What is the point in saying Obama supporters have a "cultish mentality"? How is that helpful to anyone?
Because it feels good.
o/~ "Why are you such a mega-bitch, Heather?"
"Because I can be." o/~
Ah, the joys of high school, writ large.
corn nuts!
B-Q
you enjoy posting anonymous insults.
I wonder how to characterize that behavior...
by a troll.
Obama supporters are using tools at their disposal to hold their own candidate accountable. It's what he's asked, it's what the country needs, civic debate is never a bad thing, citizen participation is never a bad thing. I think you need to think about these things.
Ding ding ding. You win a pony.
I think this is what upsets the Clinton deadenders the most. Not Obama's FISA stance, heck, I've yet to see how Hillary will be different. But that the supporters are staying true to themselves, holding the dude accountable for the bad stance, without pretending the candidate is unworthy of election support because of it.
It's called facing reality and being grown-up about it.
It's the opposite of what Obama "cult" supporters were supposed to be like. So you get these trolling diaries to try and goad us into being... um... like Clinton supporters refusing to face reality or be grownups.
And it happens to also be true!
but you gotta admit the "wild cyber lynch mob" reference is kinda funny.
Yes, and it is accurate of the discourse back during the more volatile time of the primary.
I do have to wonder about consistency here though, because back during that time, when each and every utterance from either Clinton was dissected to nanopoints in order to make something devious out of it, I made a comment referring to 'let the lynching party begin' in a diary bemoaning some perceived ill words of Hillary, and I was quickly castigated and warned by the admin folks, having to acknowledge the warning in order to be able to continue on this blog. I almost didn't. Guess it all depends on how touchy folks are on a given day.
I was no Clinton supporter. I was and still am a huge support of Obama, but for different reasons than most here. I never viewed him as a one-man progressive revolution. As a matter of fact, I never viewed him any more progressive or liberal than Hillary Clinton. the only thing that seperated them for me was that he had the better judgement on the war than she did, and thus I trust his judgement more. I would've absolutely voted for her if she were the nominee because either Presidency would probably be just as progressive, which is to say not very unless the public begins to rally around progressive ideals on national security, foriegn policy and social issues.
It seems to me that the kossacks built Obama up to be something he's not AND NEVER CLAIMED TO BE because he was the anti-Clinton. He was never the anti-Clinton. He was the future Clinton. Despite my sig line, I now realize the party is and will be defined by the Clintons until the public soundly rejects conservative principles by voting out of office moderate Democrats in moderate districts. Maryland-4 doesn't impress me. Elect a Donna Edwards-type of Congressman in South Bend, Indiana or Fayetteville, North Carolina or Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and I will be convinced the public is looking for progressives and not a different type of Republican.
What Obama is doing is exactly what Clinton supporters hoped he would. He is avoiding the fate of Dukakis and McGovern. In the process he may end up like Kerry or Gore. It is becoming increasingly clear why Democrats cannot win elections. They either have the please their base or please the rest of the country and either way they lose.
yeah, I'll agree with the diarist to an extent. For me the real eye-opener this week was the seeding of the attacks on John McCain's military record. As mad as I was at Geraldine Ferraro, I have forgiven her for pushing insidious memes. Presidential politics is ugly ugly ugly. It is what it is. There are no saints running for the office. If anything, I'm glad Obama can play at this level -- not that any one should be surprised. Anyone who can beat a Clinton has to have all the clubs in his bag. we've just seen more of them this week.
Leave Geraldine alone. Every single thing she said was true. Every single word.
The majority of Illinois Democratic delegation voted against the war. Here is the list that voted against the war:
Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky
Only 3 members of Illinois Democratic delegation voted for the Iraq war resolution. Sen. Obama was getting ready to run for the US Senate and it was politically very important for him to get the support of majority of the delegation.
I am not trying to find fault with Sen. Obama.He is no idealist. He is a skilled politician and makes the right moves. We want a winning candidate against McCain not another loser.
and if not for a wife-beating scandal, Illinois' junior Senator would be Senator Blair Hull, Hillary Clinton would've been the Democratic nominee for President in February, and Barack Obama would be a name only known in Chicago.
You can say that, but the fact remains that, in his speech against the war in 2003, he described to an exact T exactly why the war would be a disaster. John McCain doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. At the time of that Senate election, vast majorities in the country supported the war. I think all elected officials who took a stand against it should be respected for that. Even if you are right, I'd take any politician who voted against war for political expediency over a politician who voted FOR war for political expediency.
Even if you are right, I'd take any politician who voted against war for political expediency over a politician who voted FOR war for political expediency.
Assuming, of course, that the politician who voted against war has other qualities to recommend him/her-- like being good at the job.
Being against the war for the right reasons is a good start.
What Obama is doing is exactly what Clinton supporters hoped he would
Right you are! The irony is that Hillary supporters are likely to prefer him more now, that he has shown he's not drinking his own Kool Aid and is a realpolitic politician.
If they can forget the whole the calling the Clintons racists who were no better than Bush thing....
just the supporters who misrepresented him badly and are not burning him at the stake.
He said it just not in words.
Talking about racial elements in the campaign
Standing behind people who called for katrina tears as a sign of non racism and the lack of them as a sign of racism.
Make no mistake he said it.
unless you can point out specific references to calling the Clintons racist, you have no credibility here. You are grasping at straws.
I can grasp at straws too, I just won't.
I'm leaving this blog for awhile peeps. This sudden surge of PUMA members on a Democratic site are making it hard to find a decent read or conversation. The saddest part is it's starting to look like the primary wars in here but with an added level of crazyness. It's troll diaries or flame wars, one after the other, and it got old last week. I'll come back when Jerome gets the new system up and running. No use in wasting my time with the current system in place. See your around!
FUCK PUMA!
You people are batshit insane and it's hilarious what fools you are making of yourselves. Commenting here is starting to look like going on a fringe site. It's hysterical to read but counterproductive to engage in discussion.
nah - come on. there are plenty of good 'eggs' here - like you!
It's pretty obvious what's going on CG. Many of the users who fled to the hate sites and deadender blogs have been doing t'rate drive bys for the last couple of days. Now they are starting to actively put up diaries (see anna belle and the troll who wrote this) and leave inflammatory comments. Don't even get me started on the sockpuppets of former users (susanhu,texasdarlin,alegre) and aliveandkickin and his 20 handles.
These PUMA's who openly advocate for McCain - which is against the site rules - see this as a blog war which they must wage in the name of Hillary. It's Obama hate that drives them now and crazy conspiracy theories.
They are "invading" this blog and taking it back. I'm sure the times you'll be t'rated are going to go up because Obama supporters will be overly defensive. Flame war and pie fights, one after the other. I don't have the time to rehash the primary war. I'll be reading and lurking though but not as much as before. I hope Jerome fixes the system soon. See you soon canada!
one word:
iGNORE
i find this the best tack to take at times like these ;)
It's not that it bothers me canada. I just find it counterproductive to waste my time with these tools. I lurk at NoQuarter for kicks and laughs. I'll do the same here. I see you have a stalker in your diary accusing you of all kinds of shit. That's what I'm getting at. I love reading a good flame war but it's a waste of energy to try to make coherent points around here lately. I'll read this site for laughs until Jerome fixes the ratings system. I have no problem with dissent. I get along great with most of the Clinton supporters on this blog. Just last night I had one of the more wonderful conversations here with 2 last night (before that diary turned into a pie fight). It's interacting with deadenders and Obamabots (bad apples from both sides) which has gotten old fast.
well... i cant argue with that. but ill miss ya ;(
If so, is there any way I could persuade you to rec this diary? It was very helpful to me as a former Clinton supporter who is worried about the FISA compromise.
spaceman, lighten up. As we said during the primaries, if you think THIS is criticism, you'd better to back into space during the GE. This is baby level criticism, and the diarist himself is FOR Obama, as I am. We just see the irony of how the Kool Aid kids, one way or the other, through Hillary or (ironically) through Obama, are going to learn how REAL politics works.
