Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Barack Obama Thinks You Are Cu... | Re: What She Said »

Thursday, February 14, 2008

What She Said

posted by on February 14 at 10:57 AM

Everywhere I went on Super Tuesday, I ran into Obama supporters, who were literally running around in circles and screaming “Yes, we can!” with glazed looks in their eyes. At best, it was embarrassing, but it also felt–deranged. I would love to be inspired by a candidate, and feel wildly excited and so forth–but, not to the point of losing reason. Surely, there is something to be said for dignity? Call me crazy, but I want an adult to run the country. A sensible one.

RSS icon Comments

1

@ECB:
"I would love to be inspired by a candidate, and feel wildly excited and so forth–but, not to the point of losing reason."

Have you considered a career in stand-up?

Posted by AMB | February 14, 2008 10:57 AM
2

That's okay, it's still before noon and you clearly haven't had your coffee yet. There's still time.

Posted by yawn | February 14, 2008 10:59 AM
3

ECB lecturing someone about dignity. Oh, that's rich.

What do the responses of Obama supporters have to do with the man's status as an adult?

Posted by blugh | February 14, 2008 11:03 AM
4

"not to the point of losing reason."

Strange, since your ability to reason was long ago eclipsed by bitter indignation.

Posted by JDM | February 14, 2008 11:04 AM
5

Uh... what's the point of this post? I get that you're trying to be the voice of opposition in an Obama-dominated environment, but come on? These posts are just rude and insulting. We get it; you support Clinton, not Obama. You think his supports are brainwashed. Enough already. How about an argument with some substance instead of just these petty whiney posts about how dumb anyone who would possibly consider voting for Obama must be. Sheesh! You're not making any friends on the playground here.

Posted by SDizzle | February 14, 2008 11:04 AM
6

Wow, so you're _that_ unexcited about Sen Clinton?

Sigh.

She's just not that into you, ECB. And apparently, it's the same for you, but you won't admit it.

Move on. Bring a pic of Sen Clinton she sent you to the VD Bash tonight and let Dan destroy it on stage.

We feel your pain.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 14, 2008 11:08 AM
7

Two interpretations of this post:

A) "You young whippersnappers get offa my lawn!!!!"

B) "Yeah, I used to like that sort of stuff when I grew up, but now I'm too mature to care. Really. Honest."

Plus, I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to listen to the Clinton(s) campaign with their rationalizations and explanations and not feel like it's not all one big game of playground taunting.

"Oh yeah? Well you look like this! NYEAH!!!!"

Posted by Chris B | February 14, 2008 11:08 AM
8

The HRC supporters were far more in-your-face and annoying on caucus day, fwiw.

ECB, you are often an awesome writer. So stop it with the bullshit, ok?

Posted by NaFun | February 14, 2008 11:09 AM
9

ECB, all the brains and dignity in the world don't mean shit if you're still out of power and unhappy.

again, you think that the candidate with smarter, less wide-eyed rabid supporters that can string together multiple sentences should be the nominee. but the reality is, hillary has only attracted people with a chip on their shoulder.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 11:09 AM
10

At least he has the gall to vote no on FISA while managing to maintain a winning campaign. So apparently yes, he can show up to work and run the country - while Hillary can't be bothered to show up.

ECB, Hillary can't.

Posted by seattle98104 | February 14, 2008 11:09 AM
11

So Obama's not an adult?

Seriously, Fuck You.

Posted by oljb | February 14, 2008 11:10 AM
12

Lord almighty. Shades of the ridiculously overemphasized "Dean scream."

Posted by leek | February 14, 2008 11:10 AM
13

What is the point of this post? Because you met Obama fanboys and girls at your caucus, you don't think Barack Obama is an adult? That is quite the non-sequitur. Perhaps you think your co-caucusers were behaving in a way that is not adult but it is hard to see how that reflects on Senator Obama himself? Are you genuinely unaware of Sen. Obama being well above the legal age, or just insinuating that he should leave the field to a nearly defeated Baby Boomer and a septuagenarian old coot?

Or maybe you are just bitter that Obama kicked your candidates ass in our state caucus and is rolling on to win the presidency. Not only did he win by a wide margin, but your readers ignored your tiresome tirades and turned out in large numbers to support her opponent.

Please Stranger editors, spare us ECB's strident partisanship and assign her to write something akin to journalism.

Posted by Bajezus | February 14, 2008 11:11 AM
14

how much did it cost the stranger to steal you away from the weekly, erica? just wondering

Posted by twee | February 14, 2008 11:12 AM
15

This post was not only deranged but not very mature. I want an adult to post on SLOG. A sensible one.

Posted by heywhatsit | February 14, 2008 11:12 AM
16

ECB, I don't understand this at all.

Are you really saying that Obama isn't an adult? What? Just because he has some rabid supporters doesn't mean he's some sort of child.

So basically, I agree with the #11, without the swearing, but with some of that sentiment. Do only people over 60 know what's best for us?

Posted by Former candidate | February 14, 2008 11:12 AM
17

The last week or two we've seen a big push by anti-Obama forces (not only the Clinton camp) to paint his supporters as wild-eyed lunatics. Look, they're enthusiastic about politics - weirdos! Erica, I'm sorry to see that you've become part of the effort to marginalize Obama and his supporters.

Posted by Gabriel | February 14, 2008 11:13 AM
18

I've never seen any of this sort of thing.

Maybe you need to hang around with a better class of people, Erica.

And maybe get some inverted commas.

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 11:13 AM
19

stupidest primary post EVAR.

gee, wouldn't want actual normal people to actually get EXCITED about their candidate.

Erica, your post deserves credit for being the one that finally made me put aside all reservations and begin to ACTIVELY DESPISE Hillary and all that she stands for--not that I was exactly a fan before, but still, you finally pushed me over the edge--way to go, great advocacy, ECB!

Posted by bing | February 14, 2008 11:13 AM
20

The text of this post is a quote; you might want to format it as such.

And I would be really, really surprised if anyone was "literally running around in circles and screaming 'Yes, we can!' with glazed looks in their eyes."

Posted by Levislade | February 14, 2008 11:14 AM
21

Sour grapes make the worst kind of whine.

Posted by Jeff | February 14, 2008 11:14 AM
22

Oh look, ECB is portraying Hillary as the victim of simple minded folk who feel passionate about their candidate.

Posted by Cato | February 14, 2008 11:15 AM
23

Oh, for chrissake: Ellen Emerson White is a freaking romance and "young adult" novelist.

Come back when you've got something better than this, PLEASE.

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 11:16 AM
24

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com

Do you not yet believe? -- Oh, ye of little faith.

Posted by Obamessiah | February 14, 2008 11:17 AM
25

no no, i think the point here is clear;

obama has idiots that support him.
clinton has intellectuals that took GRE's that support her.

except, you know, that saying things like this are not only untrue, but they make it turns off a huge swath of voters by saying you're too good to have em.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 11:17 AM
26

p.s. please note: if Hillary would've had the integrity and common sense to oppose the Iraq war when she had a chance, I'd have no problem being just as wild-eyed and excited about her candidacy.

Posted by bing | February 14, 2008 11:18 AM
27

it took nine days to put that post together?

Posted by Abe | February 14, 2008 11:18 AM
28

I think ECB is just embarrassed over "Hillary for You and Me." As she should be.

Posted by Explorer | February 14, 2008 11:19 AM
29

Wow, finally Erica put into words what I have been thinking! Those OBAMA supporters are all kids! They run around and speak in tongues and eat babies! And they're all so stupid! Fortunately us HILLARY supporters won't make shit up about those OBAMA people, and we won't take hyperbole to a new level, and we will act so mature and reasonable and be adults! We won't troll the blog our employer provides and make them look stupid and immature and unreasonable, that's something those OBAMA supporters do!

(SLOG Admins: Isn't it time to take Erica's posting privs away? She hasn't contributed anything rational, insightful, intelligent, or useful regarding Obama and Hillary for the last two weeks.)

Posted by trollmuch | February 14, 2008 11:20 AM
30

I'm sick of bullies who are trying to make me vote for Clinton because they think if I vote for Obama I'm "naive" or "don't know any better" or "a lightweight".

I'm not having it. I know how smart and qualified Clinton is. I'm not an idiot or some starry-eyed dreamer. As a feminist, I believe I have the right to choose who I want for president and not be pressured by those who think they know what's best for me.

I might choose Clinton. I might choose Obama. But I'm sure as hell going to do my own research and not succumb to bullying as to who I choose.

Feminism is about choices. I will make my own, informed choice, thank you.

Posted by Grown-up | February 14, 2008 11:20 AM
31

Well, ECB has finally won me over. I really hope that anyone but Obama wins the presidency, because I don't want to have to live through four or eight more years of this whiny shit.

Posted by Banna | February 14, 2008 11:20 AM
32

Two words: Hope. Change. Repeat until your brain turns to mush.

Posted by Svengali | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM
33

Relax everyone. Erica's moved past Denial and is now in Anger. Soon she'll be Bargaining Hillary into a VP role.

This too shall pass.

Posted by DOUG. | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM
34

Erica, what you're seeing is generational. The generations born post-1960 have, on the whole, never gotten this excited before, but it is certainly not new. Teddy Roosevelt did it. FDR did it. Kennedy did it.

You just haven't seen it before. I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing or informed voting, but you're just used to political races and campaigns where its not really emotional but to a select few.

People want to be proud of a candidate for the first time! Most don't think he'll be the savior of everything (well, some probably do). I consider myself a very informed and educated voter and a political junky, but I feel it too. Hillary would make me feel relieved a Democrat is in office. Obama would make me proud. And yes, I am also enjoying the pride of my friends in Israel, South Africa, and Italy messaging and texting me saying how wonderful it is a Kenyan goat-herders' son can become president in the USA and how they have hope now too after 8 years of Bush.

You don't feel it, and that's okay! However don't suggest that those of us who are enjoying that feeling for the first time have also checked our IQs at the door. We haven't.

Posted by JJ | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM
35

I agree...it does seem that *some* Obama supporters are somewhat blinded and maniacal about their candidate. It's okay to not feel the same way about him or any other candidate as long as your support is justified by reasonable evidence.

Of course, any thoughts that implies that Obama isn't a magic carpet ride to euphoria will be bashed. I just worry that he *will* be divisive if he sends troops to Pakistan...hmmm...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

We shouldn't talk about that, though. That might be reasonable.

Posted by sugamama | February 14, 2008 11:22 AM
36

Someone is sooooo a sore loser. You've got nothing better on Obama so you attack his supporters. You know, those young ADULTS (do have to be 18 to vote and all) who are for once excited and enlivened by the political process. Gosh that sure is a shame when that happens.

Embrace the power of Obama, and embrace your own candidate's destruction!

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | February 14, 2008 11:22 AM
37
Posted by Bald Face Lie | February 14, 2008 11:22 AM
38

Man, you are really a glutton for punishment Erica, aren't you?

Posted by Homo Will | February 14, 2008 11:23 AM
39

erica antagonizes those she needs to help her candidate win. so book smart but so lacking in common sense

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 11:23 AM
40

I find the Obamadness frustrating.
At first I thought he was more like Carter than Kennedy, but last night, listening to his speech on KUOW, I realized which President he is most like - George W Bush. He has that same folksy appeal, just appeals to different folks. He makes cleverly phrased statements that sound like what his voters want to hear, just like Bush.

This supports the idea that Clinton represents the past - a past where skill, experience and qualifications actually meant something. Now we live in the future, where Presidents are chosen the same way we choose all consumer products - through clever adsvertising.

Obama- the choice of a new generation.

Posted by blank12357 | February 14, 2008 11:24 AM
41

Erica,

Any similarly informed opinions on Paultards?

Posted by Flattop | February 14, 2008 11:25 AM
42

there you go blank, basically telling people they arent good enough to like your candidate. how many votes does that win you?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 11:27 AM
43

You know, the pushiest supporters I've met so far are Clinton ones, one of whom told me that it was "Hillary's Turn". Whatever the fuck that means.

So Hillary spent her life in Bill's umbra, studiously compromising her soul, to build to this point where - Iraq vote, Flag burning amendment, etc - I should vote for her because it's her "turn"?

Ridiculous. As ridiculous as this post. I know a ton of people for Obama, and not one of them is a wild eyed moron.

Posted by el ganador | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM
44

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/the_probama_petition
/2008/02/whos_feeling_um_catty_now
/2008/02/so_that_ted_kennedy_endorsement
/2008/02/oh_my_god_5

Posted by w7ngman | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM
45
Everywhere I went on Super Tuesday, I ran into Hillary supporters, who were literally running around in circles and screaming “She has experience!” with glazed looks in their eyes. At best, it was embarrassing, but it also felt–deranged. I would love to be inspired by a candidate, and feel wildly excited and so forth–but, not to the point of losing reason. Surely, there is something to be said for dignity? Call me crazy, but I want an adult to run the country. A sensible one.

FTFY.

Posted by Anon | February 14, 2008 11:31 AM
46

"I would love to be inspired by a candidate."

well there's a ringing endorsement if ever i've heard one.

if it's any consolation, hillary doesn't think very highly of you, either.

Posted by brandon | February 14, 2008 11:31 AM
47

I'm actually okay with Obama using folksy appeal and cleverly phrased statements to get elected, so long as he keeps on voting for all the things I believe in (as his record heretofore indicates).

Posted by leek | February 14, 2008 11:31 AM
48

I take it back -- you trolled in almost 4 dozen people with that weak attempt, ECB. Maybe you had something, after all, or maybe everyone's really bored waiting for lunch hour

Posted by yawn | February 14, 2008 11:34 AM
49

Side note: I was a gigantic fan of Ellen Emerson White's books about the first female president's daughter in the 80's (and 90's, and last year). Her writing has held up well for me, happily. So she might be a bit biased towards Hillary.

But to the main point: When did it become bad to be excited about politics? Or a candidate? When did it become bad for me to vote FOR someone as opposed to AGAINST someone? And I didn't see any crazy screaming Obama supporters at my caucus. What I did see was a lot of people explaining their respect for the Clintons, but wanting to vote FOR someone as opposed to AGAINST someone. The strident, screechy people were the Hillary supporters, and they were the first ones to get snappy and raise their voices. I've also met more than a few people who have self-identified as Republicans their entire lives who have said they will vote for Obama because he inspires them. And while I understand that inspiration only gets people so far, it's a lot better to have someone in power that inspires, rather than divides, no?

Posted by Jessica | February 14, 2008 11:35 AM
50

DUMB.

I agree with NaFun @8 - you're a good writer, so stop wasting our time and Slog space with petty stuff like this.

Posted by Hernandez | February 14, 2008 11:36 AM
51

DOUG. @33 wins the thread.

Posted by Yes! | February 14, 2008 11:36 AM
52

Oh, by the way, do you have anything to add to the quote you just plagiarized?

Posted by w7ngman | February 14, 2008 11:37 AM
53

This is, of course, as opposed to all of the drugged up geriatrics who prominently figure into the "Hillary Movement."

And, as others have pointed out, the demographic exit-polling says some pretty dramatic things about the education levels of the people voting for the candidates. Playing by ECB's way of doing things - do we really want the country run by someone who couldn't get a college degree?

Posted by Ed | February 14, 2008 11:38 AM
54

he's so innnsspiirrriinnggg... gag me.

Posted by why again? | February 14, 2008 11:40 AM
55

"When you misuse the word "literally", you are using it in the exact opposite way in which it was intended"

-David Cross

Posted by sleestak | February 14, 2008 11:43 AM
56

It's a quote from a post by someone else--hence the "What S/He said" meme. If you want to get angry at the content of the quote, please direct your anger at the person who wrote it, not me.

Posted by ECB | February 14, 2008 11:44 AM
57

And it isn't "plagiarizing" to quote someone and attribute it with a link.

Posted by ECB | February 14, 2008 11:45 AM
58

Attribute, attribute, attribute. Use the "" key, use the Blockquote tag, but let someone know what part of your post you're quoting.

Posted by Flatliner | February 14, 2008 11:47 AM
59
I ran into Obama supporters, who were literally running around in circles and screaming “Yes, we can!” with glazed looks in their eyes.

Forgive me for just not believing this to be literally true.

And ECB@57, your original post didn't blockquote, which made it look like you were claiming it as your own at first glance.

Posted by tsm | February 14, 2008 11:47 AM
60

Screw that ECB - you quoted it and agreed with it (hence the "What She Said" title). It's been apparent for awhile, but as this episode yet again shows, you're even beginning to adopt some of her tactics.

You posted it, you agreed with it, none of us would've seen it without you, and we can infer from a lot of your past comments that you believe this. Don't try to spin this - either suck it up and defend the quote or don't post stuff like this and then try to backstep away from it. That's incredibly immature.

Posted by Ed | February 14, 2008 11:49 AM
61

Wow, here's some good idiocy in the comments:

I just can’t get excited about a guy who regularly voted “Present.” (yeah, yeah, yeah, the Illinois legislature has arcane rules, it can be a strategy, _whatever_. It still isn’t leadership.)

Strategy put towards political ends can't be leadership? Why not?

And I like how she declares Barack Obama to not be an "adult". Classy.

Posted by tsm | February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
62

I'll admit it. I'm CRAZY for Obama. Crazy to have a president so brilliant he made President of the Harvard Law Review. Crazy to have a president so inspirational he makes me want to do good things. Crazy to have a president that will change race relations in our country forever. So crazy mad in love with all these ideas I want to sing and yell. So why do you have a problem with a 47 year old white boy from Iowa feeling this way? Or a 19 year old girl from Seattle whose never cared about politics before?

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
63
Posted by duncan | February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
64

I'm not surprised that ECB is a Hillary supporter - all the feminazis love her. But has ECB noticed that Obama won EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT IN WASHINGTON? I guess that tiny little fact escaped her noticed. Must be the stupid people who like Obama, from the ECB point of view.

Now she's calling Obama supporters some kind of wild-eye cult fanatics who operate on a fantasy level of wishful thinking. This from the girl who wants to make the Viaduct and all the traffic that uses it, vanish into thin air.

Unfortunately for you, ECB, Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive politicians in our country. It's not her fault, but its there and it isn't going to change. If she manages to goad the super-delegates into voting her the nominee, we'll lose the election. I have absolutely no doubt that in a Clinton-McCain election, he will win.

OTOH, there is no reason NOT to vote for Obama. He has none of Clinton's baggage and, like it or not ECB, he is inspirational. Hillary can only inspire the Republican base to turn out en masse.

Posted by montex | February 14, 2008 11:51 AM
65

how did y'all not just assume it wasn't original content by the vague non-sequitur tagline? jeez

Posted by unacknowledged edit | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM
66

I like Obama and will support and vote for him in November but his suporters are not an asset.

You know how you all feel about Lyndon LaRouche and Ron Paul supporters, well that's how some Obama supporters are coming off.

People on this board talking about winning in Georgia, SC, Idaho and other red states because Obama is winning Democratic primaries in those states. Jesse Jackson won primaries all over the south, think he would have won in them in the general? Hell a democrat wins the red state delegates every year but not in the general.

Obama is leading McCain by 4% nationwide right now without a significant negative campaign or media scrutiny.

Obama is a very smooth and slick politician emphasis on politician. The campaign for November will be tough and every vote lost by a candidate's supporter will be significant.

Embrace ECB and all non Obama supporters.


Posted by ouch | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM
67


i always knew you were anti-hope, anti-dream and anti-change.

Posted by cochise. | February 14, 2008 11:52 AM
68

Call me crazy, but I want an adult to run the country. A sensible one.

Isn't that otherwise known as voting Republican?

Posted by JMR | February 14, 2008 11:53 AM
69

The troll returns. Nice to have you back ECB! You keep right at that strawman!

Posted by chris | February 14, 2008 11:54 AM
70

Don't worry, my child! Those screaming Obama supporters are only in the INSIGNIFICANT states that don't matter, like yours! We'll win with our magical superdelegates-and-white-women-only-in-states-that-matter strategy!

Posted by HRC | February 14, 2008 11:55 AM
71

@ #66 - You're right, some of the talk about winning certain red states is probably a bit crazy - but it's not crazy to think that Virginia (given the results this week) or Colorado (given the most recent polling showing Hillary down double digits to McCain there and Obama up on McCain there) are two red/purple states that could flip. There are states that could flip with Obama running that would never flip for Hillary. It's really not that hard to figure out.

That being said, maybe electability isn't your thing, no problem, in which case there are lots of other reasons to support Obama, however, just about any way I (and the GOP) look at the electoral map, Obama poses a serious threat to actually win in November.

Posted by Ed | February 14, 2008 11:58 AM
72

@37, "bald faced lie" Obama didn't vote on the actual pass/fail of the bill, correct. He did, however, unlike Clinton, vote 'No' on the Cloture vote to end debate, where 60 votes are needed to pass. This is the vote to continue a filibuster.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00019

Posted by steve | February 14, 2008 12:05 PM
73

Good God. These grapes get much more sour, they're gonna be vinegar.

Listen, we're backing a man who has laid out a 68 page, detailed policy paper, and has the ability to motivate people. You're backing a power mad wonk who inspires revulsion in half the country, and mild, if somewhat respectful, distaste in most of the other half.

And you and your candidate are poisoning the party. HRC and her supporters better seriously start changing their tone if they want the coalition Obama has built up to show up in November.

Posted by Gitai | February 14, 2008 12:05 PM
74

@43 el ganador

How dare you sir! You know me, I am an Obama supporter, and I am most definitely a wild-eyed moron! Take it back you catty bitch!

Posted by Willis | February 14, 2008 12:06 PM
75

Obama's not an adult? Any rationalization to help indulge your Second Wave must-vote-for-the-woman instinct, I guess.

Posted by youknowitstrue | February 14, 2008 12:07 PM
76

Erica,

This is a problem that I have with Obama supporters.

When I went to caucus last weekend, there were a bunch of Obama supporters chanting "Yes We Can" and "Ready to Go" outside. It's like they already know all the official chants of the campaign. They were not talking the fine points of their candidates policies.

Worse was inside the caucus itself. Six people spoke on behalf of Obama, six for Clinton. Of the Obama folks, two made statements that were completely false. Including one who said that Obama had voted against the war. Of course Obama was not even in the Senate at that time so he did not vote either way. Another woman who spoke started CRYING as she described how she wished that she had lived in the great and wonderful 1960s and how Obama is just like MLK, JFK, RFK, etc.

WTF!?!?!

And when I give his supporters any information that goes counter to what they've been told, they get very upset and offended. It's as if I'm making fun at their religion.

I've been inspired by candidates before. But I've never held them in such esteem that I couldn't bare to hear any negatives about them. Hell, I admitted they had flaws and that they weren't perfect.

The Obama maniacs are becoming like the Naderites and the LaRouches. Their hero can do no wrong.

Yikes!

Funny, sad and true:

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

Posted by passionateJus | February 14, 2008 12:13 PM
77

Gitai, don't you get the feeling that Hillary supporters arent even thinking about the party anymore?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:14 PM
78

Are you still going to back Clinton when she loses the pledged delegate vote, goes to the convention and steals the nomination with superdelegates, which is apparently now her plan?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html

I'm sorry, but I can't support a candidate that's willing to subvert the will of the people and throw the entire Democratic party into chaos just to stroke her own ego.

Posted by Matthew | February 14, 2008 12:16 PM
79

If Obama's elected does it mean we'll be voting for Michelle Obama in 2024? She'll have the right experience on Day One!

Posted by Cato | February 14, 2008 12:17 PM
80

Wow, what a bunch of wankers. I can't believe this response. Listen to yourself. You all have totally lost the ability to reason. For god's sake - Erica CAN have an opinion and express it and should not be attacked for it. 95% of the stuff you read here and in other media is Pro-Obama, so for god's sake, RELAX! This is the kind of BS 'you are with us or against us' crap that I expect from Republicans - not Democrats.

Erica, I commend you for sticking to your beliefs and trying to provide a balance. Atta girl!

Posted by wow | February 14, 2008 12:17 PM
81

passionatejus, except for the fact that a lot of the contrary views are flat out lies or uninformed opinions.

and really, is the democratic party worse for having inane passion about a candidate? do you want to win elections with maniacal excitedness or be cold, sober losers?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:21 PM
82

also, at the kirkland caucus (that was feature on npr) one of the speakers for clinton was a blabbering, teary eyed hack. obama and hillary have people who passionately like them, the hillary camp simply has less of them.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:23 PM
83

@56

C'mon Erica. Why do you do this? The original comment by Ms. White insults Obama supporters and then Obama himself by proxy. Then you go one further by repeating it on Slog, so now you're insulting Obama by proxy twice removed. Then when called on it you backpedaled away from it and said we should direct our comments at the original author. WTF? Either you agree or you don't. You obviously agreed. And if you're making such a statement in a public forum like Slog, own it.

It really sucks to see you doing stupid shit like this. You have good reasons for being a Clinton supporter, but instead of writing some more good pieces about that, you do this. Blech.

Posted by NaFun | February 14, 2008 12:26 PM
84

wow, ECB doesnt have an opinion, she is just repeating insults. and were calling her out on her parroting of poorly thought out insults.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:26 PM
85

@80 An ad hominem attack on a man is not an opinion.

Posted by Banna | February 14, 2008 12:27 PM
86

@76. i've yet to see this obama supporter you describe. every time i see one defending obama's positions, they do with with reason and with emotion. and when the emotion is anger, it it often because the "clinton" position expressed is infuriating: like this post.

what is a rational obama response supposed to be when you are called a over-emotional child? is that even an issue? but, if you read, there are plenty of both emotional and thought replies to this underhanded attack.

and then you come along and still (infuriatingly so) try to cast obama supporters as the one without issues, and the one's who are overemotional.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 12:29 PM
87

Bellevue Ave @77, 81: You're not even a democrat; why do you care about the party? Why should people vote, or act, in a way to appease/unify/fellate the party? Maybe now that you're a delegate you've sworn your fealty, but I happen to know that you are not a party-line democrat, and find your accusation disingenuous.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 12:29 PM
88

@80 has a point. Everyone should be able to choose the candidate they want.

There aren't any bad choices this year for Dems, other than maybe that Gravel guy.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 14, 2008 12:32 PM
89

@87, I may not be a democrat but i believe that many people in the pro hillary camp are democrats first, hillary second.

you take the issues to the person, even if you don't believe in the issue yourself. I can raise the issue of party unity as an argument without believing in it myself because I know the other person cares about that. you use issues as an extension to back your candidate.

seriously, do you think everyone is a single issue voter?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:34 PM
90

and isnt that a testament to Obama's unifying power? he can take people who believe in several different things and unify them behind them. i know he can unify the party behind him but i care about his ability to pull in foreign policy. but that party unity is a bonus, right?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 12:38 PM
91

76 -
I'm with you, what is it with those Obama people being "Fired Up" and "Ready to Go" work for their candidate. Don't they know that volunteering for candidates isn't cool. And I agree they really show their colors by thinking "Yes we Can" change anything. And for them not to agree with your policy points, oh my, the audacity of it. I hope you gave it to them good that Obama came out against the war when he was running for a seat in the Senate rather than while he was a seated Senator. And that woman who got so emotional that she was crying, well what in the world was wrong with her. I hope you called her on it to let her know it's only dear Hillary that is allowed to cry.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 14, 2008 12:41 PM
92

In ECB's world, when Republicans, independents, and the traditionally politically non-inclined flock to candidate A, whose voting record is very, very similar to her preferred candidate B, this is apparently viewed as a dreadful thing and a sign of candidate B's weakness.

Most of the rest of the world would view such a thing as, y'know, success on the part of candidate A. Perhaps she's just more comfortable with partisan animosity and bitterness, because it feels familiar.

Clinton supporters: break your addiction to Rovian politics. Admitting you have a problem is Step 1.

Posted by tsm | February 14, 2008 12:41 PM
93

Damn it: "candidate B's weakness" => "candidate A's weakness"

Posted by tsm | February 14, 2008 12:42 PM
94

#34 - great post, thanks.

Just to bore everyone (on purpose), here are the dem/rep presidential choices available during my lifetime:

Nixon/Humphrey (RIP RFK)
Nixon/McGovern
Ford/Carter
Carter/Reagan
Reagan/Mondale
Bush/Dukakis
Bush/Clinton
Clinton/Dole
Bush/Gore
Bush/Kerry

Damn right Obama is inspiring. HRC is as inspiring as a box of rocks. I'll vote HRC as a necessity. I'll vote Obama 'cause I actually want to.

Posted by wbrproductions | February 14, 2008 12:52 PM
95

now, now...don't be mean to erica...she'll cry and then dan will wag his finger at us for being mean to poor old erica...and does she really deserve to be ridiculed for being such an experienced and expert shit-stirrer?

Posted by michael strangeways | February 14, 2008 12:52 PM
96

Here's a video of one of those starry eyed, non-substantive Obama supporters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM
At least that is what the reporter shooting the video was clearly hoping to show.


You can find one of those starry-eyed Obama suppor

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 14, 2008 12:53 PM
97

Trudging through verbosity on a snowy morning discourages me from reading the 93 previous posts and proceed to the matter at hand. Despite what Simon or Paula or that other guy say, how do I text in my vote for O My God? Do polls close at 9? Will it help that I once drove through Hope?

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | February 14, 2008 1:00 PM
98

The fact that people pile on the personal attacks every time Erica posts on HRC just proves her point -- this point. Regardless of the post, the result is always the same. Erica puts up a pro-HRC post of any kind, commenters write nasty hateful messages by the dozens.

Having caucused for HRC I've had the same experience; three Obama supporters wanted to have a conversation and twenty wanted to yell at me even before I opened my mouth to explain my reasons for supporting her.

Posted by Emma | February 14, 2008 1:01 PM
99

@89, 90: I don't see where I implied that everyone is a single-issue voter, I simply said YOU calling other people out on THIER lack of dedication to the Democratic Party rang hollow.

I don't dislike Obama, I will gladly vote for him in the election if he's on the ballot, and I have many friends whom I respect that are very fired up about the guy.

However, I've never felt any of that fire, and what I've heard from a lot of his supporters are empty recitals of the words hope and change and unity: words that don't mean a lot to me when I choose who to vote for. I've also seen a lot of very ugly vituperation that makes me less inclined to call myself an Obama supporter at this junction; I fully appreciate that that goes both ways.

What I don't understand, from you and from myriad others, is why supporting Hillary makes us the enemy. We're not Republicans. We're not going to vote for McCain, or Huckabee, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. If he's really so unifying, why does saying something unfavorable about him lead to such a shitstorm?

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 1:01 PM
100

@57

Your original post had no quotes or blockquote. Embedding a link in some text is not an attribution, it's um... a link.

If you write a paragraph of un-blockquoted text in your blog post, and embed a link, people are going to assume that you are commenting on whatever is found at the link. Titling it "What She Said" is not an attribution. All that implies to me is that you're either paraphrasing or recanting a similar experience to what is in the linked post.

Do you expect us to click every link in your posts to see if any of the text you wrote is a quote?

Posted by w7ngman | February 14, 2008 1:02 PM
101

emma, was the original post pro hillary or anti obama? you failed on your point. try again.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 1:02 PM
102

@98

Erica puts up a pro-HRC post of any kind...

This was not a pro-HRC post, this was an anti-O post. Please provide the link to the pro-HRC post she made that was well thought out and included dozens of "nasty, hateful messages".

Posted by Banna | February 14, 2008 1:04 PM
103

emma, this isn't a pro-HRC post. it's an anti-obama supporter post, and it's insulting.

it shouldn't come as a surprise that people will respond with such anger, seeing as this happens each and every time erica takes a sneering, condescending swipe at people for having the audacity to be excited by a political candidate she does not like.

Posted by brandon | February 14, 2008 1:08 PM
104

@103 - It doesn't come as a surprise. They just instinctively see people angry at ECB, ignore the history, and assume said people are sexists who hate on her for no reason other than she's a woman posting a political opinion.

Kind of like the way certain Clinton supporters instinctively think of Clinton non-supporters, actually.

Posted by youknowitstrue | February 14, 2008 1:11 PM
105

Emma's right. Obama supporters should thank Hillary supporters like Erica when they tell us we are morons who don't know anything and that we are creepy to be excited about Obama. In fact, since we are morons we should be saying thank you with a smile on our face. But no, we're all too CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY to accept their well researched characterizations. For example, it's repeated on seemingly every newscast that Obama does far better than Clinton among those with college degrees, and even more so among those with post-graduate degrees. And we all know those folks don't make decisions based on substantive reasons. Nope, just more Obama morons.

stupid creepy freaks who don't know anythingtell us we are morons that haven't thought out the issues and creepy because by thanking them and with a smile on our face. We are morons after all. By the way, how does one spell moron. hmmm.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 14, 2008 1:14 PM
106

@98.

1) what ECB posted was not a pro-clinton post and more than it was an insulting anti-obama post.

2) when you insult people you should expect to be insulted back (though i doubt the insults were actually in the dozens).

3) despite the deserved insults ECB received as a response for her first insult to obama supporters, most of the comments still provided rational for the opinion being supported.

4) engaging in discourse on the level of ECB's initial comment does not prove ECB's point. not her point being that obama supports are so emotional that they lost reason, and not her point that obama is not an adult, and not her point that somehow those two are related.

5) your experience at a caucus -- a personal anecdote -- is not valid in a debate because no one can challenge it or debate it.

i just don't see the mean obama supporters. i see the clinton ones. i see them here, disparaging obama supporters and stretching the truth.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 1:14 PM
107

At a friends caucus in Whatcom county the Hillary supporters in the crowd (and I'm talking only 25 people or so here) booed and hissed at the Obama supporters when they got up to speak. But I'm not judging Hillary Clinton based on the morons in that caucus and LUCKILY I'm not judging her based on your posts, Erica. But I would appreciate the same courtesy for my candidate in return. Not vehement and thinly veiled spite.

Posted by SDizzle | February 14, 2008 1:14 PM
108

@99 Voting for hillary doesnt make you the enemy. in fact voting isnt the issue at all. Its shit like the original post, taking on the supporters of another candidate that is ridiculous. its also a terrible way to try and discourage that fired up base from voting or encourage your base to turn up.

hillary supporters can do what they please but they certainly havent done anything pragmatic or wise towards winning people to their side.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 1:14 PM
109

Okay Sheep. Will you please wake up! The Obamamania is so goddamn creepy. Brandon, when did it become insulting to have an opinion? And this has nothing to do with Obama as a candidate - it's about his creepy followers who know little about him and follow him around like sheep. No, not all of Obama supporters are like this, but the majority are in my opinion (and this is what I saw last weekend). They want they're man or nothing. They don't like HRC - and don't really know why they like Obama (and, inspiring doesn't count... let's talk REALITY for a minute).

Brandon, when did it become insulting to question in the Democratic Party? Has my party morphed into some quasi-post 9/11 Republican BS where, if I question someone or something, I am yelled at, bullied, and told to shut up? God I hope not. I thought we were about analyzing, understanding, and YES accepting divergent opinions.

Go Erica! Hooray for questioning! Hooray for discussion! Hooray for RESPECTING others opinions!

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 1:18 PM
110

wake up sheep, insults arent opinions and arent open discussion.

how can hillary tap into inane voter giddiness? that is open for discussion.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 14, 2008 1:23 PM
111

this level of vitriol by both sides is divisive and misguided. Both camps should be focussing on the possibility of a McCain/huckabee ticket.

Posted by LMSW | February 14, 2008 1:25 PM
112

@103, 104: What is the Stranger if not a series of sneering, condescending swipes, with a few news stories and some movie times thrown in for good measure? Give me a break. Defending Erica isn't ignoring history, it's asking people to think about why they get so upset at every word that falls from her fingertips, and it's a fucking uphill battle.

Dan posted something about how Hillary was doing a bad job - how many comments did it get? I think it was around 20 last I checked. Were any of them berating Dan personally for the content of his post? None that I saw. Erica posts something that someone else said (lack of block quotes aside - though it didn't take a genius to figure out she was quoting someone), and she's a bitch on wheels who ought to get a clue. If ecce homo or one of his ilk were here, he'd be arguing that that clue might be found on the tip of a dick, which he'd claim Erica hadn't seen in some time. That is the history of the Erica-haters, and that is why some of us come to her defense, whether we agree with her sentiment or not.

So spare us the "she's-asking-for-it" defense.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 1:25 PM
113

@ #99

Nice Post. I'm an Obama supporter and one who may not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee (don't worry I'm in a very, very red state - my vote doesn't matter so I have the liberty of voting this way). I can explain a little bit what you're seeing. I don't hate Hillary, I just don't think she'd be good for the country or for the party long-term. I don't hate Hillary supporters, I recognize that they're voting their consciences and that we just disagree. However, because I do feel so passionately about Obama, because I believe that we have a unique opportunity to take advantage of this election cycle, the national mood, and the movement that has built around him, it's hard for me to watch another group who wants to take that away. No, Hillary supporters are not the enemy or Republicans, but my support for Obama is more than his being a Democrat. For me it really does transcend party. It's also the first time I've felt that way about a candidate. I feel like it would be a profound mistake for the party and the country to pass up the unique candidate we have in front of us. At the very least, I think that we do a disservice not giving him a chance.

Hillary is a fine public servant who cares about people and maybe she'd be a good president. I'm not looking for good right now. I see a potential for greatness, not just good, in Obama and I'm not willing to pass that up if there is anything that I can do about it.

Posted by Ed | February 14, 2008 1:26 PM
114

@109

Hooray for RESPECTING others opinions!

As long as they don't support Obama, right? Because their opinions don't count, right? Because if they do, they're "deranged", right?

Posted by Falafal | February 14, 2008 1:27 PM
115

You're a twit, Wake Up Sheep. It's OK to like or not like a candidate because you like or don't like the candidate, but it is vacuous to like or not like a candidate because you like or don't like a candidate's supporters.

This is what drives me crazy about quotes like the one Erica put up: we shouldn't pay attention to what Obama says; we should pay attention to whether or not his supporters have the required gravitas. And this comes overwhelmingly from people who accuse Obama of not having any substance -- "look, young person acting enthusiastic; I TOLD you he's an empty suit". It just doesn't follow.

If you've got a problem with Obama, tell us what it is. We're listening. Otherwise, keep your oh-so-eager-to-be-wounded sensibilities to yourselves.

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 1:29 PM
116

I'll tell you how - they are concrete, they are real, and yes they are about change!

1) Universal Health Care. If a Democrat won't battle for this, who will? And, yes, I know most of you educated, employed people don't have to worry about this - but TOO many do. Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy. I'm tired of it - so are working class Americans and that's why they support Hillary.

2) Repealing subsides to oil companies - We need a green economy. How will we get this? By stopping these ridiculous subsides and fueling the new economy. Again, Obama has not agreed to this (and also supports nuclear power fyi).

3) Beating John McCain - Sorry folks, but the only want to beat experience is with experience. And don't bother bringing up the current polls - we all know where HRC was 6 months ago and we can all admit that the media is in love with Obama. When it comes to the general, the Rs can't wait to make this about national security - and when the dirty Bush Administration raises the terror level two weeks before the general election (you know they will) - WHO WILL PEOPLE TURN TO? Someone who they feel can protect them. This is America people, not Seattle.

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 1:33 PM
117

W00t @ Fnarf

Posted by NaFun | February 14, 2008 1:39 PM
118

@116

Sorry folks, but the only want to beat experience is with experience.

So you're saying McCain's 26 years in Congress doesn't stack up to Hillary's 8 years in congress and eight years as the president's wife? Oh yeah, she did that stint in the Arkansas Governor's mansion, as the governor's wife. Not that those last two aren't hard positions, but they certainly weren't elected positions.

Posted by Frugal Pete | February 14, 2008 1:41 PM
119
Dan posted something about how Hillary was doing a bad job - how many comments did it get? I think it was around 20 last I checked. Were any of them berating Dan personally for the content of his post? None that I saw.

Did Dan post about Clinton's supporters? Did he call them deranged? Did he dig for evidence that they were idiots? Did he whine about how he didn't care how much Clinton supporters victimized him and that he "wasn't ashamed to vote Obama"? Did he then dedicate a post to comments that flatter him? Did he do these things over and over again, regularly, and then use any random nasty comment he got as proof of his point?

No. Because Dan is an adult.

Posted by youknowitstrue | February 14, 2008 1:42 PM
120

@112. you are wrong. the first person to refer to erica as a "bitch" in this thread is... YOU.

do you get it? we are upset because people like you and erica are not being fair. not even close. bad logic, straw man attacks, ad hominem, and on and on. and now YOU are putting sexist remarks into our mouths.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 1:44 PM
121

Ed @ 113: Thanks. And thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view in such a civil, rational, and compelling way. We don't see a lot of that around here.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 1:45 PM
122

@113, @121 it'd be nice if people would default to thinking obama supporters are like 113. it's a shame some people choose not to. and how many times do we have to post 113's testimony before people get it? most of the obama supporters here are completely rational.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 1:49 PM
123

I have a big worry about this gleeful rabid Obama-mania. I worry that when the honeymoon begins winding down this summer and the republican unleash the next Ken Starr/Karl Rove on our dear Barak, that all of the O-Maniacs are going to get disillusioned and stay home in November.

Please tell me I am not justified. Please tell me all of these 'new voters' Obama is bringing out will actually show up on Election Day when the Reality sets in that he is just a man and he has flaws.

I'm worried! I have been let down before by these voters. I think Hillary is way better equipped to deal with those fuckers and way better equipped to knock some republican heads around and get things done.

The Democrats are also so excited about getting beyond partisanship and reaching out for a new world of bipartisanship that transcends the bitter divisions of the past (blah, blah, blah). I can tell you this - the Republicans could give a shit about appeasing our side. For chist sake, Huckabee almost won the Republican primary in our state. I think Hillary is much better equipped to knock some Republican heads around and kick some ass for a Democratic agenda.

Hillary is MY ass kicker and that is why I am voting for her. Fuck bipartisanship! I want someone who can kick ass and get a good Supreme Court nominee in place, someone who understands how to work the system and get some actual shit passed that I care about.

Posted by Mrs. Y | February 14, 2008 1:50 PM
124

@118

You have to admit foreign diplomacy is not a strong area for Barack Obama.

If you don't want to count her time in the White House and the fact that over 80 foreign leaders call her by her first name, fine... but Hillary's seven years on the Armed Services Committee beats Barack's two years in the Senate. Also, you have to admit diplomacy isn't a strong point for Obama - his comments about talking to leaders from Iran and North Korea coupled with his support (and funding) to Odinga in Kenya show he's a novice at this. Rs can't wait to pounce on this.

So, yes, experience beats experience in elections about national security.

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 1:50 PM
125

You do know that US diplomats are talking to Iran and North Korea now, don't you?

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 1:54 PM
126

@120: I didn't put anything into your mouth. I believe I addressed that rather specifically to brandon @103 and youknowitstrue @104. I said that the Stranger is not above "sneering condescension" (it's not), and that I disagree with the statement that defending Erica is ignoring history - I think ignoring history is saying that people don't overreact to her posts. How am I being unfair?

In case this is a misunderstanding, my original "YOU" was to Bellevue Ave, in regards to his position on the Democratic Party. It had nothing to do with the respective camps, and none of my remarks were a blanket statement that involved you, infrequent, in the least.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 1:54 PM
127
the Republicans could give a shit about appeasing our side ... Hillary is MY ass kicker and that is why I am voting for her. Fuck bipartisanship!

Your flaw here would seem to be not appreciating the difference between what Republican politicians and hardcore supporters think, and what portions of the populace that currently lean Republican actually think.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of people out there who vote Republican but aren't particularly ideological in their thinking. Obama's campaign understands this; Team Hillary apparently refuses to.

Posted by tsm | February 14, 2008 1:55 PM
128

@88 Will:
Unlike that pussy Obama, Gravel's still inhaling!

Posted by Gravel SuperFan | February 14, 2008 1:56 PM
129

@123

I worry that when the honeymoon begins winding down this summer and the republican unleash the next Ken Starr/Karl Rove on our dear Barak

What makes you think this won't happen to HRC? As a matter of fact, let's just not nominate any democrat because they might be the subject of a Republican smear campaign. I mean, what's the point in trying, right?

Posted by Fee | February 14, 2008 1:57 PM
130

@126 you wrote, "Erica posts something that someone else said (lack of block quotes aside - though it didn't take a genius to figure out she was quoting someone), and she's a bitch on wheels who ought to get a clue."

you are clearly talking about this thread, and you strongly imply that erica was called a "bitch" -- if not in words, in sentiment.

you are being unfair in that no one called her a bitch. no one. using the word bitch also implies that the comments are motivated by sexism.

were someone to read your comment only, they would think ECB made a post that was on par with other stranger staff posts, and that she was treated with hostile sexism as a result. that is not true, and is therefore unfair.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 2:00 PM
131

@124 I didn't say that HRC didn't have more experience than O, I said that McCain has more experience than HRC, which means he has more experience than BOTH. So McCain wins on experience, foreign policy or other.

Posted by Frugal Pete | February 14, 2008 2:01 PM
132

Ruth Bader Ginsberg can't hang on much longer. That old gal is just waiting until January until she resigns.

I trust that Hillary will not try to compromise on the Supreme Court nominee...can you say the same about Obama?

Posted by Supreme Court Justice | February 14, 2008 2:06 PM
133

@131

So you are ready to lose the national security argument? HRC can beat McCain on this - she's trusted and smart on national security. Obama will not be able to even talk the talk I fear. So, again I say, the only way you beat experience is with experience. Hillary is the better choice.

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 2:06 PM
134

If you think the criticism is undeserved, go back and read #4 and #44.

ECB is a either a troll or a person of questionable journalistic integrity, at least on political issues. She does fine reporting on transportation and her other topics. Either way she deserves to be called out for her snarky personal attacks on Obama et al and for her incessant spinmeistering. If she is trolling, then yes, she *is* asking for it, by definition.

#112, it's beside the point, but maybe you could explain to the sub-sub-geniuses out there how we were supposed to realize this was a quote, save for clicking the link and happening to notice the text is the same? The first 19 people on this comment thread are apparently idiots? The fact that you are trying to explain away a legitimate and damaging mistake are really telling of your bias.

Posted by w7ngman | February 14, 2008 2:08 PM
135

@116

1) Universal Health Care. Clinton has a mandate but won't say how she'll enforce it. Obama doesn't have a mandate but provides for coverage for kids up to age 25 and would set up programs for people to get the Fed Employees health insurance. It's basically a wash.

2) Clinton is in the pocket of nuclear, ethanol, and clean coal as much as Obama or moreso. Obama voted for that 2005 energy bill, other than that the two are basically the same. Both promise huge changes in energy and environmental policy. Again I see them as a wash.

3) I'm not gonna disregard the polls, which show Obama beating McCain by 4 pts and McCain beating Clinton by 2. Nor will I ignore all the Republicans and independents who have ranted about Hilary for the past 16 years and are chomping at the bit to campaign against her, nor the independents and Republicans who consistantly report that they'll vote for Obama or McCain but not Clinton.

And there's also 4) Clinton campaign tactics that disregard all but 6 states. And 5) Clinton voting for the Iraq War authorization. And 6) Obama's tenure as a constitutional law professor at U of Chicago Law.

Posted by NaFun | February 14, 2008 2:13 PM
136

@Wake Up Sheep

You sound awfully like someone on the HRC payroll......

Posted by Willis | February 14, 2008 2:15 PM
137

@ 133 You mean how she was strong on national security by stating that she didn't know if Bush's warrantless wiretaps broke any laws? Or when she couldn't remember who was on the ballot in Pakistan? Or her flip-flop right in the middle of a debate on border security and Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegals? Google 'em.

Posted by Frugal Pete | February 14, 2008 2:16 PM
138

@130: Alright, I'll bite. Why someone would read my comment only I have no idea, but you've got me there - it's unfair without any greater context. You know, like every other Erica-fueled hatefest that happens here practically every day.

I'm talking about this thread and others, and I'm talking about the sentiment. It's there, and it is at least partially sexist, whether you want to admit it or not.

Erica posts things that aren't on par with other staffers? How about this: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/live_blogging_the_hideous_public_groomin

Is this the adult conversation that apparently everyone at the Stranger engages in besides Erica?

When Dan sings-the-same-tune on something like the Every Child posts, something some consider to be a little whiny and petulant, he'll get a couple haters. Or, if he says something about fat people, the he's-asking-for-its will come out to play, and some people will give him a tsk tsk. But is it EVER to the same magnitude as it is with Erica?

What about Charles's posts? People around here seem more than willing to take them with a grain of salt. Imagine how much lower our blood pressure could be if people were willing to do the same with Erica's.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 2:28 PM
139

@138. thank you for (kind of) recognizing what you did. it is unfair without greater context. but it is also unfair with context.

you said that in this thread people called erica a bitch. that is stretching the truth, and putting words into people's mouths. and that sort of thing affects the conversation. it affects it in this thread, and in threads that follow.

note: if there are examples elsewhere, then use them. i believe you that there are; i've seen them and i've pointed them out.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 2:38 PM
140

@134: I think the vitriol is undeserved; criticism would be a lovely change of pace. Criticism would go something like, "Erica, fix your block quotes, this is confusing."

My "genius" comment was predicated on the fact that I expect most frequent Sloggers to be familiar with the "What He Said/What She Said" format, in which various Stranger staffers post quotes from other people. Especially so soon after Dan made a similar post.

A better tell of my bias would be this statement: "That is the history of the Erica-haters, and that is why some of us come to her defense, whether we agree with her sentiment or not." I specifically said I was defending Erica because of the vehemence of the attacks, current and past, against her. Bias owned.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 2:41 PM
141

@139: I don't feel it is unfair with context. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

I didn't "say" that people in this thread specifically called Erica a bitch - were I to say that, I would have used quotes. I made a hyperbolic statement about the general sentiment of responses to her relatively benign post. Maybe in some mediums that's breaking these mystical rules of "fairness" you operate from, but on the internet I'm pretty sure hyperbole is popular. I'm not going to back that up with links; my apologies.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 2:54 PM
142

@136

Wow, thanks for the compliment. I'm not of course (if I was, I certainly wouldn't be in Washington now). I'm just knowledgeable and committed.

@135
I find it ridiculous how Obama supporters have decided that it's ok NOT to have universal health care. EVERY OTHER Western industrialized country has it. You all seem so excited about change - and when we're talking about real change in health care, suddenly it is unfeasible. Well, no, I don't agree with that... and, yes I believe that we can have universal health care for every American. Sadly Obama does not - and, as a Democrat, I think that stinks.

It has been fun debating this afternoon with all of you.

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 2:55 PM
143

@118

You have to admit foreign diplomacy is not a strong area for Barack Obama.

If you don't want to count her time in the White House and the fact that over 80 foreign leaders call her by her first name, fine... but Hillary's seven years on the Armed Services Committee beats Barack's two years in the Senate. Also, you have to admit diplomacy isn't a strong point for Obama - his comments about talking to leaders from Iran and North Korea coupled with his support (and funding) to Odinga in Kenya show he's a novice at this. Rs can't wait to pounce on this.

So, yes, experience beats experience in elections about national security.

Posted by Wake Up Sheep! | February 14, 2008 2:56 PM
144

"Please, can't we all just get along."

No, seriously.

I think we know that people are a tad harsh on ECB in her posts. Maybe because we disagree with the way she says them. Or maybe for other reasons? Not sure.

And, it's true, we cut Charles way more slack - but then, if you've ever met him, you can see why - he's the fave of many of us.

But we _should_ move on.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 14, 2008 3:01 PM
145

@142, wait, did you say that HRC was going to get us universal health care? This is the same woman who was in charge of getting that for us in 1993, right? That sure worked out. I guess she did go on to publish that nice book about White House pets, though. That's something.

Posted by um | February 14, 2008 3:07 PM
146

Everywhere I went on Super Tuesday, I ran into Obama supporters, who were literally running around in circles and screaming “Yes, we can!” with glazed looks in their eyes.

That's funny, I didn't encounter any of that.

Oh, I get it. They made it up.

Posted by Paulus | February 14, 2008 3:09 PM
147

@141. i've certainly been nice to you in our "conversation". why the snark?

if we are operating on the rulez of teh internets, why do you "mock" my "use" of the "word" said? of course you didn't verbally say anything. your arguing tactics attempt to make someone look stupid, or wrong, by manufacturing a characteristic that isn't there. that is unfair in reality, and as far as i'm aware, in the world of the online.

i think calling someone a bitch is completely inappropriate. therefore, i think claiming someone used the word bitch is as equally inappropriate. you did the latter.

bitch is a strong, and in almost all cases, a sexist word. it is an automatic win in a debate. that is why you used it. it was easier to stop the word and deal with the issues -- "issues" as they were. and though you had addition reasoning, the bitch argument was too powerful to overlook.

so mock me as you will, the fact of the matter is you said erica was being called a bitch in this thread, which was not true. it's just like your use of snark, an powerful tool and difficult to argue against even when wrong.

finally, you write:

"I made a hyperbolic statement about the general sentiment of responses to her relatively benign post."

i'd say erica's post wasn't benign, but there's where we'll have to (and should) disagree. your use of hyperbole doesn't upset me, it's why you imply. no one used the word bitch, so instead of poetically shifting the critique to imply we are sexists, why couldn't your device imply we were rude, or ignoring the issues? i don't think we were, but at least that would be fair.

i refuse to defend sexism, and there's been too much of it on slog. but i will also speak up when someone takes liberties with such a straw person. i cannot defend sexist posts, but i can defend the critiques of ECB's position in this thread.

did i write too much? i think so.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 3:22 PM
148

@123 THANK YOU!!!


And the rest of you multiple conversational posters: just email each other. Don't you have anything better to do?

Posted by sea girl | February 14, 2008 3:22 PM
149

"stop the word and"

should have been

"drop the word then"


i also just realized, i say you are guilty of stretching the truth, and you respond with, oh that's just hyperbole. okay fine. we'll have to disagree then. i think it was stretching the truth, and that adding the word bitch was over the line because of the sentiment associated with that word.

Posted by frequent | February 14, 2008 3:30 PM
150

@148. yes! i'm sorry! i'm done! sorry! sorry Aislinn! (and i wish i were going tonight but no valentines for me!)

Posted by frequent | February 14, 2008 3:49 PM
151

"who were literally running around in circles and screaming “Yes, we can!” with glazed looks in their eyes"
Sadly, this describes most of my friends. You can't even talk to them about policy or stances on various issues, if you try they just ignore you and go back to how awesome Obama is. I'm surprised that this doesn't scare anyone.

Posted by alex | February 14, 2008 4:18 PM
152

(in)frequent: You're right, the hyperbole comment was snarky. I see why you interpreted the "say" as being mocking, but it wasn't meant that way - it was meant to draw attention to the fact that you were misattributing quotes to me about me misattributing quotes. I didn't say people explicitly called her a bitch on this thread, and if I had I would have used their (hypothetical) quotes directly. I feel like it was implied. Here's a sample of things directed toward Erica in this thread:

ECB lecturing someone about dignity. Oh, that's rich.

Strange, since your ability to reason was long ago eclipsed by bitter indignation.

Seriously, Fuck You.

Well, ECB has finally won me over. I really hope that anyone but Obama wins the presidency, because I don't want to have to live through four or eight more years of this whiny shit.

Those things aren't the most damning examples I've seen of the Erica-hate, but after days of reading this crap they were enough to prompt my response to 103 and 104. I'm sorry that the word bitch has a lot of really heavy connotations for you. It was not a weightily-chosen word on my part; it was an approximation of what I believe the anti-Erica sentiment to amount to. And the aforementioned hyperbole.

As for the snark: I thought your use of bold and caps was really annoying, and the "unfair" argument to be rather impotent. Also, if I recall correctly, you and I disagreed verbosely about the domestic partnership rights, an exchange that I didn't view positively and that, since then, colors my opinion of and reaction to your comments. If that wasn't you and I'm wrongly directing negative sentiment your way, I apologize. So, rather than say something like "infrequent, I don't like your posts and therefore am reacting defensively," I let my distaste transfer into snark. Immature, sure. Unfair? Meh. I guess I don't view Slogging quite so judicially.

and @148: We don't have each other's email addresses. This isn't Craigslist.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 4:46 PM
153

@150: haha, I spent too long being self-involved and didn't see this comment. You're right, this is unnecessary. It's too bad you won't be there tonight - generally meeting in person does much to sooth the "attack mode" that can come out when you've spent too long scrolling pages of text, as I did today.

Also, for what it's worth, all of those quotes were supposed to be italicized, not just the first one. It's been a long day.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 4:59 PM
154

you did not get into an argument about domestic partnerships with me. in less you are in favour of them. i mean, you're not in favour of them, are you? [/sillyness]

i think you should be able to snark. it just makes actual discussion more difficult. what can you do?

but about the actual discussion, i, too, grow weary of people attributing something to a person (or group) that isn't true. for instance, you and i did not get into an argument about domestic partnerships. that was you and someone else. yet you held it against me. that is unfortunate. like much of this discourse, it is now longer about issues, but about how people feel toward each other. you allowed your feelings toward me -- completely unjustified feelings -- dictate your demeanor and response to me.

in fact, i feel i should respond because i don't want people to think i hold some bigoted view on domestic partnerships. i don't. i think there should be equal rights for all. but by putting words into my mouth, again, and with disclaimers, you now were able to make me look bad and have a cop out. oh, well, i thought it was you, but i'm sorry it wasn't. do you see why that would upset me when i'm trying to discuss issues?

you write, "I'm sorry that the word bitch has a lot of really heavy connotations for you." yes, i think the word "bitch" has a certain power. but not just to me. i doubt you honestly disagree with my opinion. i think it is a sexist insult to call erica a bitch. end.

Posted by infrequent | February 14, 2008 5:06 PM
155

@76 - Um, not to be a jerk, but I call bullshit on that. DNC rules specifically state that a speaker is allowed one minute to speak on behalf of their candidate, which is exactly what happened at the caucus I attended. If, indeed, 6 people spoke for both Clinton & Obama, than that was a clear contravention of the stated rules, and you should have demanded that any additional speakers sit down. If you didn't do that, than that is your fault. I frankly find it a little hard to believe that it happened at all.

Posted by Jason E | February 14, 2008 5:07 PM
156

and now... happy valentine's day to all! and to all my love! aislinn, we will meet again someday!

Posted by frequent | February 14, 2008 5:13 PM
157

Crap. You're right. I looked it up. http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/04/rep_pedersen_good_record_tainted_by_cond

The argument was with Gitai. I've been attributing it to you for a while now. Totally my bad on that count.

Posted by Aislinn | February 14, 2008 5:38 PM
158

interesting...

how do you search the slog?

did you have a good v-day?


Posted by infrequent | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM
159

um, ECB, your saying that Obama is not an adult is dangerously close to calling this black man "boy".

What is happening in this country right now, especially among the young, is a reaction to the absence of leadership in this country that anyone could believe in. Sure, they're enthusiastic - these are the people who saw one presidency reduced to a sexual scandal, and the next lie about why we had to go to war. Obama is like water in the desert. That's not his fault. Nor is it his fault that his message is touching people in ways that politicians have been unable to in decades. They see in him the hope that would come just from his being elected. If the USA is ready to elect a black man as president, then we indeed have turned a corner where so much more may be possible. That there is this grand abyss between the people and the nation's leadership is no fault of Obama's.

Posted by Stella | February 15, 2008 11:14 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).