Markos Responds: HRC Responsible For "Civil War"

Re: the "Strike" by pro-Clinton writers at the DailyKos.

Founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga responds.

"[A] coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war. Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power. . . . That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party. Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

Comments

I say Amen to that...finally democrats are starting to call her out...for her attempt to disturbingly destroy the party for selfish goal.

Posted by Stan | March 17, 2008 1:57 PM

Yeah, ahm, that sounds pretty much right to me.

Posted by Jake | March 17, 2008 2:01 PM

Its funny. It turns out that Republicans were unfair to the Clintons AND they are divisive all by themselves. Dessert topping and a floor wax.

Posted by Sebastian | March 17, 2008 2:02 PM

"Markos Responds"

Your concern is noted.

zzZZzzZZzzZZzzZZzz...

Posted by hadenough | March 17, 2008 2:03 PM

Hillary's behavior in this campaign has just reinforced what those of us with open eyes have known about her and her husband for years - they simply do not have the requisite character to be given the keys to the Oval Office - again.

It's one thing if she is running against a fraud like Mitt Romney, but against a man like John McCain who like it or not exudes tremendous character, Hillary will lose any debate, not because of policy where she would trump McCain, but rather in the charisma debate, which has won every election of my lifetime.

People vote for a president by asking themselves one simply question - who do I want as the face of my country? If it comes down to Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit vs. a War Hero, this is a no brainer, and no amount of Bush-hatred is going to save the Democrats from losing one of the most un-lose-able elections ever.

God help us all if this woman's slash-and-burn politics rule the day. God help us all.

Posted by Eric Blair | March 17, 2008 2:07 PM

That's why....

I don't read Kos anymore

Posted by DML | March 17, 2008 2:08 PM

We need a Ken Burns documentary stat. Really, all that would be involved is the AP wire, a couple voice actors, and the rights to reuse "Ashoken Farewell."

Posted by Jim D | March 17, 2008 2:09 PM

LOL, "Mighty Mouth" Moulitas SPEAKS! Or should that read SQUEEKS?

Posted by robert ethan | March 17, 2008 2:10 PM

AMEN!!!!!!

Posted by Sam | March 17, 2008 2:10 PM

wherein "drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war" = the candidate I don't like beating my candidate according to the rules of my party.

Posted by ruffian | March 17, 2008 2:14 PM

ruffian

So you agree that the party shouldn't even entertain seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida?

Posted by Dirk | March 17, 2008 2:23 PM

Pow! Dead on. Maybe I'll start reading Kos again.

Posted by Jack | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM

There is nothing wrong with Clinton trying to get enough superdelegates to win the nomination.

What is wrong is her attempt to get Michigan seated.

What is wrong is her snide comments about states she's lost.

What is wrong is her record in the Senate.

What is wrong is her claims that Obama is all rhetoric, not fit compared to to McCain, etc.

It's all about her career, which is why our troops are sitting in Iraq right now.

Posted by Joe | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM

That's why....

I started reading Kos again.

Posted by Dr. Duh | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM

"Dehabilitating"?!

Mr. Dictionary fails Kos again!

Posted by Les | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

True dat.

Posted by leap1 | March 17, 2008 2:36 PM

Yep. Not much more to say. Kos isn't always right, of course, but he is here. As a former Clinton supporter, I have to say my eyes have been opened. The Clinton's care more about themselves than they do their party and their country. It's sad. This sums it up: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004280786_plunkhaun14.html

Posted by Alex | March 17, 2008 2:40 PM

You can always count on Kos for measured, careful statements free of hyperbole and moral grandstanding. That Alegre person must have learned her style from him.

Posted by Josh E. | March 17, 2008 3:08 PM

What a crock of crap!! For every well known supporter of Obama mentioned by KOS, I can name an equally well known supporter of Hillary. That is a meaningless argument. So is the wailing about the shrinking band of paranoid supporters of Hillary. She and Obama are essentially tied in the polls, nearly tied in delegates, nearly tied in popular votes, and both still raising plenty of money to carry on their campaigns. Let all the votes take place then see where we are. In the meantime, it's KOS who is ripping the party apart. Every time he attacks a Hillary supporter for having the gall to continue to support her, he makes me less willing to support Obama this fall if he gets the nomination. I've quit reading KOS and I've quit reading Andrew Sullivan. Their blogs are immature rants now and nothing more.

Posted by Rich J | March 17, 2008 3:28 PM

Rich J,

are you saying that if Kos or Sullivan writes something you disagree with, you just stop reading them? That is very mature. That sounds like something a "right winger" would say regarding talk radio. God forbid that someone may not have the same opinion as me.

Posted by Kobe Berg | March 17, 2008 4:00 PM

Kos doesn't seem to really know what's happening among inside-the-Beltway Dems. Senator Obama's explanations regarding Reverend Wright are causing a bit of queasiness, since it seems quite impossible that the senator didn't have any idea Wright held these views. The Republican admakers are gleeful, already juxtaposing clips of Wright with clips of Mrs. Obama to demonstrate the remarkable similarity of their sentiments.

Bloggers like Koz and Andrew Sullivan, having gone so far over the falls for Obama, can't deal with the massive cognitive dissonance this crisis is provoking for them. Their response is simple: Deny, deflect, defend. That may work for them, but I suspect it's not going to fly with the average white American voter.

Posted by ezr | March 17, 2008 4:02 PM

The big irony of 2006 is that the Republicans became MORE homogenous. Democrats were as diverse as ever.

The 'civil war' is long overdue. Why should blacks vote 90%(?) Democratic? What do they get for it, other than the Clintons shoving them toward Obama to paint him as "only" a black candidate? Why do young voters slink back to the party after their grassroots passion is used for nothing more than easy votes?

This 'civil war' is partly Kos's fault. He and other bloggers think that they're remaking the party. But all they've remade is fundraising. Ideologically, they really aren't saying anything that wasn't said decades ago. So the Republican-enviers in the DLC and the faux insurgents online keep talking past each other.

Posted by some guy | March 17, 2008 4:26 PM

Civil war within the Democratic party? So be it!

I hope it starts with the so-called "party elders", and "party leaders" on the front-line. They should be the first to feel "pain". They are not my elders (46 years a voting Dem.), and they for damn sure are not leaders.

Our primary system is like a Rubik's cube. Twist it one way today, another tomorrow, and on and on without solving anything. I have "voted" twice in Texas, and still must "vote" again. What ever happened to the days you could cast your vote, go home, await the returns and know your vote counted as much as anyones?

I have 3 things the DNC needs: a vote, money, and the ability to influence multitudes like me. Money is what they need most at present, and whereas I continue to give to candidates, I, and my family, have stopped all donations to the DNC.

Posted by Mike | March 17, 2008 5:09 PM

To think that Mr. Obama would not act any differentl requires a willful suspension of disbelief. He is everybit the narcissistic ego-maniac the she is but he hides it better. I think that he may be even more cynical and oportunistic a politician, but then again I don't get a charge up my leg when I hear Mr. Obama speak.

Posted by PWT | March 17, 2008 6:31 PM

10 and a half million Democrats stand behind Hillary Clinton with their votes. Let the rest of the states have the voices of their voters heard. What are the Obama supporters afraid of? Kos is a militaristic jerk. I'm proud to have been one of the writers to walk out and boycott Daily Kos---There should be no room for that kind of abuse among Democrats, and yet, Markos not only allowed it, he condoned it.

Posted by izarradar | March 17, 2008 7:22 PM

10 and a half million Democrats stand behind Hillary Clinton with their votes. Let the rest of the states have the voices of their voters heard. What are the Obama supporters afraid of? Kos is a militaristic jerk. I'm proud to have been one of the writers to walk out and boycott Daily Kos---There should be no room for that kind of abuse among Democrats, and yet, Markos not only allowed it, he condoned it.

Posted by izarradar | March 17, 2008 7:22 PM

If they'd been civil we wouldn't be on strike over there. A civil war would be growth. Markos is just a silly little man who thinks he's advancing Obama's cause by spewing hate. Right now Obama's only real chance of winning is if Hillary gives up because she's too responsible to stay in the contest given Markos claims there will be civil war. It's like King Solomon and they're counting on Hillary to be the real mother. But there is no civil war, just a lot of uncivil hate and threats. Obama warned her that he's good at Chicago slap down (is that a card game?). Mr. Markos should go back to hair dressing. My locks have never been so bouncy as when he was doing his true calling.

Posted by anna shane | March 17, 2008 8:05 PM

gotta love the fervor. "lily white" barack and "dark as satan" hillary. it's politics folks. it's never been clean and clear, just nasty and mean.

Posted by markie | March 17, 2008 8:07 PM

markos needs to breathe into a paper bag or something. the hillary supporters left his blog because this is the way the ADMINISTRATORS over there talk. imagine what the regular participants are like. the crudest misogynistic language imaginable is directed at hillary and at her supporters on a constant basis.

the ironic thing is, a majority of the participants over there indicated in a poll a week ago that they wouldn't support the democratic nominee unless it was obama. note the agile footwork- now they're complaining about how hillary is abusing their sacred party. the hypocrisy is palpable.

Posted by campskunk | March 17, 2008 8:20 PM

As one of the merry band of strikers, let me assure anyone who cares to read this, that Markos's reaction to the strike was easy to predict. He really is the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by DCDemocrat | March 17, 2008 8:30 PM

Wow, the Clinton folks just cannot read the facts and everything about the actual contest for delegates who make the determination of the winner is... well... maybe we didn't do so good in math.

Stop for a minute and suspend, just for a minute, the sense of what you -want- to have happen.

Now, go and count the delegates. Now, is it possible to see that Clinton, as smart as she is, with the lobbyists surrounding her, as smart as they are, can also do this math, that their desire to continue the contest is in fact a desire to win at any cost?

Yes, of course she has a lot of support, nearly half of the popular vote in all the primary contests so far. But that does not mean she can win or that she will win, or that Pennsylvania actually matters in terms of win-or-lose.

Of course Pennsylvania matters in terms of Democrats voting for the primary candidate of their choice, but that doesn't mean that the Pennsylvania primary can DETERMINE the outcome of the national primary contest...

Posted by Jeff McNeill | March 17, 2008 8:54 PM

I suggest that YOU count the delegates. Obama does NOT have enough delegates either. And I might remind the readers that Pennsylvania is not the only state left to cast its votes. It's very possible (especially with the latest Obama embarrassment---Rev. Wright) that Senator Clinton could end up as the winner of the popular vote. How embarrassing will that look for Senator Obama and his followers? This race is not over until it's over.

Posted by izarradar | March 17, 2008 9:09 PM

i'm an edwards guy who has always enjoyed reading kos, but the last few weeks, the more i read, the angrier i get. obama's supporters are an incredibly vindictive bunch of whiners. if this is what obama-style change is about, i don't want it. kos and the echo chamber are apparently afraid of what might happen if the process is allowed to continue. it's called democracy. deal with it.

Posted by manrod | March 17, 2008 10:19 PM

It always amazes me how folks who post in support Hillary or identify themselves as "anti-Obama" frequently cite the whining & rude behavior of others, but somehow fail to address the concerns raised about Hillary's appalling tactics. If these people are so concerned about fairness & respect, why not look first at their chosen candidate's failure to meet their professed standards?

Posted by KC | March 18, 2008 12:25 AM

LOL...what a stitch this is.

As an Obama supporter from way back I quit reading Kos as they were all foaming at the mouth Edwards fans.

When he dropped out, they sort of drifted for a while but then cemented around Obama as the Clintons got more (to be kind) aggressive on the campaign trail.

There was a semi-split, but the participants at Kos pretty much followed the same drift the general public has...away from the Clintons toward Obama.

The Clintons have done this to their own selves by ratcheting up their negative rhetoric. Their core will remain, just as Edwards core still remains to this day, but the rest of the folks, Kos readers or the general electorate will drift away from any candidate willing to eat their own in a primary season.

A general election season might be different. But it's primary time and the Clintons blew it.

They have left voters with a choice...find out more about Obama to squelch whatever fears they have about him, or stick with the known barracudas that are the Clintons...or sit home.

Only one of those options is good for the Clintons.

Good for Kos for standing up to the *rebellion*. I doubt he spoke out about it except to refute slanders coming his way from the rebels, but even better for him if he did it purely out of ideological reasons.

Many have spoken out about how aghast they are at the Clintons behavior in a PRIMARY. I hope more will.

We need to change the way we find leaders if we are ever going to get out of the mire we're in.

Posted by G Davis | March 18, 2008 1:48 AM

You've got to give the Clinton 'strikers' kudos for their coordinated efforts. Every blog I've been on that has mentioned this story gets inundated by these hard-done-by 'strikers' very quickly. They've got a ground game to rival Obama's.

Posted by sharon | March 18, 2008 2:28 AM

This is some of Kos' best writing. Just beautiful.

Posted by Nick | March 18, 2008 3:42 AM

KC, while i am concerned about fairness and respect (who isn't), that is an entirely different subject. i just said you were whiners. your response? more whining, just like kos. god forbid anyone ever really gets down in the mud. the obama supporters will be curled up in a fetal position calling for their mommies.

Posted by manrod | March 18, 2008 6:03 AM