Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Why Won't That Stupid Bitch Quit?" watch

I guess the Kid Oakland thing didn't work out, for some reason, so Lord Kos continues his 527 work to keep the popular vote for Hillary in PA, IN, and NC low by asking a front pager who's managed to retain some credibility over there to explain to these voters that the A listers, Howard Dean (sigh), and a bunch of Beltway Dem consultants and wannabes have come to the conclusion that there's really no need for them to vote--even though FDR won only on the fourth ballot, and this primary hasn't even run late, by historical standards. [UPDATE: See below the fold for many examples.]*

You’ve fought hard. But you’ve lost. Acknowledging that, accepting it, and acting graciously and selflessly on it right now would mean the Democrats – your supporters and the supporters of other candidates who have already left the contest – could unite behind Barack Obama without further delay.

Re-enfranchise Florida and Michigan. Then we'll talk.

Otherwise, Obama's nomination won't be legitimate. Deal?

NOTE * Hey, I'd put on my waders and comment over there, but when I asked them to delete my account, they took my ability to comment away--while still retaining my posts. Typical.

UPDATE Great post from Reclusive Leftist, which I'll sticky this post to draw attention to:

In a good but mis-titled article, Steven Stark comments on the deep weirdness of the current movement to get Hillary to quit:

It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. And while it does have its origins in an effort to preserve party unity, it also has its roots in an odd and vitriolic crusade to purge the Clintons and hand the nomination to a candidate who has yet, after all, to win a single large state’s primary (other than his own), let alone the nomination.

The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled “The Hillary Deathwatch”), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.

Okay, class, who can tell me what all those candidates had in common? Starts with a p…..

Readers?

Nah, couldn't be that. Why, the Boiz on the Blogs are progessives!

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by katiebird (not verified) on

I like that, "Re-enfranchise Florida and Michigan. Then we’ll talk." Can I steal it?

Also, "but when I asked them to delete my account, they they took my ability to comment away—while still retaining my posts."

Who did you ask? Because when I asked, I was told they couldn't do anything....

Submitted by lambert on

Propagate by all means, that's what it's for.

As far as asking to be deleted, I just put up a post demanding it and pasted "Lord Kos, delete my account" 500 times. The trolls had a field day, and then they took away my ability to comment.

Which is absurd, since Drupal can delete accounts, and Scoop is supposed to be far more powerful. They just don't want to, for some reason. Maybe marketing, who knows.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

when someone asks to leave their "community".

Which is why I don't comment on the political threads over there.
I do read the "I Got the News Today" diaries. I usually cry afterwards, too. There are other subgenres of postings I enjoy over there -- good threads on being thrifty, and on gardening, and several posters still put up lovely photographs.

But none of that is obvious on the front page anymore.
Kinda sad, really.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by katiebird (not verified) on

It's been so long since I've been there, it doesn't matter so much anymore. But, I might wonder over someday and do something similar.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.

"And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

I mean, do the math. Obama just wants to create his own reality, and the A list* wants to help.

It's all about keeping turnout low, and disenfranchising FL and MI, so the popular vote works out for them. Nothing to do with "pleading" or "good of the party" at all. If the good of the party was on their priority list at all, they wouldn't be trashing the Clinton brand for the general with racist smears, and firing up the hatred of women. And MB was one of the good ones. Sigh.

NOTE * Atrios disclaimer.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

That's the only reason why they would feel the need to stop the voting. They aren't worried about November, they're worried about April and May.

Here's a question I want an answer to from those so anxious to unify the party. If Hillary wins the popular vote, let's say without Michigan but with Florida, will Obama step aside to unify the party? How about if she wins the most favorable popular vote count for him (without MI or FL)?

I've become convinced that the only way to unify the party is for there to be a resolution that somehow enfranchises Michigan and Florida and that crowns the popular vote winner the nominee. If either candidate wins while losing the popular vote or because FL/MI was not resolved satisfactorily, we're screwed.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Linda's picture
Submitted by Linda on

Sad isn't it? Now "the Blades" has sunk too. I swear I'll never understand the boy blogz and how they tripped over themselves. They are absolutely dependent on Hillary getting out before the PA primary. The wind has changed and they feel it.

I was phone calling for Hillary here in Indiana on Saturday. It was the first time I've ever done anything like this. It was great actually. I heard A LOT of “Yes I’m going to vote for her”, “that’s my gal”, “I can’t believe what the media have said about her, and she is a hell of a fighter!. And this is in Indiana! Only 3 people said they were voting for Obama out of all my calls. People said they were afraid of the economy, for their jobs, the wars, social security, and wanted health insurance, etc. You know these people are worried about the issues! Obviously these silly people don't know anything! The Obamas have really lost their way. They are so tone deaf! As much as the boy blogz, Donna B., Howie D., Nancy, Kerry and the rest of the Losers want it to be over, it is far from over. I firmly believe that Hillary is going to do really well in Indiana. People are fired up here. We have to hold the line for her. Hillary isn’t giving up and neither should we. Honestly, I admire her more and more after all this. One thing that comes out of this is a clear understanding of how the DNC, the Dem “elites”, and many of those on the "progressive left" aren’t for us. By "us" I mean the people who worry about the direction of the country and the care of its people.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

The boiz on the blogs (always excepting Atrios, who has been the reliable voice of sensible adults since 2001) hate Hillary.

They don't need a reason, so they manufacture one -- Bill, or the fact that Obama's black, and therefore anybody who doesn't fall head-over-heels for Obama must be racist, or the "under fire" landing in Bosnia, or some other BS made up out of whole cloth -- to cover up their fear.

They've been the brightest boyz in their class for years now, and the notion that any woman -- let alone one they don't spend time "hottie rating" -- actually might be elected scares the living daylights out of them.

A woman, you see, wouldn't be anything they know how to deal with. A mature woman with experience of the world and the class and grace Hillary has shown, not to mention the tenacity and the toughness she had to have whether she displayed it or not to get through Monicagate and the impeachment, absolutely terrifies the boyz.

She knows things.

Among the things she knows are just how important their precious little weewees aren't.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I have family who went to see her in Muncie. They waited for nearly two hours. They estimated that more than 2,000 people showed up and compared it to a rock concert. They came away incredibly excited and impressed.

And here's why this entire push to get her out will - and I think already has, official Obama surrogates have already begun to back away - fail. I don't think my relatives have ever been so excited about voting. Candidates never go to Indiana, not in the primary or general. It's almost never in play. The idea that they could go into town and ask someone running for president questions was a true thrill for them. They love that their votes could matter. And, yes, they will be voting for Clinton, but it's the participation that they love. I expect if Obama comes to town (my guess is he won't), they'll go see him, too.

So good luck suppressing the vote. If my family is any indication, that's going to take a lot more than a couple of blog posts to do. Because despite what party leaders think - and let's face it most of our so-called leaders have spent the last decade with their head up their ass - people love voting and they love having their votes counted.

I predict, no matter how much they may dislike the Clintons, if Hillary wins the popular vote, she'll be the nominee (and I believe to unify the party, she'll give Obama the VP slot). If she doesn't win the popular vote, absent a complete collapse by Obama which I doubt will happen, she won't be the nominee because too many party leaders don't want her for the nominee (in part, I'm convinced to save their own jobs and influence). And, honestly, at this point, with such a close race, what better deciding factor could their be than who got the most votes (and I include Florida and Michigan in that). Anything else will, quite frankly, split the party. But I think most Americans - not the bloggers or the media or the sliver of most ardent supporters - will think the winner of the most votes is the legitimate nominee.

Which, of course, is why Hillary must quite RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, she might get more votes than Obama and that makes his coronation a lot more awkward for the ruling elite.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Linda's picture
Submitted by Linda on

Indianapolis.

Hillary was here last weekend. People where lining up waiting in the cold for her. She is a rock star here. I sat next to a man at the rally that was a retired HS teacher. He said this was only the second political rally he has ever attended. The last one was for RFK. He said it had the same exact flavor as the time in 1968. Everyone here is so excited for her and that Indiana is going to be a major player in her nomination.

It was a wonderful rally. Literally people from all walks of life. Every seat in the HS gym (even the bleachers) was taken.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

For Linda and others who know people in IN and PA, if you want to combat Obama's misleading ad in those states and an anonymous email which inaccurately compares his Senate Record to Hillary's, here's a Factcheck.org video you can point people to.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That the media and the OFB's never report about Hillary's crowds, or they downplay them.

The story about Hillary in Oregon Saturday night, people waited in the rain to see her, but the stories mentioned how Obama drew bigger crowds last month.

It's like they want to convince everyone that Hillary is unpopular.

On second thought, it's not like that, it is that.

"And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Misogyny and/or classism is a part of it for sure, but there's a more banal, "technical" explanation for why teh blogz have had it out for Hillary: they simply believe that they would have less influence under a Hillary Clinton presidency than they would under an Obama presidency. For a number of reasons, including party factionalism.

And they may well have been right. And they're definitely right now.

And since the bridges have been burned so totally, they have to get Clinton out ASAP.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I've been watching Clinton hating for sixteen years.

This is the same old song, different verse.

"And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The Hillaryhate's been going on for a long time on the other side of the aisle, and I'm not myself a big fan of Bill or his presidency in that I'm way further left and no mainstream American politician can satisfy me.

But I don't think that the Talking Points have figured so prominently against them on the (D) side of the aisle as they have now. What you have to explain is why they got adopted *now* of all times, and whether it might have been the case that they would not have been.

Fredster's picture
Submitted by Fredster on

Your chances of getting the nomination are slim. Your chances of getting the nomination in a way that can heal the party for the unified run we need to win in November are nil.

But he doesn't mention what Clinton would be able to do in November in the gen, which is win.

I truly do not see Obama winning the general election if he is the Dem nominee.

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

Because this is an issue that has been begging for its own post. In short, so-called progressives have hated the Clintons long before Bush-hatred became vogue. Even as other Senators and Reps "stepped up" to fight the Repubs (remember Senator Byrd, anyone?), only to have the NetRoots' hopes dashed (and I wish had the exact vote that led to the NetRoots being disappointed in him, but I want to say it was either Goss for CIA or Alito for the SCOTUS) time and time again, CDS in the Progosphere continued to take an even greater hold on the NetRoots.

CDS has even led to so-called Progressive Candidates (like Jonathan Tasini) tell some tall tales - and have so-called Progressive leaning reporters write hit pieces in support of Tasini...and repeating the same tall tales about Hillary. It was this straw that broke the back of this Democrat, and led me to leave a long-standing anti-GOP (not Kos) site when a second article by the same author, which served the same purpose to build Tasini by telling tall tales about Senator Clinton, was posted. Any attempt made to debunk these points (like pointing to actual votes and actual quotes) was met with "The Ends (Getting Rid of Bush-Lite/Cheney-Lite H. Clinton...which in itself is a lie) Justified the Means (Lying Through Any Available Teeth)."

I was pretty much already Looking at the Front Door before that, and the attitude regarding Senator Clinton's re-election bid sealed the deal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Imelda Blahnik's picture
Submitted by Imelda Blahnik on

prick?

In contrast.....
I just put up a post demanding it and pasted “Lord Kos, delete my account” 500 times.

Lambert, you rawk!

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

What do you mean they won't delete your posts? Do you want them to remove comments you've made that others have replied to? Diaries that others have posted comments on? Or just that particular trollish comment? Seriously, if you don't want to be associated with dailykos, just stop going there, posting comments, etc.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

"What do you mean they won’t delete your posts?"

You really are just playing dumb here? Even if you wanted to leave dkos and delete your own diaries or posts or anything you may have spent years contributing to dailykos, tough shi-.

Name another forum where you cannot delete your content? Kos learned a few years ago that his best people were leaving, and he would do anything to keep his SEO (aka $$$). He purged blogrolls and buried personal blogrolls way down to up his linking power and revenue, it also is impossible to delete your diaries. Even if they ban your account or you try and delete it.

I don't care that other people replied? What about a diary where no one replied? You can't even edit your own posts, which would not effect down thread content. Technically they would be your words and copyright, but not in Satan's eyes.

Violet Socks's picture
Submitted by Violet Socks on

if I do say so myself. Thank you for the linky, lambert.

Obama gives the Blogger Boyz cover to engage in the kind of freewheeling crack-high misogyny the wingnuts have been enjoying all along. It's a narcotic.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

intranets, I think I was pretty clear. I want Lambert to clarify what exactly he wants to delete. I think it is you who are being dumb here. Deleting and editing of comments and diaries/posts is not the black/white issue you make it out to be. Editing or deleting a comment has the potential to make everything down thread meaningless. Deleting a diary/post orphans any comments to it. You might not care if other people's responses get deleted/made meaningless, but I'm sure they do.

As for deleting content in other forums, where's my fucking delete comment button Lambert?

Submitted by lambert on

If so, dmd76, all you have to so is ask. (I can't give comment deletion privileges to users without also given other privileges that most users would not want to have, and I don't want to invest the time rewriting the module.)

Actually, I figured out what to do; assuming I still have posting privileges, I'll just go in and blow away all the content. That will leave the comments intact.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

No, thanks, Lambert. Just making a point. Different forums have different rules.

I know you and your commenters here are angry at Kos, but I think going back and deleting the content of your diaries is silly. I'm sure lots of people spent a lot of time engaging with your posts (respectfully and not so much).

Submitted by lambert on

Silly or not, I should get to do what I want with it. I signed up with a TOS, sure, but that's when I thought Kos was a community instead of an Obama 527.

And besides, I want the hits...

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

notime4lies's picture
Submitted by notime4lies on

Wasn't this the way Obama won his very first elected position in Illinois?? That is, by strong-arming his opponents and arguing the names on their office petition weren't legitimate and poof, they were ALL GONE!

Yeah, that Obama is quite the little uniter.

Howling Latina

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

How many diaries have the almighty decided to blow away? They can do that with impunity. They can also hide comments... what about all those poor posts that engaged with the now hidden comment?? Think of the lost threads??!! (Just for history dmd, since you are new to this progressive blog stuff, you once could delete your diaries, and it was common)

It's a stupid argument. Blogs and comments are only useful for a few days after they are posted. WTF does it matter if I nuke my account a year later? The historians? That's what archive.org is for.

Also, most people use quotes anyways, or maybe address a poster, so it probably won't be that confusing.

Plain and simple there is no good reason other than for SEO purposes and optimizing google stability and ranking. Also, heaven forbid Lord Gatekeeper would be confronted with hundred of people deleting their accounts. We can't have that. It's to wild west, he likes it more like PRC.

Submitted by lambert on

And gawd knows GOS has earned it.

The real point is the disenfranchisment...

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

automatically after a certain age.

That server space isn't free is it? Eventually they will be storing terabytes of old diaries.

I'm guessing they're just doing it to be childish. Not exactly uncommon behavior at that place.

"And that is what is so great about the internet.
It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity."
- Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Via River Daughter, Sean Wilentz on why the democratic party's nomination system makes no sense and on Hillary Clinton's electability - http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200...

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

I am shocked and dismayed that kos didn't check with intranets and myiq2xu when establishing his blog. Imagine all the trouble he could have saved himself had he known that that archive thing every fucking blog on the planet has is stupid and childish.

intranets, I have no double standard. Unless some law is being broken or a post is an obvious piece of spam, diaries and comments should not be deleted by anyone, not even administrators. If I had blog, that's how I would run it.

Submitted by lambert on

You know that's not the point anybody's making here, dmd76.

Je repete: It's a TOS concept. I thought I was signing up for a community, not an Obama 527. I don't want my content to appear in that context. Case closed. It has nothing to do with Kos asking permission. And if he wants to trash his brand some more, that is absolutely OK with me.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

So you can show the rest of us how it should be done.

I'm sure there are lots of people who would enjoy basking in your wisdom. I know I do.

"And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks for the link, BDB.

Obama Fan Boiz like Lord Loss really have no business yammering about a coup when it's disenfranchising FL and MI that lets Obama eke out his current, tiny margin. That won't stop them, of course.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

intranets:

It’s a stupid argument. Blogs and comments are only useful for a few days after they are posted. WTF does it matter if I nuke my account a year later? The historians? That’s what archive.org is for.

myiq2xu (good retort, btw):

If anything I would expect diaries to get deleted...automatically after a certain age.

...
Eventually they will be storing terabytes of old diaries.

I’m guessing they’re just doing it to be childish.

In other words, archives are teh stupid.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

-- "In other words, archives are teh stupid."
Maybe you *should* get your own blog. Then you can scour over the traffic reports and realize that in fact, very few of the old posts DO ever get hits, and those are mostly well written pieces that have been linked to by others. Maybe I am teh stupid for bothering to feed you.

Linda's picture
Submitted by Linda on

The article by Wilentz is fantastic.

Helen Thomas also wrote about the problems of the Obama image. Think about this, some amazing people are in Hillary's corner - many who the "left boiz blogz" used to love - the Wilsons, John Murtha, Barbara Boxer - so we are in really good and knowledgeable company.

The "A-blogs", the DNC, Nancy, Dean, Donna, Kerry, Richardson, Kennedy are burning so many bridges now that they can't even see because of all the smoke. How can they be trusted on any issue in the future? I would always look at any position they took wondering what they were up to.

But, I think the public is on to this. The Hillary bashing is growing old and solidifying support for her.

Bush/Cheney must be happy though. The blogs barely talk about them any more.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

"I am shocked and dismayed that kos didn’t check with intranets and myiq2xu when establishing his blog."

Again, you may not have been on the internets very long, but for the rest of us, it is bait-and-switch.

For one thing, once upon a time you could edit a diary or even delete it. It certainly isn't a technical limitation and it has very little to do with a body of literature. It is plain and simple links and traffic and SEO.

For another thing, dkos was something different before the gates locked tightly behind Lord Boss (LB, thx i like that). People would gladly contribute and be happy to do so. Imagine you joined a grassroots MySpace and all of the sudden it features Exxon ads and is run by corporations. That's where the bait and switch comes in.

He's free to screw over his mindless zombie 28% anyway he wants to. Build up that wingnut-equivalent base of mouth-breathers, that is fine. But some people take issue with their tiny inconsequential bricks and mortar being used to build such a monstrosity.

Linda's picture
Submitted by Linda on

I should add Krugman to that list of people formerly loved by the boiz too. Maybe we should start making the list of those who support Hillary and start showing them some appreciation. That we're out here and supporting them.

Linda's picture
Submitted by Linda on

Here is a link to the Hillary event that was in Indianapolis last week. The poster wrote a wonderful description of the rally. http://fitnessnerd.blogspot.com/search/l...

Sorry, I didn't know how to post the link so I've given you the whole address.

But, the post does catch the excitement on the ground here in Indiana. Nope, Hillary shouldn't quit.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

"You're either with us or the terrorists."

In their minds there is no such concept as an "honorable opponent" or "loyal opposition."

Kinda scary, when you think about it.

"And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Hillary has the better argument on Michigan and Florida. Talking about counting votes is always better than talking about rules for why certain votes - and by implication certain voters - shouldn't count. It has appeared to me that Dean and other party leaders seem to be increasingly frustrated that this issue won't just go away, that voters won't just accept an edict where the party decides not to count more than two million votes because Michigan and Florida held their primaries on the wrong day (a decision not made, of course, by the voters). As if the primary schedule and the rules associated with it, which do not require that Florida and Michigan be stripped of all delegates, is somehow more important than permitting all democrats to participate in the process. It wouldn't matter if the nominating contest wasn't so close, but it's because it's so close that it's doubly important to let everyone participate and count. Otherwise, we'll be facing a legitimacy crisis and to pretend otherwise, as Dean seems to be, is madness.

Thanks, for the link, Linda!

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

intranets, I'll happily engage you in this little pissing contest. I've been online since sometime in 1985 or 1986, back in the days of Usenet and BBSs. Saw my first webpage in Dec. 1993 using Mosaic 1.0 on my PC. So thanks for the history lessons, but I'm quite familiar with these parts.
As for your argument, you contradict yourself. In one comment you say:

very few of the old posts DO ever get hits, and those are mostly well written pieces that have been linked to by others

and in the next:

...it has very little to do with a body of literature. It is plain and simple links and traffic and SEO.

So, do old comments generate traffic or not? What exactly do you propose a link to an old well written comment to look like if that comment doesn't exist anymore? That at one time you could delete a diary doesn't make it a good idea.

Submitted by lambert on

Jeralyn has the right idea. You know who you are, and it's not only dmd76 who seems incapable of engaging here.

UPDATE Yes, I thought the DK riff might give an excuse for distraction. How right I was.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Weren't you the one who brought up dailykos's diary/comment policy? I had no idea "engaging here" meant "agreeing with Lambert and commenters on Corrente". For a group of people up in arms about slights at the hands of the mean Blog Boiz, you have very little tolerance for disagreement in your own corner of the blogosphere.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

that I've never seen before. I'm sure there was some of it around the Kennedys but I was too young.

I think there is a couple reasons they want Hillary to drop out so badly. First, their narcissistic little cluster hump demands her conquest. They're frustrated about her remaining in the race because this isn't about winning the majority of the votes or who governs best, it's about being special.

The other reason is the real reason - they're afraid of a Rezko conviction or some other catastrophe. The campaign logic for Obama if Rezko is convicted is bad. It's like this:

If Rezko on trial for bribery equals conviction than Obama receiving $625k equals bribery.

Rezko + bribery
------------------- = Guilty
Obama + $625k

That's what they're afraid of. Campaign math and logic can be unrooted from any rules except the rules of mythology.

"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I don't seem to see Teddy K engaging in much explicit WWTSBQ nonsense. Am I just missing something? (I got off all his lists.)

Kennedy endorsed Obama, but doesn't seem intent on destroying the Clintons as some of the others.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

Because the meme of "The Clintons Will Do Anything to Win," (which is somehow wrong for Democrats to get behind) it is implied (or overtly stated) that if Senator Clinton does not "steal" the nomination, she will do everything in her evil power to destroy Senator Obama's chances of being elected.

What this means is that when more information and innuendo about Obama's connections to Rezko are made public, the Core Support will blame Senator Clinton for mentioning Rezko in the first place. Then, the blame will evolve to "Hillary's Friends Scaife and Murdoch Seek Revenge for Her Loss in the Dem Primary."

In other words, everyone else will be to blame for Obama's Ties to Rezko except for Obama. This is sounding like something else I've seen before.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Submitted by lambert on

The front-runner is always annointed, then destroyed. It's amazing she's in it at all, let alone tied.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

That's a new one: Obamabots are gay for him! Is this the kind of "engag[ing] here" you were talking about, Lambert?

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Weren’t you the one who brought up dailykos’s diary/comment policy? I had no idea “engaging here” meant “agreeing with Lambert and commenters on Corrente”. For a group of people up in arms about slights at the hands of the mean Blog Boiz, you have very little tolerance for disagreement in your own corner of the blogosphere.

dmd, no one has 'hidden' your comments or closed your account. go ahead over to GOS and try just a handful of your comments but try this s/Clinton/Obama/ s/gay/racist/ s/can't win/not enough delegates/ go see how friendly they are to you.

I no longer think you are a troll, but I don't understand why you post so much here? Why do you post more here than any other site? What is it about Obama / Corrente that lit your fire? Why have you posted more in one day on Corrente then your entire history at other blogs?

I want to understand what motivates you to tilt at the windmill that is Lambert. I don't think your are a paid blogger so it's more of a mystery. You could be a clever troll and have stolen a nickname, but I just dunno.

Submitted by lambert on

Male-bonding (eros) is well known to take place around the hatred of women. Homo-erotic is not the same as homo-sexual.

Why, do you think the Oborg are teh gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

When I see dmd76, intranets, and others on this thread "engaging"* in a "pissing match" about site technology, it pins my Bogometer. If you're so fucking expert in all this, all of you, go get your own blogs. Or write me a check for the bandwidth you're sucking. I've got world-class wankery available to me 24/7 on the A List**, and I don't need it from you guys.

I can see why dmd76 would want to throw a pro-Hillary thread off topic, but I really don't see why anyone else would want to help him, or bait him, for that matter.

NOTE * Atrios disclaimer.

NOTE ** No, not "agreeing." Teh stupid, it burns!

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Nothing wrong with it at all:) But really, homoerotic means a bit more than mere male-bonding. To say "There's a whole homo-erotic sub-current to this [Obama] campaign", as basement angel did, is just a wordy way of saying the Oborg are kinda gay for BO. Weird and a little offensive. I'm sure the Hillbots would respond by coining an acronym if one of us were to make such a ludicrous claim about the Clinton campaign.

intranets, thanks for taking me out of the troll bin. I have posted under many names, dmd76 being one of them (I've also use it on dkos, in case you were wondering). I post here because 1)I disagree with the characterizations that are being made of (voters|Obama(on occasion)|bloggers|etc.) here, 2)I enjoy the verbal sparring, and c)comment threads where everyone agrees and pats each other on the back are boring. I've said before that I will move on (not without a little sadness) if Lambert (or someone else) tells me I'm not welcome here. He doesn't even have to ban me. I'll respect his wishes. As long as that doesn't happen, I will say my piece and defend my views, unpopular as they might be.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

that I've never witnessed before. They don't sound so much like candidate supporters to me as fan boys. Deaniacs didn't sound like this. Neither did Kerry or Gore supporters. Sometimes I get the feeling I'm in a Michael Jackson forum when I'm talking to them. And there is the position of the supplicant assumed by people like Meteor Blades - he hated saying what he had to say, and he's pleading and reminding her of the children. What the hell kind of political rhetoric is that for a Democrat? I mean, really, think of the children and drop out of the race? It's not even rational rhetoric.

And then there is the bizarro world self-importance most clearly demonstrated in Kid Oakland's diary that I'm sure he considered magnaminious but was, in point of fact, simply sexist and self-serving.

The whole campaign around him is irrational - there is something these people aren't processing. I don't get it. I get Clinton not being your first choice (Edwards' my first choice) but I don't get the obsessive hatred and the obsessive fawning, and the obsessive strutting. And the obsessive I'm-not-worthy declarations.

Nothin' good is going to come out of that guy being in the White House - that is the thing I do know.

"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Can I respond to issues you bring up or not? Once you declare your own fucking words an "excuse for distraction", how should I proceed? Should I wait for an edict from you before I respond to others' comments? Decide what it is you want and tell me. I didn't realize responding to your own goddamn words was "throw[ing] a...thread off-topic."

Submitted by lambert on

dmd76: It's not all about you. Sigh. For the whole "pissing match" portion of this comment thread, and all the participants, see above, for pity's sake, and just try not to write stupid things. That's not a rule, really. Everything isn't rule governed. And life is full of surprises. Who knows, a bored sysadmin on a fucking C list blog might come into work drunk one day and delete every comment whose poster's handle is alphanumeric, see what I mean? Sheesh. Where's that clue stick? I thought I had one somewhere. Damn. Zzzzz.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

I remember, well before the "cult" meme started to propagate, how a poster on Big Media Matt's said Obama was a boddhisattva. Whoa, I thought, something's a little off, here. Chicago politicians, no matter how well intentioned, don't tend to be stainless, luminous, or radiant.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the whole myth and persona thing that the GOP relies on is what we have to do too?

That actual practical solutions and policies that help the majority of people should be minimized? And with that if the whole Democratic history and our whole strength gets pushed aside and that's ok? (and this is because the influential online ppl are not poor minorities or women but comfortable young white guys who don't need anything from govt-- so don't look at it as the practical and effective and helpful and necessary tool it is, etc)

That what i and others see as entirely packaging and spin and bullshit masking a nobody is exactly the right thing to get a Democrat back in the WH? (even if the reality is actually going to not stop the harm the GOP, but may in fact further it--let alone helping people)

I think of how it used to be "fight! grow a spine!" "stop these horrors!", and then it became "we have to take congress back no matter what and then things will change" and now that congress hasn't done what it was supposed to, it's just "we have to take the WH too and then it will change", and there'll always be some further rationalization and pushing aside of principles forever --and having power and not using it right just fell away.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

So, Lambert, when you write "I can see why dmd76 would want to throw a pro-Hillary thread off topic", you aren't talking about me? Has the link between my blog signifier and its referent been broken? How unsettling!
It is a dark art, determining what Lambert deems worthy of his blog.

Submitted by lambert on

Written in Elmore Leonard's trademark laconic prose, it still contains deep lessons for the present day:

Ryan was thirty-six by then and starting to worry that maybe he was a misfit, a little out of touch with reality, that all the peoplestrapped to their boring nine-to-fives were right and he was wrong.He had sold insurance one time, for three weeks. He had sold new cars for several different Detroit dealerships; but, each place, the sales manager or the owner turned out to be a pain in the ass. He'd worked construction and driven a truck. He'd been with Local 299 of the Teamsters as a business agent for a while and got into a couple of fistfights that were interesting. He'd worked on the line at Chevrolet truck assembly in Flint, quit before he went out of his mind, and got a job at Abercrombie's store in Troy, but only lasted two weeks. One day during the Christmas rush he told a lady if she didn't like the service why didn't she go someplace else. He'd said to her, "Why should a nice person like you stand around taking a lot of shit?" Ryan was always polite.

Words to ponder, both for those who act like trolls, and those who bait them.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

What for? What's the point beyond electing Obama?

That Orcinus piece ignores that actual movements are for some cause or issue, and that the GOP stirs people up about distractions while hiding their real intentions. They need the millions of people who can be swayed this way and don't care what happens after.

What is Obama doing? What's the cause? and if this is a distraction, what is it distracting us from? (his stated policies and goals are weak and very tepid so what is it?)

Submitted by lambert on

And I still say that if the OFB didn't want to have people mistake them for a cult, then they shouldn't have trained themselves to focus on personal conversion narratives as a way of introducing themselves to the public, since that's one thing cults do. Sarah also writes:

And Obama's doing just that. He's tapped into a deeply pressurized seam of repressed fury within the American electorate, and he's giving it voice, a focus, and an outlet. Are the results scary? You bet: these people want change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying. Are they unreasoning? The followers may be -- but as long as their leader keeps a cool head, that's not as much of a problem right now as we might think; and the heat will dissipate naturally in time. Is this kind of devotion even appropriate? You bet. You don't get the kind of deep-level change we need without first exposing and channeling people's deep discontent. Obama's change talk may be too vague for most people's tastes (including mine); but the fact is that if we're serious about enacting a progressive agenda, rousing people's deepest dreams and desires and mobilizing that energy is exactly how it's going to happen. And Obama's the first candidate we've had in a generation who really, truly gets this.

"Change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying?"

That was back in February, and I wonder if Sarah has found occasion to revisit those words.

Because I am, in fact, terrified. Terrified of Obama's dog-whistling on Social Security, and terrified becuase he's already sold us down the river on Universal Health Care.

Funny thing. Sarah thinks you can get "progressive change"--before the A list polluted that word--by copying Republican tactics. I'm not so sure about that. Ends justifying means, and all.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and i don't even think that's how it's being sold either--it's about HIM bringing "change"/"unity"/etc.

And if people have so much "repressed fury", why does this guy who won't fight for anything they need, and who promises to sit down in unity with everyone no matter what appeal to their
"deepest dreams and desires"? Shouldn't a fire-breathing fighter be appealing to them?

The GOP doesn't get votes by calming people--it gets them by heating them up and triggering their fears and hatreds and resentments.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

You know, you're right to argue that it was written months ago. But the problem is that to an outsider it seems that US politics has, as a weak generalization, been run on revivalistish manias on both left and right, through probably more often the right, and that considering how central that motif is to American culture, the (D) party has somehow failed to take advantage of that.

You gotta either change the culture to make it more Hillary-ish, I guess, or take power using the means you have. Assuming Obama can take the nomination one way or another and then pull it off in November, like it or not a very very large slice of the Democratic Party has decided to go that route.

If Hillary wins the nomination (and I prefer Hillary for reasons that are to me still rather marginal), she may have a large base of support behind her, but she will dissipate the segment of the electorate that seems to need the revivalism to politically activate themselves. That's going to be a disadvantage for her as well, as it has been a disadvantage for her in the primary.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The GOP doesn’t get votes by calming people—it gets them by heating them up and triggering their fears and hatreds and resentments.

It calms them in one way, and it heats them up in another. Somehow, there is a large part of American culture that likes to be told that There Is Something To Believe In. That's part of the GOP formula. Morning In America and all that.

The other side is the resentment. Clearly Obama's campaign has found that the most effective resentment trigger comes from the inability of the so-called (ugh) "creative class" to take over the (D) party itself, after 1-2 elections worth of trying.

Submitted by lambert on

You write:

she will dissipate the segment of the electorate that seems to need the revivalism to politically activate themselves.

I haven't seen the idea put forward much that Obama won't campaign for Hillary. If his followers are that motivated by him, I don't see why they wouldn't support Hillary if he gave the word.

This is also extremely astute. It's implicit in < what Digby said in the next post in this series:

The other side is the resentment. Clearly Obama’s campaign has found that the most effective resentment trigger comes from the inability of the so-called (ugh) “creative class” to take over the (D) party itself, after 1-2 elections worth of trying.

Resentment, indeed. They don't want to ask for my vote... So they're just going to take it by stealing FL and MI, with a bunch of Inside Baseball stuff on delegates that our famously free press is helping them shill. Assholes.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Because they'd see their faith as having been personally betrayed (by the "low-information voters" of the party and the "superdelegate coup") and Obama as the magnanimous victim, of course. Obama as martyr, sacrificing himself for party unity by endorsing Clinton.

Some or even most of them may go and vote for Clinton, but I suspect that the money and enthusiasm spigot that Obama is able to tap would be somewhat...turned down.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

lambert, that Obama will give the word. I would hope he would put his country before his own vanity, but I have yet to see anything that makes me Hope he will.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and trashing it--and the whole idea of partisanship.

it's incoherent.

and his whole strategy has been to attract non-party members--he knew he couldn't carry the Democratic party--he hasn't even been getting 1/2 of Dems, i don't think.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Resentment, indeed. They don’t want to ask for my vote… So they’re just going to take it by stealing FL and MI, with a bunch of Inside Baseball stuff on delegates that our famously free press is helping them shill. Assholes.

Yep. You did not come to The Truth (I am specifically leaving aside the judgement of The Truth here). You are forever putting off the Revival. But it's gotta happens somehow, and if Inside Baseball is the way it's going to be, that's the way it's going to be.

It's something that I admit to understanding at a visceral level. If I believe I have The Truth, then how could I not use the technically legitimate levers at my disposal to bring it about?

That's why I said in the other thread that party elections should really only have party activists as participants. It's one of the steps that might be necessary in turning the US into a multiparty parliamentary democracy.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm not sure I want to take one for the team on the way to a multi-party system.

48-star-flag

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--so, again, what is that truth?

and if it's postpartisan unity, why isn't it better served by not running as a Dem at all?

if it's just a new generation of Dems, why trash the party and talk up --and talk like--the GOP?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

for down ticket races. Most activists donate to the candidate, and to the party apparatus. Obama's donors aren't feeling the love towards the party apparatus, that fact that Obama is coasting on the money, while the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC, are drowning is proof of that.

That will hurt the Dems chances at expanding the majority, so we can actually you know accomplish something. I have heard many Obama supporters say they want a Republican majority, even if Obama is president, because they don't think one party having control over both is a good idea.

And looking at the past eight years, I can hardly blame them, but most are too young to remember the hardships Pres. Clinton had to endure, and how hard it was to actually accomplish anything. Clinton had to compromise before he could even come to the table.

They still look at politics through the High Broderism lens, and that the problem is the fact that Reps controlled the executive and the legislature, not that Republicans have had a determined and entrenched agenda since Nixon to raid the government, and create a permanent majority.

Republican intentions as a minority party will be to throw as much muck in the gears as possible, to prevent the new president and congress from being effective, and hoping the electorate will give them another chance. A strong Democratic majority is the only thing that can stand against it, making it possible for a Dem president to give us healthcare, fix the housing crisis, add jobs, and end the war.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i still find it incoherent if orcinus' post is right about the fury because Obama is exactly selling high Broderism--which presumes a vast middle group who hates both parties and just wants everyone to get along whether it helps people or not--and dictates that Dems are always partisan and out of the mainstream while the GOP are never that way.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I want to be in the party that helps people, instead of just talking about it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

In a revivalist fervor, the internal content of the Truth is kind of less relevant. That's the point, right?

The Truth is that, oh, The Guvmint Iz Paralyzed By Internel Fiting. The Truth is the Unity Pony, that we can all hold hands and sing hymnals and peace and justice will happen and Energy Will Flow From The Internets. The Truth is that the Clintons represent political war (one of the reasons that *I* prefer them), and that nothing gets done.

Whatever The Truth is, and I really mean Whatever, the Clinton campaign has just never attempted to tap into it, and thus gone along with the pattern that previous Democratic GE campaigns have gone. This time, it's not working for them.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Lambert, I don't mean that I disagree that Michigan and Florida should be counted now that the primary election is a big election thingy. I think, though, that it should be considered in the future. Fat chance of that...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i think we need a 3rd party candidate to siphon GOP votes like Perot.

And a congress with a real spine and no more lifetime seats.