Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Pro-Clinton Bloggers are Giving Up on Their Gal
Kevin Drum.
Atrios.
James Fallows.
And it's not the Wright thing or Snipergate that did it. It's the fact that Hillary has now decided to lie down with the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy."
What is it called when you finally become the thing you hate? Is it just sad? Pathetic? Or is there a better word for it?
Advertisement
Comments (48)
March 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are hardly Pro-Clinton bloggers. Atrios has been pretty silent on his preference, although he says he has been leaning Obama more than Hillary. Kevin Drum voted from Obama. I don't know about Fallows, but the other two cannot be considered pro-Clinton.
March 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it called when you finally become the thing you hate? Is it just sad? Pathetic? Or is there a better word for it?
"Whore"?
March 26, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's a pretty awful choice.
March 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.. now if only we knew what to call you..
March 27, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Fallows has been particularly pro-Hillary Clinton in this round. He's been critical of her campaign strategy for some time. He voted absentee in the DC primary, but it's not clear to me from his blog for whom he marked his ballot.
March 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to Fallows, but neither Atrios or Drum are "pro-Clinton bloggers" by any stretch of the imagination.
March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Four legs good, two legs better!" -George Orwell, Animal Farm
March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin has definitely been sympathetic to Hillary, but as said above, he clearly stated that he voted for Obama on Super Tuesday. I don't follow Atrios that closely.
Call back when it's Taylor Marsh or Armando who's checking out...
March 26, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great avatar...
March 27, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
How come you ascribe Hillary bias to Atrios?
I have not sensed that from his postings. I know some people ascribe Hillary bias to TPM and others ascribe Obama bias to TPM. I've seen both. I prefer both. I have read TPM since 2002 but began commenting only recently. You could say I'm a refugee from some of those overtly pro-Hillary biased blogs. So for me, Atrios and TPM seem almost neutral.
March 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this might more accurately be called 'progressive' bloggers giving up on Clinton. And realistically, she isn't a progressive.
In some ways, this nominating process is about whether the Progressives or the DLC will control the party. Hence the bitterness. Hence the willingness to lose in November to win in Denver.
March 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In some ways, this nominating process is about whether the Progressives or the DLC will control the party. Hence the bitterness. Hence the willingness to lose in November to win in Denver."
You're absolutely right about that, I think.
March 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
March 27, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it called when you finally become the thing you hate? Is it just sad? Pathetic? Or is there a better word for it?
"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?"Whore"?
Posted by rlamoureux
Perhaps it is the frigging chauvinism and sexism.
Tell us all again why whore is okay but Nigger is not?
March 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither is okay. And I don't see how one justifies the other.
March 27, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes John neither is OK and a big part of me is disgusted that it takes that to make a point as important as the role of both racism and sexism in this historic context. We all must examine our motives and perceptions.
Thanks
March 27, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That word doesn't enter my mind when I think of Hillary. Though lately there a lot of other words that have nothing to do with her gender. There are some on both sides of limited capacity or vocabulary that will use a slur but I don't think it's typical of either candidate's supporters.
March 27, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not only sexist it is inaccurate. There are sexist slurs that accuratly insult her. We should refrain from using them because of the sexism even though they are accurate. But this is much worse it is offensive just for offensiveness's sake. I would have just ignored it as it is my policy to never feed the trolls and this is so obviously trollish. By discussing it we just encourage this kind of behavior by giving the poster the attention he craves.
March 27, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pro-Clinton Bloggers are Giving Up
If true, they're the smart ones I guess. I've been saying it for some time now but it doesn't make any difference whether Clinton or Obama wins the nomination. Neither will win in Nov. So we'll have the "historic" step of Obama going one step farther than Jesse Jackson did in 1988.
BFD. Thanks Barry for all you've...uh...given us.
March 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has no chance. A third Bush term? 100 years in Iraq, a military response to every foreign policy crisis, no understanding of the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, no understanding of economics, a desire to extend Bush's disasterous tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy forever, favors further deregulation of the banking and financial services industry in the midst of a credit and foreclosure crisis brought about by lax regulation, deep ties to multi-national corporate lobbyists who are behind the jobs being shipped overseas, reviled by 1/4 - 1/3 of his own party, a stubborn and dogmatic hotheaded SOB with a widely-known reputation for being difficult to work with, and his reputation as a maverick has been replaced with a reputation for being obsequious to the worst elements in his party -- the religious right, the neocons, the wingnuts -- in order to get nominated. Not a chance in million years will either Obama or Clinton lose to McBush. As much as HC's campaign tactics suck, she is immunizing Obama from just the sort of attack you want to run 24/7 between now and the election day -- and Obama's speech in Philadelphia demonstrates what a thoughtful and presidential adult he is, and your reaction to it shows that you are little more than a right wing troll. McCain?? Surely you're not serious.
March 27, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are living in that same fantasy world that Bush occupies where there were WMD, Sadam and AlQieda are in cahoots, and we're winning in Iraq, aren't you?
March 27, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm astonished at your ignorance.
March 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing Hillary with Richard Mellon Scaife, and the reports today about an ongoing relationship between Scaife and the Clintons -- that has to set up some alarm bells in some of Hillary's most ardent supporters.
Terrified me, that's for sure.
March 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
lame post. I've done it myself. I forgive you. but try harder to be accurate.
all these related stories claim Clinton is behind this but I haven't seen proof. Every day some one says "OK now I've had it I hate her now for XYZ." usually they weren't her fan before and they aren't now because they believed the latest garbage thrown at her. I've seen it done to Obama too. It's all silly.
March 27, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fallows and Ambinder say pretty clearly that this is being circulated by Singer. Speaking of lame posts, why don't you revisit you most recent one about Obama's Illinois Senate records. It would be nice to have seen the same skepticism there, don't you think ???
March 27, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
my post did reflect skepticism by labeling Judicial Watch appropriately as conservative. i was not trolling. (tho I do wish I was trolling for fish in a boat w/ my dad and brothers right now) I sincerely believe this is important because judicial watch saying what they just said is going to make all the super delegates take a fresh hard look at his state senate record-or lack therof.
I agree that judicial Watch went after Cheney/energy to build "credibility" in a sinister way but it worked. they have cred at TPM and on the hill.
The narrative from Obama's skeptics is that he did nothing the first yrs in the state senate cuz no dem could do anything. then, when dems had power he hitched his wagon to a shady party boss to create a history that would appeal to presidential voters. BUT he scrubbed his record of all details about who he did favors for and when he met with who and how he used his new power to help those who helped him.
It does help that it is someone named Patrick Fitzerald, hero of the Libby prosecution, who is prosecuting Rezko right now. he is an honorable man and will keep things very tightly honest and fair in the prosecution. Super delegates, the ones who will decide the next POTUS, are going to want all the republican talking points on Obama's state senate career, and ties to the shady side of the Chicago machine answered satisfactorily.
this is part of obama's much needed good second act. just as Penn's social skills hurt Clinton, and he needs to be side lined. Axelrod is not known for being a good closer. maybe he doesn't need to be sidelined but he does need serious assistance or Obama may not be able to close the deal. Clinton supporter's only hope is if Obama, like Edwards, can't close the deal.
I believe Clinton's short list includes only one name. that is how she will propose to heal the party. that will be very persuasive to supers.
All this assumes we end the voting in June with Clinton leading or close in popular votes and Obama leading in pledged delegates. June is ages away and many surprises will come out.
otherwise Pelosi has made it clear what she would do and it would be an ugly takedown of Hillary by Pelosi, and Hillary would take some leadership position in the senate and bow out before that ever happened.
hey DF i really could have written much of your post about your personal politics, my own politics are radical-in the way you describe. i think that is because we want the America we learned about in school, not the one we have now. and i believe kusinnich and Paul both spoke truth to power in ways i wish could sell. Paul ONLY on the war. kusinnich on quite a few important issues but not all.
My true love is McGovern even now, and I really do trust Hillary for all the reasons he and Joe Wilson do. I've been a political junkie since watergate and feel like I've known her 35 years.
i also feel the same as he about Obama, and this contest.
help red-to blue dems. send money to Charlie Brown (CA-04) his opponent, tom mcclintock is another John Doolitle. charlie brown, an honest man, & iraq war hero.
March 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
57andfemale are you really "terrified" by this?
March 27, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scaife IS the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. If not terrifying, would you at least admit it's illuminating? More than any of us, Hillary knows who this man is and the smears he financed against her family. She says Obama is using "Ken Starr tactics" when his campaign calls for her tax returns but she has no problem legitimizing the man who accused the Clintons of murder and drug-running?
She meets with Scaife and his editorial board. Her campaign passes a photo to Drudge and issues a non-denial. Bill goes on Limbaugh's show as Rush begins to promote "Operation Chaos" to help prolong the process and hurt Obama. And Fox News seems strangely pro-Hillary lately don't they?
Do Democrats know what's good for them or not? I can tell you Hillary's new "friends" don't have our best interests at heart. I'd like to think at least a few Hillary supporters would begin to re-assess their candidate because of this.
March 27, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scaife is an evil man, who has nothing but ill will for progressives and Democrats. That Hillary is now consorting with a man who less than 15 years ago accused her in all seriousness of complicity in the murder of Vince Foster, and who now has a new found respect for her, is indeed cause for concern. Next thing, we'll find out that she has been praying on a regular basis with ultra-right wing evangelicals in the Congress, who have also developed a new found respect for her.
Is she that gullible, or has she simply completed her transformation from former Jedi knight to the dark side?
March 27, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
She like McCain has been so scared by her battles that she has become what she hates. She has become the candidate of the VRWC and McCain has become the candidate of those who called him insane and accused him of having a black love child.
March 27, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you thick on purpose? Suppose somebody pot shots you and denigrates you for years. You really think you are going to be nice/nice with them? Yeah sure, I'd talk with the old bastard. I'd even make the old bastard think I might even be the forgiving type. But that day would come. Your not from the south are you.
March 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drum was pro-Clinton, but actually gave up on her back in Feb in the midst of her campaign trying to ghetto-ize Obama. Fallows also leaned Obama (though never gave an endorsement), mainly on FP, and has since documented his disgust with Clinton campaign tactics.
Atrios...well, he never struck me as the Clinton type.
Pro-Clinton bloggers? Taylor Marsh, Armando, Jerome Armstrong, Alegre from DKos, hadenough (remember her?!?), hwc over at MyDD...
March 27, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to cavil, that goes for Atrios, but I don't know whether Drum and Fallows count as progressive. Drum maybe. Fallows is more like a journalistic eminence grise.
But "pro-Clinton" would be a stretch.
Still, I think it's fair to say that a lot of middle-of-the-road types (including now, some Clinton superdelegates) are throwing a flag on Clinton campaign tactics. For which, thank you, Lord be praised, Jesus Mary Howard Nancy and Harry, Amen!
March 27, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever camp you put the bloggers in, the point is that it's just hard to look at a picture of Hillary Clinton sitting down with scum like Scaife.
She's supposed to be clawing his eyes out or something, not having tea with the guy.
My guess is that to her, this is just showing a willingness to walk into the lion's den. That's a kind of toughness.
But there's another kind of toughness that we all expected of her. It was the kind that would say "Richard Mellon Scaife, a man who has done nothing in his life but inherit money that he's used to spread pain and misery around the country, mostly at my expense, has invited me to meet the editorial board of his newspaper. He can suck it."
Part of the fun of being a Clinton supporter is imagining all of the old Clinton enemies having to deal with her. As president. They always hated her more than they hated Bill. But she would be president and they would cry.
So she should stop playing kissy face with these people because she is ruining my fantasies!
March 27, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's very simple. Dealing with disreputable allies, as Clinton has been for some time now (Fox News, Limbaugh, now Scaife, just to name three) is clearly dealing from a position of great weakness.
Put in other (military) terms, the Clinton "campaign" is adopting a "scorched earth" strategy - essentially, a violent and destructive retreat. These alliances represent an attempt to "live off the land" as the retreat moves.
The problem is, unlike the Russians in WWII, she does not have the two things they did that made their scorched earth retreat from Operation Barbarossa a success - massive weight of (admittedly slow to mobilize) numbers and virtually unlimited fallback room, to allow the Panzers to outrun their supply lines. Oh yes, and that fabled Russian winter? Sorry, not coming, global warming, you know...
Unfortunately for Clinton, her intent to fight to the last drop of blood is likely to end as well as most. Including the collateral damage and innocent casualties.
March 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Everybody:
I'm sorry! Seriously, I thought that Drum was a Clinton supporter. At the least, I knew that he and Atrios had been defending Clinton throughout this process. Fallows I knew was neutral if not leaning Obama, but threw him in there as well because clearly this crossed the line for him.
destor23 is correct, though - the point is, as Atrios puts it:
"Remember back in junior high, when you had that friend that the bullies picked on all the time? And you defended that friend, who really never did all that much for you, which led to you getting your ass kicked a few times yourself? And then you got to high school and your friend joined up with the bullies? It's kind of like that."
March 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Hillary bloggers are giving up on blogging, the hate and the disrespect are defeatist in nature. This is my last blog, no offense meant when I say I have better things to do, but even if that weren't the case, I won't subject myself to the flow of bile coming from the blogs and this blog was my last attempt at showing the Obamacentricts that Hillary has what it takes to be commmander in chief. I will either not vote in November or I will throw my support to McCain. The one thing that will bring our country to its knees is 4 more years of the arrogance that Bush has shown and that if elected, Obama would complete. I feel wholeheartedly that he is not our future, at least not at this time. Thanks to those that had good dialog, I appreciate your views. B-Bye
March 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
MsBehavin: On what are you basing your claim of Obama's arrogance? I will concede that you have to have a certain amount of confidence and yes, arrogance, to run for POTUS. All candidates have that arrogance. So what makes you compare Obama to BUSH? Are you one of those people who thinks that Obama dared have the 'arrogance' to 'not wait his turn'? If so, is that your argument? It's not a pony ride at the carnival, you know, it's the most important elected office in the nation. To insinuate that someone should 'wait their turn' goes against every principle this country was founded on. The people are speaking loud and clear.
March 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their Gal? Is this barbara bush?
March 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait wait...
You want to tell me, in all seriousness, that Obama has shown more arrogance than Hillary?
And that his "arrogance" is on the level with Bush?
Reality?! Why hast thou forsaken me?!?
March 27, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait,
Are you, MsBehavin, seriously trying to tell us that Obama is more arrogant than Clinton?
Who's famous moment of 'finding her voice', often viewed as a moment of real sensativity was her saying "One of us is ready to lead this country, one is not. One is experienced, one is not", something Obama was never saying at that point? So, her big moment of sensativity in New Hampshire is based on being upset that she's better than all the rest, and people just don't understand?
And Obama's 'arrogance' is equal to Bush's?
Reality!?!?! Why hast thou forsaken me?
March 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Its disturbing in the same way that the John McCain/George W. Bush hug was disturbing after Bush/Rove savaged him in the 2000 primaries. In a way, you could see that a good part of McCain, the part that even had progressives rooting for him, die that day in that moment.
I think its kind of the same with that Scaife interview. Never in my wildest dreams would I believe she would entertain someone who has done more to cause the Clintons grief than this guy. She must have been throwing up in her mouth while she gave that interview.
March 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any one who says that they will vote for John McCain is a War Monger enabler. Come to think of it, since she has endorsed McCain over Obama, that makes Hillary a War Monger enabler.
March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Astute user of free publicity? I think she will get Ken Starr to vet her qualifications next. As one who knows the intimate details of the behind the scenes workings of the Oval Office, surely he can shed some light on her experiences in the Clinton Whitehouse.
March 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he is the publisher of the biggest newspaper in western Pennsylvania which is having a primary in about three weeks. Nothing too sinister about a candidate sitting down and talking to a paper that reaches that many potential voters.
March 27, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fallows did say that he voted for Hillary in the DC primary.
Her campaign tactics have tured him off since then.
March 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment