MyDD :: A Self-Imposed Exile

A Self-Imposed Exile

by nrafter530, Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:19:47 AM EST

Coming home from a field shoot in Manhattan yesterday, I was on the subway where I engaged in a conversation with a guy, about my age, who was working as a Democratic operative in the New York area canvassing for the party.

In the forty minutes that we talked on the A train from Broadway/Nassau Street to Rockaway Blvd, we discussed this year's campaign, from the Iraq war, to healthcare, to the eocnomy, gas prices, Congressional elections, Mississippi-01, Louisiana-06, and so on. What we never really touched, was the primary fight. Not one argument ensured over Hillary vs. Obama. It was just taken by my new friend that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will win.

As I got off the train at Rockaway Blvd, I asked him what he thought of the primary fight. I asked him what he thought of the people on the blogs who say they won't vote for Obama if Hillary doesn't win. His response made me think;

"I have yet to meet anyone who said they won't vote for the nominee. I've met people who like one over the other, but every door I knock on, every bell I ring, they cannot wait for November"

Then I realized...maybe it's just here. Maybe it's just on these websites, who might have outlived their usefulness and have just become a place where the same load of people fight the same fight day in and day out.

And maybe I got myself caught up in it too much.

I decided to leave the blogsphere. Perhaps I'll come back when there is a nominee, perhaps not. I have come to the conclusion that it is the ultimate goal of some Clinton supporters to destroy Obama, by any means possible, as it is their last chance to see Clinton win. I get the feeling, having spoken to my new friend from the subway, this is not as widespread as they make it out to be.

This evening I received a phone call from my new friend (we exchanged numbers on the subway). He informed me that the Democrats had chosen NYC Councilman Michael McMahon as their nominee for Vito Fossella's Staten Island House seat, while the Republicans nominated a nobody. Since I work in the media, I cannot be involved in the campaign, as he will be, but it gave me an idea.

I'm going to spend the rest of the year focusing on Congressional races. Focusing on increasing our majority in Congress. I've stopped concerning myself with the Presidential race...partially because I think no matter who will be nominated, they will lose, and partially because I just can't take it anymore.

But I need out of here. After today (it's my 25th birthday, by the way), I will go into a self-imposed exile from MyDD and DailyKos.

You can find me on SwingStateProject.

I hope to one day return to a progressive blog that will return to it's former glory

but this isn't it.

Tags: 2008 Presidential Race, NY-13, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment

Peace. (2.00 / 2)

Shalom to you.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:22:52 AM EST

Hope... (2.00 / 2)

...to see you back here :)

Happy Birthday

John McCain smells like mothballs.

by asherrem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:24:07 AM EST

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (2.00 / 3)

Shooting? Are you a photographer?

I love photography and live in NYC.

Also, take the A train to work (the Canal Street stop) from Brooklyn every day :)

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:05 AM EST

TV Producer (2.00 / 4)

I don't want to break my cover, but I'm a producer for PBS.

I work one day in Manhattan, the rest of the time on Long Island, and then I'm on the field whenever I need to be.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TV Producer (2.00 / 1)

Very nice. Kudos.

I hope you stick around :)

United we stand, divided we fall.

by mefeck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for... (2.00 / 3)

..all your input. You will be missed!!!

A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin

by hootie4170 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:05 AM EST

I think I'll be joining you n/t (2.00 / 3)

by Southern Mouth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:47 AM EST

Probably a good idea. (2.00 / 4)

Part of why I don't get worked up when visiting here or DK is precisely because I know people offline don't let blogs sway their votes. The real work will always be done in the real world. These sites are just a place to argue with people about stuff regular people aren't bothered enough to be bothered about.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:35 AM EST

Re: Probably a good idea. (2.00 / 1)

Oh, and happy birthday. Take time to mellow out with special people.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (2.00 / 4)

Happy Birthday!

We all chipped in and got you a Democratic President, but it won't be here until January!

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:30:14 AM EST

bye, good luck and happy birthday! (none / 0)

although i object to one line in your diary - guess which one?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:30:58 AM EST

Re: bye, good luck and happy birthday! (2.00 / 2)

Absolutely true. The fact is that most Dems aren't hugely bent on one candidate over another. And a surprising number aren't even really engaged in making a choice btwn Rep or Dem yet.

In other words, we're just a bunch of wonks jaw-boning.

C'est la vie.

by PhilFR on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (2.00 / 2)

Good luck and good call. I think most of the heavy grandstanding is just on the blogs.

I'm not too worried about November, EITHER of our candidates can dust McCain in a debate.

Obama in November.

by Artemis Jax on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:00 AM EST

Don't leave, instead stay and speak the truth. (2.00 / 4)

Your friend is right. I'm an LD chair, and at our last meeting there were half a dozen Hillary supporters who are going to work their butts off for the nominee, no matter who it is. Several had come to actually prefer Obama since our WA caucuses, where they had caucused for Hillary.

It's only a very small percentage of angry people who are so caught up in their own personal feelings of disappointment, that they're willing to sacrifice all that our party has fought for over the decades.

They're just loud.

"It's time to pass the baton to the next generation." Ken Jacobson, WA state senator.

by tibbs on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:35:11 AM EST

They will lose? (none / 0)

Look just because your giving up on blogging for the time being doesn't mean that the Democrats can't win in the GE.

The country is screaming for change and McCain will not be able to deliver.

Most Americans want us out of Iraq sooner rather than latter. Most Americans are pro-choice. Most Americans think the economy is a wreck and that the Republican party is mostly to blame.

Why do you think the Democrats are likely to lose?

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:37:10 AM EST

I have little faith (2.00 / 1)

in this country. They want change until Halloween, then at the last minute, that become reactionary and vote for the same old stuff because change is scary.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have little faith (none / 0)

I have to disagree with that. I want change and I'm not running from it. I want incremental change, not a revolution. I want a plan, not a movement. I don't see how you can generalize and say people are afraid. It's a different method of change. Half of the people voting prefer the incremental method.

by SophieL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're here (2.00 / 1)

for that very reason. Not everyone is on the blogsphere. There are Clinton radicals who, with the help of the Republicans, will paint Obama as uncertain radical change...too much change. I am assured of it.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:42:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're here (none / 0)

Obam has painted himself as too much radical change. He is the one who said he wants to change our whole system. He is the one saying there's a reason he is here at this time. Sorry, you can't blame this one on either opposition.

by SophieL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have little faith (none / 0)

If that is so then why do you think your Hillary for America party has a chance.

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't (none / 0)

which is why I don't support her

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another reason (2.00 / 2)

I think we're likely to loose is Iraq...I think we are counting on Iraq too much. The war, whether because of lack of reporting or whatever, doesn't look like the dead end nightmare it did two years ago. I really think McCain has a leg up on Iraq. He can argue the "I know the war went badly, but Obama will embarass the country by making it look like we lost" and probably win on that.

I think McCain will win, even as we gain seats in Congress. John McCain IS a problem.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The measure of success in Iraq was (none / 0)

set by GWB as "Return Upon Success" until the troops start returning the White House can't claim success.

If there is anything that is suspect it is a progress report form Iraq. Scott McClellan is making it very difficult to believe anything good is happening or has happened in Iraq.

But if you are a Clinton supporter then you believe that Fox is fair and balanced, I forgot. So, for you Iraq is peachy keen, just like it has been for the last five years.

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (2.00 / 2)

Good luck to you! And you are right, it is the blogs. I am a nurse and I work with 5 other nurses, all Democrats, none of whom blog. Two are Clinton supporters, three for Obama and we are able to discuss our candidates and remain friends.For heaven sake, my boss(doctor) is a Republican and WE'RE friends. Take a break and your true friends will be here when you get back:)

by Roberta on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:46:10 AM EST

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (2.00 / 1)

"I think no matter who will be nominated, they will lose, and partially because I just can't take it anymore."

I hear the pain. Exhaustion and nagging doubt don't skip anyone. All valid.

I also heard McClellan talking tonight. He's the proverbial canary in a coal mine.

November's going to be a plebiscite on Bush, & we're all going to win.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:34:18 AM EST

Happy Birthday (2.00 / 2)

If you're looking for the Hillary loyalists who won't vote for Obama in the fall, I'd suggest broadening your horizons beyond Manhattan, New York.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:08:42 AM EST

Re: A Self-Imposed Exile (none / 0)

Good Luck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glNjsOHiB Ys

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:19:38 AM EST

Happy Birthday. (1.00 / 0)

I know we support different candidates, but I completely agree with everything you said. I may take the same exile.

