” …they don’t believe their own words. Obama’s fundamental lack of faith was revealed in his dismissal of the faith of others, such that he now has to protest that he attends church. Yes, Precious, we know. That he would attend a church in bad faith, not really believing the Gospel but drinking in the antiquated and self-indulgent sociological arguments of his pastor, doesn’t raise an eyebrow among Obamacans. But of course he wouldn’t believe that silly mumbo-jumbo; it’s just that he has to do some ridiculous things to get elected. (Roll eyes at the unreasonable demands of pandering to the simple minded.)

More important, they don’t believe that words matter, at least not those spoken to the rubes to win votes. There is a bizarre belief, we might call it faith, that only the good and the best will be absorbed. Under the spell of this faith, they don’t think Obama’s words have any power except to make people swoon and no consequences save to increase his vote count. It is a postmodern conceit that reality is what you make of it, crafted and deployed to meet the circumstance, and only irony will result. They honestly don’t consider the possibility that the working class and the poor are in a position to pass judgment on these statements and “performatives”, that they form considered and sophisticated opinions on the world they confront just the way erudite UC tenured professors might do, or even Ivy League educated A-List bloggers. Whoda thunk it? Words do matter, but the words that people find matter most may not be those you want them to hear. The rubes have ears. …”

I really dislike the phrases “Clinton Hatred” and “CDS”. Whether or not you agree with the Clinton critics in the Democratic party, they have valid opinions and deserve better than cheap rhetorical devices that are used to suggest that any opposition to the Clintons is based on irrational emotion.

Don’t want to return to the days of Tom Daschle? For many Democrats the days of Daschle are also the days of the Clintons and their buddy Terry McAuliffe.

Just for perspective, here’s a post from Firedoglake from back in 2006, back before the Hillary/Obama race became official:

It’s not Bill Clinton’s fault George Bush ignored 9-11 warnings.

But this bullshit from Barack Obama is Bill Clinton’s fault. The greatest victory of the radical right wing has been to train Democratic politicians to disrespect, mischaracterize and run against their base in the progressive movement. And that is Bill Clinton’s fault.

[…]

Frankly, I’m fed up with paeans to St. Bill Clinton. He was extraordinarily talented, and the Democratic party grew far weaker under his leadership. Yes, we defended him when he was wrongly attacked, but now it’s time to get past Bill worship. Idiots like Obama still think the path to power is to spin Karl Rove’s lies into oratorical gold to gin up support from people who would rather see him in shackles than see him in national office.

[…]

Bill Clinton used his charisma and political skills to hang on to power while very often selling out the progressive base (NAFTA, anyone?). For short term advantage, he weakened the progressive movement. Perhaps it was a compromise he had to make, but that was then; this is now. When Obama and others imitate him today, they continue to betray us all.

Sure, there’s the OFB who thinks that Obama walks on water and can do no wrong. But there’s a good chunk of the party that dislikes Obama because he acts just like Bill Clinton circa 1994. Now, if Hillary had run a genuinely progressive campaign, she would have won already. Unfortunately — and most of the pro-Hillary bloggers like to pretend that this didn’t happen — Hillary (with a few exception) has largely refused to run to the left of Obama.

space:

Since “CDS” is a riff on sluttish, pouty-lipped, autocoprophaghic concentration camp advocate Malkin’s BDS.

However, I really don’t know what to call Clinton Hatred but what it is; it’s hard to call bullshit without naming the variety of bullshit. The FDL post that you cite is concerned with policy and the language is harsh, that’s all well and good, but that’s not what the hate is all about.

The straw man in your argument is, of course, this phrase:

… suggest that any opposition to the Clintons is based on irrational emotion….

Which is not, of course, the claim that I make. Rather, I claim that a significant portion of Obama’s supporters — let’s call them the OFB, to distinguish them from the rational ones or, if that offends you, the ______ ers — are indeed possessed by Clinton Hatred.*

It’s one of those “If you have to ask, you don’t know” things. If you don’t think we’re dealing with hate, then you need to be hanging out in the comments sections over at The Obama 527 Formerly Known As The Kos Community. Or any unmoderated A list blog. The Clenis, Vince Foster, vile misogyny — a freeper-like sewer of every right wing talking point ginned up to smear both Clintons since the day Bill took office. The kind of people who call Digby a cunt. You know, good Democrats.

Further, I claim that, since neither Obama’s rational supporters, or the official Obama campaign, do anything about it, they are content with the results — one of which was to drive most of the Hillary supporters off the A lists. Well done, “progressives.”

Finally, I claim that given the Obama campaign’s propensity for smearing the Clintons as racists, the fish rots from the head. Unity!

But do I make the claim that there are no rational Obama supporters? Not at all.

NOTE * Please don’t try the “links, please” gambit. We’ve been over this again and again.

NOTE Tom Daschle c 2002. Clinton left office in 2000.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

NOTE Tom Daschle c 2002. Clinton left office in 2000.

In 2002, Hillary was in office, Terry McAuliffe (a Clinton loyalist) was orchestrating the masterful GOP blowout in Congress, and Bill Clinton remained the national face of the party.

I hate the Unity schtick as much as anyone here. It’s just a bit rich getting it from from the Clinton camp when Bill “Lieberman is a good man, a good Democrat, and he’ll do you proud” Clinton is undermining the message every 5 minutes.

>Whether or not you agree with the Clinton critics in the Democratic party, they have valid opinions

Well obviously if I don’t agree with them then I don’t think their opinions are valid.

The Clintons are far too centrist for my taste, but then so is Obama. (I was for Edwards.) The biggest difference between them is I have evidence of the competence of the former as executives but no such evidence for the latter. And Obama on a personal level strikes me as too much like W.: thin-skinned, arrogant (beyond trhe average for pols), and self-righteous, something reflected in too many of his online followers.

Still, had Obama not waged his campaign so that his chances of winning in the fall depend on a complete GOP collapse (which could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it) I could tolerate his being the nominee. As it stands, he is a disaster waiting to happen, and Hillary the best remaining chance to avoid that disaster.

There was a little thing called 9/11, remember?

Bill Clinton used his charisma and political skills to hang on to power

For most of the nineties, the Democrats in Congress ran away from the Clintons. The Lewinsky scandal didn’t start until after Bill was reelected and the Democrats gained seats in 1998 when the impeachment effort was underway.

BTW - Obama’s Senate Chief of Staff was formerly the COS for Daschle.

————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?

Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

I have commented over and over about the likelyhood that pos trolls (pos and trolls (repuglies) of course being redundant) infest the discourse about the Clintons, doing their dirty work while disquised as Democrats. The solution is to suggest to Obama supporters that the trolls are working against the good of the Democratic ideals, and to please stop furthering the troll’s efforts by quitting spouting the troll’s talking points (CDS). Then when CDS shows up, delete the offensive discourse immediately.

But the positions of Obama relative to HRC and vice versa are such that HRC (imo) has vastly more resources upon which to campaign than Obama, who is essentially limited to whatever flowery speech his writers come up with on a particular subject. So the Obama campaign has to provide a “noise” level to control the dialogue, which in turn stokes OFB to CDS. They can’t quit using the tactics the trolls love, because the OFBs have little else to carry the campaign. So CDS is likely to increase until either Obama wins or HRC wins. If Obama wins, then it will be Obama Hatred, carried on by the masters of hatred. If HRC wins, it will only be that which Obama and the repuglies have enabled, which she can deal with as she deals with it every day.

What will the OFB talk about? Policy?

ROFLMAO

————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?

Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

Since “CDS” is a riff on sluttish, pouty-lipped, autocoprophaghic concentration camp advocate Malkin’s BDS.

Why would you characterize her as “sluttish,” or for that matter “pouty-lipped” in the very same comment in which you decry “vile misogyny”?

I was enraged by the holier than thou-ness, so I reached for any weapon I could, as The Department Of “Fair Game” authorized me to do….

I’ll stick with “autocoprophaghic concentration camp advocate” from here on out; I can eviscerate Malkin without the language I used….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Thanks.

We need to be on the alert for this stuff in ourselves.

I really dislike the phrases “Clinton Hatred” and “CDS”. Whether or not you agree with the Clinton critics in the Democratic party, they have valid opinions and deserve better than cheap rhetorical devices that are used to suggest that any opposition to the Clintons is based on irrational emotion.

there seems to be an intense denial mechanism at work with Obama supporters. No one suggests that “any opposition to the Clintons [there we go again, refusing to recognize that only one Clinton is running for the White House] is based on irrational emotion”.

But a very large part of it is. For example, ranting as if anyone suggested that “any opposition to the Clintons is based on irrational emotion.” No one said that — and its “irrational emotion” from batshit crazy Obama supporters that make them think they are reading things no one is writing.

praised bipartisanship or Harry and Louise’d other Dems on something as important as healthcare, or namedropped Reagan so much, or denigrated fighting for what you believe, or ascribed everything as the “old kind of politics that are broken”, etc…

there’s a world of difference bet how Bill ran in 92 and how Obama is running. And Bill was a popular Southern governor—Governors have executive experience, usually—Senators never do.

he “ran right” of most Democrats, but he was still well to the left of the GOP

————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?

Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

an a-list astro-turfer, but we still must hold kos responsible for what goes on over there

compared to both Hillary and Obama and this weak Congress, he was a commie—he promised real universal health care, for just one thing.

That’s why Obama pulling everything even further to the right now, and purposely not promising anything big or bold (except “unity” and “change”) in an era when majorities of Americans want much much more is so damaging.

he promised to give me a pony?

————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?

Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

but he can. ; >