« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
On Clinton Supporters "Getting Over It"
So Sen. Obama has upset some people by suggesting that once any still angry Clinton supporters realize that Sen. McCain is on the wrong side of every issue important to them that they will "get over it," suggesting that they will eventually come over to Obama's side in this election. We are told that two female Representatives have found these remarks, "off-putting," "dismissive," and "patronizing." The McCain campaign has called these remarks offensive to women.
Well, I have only three words for women with these reactions, "Get over it." Why? Because any woman who runs to camp McCain, or to no camp at all, just because she is upset that Clinton lost is, indeed, acting like a spoiled little child. There is nothing more pro-feminist than to say that Sen. Clinton gave a great fight in the primary, that she went toe to toe with the guys, almost won, but ultimately lost.
Sen. Obama does not have apologize to women for winning, and I think most women already know this. He has every reason to believe that women voters will evaluate his candidacy based on issues, not resentment. So, while his use of the phrase "get over it" may not have been the most politically astute act of his campaign, it was refreshingly honest.
Comments (103)
I should clarify that the above post would also apply to all male Clinton supporters who have angrily picked up their future vote and stomped away from the political sand box. However, the context, as I understand it, was more directed at angry female Clinton supporters.
June 24, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you get over it and admit that Obama screwed-up?
If the situtation were reversed and Clinton said "Get Over It", she would've been reamed 24/7 at TPM and probably called a racist to boot.
June 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the whole quote? Because to the extent it is being portrayed as a command or a rebuke, it wasn't. It came at the end of a sentence; it wasn't a sentence in and of itself.
June 24, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember no one gave a shit about the whole quote for these:
1. As far as I know
2. Shucking and jiving
3. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated
4. We would be able to totally obliterate them
So fuck the whole quote.
June 25, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
<paraphrase>If Obama's defenders take a moment to realize that he's not perfect, Obama used a condescending phrase, that would help them to go fuck themselves.</paraphrase>
Did you see my whole quote? Because to the extent it is being portrayed as a command or a rebuke, it wasn't. It came at the end of a sentence; it wasn't a sentence in and of itself.
Ok, sweetie?
June 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who do you think would make a better president Sen Obama or Sen McCain?
June 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said from the beginning he could win Hillary voters but he didn't think Hillary could win his. That seems to be tested right now. Arrogance and entitlement are not attractive qualities to woo those who are wavering in their decision for the fall.
As a Clinton support backing Obama, I can categorically say Obama 2008: Get Over It! is possibly the worst slogan ever. I am sure you thought the 2004 Deaniacs were deserving of such scorn as well. Here's a clue - logic, reason and empathy are going to be helpful in wooing Hillary supporters. He has to earn their votes and arguments like get over it and telling them they are acting like spoiled toddlers - seriously lacking in the empathy and overdosing on the arrogant entitlement. Not helpful at all.
June 24, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the "get over it" comment in context. You will see that he was not telling anyone to 'get over it'. He was listing reasons why they will and making that argument about why women should support him. Then a representative who should be more gronw up than that ignored the arguments and took offense at a prase that was used in a normal english gramatical constrution as if it were a snarky quip. She should get over it and act like a grown up instead of snatching at the straws of umbrage.
June 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you can see in my comment a statement telling some one to just get over it. Now compare that to Sen Obama's statement and you will see that it is not what he was doing. He was talking to a room full of politicians and told them that he needs to work to get the womens vote but that McCain would help them to get over their reluctance to vote for him. What he did ws over estimate the maturity of his audience. What I did was tell them to get over it.
June 24, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOT MCCAIN is a compelling enough reason to vote for Obama for me. Always has been. For some Hillary holdouts, maybe they are not as firmly wed to democratic principles. Maybe they don't see Obama as authentic. Maybe they believe Obama doesn't repect them or their views. Maybe they disagree with him on foreign policy, economics etc etc tec.
To simply say they'll come around and vote for him because he's not McCain is foolish. Not every Hillary supporter is a firm democrat and many were those blue collar working class voters that are more conservative on social issues and liberal on economics. Let's not asusme that the issues that motivate you are the same that motivate other people.
Even among those that are dems, they may doubt Obama's authenticity and feel they don't "know" him. The events of the last week are not helping to prove he is who he claimed to be. Some of those voters may feel their opinions are not being respected and just stay home. Fewer may actually vote for McCain because they think he is the better choice. The key to getting through is to understand what motivates them, address their concerns and explain why Obama. Can't you think of positive things to say about Obama rather than resort to get over it, line up and support the candidate?
June 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo: Yes, I can think of lots of positive things to say about Sen. Obama, and I think his campaign is trying to say them. I was simply trying to point out that if, indeed, there are Clinton supporters out there who are withholding their vote for no better reason than anger over Clinton's loss in the primary, then they really should get over it.
Yes, there are conceivable reasons why someone might not vote for Obama, and he should do what he can to change their minds, but he can only do that with voters who are willing to give him a chance, not with voters who are angry at him for winning.
I agree that the phrase was not politically astute, but I also don't think it was intended in the dismissive way that it has been characterized.
June 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of all the words Obama could have chosen, he chose the worst three: get over it.
I think it was subconscious. He does it all the time, and then he has to clarify later with, "What I meant was..."
June 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was less than astute of him was giving Democratic members of the US House of Representatives credit for being grownups who are trying to win an election rather than spoiled brats who are all about their own victimology.
June 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Constantinople said.
June 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo: I am sorry you see arrogance and entitlement. I meant to imply no such thing. If fomer Clinton supporters don't like Obama on the issues, then they shouldn't vote for him. Thus, I am not assuming any entitlement to their vote. But if they are not voting for him because they are mad that Clinton lost, then I do not see it as scornful to say that they are acting childishly, and that they certainly aren't actiing like good feminists. Perhaps we will just have to disagree on this.
June 24, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is a good feminist? Anyway its beside the point. What is on point:
1. If the latest polls are accurate, Barack does not need the votes of the people who do not want to vote for him. That free's folks up to log their protest votes (lots of other people to vote for besides McCain) or abstain in voting for President.
2. These same folks can turn out in very large numbers to vote the down ticket, insuring a working majority in Senate and House with the power to hold Barack or McCain accountable.
3. A slight change in Senate leadership makes plan B look pretty good.
June 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you provide a link. I never remember either candidate saying this about their voters.
Also there is a big difference in meaning when youread the whole statement:
According to Representative Yvette Clarke, Democrat of New York, Mr. Obama then said, “However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I’m running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”
June 24, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aargh blockquote tags didn't work as advertised. The last paragraph should be in the quote.
June 24, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might refresh your memory:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/629273.aspx
Get over it is not convincing to anyone. You have no other choice doesn't really compel me (or anyone else) to get off their rumpkus and actively vote for Obama.
There's a million reason to vote for Obama rather than McCain or stay home - try to focus on those. The dumbest argument is I won get over it. Or nyah nyah nyah. Or stop being a baby. Or fear that the republicans will overturn Roe V. Wade. Or if you doubt Obama you are a Republican.
The best motivator is to have people voting FOR something rather than AGAINST it. Can we frame the argument as why Obama rather than grow up you effing Hillary supporters and vote in what I tell you is your best interest?
June 24, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just exactly what is so wrong then about Obama saying that Obama voters might not swing Hillary's way? I'm mean we had a lot to angry about then, too.
Frankly, I'm at the point where I look at this way: voters who care about issues and believe in the things the Democratic party stands for will vote for the Democratic nominee. Those who don't support "Democratic" issues will vote for someone else. Those who were voting for a gender or for celebrity or for a candidate with a particular first or last name, will not be satisfied if that gender or celebrity or first or last name is not on the ticket. At this point, there is nothing further to be done to appease them. They will need to determine what is most important to them and vote -- or not -- based on that. Which means they are free to vote for Obama, or McCain, or Nader, or Barr, or any of the other candidates who will find their ways onto state ballots. They can write in names, if they please, or they can stay home.
Time's a-wastin' and this train is leaving the station. In the words of football great Jim Brown: Whatcha gone do?
June 24, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue was not him assuming his voters wouldn't vote for Hillary. The problem is his arrogance in assuming everybody loves him and he already owned Hillary voters. WHOOPS!
Let's be honest here - you are not the best candidate for Barack's Hillary supporter conversion committee. So why the need to bring your negativity and sabotage the effort? Why not just recognize that you are a huge ball of assaciousness and should stay as far away from Hillary supporters as possible so as those not currently committed to supporting Barack prefer overturning Roe v. Wade, lack of health care solutions and 4 more years of GWB McCain style to being associated with a candidate that has supporters as vapid and divisive as you?
June 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, as the emissary for your "Mizz Hillree" you make a far better scullery maid. Get over yourself.
"Assaciousness?"
Damn girl, if you are too dumb to use a dictionary, go rent a copy of "Akeelah and the Bee." You might learn something. As for "vapid" and "divisive," you're just pointing the finger at yourself. Ugly is as ugly does. Just remember every time you open your mouth you prove to people that you are indeed the fool they presumed you to be.
Mizz Hillree and Massuh Bill need you to "Shine Their Shoes." Better "git" on up to big house. Your chores are waiting.
June 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade you are a pathetic race baiting small minded bitter hateful thing. I've never seen you say anything approaching intelligence. You spout outright lies and don't even correct them. You are at best uninformed and at worst a congenital liar. And you are emblematic of everything wrong with Obama supporters. If that's the way to build unity, have at it. If this is what the new politics is, I want no part of it. I'm a NYer and my write-in vote for Hillary won't make a difference at all in the grand scheme of things. So fuck you AND fuck Obama. He doesn't need my vote and he sure as hell hasn't earned it. I'll gladly disengage myself from the dialogue because you guys have everything so very much in hand in effectively reaching out to Hillary supporters and building unity. Nice job. Obama should put you on his outreach staff.
June 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're really going to allow a person on the Internet to influence the way you vote? That seems odd.
Also, hanging on to the whole Barack dissed Hillary's voters thing, you are again taking something out of context to reality.
What Barack was acknowledging was the fact that much of his support was coming from independents and republicans and that wasn't a typical democratic constituency that Hillary could automatically count on. He was also stating that Hillary's supporters were, by and large, democrats who could hopefully be counted on to vote for the democratic nominee.
Neither of those two statements is false or arrogant or dismissive. Just as this most recent flap is nothing of the sort. More out of context quotes to create righteous indignation. He wasn't saying the him not being McCain is reason enough to get over it. He was saying that his positions versus McCain's should be enough of a reason to ALL democrats to get over it.
At any rate, that's your choice to throw your vote away or hold Barack accountable for something another American said on a free Internet site. For me, that seems an odd way to make such an important decision, but I guess you have your reasons.
Peace.
June 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
No - I've said all along as a New Yorker I would write in for Hillary because Obama does not meet my standard. Republican talking points against universal healthcare, timid plans baby steps on economic progressivism whereas Hillary had real plans. Not my kind of candidate. But I always said I would encourage Hillary supporters in swing states to vote for him as NOT MCCAIN.
Please take a look at this thread. How do you convince Hillary supporters to sign on and support Obama? By telling them to get over it and they have no other choice and if they don't they are children. Screw that. Unity requires maturity and work on both sides. And it's not just the people on TPM giving the get over it message - it's Obama himself, Nancy Pelosi with this get iver it on the sexism that she chose to be silent about, the sense of entitlement that we have no other choice. The same message is going out to gullible wide eyed naifs who bought into the Obama I'm not a politician PR campaign and are shocked he's trunign his back on them and moving to more moderate positions. get over it - you have no other choice. This is inspiration? This is the politics of hope? Get over it & you have no choice. Pick me - at least I'm not as bad as McCain?
Again least convincing argument ever. I do have a choise. I can write in for Hillary as a NYer knowing Obama's going to win my state anyway. And I have a choice whether or not to actively support a candidate I have little respect for in terms of policy or his authenticty to other Hillary supporters as better than McCain. here's a clue - if you keep disrespecting Hillary voters and dredging up divisions nothing I say will matter anyway because the Obama "WE WON" idiots are so obnoxious that they drown out the reasonable Obama supporters. And the reasonable Obama supporters turn their criticism on Hillary rather than the assholes on their side that have no interest in unifying the party.
So this is your mess. I didn't create it - my criticisms of Obama were on policies and principles not racial attacks and hatemongering. Why should I actively participate to clean up your pigsty when half of the Obama folks are still flinging shit? Unity is a two way street and until Obama and the DNC and those on TPM decide to truly move forward in a unified way, don't expect me to just shut up and take it and line up while they continue to attack Hillary for no reason. And while my vote doesn't matter in the general election, you may want to consider the impact you are having on other voters whose votes are more important.
June 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you might want to think about those Reagan Democrats/swing voters that are national security/foreign policy moderates but economic progressives - I think that's a block of voters Obama was having demonstrable trouble tapping into. His assertion that he could get all of Hillary's voters was the most arrogant thing I have seen in any primary campaign. It was arrogant in early February and given the very real divisions that still exist within the party - it's still arrogant now.
The Assaciousness of Entitlement. There's a title for his third book. Whether it's a feel good story about turning this mess around and inspiring real unity or a cautionary tale of what not to do is entirely up to Obama. Good luck with that.
June 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could ghostwrite that book for him.
June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton supporters are coming. They are coming. Most are already with us, and a majority of those left will join us soon.
The healing has begun and the numbers in MI, OH, PN, and FL prove it.
Let's all be good sports...and nice to each other.
We have to win....the Supreme Court genuinely scares me right now. We need LIBERAL appointments in the next four years to balance Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.....
Seriously.... this country is f*cked if we get one more like them. Only ONE MORE and we can kiss civil liberties goodbye. If for no other reason that THAT..we must unite. WE MUST.
June 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Kennedy! Don't forget Kennedy!
The fact that Kennedy is the swing vote, that Kennedy is all that stood between habeus corpus and the Gitmo Gulag, that Kennedy holds the balance between the Bill of Rights and the abyss, that Kennedy may one day tip the scales between true reproductive choice and the return of coat-hanger abortions...
SCARES THE LIVIN' BEJEEBERS OUTTA ME!!
June 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the "Ones Who Are Still Feeling a Tad Sensitive To Things Associated With the Candidacy of the One Who Did Not W-n" might think of "get over it" as if it's a case of food poisoning or a cold. Sooner or later, you get over it. It runs its course. It wasn't meant to be "offensive" or "sexist" or "belittling" or "a put down" or "patronizing" or "off putting."
It was meant to remind them that in time, they will indeed feel better, comes to terms with the situation as it is today (notice I didn't say "face reality," except parenthetically) and will objectively size up McCain versus Obama on the issues that matter most to them and will see that McCain is not the solution.
As a matter of full disclosure (just in case Holder, Kennedy and rest of vetting team is paying attention), I did say a few times at the start of this campaign that I could hold my nose and vote for McCain if Obama didn't win. However, I was wrong.
I tried to hold my nose and just list some of the things McCain is for, and I simply couldn't do it. The stench was too great. I tried putting Vicks Vap-O-Rub under my nose. Still no go. I tried a clothespin. Too painful for long periods of time, plus it made my nose look too much like Michael Jackson's and that's not a good look on anyone. I looked into gas masks, but pretty expensive. I tried to rationalize that I would get plenty of use out of it, in the unlikely event McCain got elected. But that didn't work either.
So to the aforementioned persons with sensitivity issues, take two aspirin, eat some dark chocolate, enjoy a good bottle of wine, buy a new lipstick, or some Jimmy Choos or Manolos, or even a dozen Pay-Less, and just take some time to get over it. And you don't have to announce yourself as a "former Hillary supporter now supporting the other guy." Try "Democrat" or "Independent" or "Republican". And when asked for whom will you vote? Just say "Barack."
June 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All good things to do. But maybe McCain is just more fun. Obama seems so uptight. Now I know Rove and company, having helped sell Obama to the Party, are now working hard to set him up as an elite snob. The guy standing by the wall with a cig and martini meme. And they're working on the corrupt politician meme, too. But either one of those they sell, they'll still be one mile from home. The dweeb. And I'm already there. Something in me just likes the old stumble bum better than the dweeb. Probably an age thing.
June 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I can see why, what with how well that worked out for the country last time.
June 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The country has been gone for a while now. Are you just beginning to notice? I'm sure you won't take my word for it, but about all that's left is entertainment. McCain is far more entertaining.
June 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
why does the president need to be entertaining? another way of saying entertaining is embarrassing. Wouldn't it be nice to bring back a little bit of class to the office? What's wrong with wanting the president to be either the smartest or at least one of the smartest guys in the room? Considering the seriousness of some of the issues we face as a nation, shouldn't the president be a little 'boring'? Why is that a bad thing? Clearly the guy is electric when speaking to people and serious as hell when discussing policy. Isn't that better than a president just making off the cuff remarks where you don't know WTF the guy might come up with next? I guess the difference is that I don't think the country is lost and that it can be salvaged with some good old-fashioned American pragmatism and hard work. We just need to get the zealots and idiots from both sides of the isle out of power and bring back thinking solutions to problems where if the best idea is a conservative one we go with that, if the best idea is a liberal one then we go with that but the bottom line being we go with the best idea not just our PARTY'S best idea! But I think i'm definitely in the minority with that view at times...
June 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure you are. You see, the work horse was Hillary Clinton. You went and nominated the show horse. He is the change. Get it? Just electing Obama is change in itself. You're going to have to settle for that. Or you can go on thinking the country can be "saved." Were you one of the people thought electing a Democratic majority to the House was going to stop the occupation? Get some health insurance? Solve the petrol crisis?
June 24, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always wonder why people with the depth of nihilism that you seem to embrace bother with political comments boards. I mean we're doomed, according to you - so what's the point, dude? Why waste time here when nothing can be changed?
June 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Billy is impotent - rules out masturbation.
June 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're out of character.
June 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to log back in as Billy
June 25, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is entertaining? Really?
That is on thing I have never ever evah evah heard. Nevah.
Tell me more. Tell me sweet little lies.
June 25, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have lost your way a little. I suspect you're one of the people around here who are coming to grips with the reality of Obama and not finding it a pleasant experience. It may help to stay focused on the electoral map. Obama is doing well.
A couple of things. I thought your use of the phrase "alter egos" in referring to me, des and gasket was noticing the fact that we're aligned. Your comment here makes it seem that you meant it literally. I don't play that game. What I play is jazz. You may not like the trio, but it is a trio. So don't waste time on that.
McCain is more entertaining because he is at the red hot center of the most important question we're facing -- what to do about the Middle East -- and Obama has made himself irrelevant to the issue. Come November, about 50% to 60% of the eligible voters are going to wander to the polls and decide if we are going to continue to engage in what the Bush administration billed as the war on terrorism. The voters who decide we should stay engaged are going to vote for McCain.
June 25, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the primary turnout nationwide, I think your 50 to 60 percent estimate is 10 to 15 points too low. McCain loses an argument about the Middle East. Barack has ceded nothing. Not sure where you are getting your numbers, but I would find at least one more source as confirmation.
June 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Three words badly chosen. But these three words don't say grow up, IMO. Additionally, I believe its errant to say he hasnt given HRC supporters reasons to vote for him. He has, to current supporters, and those deciding, including undecided HRC-ers, and independents. When Bush won the primary in 2000, he didnt do too much pandering to McCain's followers. Its not a sign of disrespect, or arrogance, or entitlement (well, maybe W...). People will make their choice on thier terms in the end.
Finally, I think there is a grieving period here BHO is respecting. I think he should and will do more. I also think HRC should expect less.
June 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe. People do "get over" lots of things. I myself have even stopped being angry about a couple of things.
However. I'm not sure I ever remember feeling better, or being convinced, by anyone who told me to "get over it."
Let's do a test. When your Bush'ite neighbours said to you "Get over it," how well did that work? Feel better? how about when they said, "Let it go." Or, "Time to move on."
Married? Ever tried telling your wife "Get over it?" Sure, you're on the same team, lots to be done, gotta keep those feet moving forward, etc,. etc. But - just as a test - tell someone you love to "get over it."
But wear a helmet.
June 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, back in January 2001, a lot of us were trying to think of ways to "get over it," and get on with trying to plan how get Bush out in 2004. And after the near miss in 2004, we had to get over it again. (And do not forget there were those of us during the primaries in 2000 and 2004 who favored someone else who didn't make it to the finish line. We had to get over it. Suck it up. Tough it out. Walk it off. Shake it out. Jog through it.
Some of us have lost loved ones and wallowed in our grief, feeling way too sorry for ourselves for far too long. And it takes someone with some tough love who sees when grief and introspection becomes undeniable self-pity. There is a huge difference. And we need someone to tell us to "get over it" and ourselves. To focus that pity-driven energy on something positive.
But "getting over it" is also a process. And that needs to be done, too. It is unproductive and self-defeating to get stuck on one stage of grief and never move on to the remainder.
June 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain doesn't favor equal rights for women. Barack Obama does.
John McCain doesn't favor equal pay for women. Barack Obama does.
John McCain will pack the court (supreme and federal) with right-wing reactionaries who will not only overturn Roe, but will send this country back to the 1830's. Barack Obama wont.
John McCain doesnt favor health care for children. Barack Obama does.
Isn't it clear by now that a vote for John McCain is a vote AGAINST everything Hillary Clinton has fought for and advocated for during her entire career?
So its obvious, the best way to support hillary is to vote against everything she believes in...
June 24, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were doing so well until that last sentence and when you succumbed to the irrepressible urge to snark/sarcasm. But valiant effort!
June 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double standard much? Pot, meet kettle... kettle, pot:
or
or
June 24, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
See when I do it I am demonstrating how TONE can influence how a message is RECEIVED. Maybe they are not aware that using snark and sarcasm turns people immediately on the defensive and respond in kind. Treat people with respect, and you'll get respect in return.
June 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try (for a change) using intelligence. That works best.
June 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Snap!
Props to Mandy!
June 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the stunning intelligence of which you speak?
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.
Posted by Mandy
June 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's real unifying. No wonder you and Jade get long so well. Two ig'nant peas in a pod.
June 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
do you truly need a comment board to make you feel unified?
I smell troll
June 25, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about people like Mandy and Jade don't have a right to talk to me about tonme when they are two of the most viriolic hatemongering posters out there. I direct my criticisms at Obama based on policy not personal attacks like these idiots. Trolls do not = Clinton supporters. They are people who offer nothing to the conversation except attacks and divisiveness. See Jade and Mandy for examples. There are many others on the Obama side as well.
June 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you would do well to follow your own advice.
Ooops! Too late...
ROFLMBBAO!!! You are a piece of work!
June 24, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, by November HRC supporters will be the most focused on and pandered to voting segment of all identifiable voting groupings for this election and for many others. So in the process, if they feel they havent been given enough respect or effort I will most likely be baffled.
Note: Expecting people will vote for you isnt necessarily a sign of disrespect.Could he mean that he is confident he can show those voters how he will represent them the best?
June 24, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Joe,
Stop whining, get down on your knees, lick my heel and get over it.
I know the soles are a little black, but you have no self-respect, so get over it.
I see you throwing up in your mouth a little bit, but get over it - you're almost a big boy now.
Don't be a spoiled little child. Just lick my toes and act like you enjoy it. Get over it.
And clean up that mess. You're disgusting. Don't you have any manners?
Your mother
June 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this dissolution has really watered down your style.
June 25, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to rise to the level of your audience.
No use casting pearls before swine.
June 25, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better!
June 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the one about putting away childish things.
June 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
why do you think the 3 to 5 million clinton voters who are now PUMA voters are going to vote for OBAMA? what we are going to do is say we are voting for OBAMA to skew the polling process but the commitment of all just say no obama supporters is not to vote OBAMA. if his running mate is hilliary we may have many that will then vote for him but i believe the majority will not vote OBAMA no matter if hilliary is on the ticket or not. has nothing to do with race but most will not vote for a candidate with less experience than clinton. they also do not trust him nor feel he is credible. i believe you will get about 80 to 85% of the Hillary crowd. you will lose 10 to 15% to PUMA. i also think as the campaign moves on there will be many more that will become turned off from OBAMA. mccain will also have an opportunity to distance himself from bush. the debates will do mccain a great deal of good. he may not be a great speaker but he has a great way of communicating the average person and cause you to trust him. OBAMA does not give the same feeling of security on any level. this will translate into votes for mccain democrats.
please do not list OBAMA's dubious list of legislation from the illinois senate. from my understanding (and i am from the chicago burbs) is that the majority of the body of accomplishments he lists were done by others and the chicago machine put his name on most of the legislation to give him a track record of experience. this does not translate into experience for me, this translates into OBAMA stealing the credit for the hard work done by others and being set up by the dem machine to run for president. it was duplicitous and manipulative. consistent with how he has run his entire political career.
June 24, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are irrelevant.
A community of conspiracy theory bloggers without a fraction of the influence of the "Ron Paul Revolution"... which is to say, less than none.
Isn't there a more constructive hobby you could take up? Like banging your head against a wall?
June 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And fudge without nuts just ain't fudge, is it Michelle?
(Sorry, MICHELLE.)
[Democrat with two yellow stripes over his gut.]
June 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of weeks ago you were claiming 18 million insurgents were ready to rise up. Now the number has shrunk to 3-5 million. That still sounds wildly inflated. Anyway, have fun with your playgroup!
P owerless
U nder
M cCain's
A uthoritarian
S tate
Yay!
June 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please give specific source for your assertion of the 3-5 million members of PUMA.
And the 'from my understanding' comment about Obama's Chicago service - again, what FACTS did you consider to come to this 'understanding'?
Your ongoing blather will never be credible unless you use documented facts - and therein lies a huge obstacle for you.
Believe me, we laugh at you - never with you.
June 24, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sort of interesting that there seem to be some Chicago people who don't think a lot of Obama. Maybe just pretending to be from Chicago.
June 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define alot
June 25, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading and comprehension are important
that should have been: Define "some" and help me understand how to extract that beyond your base insinuation.
Thx
June 25, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to confuse you by speaking for Billy, but I helpfully offer an article by Adolph Reed Jr, who lived in Obama's senate seat district in Chicago and co-chairs the Coalition for New Priorities:
Not that you'll read anything.
June 25, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would not be the nominee but for the blind loyalty he's gotten from the black community.
[A black democrat]
June 24, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton would not have been able to contend with him if it weren't for blind loyalty from a large segment of white Democrats.
[white democrat]
June 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOUCHE!
June 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand the obsession with Clinton's supporters around here. Why not wait until Obama makes his VP choice known? Sometimes I get the feeling that someone has ticklers set on the subject. Oh. Time to go yank the Clinton v. Obama chain over at TPM. Or maybe some writers are just stuck. Best way to overcome writer's block is new experience. Get involved with the Iraq occupation. The FISA compromise. Concrete ways to go about returning from Corporate rule to democracy.
June 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I blame College Republicans pulling dirty tricks. True or not, surely everybody can get behind hating on some CR's. Except maybe the women in the great PUMA conspiracy, of course.
Okay, that kind of came out sounding like the paper-thin plot of a niche-porn flick.
June 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see? It's insights like that made me nominate you to lead everyone out of the k-hole of the echo chamber. Too bad nobody wanted to go.
June 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the sarcasm, personal insults and being woeful uninformed, I think you are right about this being a College Republican thing. They have long parroted neocon talking points.
June 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
well at this point, we all can either get over our sour grapes or accept mccain who is the direct antithesis of what we want "collectively"!
will we ever just get over it? how much harder should obama have to work to prove he is with US and not against us?
June 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton supporters will need time to "get over it". I have no problem with that. Once we get close to November and the GOP is in full force scaremongering/fearmongering/coded-racial attacks etc. people will be so repulsed that they will rally against the dark GOP forces.
If the situation were reversed, I'd do the same thing. All it takes is that ugly visage of Karl Rove on FoxNews to make my blood boil. And thankfully McCain has shrouded himself in Bushies and is playing along with the typical dirty GOP thugs.
Actually, as an Obamaite, I'm kind of disappointed myself that Clinton just goes back to wrok as if nothing happened. I wouldn't mind if she were made Senate Majority Leader. She's certainly tougher than Harry Reid. Screw seniority.
June 24, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first reaction to anyone telling me to "Get over it" is "Fuck you."
Now, get over it.
June 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for the audio version, no one does it better than David Caruso ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrTkmDLUm2w
June 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOVE that! Thanks, dijamo. ;-)
June 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's also your reaction when somebody says "hello".
June 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you.
June 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are going to get over whatever whenever they do and it won't come any fast