It surprises me to hear you say this:

I'm going to spend the rest of the year focusing on Congressional races. Focusing on increasing our majority in Congress. I've stopped concerning myself with the Presidential race...partially because I think no matter who will be nominated, they will lose, and partially because I just can't take it anymore.

I am sorry to hear you say this, and frankly I am baffled. Why were you so passionate for one candidate if you think he will lose? Oh well.

Again, happy birthday and good luck with the swing state project.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:22:21 AM EST

He will lose (2.00 / 1)

because the party will be hopelessly divided and the few Clinton partisans will spend the rest of the year making sure that divide exists and grows.

I know people in politics in New York, elected Clinton supporters...the party is going to come down hard on her HARD if she tries to go to the convention, her supporters included. It's not going to be pretty and those small numbers of Clinton radicals are going to seek to destroy the nominee...probably successfully. It doesn't matter how passionate I am about my candidate, it's possible for few people to destroy one man...it'll happen.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry to hear you think it's her fault (2.00 / 1)

Sometimes I wish she would get out of the way so people could see him for who he is. His flaws, his pastor(s), are not Hillary's fault.

Many of us feel like we belong to a section of the party that is being sheaved off and dropped into the ocean. Too old (I'm 38), not rich or hip enough, no fancy degrees, people with ordinary lives and ordinary jobs. I think both Clintons are fighting for the heart and soul of the party before it breaks apart.

Anyway, good luck with the swing state project.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:22:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to hear you think it's her fault (2.00 / 1)

You won't hear Dodd, Edwards, Biden or Richardson supporters claiming that the party was rejecting them because it did not choose their candidate. You won't hear them claim that the party is self-destructing because they didn't get their way.

It is a product of Hillary's quest to portray herself as a victim that had the nomination stolen from her. The fact is she lost an election contest because of mistakes she made. Nothing was owed to her and nothing was stolen from her. The nomination was her's to lose and she lost it.

Well, she has not actually lost it yet. If she can convince enough supers to come out for her she could still win it. But that is something I wouldn't bet my money on. If the supers wind up choosing Obama it won't be because they are rejecting Clinton's supporters. Hillary would like to make it seem that way because the only case she can make now is if you don't give me what I want my supporters will pick up their ball and go home.

The fact is that once the party makes it's choice, outside a few blogs the party will rally around the candidate. In a month no one will remember the primaries. The voters are worried about losoing their houses, their jobs and the war. Whether a politician made the cut in the primaries? Yesterdays news.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to hear you think it's her fault (2.00 / 2)

Because Dodd, Edwards, Biden or Richardson left of their own volition because they weren't even close. They lost early.

Hillary hasn't lost yet and Obama hasn't won. This is not like football where the one with the most points after a certain amount of time wins. This is more like tennis where there are a certain number of points to achieve in order to win. He didn't win and she's not going to hand it to him by agreeing to lose.

If Hillary ends up being he nominee, I hope the Obama supporters rally around her in the way they are asking us to rally around him if he wins it.

by SophieL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please diary this - the tennis analogy (1.00 / 0)

So well said.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll vote for her (none / 0)

but I won't be happy about it, and she'll lose anyway.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to hear you think it's her fault (2.00 / 1)

Neither Obama nor any of his campaign staff have asked Hillary to concede before the last vote is cast. Only Hillary made the comment that it would be all over by Feb. and arrogantly offered Obama the VP slot while she was getting her head handed to her in a string of landslide losses.

I have no problem with Hillary staying in. I'd rather Obama have lost to Hillary in WV and Kentucky then loosing as the only candidate in the race :)

The problem is Hillary suggesting that she has been robbed and that if Obama is the nominee it won't be legitimate. She is doing that to whip up resentment in her supporters so she can try and make the case that they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee. In contrast in every stump speech Obama has been praising Hillary and the campaign she has run. I heard him do it in Sunrise Florida in front of 16,000 supporters and he got applause for the positive Hillary comments. That is the way to behave in the last leg of the contest when one of these candidates will have to ask their supporters to vote for the other guy.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's because of that (none / 0)

he'll probably lose the nomination in the end.

I'm actually surprised the superdelegates haven't caved to Clinton yet. They must really thing Obama is the one to still be willing to nominate him when like 1/3 of the party is threatening not to vote for him.

Maybe the party has more brains that I thought.

I suspect in the end though, they'll give it to her.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's because of that (none / 0)

I don't think all the spin and tortured logic is convincing any of the supers. They can see that Obama has run the better campaign, raised more money and weathered the combined attacks of the Clinton and Republican machines. He survived the 24/7 press coverage of Wright. He has planned, built and executed a campaign that is effective in ways Hillary could only dream of equaling and he is ahead in every metric (including the popular vote).

The super delegates would need more then Clinton's bluster and spin to overturn those results.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They need polls (2.00 / 1)

the polls showing he loses and she wins...the more the Clinton radicals make it clear they won't vote for him, the more he struggles in polls.

I suspect Clinton's people, the Taylor Marshes of the world, will rally their troops all summer to be "Hillary or Nothing." They will consistently throw in the face of superdelegates that growing numbers of their own won't vote for Obama. (Look at his current approval rating among white women, it's down near Bush now)

Then, the superdelegates will have to decide whether or not they want to choose between African-Americans or white women.

Maybe neither should be the nominee now.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They need polls (none / 0)

Don't read to much into the polls. The Republicans are giving Hillary a pass because they assume she has lost and Obama is praising her while she is still attacking him. That will help her in the polls temporarily.

Remember when Guiliani and Clinton where shoe ins? Remember when Bill Clinton was running dead last behind Perot and Bush? Right now Hillary is walking a fine line. She is seen by many as a tenacious fighter and victim. If she loses come June 6 and a big chunk of her supers then line up behind the winner and she doesn't, she will quickly go from fighter to narcissistic sore loser and her poll numbers will collapse. She knows she is rapidly running out of runway if she can't make it fly next week it's over.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know it's temporary (none / 0)

that's not the point. The point is how much damage can her supporters inflict on Obama before the convention to make it almost impossible for him to win.

She won't win, even if she gets the nomination, but maybe he can't either.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:41:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not Hillary. It's Obama. (1.00 / 0)

Look at this speech:

"I can't claim we come from the same background," he began. "I'm not the son of a coal miner. I wasn't raised by a family that made its living from the land or toiled in a mill or worked in the local schools or health clinic. I was raised in a different arena, and, after my own career, I became a politician. My work isn't as hard as yours--it isn't nearly as hard as yours. I had an easier start." He paused and went on, "But you are my compatriots, my fellow-Americans, and that kinship means more to me than almost any other association."

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not Hillary. It's Obama. (none / 0)

What the hell is wrong with that? You have a problem with honesty?

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you like the speech? (1.00 / 0)

I do. I would like Obama to make a speech like that.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He HAS made speeches like that (none / 0)

but no one pays attention, they just pay attention to the controversial stuff, the pastors, the bitter remarks.

If you'd actually listen to the guy more, you'd realize he's the pompous jerk he's being made out to be.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK we're talking past each other. (1.00 / 0)

It's true, even if he did make a speech like that it would feel phony to me. He just doesn't connect with certain voters. Sorry.

Good luck with your swing state project.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to hear you think it's her fault (2.00 / 1)

I never blamed Hillary.

And YOU feel you're being sheaved off? Welcome to my world for the past decade! This is the first time I've ever felt someone in the party was listening to me.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From age 15 to 25 you felt this way? (1.00 / 0)

That presidents were not listening to you?

So for the final two years of the Clinton administration, and all of the Bush administration, you felt this way?

Please explain.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (2.00 / 1)

I first got involved in politics in high school, and I have never felt, not once, from my teen years, through my first years voting, through college, that the party gave a damn about me or what I thought. I was some young naive kid who did not understand the world to them. Meanwhile I watched friends of mine die in 9/11, die in Afghanistan and Iraq, suffer through not having healthcare after college, struggle to find a job and find a place to live with low wages, struggle with the cost of college and now that we all finally have gotten involved and found a candidate who seems to speak to us, we're told we're cultists, backing a terrible candidate, told that we're naive and that we're still too young to understand.

No, I'm supposed to support a woman who would only talk to me if I put a microphone in front of her face.

I watched an entire generation lose faith in their country and their leaders. A fresh face comes out and speaks bluntly and honestly right down to our core, and he is being brought down by stupid shit like flag pins and pastors, meanwhile soliders, most of whom are my age and from MY generation, are committing suicide at a record rate. I'm watching them lose faith in their country again. America does not need to have their youth disheartened.

Nominate her, i'll vote for her, but I'll be damned if I'm going to express any faith in her ability to lead.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hope life gets better for you (1.00 / 0)

FWIW, I think all three candidates care more about all the things you listed than Bush did.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Hillary is the first (1.00 / 0)

who has really spoken to me and a lot of other people.

I never expected a president to do that. I never felt entitled to my own president. So when she came along I was really surprised.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not even handed... (2.00 / 3)

While the candidate flame wars you discuss in your diary have been occurring in the blogosphere for the last 15 months, you give the false impression that its been entirely the fault of overzealous Clinton supporters:

I have come to the conclusion that it is the ultimate goal of some Clinton supporters to destroy Obama, by any means possible

What about Obama supporters who do the same? This quote below is taken directly from the Top rec'd diary on DAILY KOS at the moment:

Clinton would denigrate and dismiss all of that for her own personal gain. I really don't know what else to say. The primaries cannot be over soon enough and I vow to donate money to any candidate that challenges her in the next senatorial election.

It was the endless procession of comments like the aforementioned, that caused the backlash of Hillary supporters in the first place, and led to the creation of sites like Hillaryis44, NoQuarter, etc.

Had Hillary been treated with civility in the blogosphere from day one, this entire flame war never would have happened. But sites like DAILY KOS began the campaign season with comments "Oh I would never vote for that triangulating bitch" etc., and the back-and-forth exchange was created.

Right now, it may all be coming to a close. And we can all hope for party unity. But lets be even handed when assigning the blame for what took place over the course of the primary season in the blogosphere.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:40:40 AM EST

kos still rubs salt in it on front page (2.00 / 1)

The reason dailykos got so cruel so fast was because kos himself encouraged that behavior by demonstrating it himself. And he's still doing it.

He has backed a lot of losing candidates.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos still rubs salt in it on front page (2.00 / 1)

He's as bad as Jerome.

I wouldn't argue with anyone saying he's no better than Jerome.

One thing Kos has done - you'll find plenty of NON presidential posts from Kos. Many on Senate and house races. Many on McCain. Many on the GOP generally... and I'm not just talking other FPers - I'm talking posts by Kos himself.

Beyond his 3-part book review, when's the last Jerome wrote something that wasn't an attack on Obama?

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the fake skin-darkening scandal? (1.00 / 0)

No kos is far worse. Jerome sticks to facts and does not inflame.

by catfish2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the fake skin-darkening scandal? (none / 0)

Geez...

Come on.

Jerome doesn't inflame?

Singular among all liberal bloggers this cycle - many of whom took their time working through the candidates to decide on one to back (including Kos, who probably leaned more Edwards until January) - Jerome decided early in 2007 that he hated Obama.

He was calling Obama supporters cultists before anyone else - it started well before 2008 even began, when Hillary was still inevitable.

Jerome inflames because he's not even a Hillary "supporter" - he's admitted as much.

He's just anti-Obama.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think so (2.00 / 1)

It was the endless procession of comments like the aforementioned, that caused the backlash of Hillary supporters in the first place, and led to the creation of sites like Hillaryis44, NoQuarter, etc.

Both sites existed well before DK entered Obama's camp.

Few people seem to remember that until basically the end of January -- the blogosphere (both DK and to a lesser extent, MyDD) were Edwards territory.

I'm not saying there wasn't a strong Obama presence - but it's incorrect to claim that crap sites like Hillaryis44 -- and I have ZERO use for anyone from that site -- sprung up as a response.

You need to check your history -- Hillaryis44 has been spewing bile at every possible not-Hillary for longer than DK has been Obama land.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think so (none / 0)

Here's back in 2007.

Read the posts.

Read the comments.

Then tell the bile didn't start well before Obama slipped into the driver's seat and, for better or worse, much of the blogosphere hopped onboard.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The hostility towards Hillary existed at KOS (none / 0)

long before they got behind Obama. Their excuse in 2007 for not being civil to Hillary was her "war vote" (something they readily forgave John Edwards for, when the majority of Kossacks supported him).

Hillary even got boo'd at the annual Kos convention last year (ironically after being the ONLY candidate to stand up to FOX NEWS on their behalf).

My exact thoughts when I first read about Hillaryis44 (May 2007, from the NYT) was "oh it sounds just like "a DAILY KOS for HIllary supporter." I stand by that original sentiment today.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The hostility towards Hillary existed at KOS (none / 0)

Hillary got booed when she delivered the 'lobbyists are people too' line.

As for Edwards, he wholeheartedly mea culpa'ed his AUMF vote well before the 2008 primary season even started. Edwards was forgiven because he asked for it, in regards to the AUMF.

Hillary never has.

I'm not anti-Hillary... but one thing I've never really gotten over:

Back abouts 2006 or so - there was an article in (I think) the New Yorker, which talked about a potential HRC run. In it, insiders were apparently assuring donors that Hillary wasn't as pro-AUMF as she had seemed, that it was just political calculation on a measure that was sure to pass anyway. That she really wasn't a hawk.

Well... nowadays, as she's made numerous attempts to outbluster even the GOP on things like Iran, I'm not so sure.

I simply cannot trust HRC on foreign policy. I do not understand her "true" feelings on foreign policy, and frankly - I fear that she's got a bit too much neocon in her.

I don't know what I would find worse -- that she's really a militant hawk, or, that she's just willing to act like one to scare up votes.

I'm no peacenik - but I absolutely abhor political calculation on foreign policy. I think it's unseemly and dreadfully bad for this nation. I only slightly less abhor the elitist view that the United States can and should fix all the world's problems, even when the world doesn't necessarily agree with the nature and solutions to the problems.

For better or worse - I feel like I can trust Obama on foreign policy. I suppose you could say that I trust McCain, too - in that I trust him to be completely wrong-headed and foolish. I just don't trust Hillary Clinton on foreign policy (though I'd take my 'mistrust' in her over the trust in the wrongheadness of McCain in a heartbeat).

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Double Standard (none / 0)

Hillary got boo'd for saying "Believe it or not lobbyists represent real Americans". And she was right (AARP for example). She would have been pandering if she had told the KOS people what they wanted to hear, for the sake of their approval. Obama has every intention of taking money from these same groups....

Fast forward to the "gas tax holiday". The same group the boo'd Hillary for not pandering insincerely over lobbyists, is OUTRAGED that she IS pandering about the "gas tax holiday."

With this group, Hillary is damned if she does, or damned if she doesn't.

As for YOUR foreign policy reasons for not supporting Hillary, they are valid imo. I wasn't saying that people didn't have valid reasons for not supporting her. The behavior in the blogosphere I was originally referencing was the lack of civility. "Hillary is a triangulating bitch" was probably the most common post at KOS for the last year. I saw it over and over again.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double Standard (none / 0)

I have never seen anyone over there call her a traingulating bitch.

but a triangulator she has been.

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

by nrafter530 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double Standard (none / 0)

The Obama campaign does not accept donations from any lobbyists, not even lobbyists for good causes. The entire system of lobbying needs to be rejected because it is designed to be corrupt. The fact that there might be lobbyists advocating for worthy causes does not change that. Lobbyists represent those that can pay them giving the citizens with the most money the most influence.

Hillary deserved the boos.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The hostility towards Hillary existed at KOS (none / 0)

Much of the blogosphere rose up as a rebellion against the DLC corporatist/lobbyist rump party the Democrats had become. The Clinton's were the leading members of the 'New' Democratic establishment that presided over the party's demise and rejection of it's New Deal past. Hillary defending lobbyists to bloggers and the Clinton machine's public trashing of Dean's 50 state strategy was emblematic of the divide.

So it's no surprise there was not much love for Hillary online when the campaign began.

by hankg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The hostility towards Hillary existed at KOS (none / 0)

No doubt.

Hillary Clinton's problems with the blogosphere have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton herself, and little to do with Barack Obama.

You're spot on - since coming on board in 2003, with the Dean campaign - the DLC and their enables have most certainly been entities that I myself have spent PLENTY of time bashing - and we had plenty of company.

Few people seem to remember Howard Dean's election to DNC chair. That was supremely satisfying. It felt almost (but not quite) as good as the 2006 midterms. It felt like we beat back the forces we felt were ruining our party.

by zonk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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.