MyDD :: OK, so tell us what is allowed, part deux.

OK, so tell us what is allowed, part deux.

by rb608, Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST

I've noticed a pattern here on the blogs of late and it was ratcheted up to deafening levels when people decided that Hillary Clinton deserved our party's nomination despite primary election and caucus results. Ok maybe a while before that but my point is there's a definite double standard here on the blogs and there has been for quite some time. Anything goes when it comes to pointing out Obama's "shortcomings" or "faults". Hell they rip into him with half-truths, distortions, lies and some of the most racist and hateful shite I've ever seen. And that's coming from other Democrats!

But god(dess) forbid we point out Hillary's short-comings or faults, or try to point out that the bridge is out and her fervent supporters are driving us straight toward the edge of a McCain presidency in pushing Clinton on us as our nominee. If we dare question her ability to beat McCain - mention folks like her sweatshop financial backers (Tan family), her solidarity with the DC establishment (DLC), or that resume padding everyone's been talking about, we're tagged as divisive, undermining a woman who obviously should be our nominee (according to her supporters anyway), disloyal to our Party, turncoats, GOP Operatives, Karl Rove mouth-pieces, or worse yet - misogynists.

I mean I catch hell for pointing out something as simple as the differences between their healthcare reform plans. Or if I ask that most uncomfortable of questions - how does she plan to bring about all that change she's always talking about, especially when she was such an unmitigated failure the first time she tried it?

If we point out the fact that she's having a hell of a time appealing to educated voters and crossover independents we'll need in November, and people jump down our throat. The middle-class families just getting by (like mine) are not voting for her. We haven't and we won't and if anyone dares point out that inability to attract voters like us, we're painted as... well you know. You've seen the "discussions" in the comments in response to things we've posted.

Even with lack of substantial endorsements, the flood of superdelegates going to Obama, and the delegate math making her chances all but impossible, she's continues to bash our likely nominee, quoting Karl Rove in the process. I hate to point out the obvious but Clinton can't win primaries and caucuses against a freshman senator her supporters claim is a weak candidate, how in the HELL will she beat McCain when the RNC and the 527s really start in on her?

Tags: snark, obama, clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

You should have looked both ways... (2.00 / 1)

before crossing. You are about to be run over by the Hillary bus.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST

Irony Alert (none / 0)

This diarist calls Clinton supporters "fucking liars" and begs to be banned.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/19/1 2343/5681/28#28

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Irony Alert (2.00 / 1)

Boo friggin hoo. I called one commenter a liar who richly deserved it. You want some cheese with that whine?

Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo

by rb608 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Irony Alert (2.00 / 1)

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

looks like he called YOU a liar (2.00 / 3)

probably because you were lying. You never acknowledge the PP strategy. You just ignore it and parrot NOW ad nauseum. It's really pathetic.

If you don't like being called a liar, don't distort the record and then stick your fingers in your ears when people call you on it.

by JJE on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Name calling (none / 0)

The National Organization for Women in Obama's home state refused to support him, with excellent reasons. If you don't like it, that's frankly too bad. Nobody lied, except for dishonest Obama supporters who refused to acknowledge the facts.

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes yes (none / 0)

It's all about NOW. Ignore everything else. I'm aware that you like to repeat that pattern over and over again. It was kind of my point, and you confirmed it once more.

by JJE on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Name calling (none / 0)

Ooh, look at your high minded and fair rhetoric here.

Obama supporters are dishonest.

And so persuasive too....

by luckymortal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Irony Alert (none / 0)

Yep, I don't see where the link makes the stereotype that "clinton supporters are f*cking liars."

Yep, I think that makes you a fucking liar.

glad that's cleared up.

by luckymortal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so tell us what is allowed, part deux. (none / 0)

Please God(dess), make Hillary drop out tonight.

There is no reason to keep this damn primary race going.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST

Eh, let her run (none / 0)

She's not doing any harm anymore. Obama has moved on to his general election strategy.

Let her rack up some points for her fundraising.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh, let her run (none / 0)

I agree, there's been enough inter-party bashing already. Lets concentrate on the defeating the Republicans in the General.

by Gene In PA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it bears discussion. (2.00 / 2)

Quite honestly, let them rant and rave a bit. Correct blatant mistruths or ignorant statements, but understand that it's normal for supporters of a failed primary candidate after a hotly contested race to bear some ill sentiment.

Remember, the Deaniacs swore to vote Nader or stay home, too, but in the end they (halfheartedly) voted for Kerry. I think there will be some of that this year, but the nominee this year will work hard for all of their votes (there is significance, I think, in Obama's first stops in his general election strategy being Michigan, Florida, and Iowa... two states he wasn't allowed to campaign in, and the state it'd been longest since he'd been seen... and incidentally where his success began), instead of just assume that folks hate the other guy too much to not vote for him.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST

Re: I don't think it bears discussion. (none / 0)

But there's a problem... Kerry lost!

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama isn't Kerry. (none / 0)

That much should be obvious.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama isn't Kerry. (none / 0)

My friend, that is an understatement. It's going to be one fun November to be a Democrat, that's for damn sure.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am so disgusted by all of this (1.00 / 5)

I will not be voting for Obama if he's the nominee mostly because of what he inspires in his supporters. It both sickens and frightens me. I feel alienated and disenfranchized from my own party - the one an Obama supporter recently told me wasn't mine anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the progressive wing of the democratic party is the flip side of what the conservative wing is to the republican party, and it's nothing I'll lift a finger to legitimize or help.

by phoenixdreamz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST

Your choice, of course (2.00 / 2)

But the party isn't the Clintons' any longer. It's something that people need to wake up to.

As for not voting for Obama; it's shortsighted. I'd hold my nose and vote for Clinton if she were a legitimate nominee.

However, she wouldn't get time or cash. Just a vote.

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so disgusted by all of this (2.00 / 1)

I honestly don't see a great deal of difference between the two sides. You can find bullying by supporters of each candidate. Blogs have a way of breaking down some social norms.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so disgusted by all of this (2.00 / 1)

I honestly don't see a great deal of difference between the two sides.

Yeah, that was kind of my point in the snarky rewrite. Both sides are guilty of the same distortions and narrow-mindedness; and neither side sees it in themselves.

Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo

by rb608 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody said it wasn't your party (2.00 / 3)

that's your conclusion, and for the record, a Clinton supporter told me I was "too young to mess with stuff I don't understand" and should "go back to American Eagle"

way to disenfranchise me.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so disgusted by all of this (none / 0)

I don't get why this comment was hide rated.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so disgusted by all of this (none / 0)

Me either- I strongly disagree with it, and I think it's unnecessarily smearing Dems, but not an attack on a user. So I think hiding it is a bit further than needed. I'll put a 1 down and leave it there?

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so tell us what is allowed, part deux. (2.00 / 1)

It goes both ways to be sure. The scariest thing about all of this is how all (most) of us have taken sides in all of this and have allowed ourselves to be blinded to the shortcomings of our preferred nominee. Are we really all just a bunch of lemmings?

The upside to this is that once a nominee is chosen we will probably rally around that person with absolutely no sense of irony. The term "blissfully unaware" comes to mind.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:24:03 AM EST

Re: OK, so tell us what is allowed, part deux. (2.00 / 2)

People on both sides need to wake up and realize that there are people on both sides who aren't really on either side. They are not on our side. Their intent is to escalate the bitterness and anger.

by Piuma on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.