Reading that sure makes Cynthia McKinnie sound good.

Honestly, the part that bothers me the most isn't the batshit hysteria or the pathological lying or even the total projection, but the claim of "moral" superiority on the particular issue of denouncing bigotry and "agents of intolerance"--while spewing it (e.g., citing menopause, a natural, biological function as the cause of psychosis and racism?!).

I apologize for beating the drum again on this issue, but it's how I (now) view the underpinnings of obsessive anti-HRC (and her supporters) madness. Misogyny, in general, is blog crack*: the addicts can't help themselves! Jesus!

All I could do was shake my head as I scrolled down the Cannonfire post. Codes Green and Red! Christmas came early. Although I am all but certain Teleprompter Reader will win** (For fuck's sake a urinal cake with the letter "D" next to it could win), it's nice to see some segments of the Democratic Party actually holding it and its nominee accountable. It's almost as if they believe their vote belongs to them. Huh.

*"Moe" herself is a rape victim apparently and reeks of self-hatred (My sister used to be a regular Jezebel reader).
**How insane is it that Obama will win because of the women's vote? Too much.

In general, I think that efforts like this -- trying to discredit a candidate/position by grabbing and posting comments that cast the supporters of the candidate/position in a negative light -- is not exactly a valid argumentative method.

But what Cannonfire has done here is something else... the sheer size of his catalogue is unprecedented, but more crucially, the variety of sources where he's getting these comments from -- and the fact that there is seldom (if ever) and pushback at these sites -- is what makes this significant. Its easy to grab quotes from comments at Free Republic if you want to "discredit" the right, just as its easy to go to Democratic Underground to discredit the left. But these comments are coming from 'mainstream/respectable' progressive blogs.

And there is a clear, underlying "eliminationist" tone to much of this rhetoric -- imagine, for a moment, rather than Obama supporters talking about Clinton supporters, that the commenters were Republicans talking about Black voters." Is there any question that Dave Neiwart at Orcinus would NOT be pointing out the "elimination" nature of these comments, and how 'acceptable' that rhetoric is to the GOP mainstream?

C'mon, the anti-idiotarian Rottweiler isn't exactly an A-list blog, and while the post contains truly disgusting language directed at Hillary Clinton, its main point is the eeriness of the Obama cult (the title is "The Hammer Drops On Obambi"). Nothing to do with "we can win without them" in the sense of Obamans ejecting Hillarians from the party.

Following a few of the other links takes one into dark corners of unmoderated comment sections in many cases. I can't stand to follow enough of them to do a careful critique; I just had a shower. There are idiots all over the web, some of them plumping hard for Clinton to somehow magically win a vote at the convention at the same time they sell Obama hate.

If we really want to document the atrocities that I know happened, it should be done carefully and honestly.

I look to Corrente to help me stay on the rails, instead of running raving into the night impelled by my worst fears.

I appreciate Cannon's efforts here; it has some value. I doubt he was trying to create the definitive documentation.

In my own unscientific though not-bad sampling, in which I observed a great deal of media, in-person and online opinion, I truly tried to get a real measure rather than an excuse for outrage. My conclusion is that this was indeed a whole fucking orchard.

Some very dramatic dynamics not previously documented were revealed about politics, the media and culture.

The definitive report on the atrocity that we all witnessed has not been produced, and no one whose profession requires a careful, impartial and systematic report on such a significant event dares do it... yet. The rest of us who saw it either lack the resources to do it or the motivation to expend the effort, given that we're not blind to the dismissals of Melissa McEwan. (This despite her track record that stops cold "you're just a racist.")

Dramatic dynamics not previously documented have been revealed about politics, the media and culture. We need a credible analysis of what the hell just happened.

For all the calls of "I'm bored, let's move on," many, including me, will not rest until the analysis is done.

This need is a big part of why I'd like to reach out beyond our traditional political and media partners to those who would be excited by a non-truthy examination of a historic upheaval occurring at the nexus of politics, media and culture.

This is only a test; do not be alarmed.

I recall (sorry no linky) seeing him say it is racist to talk about resume or lack of experience. His point; "thin resume" is code for "black."

I used to go to Orcinus a lot, but that was the point at which Neiwert's credibility with me went past its "use by" date. C'mon, if you can't talk about a candidate's experience, aren't you just saying any criticism is automatically racism?

Neiwert is just one of a long list I used to take seriously that I just don't want to see anything of again.

Horselover Fat

were supposed to leave our votes, our money and our voices behind us, Lambert--you've never read the Little Mermaid?

Thanks for your ideas, Bo.

"Hillary was never more than Bush in a dress, and her supporters were never more than the George Wallace / Joe Lieberman wing of the Party with a large dash of untreated menopausal psychosis."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15003

"Clinton is a pathological liar. McBush will continue the unconstitutional wars and warrantless spying on Americans. Obama is the clear choice."

speaking of (pathological) liars...

test