Pro-Hillary Writers "On Strike" At DailyKos

Shock! No big deal. Kos is very left. So left that it's taken itself out of the mainstream of Dem politics. So left that they are only talking to themselves and so much hubris that they think America is listening.

Posted by linda | March 14, 2008 10:59 PM

Hahahaha. Places like MyDD? No name calling at MyDD??

MyDD is Clinton central!

What a joke.

Posted by Jay | March 14, 2008 11:03 PM

Hahahaha. Places like MyDD? No name calling at MyDD??

MyDD is Clinton central!

Obama has been labeled a terrorist at MyDD. A criminal at MyDD. The affirmative-action candidate at MyDD. Obama supporters have been insulted and berated regularly at MyDD.

What a joke.

A bigger joke is Jerome "Crash the Gate" Armstrong's support of the DLC candidate.

Posted by Jay | March 14, 2008 11:05 PM

I'm not surprised about this either. Rightly or wrongly, Hillary Clinton is divisive as hell, even in her own party.

Posted by alex | March 14, 2008 11:05 PM

alex sums it up nicely: Hillary Clinton divides people and breeds bad feelings wherever she goes. It's her nature.

And look at the viciousness of the Clintonites: it's basically a position of where they will participate only if they get their way. Well, who needs them?
We're better off without this vindictiveness.

Posted by cm | March 14, 2008 11:20 PM

Don't they see that Hillary fomented this? Of course the offending Obama supporters are at fault, but a majority of their actions and comments were surely the result of Hillary's refusal to drop out of a race she can no longer win, but now must steal. Something the Clinton supporters are presumably fine with.

Posted by socctty | March 14, 2008 11:20 PM

I find it amusing that Hillary Clinton's "how DARE you criticize anything I do" attitude is now being reflected by her supporters.

Posted by Kat | March 14, 2008 11:21 PM

It's an Onion article waiting to happen.

Seriously, the Goldberg article others linked to today, about the personal upset at Hillary's turn of events, is relevant here as well. Many of these writers have deeply personal connections to Hillary and they are having a hard time with the math. For a long time, Kos was a free fire zone with Edwards supporters, then Obama became ascendent.

I think that these three weeks before Pennsylvania are important for the Clintonistas because they get to go through the stages of grief. I think this breaks now because the light just keeps getting darker. FL and MI will not come in with all of their delegates, the Superdelegates are not coming in, and Obama has not blown himself up.

I think a lot of Hillary, and Mark Penn's jabs in the last week or so have been to get Obama to over-react. He hasn't. It's bitchslap politics without the flinch.

P.S. I am watching the Wright video now. He is extreme, but if you filter out the hyperbole, I can see how this can resonate. Maybe not with Archie Bunker. Think of the dialogue between Ferraro and Wright. Wright answers Ferraro at full volume, while both candidates can walk away.

Posted by Barr | March 14, 2008 11:22 PM

This is *exactly* what Clinton would do in the GE. A better example couldn't hardly be imagined.

So, she has no chance at the nomination, and her continued candidacy is only going to break the party apart. This is simply exhibit A.

Posted by justinb | March 14, 2008 11:23 PM

Daily Kos: the left:: Grover Norquist: the right. Annoying as hell and needlessly promoting far-left lockstep House candidates in primaries to defeat "DINOs." I use to read Kos, but I am tired of reading about Dem. incumbents who are moderate getting primary challengers.

Posted by John | March 14, 2008 11:31 PM

But Clinton is not who (or what) is doing this. A critical mass of Obama supporters on dailykos took it on themselves to obstruct the efforts of Clinton supporters to communicate ... with each other, with undecideds, or with Obama supporters.

A critical mass of the Admin's decidied to let it happen.

This is about Clinton? No.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 14, 2008 11:32 PM

By the way, what is this supposed to accomplish? It does nothing except provide further evidence if Clinton's divisiveness.

And it doesn't seem as if the writer of the blog tried to contact Kos and see if something could be worked out.

The hypocrisy is outstanding. S/he complains about people attacking a good and fine Democrat, as if Clinton hasn't based her entire post-Super Tuesday strategy on that very concept!

What was Kos supposed to do, anyway - block people from making comments? That's not cool.

"I'm taking my ball and going to play somewhere else!" doesn't do anything - it doesn't add to discourse. It merely ratchets it up.

Posted by socctty | March 14, 2008 11:32 PM

The blog world has always been whacky lefty. It was Elmer Sputterin' Fudd who first took advantage of it, and made the mistake of believing that the real world actually paid attention to the blog world. His balloon was burst in a big hurry, followed closely by the next most popular cyber candidate, Wesley Clark.

A recent poll showed that only 1 in 5 likely voters had even read a political blogsite. Of those most only perused them a couple of times per month. So the influence of the "alternative media" is really minimal.

Luckily for Hillary, although she gets violent assault almost as consistently and egrariously from the mainstream media.

Posted by robert ethan | March 14, 2008 11:34 PM

the HRC people are beginning to sound as if they found an old fundamentalist bumper sticker but just changed a word so that now it reads "Hillary said it, I believe it , that settles it."
One simply cannot reason with them. no amount of proof of her prior statements on the Mi vote, no first hand accounts from Sinbad, no pictures, no remarks from Nobel prize winners, nothing.

and now Marc you take these people seriously?

Come on, you write for the Atlantic, one of the oldest intellectual journals in the country and you listen to these people ?

Posted by virginia cynic | March 14, 2008 11:37 PM

Robert Ethan, are you a person or Hillary bot?

Here is why the blogs matter: 170 million.

The greatest surprise of the whole election is that Obama has raised more money and more volunteers than Hillary. That is the blogs.

Posted by barr | March 14, 2008 11:38 PM

Amblinders, you could just as easily title this event -

"Lack of short term stimulation causes HOUSEBOUND RATS to turn on each other in frustration!".

Imagine what it will be like by the time Pennsylvania finally goes to the polls. :(

Posted by robert ethan | March 14, 2008 11:40 PM

Hi Marc - Thank you so much for covering our effort to bring attention to the unfair way Senator Clinton has been treated in this election. The sexist and hateful atomsphere on the blogs has gone unchallenged for too long now and we felt it was time to say "enough!"

We can't do much about how Senator Clinton's treated by the media and the press, but as regular contributors to the blogs out there, we can have an impact there.

Peace,
Alegre
http://HillarysBloggers.com

Posted by Alegre | March 14, 2008 11:40 PM

Who really cares? Let half of daily kos go start up their own blogs in protest. That would make it...like the rest of the blogosphere.

Posted by Kevin | March 14, 2008 11:40 PM

And you're posting about this... why?

Posted by DaveWoo | March 14, 2008 11:42 PM

RonK, Seattle - That's a good point. I don't follow kos enough to realize that was going on. You explained it better than the original "We're leaving!" bit did.

It still, however, doesn't change the fact that none of this would be happening if Hillary would either (A wake up or (B) grow up.

Posted by socctty | March 14, 2008 11:44 PM

On strike? Shit, when did Kos start paying diarists?

Posted by bjd | March 14, 2008 11:45 PM

On strike? Shit, when did Kos start paying diarists?

Heh, good one.

On that note, I would just like to take this opportunity to announce that I am "on strike" from comment posting, as of this moment, right now.

Posted by DaveWoo | March 14, 2008 11:48 PM

Hillary and her supporters need to grow up. This is one more confirmation that Hillary should not get the nomination or be president. She is too polarizing and divisive.

Hillary does not care about the party or the nation; in the end it's always about her from her perspective.

Well, people are seeing through her lies, deceptions, half truths, efforts at intimidations, etc. People, we cannot allow her to steal our hope.

If Hillary had her way, she would crush our hopes and dreams, and just take power and money for her own gain.

Posted by cm | March 14, 2008 11:55 PM

Good writing is hard work and doesn't easily lend itself to falsity. Case in point: when Hillary Clinton’s vast finance department chair, Geraldine Ferraro, parroted the message Hillary herself and hubby Bubba, have been putting forth to discredit Barack Obama on the basis of race, Geraldine’s remarks were intentional. Yet, Geraldine tap-dances around where she could have made the unfortunate utterance, if she did in fact make it, or to whom it might have been made. By publicly disavowing Geraldine’s remark, Hillary Clinton only compounds a very thin transparency. Which begs the question; why not just take responsibility for the racial faux pas? Or, is Geraldine’s comment part and parcel of the attack on Barack Obama’s minister? The Reverend Wright isn't preaching anything that college professors all over America haven't been teaching for decades. Ward Churchill ring any bells? At least he's not asking for a 20-page term paper. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has had entire books written about her “spiritual life,” and even invented her own college, but neither she nor Bill Clinton ever attend church. Let Barack Obama tell us what he believes. Some folks take longer than others to wise up; the Clintons, both of them, are kryptonite: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 15, 2008 12:02 AM

The sexist and hateful atomsphere on the blogs has gone unchallenged for too long now and we felt it was time to say "enough!"

Stick a fork in it, Alegre. Your holier-than-thou attitude is complete bullshit and you know it. The reason you're almost universally despised on Daily Kos is that you frequently post inaccurate information in your diaries and refuse to correct it when others bring it to your attention.

Posted by asdf | March 15, 2008 12:02 AM

Oh and by the way Marc - not that it's a big part of the story but I'm the working mother of two beautiful, sweet and brilliant children.

So "she" would be the more appropriate pronoun here.

Thanks again,
Alegre
htpp://HillarysBloggers.com

Posted by Alegre | March 15, 2008 12:07 AM

This has to be the most pathetic thing I've ever read. It's almost like watching Hillary's tears in blog form.

Here's a clue Hillary bloggers: no one cares if you go on strike. It's like if just the writers of all those stupid reality shows went on strike. If anything, we'll step up our attacks on Clinton just to keep you pathetic morons from polluting the blogosphere with your filth.

Posted by Mike | March 15, 2008 12:09 AM

In looking through some of these posts I have to say I'm shocked to find that some commenters here are pointing the finger at us.

Would they have us remain at a site where our candidate - a Demorcat - is routinely ridiculed and lied about by other Democrats?

Would they have us continue on at a site where we post something positive and about the issues, only to find others come in with off-topic and often hateful comments?

And you call us divisive?

Alegre
htpp://HillarysBloggers.com

Posted by Alegre | March 15, 2008 12:12 AM

I've been part of the Daily Kos community almost since its inception. It is no longer the diversely rich, tolerant community it once was. The atmosphere has become toxic for all but the most virulent Obama supporters. Sexism is rampant, expletives serve as discussion points, and the hatred directed at Hillary Clinton and her supporters is untenable. Some of the posters here at The Atlantic are typical of the mean-spirited divisiveness that this primary--and not Hillary Clinton--has prompted. If this an example of the "Unity" that Barack Obama inspires, the country is in for an even more rude awakening than we have experienced in the past 24 Jeremiah Wright-filled hours.

Posted by miriam | March 15, 2008 12:14 AM

MyDD.com?

Does that stand for the size of a certain under garment?

Let them decamp and take their racist surrogates like Geraldoyenne with them.

When Hillbilly's people started chanting:

"Yes She Will" in Ohio,

it summarized everything that is different between OBammBamm and her.

OBammBamm people say: "Yes We Can".

I rather belong to a group that takes its members seriously, rather than be a mindless follower of the Great Leader Hillbilly.

Posted by D | March 15, 2008 12:17 AM

Blood. Demo Blood. This is an exercise in fratricide.

Posted by linda | March 15, 2008 12:21 AM

Thank you, Marc, for informing us about this. I left DKos a few weeks ago because the Clintonistas were reduced to whining and trolling as they watched Hillary sling mud. Now I can go back there for at least a week.

Alegre: please be true to your 1-week pledge. Begging you! It's okay to strike for months if this week is successful.

Posted by Arlene | March 15, 2008 12:21 AM

Marc, I like your blog and have been reading it through the entire primary campaign. One of the few, because it's always fair.

To some of the commenters here: This may be news to you, but if Obama supporters on Daily Kos respond to diaries with strings of vicious insults, personal attacks, or (the latest trend) spamming threads with nonsense or pictures to shut down all possibility of debate, this is, in fact, their own fault.

I would like some hopes and dreams from team Obama that don't involve pointing the finger at others and calling them names, please.

Posted by daria g | March 15, 2008 12:24 AM

Just reading these posts makes the case-I've campaigned as a volunteer for Hillary Clinton in Iowa, New Hampshire and Texas and have spent a lifetime (I'm 60) working for many other candidates- Obama supporters have been the rudest, most arrogant and inconsiderate I have ever encountered. They really scare me- this candidate of hope sure breeds disciples of insolence.

Posted by bb | March 15, 2008 12:30 AM

This is really funny!

Posted by bjd | March 15, 2008 12:33 AM

Just today, I was wondering what Hillary will do if, before or during August in Denver, she is confronted with concrete evidence she is not the nominee. If she definitively loses her bid with no reasonable or unreasonable hope of reinstatement. In these circumstances which she is doing everything in her power to thwart, will she be able to accept a reality so brutal? It's not a mean joke -- I truly wonder. It occurred to me she might just campaign on, a revenant unable to find release from the trauma. If so, then she's already got the alternative universe set up in the blogosphere, a cadre of true believers minoritized, ardent and inured now to hard questions. I went to the HillarysBloggers site, BTW -- it's a gingerbread mausoleum with zero to 3 comments per post.

Posted by Elatia Harris | March 15, 2008 12:34 AM

Alegre:

Maybe now you can take your pro-Clintonista spin and dirty tactics where they are obviously welcome: places like MyDD that are openly in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the DLC candidate.

Meanwhile the rest of us are going to keep outing the liar and manipulator that your candidate, Hillary Clinton, is, and work to get the true Democrat in this race, Barack Obama, to the nomination and to the presidency.

GO'Bama '08!

Posted by firebrand | March 15, 2008 12:34 AM

"Marc, I like your blog and have been reading it through the entire primary campaign. One of the few, because it's always fair."

By fair, read transparently pro-Clinton. Given the rest of your missive, I presume that's your meaning.

The fact that he'd even post this story, about some meaningless internecine catfight in one corner of the web where Clinton folk are disgruntled, is Exhibit A.

Again, if y'all don't like dKos, then take your toys and go home. Start your own blogs, and quit whining about it. And I'm not saying this as a fan of dKos -- I've always found it too shrill and echo chamber-y by half -- but don't assume the rest of the world gives a whit about your petty guild-drama-type spats.

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 12:37 AM

I thought Allegre was a she, not a he.

Posted by lampwick | March 15, 2008 12:51 AM

Obama supporters are rude. So are Hillary supporters. Here's a typical conversation:

"Hillary, you're losing. Hang it up, you old bag."

"I can't help noticing the sexist and age-ist note in all the postings by the followers of this jejune, inexperienced, possibly Muslim, empty-shirt upstart."

"Yeah, but Hillary's a bitch, and her husband's an adulterer. Whitewater. Stained Dress."

"Spoken like one of his true, mindless, proto-fascist robot followers."

"Hey she's losing, face it you illogical offensive witch."

"You're clearly a teenage, Prius-driving, latte-sipping bimbo who has no experience with real politics or appreciation for the struggle of women throughout the ages. Someday you may grow up."

"Winning in popular votes, in states won, in delegates. Bitch."

"I and millions like me will never vote for him in the general election."

"I and millions like me will never vote for her in the general election."

Etc., etc., etc.

So now we all retreat to our own corners and talk just to people who agree with us. Whew! Now we can spread malicious gossip about each other unchallenged! About time!

I have to say, though, the reason it's Hillary's supporters leaving this futile and pitiful set of dueling monologues, and not Barack's, is the numbers. They just can't stand hearing the numbers repeated over and over and over. They have to go someplace where that infinitely frustrating issue isn't raised so incessantly. It sounds like they're abandoning the discussion, lame as it is, to go form a support group, which is even lamer.

I'm deeply disappointed in Hillary, quite worried about Barack, and I think they both have a lot of truly moronic supporters; but I like them both enough and will vote for either over McCain and the abysmal morons he will have to represent.

Posted by J. Myers | March 15, 2008 12:52 AM

And I'm not saying this as a fan of dKos -- I've always found it too shrill and echo chamber-y by half -- but don't assume the rest of the world gives a whit about your petty guild-drama-type spats.

Exactly. With this dramatic move, Daily Kos goes from boring and predictable to... still boring and predictable.

I've tried to be as fair-handed as I could throughout the primary, and I'm still of the opinion that both candidates are much better people than their supporters much of the time, but to call dKos a cesspool of Clinton-hatred is petulant nonsense.

I mean, the support over there is slanted, no doubt. It's pretty obvious. But to call it unhinged and discriminatory is totally disingenuous. Andrew Sullivan and TalkLeft are unhinged. There's a big, big difference.

That being the case, I don't see how leaving is productive. Isn't that just taking the easy way out? dKos still seems like one of the best possible places to sway people from Obama to Clinton supporters, if that's the goal. If the site was just an echo-chamber before, this doesn't change that; it can only make it worse. What's the point?

Posted by Adam | March 15, 2008 12:53 AM

Also, this isn't new. It was the Dean/Clark/etc. nonsense at dKos last time around that made me stop reading it in the first place. The place has been and always will be an echo-chamber; people just get mad when it stops being *their* echo-chamber.

Posted by Adam | March 15, 2008 12:59 AM

I think there's a threshold at which a site becomes an echo-chamber to the point where no one persuadable is still around, so it's counterproductive to spend your time there trying.

Posted by daria g | March 15, 2008 1:00 AM

Don't listen to Adam. Talkleft is a great site. It's the only place where Obama and Clinton supporters can have a reasonable debate, because the moderation of comments is very diligent.

Posted by MarkL | March 15, 2008 1:03 AM

The animosity between the Obamites and the Clintonites has its roots in the flap over the Michigan and Florida delegates. That is the point at which the conversation became toxic. Hillary tried to claim that she deserved those delegates, even though the 2 elections were clearly bogus (the voters and the candidates were both told beforehand that the results would not count.)

Hillary's cheezy and transparently self-serving manuever is what set off the Obama people (me included.) You can't have a civil conversation with someone whose values are so dismissive of the basic principles of fairness and ethics. I lost all respect for Clinton and her supporters at that moment.

Posted by cosmo | March 15, 2008 1:10 AM

Alegre & Miriam

Your comments about the divisiveness of the Obama bloggers are so accurate. I sometimes wonder if they are Republicans in disguise.

CM & Firebrand

SNL nailed this Democratic race. Even with the media bias, Obama's millions, and the Cyberbullies, Hillary has held her own in this race. The NYT ran a good investigative piece about Obama's "minor role" in the Senate.

He has no track record of reaching out and getting things done in Washington. Obama avoids controversy in legislative battles, and only comes out to support an issue once it's safe. The Iraq War is a good example. According to the NYT, "He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it."

If anyone has lied in this race, it's Obama. In South Carolina, he stated that his relationship with Rezko amounted to 5 hours of legal work for the poor. Yet, Rezko has given $250,000 to his campaign and helped with the purchase of Obama's home.

The remarks by his minister is very racist. Obama has been attending this church for twenty years. He is part of the culture of that separatist church.

The Democratic race is going to be a street fight. Hillary's Team does not take anything for granted.

Go Hillary!!!!!

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 1:16 AM

I fucking hate the Judean People's Front.

Posted by People's Front of Judea | March 15, 2008 1:17 AM

I'm afraid you'll have to speak up, Alegre. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who can't hear you.

Posted by ML | March 15, 2008 1:18 AM

Yes, you can really see in the comments the Obama supporters. Just chock full of substance and good analysis, like this one:

"Maybe now you can take your pro-Clintonista spin and dirty tactics where they are obviously welcome: places like MyDD that are openly in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the DLC candidate."

Yes, insightful and stimulating discourse; just like what you find on DKos. Actually, this is one of the least interesting, most others have much more colorful language.

Posted by alexei | March 15, 2008 1:19 AM

if there is a better example of washington and tocqueville being dead on about political parties, i don't now what it is. i am so very happy to be neither a democrat or republican right now.

Posted by eska | March 15, 2008 1:20 AM

You know what's odd? The media and the Hillary supporters are demanding the Obama disavow his relationship with his Pastor. Yet nobody is calling for Hillary to denounce and divorce her husband, who is well known as a serial adulterer. Why aren't the religious zealots and all of Hillary's Catholic supporters up in arms about the fact that HRC continues to co-habitate with someone who disrespects the sacred institution of marriage?

Posted by cosmo | March 15, 2008 1:21 AM

Fuck you, deviationist.

Posted by Judean People's Front | March 15, 2008 1:23 AM

also: pots and kettles on the whole "the other candidate's supporters don't support their argument" and "if this is what the other candidate's supporters say, then i weep for america" gambits.

Posted by eska | March 15, 2008 1:25 AM

I think the roots are we both want our candidate to win but only one can.

Posted by Tim K | March 15, 2008 1:27 AM

Cosmo, there you go again---insulting the voters of FL and MI.
It's not THEIR fault the DNC screwed them. Every vote of theirs was made with an intent to be counted. Both delegations must be seated, if the Democratic party wants to win in November.Anyway, what's the problem.. the Obama people say he's already run away with the race.

Posted by MarkL | March 15, 2008 1:29 AM

"I think the roots are we both want our candidate to win but only one can."

That, or one candidate has already won and the other -- and her supporters -- just can't seem to internalize that fact.

Y'all did hear Speaker Pelosi today, yes? She -- like Biden, Richardson, Clyburn, and Van Hollen before her -- reaffirmed that the supers will follow the pledged delegate leader, regardless of the popular vote.

Sen Clinton is not -- I repeat, not -- going to win the remaining 10 states 70-30, as she needs to do to retake the pledged lead. Even her own campaign has conceded the pledged delegate count.

It's over.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/pelosis-delegat.html

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 1:33 AM

MarkL,

Did you actually read my post? In what way did I insult the voters of FL and MI? Of course they have been the victims of this ridiculous rules snafu in the Democratic Party. But the answer to the problem isn't to seat those delegates to Hillary Clinton's benefit. Either we hold full and fair elections, or the delegates get split 50-50. But giving them to Clinton when everyone was told that those elections would not count would be an outrage that would spell the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. Let me know if you need further clarification.

Posted by cosmo | March 15, 2008 1:40 AM

Cosmo,
What if terms for a revote cannot be agreed to in time? Then do you favor disenfranchisement?
BOTH elections were held on equal footing, IMO: Florida, obviously--- in fact, Obama advertised there; in MI, Obama backers told his supporters to vote undecided, so the intent of those votes is clear as well. It looks like MI may have a revote, FL not. That would be fine, because there is no legitimate reason to exclude the FL votes.
In fact, look how screwy the caucuses were in several other states. The FL election went quite smoothly; it should be included.

By the way, there's no logic in connecting the message that the elections wouldn't count, and Hillary. The people didn't vote for Hillary because the votes wouldn't count---that's ridiculous.

Posted by MarkL | March 15, 2008 1:45 AM

What a crock.
A couple dozen bloggers (most of whom had already left in a huff over the past couple of months), out of over 150,000 REGISTERED users, throw a hissy-fit and refuse to blog on the site anymore. Who cares? There are over 100,000 other bloggers there to quickly fill any miniscule void they may leave. The only reason they made it to the rec list is they emailed a Clinton supporters list to ask folks to come rec it. Laughable. Good Riddance.

Posted by Over It | March 15, 2008 1:49 AM

We have at last found a moment where Robert Ethan looks reasonable and witty.

I smell Onion.

Posted by barr | March 15, 2008 1:49 AM

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot." -- Hillary Clinton on Michigan, 2007.

Well, at least she was right then.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 1:51 AM

Cosmo

The United States has a history of electing a President with a flawed marriage. Both FDR and JFK had affairs, and no one demanded that Eleanor or Jackie should leave their husbands.

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 1:52 AM

"Don't listen to Adam. Talkleft is a great site. It's the only place where Obama and Clinton supporters can have a reasonable debate, because the moderation of comments is very diligent."

Unintentional irony of this comment aside, this is really not the case, except to the extent that their moderation is basically tantamount to censorship, which is what accounts for the usual lack of flamewars.

But the more basic reality is that Obama supporters aren't represented on the site for much the same reason that Clinton supporters aren't well-represented at DailyKos -- it is not a reasonable atmosphere. The people making a good-faith effort to represent the opposing viewpoint left long ago.

Their coverage has also not been remotely even-handed. As a particularly egregious example, in this post from the other day, Armando makes an extraordinarily disingenuous argument against an otherwise very even-handed post by hilzoy from ObWi, in the process making at least 4 arguments regarding the DNC delegate rules that are facially incorrect -- but you wouldn't know that without actually reading them. Armando is a lawyer. He knows better than that.

This is a really specious claim, at any rate. TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, et al., have been at least as notorious throughout the primary as dKos, Andrew Sullivan, etc. No one is going to any of those sites to get objective analysis right now.

I will say for TalkLeft that they do seem to be leaving the door open to support Obama if he wins, but I think you could say the same about Kos w/r/t Clinton. (Though you probably couldn't say the same about the supporters on either site.) I don't think the same is true of Andrew Sullivan, but... I mean, that's not exactly surprising.

Posted by Adam | March 15, 2008 1:52 AM

Hooray! The retard contingent is going elsewhere! Maybe they can strike forever and save us from their insipid drivel.

Posted by obscure | March 15, 2008 1:56 AM

Would they have us remain at a site where our candidate - a Demorcat - is routinely ridiculed and lied about by other Democrats?

-Allegre

Oh spare me!! You are one of the more divisive bloggers on Daily Kos! You just chose to ridicule and lie about Obama instead of Hillary. Not only that, you are perfectly content hanging out in the cesspools of Taylor Marsh's and HIllaryis44.com....NOTHING there but ridicule and lies about other Democrats to be found there. MyDD is better...but, there is O'plenty Obama bashing to be had there. Far more than any Hillary bashing on Daily Kos. You are a flaming hypocrite. Thank you for making my evening entertaining...I have laughed till tears have come to my eyes. You will not be missed...but, once Obama is the nominee and the General is on...you will probably be welcomed back by the vast majority. I, though, will always laugh from here on out when I see your name.

Posted by Over It | March 15, 2008 1:58 AM

MarkL,

"Cosmo, there you go again---insulting the voters of FL and MI.
It's not THEIR fault the DNC screwed them. Every vote of theirs was made with an intent to be counted. Both delegations must be seated, if the Democratic party wants to win in November.Anyway, what's the problem.. the Obama people say he's already run away with the race."

Seriously, what are you talking about?

The DNC decision was made in late 2007.

The DNC rules from April even preempt the objection that the legislatures might not follow the rules and explicitly ask the state Democratic parties to submit alternate plans that can be used if the state rules conflict with the DNC rules. They never did.

No one forced their hand here. This is all solely on the heads of the state Democratic officials. They were aware of the consequences months and months in advance. They were well aware that the entire national party wasn't willing to push any primaries up any further for very obvious reasons.

They're the ones who screwed their constituents -- not the Obama campaign, not the DNC, and not the Florida Republican legislators. You are making a demonstrably false argument.

Posted by Adam | March 15, 2008 2:05 AM

Writes Jeff Lieber, in what is now the featured post on the site, one of the founding sound boards of the Democratic netroots movements:

go out and picket and walk a line for a bunch of months and don't have any money coming in and spend nights trying to figure out if and when you'll ever work again and if your friends will ever work again and receive crying phone calls from crew members who have to sell their house and leave the business because they didn't have savings to cover their asses when things got really bad and have screaming fights with people who you've know all your life about whether or not what your UNION is doing is good for the industry or bad for the industry and have neighbors in a panic because their health insurance is about to go away because they haven't made the yearly minimum and take a hundred phone calls from your family asking again and again whether or not you're going to be alright and hold fundraisers for people you don't even know and lobby congress and Wall Street and any one who will listen that the companies you are fighting are REALLY monopolies willing to crush workers rights for profit and try every day just not to go insane from the sheer boredom of waiting for your life to restart.

That's a WRITER'S STRIKE.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/14/20500/0294/96/476871

Posted by hibob | March 15, 2008 2:21 AM

Over It

Using words such as "cesspools" and "flaming hypocrite" are fighting words to my ears. It shows how little you respect the voters.

You really make the case against an Obama nomination! Keep up the good work.

Go Hillary!!!!

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 2:23 AM

Using words such as "cesspools" and "flaming hypocrite" are fighting words to my ears.

-EWard

Dude...you must get into a lot of fights.

I call 'em like I see 'em. Taylor Marsh's blog and Hillaryis44.com ARE cesspools. Both sites are chock full of hateful vitriol against fellow Dems. As far as 'flaming hypocrite'...the fact that Alegre cries about the horrible way a Democrat (Hillary) is treated at Daily Kos, yet, continues to support such sites as mentioned above (that treat a Democrat...Obama...far worse) makes her a hypocrite. I added flaming as an adjective because of her over the top martyr-like method of exhibiting her hypocrisy.

The irony of a Hillary supporter pointing fingers about showing little respect for the voters is hugely ironic. Especially since I come from one of the States that 'don't matter' according to the Hillary Campaign.

As to my working towards an Obama nomination....I voted for Edwards and will vote for the Dem in the General.

Don't worry, though, I shall keep up the Good Work.

Posted by Over It | March 15, 2008 2:40 AM

Adam,
Your post is non-responsive. The issue is whether the votes should be counted. The RULES allow them to be counted; the obvious benefit of actually counting votes outweighs the problem of hypocrisy and unevenness. By the way, I am sure you know that other states broke the rules as well, but Obama supporter Donna Brazile only penalized MI and FL, for obvious reasons.

Posted by MarkL | March 15, 2008 2:40 AM

The Looney Left is way overrepresented on the blogsites. Not just Moulitas the Miniscule Mouthpeice, but the gossip hag/fag sites like Huff'n'puff Retort, Drivel'n'Sludge, Dowdy Ol' Mo, Anal Andy Sullivan, etc. Most of them are Retro 60s former Deanies with an orange toque buried in their closet somewhere.

They all jumped on on the bandwagon of the New Messiah, but the sheer weight of their MANIC FERVOR is likely to send this Vehicle careening off the cliff with only a LONG DRAWN OUT SCREAM to mark it's passing, as happened with the last.

Posted by robert ethan | March 15, 2008 2:51 AM

"By the way, I am sure you know that other states broke the rules as well, but Obama supporter Donna Brazile only penalized MI and FL, for obvious reasons."

Whoa. You stepped off the edge into conspiracyland there. Evidence, please.

1. What other states broke the rules, and how?

2. How did Donna Brazile dictate the penalties, past Howard Dean, Harold Ickes, and the rest of the DNC?

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 2:52 AM

Same here. Stopped reading Daily Kos when it all became hate-hillary-all-the-time. And god forbid, I've found fairer Hillary coverage on FoxNews than I have the other cable networks!! Hell has frozen over, but among TPM, DKos, HuffPost, WashMonthly, and FireDogLake, they're looking for every excuse to give Obama a Reagan-like teflon slide straight to the presidency.

I'm sticking to Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson through the general election.

Posted by zaine_ridling | March 15, 2008 2:54 AM

I shudder to imagine what people in other parts of the world must think when they pick up their morning paper and read that Democrats in the USA are actually having a conversation about whether to count the votes from an election in which the candidates and the voters were told the results would not matter.

Posted by cosmo | March 15, 2008 2:58 AM

Zaine, if you were trying to say you found all those other sites too biased to be worth anything, you didn't help your case one bit by bringing up Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson. They're Exhibit A and B in stark, raving pro-Clinton lunacy.

Why not broaden your horizons? TNR, TPM, Rural Votes?

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 2:59 AM

From a commenter on Daily Kos:

AFCB = A Few Cry Babies

Rather appropriate, I'd say.

Posted by Kysen | March 15, 2008 3:03 AM

What a huge collective hissyfit. Lovely. It's not enough that TalkLeft and MyDD have become strong pro-Hillary sites, because there's a counter-consolidation at DKos, they're doing a massive GBCW and trying to put lipstick on their pig.

Frankly, if half the names I saw in their list stop talking, it'll help raise the discourse.

Posted by Chris | March 15, 2008 3:04 AM

Kevin, you didn't read my post did you? That you call Marsh and Johnson "stark, raving pro-Clinton lunacy" proves the point. And I did mention TPM. Isn't TNR the Lieberman part of politics? Oy.

God forbid anyone disagree with an Obama supporter. I proudly will never vote for him, and if he gets the nomination, I will register as an independent. You guys talk of Obama just like the god-believers talk of religion. Or better, Obama support mimics most of the tactics the Scientologists use.

Say NO to L. Ron Obama!

Posted by zaine_ridling | March 15, 2008 3:17 AM

Riight. Well, Zaine, you're the one advocating cutting off your nose to spite your face in November, just because you lost the election. So who's the Kool Aid drinker here?

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 3:22 AM

Over It

Read the 245+ comments in the "Current" about Obama and his minister. They are overwhelmingly against your candidate. Even the ones that voted for him have second thoughts about his judgment and electability.

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 3:31 AM

EWard:

Learn to read.
I am/was an Edwards supporter who will support the Democrat in the General. I have problems with both Obama and Hillary AND their supporters. I just HATE hypocrisy...and holier-than-thou'ness...and that is what I have spoken out against here in this thread. Frankly, I don't give a shit about what 245 comments say about Obama's minister. They will not change the fact that I will vote for the Democrat in the General. Can you say the same?

Posted by Over It | March 15, 2008 3:40 AM

Oh God. The DKos adolescents---from both sides---have invaded another decent, rational blog and started up with their I-have-no-life-I-live-on-the-Internet childish namecalling.

Welcome, Alegre. Most of us left DKos long, long ago. And Kos has no idea how many will never, never return.

Posted by Mary | March 15, 2008 3:48 AM

Half a year ago, DailyKos was praising Clinton for not removing her name from the Michagan ballot and all the talk bout how the DNC is affecting democracy, etc....... how times have changed!!! Now Dailykos is just about the Clinton bashing and about the so called 'following the rules' and the 'game'.

Well folks, election is not a game. It's about life and about democracy. I don't see the DailyKos talking about Obama supporters trying to distrupt a revote in Michigan and Florida. Fair and balance... neh!!! I used to read the dailykos daily for over a year and i stopped doing that about a month ago when i clearly see that it became an anti-Hillary blog rather than for progressive ideas. Though i might disagree with some of Mark's view point.. at least he's giving both sides to tell their stories and not trying to go after one candidate with lies and not facts.

This is the rift that the Democrats are afraid to create with a prolong primaries. Just like how the Obamamaniacs will not vote for Hillary, a few months ago, almost all Hillary supporters will vote for Obama, now that numbers are reduce by almost half. I know many who has voted democratic all their life, and in this election for the first time have doubts in their votes and will make no difference to Obama and we are talking about the Bay Area.

Clinton has fought for alot of our progressive ideals even before it became a norm. The only mistake that she made was her Iraq war vote. Don't you think that she has done a lot more good? Many things that she has done has made a positive impact in our lives and she deserves respect for those. She had taken 16 years of Republican hits so she can initiate progressive policies for that she deserves our respect. That's all i have to say.

Posted by STevenT | March 15, 2008 3:52 AM

The Obamamaoists waving in rage their little orange diaries made me sickened of the "left" there. So I left. DKos degenerated into what may be the first rampant self-selecting online mob. It's only saving grace was that yeah it could pillory and light the auto de fa but at least it's victims could escape.

Reminded me of The Nation in the late '90s - unthinking, aprincipled, irrelevant, past masters of the circular firing squad and a deepening parody of Scholastic dogmatism. Talk about moral vanities of the bonfire.

Soon they'll degenerate into year long doctrinal disputations of Pacifica Radio, well of Air America Radio at this point hehe.

Posted by Jay, Massachusetts | March 15, 2008 5:35 AM

As for the "Jay" above who spoke of MyDD. That's a fairly evenly mixed community. It is an overall decent, civil community. In my own experience I've only seen insults cast about by the Obama types. I've been called "pussy", Benedict Arnold, "moron" etc...Generally I'll make one foray at discourse but after the second insult in the sub-thread I've let it go. I could really care if the Obama person thinks they've won a thread war.

I got over the kind of angry mob mutual vituperation at my first protest rally my freshman year. No point yelling back and forth. That's not civic discourse that's pointless discharge.

Posted by Jay, Massachusetts | March 15, 2008 6:26 AM

MyDD is no longer an "overall decent civil community

MyDD is literally full of anti-Obama attacks. Not just in the dairies, but on the front page posts by Jerome Armstrong.

For example, a frequent poster claimed that Obama is guilty of CHILD ABUSE.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/13/175342/104/44#44

Posted by Anonymous | March 15, 2008 6:39 AM

The victim card rears its whiny head once again.

Posted by Jack | March 15, 2008 7:42 AM

Are we forgetting that we are democrats? That the economy has tanked, there is a war and a torrid last 8 years. To those, who say, I will not vote for either candidate need to straighten out.
I'm a Obama supporter, but whoever the nominee is. I don't want another Republican in office.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 15, 2008 8:04 AM

I've never been impressed by Obama. Thought his speeches came off like a marketing scam with no basis in reality.

I read that the campaign emphasized emotion over substance in their presentation and you can sure see that in the passion of his supporters.

I'm for Hillary because I found only an "empty suit" when I looked at Obama.

Reality vs. fantasy.

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 8:16 AM

Thanks for posting this here. Obama and his supporters have divided this party and I resent it. It was he who brought race and gender in to this race. A

I do not blame the Hillary bloggers. Let dkos look like even more of an echo chamber than it already is.

Posted by TeresaINPa | March 15, 2008 8:19 AM

Oh, KKKlinton and MKKKain cry babies! Who cares!

Posted by Obama08 | March 15, 2008 8:25 AM

These diarists, particularly Alegre, are more accurately described as "anti-Obama." There is very little positive pro-Hillary content that comes from these characters. Their "strike" is a blessing.

Posted by Klaus | March 15, 2008 8:29 AM

I guess that would be true Klaus, as it's down to Hillary or Obama.

For me the choice is clear.

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 8:35 AM

I've responded to Alegre's posts and found her postings and responses to be intellectually dishonest.

Just the other day she posted a diary that said that Clinton was ahead of Obama in popular vote. When people responded that her numbers were inaccurate, she did not admit error or correct the diary, but doubled down and accused the posters of sexism and lies.

There's the tone of victim feminism to which many women posters have objected.

She never can answer any criticisms in a substantive way.

Over at mydd, she gets a lot of responses like "great post, Alegre," so it's clear that these folks are not interested in discussion, but in cheerleading for her candidate.

Posted by sammy | March 15, 2008 8:40 AM

"Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged that he had substantially underrepresented the cash raised for his earlier campaigns by indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko."

LOL

What a crook! No wonder is polling so badly in New Jersey.

Posted by apol | March 15, 2008 8:40 AM

Well Margy, that's your right, but if you're going to play propaganda minister for one side, you're naturally going to face a very hostile reaction.

Obviously, all fault can't be placed on Clinton supporters, but Alegre's style of over-the-top, intellectually dishonest partisanship is part of the problem. The only victims here are those who started going to progressive blogs specifically so they wouldn't have to listen to Limbaugh-style attacks (be they directed at Clinton or Obama).

Posted by Klaus | March 15, 2008 8:49 AM

Maybe this is a natural separation.

I haven't visited Kos in some time and he is off my bookmark list.

For me the Rev Wright issue matters deeply.

For you, this may be a Limbaugh-style attack.

However, thuggishness, threats, personal attacks, and intimidation should not be tolerated on either side.

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 9:06 AM

Re: the Life of Brian reference: Bloody Brilliant. And apt.

Posted by colleeniem | March 15, 2008 9:20 AM

there was a LOT of ugly stuff that precipitated this walkout. administrators on Kos have stood by while Obama supporters tried to find out real life information on Hillary supporters- their real names, where they lived and worked, etc.

when i protested about someone commenting about a "death wish" in a thread about hillary, the administrators warned me, not the person posting the secret service bait! basic legal liability considerations have been ignored by the administrators at Kos in their zeal to support obama. i hope nobody gets hurt as a result of this, but it's not a safe place to post anymore the way things are now.

Posted by campskunk | March 15, 2008 9:55 AM

Campskunk,

Why are disseminating untrue information?

Posted by Lauri | March 15, 2008 10:02 AM

This race has become very heated, so I am not suprised.

I do ask, though, who started us down this nasty path?

From my objective POV, more of the blame falls on the Clinton camp.

Not saying this justifies death threats, if that's true.

But, this is what happens when people feel cornered. When they feel "manipulated."

Posted by AKBY | March 15, 2008 10:08 AM

I'm really torn lately watching the divisions in my own party. The other day I read Mamet's piece, and I think, on the whole, that I agree with him.

Why I am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 10:15 AM

"If Hillary had her way, she would crush our hopes and dreams, and just take power and money for her own gain."

The above was written by someone who seems to be see the campaign like a soap opera -- ready to cheer for the cool hunk and hiss the evil harpy on cue.

I stopped caring about either candidate some time ago because of melodramatic nonsense like what is quoted above. Too many Democratic leaders appear to have embraced the Rovian idea that most effective way to win elections is to convince the most gullible and emotional people that the other candidate (from whom their candidate differs little or not at all) is evil. And too many Democrats appear to have fallen for it.

They don't seem to have noticed that this approach has left the Republican party in tatters. Or to care that it may do even worse to their party.

Posted by roy | March 15, 2008 10:15 AM

It's not just DailyKos. I've seen this in many boards I visit that are not political, but throw a political post once in a while to discuss things. And the Clinton posters have pretty much stopped posting. And there is a deep resentment towards Obama supporters and I think it mirrors the resentement the polls show.

He is winning. And she is not. And when she's not winning and pissing off Obama supporters who think she's pulling down his chances for the fall, they comment. And the Clinton folks get pissed at the attack and the "entitlement" they see in Obama posters. It just goes in a vicious circle, generally culminating in "It's hard to believe a candiate that preaches hope can inspire such virtol in his supporters. Makes you question the candidate even more." Which gains a "OMFG the hypocirsy in Clinton can be found in YOU" and degenerates from there on out.

I think because of this Obama must make the offer to Clinton to be VP. He doesn't want to, but this campaign has become so based on the identiies of these two candidates it's clear they're going to have to team up in order for either to work to keep the coalition they have together. And the sooner they come together the better for the party.

The good news for Clinton, the passion is definitly pulling her closer to the ticket and making her as key as Obama clearly is for the black vote and the youth vote and the progressive vote.

Posted by Rhoda | March 15, 2008 10:18 AM

dKos has been inundated by campaign diaries, to the point that it is difficult to talk of anything else. Fonzie's putting on his skis....

I will NEVER vote for Hillary. She jumped the shark last month, and her entire campaign theme is taken from a bad Alice Cooper song: "I WANNA BE ELECTED!" It's all about her and her blonde ambition.

Our ersatz electoral process has degenerated into something out of a South American banana republic. We have the illusion of democracy but little else; the eventual candidate will continue us along the path into national bankruptcy, thereby forcing us to sell our national assets at fire sale prices.

Posted by Bouldergeist | March 15, 2008 10:24 AM

Don't count your chickens Rhoda.

It ain't over til it's over.

John Mc Cain was also counted out.

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 10:27 AM

Strike (noun)
to stop work in order to force an employer to comply with demands

or, do you mean:

Boycott (noun)
to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

Posted by Dictionary for writers | March 15, 2008 10:28 AM

Margy, Reverend Wright is a tiny piece of the puzzle. Alegre and other "strikers" have a long history of ridiculous diaries that are at odds with any standard of reasonable debate.

Posted by Klaus | March 15, 2008 10:29 AM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!

Posted by Idiotic | March 15, 2008 10:30 AM

Is it just me, or does going on strike against a BLOGGER COMMUNITY seem a bit silly, even laughable?

THIS also gives me a chuckle:

"....Alegre has set up "The American Federation of Concerned Bloggers (AFCB)"...."

LOL!

Posted by AKBY | March 15, 2008 10:37 AM

God, why can't those moronic adolescent Obamaniac assholes ever be fucking civil? That goddamn cult and its deluded Obamamaoists always drag the discourse down into the fucking mud. And them and their anti-semitic, America-hating, misogynist, corrupt empty suit of a candidate are always making the most ridiculous, incendiary charges against Clinton.

I don't know why those assholes can show some fucking civility once in a while!

Posted by Hillary Rulz | March 15, 2008 10:43 AM

Rhoda

Sorry about the cliche!

Now you say--
I'll count my chickens if I want to!

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 10:45 AM

Klaus
Point taken.
Haven't been to Kos in so long I'm not up to snuff on what's there.

Posted by Margy | March 15, 2008 10:49 AM

Yes, finally we can recognize the truth about "Obambi".

The national ad that Obama used wasn't the only way he campaigned in Florida! His website was there too! Just think, all of those pages and pages of "facts" and spin all about Obama and how wonderful he is. Chock full of policy and position papers, all available to any Floridian with a computer and an internet connection.

The DNC tried to set up a barrier to keep any of the candidates from campaigning in Florida and further tainting their already tainted process. But Obama doesn't play by the rules, does he? No, he snuck his message in over the cable wires and the internet tubes. Why didn't he block any internet connection in Florida from viewing his website? He should have had a special filter that kept Floridians who were visiting friends in other states from viewing it too. Heck, he should have cut the cables that tie Florida to the rest of the internet until after they voted. That was the only way to be absolutely sure he wasn't campaigning there. (Although Fark might have had a problem with that).

Same thing in Michigan. Everyone knows that Obama is Swahili for undecided. There's no need to do a revote. Just give Hillary the votes she honorably won in that hard fought battle, and give Obama his votes, although next time, Michigan needs to let everyone be on the ballot with their real name, not a translation.

Posted by Happy | March 15, 2008 10:55 AM

The Clintonistas can't take over Kos, so they ae going on strike. I say good riddance. I have been fighting for Obamaon in MyDD for the last 3 weeks. I wrote 2 negative diaries on Hillary and got thrown off of MyDD. So, what does that tell ya? We have a war going, and the Clintonistas started it.

Posted by rssrai | March 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Well, it's like the blogosphere version of Jerusalem.

Two hostile sides at war with another, both blaming the other for "aggression," with one being more successful in pushing the other out.

And in the midst of it all, there are a couple of very interesting diarists who stay above the fray.

Posted by Klaus | March 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Alegre does a good job of sounding sanctimonious, but the fact is that many of her posts were dishonest or distorted. She specialized in leaving out well-reported facts that we less flattering to her candidate, and was frequently called out for her bad faith. I don't blame Hillary Clinton for Alegre's dishonesty, but we should not allow Alegre's rabid partisanship to seem like a genuine attempt to promote free speech or debate.

If you are not prepared, Alegre, to post in good faith, you can't expect others to give you a free ride while you smear another Democrat. Your pretence of integrity is simply self-serving, and it degrades you, your minority of fanatical Clinton-supporters, and the candidate you are seeking to promote by any means possible.

Posted by notalegre | March 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Uh, Hill Rulz: Your post doesn't strike me as "civil" either.

Posted by AKBY | March 15, 2008 10:57 AM

This is nonsense, another empty and dirty dish from the Clinton "kitchen sink defense."

I returned to KOS as the primaries began and it is true that there are many Obama suporters there, but it is not true that it is an unfair place for Clinton supporters (though perhaps they are outnumbered).

Unhappy Clinton supporters wish to attack one of Obama's sources of strength, they create a false issue and claim to be victims -- just like Hillary's been doing all along.

Just remember, Hillary has never lead the primary race and it is increasingly likely that she never will.

Posted by kimberly | March 15, 2008 11:02 AM

dKos has been inundated by campaign diaries, to the point that it is difficult to talk of anything else. Fonzie's putting on his skis....

I will NEVER vote for Hillary. She jumped the shark last month, and her entire campaign theme is taken from a bad Alice Cooper song: "I WANNA BE ELECTED!" It's all about her and her blonde ambition.

Our ersatz electoral process has degenerated into something out of a South American banana republic. We have the illusion of democracy but little else; the eventual candidate will continue us along the path into national bankruptcy, thereby forcing us to sell our national assets at fire sale prices.

Posted by Bouldergeist | March 15, 2008 11:03 AM

why is any of this surprising?

Clinton's bloggers are just following their candidate's strategy of telling us why dKos "doesn't count."

Posted by Enough | March 15, 2008 11:04 AM

This "strike" is so silly. Kos has seldom been right about anything.

You can always create your own blog independent of any big blog. You may not have the readership, but you control your own content.

I was blackballed by the big bloggers a long time ago because I saw through their hero Howard Dean. They've never forgiven me, even though I was right. I am right about Obama, too, but these bloggers still hate my guts.

I don't have the hits on my site, which I have had for five years, and frankly I don't care anymore.

Posted by Susan Nunes | March 15, 2008 11:06 AM

Bouldergeist, are you referring to "I wanna be sedated"? Because that was The Ramones, not Alice Cooper.

colleeniem,

Thanks for noticing!

Posted by Josh E. | March 15, 2008 11:09 AM

Just to illustrate the Alegre standard of truth: she published a diary about NAFTA-gate, days after the facts were reasonably well-known, claiming that it showed Obama's hypocrisy, while missing out any mention of the fact that the Clinton campaign reassured the Canadians, and that the Goolsbee memo turned out to be inaccurate at best. That's the standard Alegre has for truth and fair criticism, and it is unimpressive. If her hissy fit means one less concern troll on Kos, then I am all for it. We need real Democrats debating issues, not Republican-lite shills serving the Hillary Restoration.

Posted by mizzou | March 15, 2008 11:12 AM

Who Hillary Clinton is and what she represents has been THE debate among Democratic activists for years. It is now THE national debate. But the debate about Clinton, her (and his) politics, the legacy, the tactics -- will endure.

Their policies are 99% identical, Clinton baggage was caused by Republicans (their obsession with Lewinsky, Whitewater, impeachment), most of the rest is sexism. Bill Clinton's neoliberal policies such as NAFTA couldn't be helped because at the time that's how Washington worked. Before Obama, Democrats were happy with the Clinton tactics that work well against Republicans.

Posted by donna darko | March 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Neoliberal policies are still the way of Washington in 2008. Obama and Clinton voted for war funding.

The right hated Bill Clinton mainly because he was supportive of his strong wife. Often, this hatred is conflated with his policies.

Posted by donna darko | March 15, 2008 11:27 AM

Donna:

...Democrats were happy with the Clinton tactics that work well against Republicans.

Dems admired the Clinton's tactics against the Republicans but this doesn't mean they want Clinton using those same tactics against one of thier own.

Really...please.

Posted by AKBY | March 15, 2008 11:31 AM

Hate Speech. This is what the election is now degerated into. I am distraught. Older Feminists against youhnger feminists. Right-wing preachers against left-wing preachers. Hillary haters against Hillary. Hillary lovers against Obama lovers. Obama lovers against hillary lovers. This has got to stop. Every where I read, more bile, more hate.

I had a hope that Obama would change politics, I was naive. He's tried but the entrenched divisions are just too entrenched. Now he and his wife are sullied by the very politics he hoped to change.

I think the Rev. Wright's anti-americanism (or pro-black, if you will) has wounded his candidacy forever. He can't overcome. In a sheer act of masochism, I watched Obama's interview on Hannity and Colmbes. After a full 15 miniutss of Hannity's outrage and calls for Obama to quit the race, quit the senate even, Obama was interviewed by Major Garrent. While Obama was ready for the hit job, I don't think he was able to make his case. Obama needs independents and some rebublicans to win the nomination, but he won't get them now.

So all you pro-hillary commenters, rejoice. Hlllary will be the democratic nominee. All of the hillary-haters will support McCain. All of Obama's supporters will fade away. Good democrats will support the ticket, but it won't be enough. We should get ready for a very divisive election: More billary, more Monica, more pardons, more white house records and tax returns. More macho Hillary, more war. Ugh.

Obama supporters: It's over. No. We. Can't.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 15, 2008 11:32 AM

Hey Marc! If I don't get a raise and better health benefits, I'm going on strike too! You big evil corporate blogger you! Always exploiting my labor! Take that!

Posted by lampwick | March 15, 2008 11:38 AM

Ellen:

No, no, no, no.

Sean Hannity is the same guy who tore apart McCain. Don't use the far right attacks as the benchmark.

This too shall pass.

Posted by AKBY | March 15, 2008 11:40 AM

Why are Obama supporters so ignorant of the facts: The Canadian government stated that the Clinton campaign absolutely did not contact them during the NAFTA-Gate debacle. Clearly, Barack Obama dissembled about Goolsbee contacting the Canadian Consul. Obama was caught out either not knowing what Goolsbee was doing; or trying to pretend he wasn't accountable for his surrogates. There are many questions about Barack Obama, and he hasn't been straightforward about his association with Tony Rezko, or about his long-time support for his "pastor" Rev. Wright. Obama supporters are content to ignore these warning flags about their idol; but I assure you, the RNC won't be passive during the general election. They'll use it; all of it. And, Obama, who's never been fully vetted by a complicit media narrative about him, will implode once the RNC gets finished with him.

But, obviously, reading through these comments, it's easy to see what has happened to DailyKos' revered "meta." It's devolved into thuggish totalitarian group think, and yes, "mob mentality." It's not progressive, and it certainly isn't anything to be proud of. DailyKos is an embarrassment to all progressives these days.

Posted by bmc | March 15, 2008 11:46 AM

Divisive anyone?

It is about the only thing the Clinton's are truly talented at. Dividing people and making different sides hate each other. Even managing to break up a unified progressive alliance that has achieved a lot in the last four years.

I don't know where these Clinton supporters claim to hear harassment from Obama supporters. Kos has remained impartial for most of this race, and has only really taken sides based on the kind of Republican-lite, fear-filled campaign Clinton has run. MyDD, by contrast, is literally packed with Clinton supporters spewing hate towards Obama and increasing divorced-from-reality commentary suited better to "The Corner." If you want to read commentary indicating why Clinton has a 50% chance of winning the nomination based on a series of meteor strikes, hurricanes, and blue moons, that's the place.

Posted by Andrew | March 15, 2008 11:51 AM

bmc, you're wrong. It was the Clinton campaign that told the Canadians not to take their NAFTA talk seriously (BTW I hold no hopes of changing your mind).

So how cynical and dishonest/misleading is that of team Clinton?

For example:

http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/03/06/canada-nafta-and-obamawrong-it-was-clinton/

- and links therein

Posted by kimberly | March 15, 2008 11:53 AM

Who Hillary Clinton is and what she represents has been THE debate among Democratic activists for years. It is now THE national debate. The Democratic Party may well come together and support its nominee. But the debate about Clinton, her (and his) politics, the legacy, the tactics -- will endure.

That this article would end with this statement is beyond belief. Of course, we also know the politics of The Atlantic, a magazine for which I have two subscriptions. This is an embarrassment, as has been the biased, one-sided reporting by those who consider themselves journalists, all in favor of Obama.

So you should be added to the boycott. Your and your magazine's lack of journalistic integrity and bias is embarrassing for those of us who call ourselves liberal.

Posted by Cliff Potter | March 15, 2008 12:11 PM

"LaBolt also said the campaign would release new information about a much-scrutinized land deal between Obama and Rezko’s wife, which Obama has called a “boneheaded” mistake."

The guy who makes "bonehead mistakes" and associates himself with Michelle Obama, Rezko and Wright is the same that claims a better judgement??

Posted by mpe | March 15, 2008 12:12 PM

It’s time we take a stand. It’s OK to support different candidate. But it’s not OK to attack and dehumanized the supporters of the opponent candidate. DailyKos has allowed the abusive behavior to go uncheck, and it has become a norm.

When Obama supporters went as far as saying that the poor people in Ohio didn’t have enough food so their brains lacked oxygen and hence they voted for Hillary, I knew that there is no rhyme nor reason left at DailyKos.

Posted by JoeySky | March 15, 2008 12:18 PM

'The Looney Left is way overrepresented on the blogsites. Not just Moulitas the Miniscule Mouthpeice, but the gossip hag/fag sites like Huff'n'puff Retort, Drivel'n'Sludge, Dowdy Ol' Mo, Anal Andy Sullivan, etc. Most of them are Retro 60s former Deanies with an orange toque buried in their closet somewhere.
They all jumped on on the bandwagon of the New Messiah, but the sheer weight of their MANIC FERVOR is likely to send this Vehicle careening off the cliff with only a LONG DRAWN OUT SCREAM to mark it's passing, as happened with the last.'

oh, MARY! You need a high colonic to clean out that bile. I can tell you'll just love it. Trust, sugar.

Posted by Fagtastic! | March 15, 2008 12:18 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Clintonista bloggers can go on strike as long as they want, and they can take Clinton's divisive, double-talk tear-down politics with them. I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances after witnessing her underhanded tactics.

I used to have tremendous respect for both of the Clinton's until this campaign. Between her and her surrogates, the amount of in your-face B.S. only reminds me of Bush and co. Let's end the Bush/Clinton dynasty now.

Posted by tractor | March 15, 2008 12:20 PM

Obama and Wright:

Day 0: He's my spiritual guide and a political mentor. He's on my campaign.

Day 1: He's just a crazy uncle.

Day 2: I disapprove his remarks. I never hear them before (right...).

Day 3: He's out of my campaign.

Do you really want this guy (Rezko, Naftagate, Michelle "it's the first time I'm proud of America in my adult life" Obama, request earmarks to his wife's employee and campaign contributors) to be CiC?

Posted by EarmarksAreEvil | March 15, 2008 12:20 PM

obamaniacs yes they are all maniacs. they are losing most primaries and will lose the general election. he has a teflon image because the biased media networks (PBS, CNN, NBC, ABC) spin all scandals about him away from him.

Posted by rational mind | March 15, 2008 12:21 PM

Major Clinton Fund-Raisers are threatening to withhold donations to the DNC unless the Florida delegates are seated with the January results or there is a new primary. the January primary was in violation of national party rules and a new primary would not Florida pass state law.

To show the DNC that Obama supporters are inclusive of all Democrats and are committed to a fair and just resolution of this process, I am asking that people make a Money Bomb donation to the DNC adding $.46 to represent Obama's age. We are not threatening the DNC by withholding funds but ask that the resolution be fair and by the rules of the party, which Obama has stated all along..

Show your support by donating $5.46, $10.46, $25.46, $50.46 to the DNC as a Money Bomb showing a commitment to a fair and inclusive process to the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates.

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute?outreach_page_id=2037

Posted by Michael Fisher | March 15, 2008 12:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbDpTPd0ac

Obama goes right at the issue about his Pastor in this video. Great stuff, no wiggling, no evasiveness- he confronts it head on.

One of the by-products of this silly flap is that the fact that Obama is a practicing Christian is being reinforced. The Right is losing one of their favorite talking points, i.e.- Obama is a Muslim.

Posted by guido sarducci | March 15, 2008 12:25 PM

"Posted by EarmarksAreEvil"

Man, it's useless:

% of Dems who know what earmarking process is and why it's so dangerous: 25%

% of Dems who disapprove earmarking: 10%

% of Obama supporters who have a superficial knowledge on earmarking: 1%

% of Obama supporter who care about earmarking: 0%

Posted by Peter J. | March 15, 2008 12:27 PM

I have to admit that McCain is the only one behaving as a grown up in this whole campaign. I never thought I'd say this about a republican candidate. Kudos to him and his campaign.

Posted by Jennifer Levi | March 15, 2008 12:30 PM

@ AKBY: I hope you are right, but I don't think so. Facts don't necessarily mean much. Look at Kerry and the swiftboat ads. Sure Obama has time to make his case, but 'hope that the American people will see what's happening' was Kerry's tactic. It didn't work. Obama has endured muslim smears, 'no pledge of allegence', Resko, but not this. It has gone viral to the nth degree. America has the tape. Haters have two people (maybe three including Michelle) to spew their bile and McCain stays above the fray.

Most American's don't know many black people, so they fear what they don't know. Obama can't respond with intelligence, dignity, and decency while Clinton is in the race because he has to defend on two fronts and his rear is being sniped at everyday. He has already won the nomination but still needs superdelegates to reach the 2024 threshold, and he can't get them now. Just wait, SD will break for hillary and MI and FL will be seated.

Obama's only hope is that Gore, Edwards, Carter, Pelosi speak out. But they won't use their political capital now, its too dangerous.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Hope has been destroyed, in me. Obama has been politically assasinated. I go back to don't care, won't care, won't do, can't do. Apathy rules. I am so sad and am in tears as I write this.

Posted by ee | March 15, 2008 12:31 PM

ee= Ellen Hamm

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 15, 2008 12:35 PM

Michael Fisher:

To ask for your campaign contribution to be returned because the vote "didn't count" because the State Party willfully violated rules lawfully set by the National Party is called extortion.

The donors gave the money unconditionally, and that is that. There is not much difference between the Mafia and the behavior of these Clinton donors.

That is probably why some of them got their money refunded to them pretty quickly.

It is a bit amusing that Hillbilly Clinton do not reject and denounce the thug like behavior of her donors.

Now tell us the truth, Hillbilly. Were these donors promised quid quo pros in exchange for their bundling and donation activities? Yes or no?

Hint: Take the 5th amendment.

Posted by D | March 15, 2008 12:40 PM

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

- John McCain

Will Obama call Wright and Farrakhan what they are: agents of intolerance?

That's why I'll vote McCain.

Posted by Peterfromtexas | March 15, 2008 12:46 PM

"obamaniacs yes they are all maniacs. they are losing most primaries and will lose the general election."

Just remember, "rational mind," that Hillary has never lead the primary race and it is increasingly likely that she never will.

Other important details would be that Obama has won more primaries, more delegates, more of the popular votes, and more money.

Hillary is the establishment Democrat choice and she's been losing the whole time, the Clinton "kitchen sink defense" (manipulating the public and superdelegates with dirty and empty attacks) is all she's got.

Posted by kimberly | March 15, 2008 12:47 PM

Have we really know who Hillary or Obama are. As politicians will they keep their promises. So why don't we stick to our Democratic principally, argue but in a civil manner without name calling.

There are obviously defects in both candidates.
Why not look at at the plus and minus factors of both and then let all democrats decide rationally. This election is not over until June and in a democracy, Clinton have the right to contest all the way. But both Hillary and Obama must not destroy each other to the point of giving the presidency to McCain.

Don'ts support or reject the personality but look at their actions, past and presence. Have an open mind about who are the best for America.

Posted by a democrat | March 15, 2008 12:49 PM

Abuse? What abuse? Has the definition of abuse changed so much?

I've spent hours reading the various offerings on Daily Kos, TPM, HuffPo, and MyDD. I see folks disagreeing and behaving like children having tantrums.

This is really silly. I'm not a HRC supporter but I don't see how attacking those who are does anything to further the cause. And vice-versa. Then again, if folks want to pack up and go home, fine. Whatever. Take a time-out but don't imagine that somehow anyone is going to feel they're being punished through absence.

The atmosphere is just super-charged because we're super frustrated and totally pissed off about the last 8 years.

It would be good to get a grip though ... Squabbling and name calling hardly constitutes abuse and threatening to not post and participate on blogs for a few hours also not my notion of a strike.

Too much drama and self-pity.

Posted by charlotte | March 15, 2008 12:58 PM

I have to admit that McCain is the only one behaving as a grown up in this whole campaign. I never thought I'd say this about a republican candidate. Kudos to him and his campaign.

Posted by Jennifer Levi

Humm... nice surname... Levi. Any chance you are actually a zionist? What a surprise you are giving props to the NAzionist-in-chief, McVain, the guy that will bomb muslins for you and protect your "sacred land"... crawl back to Israel and you nazionist apartheid, little girl...

GOBAMA!

Posted by asda | March 15, 2008 1:00 PM

"When Obama supporters went as far as saying that the poor people in Ohio didn’t have enough food so their brains lacked oxygen and hence they voted for Hillary"

"There is not much difference between the Mafia and the behavior of these Clinton donors"

"Hillbilly Clinton"

"Oh, KKKlinton and MKKKain cry babies!"

"Humm... nice surname... Levi. Any chance you are actually a zionist? What a surprise you are giving props to the NAzionist-in-chief, McVain, the guy that will bomb muslins for you and protect your "sacred land"... crawl back to Israel and you nazionist apartheid, little girl..."

Obamaniacs... always classy.

A new kind of politics, hum? Right...

Posted by Mary Anderson | March 15, 2008 1:02 PM

Thanks for the blog. I understand your concerns and feel your frustrations. The Obama supporters are mean spirited and aggressive. Don't be surprised if MyDD gets infiltrated by Obama supporters that will be stalking you because that's the theme of the Obama campaign, as seen by the way Obama's pastor Rev. Wright, is a good example of the aggressive behavior of Obama and his followers.

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 1:04 PM

"Who Hillary Clinton is and what she represents has been THE debate among Democratic activists for years. It is now THE national debate. The Democratic Party may well come together and support its nominee. But the debate about Clinton, her (and his) politics, the legacy, the tactics -- will endure."

Humm... Your bias is becoming pretty funny, Marc. The debate is about Obama, his associates and the fanatism and cultism of his supporters. At least it appears to be.

Posted by CTR | March 15, 2008 1:07 PM

Wow--the power of delusion never ceases to amaze me! These writers have left because EVERYTHING that happens is blamed on Hillary Clinton. She is a "monster." For anyone who has studied psychology 101, this is simple projection. Look in the mirror at your own hostility and hate. And the irony is, they are blaming this strike on Hillary too! The divisiveness argument is tired. You do not recognize the deliberate race-baiting of Obama's campaign, and his own "negative" politicking with fear-mongering mailings and radio ads, coupled with daily distortions of her record and words. It's this blind devotion and condemnation of anything other than your fantasy that has catalyzed this strike. But of course, you wont' see that, because that's the very nature of the problem.

Posted by Fran | March 15, 2008 1:15 PM

I think when Bloggers go on strike we can officially say that blogging jumped the shark on 14 March 2008

Posted by John W McCan't | March 15, 2008 1:16 PM

"Hissy fit" is a more apt term than "strike". Personally, I find their behavior absurd. They can take their toys and play elsewhere. Calling it a "strike" is completely offensive and self-important.

Look, toxic bilge emanates forth from supporters of all candidates. Deal with it. Checking comment sections from a wide range of sites (HuffPo, various MSM sites), the Clinton cult is just as toxic as any of the various virulent Obama supporters.

Posted by Tungsten | March 15, 2008 1:19 PM

This is simply further evidence that Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive political figures of our time. If she causes this kind of division within her own party, what chance does she have of uniting the country as a whole behind an agenda for change? If she succeeds in winning the nomination, she will split her party in pieces. If despite all that, she should still win in November, she would preside over a 51-49 America that will be reminiscent of the last 20 years of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. So even her best case scenario is a grim picture. We can do better than that. It's time to turn the page on the Bushes and the Clintons...

Posted by Spike3905 | March 15, 2008 1:20 PM

Kimberly

The Prime Minister's Office confirmed "they only received a briefing from the Obama campaign and not Clinton." They made this statement the day after the bluegloggin column. Get your facts straight!

Obama Supporters

The Electoral College matters because of the big-swing states. Except for Illinois or Missouri, Obama has not won in these states. You can spin his victories in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, and all these red states. However, the Republicans are going to win these states in the general election.

Obama is unqualified for this job. He fails to hold a hearing about Afghanistan because he was too busy running for President. "He proposed legislation calling for a drawdown of American troops in Iraq only after he was running for President and polls favored it."

He lied about Nafta, Rezko, and his minister. Black superdelegates are being harassed with threatening calls and emails to support Obama.

This election cannot be another roll of the dice. If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain.

One more thing, the Democratic Party is so dysfuctional by letting Republicans vote in their primaries. The Republicans are laughing at us for destroying our candidates. Media pundits from Air America, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MSNBC have all become the equivalent of Fox News. Fair and balanced-what a joke!

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 1:21 PM

EWard says:

"If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain."

That's the difference between you and me, pal. If Clinton gets the nomination, I will leave that part of the ballot blank. I refuse to vote for a Republican or someone who acts like one!

Posted by Spike3905 | March 15, 2008 1:32 PM

I suppose it depends on how you parse "strike". After all, it's not as if anyone would ever pay to read Alegre. This is just a cynical little piece of Alegre self-promotion, not a principled gesture. Still, at least the level of honesty on Kos will increase now that her toxic presence has absented itself.

Posted by einaro | March 15, 2008 1:35 PM

I am glad that Daily Kos writers have shown guts and expressed themselves. Democrats must remain united if they want to win the White House this fall.

Posted by Ajaz | March 15, 2008 1:37 PM

I support Hillary, but Alegre was an embarrassment. She was usually mean-spirited, did post a lot of garbage, and never responded honestly to factual corrections. I think there are good ways of supporting Hillary, but this sort of immature whininess. Alegre needs to grow up, in my opinion.

Posted by wozzick | March 15, 2008 1:38 PM

A very small storm, in a miniature tea-cup.

Posted by maraschion | March 15, 2008 1:40 PM

Fran

Great post!

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 1:51 PM

Alegre has set up "The American Federation of Concerned Bloggers (AFCB)

A
Few
Cry
Babies

This election cannot be another roll of the dice. If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain.
One more thing, the Democratic Party is so dysfuctional by letting Republicans vote in their primaries. The Republicans are laughing at us for destroying our candidates. -EWard

Looks to me like you are one of the Republicans you are decrying. No one but a Republican could bring themselves to actually vote for the Republican in 2008 after 8 years of Republican/Bush rule. Good Grief.

Posted by Matt | March 15, 2008 1:52 PM

Everyone is divisive apart Obama and his associates...

Posted by apol | March 15, 2008 2:06 PM

You know what I hate most about the Yankees?
Their fans - all puffed up because the team they root for happened to win a lot of championships, most of them long before I or they were born. So smug and obnoxious.

Of course, I hate the Mets even more because at least Yankee fans know something about their team and didn't jump on the bandwagon in '86 or '00. Of course, Yankee fans are more in your face about it, hmmm...

Then there's the Red Sox, with their precious green monster and the Red Sox "Nation" and their brown-noser in chief, Bill Simmons. So I hate them most of all. Although they did have that long drought without a World Series championship.

I dunno who I hate more, Derek Jeter (his fans are obnoxious), Johan Santana (Mets fans will jump right off than bandwagon unless he wins 30 games this season), or David Ortiz (Red Sox fans are soooo insufferable right now).

Posted by Yankees, Mets and Red Sox are lame | March 15, 2008 2:17 PM

We are seeing an exaggerated case of PHS - post_Hillary syndrome. The condition is marked by hot flushes, irrational rage, foot-stamping and an inability to deal witn reality. So far, the condition has been confined mostly to older women (Taylor Marsh, Jeralyn Merritt) who operate blogs read by supporters of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, it is now spreading outside the blogosphere, and afflicting a small demographic of particularly rabid Clinton partisans. Generally, PHS develops more severely in cases with heavier Clinton exposure. There is no currently available cure, but doctors have suggested rest in quiet, dark rooms, and drinking lots of fluids. It also helps not to watch the news or to discuss the primaries. Sufferers will probably recover given time. There are no known fatalities as yet.

Posted by rhialto | March 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Is it too much to ask that the Clintonistas also go on strike from posting comments on the Atlantic blogs? It's a hateful cesspool of anti-Clinton sentiment here too. Really! You don't want to be here. Teach us all a lesson and go the fuck away.

Posted by J.B. | March 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Matt

I know many Democrats that will not vote for Obama. He's intelligent and charismatic. However, at this point in history, we feel that Obama is not ready. Many voters are looking for someone with solutions, and Hillary hits all the benchmarks.

If the choice is between McCain or Obama, I will take my chances with McCain.

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Many voters are looking for someone with solutions, and Hillary hits all the benchmarks.

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 2:22 PM

It must be nice to have avoided the news for the last 16 years....

Posted by davids | March 15, 2008 2:28 PM

EWard, nobody cares if you're going to sulk with McCain if your candidate loses. So be it.

People do care about the facts, tho. So, I have to ask about this:

"The Prime Minister's Office confirmed "they only received a briefing from the Obama campaign and not Clinton." They made this statement the day after the bluegloggin column. Get your facts straight!"

Can you back that up with a reputable link, please? And who are you quoting there? I ran that quote through Google and came up with nada.

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 2:33 PM

Obamaniacs
damn crazies

Posted by john | March 15, 2008 2:41 PM

I think with Obama's close friendship to Wright it shows Obama's lack of judgement and decision making and I can't see him commander-in-chief. If Obama is willing to spend 20 years listening to Wright whom I consider a racist it speaks volumes of Obama's character. That said, if Obama is our nominee I will not vote for him. Also, when the right wing christian coalition and the pentecostals see all these Wright videos they will come out in droves to vote for McCain. I also believe this Wright issue has caused the independants to distance themselves from Obama. The only solution is for Clinton to be the nominee and she is the only candidate that can defeat McCain.

Posted by James | March 15, 2008 2:42 PM

Several of the comments on this blog illustrate why, after watching Wright's sermons, a lot of Jewish voters are re-thinking their support of Obama. He must have inherited the Ron Paul crowd. Whatever the reason, his campaign is rapidly becoming a haven for anti-Semites and black racists--just as Hillary's has (temporarily) picked up a lot of Bush Limbaugh white racists. But don't kid yourselves--there's plenty of racial and gender discrimination among liberals, too. Who would have ever imagined that the party would end up like this? It's fantastically depressing--and just another reminder of why. like Joe Lieberman, I'm not a Democrat any more. Identity politics and anti-Americanism have really worked out well, haven't they?

Posted by Hope Muntz | March 15, 2008 2:52 PM

From: Cathy

As a third generation lifelong Democrat, I will never vote for Obama. I feel he has used extremely poor judgement in his association with Minister Wright. I can not imagine having his little daughters sitting in that church since their birth. I totally feel Michelle is not proud of America and I fear where Obama would lead this country. God bless America and Hillary.

Posted by Cathy | March 15, 2008 2:53 PM

"The only solution is for Clinton to be the nominee and she is the only candidate that can defeat McCain."

Why would Democrats ignore the voters in the primary process to nominate a candidate who has run one of the worst campaigns in history? She started with a big lead and tons of money. She's now far behind in the pledged delegate count. Her only slim chance to win is to destroy her Democratic opponent and tear her party apart. And you'll note that she never makes the "I'm the only candidate who can beat McCain" argument. All the polling data shows that Obama is much stronger in the general election.

Posted by Spike3905 | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM

EWard:

There is a difference between NOT voting for Obama (which, though I disagree...I could understand) and voting FOR McCain (no one who does so is truly a Democrat).

In other words...I believe that some Democrats will leave the Presidential option blank on their ballots...while some who falsely claim to be Democrats will vote for McCain.

It goes both ways too...there are Obama supporters who will not vote or vote for McCain should Hillary get the nod just as there are Hillary supporters who will not vote who vote for McCain should Obama get the nod.

While I think it is a shame that some Democrats will opt not to vote, I can at least understand where they are coming from. I think that Democrats that opt to vote for McCain are fools of the highest order.

Posted by Matt | March 15, 2008 3:10 PM

Marc Ambinder is TOTALLY wrong.

And we've seen it this week. Obama is being revealed as the divisive figure in this race, the one who ran against his own party (Bill Clinton legacy) rather than running against Republicans (George W. Bush). He said he would be able to get Republicans to vote for him in a General Election while he disparaged everything he could about the Clinton legacy. He said he would be a transformational figure like Reagan-- but Reagan's 11th Commandment "thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans" has been broken by Obama.

Obama has viciously DIVIDED HIS OWN PARTY by running AGAINST his party and that's how it's been part of the filthy part of the online blogosphere fight. Obama's voters have followed their leader in behaving very poorly towards other Democrats.

Obama started by calling Clintons "old" and part of the "old fights" but it has descended into far worse. When countered with the idea that he was too youthful and inexperienced, Obama did the cardinal sin of this election by ruining his own postracial message. His surrogates claimed that was calling him a "boy" as in the racial sense. Obama's party has been dividing this Party further by having surrogates cry "racism" EVERY SINGLE TIME he loses a big contest, or is asked about his almost nonexistent record of CREATING change. IT'S 3 TIMES AND COUNTING, AND NOW WE KNOW WHY.

Obama's Dirty Little Secret-- he and his supporters, starting with Markos himself are the nastiest, most divisive people out there.

This week, with the revelations that Obama's own minister of 20 years who wrote the Audacity of Hope sermon that was supposed to be the spark that led Obama to become our nation's reconciler--even the person who would "save our souls" (talk about audacity) is actually a black separatist who questions the role of Israel, and blames white people for everything has made the backstory to Obma's divisive tactics more clear. We now know that the spiritual apple doesn't fall far from the spiritual tree.

Obama is EXACTLY like his horrific minister Reverend Wright, both first TALK about racial and religious reconciliation, and then once anything happens they INSTANTLY USE DIVISIVE RACE BAITING TACTICS meant to fuel the fire. Get the supporters crazy, angry, and ready for a fight.

That's the true Obama.

NOTE THE RACE DIVIDING, RACE BAITING PATTERN OF OBAMA HIMSELF, DAILY KOS, AND MEDIA SURROGATES:

HIS 3 LOSSES, QUESTIONS OF EXPERIENCE ALL FOLLOWED BY RACIAL ATTACK

1) After FIRST LOSS NH-- Jesse Jackson III claimed "Hillary didn't cry for Katrina, but she cried to win NH."

Obama's supporters screamed it was the Bradley effect, and the white supporters Axelrod, Chris Matthews (at the time) and Markos were joined by some African American journalists in yelling about racism every day. In actuality, Obama failed to close the deal. He lost well within the margin of error fair and square in a region that has a black Governor right next door.

Deval Patrick, Gov. of MA (maybe you've heard of him, obviously Obama had and was soon to copy whole passages of his speeches). Patrick was able to get New Englanders to vote for him, Obama simply lost.

2) SECOND LOSS-- In NV with MUST WIN STATE SC on the way-- Obama's South Carolina chair releases 4 Page memo to Tim Russert and others claiming word "fairytale" somehow meant Bill Clinton was a racist, and that Hillary Clinton who has been personally inspired to public life by an early experience with Martin Luther King was actually denigrating him (she did nothing of the kind).

Obama is supposed to have the perfect biography and the perfect judgment. If other black leaders question if selling drugs is a perfect biography and perfect judgment--the Clintons were blamed with being racist there too.

Forget the fact that Bill Clinton supports black causes every day of his life, Obama's supporters wanted to do anything to ruin his relationship with African Americans just to get Obama their votes.

3 THIRD LOSS-- AGAIN OBAMA LOSES MARCH 4TH AND IS QUESTIONED ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. So what does Markos Moulitsas of Dailykos do?

HE RACE BAITED. MARKOS WAS SO SURE OBAMA WOULD WIN MARCH 4TH THAT HE WAS QUOTED TAUNTING HILLARY CLINTON IN ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE. WHEN OBAMA FAILED TO CLOSE THE DEAL FOR THE THIRD TIME, MARKOS OF DAILYKOS HIMSELF STARTED RACE BAITING.

Markos front paged a supposedly darkened flyer of Obama (proved to be the totally normal result of putting video from debate on flat paper) and said HILLARY DARKENED IT LIKE OJ SIMPSON HAD BEEN DARKENED.

WHEN HIS FLYER-GATE DIDN'T SELL, HE TURNED TO GERALDINE FERRARO. He spent days front paging stories about how lifelong Democrat, progressive and supporter of liberal causes GERALDINE FERRARO was actually a racist. Why? She didn't think a woman with Obama's experience could be President, she thought that a white male with little experience but many college supporters would end up with far less media support and public interest (LIKE JOHN EDWARDS) and how did she know all this? She had been picked to be a VP based entirely on her gender. AND SHE SAID SO.

BUT STILL, MARKOS, OBAMA AND OBAMA SUPPORTERS ATTEMPT TO TOTALLY DESTROY THE CAREER OF LIFELONG DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES BY RACEBAITING EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA LOSES.

SO FAR, 3 FAILED KNOCKOUTS BY OBAMA, 3 RACIST DIATRIBES. AND NOW WE KNOW-- DAILY KOS ENGAGES IN RACE BAITING.

THAT'S THE LEGACY OF OBAMA--DEMOCRATIC DIVISION. PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS AND OBAMA CAMPAIGN ITSELF HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DEVOUR THE CAREERS OF FELLOW DEMOCRATS INCLUDING CLINTONS AND FERRARO JUST TO KEEP THEIR CANDIDATE FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!! OR TO MITIGATE HIS 3 FAILED KNOCKOUTS!

OBAMA THE DEMOCRATIC DIVIDER.

Posted by ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses | March 15, 2008 3:28 PM

Y'know, I've been an Obama supporter for over a year now, but I have to say, your argument has convinced me to switch over to Clinton.

I think it was the judicious use of the all-caps that really made your point.

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 3:33 PM

From Cathy

ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses is right on the mark. How eloquently you write and how true your message is. All Democrats please unite behind Hillary and let's take back the White House and stand proud by America again.

Posted by cathy | March 15, 2008 3:37 PM

This strike seems petulant and counter-productive. Why would I be impressed with people who are unable to engage with people who disagree with them? For all this talk about the evil MSM, this further underscores that a lot of "writers" in the blogosphere are pretenders --- unimpressive amatuers who lack the stomach for vigorous debate. Many of the posts here similarly include ad hominem attacks on a candidate's supporters -- they are rude, they are whiny, they are insolent, they are sexist, etc. These aren't the types of arguments that serious people use when they want to persuade someone. They are tantrums.

Posted by John D. | March 15, 2008 3:42 PM

From Cathy
ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses is right on the mark. How eloquently you write and how true your message is

This is snark. Right?
Has to be.
The Hillary supporters I know are not unhinged.

Posted by Matt | March 15, 2008 3:52 PM

Those of you completely aghast by Obama's relationship to Rev. Wright, perhaps you should listen to what one of Clinton's spiritual mentors, a man she deemed "a great American" and "one of my heroes", had to say about our Independence Day:

"This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn...your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

You can read the entire speech by this hatemonger here (sorry, no Youtube): http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=162

This man clearly hates America. I for one am disgusted by Sen. Clinton's lack of patriotism now.

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 3:53 PM

All the polling data shows that Obama is much stronger in the general election.

Posted by Spike3905 | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM T

Really?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Obama vs McCain - McCain leads +0,3

Clinton vs McCain - Tie

Why do Obamaniacs keep telling lies?

Posted by John | March 15, 2008 3:55 PM

eward: yes, we get it. Obama gets it, you go McCain. We ALL get it, no need to go on and on about your lack of support for the other Democratic member of our party.

I have to say that its sad and ironically funny that Clinton supporters are following their dear leader down this path of vitriol and burned bridges.

Obama has his faults (like everyone) and is an ever-evolving candidate (like Hillary) but its important to remember that its SHE who made the conscious decision to make Obama seem unelectable after the "math" of the primaries became apparent to everyone. Its been her camp that has really brought the visceral hatred/resentment to the primary to which we are all getting very worn down from.

I hope eward is just an outlier as opposed to a real trend because if Obama does lose this general election to McCain because of wide defections of HRC's electorate, its going to be her who history reserves that harshest judgment for. She made the decision to inflame the electorate because it was her only path to the nomination after her team's incompetency in the earlier stages of the primary, singuarly exhibited by the campaign's decision to not compete in caucus states. She may have won this without resorting to Rovian tactics but the sad truth is she didn't.... and now we are where we are at: a sad place.

Posted by Losdela | March 15, 2008 3:57 PM

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

- John McCain

Will Obama call Wright and Farrakhan what they are: agents of intolerance?

That's why I'll vote McCain.

Posted by Peterfromtexas | March 15, 2008 12:46 PM

Well put. After this campaign, I can't vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Posted by DemJew | March 15, 2008 3:58 PM

Losdela,

it's really none of my business (my party finnaly got rid of Bushites and Christianites and my guy won the primary), but I couldn't avoid a smile after reading your post: for the past weeks I've been reading Obama supporters saying they could never vote for Hillary in the general. I can't see either side can make a case of that.

Posted by Anti-Bush Republican | March 15, 2008 4:07 PM

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/03/15/mccain-camp-disputes-wright-parsley-comparison/

"A campaign official disputes that argument, adding that any comparison between the Wright and Parsley situations is ”totally absurd.” The official notes that Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, whereas McCain received Parsley’s endorsement at one event and has never attended his service.

According to the campaign, McCain met Parsley for the first time three weeks ago, when the pastor served as an introductory speaker at a February 26 rally in Cincinnati."

How dirty can obamaniacs go, comparing Parsley and Wright?? Shame on you! (this includes you, Marc).

Posted by Andrew P. | March 15, 2008 4:39 PM

ABR,

Ya, I agree. And I kinda feel that meme too, as much as I try to fight it.

But I also feel its an effect to a cause by HRC. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "She started it!" knowing that this argument doesn't really matter anyway.

:0)

I guess we're all fucked. The real concern that I have? That McCain wins, doesn't become of super-horrible president and delays health care and getting us out of Iraq for another 8 fucking years. Seen from this perspective, HRC and BHO don't seem that different, do they Clinton supporters? BTW: What's with all the name calling, John? Jeez, its almost like we're another species or something...

Posted by Losdela | March 15, 2008 4:44 PM

John,
Hinging the claim of a "lie" a .3% difference in average polls is more than a bit disingenuous, particularly when the margin of error on all of the polls is far wider. Polls have generally shown Obama ahead nationally, and -- particularly -- in more swing states. The difference in both poll averages is Rasmussen, which has a poor reputation, and probably understates both Obama and HRC's support. If Calling people liars based on this evidence is hysterical.

Posted by Deluxe | March 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Sorry -- Delete "if" in the last sentence

Posted by Deluxe | March 15, 2008 4:54 PM

"Seen from this perspective, HRC and BHO don't seem that different, do they Clinton supporters?"

Sure, they do.

Because Obama doesn't stand a chance against McCain.

Posted by No Blood for Hubris | March 15, 2008 4:59 PM

Oh Marc. Why did you do it? Why did you give the whiners column space?

I and others on daily kos have been personally dissed by Allegre in comments as well as by other Hillary supporters. Whatever Allegre wrote, trust me s/he gave as good as s/he got. That you raise the visibility of people who complain when others push back does not reflect well on your judgment.

Well, you've invited them and their venom to your blog. Enjoy.

Posted by vbdietz | March 15, 2008 5:21 PM

"ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses"

You know what makes this whole silly line of argument so funny? It emphasizes the fact that Obama has had three major "losses" during the course of the primary season. How big were those losses?

Well, the first was New Hampshire, which Obama "lost" but beat Clinton in delegates 12-11. Then Obama "lost" Nevada, but beat Clinton in delegates 15-14. Then there were the "losses" of March 4, when Clinton won three states but only netted 3 more delegates than Obama.

So the cumulative effect of Obama's three major "losses" during the entire campaign has been to lose just ONE delegate!

But Clinton lost 11 contests in a row! On just February 14, Clinton lost three states in one day, all by huge margins. In that single day, Obama gained a net total of 38 delegates!

Obama has now amassed an unstoppable lead of 160 pledged delegates since February 3. But the Clinton campaign has felt from the beginning that she was entitled to the nomination. So to them, the inexorable math is a petty detail that should not stand in her way of her coronation. But the American people have decided otherwise. It's a tragedy that Clinton prefers to tear up the Democratic Party rather than acknowledge that Obama has won fair and square.

Posted by Spike3905 | March 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Don't you just love when people raving away like "ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses" and "EWard" call the Obama supporters uncivil and devisive?

Do they listen to themselves at all?

Nuff Said.

Posted by Nuff Said McGreavey | March 15, 2008 6:00 PM

Don't you just love when people raving away like "ObamaRacebaitingAfter3Losses" and "EWard" call the Obama supporters uncivil and devisive?

Do they listen to themselves at all?

Nuff Said.

Posted by Nuff Said McGreavey | March 15, 2008 6:00 PM

Deluxe and others,

I never said that Clinton was ahead on most polls or anything of that sort. What I called a lie was this sentence: "All the polling data shows that Obama is much stronger in the general election."

ALL the polling data? MUCH STRONGER?

Really?

Nope, it's a lie.

Posted by John | March 15, 2008 6:04 PM

it really is amazing how good the discussion has become at kos since the whining racist clinton scum wet themselves and scurried off. Hopefully kos will just ban their scummy republican-lite asses for good an all.

Posted by markiemark | March 15, 2008 6:04 PM

"it really is amazing how good the discussion has become at kos since the whining racist clinton scum wet themselves and scurried off. Hopefully kos will just ban their scummy republican-lite asses for good an all.

Posted by markiemark"

markiemark = enjoying his bubble

Posted by hadenough | March 15, 2008 6:12 PM

No Blood for Hubris:

I guess we'll soon have the time and place to test that theory out.

:0)

Posted by Losdela | March 15, 2008 6:43 PM

Are diarists like Alegre even paid for their work on Kos? How they can be "on strike" if they aren't? How insulting is it to actual union members to take a nonsensical break from one's typewritten rants, and call it a fucking strike? So, so lame...

Posted by Will | March 15, 2008 6:47 PM

hadnenough = never going to get enough

Posted by markiemark | March 15, 2008 6:50 PM

Ok. I am back on board the Obama bandwagon!!! Yeah. I was distraught and defeated. So I went to the obama site, picked up the phone and called 40 people in Pennsylvania. I didn't get too many voters but I didn't hear any hate in the voices of the people I spoke to. Sure, they were independents or Republcans, but no matter, they were open to listen to me. That helped. Then I later when to the obama blog and watched a video of Barack in Indiana. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsqDTVmlKk

Obama hasn't quit. Obama is keeping it real. Obama is so pitch perfect. I got teary again, but not about Rev. Wright, but about the future.

Yes. We. Can.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 15, 2008 6:57 PM

I am puzzled that anyone would take one, very second-string diarist from Kos as remotely significant. Alegre was a mediocre writer, factually challenged, and certainly not a major figure on Kos. Why Ambinder wasted an article on this smallest of tantrums is hard to imagine.
Anyone else notice that Obama gained more delegates in Iowa today?

Posted by bluemass | March 15, 2008 7:02 PM

It seemed to me that Ambinder has it backwards on the "Algere strike" page comments: while some supported Algere, most ridiculed her self-importance / hypocrisy / inaccuracy (regarding the use of "strike" considering she's not losing income or associated with a union).

Posted by E. Floyd | March 15, 2008 7:53 PM

It seems to me Ambinder has it backwards: most comments were not supportive of Algere and her fellow "strikers."

Posted by E. Floyd | March 15, 2008 7:56 PM

Strike? Gawd. What are these childish people risking?

Someone needs to read A People's History of the United States or just see the movie Matewan.

Posted by Cee | March 15, 2008 8:01 PM

Kevin,

You can find the story about Obama, Nafta, and Canada by typing in Canadian Press & Obama on Google.

Posted by EWard | March 15, 2008 8:07 PM

I am sick of these muthafuckin strikes on my muthafuckin blogs

Posted by Lloyd Webber | March 15, 2008 8:16 PM

They can go hang out on MyDD...it can be a love fest for them.

Posted by rikyrah | March 15, 2008 8:28 PM

to robert ethan and all you pro-Clintonista hacks out there:

Don't you all have a Klan rally to go to or something? With all the racebaiting of the Clinton campaign and your blind support of it, I figured you'd be out there burning crosses and lynching black people instead of posting here.

Posted by firebrand | March 15, 2008 8:29 PM

I know many Democrats that will not vote for Obama. He's intelligent and charismatic. However, at this point in history, we feel that Obama is not white. Many voters are looking for someone with less melanin, and Hillary hits all the benchmarks.
If the choice is between McCain or Obama, I will take my chances with McCain.

There, fixed that for you.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 15, 2008 8:38 PM

Eward,

"You can find the story about Obama, Nafta, and Canada by typing in Canadian Press & Obama on Google."

I know the story about Obama, CLINTON, Nafta, and Canada already. But you not only made a dubious claim that hasn't been backed up in any story I've seen (that Canada confirmed it was just the Obama campaign and not the Clinton campaign that spoke with them), you also produced a quote -- in quotation marks -- that doesn't exist.

So, you've answered my question. You were just making it up as you went along, as I thought. That's pretty low.

Posted by Kevin | March 15, 2008 9:04 PM

I am trying to understand how this is different from "I'm taking my ball and going home, but first I have to post about it or I'm afraid no one will notice."

Posted by Deborah | March 15, 2008 9:24 PM

"Eward,

"You can find the story about Obama, Nafta, and Canada by typing in Canadian Press & Obama on Google."

I know the story about Obama, CLINTON, Nafta, and Canada already. But you not only made a dubious claim that hasn't been backed up in any story I've seen (that Canada confirmed it was just the Obama campaign and not the Clinton campaign that spoke with them), you also produced a quote -- in quotation marks -- that doesn't exist.

So, you've answered my question. You were just making it up as you went along, as I thought. That's pretty low."

This story is still being investigated, but the gist of it is that Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, leaked a conversation with an Obama aide and told CTV he had had a similar conversation with the Clinton camp. CTV ran the story and implicated both campaigns.

The key point is really that the Canadian government was the one that sought out both campaigns for comment. The Clinton camp wisely (for once) kept their mouths shut while the Obama campaign fobbed them off with a quick word not to worry about campaign rhetoric. This is what got reported.

The only reason that Clinton's involvement is still in question is that CTV is standing by their original story. Their source (Brodie) named Clinton as well as Obama and now he is saying he can't remember the conversation. Brodie may well be lying, but there really isn't much besides his word that he had heard anything from Clinton.

The whole story, really, is a tempest in a teapot. Neither Clinton nor Obama really acted that badly, although this is one case where Clinton's team did a better job than Obama's.

To reiterate: this is Canadian malfeasance. A government official asked the campaigns for some privileged information and leaked it. That's all there is to it.

Posted by Splitting Image | March 15, 2008 10:54 PM

I knew this was going to happen. About a week ago I stopped discussing politics on some of my favorites sites because I'm sick of the anti Hillary hatred. I consider myself a progressive, but I no longer feel welcome at The Daily Kos or HuffPo. I stopped listening to Randi Rhodes, too. I'm sick of the anti-Hillary venom.

Posted by Rusty | March 16, 2008 12:41 AM

The problem is with people who think they have a right to make factually inaccurate statements and not get called on it. Telling someone they are wrong when they state that cats give birth to puppies is not a personal attack.

Also an issue is that some people on the left are aware of institutional racism and others find the existence of the notion offensive.

Posted by Velvet Elvis | March 16, 2008 1:09 AM

The bigger question is "Why did it take so long for Hillary supporters to walk out of DailyKos?" It amazes me how long the few stray members of Camp Clinton stood and took it on the chin.

DailyKos is no longer a blog that welcomes Democrats. It is a blog that welcomes and celebrates Obama supporters. No one else need apply.

I was an active poster there since 2003 and I've called it quits.

Posted by Radiowalla | March 16, 2008 1:30 AM

I find it funny how many times Allegre has spammed this comment board to just keep promoting her new blog site - by the way, I am a "she" and not supporting Ms Clinton any further after all the lies, half truths, framing of Obama on her NAFTAgate, endorsing the opposition over a fellow democrat and just being an overall self-serving power seeking shrew.... a word you would only hear from fifty plus, huh?

I do not know much about Allegre, but she dished it out just about as much as she got it along with others who supported Clinton in their PERSONAL attacks on Obama supporters.

Just keeping it real here!

Posted by marley619 | March 16, 2008 2:31 AM

Hillary's got problems. A lot of problems. And we're gonna put them out for everyone to see. Just because The Donkey Queen has not been able to seriously harm Obama is not a reason to try and hijack the DNC. Take some ritalin and have a time out for hebbin sake.

Just don't watch this clip, Radiowalla. You'll explode.
Tracy Morgan Responds to Tina Fey
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsFI4Wp6kI

Posted by kravitz | March 16, 2008 2:41 AM

Now that the Hillary Clinton supporters have entered the depression phase ("they will be very sorry when I'm gone!" "They are completely unfair to us!" "If you don't like me, I take my ball and go home!") I hope it will happen soon with Clinton too. The sooner this happens the sooner we finally progress to acceptance.

Posted by Mark H. | March 16, 2008 7:59 AM

The Strike by Hillary writers at Daily Kos is actually the first wave of deserters from her national campaign. These things are always opportunity based. Its all in chapter 3 AM of the James Carville playbook. That's the chapter where Bill calls Hill at 3 AM to let her know that he can't find his car keys, can't remember where he parked his car, and is stuck in a phone booth across the street from some Wal-Mart (that's the only thing that wasn't boarded up)wearing a blue dress because he also can't find his chinos.

Posted by JFive | March 16, 2008 8:37 AM

Anyone remember the first shot fired in this war and who fired it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

Posted by Susan | March 16, 2008 9:25 AM

That "Vote Different" video was fabulous. Although Obama's campaign had nothing to do with it (Susan, you are disengenuous here) when I first saw that video, Clinton had more money, more superdelegate endorsements. more institutional machinery = she wins the nomination. The only problem was that when the voters started voting, they chose someone else.

It's not the hate, it's the math.

So, if Clinton voters are upset, don't blame Obama. Blame the voters. They are rejecting Hillary left and right.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 16, 2008 10:05 AM

Heh:

Hooray! The retard contingent is going elsewhere! Maybe they can strike forever and save us from their insipid drivel.

Ah, yes. The "casual poetry" of the Obama campaign. Respectful, inclusive, and all that.

Face it, the Obama Fan Base fought a flame war to control Kos, and won. And now there are consequences. Every action begets an equal and opposite reaction.

Posted by lambert strether | March 16, 2008 10:58 AM

Or, alternatively, every stupid comment begets an equally stupid but opposite comment from another dipshit.

Posted by strether lambert | March 16, 2008 11:33 AM

First, right-wing anti-Clinton propaganda blankets mass media for thirteen years.

Next, right wing fundie controlled Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security have billions for secret new domestic spying. Just for terrorism? Turns out NSA taps every email, phone call, credit card, bank domestically.

They don't listen to content? No warrant required, directly into ATT hubs. Nobody can check. No oversight.

Domestic spying not include covert action to disrupt and discredit ‘domestic enemies?’ Bush, Cheney, GOP said Democrats work for terrorists. McCain said terrorists would do something to take the upcoming election away from him.

Unlimited spy powers under Bush/Cheney/Rove not used against Clinton, Obama, Democrats, the left, anti-war --as in 1972? Left blogs not manipulated or controlled? All ‘pure accident’?

Church Committee, April 26 1976. “D. Using Covert Action To Disrupt And Discredit Domestic Groups” at http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIcd.htm

Posted by HL | March 16, 2008 2:44 PM

Interesting that the argument presented about the lack of civility plays out here as well. I never saw a team that percieved itself as winning that seemed so determined to beat up its "losing" opponent.

Lambert Stretcher is sandwiched between two writers who certainly help strengthen his point!

Posted by Antwon Depredieu | March 16, 2008 2:46 PM

I agree Hillary sucks, but at least she's not a racist, anti-semite, America-hater like that scum Obama.

Posted by dave | March 16, 2008 3:28 PM

Ellen, I'm not disingenuous at all. I didn't blame that video on the Obama campaign. I know exactly where it came from. At issue here is the flame war between supporters of the candidates. Disingenuous= a movement claiming to champion inclusiveness, new politics, and uniting all Americans that has in fact morphed into an angry "burn the witch!" mob.

Have there been other youth movements like this in history? I can think of one.

Posted by Susan | March 16, 2008 3:52 PM

Susan, I believe it's traditional to liken Obama's supporters to Hitler's Youth AND the Red Chinese. You need to do both at once. Unfortunately, for anyone conversant with those historical periods the comparison is pretty laughable. After the election the Clinton supporters will not be bundled aboard freight trains and shipped to re-education camps. They won't even be forced to wear silly hats. Arguing "Well, I'll FEEL that way, and so Obama supporters/trolls who say mean things are exactly like Nazis" betrays a feeling of aggrandizement that, well, kind of matches the Kos entry.

Posted by Deborah | March 16, 2008 4:05 PM

Judging from the nasty tone of many of the comments seen here, no wonder Alegre and others are leaving dalykos. I stopped posting there long ago because of the violence and threats from BO's cult.

Posted by twanda | March 16, 2008 6:49 PM

The recent revelations about Obama's "spiritual advisor," the virulently racist Rev. Wright, have made Barack (does he really have BO?) unelectable. President McCain is in your future.

steve

Posted by Stephen R. Maloney | March 16, 2008 10:24 PM

Yikes! So this is where all the Pro-Hillary ex-Kos posters have come. Crimmeney! Did you notice the level of debate drop about about 100 points? It's suddenly like the Washington Post comments section here. All ranting and moaning and frothing at the mouth, along with the paradoxical combination of freely slandering and indignation at slander. Sorry, Marc, but it looks like I'm switching to Kos.

Posted by J. Myers | March 16, 2008 11:25 PM

Honestly, in a lot of cases I'm having trouble telling the difference here between posts that are pro-Hillary and those that are merely conservative trolls trying to muddy the waters. It's almost as though someone has a vested interest in creating dissension among Democrat-leaning voters. Hmmmm. I sure hope it's not a Democrat.

Do you think it possible that the nastiest, most offensive comments here are from Republican trolls masquerading as supporters of one faction or another? It'd be interesting to do an analysis comparing known, frequent posters to new posters by vehemence of expression. Maybe we're all being gas-lighted.

Posted by J. Myers | March 16, 2008 11:38 PM

I've spent the morning searching around the net, looking at this new phenom of the blogosphere, "Alegre", BREAKING!: "Writers go on strike at lefty DailyKos"..and it's all so pathetic and, well-pretty dumb, too.
There are far too many signs and breadcrumbs one would have to miss:
Case in point: "I've been part of the Daily Kos community almost since its inception."

- Really? What year was that?

"It is no longer the diversely rich, tolerant community it once was. The atmosphere has become toxic for all but the most virulent Obama supporters. Sexism is rampant, expletives serve as discussion points, and the hatred directed at Hillary Clinton and her supporters is untenable."

blah, blah, blah.

Now, why is it that almost all these posts sound like they were written by Lanny Davis? Why do they all make exactly the same points? and why do most of them include the final (completely self-defeating and telling) threat that all the writers will vote for McCain if HRC doesn't get the nomination?
Joe Lieberman hired Lanny to say these same things for hime last time around. Google is your friend- look it up.
There's not a major movement here- just a few operatives who don't realize how they are giving themselves away- and I'm not going to help them with any more hints.
Seriously, though- this is a scorched earth approach which doesn't include any higher goals than a Clinton victory no matter what- no alternatives and no dissent.
And no vision at all.
Both sad and scary, but thankfuly..
not enough votes either.
-Brad

Posted by Brad_LA | March 17, 2008 12:26 PM

It's true--it's the Daily Obama now, and you can't even raise questions about him without being trashed. You can trash Clinton all the time, but Obama gets a pass for everything, even tho he's hurting the entire party in multiple ways--let alone progressive and liberal ideals and needs.

Blatant lies and dirty tricks can only be aired there when they come from Clintons. When they come from Obama's campaign, they're all excused.

Posted by amberglow | March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

That's right, take this opportunity to dump on Clinton a little more, because every time you do, one more Clinton supporter says "f*** Barack Obama".

Your online vitriol generated this war and it will end, if Obama survives his scandals and gets the nomination, with the majority of Clinton's supporters voting for McCain.

I know, because I went from someone who would gladly support any Democratic nominee, to someone who will support anyone but Barack OBama. I mean, I got enough of this crap from the right wing wackos last election, so if this is the new Democratic Party, count me out.

Enjoy yourselves while you can.. then try winning the general election without us.

Posted by Mel | March 17, 2008 6:10 PM

This is pathetic. Hillary isn't going to win. The only thing she can accomplish is a McCain victory so that she can run in 2012.

Posted by Dave | March 17, 2008 8:13 PM

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" -- Will Rogers

Posted by LanceThruster | March 18, 2008 6:33 PM

Dear Clinton supporters.
There many worse things to happen to this country politically than HRC losing the DNC nomination.

We Obama supporters for the most part have always kept an open ear and paid close attention to what Hillary has had to say. Even for a few days after the Wright controversy, we even counted ourselves amoungst your ranks. Yes there are Obama zealots out there, but I've seen several polls that point to Obama's supporters being open to supporting Hillary and the contrary for Hillary supporters with respect to Obama.

We don't hate you or Hillary. However we can't help but note the energy and skillfulness of the HRC campaign in drawing this contest out as long as possible, even in the face of a near mathematical impossibility. We're worried that this level of fighting and vitriol is wearing thin on the public and would like it to end soon. So that we can be rested and ready to take McCain on in the general election.

I think Hillary has had her chance to make her point and win a few primaries. She has also seen the negative media attention shift from her to her opponent in a very big way. Her requests have all been answered and yet here we sit, with not much change in the polls, only feeling more exhausted and fed up with the nomination process.

Posted by matt | March 27, 2008 9:33 PM

Well I think that the Daily Kos is a lot like other conservative and liberal sites which is very intolerant of opposing views. Hillary also doesn't do her supporters any favors due to her constant hypocrisy which anyone can see just by putting up her words side by side with each (for example her pro and anti positions against NAFTA).

- ralph

Posted by political forum | April 10, 2008 7:24 PM

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS