The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors

Note

  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blogorian!

Blogged


« Google Assisting the CIA? | Main | Some Dem Super-Delegates Don't Get How They're Making McCain Ecstatic »

April 01, 2008

Comments

Adam

I haven't read the post you refer to, so forgive me if I am paraphrasing his points. Also, I agree that lots of the progressive blogs have been over the top in attacks on Hillary. I see it as a two-way street, but that's beside the point for now.

The issue is that folks like Rove and Scaife and Tom Cole (RCCC chair) are not being sincere in their support. They are trying to disrupt the primary process and drive a wedge deeper in the Democratic party. By pointing at what they say, you are just echoing Republican talking points.

Just apply Occam's razor. The few Republicans that say nice things about Obama are the true moderates, most of whom oppose the war, like Hagel and Chafee. It's reasonable to surmise that they are breaking with party ranks and showing true feelings. The Republicans who have said relatively nice things about Hillary while bashing Obama, though, are the core movement conservatives who would rather be flayed alive than vote Democratic.

Why would they say nice things about a Democratic candidate? Because they are making a bet that she's not going to be a Democratic candidate in the fall. More to the point, they know it will get in the news because it is novel, and they know that some Democratic supporters of Hillary will latch on to it. They're hoping not only to prolong the primary process, but perhaps encourage more Hillary supporters to vote McCain or stay home in November.

You are getting used by these people when you echo them. In the eyes of your fellow Clinton supporters, you are legitimizing their bullshit. That's harsh, but I really can't see it any other way.

I found Ed Rendell's relative endorsement of Fox News to be simultaneously funny and tragic. Tragic for all the reasons above - a Democrat is pimping himself on behalf of the conservative wing of the MSM. Funny because Rendell apparently has the memory of a goldfish. That, or he was hibernating from November to February.

When Hillary was still the odds-on nominee, Fox news was "all Hillary-bashing, all the time". These are the people who accused her of PMS when she cried! Then Obama got the lead, and now they have switched to the all-Obama-bashing channel for the last month, with occasional breaks to report the news. So Rendell now calls them "balanced".

Again, apply Occam's razor. Isn't it POSSIBLE that the Republican-supporting editors of Fox news are concentrating their negative coverage on whoever they think is going to win the Democratic nomination? Hmmm? Maybe sorta possible? How about, overwhelmingly likely?

And I haven't even brought up Limbaugh yet. He didn't even bother with the pretenses, he just set out to corrupt the Democratic primaries directly. By supporting Hillary. It's all part of the same pattern.

What's going on here is plain as day. You should be INSULTED that these people are duplicitously "supporting" Hillary. These people hate Hillary, for all the same BS reasons that they have always hated Hillary.

damozel

Adam: I personally haven't ever quoted a Republican. Not being a mind reader, I don't know their motives.

Adam

Sorry, when I said "...when you echo them" I meant "you" in the lazy, grammatically incorrect, passive voice sense. Replace "you" with "people".

I can't read the minds of Rove et al, either, but their motivations are pretty transparent. The incidence of right-wing pro-Hillary talk has been more or less inversely proportional to Hillary's chances of the nomination. Of course, in Limbaugh's case, no mind-reading is required.

Whitecat

Right. So when Hillary is called the real "uniter, not a divider" in the Senate, by the people she works with who have come to admire and respect her (but just happen to be Republicans), they're just faking it.

Uh huh.

But Obama is just magically going to be able to reach across the aisle and work with these people, even though there is NO RECORD of his ever actually having done so.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. I know it may be difficult for people blinded by Hillary-hate to see, but she is the real deal. She is someone who gets respect the old-fashioned way - she earns it - by dint of hard work and actually forging alliances, by impressing people with the depth and breadth of her knowledge of the issues. Not to mention her charm and graciousness.

But you still don't address the real issue - why are "good Democrats" so willing to treat a Democratic candidate so viciously? You think that makes us more likely to support your guy? Think again.

Adam

Whitecat, to paraphrase something DCupples has said, "you seem to be responding to a post other than mine".

Two quick corrections:

1) I'm no Hillary hater. I like Hillary. If she pulls of a miracle and takes the nomination, I'll give money to her campaign and I'll pull the lever for her this fall. Somehow, against all odds, I'm one of the folks that hasn't gotten emotionally invested in one particular campaign. I like Obama MORE, but Hillary is just fine.

2) Obama *does* have a record of reaching across the aisle. There haven't been many opportunities during his time in the senate, but he did. Google "Hagel Obama nukes" or something along those lines. You might learn something.

But to the meat of your point - this has nothing to do with Hillary's record of being an effective senator and/or having reasonably good working relationships with several Republicans. That's an entirely seperate issue. Rush Limbaugh, Richard Scaife, and Karl Rove are not members or the (relatively collegial) US Senate. They have never worked with Hillary on anything, nor do they plan to. They are movement conservatives whose hatred of the Democratic party has much more influence over what they say than any feelings, good or (mostly) bad, that they have about Hillary.

If Arlen Specter says Hillary has good relations with people on both sides of the aisle, then I believe him. But if Rove goes from calling Clinton a "flawed candidate" when she was a favorite, to touting her positives when she is behind, I don't think either position is sincere. He's just trying to improve the Republican party's chances in both cases.

Finally, attacks on the candidates are a two-way street. "Good democrats" who support Hillary have been perfectly willing to attack Obama, too. Does that make EITHER party morally right? No, of course not. What I don't understand is why each can tick off every perceived slight from the other campaign, but is willing to look past every questionable tactic of the campaign they support.

Attacks on Hillary certainly don't help the Obama campaign's long-term goals any more. I think the Obama campaign has figured this out, which is why they have shut down the memo/conference call verbal wars. The blogosphere seems to slowly be catching on as well.

Whitecat

The blogosphere seems to slowly be catching on as well.

Too little, too late.

Adam

So, Obama loses your vote in the fall because his supporters in the blogosphere attacked Hillary's campaign? This is more of a core issue to you than ending the Iraq war?

D. Cupples

Adam,

Damozel and I are not the dullest tools in the shed. We understand that Limbaugh, Rove (et. al.) are seeking to drive a wedge into the Dem party.

As I mentioned before, Scaife MAY be different from Limbaugh in terms of motives: he is against the war and isn't a die-hard party loyalist, though he does push self-serving "conservative" policies that affect his pocketbook.

When Damozel muses over why so many Hillary supporters seek out "conservative" media, she isn't suggesting that they've been duped and made new friends.

She's pointing out that many Dems are soooo fed up with the "liberal" media bashing of Hillary that they'll seek comfort anywhere.

In other words, pigs have taken to the friendly skies -- and Obama's campaign (and some of his friends in the media) helped strap on their wings.

Adam

Fair enough. You're allowed to be disgusted with the media. Personally, I think you should find support from the right wing to be insulting, not comforting, but your mileage may vary. My only responses (and you've heard them all from me before) are:

- The attacks flying between the campaigns this year has not been especially bad by historical standards. In fact, it was very cordial by historical standards until things turned negative in late February.

- The negative attacks initiated by the campaigns, aside from being well within normal historical standards, have been very much a two-way street between the campaigns. Obama's campaign was the more negative one in January/February, and Clinton's is the more negative one now. This follows the natural pattern that the candidate who is trailing tends to attack the frontrunner.

- The especially viscious or unusual attacks of this year have been almost exclusively coming from portions of the MSM, and its echos on the blogosphere, as oppose to from the campaigns themselves. The conservative commentators (which every station has, and which dominate Fox) attacked Clinton mercilessly in the early goings. They're still fairly hard on Hillary, mostly out of habit. But when Obama took the delegate lead, the focus of the attacks shifted to him. This includes MSNBC, which does give paychecks to Joe "have you heard about Jerimiah Wright" Scarborough.

- The blogs, for their part, have mostly reflected the MSM's attacks. There are exceptions, to be sure, but the last few months are hardly the blog's finest hour. If anything, the blogs have provided a feedback loop with the MSM by cataloging the attacks coming from the other side, and by coming up with ever more outrageous stuff for the MSM to play with.

- The two points above are not Barack Obama's fault or Hillary Clinton's fault. They don't control you or me or Scarborough or Matthews or Lou Dobbs or Olbermann or Fox news or all the folks at kos and myDD. They don't deserved to be tarred with the same brush, which is something supporters on both sides seem all to eager to do.

In closing, here's an interesting account of the California convention. Lots of good anecdotes.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/1/204752/7690/622/488573
The author argues that (assuming Obama maintains his lead) Hillary Clinton will have more control over how well the party heals than Barack Obama will. I suppose the opposite will probably be true if Hillary wins.

damozel

Adam: Obama's continued opposition to allowing do-overs in Florida or Michigan are one aspect of his 'inevitable' victory. Would you seriously contend that this disenfranchisement of voters (when the DNC allowed other states to move forward primaries without penalty) is not the most basic sort of political maneuver? Or that it isn't somehow his fault?

If he wins without Florida and Michigan, the legitimacy of his nomination will forever be in question.

Adam

Given that the DNC made the decision, and not Obama, I don't see it as fundamentally a "maneuver" on his part. Hillary was the one who had a close advisor in on the decision to strip the MI/FL delegates. Incidentally, hearing him try to explain why he was for stripping delegates then and against it now makes me dizzy.

The only way the superdelegates don't flood to the eventual winner to give a large majority is if there is a contested convention. But I would argue that any nomination that depends on votes from the current delegate set from Florida and (particularly) Michigan is also questionable in its legitimacy.

Obama could have been more encouraging of a re-vote in both states. Ultimately, though, it was the states themselves that killed the re-votes. I think there are huge issues with seating the current delegations at a contested convention.

damozel

I SAID: Obama's continuing resistance to do-overs is a problem. It is. It doesn't matter who was present when this or that decision was made or why the DNC disenfranchised voters: anyone who has been following the story---and as a Floridian, I most certainly HAVE---knows he is a major obstacle. And getting rid of rivals on technical grounds is an Obama specialty, as his history shows.

Read William Barrett's article at HuffPost from Sunday.

Is there nothing he does or could do that you can't or won't rationalize? Some things---like Hillary's idiotic embellishment of Bosnia---just can't be defended.

LC

You and Anglachel have it right. In January/Feb., I could easily have voted for almost any Democrat except Gravel.

But the past several months of 24/7 abuse of Hillary by the media, by so-called liberal pubs (like TNR and The Nation), and, of course, the so-called liberal blogosphere (Kos, TPM, and Huff have become swamps of vile abuse that Scaife could only dream of in the 90s) has made me look harder into Obama's background and current actions and caused me to (just as the Hillary haters do) view everything in as negative a light as possible.

But, as is clear from some of the responses here, these abusers have absolutely no idea of the harm they are doing to the party, to their own candidate, and to the liberal blogosphere. (I will never go back to the so-called A-List.)

I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I know that doing so will make me feel dirty in a way that voting for McCain would not. And should he lose, esp. should he lose because of Florida and/or Michigan, I know that a part of me will be pleased (schadenfreude). Of course, the Hillary haters will then blame her ("if only she hadn't stayed in the race") or racism because, as we can see all too well, they are completely blind to what they have done.

Adam

LC, I hope you're not lumping me in as a Hillary hater. That is profoundly false. I think the only thing I have really had an issue with was comparing McCain favorably to Obama, which is a big no-no in a primary campaign. I've noted her campaign being negative at times, and playing some political games, but that's part of running for president. I've said repeatedly that I like her and I'd vote for her.

Anyway, on to the MI/FL question. First, let's be clear on the issues. I would have been fine with a re-vote or caucus, but the states and the parties themselves said no to that, and that had almost nothing to do with the campaigns.

So, the question shifted to seating the current delegations. IMO this is not remotely a clear-cut issue in favor of seating the delegations. In the case of Michigan, I have almost no sympathy because a Democratic governor and Democratic house pushed this bill through against the explicit wishes of the DNC. In the case of Florida I have more sympathy, but the Florida democrats were on board with the move as well.

I've maintained repeatedly that the current primary schedule is horribly flawed. Right now we have this ridiculous gap in the primaries that is basically screwing the party (NOT Hillary's fault). The ONLY way this is going to get fixed is if the DNC has the muscle to kick ass and take names in 2012. They have to be able to say "Sorry Iowa, sorry New Hampshire, time to move". They need the authority to set up a balanced, reasonable, back-loaded primary process that has continuity and has a slow build of states into a big finish, with no straggler states.

The ONLY way they have the credibility to enforce such a system is if they hold firm on the MI/FL debate. They have to be able to say "Follow our schedule, or you don't count", and have people believe that they will go to the mat on it. They need that power, for the good of the party.

I do *not* take the effective disenfranchisement of the Florida voters lightly. But making a big deal about that seems odd given the historical context. I consider every late state to have been disenfranchised from 1988 through 2004, and that's a ton more voters than the number in MI/FL in 2008. This is nothing new. But if the DNC plays it right, hopefully, this can be the last time.

The people that voted for the stripping of the delegates didn't do it because they get jollies out of disenfranchising people. They didn't foresee Clinton needing those delegates to defeat Obama, either. They had reasons, though, and they are good ones in my opinion.

So, on to the politics of the issue.

Damozel, you seem to be implying that Obama's lack of vigorous action on a Michigan/Florida re-vote means he is, essentially, to blame for the effective disenfranchisement of those voters. Again, we're seeing the expectation that Obama should be out front on an issue in order to help out the Clinton campaign. On an issue that, personally, I don't see as clear-cut at all.

For the reasons I outlined above, I don't consider there to be a moral imperative to seat the delegations as voted. Simply put, this is a political issue. The delegations are a political football. If you need more evidence of this, look at the chronology of this issue. Not only did a Clinton supporter help draft the current plan and support it, but the Clinton campaign was completely silent on this issue until it became clear that Hillary needed those delegations.

Again, this is not being approached as an ideological issue. It is a political fight for delegates. The moralizing by the Clinton campaign over an issue that suddenly became important when the race got tight is a bit duplicitous in my mind.

Pearl

Thank you, ADAM! You've said what I've tried to say.

Do you have a blog?

Adam

Pearl,

I don't have a personal blog about politics, no. I'm glad someone agrees with me, though.

Let's hope this all works out and the Democrats can get over these personality-driven divides by November.

Kathy

22nd April, PA Primary, let’s make Hillary win…

Here is the list of Super Delegates who are supporting Hillary from PA

* Allyson Y Schwartz
* John P Murtha
* Joe Sestak
* Ed Rendell
* Paul F Kanjorski
* Marcel Groen
* Ruth C. Rudy
* T.J. Rooney
* Jean A. Milko
* Ian Murray
* Evelyn D. Richardson
* Rena Baumgartner

Let’s urge them to Keep Pledge to vote for Clinton.

Here is the list of Obama Supporters

* Patrick J. Murphy
* Chaka Fattah
* Leon Lynch
* Carol Ann Campbell
* Robert P. Casey, Jr.

Let’s urge them to switch their Convention voting pledge from Barack Obama to Clinton

And here is the list of Un-committed Delegates

* Ronald R. Donatucci
* Robert Brady
* Michael F Doyle
* Christopher P Carney
* Tim Holden
* Jason Altmire
* William M. George
* Sophie Masloff

Let’s urge them to end their Uncommitted stance, and make a public pledge to vote for Clinton.

Contact super delegates – www.LobbyDelegates.com

Howard

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright's 'Black Value System'
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

AMERICANS JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES ...

wench costume

The issue is that folks like Rove and Scaife and Tom Cole (RCCC chair) are not being sincere in their support. They are trying to disrupt the primary process and drive a wedge deeper in the Democratic party. By pointing at what they say, you are just echoing Republican talking points.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)