Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
I've Got To Get Outta Here For Awhile!
Reading some of the stuff on here today (especially suggestions that Hillary is somehow culpable in the Spitzer problems!) has actually left me feeling sick to my stomach!
Maybe I'll come back in a few days , maybe after the nomination has been settled but , like I've said before, I am an undecided Democratic Voter who is currently so disgusted by some of my fellow Democrats I feel like I have morning sickness! And it's late afternoon!
Advertisement
Comments (32)
They're nuts aren't they? Really short-sighted.
March 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
stravu9,
Yeah, I feel you. Sometimes I have to just take a break and get away from the snark and the mean-spiritedness too.
There are a lot of posters here with nasty personal axes to grind, but there are a lot of nice people here too. It just starts feeling like you have to step over a lot of manure to get to the occasional flower patch.
It's gotten a bit toxic here. Take a break, cleanse and refortify, and come back soon.
:-)
March 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lots of posters here that spew sugar-coated venom while they complain about vinegar.
This must be an example of that "Change you can Believe in."
Don't let them run you off
March 10, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I catch your reference workerbee. Okay, I'll engage.
My comments are genuine...both to strvu9 and to you. Go back and read the thread you were posting on a couple of days ago. I did. You were definitely stirring people up with your gratuitous insults. I begain by asking you to stop because it's not helpful. You responded by insulting me and continuing to shower insults on people on down the thread. GMan's post was a thoughtful one about the importance of voting for the party's candidate, whoever it might be. He (and I) spend a lot of time reminding Obama supporters to cool off, be rational, and remember what's important. You were undermining that with your sanctimony and personal attacks. So I concluded that you enjoy insulting people. I call that acting like an asshole.
You think I'm not a good enough Democrat, and you're a much better one? That's how you come across.
I live in a red state that's trying to build a stronger Democratic Party. It's difficult here. We try to entice independents and former Republicans, and we don't do it by being sanctimonious and preaching to them about how emotionally immature they are (even if it's how we might feel). It might feel good to blow off steam, but IT'S NOT HELPFUL.
Maybe you don't live in the same situation. Do you live in a 'blue' state? I can tell you that your anger (which I don't question the 'righteousness' of) and nastiness would not be helpful--in fact, it's the kind of thing that has independents running from us in droves.
So I asked you to consider the overall usefulness of your comments and you refused, choosing to insult us further. Go back and read the thread and think about whether your comments are helpful.
March 10, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insult "us?"
The collective "us? " Or is that perhaps the royal "us?" Sorry, is the question insulting? I didn't single out Obama fanatics, I was equally as harsh with Hillarybots.
The only people that I "insulted" were people who are so invested in their candidate that they cannot bear to vote for the Dem nominee if it isn't them.
That's no way to build a coalition.
What I find "insulting" is the suggestion that Clinton/Obama are so far away different from each other as to warrant this type of extremist nonsense. They aren't.
As a wise poster around here has said, "truth is the greatest insult." It's too bad you can't handle it, but that isn't really my problem.
Any casual look at the recommended threads these days is testament to one thing. Obama's fans (they can't really be called supporters) have gone over the edge into zealot territory. Sure there's a few Hillary ones, too, but not here. It isn't insulting to the collective you to point it out.
Following someone around a thread and calling them an asshole for stating a strongly held opinion borders on creepiness. I don't hold it against Obama's supporters, just you. I don't think you or the other fanatics that use the collective "we" speak for his supporters anymore than I think Ann Coulter speaks for Republicans.
What is beginning to truly amaze me is that the candidate you blindly support is using the same old smear tactics and zero tolerance for dissent and packaging it up as something "new."
From this Liberal's standpoint the only thing new about it is how closely it resembles GOPUSAs tactics. As far as I'm concerned, it is.
It is also not "insulting" to call childish behavior, childish. If you really want a change. vote for the Dem candidate, whoever it is. Spending your time making up outrage over remarks one candidate has said about yours isn't coalition building. It's divisive, poorly thought out politics.
It's time for a change all right, but the 'collective you' won't be the ones bringing it. You're far too involved in the same old ugly politics of division.
Insulting? Maybe, but it's also the truth.
March 11, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, Obama supporters are "fanatic", but there are NO Hillary fanatics here?
Wow. Good to know.
I consider myself to be a supporter of the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America. At this point in time, that happens to be Barack Obama.
March 11, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said:
Someone said they are beginning to think you folks don't read.
I'd concur.
March 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee,
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that more people will think you're among the jerks around here than LJ. I can start a poll if you like...
March 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you'll feel better after talking to a few other real people in the grocery line. At the grocery store, they make people who call themselves "supporters" stand out on the sidewalk with their handbills and petitions and most voters dislike them, some are even turned off to voting by those types. Here, in the political blogosphere, it's the opposite, they create their own Manichean virtual reality where they are the only citizens. The crucial thing they don't get is that there's a whole bunch of people out there like you lurking, it's not behind closed doors.
March 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stavus:
I hear you. This place can grate on those of us who choose not to ride with the herd of the season, which at this time is virtually unrelentless hatred of Hillary Clinton, mixed with some attempts by decent folks at blending that hatred with a little love for Senator Obama (who doesn't deserve friends like these if ya know what I mean). [By the way, look at the exceedingly narrow scope of the recommended blogs right now and it's almost funny. Almost.]
This is a niche of the blogosphere and it has essentially been dominated for the moment by like-minded folks who happen to loathe Hillary Clinton. But like the right-wing blogs, this is just an echo chamber and it really is quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Take artappraiser's sage advice: check out the folks at the grocery store. They don't know and they don't care about what certain morons write on here. But the good thing about such grocery chats is that although those folks ain't blogging, they do know what's going on in this election.
I've quit this place once or twice over the past year and a half, and one time I embarassed myself by pledging never to return. But I still like it here because I know some posters for awhile now and some of the new folks have something to offer, and I like and respect Josh.
I do hope to see you soon.
Bruce
March 11, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the echo chamber analogy. I was laughing at the front page of the National Enquirer at the grocery store last night. This one happened to be about the Obamas. But all of the candidates will get their turn. I think we all know that these blogs are just the political version of fantasy football. Entertainment. If you want to seriously influence a campaign, you have to work in the campaign. But you can come here and get a feeling of community. Right now, most of the community favors, or pretends to favor Obama. Tired of blogs? Take a break and read The Hunting Of The President by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. It will but your ability to influence world events into a whole new perspective.
March 11, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was actually a post on huffingtonpost.com that actually was trying to connect Obama with Spitzer. Not everything has to do with the election. Clinton's only connection is he was a super for he, if he resigns she loses his vote, buuuut his lt. gov would most likely get that super vote so no net change for hillary.
March 11, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that this is the dimension of the tragedy on which we should be focusing...
But for whatever it's worth, Paterson is a superdelegate by virtue of his membership in the DNC. Should Spitzer resign, he would become both a DNC member and a Governor - meaning that where there had been two Hillary superdelegates, there would now only be one.
March 11, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you don't go away, stravu9. Your sane comments are always ones I deeply appreciate as I stroll through the boisterous locker room known as Talking Points Memo.
March 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong.
He's her superdelegate.
He's part of the NY establishment.
She thinks she can be the choice of party hacks, and then when the party hacks are shown to be hacks, she disowns him.
March 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I was looking for hubs where I could exchange views on a more neutral level, bit objective, you know - calling things by their names.
Didn't expect the fundamentalism I usually reek when I visit the right-wing extremists. (Republicans / the Bush Base.)
Yet I did. And that's sad.
I wonder if TPM is losing visitors?
March 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No less a liberal bastion than the nation discusses this:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=296891
"AN OUCH MOMENT FOR CLINTON...
Hillary Clinton really wanted the endorsement of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer for her presidential race.
She got it.
Now, however, she's got another campaign headache. "
So you may wanna cool it on the "You obama people are so unfair" thing.
March 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
More from the Nation:
HER GOVERNOR'S IN TROUBLE, BUT CLINTON'S NOT TALKING...
The governor of her state -- who also happens to be one of her highest-profile backers -- is in trouble, big trouble.
But Hillary Clinton doesn't want to go there.
Asked about the burgeoning prostitution scandal involving New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, the usually loquacious senator from New York said, "I don't have any comment on that."
Pressed on the matter again, and again, as she was campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton was steadily evasive.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=297109
March 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
More mean unfairness over at that Obama-loving Washington Post:
Hillary Clinton's Spitzer Problem
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/11/hillary_clintons_spitzer_probl_1.html?hpid=topnews
For a supporter, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer sure hasn't done Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton any favors lately.
After all, it was Spitzer who in the view of her advisers started the slide that led her to where she is today, fighting from behind for the Democratic presidential nomination. A question about his proposal to let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses tripped her up in a debate at the end of October and ended 10 months of unquestioned dominance in the nomination race.
Now, his apparent involvement with a prostitution ring has not only distracted from her efforts to take down the front-runner, Sen. Barack Obama, it has brought back unhelpful memories of her own husband's dalliances in office. There on cable television again were pictures of Bill Clinton hugging Monica Lewinsky. And the image of Spitzer's wife standing painfully by his side while he acknowledged unspecified wrongdoing could not help but remind some viewers, and voters, of Hillary Clinton's own stand-by-her-man moment.
March 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, Just look at the headlines of any Soy Boy posts. Just ridiculous and of course all of the Obamaniacs go and recommend it regardless of how specious the argument is.
Yes, TPM is losing visitors, especially those who havent drank the Kool-Aid yet. I think that ANYONE who says they will vote for McCain if theirverybestestcandidateinthewholeworld doesnt get the nomination should be banned. That is just juvenile and the name calling has got to stop as well.
Just look at the post about WMDs. The first comment is 100 (well actually 5) reasons not to vote for Senator Clinton.
Lets have good discussion not Republican talking points.
March 11, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, Just look at the headlines of any Soy Boy posts. Just ridiculous and of course all of the Obamaniacs go and recommend it regardless of how specious the argument is.
TPM is losing visitors? Maybe some, especially those who havent drank the Kool-Aid yet. I think that ANYONE who says they will vote for McCain if theirverybestestcandidateinthewholeworld doesnt get the nomination should be banned. That is just juvenile and the name calling has got to stop as well.
Just look at the post about WMDs. The first comment is 100 (well actually 5) reasons not to vote for Senator Clinton.
Lets have good discussion not Republican talking points.
March 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post was about how ridiculous it was to link HRC to Spitzer, yet the MSM is doing just that. So I guess it's not TPMs problem after all.
March 11, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama rocks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSkd0xrhcQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q
Glad to see that Nancy Pelosi rocks, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ngqjb7J2d4
Sneer away. Obama has our support for a reason. That reason is not going to get lost in all the 'insanity' of this silly season. The insanity is not ours - in fact, it's what motivates many of us to comment - the insanity belongs to that 2/3rds of the candidates still in the running who don't seem all that bothered that 70% of us have become skeptical of the pretend world that Bush asks us to believe in. 1/3rd of the candidates still running asks us to reject Bush's nonsensical view of our role, as Americans, in the world. Come November, 2/3rds of the country will support what that 1/3rd of candidates is offering, and that's why Obama's going to win the White House. John is still in the race because the Republicans couldn't come up with anyone better to lose in November. Hillary is still in the race because we Dems are too damn nice for our own good.
Obama won Texas. Pennsylvania is a side-show. The leadership of the Democratic party is getting fed up with Hillary's antics and it's only a matter of time before this thing gets decided in favor of the obvious front-runner. Hanging around 'hoping' he'll slip up is tantamount to disloyalty to the party. You don't 'hope' for a fellow democrat to slip up, do you? Or don't you? Are you a Dem? Is Hillary? If you're still supporting her scorched earth approach to this process, I have my doubts. Pardon me if that makes a meanie. Deal.
March 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
By voting to fund his nonsensical war...repeatedly? Hmmmm.
March 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course by that logic, you would then prefer the person who did this the least? Right?
March 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your screen name is apt. Loki was a trickster god, always creating discord. Whatever, Loki. I'm confident in my own ability to make the distinctions necessary to cast an informed vote. You Hillary defenders love to complain about the signal-to-noise ratio in the blogosphere these days, but it's the goddam signal-to-noise ratio coming out of your own candidate's campaign that's driving everybody up the wall. You want a little less heat and more light, well, provide some, or STFU. You want to make fun of my candidate for having his head in the clouds but then cast aspersions when he makes decisions with his feet firmly on the ground. Get real.
March 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and did you even watch the Michelle clips I linked to?
C'mon. Are you paying attention? Michelle's saying nothing more than many of us would say given the opportunity - we reject the entire premise of the Bush presidency, the premise that we deserve no better than to be lied to - I'm sick and tired of being told I can't handle the truth. And now the MSM is aiding and abetting the Clinton campaign in hiding the awful truth that Hillary's candidacy is over. The race has been run. The only question now is why is Pennsylvania so damn important? Because it can salvage Hillary's campaign? No. It's because it allows the MSM to ignore the expiration date (March 4th) and keep selling, selling ... and they're gonna keep selling until we all get so sick that they've got no choice but to stop selling because otherwise they'd start killing their customers with the rotten product.
It's over. They made a few extra bucks keeping it on the shelf past the due date. Fine. Time to pull it off the shelf and find something fresh to sell.
March 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And still... He was always was against the war he voted to fund. That one is kind of a drag isn't it? ;^}
March 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only a drag for idiots who don't do nuance. Like you.
March 11, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, "nuance"...that's what we're calling rank political calculations these days? Heh-heh, good to know!
March 11, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it becomes very intense at times, visceral actually.
While Hillary's comments about Spitzer's scandals have so far been very 'wishy-washy', it is irrationally to place blame on her for his doing.
But I will have to second the thoughts of Chino Blanco.
Can someone explain to me how and/or why any Democrat would support Hillary's comments re: McCain, herself, Obama and the Commander in Chief position? How can she still receive the support of Democrats?
Of course, those comments are not defensible. Democrats all over should not only be unwilling to support them or ignore them, but impatient to reject them and renounce them.
I most certainly feel that Pelosi has finally expressed those feelings which gives me a little sigh of relief. But I truly feel that many more Party Leaders should have commented negatively on Hillary's statement.
I find that from her statement on, the conversation is over.
March 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lookingin, you are right, more party leaders should speak up. What HRC did was unacceptable.
"This post was about how ridiculous it was to link HRC to Spitzer, yet the MSM is doing just that. So I guess it's not TPMs problem after all."
March 12, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment