Congress. Do you think they cared about working with Democrats? No, Democrats were "traitors" if they didn't go along with what Bush and the Repubs in Congress wanted.

Did we really wait eight years to just capitulate to Republicans?

[Endangered Specie]

182. You don't seriously think the Republicans can't swiftboat Obama?

Does "I met Harold at the playboy mansion" ring any bells?

[ecstatic]

3. Isn't the term "Billary" a form of bashing? nt

:shrug:

[lwcon]

11. It's just shorthand, unless you want it to be insulting n/t

[LoZoccolo]

4. You said "Billary" ha ha ha ha! n/t

[kurth]

5. The intense hatred of Bill Clinton among Obamites is cult-like and despicable

Give Bill credit for eight very good years - except for the idiotic NAFTA deal and a couple of other fuckups (not Monica). And give Hillary some respect for being a very smart and courageous woman.

[lwcon]

69. I certainly have my issues with both Bill and Hillary

But it's pretty fucking ironic for Obama to ride around on his Unity Pony, while his organization and fan base feed the last Democratic president and his wife into the wood chipper.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

116. I'm for Obama

But I really liked Clinton during the 8 years in office. I don't like his actions recently, wish he'd just go in the shadows for now and let his wife run.

I seriously think people are starting to get sick of them because of his actions as well.

[krabigirl]

161. And weird.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The only groupthink is the groupthink charge

I'm so sick of people declaring positions they don't agree with "groupthink."

Fucking stip it. You're embarrassing yourself and alienating others.

[1corona4u]

9. Who's alienating whom?

think on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

Groupthink is and generally has been a charge

thrown out by people who are losing a debate in a democracy.

Let's just be honest here. All supporters have both good reasons to support their candidate and affective attachments to their candidates. All supporters respond on these bases most of the time. When people start yelling "groupthink," it's usually because they're losing the argument. It's condescending and anti-democratic in principle. Oh, it makes some people feel better to think that it's the other guy who's engaging in groupthink, but usually both are, to some degree, and usually both are not, to some degree.

It's a cheap and weak response.

[lwcon]

76. But what if... for the sake of argument, all hypothetical like...

... a cult of personality developed around a candidate, and that candidate's followers refused to accept any form of criticism of that candidate, making a new pastime of explaining what the candidate "really meant" as the candidate continually said things that shocked many of his potential supporters.

Previously respected politicians who entered his orbit were now the subject of kneejerk and heated derision at the hands of these followers.

Just hypothetically, of course.

What would be the preferred term for describing such a dynamic?

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. Things I don't believe in

1) "Cult of personality" - A total crock of shit. People attach themselves to a candidate for all kinds of reasons. People who are interested in substance investigate those reasons. People who are interested in meritless sniping and propagandizing call everything they don't like "cult of personality." One may even take the most extreme example of Hitler. Sure, many people yell "cult of personality," while serious historians study the real political dynamics in local contexts and provide evidence for why various groups attached themselves to the NSDAP banner.

2) Your hypothetical description of the supposed "dynamic" - You see things as a partisan, imagining that others are behaving in these ways merely because they take positions you don't like. In democracies, people hold different positions, and they argue for them strenuously. I'm a grown-up, so I know that many people will disagree with my positions. I don't consider them under the sway of some irrational pop psychology crowd phenomenon for that reason. Rather, I try to think of ways to argue my position such that we can find common ground on some issues, and move some things forward. I also know that it is sometimes rough, because positions harden around interests and beliefs. You may as well ask me a hypothetical question about what happens when Martian lizards go scuba-diving. I don't assent to your terms or your description; I find both absurd and childish on their face.

The term you seem to be looking for is, of course, your supposed "groupthink" or "mob mentality" or some other such nonsense. I think you'll find that if you study that those terms, from Tarde and Lebon to Singhele to Freud, from their importation into American sociology through Robert Park and the Chicago School, from the organizational studies that both preceded and followed William Whyte's The Organization Man, down through the massive critiques of the concepts that came from empirical studies of crowds in the 1960's, and then Clark McPhail's work, and now to the excellent work going on in non-human crowd dynamics, especially those works on stigmergy and swarm behavior in social insects, and self-organization in cellular automata, I think what you'll find is one consistency: the charge of groupthink was almost always deployed by elites who felt that they were losing an argument to upstarts. You'll find that people start yelling groupthink when they've abandoned the field of argument, when they have no ammunition left. Of course, you must have already studied the history of the terminology you're using, since you're so interested in substance...

It couldn't possibly be that you're just using it because you heard other people use it in the same way. We're well beyond that, yes?

[lwcon]

100. So, you're taking cults off the table?

Does this look like cult behavior to you?

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruis...s?autoplay=true

Does it exist, or is it a phantasm -- something that simply doesn't happen?

If you agree it does happen, then we can talk about whether the Obama Fan Base is indeed cultish. If you don't agree that it does happen, then I guess we'll agree to disagree, and you'll be safe and secure in world where no one indulges in irrational groupthink, and the creation of the term was just a fantastical whim.

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

101. Let's take it off the table

It is bullshit, and always has been.

[Jim Sagle]

184. You're the one posting bullshit, and everybody here knows it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

185. Ahhhh

The old "everyone else agrees with me too" routine that most people stop using as an argument sometime during junior high school.

Cutting.

Don't be a Mean Girl, Jim Sagle. Have something substantive to say! :hi:

[amborin]

178. wrong

your post is hilarious (and nonsense)

did you take stuff from columns a, b, and c, from wikipedia and string them together to make a paragraph?

studies in groupthink are valid, and the terms are not imposed from above by elites at all

Asch, long ago, noticed the power of conformity and groupthink

but cognitive neuro-scientists have recently presented evidence of even more startling groupthink processes..... MRI studies show individuals' very perceptual capacities are influenced by their peers' positions and attitudes

[alcibiades_mystery]

186. People are influenced by their peers?

Wow! What a shocking discovery. Of course, since I never said people WEREN'T influenced by their peers (which would be a truly stupid thing to say), that's neither here nor there. If you want to take a very broad definition of groupthink as something like "an individual exists in a social milieu, which affects their very perceptual capacities," I would say, well, duh. Yeah, of course. But then you'd be hard pressed to accuse any subset of groupthink, since it would be a universal human condition. I was trying to be a bit more modest by just dealing with the laughable charges of "Cult!" and "Mob!" thrown out so uncritically by the poster above. I'd be happy to have a more general discussion of the human condition with you, though. :rofl:

Now please give me one of your scientific definitions of so-called "groupthink" that has some non-trivial basis, and does not follow out a genealogical line straight to the transformational crowd psychology of Lebon and Park.

[amborin]

187. ROFLMAO

[alcibiades_mystery]

188. Good response!

I'll spend the next few seconds investigating your evidence.

[amborin]

189. groupthink revisited

this is probably too much for you to read.....


www.ccnl.emory.edu/greg/Berns Conformity final printed.pdf

[alcibiades_mystery]

191. No workee linkee

I had to get it from this link, though I'd be happy to read the paper itself: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/science/28brai.html

Recent neurological studies that support Asch's contentions are well and good, but the condition as described is a generalized condition, and can't be charged to any given subset. The study essentially proves that individuals exist with others, which is, again, perfectly obvious.

[amborin]

193. not a good summary of the study

you've missed its key points

[alcibiades_mystery]

195. Listen

I am well familiar with group dynamics. In fact, I didn't just pick those cites of wikipedia as you charge. I'm well-versed in the literature. The two problems with all these studies is simple: while they register actual phenomena, these phenomena are generalizable conditions of culture, so specifiying them on to any one group is a misuse, and they are so easily misused by people, as in the whole "Obama cult" charge. If what that study shows is actually the case, then, as the article says, perception itself becomes a group phenomenon. While this may be a strange revelation to people in various sciences, it is not strange at all to people in the humanities, who have been saying it for years (about 2,500 hundred years, actually). But then you can't go accusing the OTHER guy of "groupthink," because your own perception might be similarly affected (and it is, by virtue of your social relations, by necessity). This is called living in a society. It certainly appears as verifiable local phenomena (group of teenagers out on a rampage, etc.), but it is a much broader phenomenon. I'm glad the neurosciences are contributing to our understanding of these phenomena. The ideology of the individual is so fucking tired I can't stand it. And, indeed, the critique of most cognitive psychology is that it retains that ideology in some basic premises (see merlin Donald's excellent criticisms on this score).

We are ecologically connected, yes, at the macro-level of belief and the micro-level of perceptions, too. But if that's the case, don't you see how shouting "groupthink" at one particular ecological niche or other in the wider network is a rank absurdity?

[amborin]

196. please

i'm glad you're trying to delve into the literature

unfortunately, nothing you just wrote makes sense, or stands up to scrutiny

no one is "specifying" anything onto any one group...you have written a lot of gobble-de-goop

you are confused as to the appropriate units of analysis, or how samples are actually drawn, how studies are conducted, etc....

for starters, try reading Dawkins on memes

[alcibiades_mystery]

197. Oh, I read Dawkins

for comprehensives. Years ago. None of this is new to me, as you continually impute.

The article I linked manages to draw the larger conclusion from the study (I've since read the published study in the Journal of Biological Psychiatry - thanks for the citation!), and it has nothing to do with units of analysis, or samples, or how a study is conducted. You are focusing on methodology instead of seeing the big picture. If perception itself is affected by social relationships, then it seems a very strange move to single out some subset for criticism, since we are all involved in social relationships as a matter of course. The accusation of groupthink is always political, since ALL thought (and perception, as your study demonstrates) is "group" think, which is to say, is based in and affected by social relationships. The accusation of "groupthink," to put it another way, is not dishonest and silly because people are NEVER influenced by their social groups (as you seem to think I was saying), but because they ALWAYS are. The suspect category in most social influence scholarship, and in Berns et. al. particularly, is not "conformity," but "independence." It turns out that you need a great deal of social information to evaluate the relative length of line segments, or "abstract three-dimensional stimuli," as the case may be. Now, certainly, we can discuss degrees of "conformity" (whatever that means), but that's where we have to start.

The difference between the so-called "groupthink" response and the non-groupthink response in ANY of these social conformity experiments is not one between a positive phenomenon and a lack of it, but the difference between a localized, intense, and fast-forming social convention, on the one hand, and an generalized, repetitive, and well-established social convention, on the other. It's all groupthink, in other words. One version just has more power.

Perhaps we can have this conversation without the vitriol and petty sniping? :shrug:

Your study is here: Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelowa, Caroline F. Zinka, Giuseppe Pagnonia, Megan E. Martin-Skurskia and Jim Richards "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation." Biological Psychiatry. 58:3 (August 2005), 245-253

You should have access to the full-text via Science Direct in your university library database.

[indimuse]

143. Well ..they already have...Have you never heard of BUSH???!

Exactly like his followers...cult like worshipers. My mother..sister..aunt...very sickening..they love him..can not speak on issues...call you names...go live in another country!!..Your a trader!! It's very disturbing to me...I can see parallels in appeal denial..of facts!

[rodeodance]

147. I keep hearing of the Obama unity/Vision thingy-not much else-that is Groupthink to me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

177. You hear what you want to hear

And repeat labels that you hear others use.

I'll leave you to it, creative thinker.

[HughMoran]

15. I agree with the O/P

.

[havocmom]

16. BINGO!

:thumbsup:

Labeling opposition as 'groupthink' is wearing as thin as the recently abandoned tactic of branding anyone with a critical opinion of HRC as a misogynist.

This shit of trying to stick negative labels on all that don't want to march in lockstep with a particular group is not pretty when the neocons do it and it is especially unbecoming used by DEMS against their own.

[lwcon]

20. Of course, in Obamaworld, any comment that's not said...

... with a swig of Kool-Aid in the mouth is proof that progressives are just as bad as conservatives.

More goddamn equivalation.

[havocmom]

22. Where is this Obamaworld?

I am an Edwards supporter.

Get any exercise besides jumping to conclusions?

[lwcon]

39. I've been watching this dynamic developing for two years

It ain't no quick jump.

[havocmom]

45. Point to Obamaworld on a map. It would offer some

SUBSTANCE.

You are throwing labels around here randomly and when you get called on it you throw garbage and sand.

Seriously, Get some rest. Tomorrow will look better.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. The sad thing is that they are GROUP LABELS

Used indiscriminately by supporters of other candidates to smear Obama supporters. But it's really the three fingers pointing back at the accusers, who seem to deploy these platitudes about groupthink and kool-aid without even realizing that they are thinking and imbibing the same by using such platitudinous language. I only wish they'd come up with something original to accuse other of lacking originality!

[havocmom]

53. Yep.

Tiresome in the extreme, it is.

[lwcon]

103. I believe Aristotle called this...

... "Argument from I Know You Are But What Am I?"

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

108. Hilarious

I think you need to revisit Aristotle's rhetoric. The whole bit on pathos might be interesting to you.

As it stands, I was merely pointing out that you engage in the same behavior you accuse others of. There is a term for that, of course.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. "Kool-aid" just another way of saying groupthink

Interesting that the people accusing others of groupthink seem to be the least original bunch on these boards. Come up with something interesting if you're going to accuse others of lacking individualism and originality, at least. Practice what you preach, Kool-aid boy.

[lwcon]

42. When a bunch of people reflexively defend...

... a platitude-spouting hero, what is the preferred word for describing that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. I don't agree

That Senator Obama is spouting platitudes, and I don't agree that people "reflexively" defend him, and I don't believe he is a hero, and I don't believe that there would be a shortage of descriptions for that were it happening. So, I disagree with all your premises, and I still think you are being horribly unoriginal for somebody accusing others of blind loyalty.

[lwcon]

98. I'm battle-hardened, friend

The debates I've had with the Obama fandom are identical to debates I have with literalist fundies and Ron Paulites.

99% of the time, they'll go any which way but logical. I didn't anticipate that this would happen, but it does, it does.

Like so: http://www.correntewire.com/the_low_spark_of_obama_trolls

My interactions with Hillary supporters, though I disagree with them, never go like that. They know how to concede points and make legitimate arguments. But Obama is treated as a Transcendent Figure Who Must Not Be Doubted.

Walk a mile in my moccasins, and you'll see it over and over and over.

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Was I supposed to glean something from this

Other than how cool and experienced you think you are?

Talk about cult of personality! You seem to be engaged in one as well...with yourself.

Listen, I can make up Cool Capitalized expressions Like They Mean Something, too, but I don't pretend that that constitutes anything but a fanciful conceit. I certainly wouldn't consider it an argument. Oh, that's right. I'm supposed to believe your assessment because of how cool and experienced you are. Right. With substance like that, who needs rhetoric? And I do take it, as a matter of substance, that your "99%" figure is thoroughly anecdotal, substance-wise? :rofl:

[lwcon]

114. If I were truly in a one-man cult of personality...

I might decorate my witty posts with the ROTFL smiley. But cults don't exist, anyway....

You deny something happens, and I explain and document that in my experience, it does happen.

Understandably, that doesn't have the empirical weight of, say, Obama claiming that Jesus put him on a mission to be President, but it's the best I've got. Sorry.

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. Here's a hint

Other people don't exist inside your head. For that reason, when you have a position, it's best to explain it.

Please feel free to do so at any time.

[havocmom]

49. Some of us have never defended Obama, we just call foul on your labels

and generalizations.

Ya know, I heard a wise woman say if a whole lotta people disagree with you, it might not be them thats wrong.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Crowd mind! Fad! Bandwagon! Groupthink! Mob mentality!

And on and on and on....

Easy enough as an argument, I guess. Never impressive, but easy enough.

[havocmom]

57. My high school speech teacher would've throw the ilk outta class

and barred the door.

[lwcon]

111. The prevailing gripe is that the Clintons and their supporter are racists

Do you find that unbecoming?

___

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. Is that the prevailing gripe?

I've seen a lot of people stating that the Clintons are race baiting, which, of course, doesn't make them racists, but deeply cynical opportunists.

On the other hand, I've seen numerous comments by supporters that are - in my view - racist. So. No. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out racist commentary when I see it. Of course, many Clinton supporters now think something is only racist if it comes packaged in a Klan mask and burns a cross on your front yard. There is no systematic racism anymore, you'd think, to listen to their complaints about their victimhood.

Of course, I guess the default in this thread is to defer to "your experience," which stands as almighty evidence of any claim whatsoever.

[havocmom]

133. What I have noticed is that they are PLAYING the race card. Not noticed them called racists

And I have posted many times that the campaign TACTIC is not becoming nor helpful to either the Clinton campaign or Bill Clinton's standing in the public's eye. Resorting to key buzz words to try and instill fear or hit on old nerves, trigger points in part of the population is the way Rove campaigns. I am truly saddened to see the Clintons resort to such an obvious and hateful use of the method. Having been a supporter of Bill Clinton and a big fan of Hillary, for the many good things she has done, it breaks my heart to have to turn away from them for using such blatantly desperate and downright UGLY tactics in this campaign.

What I have posted about here, in this thread, is the MISUSE of broad brush and inaccurate labels by people who just seem pissed off sore losers without enough self discipline to either channel their honest hurt into constructive means to help their candidate, or failing that, have the judgment to walk away from the keyboard before they do more damage to their candidate.

And that is what it is many of you are are doing. By the pit bull method of attacking and labeling those who do not agree with you and your candidate on all things, you are estranging many people (lurkers included, who come to learn) who might otherwise give your candidate more consideration. It smacks of the shit the neocons used to intimidate others into agreement with them or silence.

THAT I find unbecoming in the extreme and damn foolish too. What I find just plain sad and ugly is the seeming inability of some rabidly pro-HRC attack-posters to LEARN anything from their repeated run-ins with those of us who advocate talking issues instead of labels and attacks on anyone who posts anything critical.

[lwcon]

17. I'd "stip it" if only I knew what that was. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Ah, the typo critique

Incisive and substantive.

You're all about "substance," right?

[lwcon]

28. Please direct me to the sibstance in your previous post n/t

[havocmom]

31. Whoopsies. Typo cop typos

:rofl: get some sleep and tell me about "sibstance" in the morning. Yer killing me :rofl: Get some rest.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. I read that positively

The poster was trying to be clever, I suspect.

Too clever, by far.

[havocmom]

38. You are more charitable than I

Having studied a bit in Early Childhood Development, I see someone who needs a nap. ;)

[lwcon]

36. That was a joke, ibviously. n/t

[havocmom]

41. Sure a lot of jokes falling flat here tonight

And what may be ibivous to you is not necessarily so to those of us too old to jump to a lot of conclusions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Well, it was an evaluation

I don't like the charge of groupthink.

What sort of substance would you like to see to support that?

[havocmom]

30. More like poster is all about tantrums tonight

;)

It's late and the little darling has had a very rough time. WAY past bedtime perhaps.

[emilyg]

63. Perhaps you should have studied Adult Development.

[lwcon]

115. Ooh, I just caught up with that one. Well played! n/t

[havocmom]

127. Have a towel and a drink of water after all your conclusion jumping

Where did I ever say I didn't study that too?

Is that all you guys got? Personal (lame) attacks when your methodology is exposed as bad? Jeeze. Hope the week goes better for you all, but HRC's week? Not so much.

[lwcon]

73. I bow to the power of your rhetoric and wit! n/t

[AX10]

7. It is sickening.

Obama is an SOB. He knows how to play the field. He is no victim.

[1corona4u]

8. Sickening, isn't it....and you're right.

[Tulkas]

12. You Think Billary Didn't Know What He/She was saying???

Gimme a break.

He/She has been doing this for decades. He/She can use code words the same way Bush or Rove or Cheney can.

They all play the same game.

Obama does not have a halo over his head, he just isn't apiece of crap and that looks fantastic by comparison.

[lwcon]

14. Pretty funny, since the obsession of the Obama Fan Base is...

... playing "What Obama Really Meant."

Every fucking day, he says something that whitewashes the Repubs or badmouths true progressives, and it all gets explained away.

[Tulkas]

40. I know he does that.. I never said he didn't

I am saying Billary did it too, and started the racism problem our party is now suffering.

[lwcon]

43. Please provide some detail n/t

[Tulkas]

59. Well today's was the Jesse Jackson comment

Racial, Pundits on MSNBC described it as "Bill Clinton put down the blunt instrument and picked up a chainsaw".


If you honestly don't know what is going on you are not worth my time.


If you do know what is going on and are being dishonest you are not worth my time.

[lwcon]

66. Thanks for taking the time to tell me that n/t

[1corona4u]

72. Who gives a shit what the 'pundits said'

what exactly did Bill say, verbatim please. With link.

[AX10]

83. The pundits have it out for the Clintons.

There was nothing racial in what Clinton said, this is the punditry knocking the Clintons yet again.

[1corona4u]

88. I know that, you know that....

I just want to see the comment.

[1corona4u]

70. Yep.

Brainwashed america.

[amborin]

192. exactly

and anyone who accepts the rhetoric of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" etc.....is dangerously ignorant, or naive, or disingenuous

you can't reach across the aisle to the likes of those who launched all out class warfare, or supported the military commissions act, or gut environmental protection regulations

Obama does not represent a progressive agenda

Obama represents vague, and at times, highly neo-liberal sounding rhetoric and platitudes

[1corona4u]

68. I think Obama's a piece of crap, as well as a liar, and a slacker...

So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[VotesForWomen]

92. so the racism charges/denials/bickering will stop when obama becomes prez and clintons recede? not.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

13. K&R--"Did Obama or Hillary supporters get an e-mail like this today?"

Thank You so much for this and your excellent post!
-:dem:
:patriot: :patriot:

--" Martin Luther King III to John Edwards: I challenge all candidates to follow your lead"

'…I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the
economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice.
And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election." :kick:

[Frances]

18. I am against all bashing

Save it for the Repubs! That's the big contest.

[sniffa]

19. Race baiting is cool

:thumbsup:

[algol]

21. Is it possible that others heard things that you did not?

It is the very fact the the Clintons are not considered racists that made the race-baiting tactics they used so difficult to understand. Truth be told, I fully expect that a Clinton administration would contain an impressive number of people of color in positions of high responsibility. For reasons which appear to be only to get Hillary into the Whitehouse, tactics were used which angered many people. The suggestion that this was somehow generated by either the Obama campaign or the MSM is to simply miss the point.

[lwcon]

27. Please provide evidence

Racism is a mighty big charge, especially against a Democratic ex-president and his candidate wife.

Saying that Martin Luther King collaborated with LBJ was twisted into a racist statement. I guess people did hear things I didn't hear, because they weren't fucking said.

[algol]

60. I thought I was careful not to charge them as racists...

The use of race-baiting tactics does not equate one as a racist in my mind -- the Clintons are demonstrably not racists. However, they are very much determined to nominate Hillary. I do not believe that this desire allows one to use any means available, and it would appear that a good percentage of people in SC -- if exit polling is worth a damn -- feel the same way.

As for the MLK/LBJ comments, they need to be viewed from the black viewpoint to understand exactly how they were received. The black community is not exactly overwhelmed with universally revered figures. Black people are very sensitive to MLK's memory and legacy, it is a source of intense pride. The suggestion that he somehow needed LBJ to carry him across the finish line was extremely poorly received, and it beggars credulity to suggest this could not be understood by politicians who have a strong connection to the black cultural identity. It is not "playing the race card" to be offended -- it is to be offended.

[lwcon]

65. Here's where the playing field is unlevel

1. We are expected to be shocked that the Clintons described a collaboration between MLK and a politician, and it's accepted as gospel that any genuinely nasty thing that happens during the campaign occurs at the specific direction of the Clinton campaign (e.g., the "Muslim" e-mails)
2. We are expected not to believe that a sudden rush of interview ops with black leaders claiming the MLK/LBJ anecdote was beyond the pale (an unfortunate phrase, but it's the one that fits) is an orchestrated tempest in a teapot

___

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

[1corona4u]

74. Exactly.

Especially #2.

[algol]

77. I'll concede these, but the field may be leveling

#1 is the cost of being the presumed front-runner. With parity in the race, going forward Obama will very much be held accountable for the activities of his campaign -- both directly and through surrogates.

#2 is the cost of doing, or in this case saying, something provocative. The response to Obama's Reagan comments, as well has his relation to Rezko are indicative.

[lwcon]

95. I've got my doubts

#1. The media hates Hillary, and they fear Edwards so much they won't even tell people he's running. Even on Limbaugh and Fox News, you should hear how flattering they are to Obama. Let alone the Beltway Broders and Brookses, and even the George Wills, et al.

#2. In the end, people believed the spin that the Reagan comments weren't significant, when they were in fact the tip of the iceberg of an endless string of progressive-demeaning comments from Obama. And there was more backlash on Hillary for bringing up Mr. Slumlord than there was impact on Obama.

I will say that there was a frontrunner's lull in Obama's campaign between Iowa and NH. He tried to coast, and Hillary tortoise-and-hared him. But with Super Duper Tuesday in a little over a week, both campaigns will be in overdrive, so nobody's going to Fred Thompson this phase of the race.

___

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

[Bread and Circus]

24. what's your definitions of "bashing"?

[lwcon]

33. The two things that have made me sick here

1. The evidence-less propagation of the meme that the Clintons have done some sort of xtreme, unacceptable dirty tricks, while Obama's been angelically above the fray (despite low blows like the twistunderstanding of the MLK comments and the "Say Anything" ad -- which he had to rush off the air because it was so over the top... and then he repeated the money line from it in his big victory speech tonight!)
2. The pathetic acceptance of the Republican's Clinton hate and Ken Starr's jism hunt like they're a reflection on the Clintons, not on the fucking GOP bastards we're supposed to be standing up to

___

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

[havocmom]

34. Having a well thought out opinion based on facts and observation but not agreeing with OP

near as I can figure.

[lwcon]

47. Please enlighten us about...

... your well-thought out opinions on how the Clintons are racists who deserve to be treated by us as the GOP treated them during Bill's presidency, because that's the topic here.

[havocmom]

51. Please show me where I ever said/advocated any such thing

GET SOME REST

[lwcon]

62. Clever retort. But you dismissed the OP...

... on the grounds that my definition of bashing was unfair, because what I called bashing was actually just being more astute than I. Was that not your point?

Assuming that was your point, I highlighted the kind of bashing the OP and my follow-ups pertained to, and I wondered how those holding such positions were in fact being thoughtful.

Perhaps lacking a good argument (or healthful rest), you chose a straw man approach, by claiming I'd accused you of staking out those positions.

Anyway, this is how W.O.R.M. is played. Nothing may ever stick to Obama or anyone who loves him. No matter what.

___

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

[havocmom]

137. Do you do more than assume

and pitch fits?

[CatnHat]

25. I too am sick

of Clinton bashing; and the "idolization" group mentally of Obama supporters. Truthfully, the more I see Obama speak, the less I am impressed or inspired. Just another "politician."

[Catherine Vincent]

46. Billary is a right wing term. nt

[rodeodance]

145. yes, it is and I will not use it.

[robbedvoter]

48. I was going to leave DU for a while - but it's posts like yours that make it

worthwhile looking through the muck.
There was some acceptance of the MSM phony support in 2004 as well. When asked why they are so embraced by the MSM, Deanies answered: "maybe they saw the truth?"
of course, the truth seekers went and crowned kerry before any vote was cast and threw dean under the bus quite unceremoniously after Iowa (after having contributed greatly to his defeat with intense negative coverage just before the caucus).
kerry then enjoyed a very brief honeymoon - just until they made sure all competition was out - then they let him have it.
And unbelievably, Obama supporters who believe their own press think the good times will go on - because he is so very likable - and the MSM will carry him through GE.
And they really think they had to FIGHT - and they endured hardships.

No 2004 candidate ever had this much help from the MSM (and Rush as well):



Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

But they still complain, and ask for Carville and begala to be banned - because 47% positive coverage just ain't enough

[lwcon]

55. Thanks for the comment and the #s

What's the source of the data?

___

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

[robbedvoter]

61. Just a DU post - didnt give a link. Somehow, I somehow suspect it wasn't a Dem

source - maybe McCain people compiled it. I am still looking for a source.

[MadBadger]

54. Well Im fuckin sick of Billary. Today what Bill Said about Obama and Jackson was disgusting.

[lwcon]

56. Please post the details n/t

[robbedvoter]

58. An AP article had a tiny quote about his saying Jesse Jackson won SC twice

We don't know the context of it - was he asked a question, did he volunteer it - but it's supposed to be offensive.
Personally, I admire Jesse far more than Obama , so...

[emilyg]

64. So do I.

[1corona4u]

75. Yes,please do....

I smell faux outrage. Again. Link please.

[ErnestoG]

71. This is why I believe a Hillary Clinton nomination will be a disaster

She is a divisive character, and has the power to draw the most vitriolic hate from all over America, that I have seen from any other candidate.

Seriously, you should take this into consideration. Before Obama's win in SC today (wooohooo!!!), I cannot tell you how many self annointed political analysts told me that there is no way Obama would win a Southern state even in the primaries. Well, now its wide open again, and indeed Obama CAN win. Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton can win much or any of the South?

Think carefully before answering, and use only a number two pencil, filling in all dots thoroughly.

[1corona4u]

78. Talk about divisive?

Just wait until the MSM gets done with the race card. I think it's really going to piss off and motivate white republican voters to come out. Remember, this country is 80% white, 12% black. Registered republican numbers aside, if people get pissed off enough, they will turn out in record numbers. Remember when Reagan got elected? That was because 1 million new republican voters registered. It could happen again.....and then some. I just don't think republicans have kicked in yet.

I think both could be a disaster to be honest. That's why people should have thought very carefully about the choices they made way back in Iowa. Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

[ErnestoG]

79. It's a tight rope walk, to be sure....

But already this is an interesting race. People were telling me two weeks ago that there was no how, no way that a Black man would take a Southern state, even in a primary. Now look at Obama's SC win. Couple that with the shocking number of youth who came out to vote for him and you have a major cog in the wheel of the machinery marked As They Have Been.

[1corona4u]

81. Well, whomever told you that Obama wouldn't win SC

really didn't have a clue. I think we all knew he would win SC.

[ErnestoG]

84. That wasnt what I said

I told you the sentiment I heard was that he a Black man couldn't win ANY Southern state in this election cycle. Please read the words carefully.

[lwcon]

86. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here about Iowa

Please clarify.

[robbedvoter]

119. Oh, GOP-ers kicked in all right - Rush told them as much. SC is open primary:

Check this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4214763

[lwcon]

85. Sans pencil, here goes...

1. Hillary is not divisive. That's just a rightwing talking point. Let's not be in the business of ratifying those, please.

2. Obama had a substantial lead in polling in a state with a substantial African-American population (a group which did, in fact support him, to the tune of 80%). Who was saying he couldn't win there?

3. Hillary Clinton is quite unlikely to win many southern states (Arkansas and quasi-northern states like Virginia are possible). If the Democrats can hold the states they've won in the last two presidential elections and -- in a year where the Republican brand is deeply diminished (as it was in 2006, which the Dems won handily) -- all they need to do is turn Ohio or Florida.

4. If our concern is both charisma and the South, Edwards (for whom I'm voting) is a worthy alternative to Obama, but the "Whistling Past Dixie Theory" and basic electoral math say that we needn't count on winning any southern states. We just need to energize our base; somehow, we keep forgetting that we came very close in two years with less-favorable conditions and won the last national election (the midterms). The moral of that story is that it's quite unnecessary for Obama to continually reframe our political reality to pretend there's nothing but a bipartisan "food fight" in Washington, as opposed to telling the truth about the runaway Conservative Movement that's raped our country since Reagan and especially during the past 7 years. And that, alternatively, we can choose a candidate who doesn't do that.

___

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

[ErnestoG]

87. How about a ball point pen....

1. Hillary is one of the most divisive politicos in recent memory. Hell, even many Democrats now are fortressing against her. She is coming off as mean, bitchy, feeling politically entitled, and too closely linked with corps and AIPAC.

2. I have heard so many telling me that Obama would never win in a Southern state. Glad we put that one to rest.

3. You are right there...the chances of Hillary Clinton taking a southern state are about equal with a snowballs chance in hell.

4. I like Edwards. My dream ticket is Obama/Edwards.

[lwcon]

90. Hillary doesn't have a strong, natural base, and she's a dyed-in-the wool centrist

How is that divisive?

She's a lightning rod, because the GOP decided that the Clintons should become a lightning rod. And it's because of shit like that -- when we serve up a genuine, compromising, third-way triangulator like the Big Dog, and they treat him like he's Karl Marx on steroids, it's pretty clear that they're playing scorched-earth politics no matter what. You cannot reach across the aisle to these fuckers, and both Obama and Hillary are either lying or naive when they play the "bipartisanship" card.

[ErnestoG]

93. It's not rational, but there it is

Don't shoot the messenger, Mem sahiib. I'm just telling you that she IS divisive, not that its always rational. I have my reasons for being against her, that have been logged so many times I'm sick of typing them. But the fact is, you have the GOP right, which has always been against her, and a growing chunk of the Democrats, now coming into opinion parity on that question. She just does not have a friend making, "come vote for me" aura about her, it's really hard to explain. And before you write that one off, realize that many people DO vote on that shallow basis.

Just a reporter here. I didn't make the rules.

[lwcon]

96. I consider it our job to get the words right

We've been fucked so bad by the GOP's frame-masters.

We can say she's "hated," which is considerably true, but let's not accept that she's earned or causes that hate, because those aren't true. Thus "divisive" and "polarizing" are out of my Hillary vocabulary.

When we get the words right, we're playing a role in telling the true story, and the truth shall set us free. Obama's profound uninterest in doing that is what made me lose faith in him quite some time ago, and it gets worse by the day.

If he -- or Hillary -- get the nomination, I'll support with $$$, phone calls, etc. But I hope this time there is a "third way," and that third way is named "Edwards." Odds not good, but we'll see.

___

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

[ErnestoG]

113. It doesnt matter what the words are....

I was illustrating for you a political reality. And that reality is that Hillary is not well liked, and she will be even less liked in a general election. A Hillary nomination will almost guarantee four coming years of a Republican president.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

104. she voted FOR the war

there's at least one candidate who was wise enough not to do that.

If Hillary is so smart, then she knowingly voted to send us into a war based on a pack of lies.

Because of the "weapons of mass destruction" that were hidden or moved around like Easter eggs?

[lwcon]

106. This relates to the OP how? n/t

___

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

[ErnestoG]

181. and has NOT apologized for that vote, last I checked....

Edwards, to his credit, did. And changed his view, like a decent person.

[lwcon]

112. that was supposed to be "partisan 'food fight'" n/t

[AGirl]

80. You are right, i can't stand this freaking place sometimes.

[VotesForWomen]

91. say it. just think what 4 years of an obama presidency will be like. constant racism charges, denial

denial, bickering, etc. sheesh, and they say hillary is divisive.

[ErnestoG]

94. Goin' for all the white wimminz, teaching our kids jazz,

being lazy and shiftless....did I leave anything out?

OBAMA '08

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

102. put it on You Tube "Leave Billary Alone!"

Show her crying, then you cry.

[lwcon]

105. Perhaps that's more of a job for...

Obama Girl.

___

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

[goldcanyonaz]

107. !!!!

:rofl:

[Perry Logan]

117. I've noticed it's the Obama people--not the Clinton people---who are incessantly talking about race.

[GalleryGod]

118. I for one, would actually read your OP if you didn't drop a childish F-Bomb in the midst of it.

So...all F-bombers go to "Ignore" that's my "crap" as you call it.

Sayonara!

[harun]

123. Me too, people don't have to use that language to make a point.

Like you said it lets you know who to put on ignore though.

[lwcon]

125. To quote the brilliant Avedon Carol (of the "Sideshow" blog)

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/03/eine-klein-knock.html

Oh, grow up. The "f word" is just a modifier. Grown-ups are capable of ignoring such language for the sake of the larger discussion. It's astonishingly shallow for an allegedly literate person to think this is even worthy of bringing up. And no matter how many times Atrios or any other blogger may use this sort of language on a for-dog's-sake BLOG, it's not as if we were telling people to go Cheney themselves on the floor of the US Senate.

Context, darling. The only people who are using this kind of language on television news talk shows and in the Senate chamber are conservatives who support or are part of the Bush administration. We wild and crazy liberals confine such language to the blogosphere or private conversation. I don't use the same language when I write articles for the Guardian or The Baltimore Sun, when I write submissions to Parliament, or when I debate at Cambridge and Oxford. (Yes, these are things I have actually done.) Blogs are just blogs.

Smart, literate, articulate people don't have a smaller vocabulary than other people - we use ALL the words, we just write better sentences with them.

Avedon's blog can be found here:

http://sideshow.me.uk/
___

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

[robbedvoter]

134. Oh, wow! What a gem! Thanks for that!

[totodeinhere]

151. I agree.

I just recently found out about DU and joined up. I was excited about having the chance to talk with other progressives. But I am very disappointed to see all of the profanity here. IMO it serves no purpose. So I have to make sure that my teen aged daughter does not read this site. It's too bad.

[Pryderi]

120. Frank Rich's Sunday NY Times column: "The Billary Road to Republican Victory"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x334402

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory. . .

. . .In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so. . . .

. . . If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[JackORoses]

121. it's not groupthink, it's similar independent conclusions based on observing the same dirty bastards

Why is it that Hillarites think it is everybody else who is crazy?

[lwcon]

124. You'll have to ask one of them n/t

___

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

[havocmom]

135. Tha subject line would make a great sig line

Might just steal that one for a while. Permission?

:applause:

[JackORoses]

194. of course

;)

[ProSense]

122. Bill Clinton's Selfish Myopia

Bill Clinton's Selfish Myopia

[Imagevision]

126. I agree, Bill Clinton should take a hint and shut the fu*k up already...!

[Medusa]

132. and stop the race baiting.

They are tearing our party apart and ruining our chances for winning in November. Just as I predicted, they are a devisive element, not a uniting one and we need to be united. A big heap of STFU would help us and them. But their arrogance and hubris won't allow them to.

[lwcon]

139. Ah, the great liberal tradition of STFU

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/04/good-song-by-ok-go-though.html

[robbedvoter]

128. Fellow war protesters write me now: "F*it, I'm voting Hillary! Got several random

e-mails from angry people who watched MSNBC last night.
I mean, these are people I went with Code Pink to protest Hillary's office - more than once. Many of them are so furious about this media manipulation - they are coming to vote.
For Hillary

One more thing: they are men and women - but mostly old geezers like me (above 18). They're pissed about that one too!

[karynnj]

131. Maybe it was because the Clintons WERE hitting below the belt

They lied and distorted.

[lwcon]

136. Details, please. n/t

___

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

[havocmom]

138. ROFL (n/t)

[lwcon]

141. Easily amused much?

Wouldn't want facts harshing the mellow, I guess.

___

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

[ProSense]

142. Here:

BILL: 'MY MESSAGE' 99.9% POSITIVE

Billary's Adventures in Primaryland

Also see: Bill Clinton As Victim: Says His Message is “99.99″ Percent Positive

[lwcon]

152. Would you be so kind as to...

... excerpt examples of dirty-pool words and deeds by the Clintons?

I'm afraid I don't have time to go spelunking through these, and if you have evidence of wrongdoing by them, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not claiming they're perfect, just that there's -- to cite a favorite Obama phrase -- a lot more heat than light, from what I can tell.

___

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

[ProSense]

153. OK:

here.

In addition to the links previously provided, there is this.



I really wish people would do their own research, especially when the information is handed to them.

[lwcon]

154. Obamaites have been very quick with the sweeping accusations

But pretty slow with backing them up. Then they tell you to read a book or some articles, instead of highlighting or organizing the evidence.

I have written numerous posts based on very specific concerns about Obama (and some on Hillary, as well).

Like this one (read it or not): http://correntewire.com/illinoise

It's not hard to write a bulleted list of specific issues or to paste the money quote(s) from something and illuminate it with your analysis. You don't have to agree with my analysis, nor I with yours, but show the work.

Please write the comment or post that will make people like me shut up. I'll read what you write or excerpt and will comment in earnest (thought it may be a few hours, because real life is calling).

I looked at the Reagan link, and I haven't a clue about how that's a smoking gun proving that the Clintons are gravy-sucking pigs.

___

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

[ProSense]

155. You're offering spin to counter Hillary campaign's lies and desperate robo calls? n/t

From your link:

Their main gripe is that Obama is idiotically legitimizing the GOP meme about Democrats being hostile to religion. And they have him dead-to-rights:

Bill Clinton:

But he also took Democrats to task for failing to challenge the GOP among religious voters, for whom moral issues are important.

'Democrats have made a mistake by not entering the debate,' he said.

link

[lwcon]

157. I make no such offer (to spin for Hillary)

Clinton's line, as far as it goes, doesn't offend me.

I tried in vain to find a broader context for the quote. I can think of both innocent and (to me) offensive contexts in which he might have said this. If he framed it, as the writer did (and as Obama did in *his* quote), by conflating religion with "moral values" and suggesting that Dems are deficient in them, I will be more than happy to verbally slap him around about it.

If, on the other hand, he's merely saying that Dems needn't be shy about discussing faith, I'm not offended. I'd rather they steer away from it. But if they're faith-heads, hey, it's a free country.

It's when religiosity is equated with values and morals and when progressives are told to shape up, then I will strike down with great vengeance (or at least with a bitchy blog post) anyone who does it, especially a Democrat.

___

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

[MzShellG]

140. Sorry but...

Ya might need to get used to it and strap on your seat belt. This is gonna be a bumpy ride. Things are bound to get uglier and nastier. It is what it is.

[lwcon]

148. Sad, but true. But I'll still speak up for what's (IMHO) right.

I'll even say "fuck," but that's nothing compared to the indecencies the GOP has inflicted on the US and abroad, nor the genuine hate that's being lavished (again) on the Clintons.

I feel the same way about the motherfuckers who sent the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails, though (not that it's in any way exculpatory, mind you) Obama's response to that was beyond lame:
http://www.correntewire.com/obamas_response_to_being_accused_of_being_a_muslim

I keep asking the Obama Fan Base to document these terrible things the Clintons are doing, and over 100 messages in, I haven't seen anything yet. Not saying there hasn't been anything -- I don't expect they're angels, either -- but there's a lot of condemnation without a lot of reason, from what I can see.

___

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

[rodeodance]

146. Obama will do anything to win. Playing the victim worked for him last week few weeks.

[kurth]

149. It was a brilliant trap

And Bill stepped right into it.

[lwcon]

150. Yup n/t

[krabigirl]

158. I agree with you.

[guruoo]

159. IMO, Dems involved in this have betrayed not only the Clintons,

but the Democratic Party, and progressivism itself.

Watch them all dissapear into the woodwork the day
after we lose the general election.

"Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."

BTW: K&R

[Cameron27]

162. It's been so over the top and so nasty

that I'm still considering whether it's better to just stay away from DU until the GE. I know I'm posting less and less.

The anti-Clinton media bias is starting to cause a backlash though; read Craig Crawford's OPeds at CQ Politics, and Joan Walsh at Salon. Tom Watkin's is also a great read, but to be fair, I think he's backing HRC.

Great post, and I'll recommend.

[lwcon]

164. I don't know. I generally figure it's better to stand and fight...

... and to trade observations with goodhearted folks here, of whom there are many.

But I just read one too many post here that more-than-tacitly ratified Ken Starr's $80 million witchhunt, and I got tired of watching the villagers get their torches out the second anyone mumbled a vague accusation at Hillary's campaign.

Facts, please, folks. Maybe you've got them, so put them forth!

And maybe spare a little of that goldurned wonderful Unity for your fellow Dems.

___

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

[tandot]

163. Thanks. We had the same feeling when we watched the recent coverage

K & R

[lwcon]

167. Here's one guy who noticed

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012308.shtml

[Arugula Latte]

165. That's funny. I'm so fucking sick of Billary. nt

[lwcon]

166. So, go ahead and bash them like everyone else

And make sure not to use clear citations and explanations of what your grievances are.

___

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

[Arugula Latte]

168. Will do.

[lwcon]

169. If you happen to find any issues of substance, just back away

Facts, as a transformative man once said, are stupid things.

___

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

[kdpeters]

170. Hey, she goofed!! That's her fault not Obamas.

Sure the media pounced and sensationalized the accurracy out of it, but let's be honest, even in full context listening to the speech with my own ears, the whole segment was just baaaaad. Really bad.

For one thing, it was so clumsy and disjointed, I had to listen to it four times before I felt like I finally figured out the illustration she was trying to make. She flubbed it bad. Really bad. For another thing, it was an attack on Obama, but an attack on his experience, not his race. and I think she was trying to use race because she had to connect with black voters who had the option of voting for a black candidate. That's the thing that got the most distorted. I'm certain she wasn't trying to be divisive on race. She was trying to connect with them and demonstrate a command of their issues and concerns. If she hadn't flubbed it, it would have been an effective way to make her case in comparison to the black candidate. But she did and it wasn't good. Instead, it came across as another patronizing and clueless white woman attacking a black man and using the imagery of Martin Luther King. That's my interpretation and I tried to be fair, but it's not nothing. I would have changed my vote too. Of course she's not racist, but she doesn't quite get it and that showed cam across loud and clear.

[bagrman]

171. The simple fact that the use of Clintons, plural, will keep her from getting elected.

[Clinton Crusader]

172. Taking my life in my hands, I agree with you

Obama and his minions have the victim down to a science. This racism thing is way out of control, they have brainwashed everyone into thinking they are the 'victim' - there's that word again - of some colossal plan of the Clinton Camp. I ain't buyin' what they're selling. I myself heard Mrs. Obama use the race card and I heard Oprah use the race card. So how is it that it's the Clinton campaign that the racists? Granted, I'll give you that it's entiely possible I missed something, I'm not 'on this' 24/7, I've got a myriad of personal crap going on right now, but this victim thing has been perfected and copyrighted by the Obama people. Not to mention, we're being deluged and drowned by Obama supporters and their posts. I can't even count how many HRC and JE supporters have given up posting because they just cannot get a word in edgewise.

[Time for change]

174. I think it's pretty sickening too

Our corporate media is having a field day with it.

Last night they made a big big deal talking about how Bill Clinton insulted Obama because he referred to him as a "young leader", or something like that, even though Clinton himself was younger than Obama when he first ran for the presidency.

And they made a big deal talking about how Bill Clinton insulted Obama by comparing him to Jessie Jackson.

If those are the worst "insults" that the Clintons could come up with against Obama, then this is one of the cleanest campaigns in the history of presidential politics.

[amborin]

175. sick of Hillary bashing, too

earlier in the campaign when Hillary Clinton made some passing light remark after an early debate about gender....to some women's college audience in the north east....

she was unfairly attacked in the media for weeks afterward

but it's fine for Obama to play victim continually

if anyone challenges his stance on an issue or expresses their legitimate opinion, Obama cries foul as a way to challenge, silence, and undermine his critics

Obama totally lost it for me with his "republican ideas" remark

that was so outrageous...no way he can squirm out of it, much as he unsuccessfully tried during the last debate

his groupthink followers are scary

[allinktup]

179. I understood the Republican remarks.

Perhaps you should go over the Obama remarks and then understand that Clinton heaped more praise on Reagan. Don't you have this double standard going? She was called on the Reagan issue before the debate and during the debate. The Clintons used race and gender as wedge issues and they've distorted Obama's record and you're screaming he's whining because he doesn't want to play that kind of politics? Do you think that the Clintons are playing above board when they use Republican tactics to win? Look at what Bill is doing, still injecting race into this process; comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. Should this political project be about race or how someone wants to get us out of the mess we're in? Look at what the Clintons are doing. You don't call what the Clintons are doing Obama bashing?

[allinktup]

176. lwcon...Good for you

I think all of the candidates are very good but of course because of the Clintons hitting below the belt and Edwards and Clinton's bankruptcy bill yes vote and of course the Iraq authorization I see only one candidate that serves my purpose and that's Obama. I'm glad you have found your choice but I disagree with you about Clinton bashing. I think the Clintons brought this on themselves. With the full out lies and distortions and injecting race and gender into an otherwise tame election, I think it caused people to take a second and third look at the Clintons. I'm not bashing. I'm just calling it as many see it. The clintons are using Republican tactics to take over the white house. Didn't we say we didn't like how the republicans were running the government? If you use Republican tactics to gain advantage then that makes you just like the Republicans. Did we want that for the next 8 years? I think an Obama presidency could cure all of what ails this country.

[allinktup]

180. Did everyone forget that Obama's mother is WHITE

Why does his race have to be an issue. He is the product of both white and black. Did that slip the Clinton's mind? No. They wanted to paint this in terms of race to appeal to people who would vote for them if they knew blacks would vote overwhelmingly for Obama because he's black. She would get majority of the women's vote and the white vote. That's why the Clintons injected race. They wanted this to be an issue. Inject it anyway you can to win. Iowa and South Carolina and in large part Nevada rejected this. You see Edwards didn't inject race as a dividing line. Only the Clintons could as only they know how.

[CaptJasHook]

183. Funny, you say I am a sheep

I watched Hillary use the "spade" term. I watched her interview connecting MLK to Johnson. I watched Bill blow up in Nevada. I watched Bill try and tie Obama to Jesse Jackson, after a truce was called.

Guess what? I came to my own f***ing conclusions.

Who the hell is playing the victim card here? Poor Hillary. And now her DU representatives want to whine about it.

Here's an idea, instead request your candidate to run a campaign on the issues and stop injecting race into the race.

Same goes for Obama.

And while your at it, stop pounding each other with smear tactics. We will have enough of that after the primarys. No need to give the Repuglicans any ammo.

Oh, by the way, there are three candidates in this race.

[still_one]

190. You should be "fucking" sick of both hillary and obama bashing

because THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING