« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Another Candy-Ass Unity Thread
Sigmund Freud supposedly said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." He meant that we can read too much into things.
So, I wonder, who are these people at TPM who just can't resist bashing Barack or Hillary? Democrats?
I thought Democrats wanted to win in November. But bash Obama and you're bashing the nominee. Or bash Clinton and you're bashing a very strong party figure with perhaps enough unhappy supporters to deny Obama the White House in spite of what she asks of them.
Do any of these "Democrats" doing the bashing remember that the 2000 election turned on a few hundred Florida ballots?
Sure, unity is hard for Hillary and Obama supporters alike. Life's hard. Living under a McCain presidency is harder.
When you see a michelle bociurkiw comment, it's not even worth considering that it's the comment of a Democrat. Because real Democrats don't make stupid, egotistical remarks that split the party over issues not at stake. So understand that you can trust appearances now: michelle bociurkiw is what she seems — a Mctroll.
But there are Hillary supporters who aren't as aggrieved, who are on the fence and who will not fondly remember how some Obama supporters couldn't even accept winning with grace. Thank your lucky stars if they decide not to hold those "Hillary sucks" posts against Obama and still vote for him anyway.
But they don't "owe" Obama their votes. That means it's incumbent on those who support Obama not to screw this up by playing into the hands of hillaryis44 and people like michelle. Hillary hasn't attacked Obama in weeks, if not months. She'll be campaigning for him very soon and very hard. And I don't really give a damn about those GOP commericals featuring her statements in the primaries. That's history. The general election is the future and it depends on not being divisive, ungracious lunkheads who hand McCain the very gift he seeks.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a dick is just a dick. So back to my original question for all those people who hate candy-ass unity threads:
What kind of Democrat bashes either of the two most important people on our side?
Comments (33)
Real Democrats vote Democratic. Anyone with a scintilla of intelligence will NOT vote for McSame. How you would reason with anyone who would, I admit I cannot fathom.
June 9, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is most certainly NOT the way to reason with anyone:
"I'm with you, Kashy. The toxin of Clintonism needs to be flushed out of the body politic. The bitch should be stomped on repeatedly."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/thank-god-hillarys-dead.php
June 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the most part (and believe me it really pains me to admit it) this was a good post. Now, how about taking some of this and applying it to yourself and how you respond to fellow bloggers. Let's see if you choose to practice what you preach. C'mon Ripper, give us a little smile - and we'll give you an Atta Boy for job well done. Thanks.
June 9, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I can't concede my right to clarify misinformation (such as "Hillary won the popular vote"), but I'm trying to do it as gently as possible, because you're right. Hillary Clinton is a major figure in the Democratic party, and we are Democrats.
June 9, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is more than a major figure in the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, are the key to any possible prospect that Senator Obama has for a victory in November.
In short, without Hillary Clinton and her supporters, Barack Obama is toast. That's why so many Obama supporters are changing their tune this week and are making believe that they like Hillary Clinton and always respected her, and didn't really mean all those things they said or wrote about. I don't begrudge them because I understand that politics and keeping it real are two different animals.
Of course, there have been many political novices who, during this campaign, trumpeted the silly notion that Senator Obama and his new coalition of young folks, African Americans, and "educated" whites were all that was needed for a victory. Those folks have been replaced by the crickets, or are consigned to the dustbin of blogospheric irrelevancy (see Thank G-d Hillary is Dead).
June 9, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Editor's Note: To be perfectly candid, there are posters who I will have nothing to do with based on what they wrote during the campaign, but that will have nothing to do with my unwavering commitment to support Senator Obama in the fall. I don't have to like everyone just because it's politics.
June 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you considered that many of these people believed what they said THEN, but now believe what they're saying NOW? I realize there are obnoxious posts like "Hillary is Dead" and the one about Pottery Barn. There are just as many pro-Obama posters who have tsk-tsked over those posts and tried to move us on to unity.
For me? The biggest step toward unity was Hillary's speech on Saturday (I *never* believed words are just words). It has little to do with the strong-arm tactics of power-hungry Clinton extremists who want to preserve their sense of importance by screaming, "You will be NOTHING without us! NOTHING!!!"
Sane Hillary supporters who want to debate individual issues? I enjoy a good debate. But those who want to hold their breath until they turn blue?
I'm hoping we can draft enough new blood into the Democratic party to make up for them, and have a better Democratic party for their absence.
June 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are Democrats who continue to oppose Obama because they recognize that his character flaws are such that he is a hazard in the Oval Office to such a degree that it overrides the fact that they agree with him on 95% of the issues and disagree with McCain on 80% of the issues. The logical course following such a decision is to vote for McCain.
I am one of those, who, with sorrow, have reached this conclusion about Obama. So what characteristics about Obama lead me to reach such a conclusion as to override my preferences for policies I've fough for my entire life?
1. When Obama decided to run he had to be counting on the black vote but in order to do that he had to ruin the appeal of the Clintons for black voters. Doing that risked the destruction of the national Democratic Party and the prospects of a Democratic win in the fall if Obama did not gain the nomination. This was a gamble he was willing to take for his own political prospects. His willingness to do this disqualifies him both morally and prudentially for the Presidency. The willingness to take a gamble of this magnitude is not a characteristic that I want in a President. I disagree with 90-99% of McCain's positions but intend to vote for McCain anyway because I trust McCain to put the country's interests ahead of his own and because I do not believe that McCain would stoop to the type of race baiting that the Obama camp descended to when the black voters did not automatically give him their votes and used as a tool for guilt tripping white voters.
2. Obama lacked the moral integrity to respect small d democracy in the way that he dealt with Michigan and Florida. He knows very well, and deliberately manipulated the fact that enthusiastic participation in caucuses can give a candidate the majority of delegates from a state where the majority of voters do not support you. That is why he attempted to create the phony appearance of a groundswell for caucuses in Michigan and when that failed had his forces block a re-vote primary.
3. Obama deliberately used phony charges of racism in order obtain the Presidency for himself.
The differences in policy and execution between himself and Hillary were not great enough to warrant exacerbating racial divisions in this fashion. He slandered Hillary by having his campaign offer vile versions of her supposed motives -- older voters who have watched Hillary for decades were not fooled but the younger voters were.
4. Obama was willing to shill for bigots in order to get elected. Donnie McClurkin is a case in point. So are the three preachers he cited as influences in 2004.
5. Obama has the same arrogance,manipulativeness, lack of judgement and experience, and freedom to lie that George W. Bush shows. His lie about his failure to pass nuclear leak legislation is a case in point but my favorite is this claim: "After news reports of Rezko's questionable political dealings first emerged in 2005, Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong."My instinct was to believe him," he said." Chicago Tribune, March 15, 2008. Which left me with the naseating question I have so frequently had about George W. Bush -- is this individual a total idiot or does he just think that I am?
6. Obama has a tin ear for the reactions of foreign countries on policies which has the potential to wildly exacerbate conflict: his dissing Pakistan's sovereignty and his failure to see that his Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel are cases in point.
In short the argument is that Obama dangerously similar to George W. Bush in his personality and lack of political morality while McCain for all the quarrels I have with him over policies has shown repeatedly that he puts his view of the nation's good above his own political advantage while Obama has flunked that test repeatedly.
I realize that many will consider my conclusions as wildly erroneous about who Obama is -- but if you shared them who would you vote for?
June 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are seriously brain-damaged to be posting this crap in my thread. You want to write an "Obama sucks" screed? Be my guest, in your own post. I'll let others wise you up there.
June 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, AJM's post looks like that of somebody who was looking for reasons to not like Obama. Full of lies and the occasional half-truth at best, it says more about AJM than it does about Obama (or McCain).
June 9, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
AJM is, always has been, and always will be a complete and utter joke. Responding to AJM only gives it some measure of validation. Ignore it. It is allegedly voting for McCain because Obama is it trusts McCain to get off the Lobbyist Express long enough "to put the country's interests ahead of his own". That's not coherence we can believe in!
If it wishes to believe that Senator Obama invented racism so that others could inject race into the 2008 Presidential Election, let it show us photos of the time machine Obama used to do this. It probably believes that Gerry Ferraro was right, and that it is so easy to be a brown-skinned man in Bush's America. Let it believe this too.
You can convince 100 unregistered voters to get involved and actually take the privilege seriously in the time it takes you to get one idiot to examine the fallacies with which it lives its life. Let it parade around, waving its supposed "former support for Hillary's ideals" in the air with one hand while hiding it behind its principled vote for McCain in the other. Someday it will realize that it cannot vote against one thing by voting for another thing. Or it will shrivel up and die. It will not be a loss for us either way.
June 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are Democrats who continue to oppose Obama because they recognize that his character flaws are such that he is a hazard in the Oval Office
This is undoubtedly true, but my guess is that you are not one of them. On the other hand, I probably am one of them.
My doubts about Obama are based on the foreign policy positions regarding Pakistan and Jerusalem that you correctly cite in your sixth point. Both of these Obama statments I find to be misguided, dangerous, counter-productive, and a bit pandering.
Your other "reasons" I see as mostly bogus. For example, your first bit about Obama having to count on the black vote would disqualify any AA candidate to run as a candidate, ever.
Your second reason is wrong factually as well as philosophically.
Your third point is ridiculous in that Obama has never accused anyone of racism that I am aware of. In fact, he has admitted that if he lost it would be not due to racism, but because of his own deficiencies.
Your fourth point has the aroma of truth until examined, where it falls apart. To agree with it, one must ascribe motives to Obama that are completely contrary to everything else he stands for.
Finally, item five requires Cheneyesque cynicism -- on your part, not Obama's. It requires the very idiocy you mention for credibility.
All in all, this set of arguments appears to be built on Republican principles -- half-truths converted to outright lies, fear-mongering, personal attack, and distortion. I have no doubt that you intend to vote for Sen. McCain, nor that you ever intended to do otherwise.
June 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't possibly be talking about the same candidate I support.
June 9, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the scripture and the song puts it: "There is a time for everything - under heaven."
The time for unity is now. End of story.
June 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that unity is a bogus issue. The issue, as always, is to find a candidate who's ideas are most aligned to yours.
One of the big jokes in this campaign are ironies that abound:
a) Supporters of Hillary "they are just words" Clinton now falling all over themselves about what a great and significant speech she gave on Saturday
b) People who used to claim Obama's policies are just the same as (or lifted from) Hillary's, now saying there are significant differences.
People should never vote party, they should always vote candidate. Candidate is based on policy views.
If you think that McCain's views are closer to Hillary's, go for it: vote for McCain. Then let us know why you believe that Hillary is acting like a member of the Republican party.
If you want to register a protest vote: please let us know which 3rd party candidate is closer to Hillary than Obama.
If you want to sit out the election as a protest: let us know how sitting out the election helps the cause of democracy that you alleged was so important when campaigning so hard for your fallen candidate.
June 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People should never vote party, they should always vote candidate. Candidate is based on policy views."
Who's to say how people should vote, other than in their own self-interest and the interests of their nation and the world? Party and candidate usually both play into that decision.
I have to disagree that voting candidate is voting more for policy reasons. Party platforms have been fairly stable for the past 40 years. Voting party is voting for a whole host of policy positions rolled into one platform. Voting candidate may include voting for personality, hairstyle, race, gender, geography, etc. Not necessarily the best way to go, particularly if you dislike the cult of personality as represented by the hillaryis44 crowd, which your recent posts would indicate you do.
June 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Party platforms have not been stable for 40 years:
Edwards and Clinton?
McCain and Huckabee?
And that's just this year. Both parties have a spectrum of opinions and emphasis on priorities of issues. It should have been very obvious that my talking about voting candidate is about voting where the candidate's policies are, and not hair color.
Have I said anything different?
June 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party platform of 40 years ago included an emphasis on peace, civil rights, a war on poverty, etc. The GOP platform did not emphasize or even include all these points. But hey, a lot of people liked Nixon better than McGovern.
June 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we not go into idealized forms of reality?
40 years ago, the Dems were having significant issues with Civil Rights (or don't southern Dems count?), we were in a war that was widened by 2 Democratic Presidents...
In the Nixon administration, we were given the EPA.
Why do I point this out? Because the times define the parties, not the other way around.
The fact is that neither party is focused on addressing the issue that will define the next presidency: how to restructure society without cheap energy.
When you hear talk about rebuilding our rail system, let me know. I'm hoping that Obama gets that message out -- and soon.
Issues of war on poverty, civil rights, etc. pale when the mob doesn't have food and security. I know that's not a polite thing to say, but it's the reality of how humans react. It's hardly coincidental that the notion of rights for the individual and everything else we associate with liberalism start around the time of the technological revolution brought about by the Renaissance.
Want a more scary thought: technology *allowed* us the means to dismiss notions of feudalism...and slavery. Take away the technology and you will start seeing people give up those progressive ideas fairly rapidly.
I write this to you because I respect your thought-out posts and I know you won't knee-jerk react to my comments.
June 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valid points. I yield for now.
June 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is that neither party is focused on addressing the issue that will define the next presidency: how to restructure society without cheap energy.
I mostly agree with this, although I am not sure that this will be the only, or even the primary, defining issue of the next few years. There is also global warming and health care among others.
However, let's keep in mind that exactly one of the major parties is in complete denial about these major issues, and exactly one is not (in COMPLETE denial). Exactly one of the major parties bases its decisions 100% on ideology, and exactly one only 95%.
the times define the parties, not the other way around.
That's an interesting comment and worthy of a separate essay of its own. One might say that truly great politicians -- FDR comes to mind, maybe Lincoln -- can turn this algorithm on its head. May I suggest that you develop this idea further to stimulate an interesting discussion that does not require Clintonistas and Obamabots to take up hammer and claw?
June 10, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thrilled to see that the expression "candy-ass" is taking root here. It is inelegant, but I've been doing all I can to see that it gains traction. After all, inelegance has its place.
Excellent post! (And that doesn't just stop with the title.)
June 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for unity; however, I don't believe being nice to someone in the hope that they will vote for my candidate. If someone votes for Obama, it should/will be because they want to do it, if they decide not to vote for Obama because his supporters were not nice to them it's just stupid.
I will try to be nice to people regardless of who they support, but if I'm offended by something they do or say I will make it known, period, and I can do it without profanity or yelling, or whatever.
I respect and appreciate anyone who is a Hillary supporter who can now turn around and support Obama, especially since I cannot say the same (I'm little ashamed of this, but not enough change). This is why I won't spend time trying to convince supporters of hers who adamantly will not vote for Obama, because I'm sure they cannot be convinced. That doesn't mean I harbor any ill will towards them.
June 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between trying to convince people graciously and picking at their open wounds. If you can't attempt the first, then at least don't do the second, either.
June 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have never and will never pick at their wounds. I just believe they should be left alone to make their own decisions.
June 9, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough.
June 9, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And thanks for the comments.
June 9, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary Grassroots Campaign is proud to announce that we have joined the coalition to just "Just Say NO Deal." http://www.justsaynodeal.com Millions of disaffected voters or "pumas" (party unity my ass) have banded together to form this coalition of the unwilling... - Just Say No Deal!
please visit
http://hillaryclintonnews.blogspot.com
June 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that your anti-Obama message is short-sighted and of questionable validity; and, it certainly goes against what Hillary has done and urged you and her other supporters to do. But, the graphic of Hillary on the front page is awesome and well worth the visit. Thanks for the link.
June 9, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean that you should always vote based on your view of issues, not candidates. And, ironically, now I'd argue that voting party over candidate tends to promote that worthy ideal.
Over the past 20 years, the GOP has slowly purged itself of liberals and even moderates. The party/candidate dichotomy that, say, Connecticut voters faced in 1988, when Joe Lieberman ran well to the right of GOP incumbent Lowell Weicker, almost never exists today in practice.
Yet close primary contests encourage factions, and intra-party tribalism, which often results in supporters of one candidate denigrating the opposing candidate in increasingly harsh terms. It is too easy to personify the rival candidate as the "enemy", and then to view all information about them in a particularly negative light.
Such people may not yet be willing, or perhaps even able, to evaluate remaining candidates afresh, based on policy views, as you suggest. For some of these voters, voting based on candidate means focusing on those negative views of the primary winner, which render that candidate "unelectable". It may not be rational, but the desire for revenge when you've lost may outweigh your self-interest.
And so to the extent that appeals to partisanship or party unity can help return these people to the fold, I'm all for it.
June 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was in response to Clearthinker:
Ideally I agree with him, but too often I don't think "candidate" is based on policy views. Personality, packaging, and marketing weigh in far too often.
June 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't judge a candidate by their supporters, there is too much diversity of character to stereotype in the first place. If something an Obama supporter said hurt your feelings, and you resent Obama for it, you need to grow up.
Prejudice isn't always racial, sometimes we judge others by our impression of their advocates and associates, and that is just plain wrong-headed.
Until you research the candidate with an open mind, you can not accept the words of their supporters as the candidate's own, and only after you know the character of the candidate can you ascribe similarities to their surrogates.
June 9, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear bslev-----I'm one of those Obama supporters who have been saying nice things about Hillary lately. She impressed me mightily and drew out my better feelings by the things she said and the way she said them during her Saturday speech. John McCain's campaign delivered to CNN on Friday several pages of unpleasant things Senator Clinton has said about Obama. Some of those things bruised my feelings and raised my ire. But that was then and this is now. Senator Clinton says she'll work her heart out to get the democratic nominee elected to the White House. I believe her and because I take her at her word, we're on the same side. Ya don't talk trash about the people on your own team. What so many people are struggling with is that we've changed from two teams to one team. Hillary and I get it. Come join us. It's nicer to have a dem in the WH than to get another 4 years of McBush. Come on in. The water's fine!
June 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment