MyDD :: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity

MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity

by Shaun Appleby, Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST

This is one of those short, one notion diaries but I feel compelled to acknowledge the unique experience we have enjoyed here over the past few days.

The recent history of MyDD during this primary season has been exceptional, originally a very pro-Edwards site, based on it's population it became a Clinton-oriented refuge while maintaining a fairly even distribution on the front page. And throughout there has been a strong and persistent Obama minority which I have been proud to number myself among.

While other progressive blogs became, appropriately or otherwise, largely pro-Obama bastions, and other sites emerged which were virulently anti-Obama in Hillary's cause, MyDD remained a hotly contested crucible for inflammatory arguments for and against Hillary's and Obama's respective candidacies. While the recommended list was conceded the comment threads never were and the arguments pro and con were pursued with a tenacity, and perhaps a polemic enthusiasm, which raised ire and threatened civility more than many other first-rank forums in the blogosphere.

I think we all despaired, at one time or another, that this division was an indication of the perilous and damaging condition of the party in this crucial presidential election, yet we stuck to our principles and fought on with dedication and loyalty to our respective candidates.

But now, while the sluggish media is still mesmerised by the narrative of the party's divisions we are witness here to a remarkable and inspiring spirit of reconciliation. Leading diarists for Hillary's cause have written, with profound courage and insight, on the real challenges facing us as Democrats and have been received, by and large, with a warm response by their former adversaries.

Today I am proud of the MyDD community and the population of posters here who are demonstrating qualities which call on our higher political and ideological virtues and likely insure our victory in this election. Whether by accident or design, and as a consequence of the dynamics of this site over the last few months, if feels like we as a community are leading the way at the moment in forging an alliance which bodes well for Democrats in this election cycle and beyond.

I am proud to consider myself a MyDD'er today and that pride extends to the adversaries I have sparred with all these long months. We are clearly greater than the sum of our parts.

Tags: election 2008, unity, kick McCain back to 20th century (all tags)

Permalink :: 180 Comments :: Post a Comment

Absolutely. (2.00 / 3)

In fact, the constant presence of Obama supporters on this site and the fierce debates that were often unpleasant I believe has a lot to do with it.

After a while, DKos turned into an echo chamber with regards to which candidate to support. I've seen a lot of folks over there who are having a harder time letting go of their Hillary anger, precisely because they have been whipped into a frenzy for so long that it's hard to come down.

And as for Hillaryis44, well, there's nothing to say.

But the fact that both sides stuck it out at this site I believe tempered the reactions. It's much harder to fall into your own crazy rage when you have to defend your candidate and your positions when you flame the other candidate.

Just my two cents.

by EvilAsh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:20 PM EST

and Kos (2.00 / 1)

is largely to blame for what happened and still happens at Dkos.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and Kos (2.00 / 1)

I understand your anger. But I still can't bring myself to be TOO angry at Kos.
Both sites banned people for some pretty dumb reasons in the heat of the primary.

I don't know, is Kos still talking trash about Hillary? Haven't seen anything from him for a while, besides that dumb "McCain's green teeth" thing.

by EvilAsh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and Kos (2.00 / 2)

yep, they are still talking trash about Hillary.

by colebiancardi on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and Kos (2.00 / 5)

I know DKos is. Whenever I head back over there, I try to get people to back off the anger.

It's been a bitter struggle. Many Clinton supporters believe that because our guy won, we all need to be magnanimous.

But what they don't see is that the anger with Hillary and Bill Clinton isn't really about the contest with Barack Obama. For many, it feels like a personal betrayal by the Clintons.

Almost all of Obama's supporters often and fiercely defended both Bill and Hillary Clinton through many years. Indeed, for some like myself it was much of our adult lives. But when we had the audacity to decide that Obama was better for this time and this election, we were labeled as traitors. Much like Bill Richardson, we didn't dislike Hillary, but both Bill and Hillary declared us as enemies to be smeared in any way possible.

The whole 'latte sipping liberals' and 'hip black friend' and 'time to waste going to a caucus' remarks came from people who we deeply admired and respected for a long, LONG time. And when people you care about like that turn on you, simply because THIS TIME we prefer someone else, feels like a deep and unforgivable betrayal.

An attack by a friend is much more painful, and much harder to forgive, than an attack from an enemy.

Of course, Obama supporters need to be graceful in victory. Of course, it is vitally important to unify the party for the tough fight ahead. And of course, it is much easier to be magnanimous in victory than it is in defeat.

But the Clinton attacks against former admirers and supporters cut deep. Some people are just going to need more time to work through it than others.

by EvilAsh on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i dont mean to minimize your feelings.... (2.00 / 4)

but whoa - your analysis is exaggerated. did the clintons call evilash or any other BO supporters traitors? no. a political pundit not affiliated with the campaign called one supporter - namely bill richardson judas based on the fact that he told 4 separate people that he was backing HRC and then did otherwise. so frankly i find your comments a bit strange.

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

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont mean to minimize your feelings.... (2.00 / 3)

I understand, and we're all trying to get along at this point (we don't want to get into a heated argument) but it wasn't an unaffiliated political pundit who called Bill Richardson 'Judas', it was James Carville, who is absolutely a Clinton surrogate.
But leaving that aside, Bill directly insulted Obama supporters on no less than five occasions that I'm aware of.
This is all water under the bridge at this point. I was never all that invested in the Clintons to begin with, so most of this stuff didn't get to me. But for those who were long-time Clinton supporters, it was a very painful experience to watch them (Bill especially) thrash Obama supporters.

by EvilAsh on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont mean to minimize your feelings.... (none / 0)

Evidently you've forgotten about the people who introduced Hillary at campaign events around the country and what they had to say about people who supported Obama. The guy in Ohio sticks in my mind particularly; what was it -- "prius-driving, latte-drinking, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund whizzes" or something like that. For that matter, all the people and bloggers who called anyone who supported Obama cultists, koolaid-drinkers and weak-minded people off in lala-land should be included as well.

And you've forgotten this -- watch the clip at 4:20-4:55 minutes into this Daily Show segment. Hillary had a lot of loving from the media in 2007 and even in the beginning of 2008 -- just not so much after Feb. 5th.

Now was there much unwarranted crap launched at Hillary supporters? Yes. Was there some really bad stuff in the media about Hillary? Yes. Was there some really good stuff about Hillary in the media? Yes. And the same points are true for Obama and the media, and Obama supporters.

I think EvilAsh's point is a fair one. I certainly admired Hillary and defended both of them throughout the 90's and after. Being discounted by someone that I took a lot of heat for and insulted by her supporters was not a pleasant experience.

And as I'm sure you'll attest to, being insulted by the supporters of the opponent is a bitter experience -- if I can use that phrase. There needs to be healing on both sides. I think that EvilAsh was trying to explain why the cuts on the Obama supporters might have gone a little deeper than is generally acknowledged. You don't have to listen to him/her but I think it's part of the healing process for us all to step back and consider what happened from viewpoints other than our own.

by vbdietz on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wish I could give you super-mojo. (2.00 / 1)

You expressed, accurately and eloquently, what I too have experienced.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes KOS is still at it too.... (2.00 / 3)

He wrote another "trash Hillary" diary yesterday. Honestly, I believe he is worried that he is going to lose many of his users now, some of whome evidently only came to bash the CLINTONS so its in his own self interest to keep the flame-war going. Sad.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:35:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely. (2.00 / 2)

Alegre's walkout made things worse. You can't have a meaningful dialogue when one's supporters stop talking.

Trix, bless her, put up with all the abuse and still talked to us. I wish more Clinton supporters had stuck it out.

The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain

by really not a troll on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely. (2.00 / 1)

Ditto. The whole 'Clinton supporter walkout' really bugged me. I can't say that they didn't have a good reason to do it, because one thing that has become abundantly clear to me during this election is that Obama and Clinton supporters' perspectives were SO different that were might as well have been living in two different worlds.

But I think it would have served the democratic party better if they would have stuck around.

by EvilAsh on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely. (none / 0)

You can hardly be too mad at Kos for being really resentful of people who went on O'REILLY to trash him.
Just sayin'

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:19:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Those of us who didn't formally walk out (2.00 / 1)

were still treated as pariahs. Mention Hillary in a positive light - and the troll raters came out in force. I stopped posting and commenting to save my overall user status (and because I deemed it useless to continue trying). I'd never been down rated in all my years there until this primary season.

So I spent more time here - and stayed. At least here substantive dialogs between adversaries were possible. I cannot even imagine what will happen over there should Obama select Hillary as his running mate. What are all those anti-Hillary people going to do? Start hating Obama? Its nuts. Just as its nuts to vote for McCain. I look at it like this: I couldn't stand Bill Clinton - and he turned out to be one of our very best presidents. I am praying that Obama will also be great.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (2.00 / 1)

At least here substantive dialogs between adversaries were possible. I cannot even imagine what will happen over there should Obama select Hillary as his running mate. What are all those anti-Hillary people going to do? Start hating Obama? Its nuts.

Yes, yes, and most definitely yes.

I posted this on another thread, but it's really worth a look (I'll probably diary it over the weekend.) Check out this column and the commentator responses to it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/04 should-hillary-clinton-be-vice-presiden t#comment-133027

It has quite a few people (or possible just a couple folks frantically sock puppeting) saying "If Obama makes HIllary his VP I'll vote McCain!"

Which is way, way more petty than saying "If I can't vote for Hillary I'm voting for McCain." They'll turn their backs on THEIR GUY WHO WON just to express how much they hate the Clintons. How insane is that?

(And oh yeah, they're "concerned" that if Hillary becomes VP she'll immediately bump Obama off, because, you know, she killed Vince Foster!! I wish I was kidding.)

by Michigoose on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (none / 0)

Yeah, that's a pile of crap. I suspect that a VAST majority of those people are trolls. The others, they're just delusional.

I've said it before, but there are a lot of Obama supporters out there who feel personally betrayed by the Clintons during this election cycle. They've defended them for so long, and when they supported Obama the Clintons insulted them directly. (Mostly Bill, and I still can't understand why he would attack fellow democrats the way he did with his "they don't need a president" line and "hip black friend" line.)

They say that an injury inflicted by a friend is a thousand times worse than an injury inflicted by an enemy, and I think that's part of what's playing out, here.

by EvilAsh on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:22:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I gotta disagree, Evil Ash (2.00 / 1)

There's still a tinge of "let's blame the Clintons" clinging to your response. I could counter that there are lots of Clinton supporters who feel the same about Obama - and it would be just as specious - not to mention off focus. And dismissing the extremists on either end as 'trolls' misses the point. I commented that it was easier to maintain a dialog here than DKos. Michigoose agreed, adding that over at Kos (and other places) Hillary was still being burned at the stake on a daily basis. It is and they are. No excuse either - no matter which side of the fence you've set up housekeeping.

So let us not blame Hillary for Kos or Obama for No Quarter. Both sites have something in common, actually (which I find a hoot). They hate the other candidate so much they are willing to vote for McCain should Hillary and Obama team up on a unity ticket.

Now THAT'S nuts!!

by The Fat Lady Sings on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I gotta disagree, Evil Ash (none / 0)

It's not about blaming the Clintons, though I can see where you get that impression. And, (for Hillary supporters) it's shouldn't be about blaming Obama.

But I also believe it would be a really good idea for each side to acknowledge the frustrations of the other as legitimate (if misguided).

I'm not trying to BLAME Clinton for the rift, I'm trying to explain to Clinton supporters WHY some Obama supporters are still pissed even after Obama has won.

I absolutely agree that those Obama supporters who are still bitching need to back the hell off. It IS really bad form for anyone to be hammering on Clinton at this point.

But I also want Clinton supporters to know that a lot of this anger isn't about the primary race. It's more personal than that.

by EvilAsh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oy... (2.00 / 2)

That's a pretty broad brush. Would you kindly acknowledge the vast majority of us that didn't call her a murderer?

MyDD & DailyKos -- The honeymoon may be over, but i still think we should grow old together.

by Mikeguyver on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (2.00 / 1)

Mention Hillary in a positive light - and the troll raters came out in force.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that this is true and it's definitely not my own experience. I've had some incredibly respectful dialogs about her candidacy on Kos and only seen troll-ratings when name-calling was thrown into the mix.

I cannot even imagine what will happen over there should Obama select Hillary as his running mate. What are all those anti-Hillary people going to do? Start hating Obama?

From a front page post yesterday:

There are more than 1.5 million individual donors to the Obama campaign. It would not take much on a per-contributor basis -- less than $20, certainly -- for Obama supporters to help Sen. Clinton make things right with her campaign's vendors, and if asked I would certainly contribute to such an effort.

Sure sounds like Clinton hatred to me!

I'm only a click away

by juliewolf on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (2.00 / 1)

when you read the comments in that diary, it certainly is.

by colebiancardi on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (none / 0)

I'm only a click away

by juliewolf on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those of us who didn't formally walk out (none / 0)

Care to point to some specific comments which illustrate hatred of Clinton? I see ones which express frustration with her, and some which suggest that there's no reason for anyone but her and Bill to be responsible for the campaign debt, but I read through the first forty comments or so and didn't find anything I'd classify as "hatred."

I'm only a click away

by juliewolf on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bull S*** (2.00 / 1)

First of all, if people ar telling you to go away, it's stupid for hem to later say they were bugged that you left. When people are not criticizing your candidate's policy positions, but instead her thighs, it's hard to belive their open to serious discourse. When the owner of a blog cherry-picks polls to make his point of the day, what's the use?

In fact, I did continue to post after the walkout and I got, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be on strike?" Face it, the place became a circle jerk and it still is today.

The good news is that I learned about MyDD from that place.

by SophieL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:07:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bull S*** (none / 0)

I agree with the snarky 'strike' comments. Those were uncalled for (and I called people out for that more than once.) Ditto for the mindless 'Go away' comments.
At the same time, though, MANY pro-Obama diaries were posted here and then almost immediately hidden, so neither site is blameless.
We ALL got carried away. And it's easy for advocating for you candidate to turn into rabid attacks on ANY opposition, deserved or not.

by EvilAsh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely. (none / 0)

and baculum king and sara seattle. I'm sure there were some more, but uh, they don't come to mind.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

turns out Trix is a man (none / 0)

Seriously!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/7/1 74521/7189/20/531873

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards .. (2.00 / 2)

it's funny .. because both sites were big Edwards supporters .. until he dropped out .. but I am glad that we are coming together .. because in the end .. McCain and Republicans are the real enemies

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST

agreed by and large. (1.00 / 2)

A lot of the problem people had/have with mydd is/was that the toxic ideas being spewed at very fringe marginal sites, after metastasizing for a while, were promoted and thus legitimized here using this sites reputation.

Ideas that required the acceptance of right wing frames on issues central to democrats should have been repudiated instead of promoted.

Now that mydders are coalescing around our candidate we should from now on reject and renounce arguments that require us to cede ground to republicans before we can defend against them.

Obama a Marxist? hmm where have I heard that before?

by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST

Re: agreed by and large. (2.00 / 1)

And what better place to do it than here? That's my point, really, this place is virtually the MyDD National Battlefield Monument of the 2008 primary.

Reject and denounce? Absolutely. But what better way to heal the wounds than hold the veterans reunion at the site of the bitterest struggle?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm with ya (1.00 / 2)

But for a while I think we better use metal detectors at the door to the unity celebration. :)

by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm with ya (2.00 / 1)

Fair point. There's plenty of unexploded munitions still laying around, too. It was ever thus.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 1)

Spot on, Shaun. I wouldn't have predicted 2 weeks ago, but things seem to be moving in the unity direction.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 2)

This is one of the reasons why I stayed here and pushed back. It felt like a full time job some days, but it helped to prevent the worst of the lies from taking root which made it easier for people to come back.

...or I'm taking credit for something that I shouldn't be ;)

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:14 PM EST

That's what I thought as I read these comments... (none / 0)

I came here from DKos because I'd heard that MyDD was as slanted for Hillary as DKos was for Barack, and I wanted input from both sides.

The only difference I saw in how it played out here is that the Obama supporters didn't leave.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps because there were front page diaries here that were neutral or pro-Obama, whereas the front page on DKos has been an Obama circle jerk since Edwards left the race.

by therealdeal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There were no neutral or pro-Obama diaries... (none / 0)

when I first got here. That does seem to have changed quite a bit in the past few weeks.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There were no neutral or pro-Obama diaries... (2.00 / 1)

Did you read anything from Jonathan Singer? Or did you only look at Jerome's stuff and assume the rest of the posts were the same? Just sayin...

--sam

by samizdat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There were no neutral or pro-Obama diaries... (2.00 / 1)

Even Todd was remarkably even-handed although clearly supporting Hillary.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read diaries...not the front page. (none / 0)

If his stuff shows up on the diary list, then I'm sure I've see it too. I have to admit that I don't pay attention to names very much, but there are two or three that I would see over and over again on the recommended diary list, and they were very much pro-Hillary at the very least and anti-Obama in many instances.

I did the same thing at DKos. I would read the diaries as they were posted and then the recommended diaries when I'd caught up.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

while i appreciate the sentiment of this diary. (2.00 / 3)

and agree with some of your observations.

to me however, it seems that a large number of people have disappeared from mydd. both BO and a large group of HRC supporters and interestingly they have been replaced with a variety of users that are either new or left during the primary season.

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

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:54 PM EST

Re: while i appreciate the sentiment of this diary (none / 0)

Yeah, it's been relatively quiet, but productive. The Obama/Clinton meeting thread was pretty lively, and amusing. Having blogged here pretty consistently over the last sixteen months I must say I've seen a few migrations to and fro. But new tribes always seem to arrive.

I always anticipated a bit of a drought after the primary closed, but in a way that's my point. Given our past history and apparent current trend MyDD is uniquely positioned to be a very positive forum for kicking McCain's butt, and all the down-ticket contests too. I've missed the more high-brow discussions I was accustomed to here in the past, most of the smooth talkers and deep thinkers bailed for Open Left and points West some time ago. This has been a wild, frontier province of Left Blogistan for a while but we have some battle-hardened veterans among us now, too.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I, for one, (2.00 / 1)

have had less time to post here because the GE campaign is starting up and I've been working to beat McCain. Living here in MI there wasn't a lot to do before given the situation in the primary.

Not that you were talking about me specifically. Many others might well be doing the same though.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: while i appreciate the sentiment of this diary (none / 0)

Well, those who simply couldn't tolerate an Obama victory, the thought of unity, or even civil discussion with others have probably shuffled off to whence they came. And in many cases, good riddance.

I don't think there were ever as many bomb-throwing Obama supporters, because they'd get banned a lot quicker (KathyM? lion king?).

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 1)

I haven't been here that long so I was thinking Hillary supporters have not reconciled to the extent you think. I think Hillary supporters have stopped talking here. I believe there is festering resentment for all that has come to pass.

Ideologically there is a split among Democrats. I don't think people reconcile ideologically easily overnight. Those types of shifts take time.

The hatred for Hillary Clinton in the progressive wing runs deep. I don't believe progressives have reconciled to the extent you say because of deep ideological differences.

I find most of the reconciliation blogs phony and insincere with praise for Mrs. Clinton. I don't believe it is humanly possible for the same people to vilify her as a racist and someone hopeful for the death of her opponent and magically they no longer feel that way three days after Obama has enough delegates to declare himself nominee.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:48 PM EST

Two things about your comment... (2.00 / 6)

1.)

The hatred for Hillary Clinton in the progressive wing runs deep.

As a liberal and a progressive and a Clinton-turned-Obama supporter, I find this sentence quite biased; and more importantly, very inaccurate.

Contrary to popular belief, there are millions upon millions of liberals and progressives that were in Hillary's camp. The concept that Obama was more liberal and/or progressive than Hillary was more perception than fact. And, I don't think it's necessary to delve into supporting or arguing about it, either. That's water under the bridge.

2.)

I don't believe it is humanly possible for the same people to vilify her as a racist and someone hopeful for the death of her opponent and magically they no longer feel that way three days after Obama has enough delegates to declare himself nominee.

Perhaps it's easy for these folks to move on because these same people that supposedly vilified Clinton and called her a racist knew there wasn't a shred of truth to their comments at the time they were making them?

by bobswern on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I shall provide a different perspective (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps it's easy for these folks to move on because these same people that supposedly vilified Clinton and called her a racist knew there wasn't a shred of truth to their comments at the time they were making them?

I never called Clinton a racist, but I have no problem claiming that her campaign engaged in intentional race-baiting.

But here's the part that people miss about that: I don't think that race-baiting was necessarily bad strategy and I while I might fault the campaign on moral grounds, I have a grudging respect for their do whatever it takes attitude about this election.

Problem is, when Obama turned it back on them and didn't act angry ('cause, really, getting your opponent angry enough to look like a fool is the point of this strategy) they didn't know what else to do, so strategically it turned out to be ineffective.

I don't think Clinton was racist, but I don't think she had any problem whatsoever making use of Obama's race in the hopes that it would help her, just as she had no problem making use of her sex in the hopes that it would help her, and I don't think that makes her sexist either.

I'm only a click away

by juliewolf on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 2)

Some of what you say here about the absence of Clinton supporters masquerading as reconciliation has some truth to it, though I would hasten to add that a number of long-time supporters have been vocal in throwing their weight behind Obama.

That said, where I diverge with your opinion is in its basis. I don't think there is a split based on ideology. There never was. The split was fueled by intense loyalty to each candidate based on personality and identity. Arguments were certainly conducted on the policy level, but they driven because each side didn't trust the other side's sincerity or commitment.

Does that mean a reconciliation is easier since the chasm isn't one borne of world-view (excepting the highly militant faction of either camp that has convinced themselves otherwise)? Yes, it probably does. An energetic and sincere display on the part of the candidates can go a long way to soothing tensions, I think. That said, I'm an Obama supporter and Clinton supporters (the non-militant type) may not feel quite as magnanimous -- after all, they have the sore feelings from the campaign AND their candidate lost on top of it. Still, I think most realize that no one benefits from continued hostilities.

by tessellated on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 2)

Just speaking for myself as a Clinton supporter, what I've found most difficult to swallow is the way quite a few Obama supporters continue to trash Hillary at every opportunity, but then claim that her supporters "have no choice" but to vote for Obama anyway. One of the great things about the US is that we do, in fact, have quite a few choices, including staying home, voting for a third party, writing in Hillary, and even voting for McCain (not a choice I personally would ever make, but some would.)

As usual, the MSM is not helping one bit by continuing to trash and demonize Hillary. (Andrew Sullivan, I'm looking at you, arsehole.) The more of that I read, the more my emotional reaction of "No one talks to me, about me, or about my candidate that way and then gets to blithely assume my vote is theirs for the taking" comes to the fore. There are times when the red rage this attitude engenders completely overwhelms the cooler and better angels of my nature that say that yes, Obama is better than McCain and should be voted for.

It's rather sad, I admit, that Obama's cause is being undermined by "supporters" who are so overboard in their partisanship that they might possibly cost him the election. I'm not terribly happy about several things Obama did -- and failed to do -- during the primary, but then I never expect a politician to actually walk the high road during a campaign, because that's how campaigns get lost.

I realize Obama has little control over "his" bloggers and the MSM, but I think if he's just make an attempt to tell them, "Thanks for the support, folks, but really, stop riling up Hillary's followers -- I NEED them, you know?" I'd feel a lot better about him. It's making the effort that counts, not whether or not he actually gets any of them to listen.

by Michigoose on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 2)

I understand where the frustration comes from, I've felt it too as some people continue to bash Hillary. And there are those on Hillary's side that continue to bash our nominee, so it's not one-sided.
But I've always been of the mind that Obama was a good candidate, so perhaps I haven't been as emotionally invested as some frequent posters.
But I firmly believe that the future of this country is riding on the next president, and Obama is thousands of times better than a third term of Republicanism and the Iraq war.
Nothing is more important, in my mind than to get the Democrats back into the WH.

by skohayes on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyDD Ahead of the Curve on Unity (2.00 / 1)

I hear you, Michigoose.

This too shall pass, I suppose is the one thing you can count on.

The sniping is already abating. Sadly it is still there if you look for it -- on either side. We can't control what a few over-energized jerks do on the internet. I'd focus on the candidates themselves and watch how they handle the next few months. I'm seeing a lot of signs of graceful action by both of them and that is encouraging.

by tessellated on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Give them about another week (2.00 / 1)

and I think the majority of it will be gone..maybe sooner...today was a very important day for unity and I think you will see that reflected in Obama supporter attitudes going forward.

by netgui68 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said...Agree 100% (none / 0)

by netgui68 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed because there was a mix (2.00 / 1)

of support we had to tolerate each other and that meant not developing a hatred for the other candidate (for the most part there were some Clinton haters here (and still are) and some Obama haters here (and still are but fewer).

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 Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:03 PM EST

Re: Indeed because there was a mix (2.00 / 3)

Frankly you and Sricki have been the twin poles of reason on this subject for a longish time, while retaining your integrity in support of your respective candidates. A neat trick and worthy of acknowledgement.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was helped because there (2.00 / 1)

were people on the other side who I could get along with (sricki, kevin22622 [sorry if I got the number wrong] and others who I can't remember right now).

sricki deserves far more credit than I do due to the result of the primary as I know it is tough to support a losing candidate.

And I have done foolish things as my recent diary highlights.

But I will take a smidgen of credit.

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 Jun 06, 2008 at 11:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was helped because there (2.00 / 2)

Credit where credit is due.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mydd looks like dkos now (none / 0)

you are very confused.
dkos is a cancer, nothing to be proud of.
Most Hillary supporters simply went elsewhere - they will pass the point of no return tomorrow, Saturday June 7, at 12 p.m. EDT. But yes,
"Obamacrats of all lands, unite!"

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:14 PM EST

i gotta says engels... (2.00 / 2)

i believe this is the first time i am engaging you ever at mydd - but your sig line is as hilarious as your prose!

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

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i gotta says engels... (none / 0)

My Engelish is getting better as time goes on. I'm getting to the point where I can decipher Engels' anti-Communisim.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mydd looks like dkos now (2.00 / 1)

You know what happened to those who couldn't get over the end of the Civil War, don't you?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This place is nothing like dKos. (2.00 / 4)

Trust me. I never left DailyKos. The Hillary hate over there is still staggering -- a remarkable number of people still pushing to find and fund primary challengers for her Senate seat in 2012. You'll find some of that here, yes, but it's not something I run across on a daily basis at MyDD. Over there, you can't escape it. The venom is unbelievable.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so - how do you reconcile this? (2.00 / 2)

what i mean is - dkos is considered the defacto 'progressive' blog right? and yet the majority of the users behaviour throughout the rpimary and now is more suggestive of right-wing wingbats. so how as a reasoned dem do you come to terms with this?

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

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very simply, (2.00 / 3)

it's mob mentality of the most pitiful kind. All different sorts of people can fall victim to it -- liberal, conservative, etc. It's unfortunate that it took hold the way it did. Not everyone became locked into that way of thinking, of course, but it's shockingly widespread.

Sadly, there's probably no way to remedy it. Hillary was never particularly popular there to begin with, but now I expect dKos will always be a place where she is pretty universally looked down upon.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very simply, (2.00 / 1)

Clinton never cracked 10% at Kos because she isn't nearly progressive enough. The "lobbyists are people too" statement was the killer at Yearly Kos. The site was Edwards Central for many months, then naturally enough went for Obama after Edwards dropped out.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:46:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so - how do you reconcile this? (2.00 / 2)

I very strongly disagree. DKos is not close to being suggestive of right-wing wingbats. That is an unfair characterization of most of the posters there.

I say this as someone who is new this blog and an Obama supporter, but I'm also new to the blosophere, period. I only started posting at MyDD and DKos since April of this year.

Based on my two months impression, most bloggers at DKos are very respectful and committed democrats. Yes, many, like me, have been very angry and upset with Hillary's campaign tactics, and some very angry things have been written. But, that anger, while directed at Hillary Clinton, is an anger born out of their strong desire to take back the presidency, and their belief that what's happened in the last few months of the primary have been unproductive and self-defeating for the party.

I know people are tired of the Hillary bashing diaries and want to move on and focus on the general election and on beating McCain. That will be much easier to do after Saturday provides what I hope will be some real closure about the primaries.

Go there and check the rec list right now. Of the 10 diaries, only one refers to Hillary Clinton, and it's a very thoughtful diary, not a rant.

by ProfessorReo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

joined in april huh? (2.00 / 3)

Yes, many, like me, have been very angry and upset with Hillary's campaign tactics, and some very angry things have been written

i believe i personally have heard you say this or disparaging HRC remarks even since the primary is over in responses just to my own - nevermind anywhere else at least 20 times. sorry but you're sounding a bit suspect.

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

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

Well, I'd say your response to me ultimately gets at the nature of the true division in the party. We don't trust one another. You think Obama supporters are acting like wingnuts, and we think Hillary supporters are acting like wingnuts. Catilinus wrote a great diary about just this point.

You may not trust me and other Obama supporters, and to be honest, I don't trust you and other Hillary supporters, either. I don't trust that you'll actually get behind Obama and work on party unity, and instead, you'd rather continue to talk about how sexism ruined Hillary's chances rather than focus on the upcoming battle against McCain.

It's too bad, because other than the fact I don't trust you, I think you're one of the more reasonable and intelligent Hillary supporters around. That's probably the reason that, when I post here at MyDD, I respond to your diaries and comments more than others, because you do seem reasonable and willing to engage in discourse instead of just spewing talking points like some other posters I won't mention by name.

Having said all that, I do take to heart your observation that most of my comments here have been decidedly anti-Hillary. That is true, and honestly, I don't like it, and will be more conscious of how I respond from now on. I do, however, withhold the right to bash Hillary if she mentions that she's won the popular vote and/or talks about how she's more electable tomorrow in her speech.

by ProfessorReo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (2.00 / 2)

it is a very reasonable argument that she DID win the popular vote (see RCP). It's also been a reasonable argument that she is/was more electable if you just look at the polls and the states she won. I'm not saying a case can't also be made for Obama, though. This is what I've found on this site (and at dKos until I left)--those on both sides have been completely unwilling to give the other side's arguments any merit whatsoever. Unlike in face-to-face disagreements in which people are somewhat obliged to give the other some credit, no such norm exists here in cyberspace.

by slynch on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:02:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

You just proved my point with your response, exemplifying the fear Obama supporters have - Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters still want to keep the primary going and still kept contesting the legitimacy of Obama's nomination.

I didn't bring up the popular vote and electability memes in order to rehash them. I brought them up as two things Hillary has no business mentioning tomorrow in her concession speech, because the race is over. And yet, here you are wanting to rehash arguments that have been debated over and over again.

And sorry, the popular vote argument is not reasonable, especially since no one can agree on what the actual count is. RCP has 6 or 7 different popular vote totals, which is the right one?

by ProfessorReo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (2.00 / 2)

First, I'm not rehashing anything. My point was that it is as reasonable for her to make that claim as it is for him to make that claim. And if she says something about it tomorrow, oh well. That isn't a reason to dislike her. She has that right, and it is a reasonable claim. I guess from your perspective, given that RCP has a number of tallies, that means the only possible interpretation is that Obama won the p.v? Nonsense. My point was that it was debatable, and folks here--just like you--have dismissed the argument out of hand and used it as a reason to spew more Hillary-hate. And it is wrong.

There is a tone to each of your comments in this diary, as well as another one I was reading tonight, that continues to bash Hillary--for example, saying that you wouldn't vote for her if she had stolen the nomination from Obama. That presumes (1) it was his to steal from the beginning, and (2) she was out to steal it. It is that that I am reacting to.

And, I'm not a Hillary supporter. I've repeatedly defended her against ridiculous, unwarranted hatred this entire season, and it's really turned me off of Obama. But, I'm not a fan of Hillary either. I voted for Edwards.

by slynch on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

No, I'm not arguing that Obama won the popular vote. I'm saying popular vote is not a legitimate metric to determine the winner of the democratic primary for many, many, reasons, including: 1) nothing in the DNC rules say anything about the popular vote being used to determine the winner; 2) no one can even agree how to count the popular vote. The fact that there is a debate over who actually won the popular vote shows that you can't use it to determine anything, since there's not even any consensus about how to determine.

Second, why would what anonymous internet bloggers saying about Hillary Clinton turn you off of Obama??? Who cares what I or other Obama blogger think? We all could be republican trolls for all that you know. What does what I say have anything to do with you getting turned off of Obama? Please don't use the opinions of anonymous Obama bloggers as an excuse not to vote or support Barack Obama, the democratic nominee for president. If you don't like Obama's policy positions, that's one thing, or if you want a republican to become president, then don't vote for Obama. But, it doesn't make much sense that you won't vote for him because you don't like the "tone" in my comments.

Really, you don't want to give me that much power.

by ProfessorReo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (2.00 / 1)

I'm not having that argument with you--about whether she won the nomination. Simply that she can reasonably lay claim to the p.v. And, if she mentions that in her speech (for example, by saying that it was a hard-fought primary, with the party evenly split, the pv favoring her, the delegate count favoring him, and now she wants everyone to support him...etc. etc.), that's not yet another reason to spew hatred at her.

I said in an earlier post (not today) that the folks a candidate attracts gives a good indication of what the candidate is like. So, it's not really about you per se. But when I see bloggers making statements that are only mildly more hyperbolic than what the candidate says, it turns me off to the candidate. For example, Obama has repeatedly denigrated Clinton. Bloggers supporting him have picked up that ball and run with it.

Anyway, I think the way to woo Clinton supporters is not to continue to intermesh thinly-veiled anti-Hillary statements in larger posts that purport to advance unity.

by slynch on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

When the idea that she won the popular vote, fuels the feeling that the nomination was taken from her, she needs to avoid it when conceding. She also needs to stay away from anything to do with Florida and Michigan, which includes the idea she won the popular vote. Because they are divisive subjects, that makes the Democratic Nominee look bad, as well as fueling Republican talking points.

And I am sure you are just as guilty of being unable to discuss, our valid reasons for disliking Hillary, since they include the ideas she has publicly pushed about Florida and Michigan. Since any decision about those contests would be taken up by the DNC, and Superdelegates, did she need to pound them as a very public attack on fellow Democrats?

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

by Tumult on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (2.00 / 2)

Frankly, I don't think most of the arguments against Hillary were valid. She ran a typical campaign. She wasn't any more negative than Obama--for everything she or her campaign did, there's a counterexample that Obama or his campaign did. Her and his policy positions are virtually identical--neither one is particularly progressive, really.

What amazed me from the outset was that Obama supporters have not been willing to admit anything. I watched this from afar for quite awhile, not really liking HRC or BHO. I finally started posting on dKos when I couldn't stand the ridiculous Hillary hate any longer. I left that site and came here when it got to the point I couldn't post anything without getting attacked.

As for mentioning the p.v. tomorrow, I think it depends on the context. Truthfully, I don't think the nomination was stolen from her, but I do think there was a rush to coronate Obama prematurely like I have never seen before in a primary. So, I don't think she really received a fair shake. But, I'm not losing sleep over it (seemingly ironic statement given that it's 3:30, but I'm always up this late).

by slynch on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:33:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (2.00 / 3)

Unfortunately, the reaction of many pro-Obama supporters -- and the MSM -- is extremely counterproductive with regard to this issue.

Obama may be able to win the election without Hillary's supporters. But it will be close. If her supporters join up, it'll be a Democratic landslide.

Therefore, if you are a true Obama supporter, plaster as big and sincere a grin as you can fake on your mug, swallow your ire, and start buttering up Hilary supporters. Your objective is to get your man elected President. You can ignore the diehard loonies and racists, but you should recognize that that does not describe the vast majority of HIllary supporters. It's that majority (of whom I am a member) that you need to bring over to Obama's side. And if the way to do that is to quash your irritation at Hillary's behavior, you should do that.

I'm having real trouble dealing with the attitude of a lot of Obama supporters toward Hillary and her supporters. I hear:

1) "We don't need their votes anyway!" Maybe he can win without them and maybe he can't, but why would you want to take a chance on losing, when all you need to do to be sure of a win is just keep your negative opinions about Hillary under your hat?

2) "They'll have to vote for Obama because he's clearly superior to McCain! They have no choice!" Yes, we do have a choice, and nothing pisses off politically active people than telling them their vote is not their own. There are also a lot of people (particularly in the Independent camp) who do not consider the prospect of a McCain presidency to be an obvious and overwhelming evil. (I personally would not be at all pleased with him as President, but neither do I believe it will bring on Armageddon. He's not an evil man; he's just in the wrong on too many important issues.)

3) "Anyone who criticizes Obama is a traitor to the Democratic party!" This isn't a dictatorship, people. We're allowed to be Democrats and still voice dissatisfaction with our candidates. It's a precious right, and anyone who tries to take it away is going to receive an overwhelming negative reaction.

To sum up this rambling comment: Saying you won't court Hillary's supporters because you don't trust them to "support Obama" is foolish. You don't need to trust them. You need to get them to vote Obama. That's all you need. Writing them off as...well, I'm not sure what...evil conspirators who will pretend to support Obama in order to...do what exactly?

They don't need to love Obama. They don't need to even like him. They don't need to campaign for him ,make phone calls for him, knock on doors for him. And you don't need them to do that.

What you need is for them to vote for him, however grudgingly. That's all you need. So stop being paranoid about the "intentions" of Clinton supports, and stop requiring that they suddenly love Obama and revere him as the solution to all of America's political problems. Just get their votes. Do whatever you have to. Obama will NOT thank you for taking a stand on "principle" and refusing to "pander" to voters who could very well make the difference between him in the White House, or him back in the Senate. Pander your asses off and get your guy in there. That's what counts.

by Michigoose on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:40:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (1.66 / 3)

Oh, and I want to add:

This is my biggest problem with Kos and the Kossacks. They're proud that Obama is the nominee, but their attitude and behavior toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters is likely to hamstring Obama in the GE. And they seem completely blind to this fact. They seriously need a wake-up call over there. (Unless, of course, they want Obama to lose so they have an excuse to lynch Hillary.)

by Michigoose on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

My response to you is the same to the other poster - why does the opinion of anonymous bloggers affect your opinion of Obama? Sounds like you're upset with Obama supporters, not Obama. Obama has no control over what anonymous bloggers say on the internet.

As for why Hillary supporters should vote for Obama? And no, I don't think Obama supporters have to "butter up" Hillary supporters. I'm not even sure what that would entail.

Anyway, two reasons for voting for Obama:

(1) Obama and Clinton hold very similar policy positions. If you support Clinton's policies, then you'll support most of Obama's policies. Unless, of course, you don't care about policies and you are deciding for some other reasons.

(2) and because you're a democrat.

But, let me ask you, you say you don't like the way Obama supporters are treating Hillary supporters. So, how should Obama supporters interact with Hillary supporter in order to convince them to vote for the democratic nominee? Tell me what you would like to hear.

by ProfessorReo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (1.80 / 5)

(Apologies for the length of this -- I babble when I'm tired. I should polish it up and make a diary out of it, but I can't tonight, so I'm sticking it here.)

1) Their policies are similar but not exact. Hillary's health care plan is far superior to Obama's. Health care is my #1 issue in this campaign. Obama seems to want to focus heavily on race issues; I think that this is something only generational change is going to deal with at this point, and that there are many more important things to be paying attention to in the US right now, such as the economy, jobs, and of course Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran. So I don't like the fact that his focus is not my focus. He could help his case with me by putting forth a better health care plan.

And you are missing an important fact: It's not just the policies that matter. It's the ability of the candidate to implement those policies and make them work. This is my biggest area of doubt about Obama. I simply don't think he has the job skills. Since we've endured eight years of cluelessness from Bush, I'm not eager to support another President who will have to start from scratch.

I'm sure Obama would be a faster learner than Bush, but he's still going to have significant run-up time, which I'm not sure the US can afford right now. I'm also very worried Obama can't win the GE, although there's not much to be done about that now. I'm trying to prod both sides of the Democratic rift to get their acts together and focus on what's really important here, but while many folks already understand this, many just don't want to. They'd rather be "right" and lose than compromise "principles" and actually win for a change.

(Take the recent despicable tearing down of Bill Clinton, for example. The ONLY effective Democratic president we've had in, oh, forty years or so, and all the party apparatchiks can do is bitch about his "triangulating". That's how you get things DONE in Washington, people!)

2) I'm not a Democrat. And before you start screaming about how I'm not allowed to be here, I checked the blog guidelines and it says the blog is for promoting progressive politics. I am in fact more progressive than the average Democrat, and about 90%-95% of the time I vote Democrat. (I think the last time I voted Rethug was when I voted for Weld over Silber in the Mass gubernatorial races over a decade ago. Silber was a nutcase.) I have voted Democrat in every presidential election since I was 18 (which is five of them now). This is the first year I'm considering other options.

But I don't like the two-party system, and I particularly don't like the way the Democrats keep committing political suicide. The Rethugs are selfish and shortsighted bastards for the most part, but they at least understand that the point of an election is to win it. Judging from the commentary I've seen here and in other places, much of the die-hard Democratic base just can't keep that goal in sight. They'd rather "make a point" than make the rules.

And my reason for withholding my vote from Obama is a personal one. As a registered Independent, I feel like I have to take responsibility, to a certain extent, for the politicians I help elect or any other votes I cast. I got into a huge fight with my elderly mother over a local measure she wanted me to vote against just on her say-so, and she wouldn't even try to give me a balanced pro-con breakdown of the measure. She got furious when I told her I refused to vote for any measure until I had actually researched it and knew whether I supported it or not. Since I knew nothing about the measure, I refused to vote on it. To vote would have been irresponsible.

Similarly, when I cast a vote for a public servant, I feel that if that public servant turns out to be a disgrace or just incompetent, I have to take part of the blame. Thus, I won't cast a vote for a public servant at any level unless I genuinely believe that person will do a good job. (This results in me leaving a lot of the lower down-ticket slots blank because I don't know either candidate well enough to pick -- and, being an Independent, I refuse to simply vote the "party line" and check off the "D" in every race.)

So, of the three final candidates, we have:

1) McCain: I think he's competent and can get things done, but I don't like the things he plans to get done. No vote for him.

2) Clinton: I liked her agenda and considered her competent, thus I supported her.

3) Obama: His agenda is fine (if not up to the quality of Clinton's), but I question his competence. He's a complete unknown with a paper thin resume and several very questionable choices of associates in his past. I'll need to see more evidence that he actually has a clue, and that he will not in fact be unduly influenced by the corrupt Chicago political machine that brought him to power, before I'll feel comfortable voting for him.

I don't hold Obama's supporters against him, any more than I held Clinton's against her. But I want to see Obama act in a politically astute manner. And this is what I mean by "buttering up" Hillary supporters. It means making nice with them. It means listening to them, accepting their concerns are legitimate, and making an effort to address them. He should do this because it's the smart thing to do and will give me faith in his ability to truly work across the aisle. (If he can't reach Hillary voters, how in the world is he going to put together bipartisan support in Congress?)

Putting Hillary on the ticket would also be smart, although I tend to agree that her personal ambitions would be better served with her in a position with more real power (I love the idea of her as a Supreme Court judge.) Regardless of my desire that Hillary's formidable talents and skills not be wasted, though, the fact is that Obama most likely needs to sway Hillary voters to his side in order to be sure of clinching the GE. The way he does, or does not, manage to do this will tell me a lot about his ability to be an effective President.

And no, the fact that he ran a good campaign is not evidence that he can be a good President. A recent book has pointed out that one of the reasons Bush's double term has been so disastrous is that Dubya stayed "in campaign mode" the whole time, which is a disastrous way to govern. I need to see that Obama will be able to forge consensus in a Congress where many of the Rethugs are going to utterly, totally, completely hate and detest him and actively try to undercut him. If he can't successfully reach out to the Hillary voters, why should I believe he can do better with Congress?

It's not enough for me that Obama simply be "not McCain". McCain won't get my vote because I don't like his policies. But that doesn't automatically mean I'll vote for Obama. I need to believe he'll actually be a good president before I pull the lever for him. My vote is my voice, and it won't go to any candidate that I don't believe in. At the moment, I don't yet believe in Obama. He's a charming person and a fine orator...but that's not enough. What else is he? I need to know.

by Michigoose on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

This is why you're not going to see Obama supporters buttering you up.

What a load of crap.

1) both of their Health plans suck the only candidate that had a real health plan this election cycle was Kucinich and you saw how far he got.

Single payer is the only workable long term solution. Clinton's plan works out to little more than a hand out to the insurance industry Obama's is marginally better in that it doesn't cede quite as much wealth to the industry.

But lets be real here neither plan is good they're just two idea's that just might maybe possibly get past the entrenched special interests that still control the process in DC.

2) competency.

How one can claim that Clinton has an edge in the competence department over Obama after watching this primary boggles the mind.

Just contrasting their campaigns is a case study in what is and isn't competence.

Obama's was disciplined, focused and effective, they had a plan and stuck too it.

Clinton's on the other hand was chaotic shifting and ineffective.

Now we are supposed to accept the premise on this evidence that Clinton is some how more effective and competent than Obama?

Clinton killed her candidacy when she decided to stick with Bill's buddies from the DLC simple as that. All her political decisions that have so pissed off her opposition in the progressive wing of the party flowed from that decision.

If it hadn't been Obama it would have been Edwards simple as that.

I personally can't figure out why many of Clinton's supporters actually support her based on their arguments. There are a few like Lombard who admit to their DLC triangulation leaning and buy into the idea that we can't win if we run to the left, Those I get but all the ones who think that Obama's the one running to the right they leave me perplexed.

I see Clinton as representative of the authoritarian wing of the party. The nanny government democrats who seem to buy into the GOP's premise that the electorate is a bunch of naive children who must be protected from themselves.

Obama represents the anti-authoritarian wing the side that thinks the appropriate job of the government is to facilitate our protecting ourselves from the actions of irresponsible corporations and institutions.

Yet I see people who seem to be members of the second group swearing up and down that left is right and that Obama is the righty of the two.

It's simple in the end. Obama is undeniably competent at this point he's proven it conclusively in this primary.

If you actually took the time to research his record you would see that he is most certainly not an empty suit with a thin resume. Further if you took the time to really pay attention to McCain's record you would rapidly find that is is no Maverick and has shown no evidence to any great competency.

The only reason to vote for anyone other than Obama in this election is if you happen to believe in the failed Social Darwinist social and economic theories of the Republican party. If you do then you are what is known in all reasonable circles as a Republican.

Yes being not McCain should be plenty of reason to vote for Obama.

by Skex on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

What else is he? What exactly could he do or say to convince you, besides winning the primary? You're basically setting up a standard where there is nothing Obama could do now to convince you, giving you the cover to withhold your vote for whatever reasons.
t
Why don't you read his two books, that should be a good clue to what he is.

And, finally, at the very least, Obama not being McCain should be enough to vote for him. I don't know about you, but in 2004, I wasn't the biggest Kerry fan, bu I sure as hell was going to vote for him just because he wasn't George Bush.

by ProfessorReo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:21:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: joined in april huh? (none / 0)

I wrote in the diary what he needed to do to convince me:

1) Put forward a better health care plan. Doesn't have to be Hillary's -- a single-payer would be fantastic.

2) Prove that, unlike W, he really means it when he says he wants to be a uniter. The first step to proving that is uniting the Democrats, which means convincing HIllary supporters like me that he has what it takes.

It's true that with his record so painfully thin, it's very hard to make a determination about how he will govern. There's just not enough evidence to say. And yes, that's a stumbling block to him be able to '"prove" anything to me, but that's Obama's problem, not mine. He decided to make a run for this as an unknown quantity. In some ways that has worked well for him. But it harms him in my view.

And, I addressed the fact that "Obama is not McCain" is not a good enough reason for me to vote Obama already. I don't want to be standing around in 2012 going "God, I can't believe I voted for this guy." It's at simple as that. If I don't like either candidate, I won't vote for either candidate.

I promise you if Obama is elected and is a wonderful and effective President, then I'll be happy to say, "Nope, I didn't vote for him. I underestimated him. But I'm very glad I was wrong, since this is a good thing for everybody." I promise I won't run around trying to take credit for getting him into office, okay?

by Michigoose on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So what you are saying is... (none / 0)

...he needs to:

Prove that, unlike W, he really means it when he says he wants to be a uniter. The first step to proving that is uniting the Democrats, which means convincing HIllary supporters like me that he has what it takes

In other words, in order to convince