waahhhhhh, my canidate that has no possible chance of winning and is dividing the party right to another predictable, devistating loss is getting picked on, boo fucking hoo

A strike. Sure, that'll show em.

That's classic. Absolutely classic.

Yeah. Perhaps a clever ploy. A clever ploy with some truths. Maybe it's always been this way but it seems that most lefty sites look more and more like the righty sites but with the proper nouns changed. So, people are generally ignorant and behave like people. Still wanna think the ones that agree with you are better in some sense.

Some of the Hillary people at Daily Kos are lunatics. And so are some of the Obama people. The difference is that the Hillary people obviously support a loser with a huge ego. : ) The Obama people support a winner with a vision for change and a better America!

What #1 said.

Yeah, what everyone else said.

the big question is will ECB follow suit and go on "strike" from slog? ;)

Is this a sneaky way of implementing that "Day of Silence" the fundies are so worked up about?

Wait a minute, a "strike?" Doesn't that usually involve paid work? Is this how far the fortunes of labor in America have sunk, that unpaid laborers are now trying to improve their working conditions by refusing to contribute their free labor to a non-business?

Holy crap, we're a nation of interns.

funny how the Obama supporters attack Clinton based on what she herself and her campaign has said, but Clinton supporters get all worked up over nasty things posted in the comments on blogs.

I was wondering the same thing #8 obviously was. #8 beat me to it.

I can't wait to see how great America becomes when Obama is President.

Everything is going to be so great.

He is so humble and smart and perfect.

There will be no war and lots of money for everyone and we will all get along.

oh i just can't wait.

#9 - Paul - the Day of Silence is about gay and lesbian students in High School....College

How did you make the leap?

It is very effective project of GLESEN - a vast network of student run gay education projects in high schools and colleges.

Ghandi would approve, so would MLK... it is a brillant organizing project in those places...

What angers the fundies is how to stop a day of silence....Saturday Night Live should do a skit...

I find it interesting that blogers think we should care what they have to say...

Yeah, what @1 said.

Yeah, what @6 said.

Yeah, what @7 said.

How dare those folks going on strike accuse "our community" of becoming "little more than an echo chamber" with an us/them attitude.

Fuck 'em, I say !!

Now there there is an element of fear among the Obama people, so it seems. They did not think she would fight on.

He is clay, he has some history, each day he is apolgising and kicking someone off his campaign ... a bit of a surprise from someone who seemed so elevated.

She is who she is who she is. All the old Right Wing Trash is so silly. Whitewater, Vince Foster --- are you kidding? Yet it is used right here, like a mob of old time haters of Hilary people.....old, old trash.

They are neck and neck. The race is still going and the key might be who has the stamina... Hilary does. Does Obama?

All those super delegate will shift like sand depending how the next six weeks go. And Florida? Michigan?

The is a lot of misplaced true belief blather here from the Obama people. It is a political campaign, adjust you sights. Not American Idol, not Religion, not the Mommy of the Year Contest or Ms/Mr. America.

Raw politics, and history in the process. Very exciting for real time political junkies and solid Democrats are not at all awash in all this..

Just remember, Mc Cain is the target, neither Hilary or Obama.

have any of the 'haters' on here read the offending remarks of Hillary supporters? a lot of them are just downright nasty and they really do sound like rightwing sites. sad, sad, sad....

If the Obama supporters would just follow suit, DailyKos might be readable.

What exactly am I missing that makes this matter? If Markos went on a strike because somebody was MEAN ON THE INTERNET I would be like "what did you say I was projecting thought waves into a relay network of decommissioned military surveillance satellites and trying to summon the nearest race of robotic killing machines to invade the factories where they make Cheetos and Dr. Pepper to starve these stupid whiny keyboard fucks into leaving their moms houses and getting jobs."

I'll never make it to November reading blogs. It's too disregulating.

No, 18, I haven't seen any hate here from the Hillary supporters, but I have seen more than I ever wanted to from the Obama people. Especially against Erica, but she's not the only one.

@17They are neck and neck?? Really-cause last I checked, Obama had more delegates than Clinton. Not the same amount. More.

And how the hell is McCain the target? If anything, Clinton seems to be campaigning for him... trotting out "experience," which he washes both of them away with. And personally, I think this is freaking out "real" Democrats.... because it's scaring away independents that might have been disillusioned from 8 years of Bush. But now there are dirty tactics (I'm sorry, I see Clinton more on the attack and the dirty end of the stick) being employed by a party that was supposedly "for the people." For instance-me!

This is all so foreboding and depressing.

Say hello to President McCain.

They're already in Transylvania warming up some fresh blood for Karl Rove.

"They are neck and neck. The race is still going and the key might be who has the stamina... Hilary does. Does Obama?"

Boy do I hate that syntax.

Some people like to just plainly say what they mean, without the use of low blow suggestiveness... does Hillary?

@22, It is neck-and-neck. Neither of them will have enough delegates for a clean win. So it will come down to back-room politics, and I don't think I need to tell you who is better at that.

McCain/Clinton 08!

How are Hillary and Obama "neck and neck"?

Maybe the Rasmussen poll that showed Obama's recent eight point lead shrinking to one point? Well, that's a day-by-day, highly speculative measure.

Meanwhile, in terms of states, votes, and delegates, Obama's in the lead. He's so far in the lead that press perception, rather than delegate calculations, keeps Clinton afloat at this point. Yes, I know the press hates Evil Hil and loves Obama, but let's be realistic -- the press loves the drama of this race more than they hate Hil, whom they expect will lose anyway. Why, again? Oh, because she is losing. Badly. And not, let's grow up now, because of the press coverage.

The fact is, by any real metric, they are not neck and neck. Hillary supporters need to face it. In '92, Clinton was the Man from Hope, credibly non-Washington and not very monied. They ignited progressives. Now the Clintons are very Washington and very rich because of it. Good for them. But no surprise that they're not seen as offering the potential or the politics that they promised 16 years ago. No surprise that Obama, community organizer and Constitutional lawyer, has replaced the Clintons as the voice of moderation and centrist appeal.

I was going to say something germain, but I'm feeling so sorry for Obama and his supporters today that I'm going to refrain.

The Dems are imploding by their own volition. Lets face it, the Democratic party is composed of many subgroups from Code Pink to NOW to African Americans etc. The recipe of having a woman who seemed inevitable running against an eloquent man of color was bound to get complicated and ugly. It almost sounds like the work of a vast right wing conspiracy.

@21,

Take a look at the Wright thread. Are you still going to claim that Hillary supporters are never nasty?

I can't wait for the nomination process to be over. I'm sick of hearing Hillary supporters whine about what meanies Obama supporters are, immediately on the heels of taking cheap shots at Obama.

Really, just grow the fuck up.

I suspect Hilary regrets the Mc Cain remark.

Each time I have heard her speak she adds a unity position at the end, very well stated in the moments I have heard.

At the end of this - if she looses - she will give the BEST unity speech in the history of American politics and will INSTRUCT her supporters to join the effort to defet McCain. I know she will.

War Machine Mc Cain is the enemy.

yeah! strike! cos that'll be effective! all it will do is further cement how ineffective billary is as a leader... plus, it gives obama et al the chance to tell everyone how awful hillary is w/out being drowned out by cunards from the lying cult that is billary.

cos being cheated on several times makes you an excellent commander in chief! that it does!!!

yeah, it sure must be tough supporting a candidate who voted FOR THE WAR, what with all those people on liberal websites hatin on you.

I'm just thrilled that the media is finally vetting Clinton and her MASSIVE resume padding. She helped pass SChip? Really? Read the Boston Globe to find out how she's lying. She brought peace to Northern Ireland? Not according to those who actually DID bring peace to Northern Ireland. Lie lie lie.

Meanwhile Barack Obama made it through this most recent kerfuffle with his head held high and sold-out crowds in INDIANA, people. Indiana. And there's nothing to the Rezko story at all. The Clinton people keep hoping, but read the Chicago Trib for more info.

There's no need to feel sorry for Obama supporters. In fact, that condescending attitude from the self-satisfied Hillary and her campaign is one of the things I find most distasteful. Feel sorry for your old girl who's managed to alienate a lot of the Democratic Party with her divisive power grabbing ego trip. She tried to kneecap Obama by holding him accountable for his minister. Well then, let's hold her accountable for her husband, shall we? If his minister's fair game, then the woman in every port that Bill has should be fair game as well. As should all the donors to the Clinton Library. I wonder when we'll ever see those documents. And then there's the taxes. . .

Dems have that losing feeling. Maybe you guys should stop trying to please every constituent. There is no way to bring all of them together by November.

@31 Mary, grow up. Clinton is a war monger, and the rift she is creating in the Democratic Party right now is deliberate. If Clinton steals this nomination with Superdelegates, I will vote for Nader. Clinton is a Right Wing Hack.

I've had the feeling for a while that Clinton supporters mostly keep to themselves, are more apt to support either candidate who becomes the nominee. Whereas, I've hardly had that impression from Obama supporters, that they are unwilling to unite behind either candidate. It's their way or the highway, especially here at Slog. Also, the difference between Obama and Clinton is that he lets his surrogates do his dirty campaigning - Hillary tends to blurt the not-so-pretty stuff from her own mouth, Ferraro notwithstanding.
I understand the frustration of the Hillary supporters at Kos. For all the talk about egos, there are too many supporters of Obama who are sanctimonious and full of themselves. I saw it myself at the caucus - the 'look-at-me', long-winded speeches for Obama. It does get to be a bit much.
@29 - I agree with you.
@30 - That's a tired drum beat.

Summing up 30 some-odd comments:

I'm rubber, you're glue.

It's quite simple really - Obama doesn't fight for himself, he lets his surrogates and supporters do it for him. That way he can pretend he's above the fray while getting his message across.

And then, when that support becomes inconvenient, he says some platitudes, gets rid of the surrogate, and all is forgiven. He did it with McClurkin, he's done it with his pastor, wink-wink/nudge-nudge, and there he is above all the noisy rabble, just waiting to be anointed.

Hypocritical and straight from the Rovian playbook. Great job Mr. Obama.

obama's using the rove playbook? um, who released the photos of obama and trying to make a big deal out of it? shades of mccain in south carolina? i think so.

I haven't read kos in awhile... is Markos an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter? He seems like the type to stay impartial to the bitter end. That's getting harder these days, though...

#37, I think you are wrong. Your perception of this, especially on this blog, might be because many Obama supporters take his nomination as a given at this point, so there isn't much of a need to clarify their potential support for Clinton. There might be something more recent, but check out this poll from around Super Tuesday II.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

ECB tried to use this poll as an argument against nominating Obama (the blackmail approach?), but I think more than anything it reflects poorly on Clinton and her supporters' party loyalty. Along with Hillary's "McCain is more qualified than Obama" remarks it kind of cements that opinion for me.

#31, I think I agree with everything you say (though I'm not sure if she regrets having that viewpoint as much as she regrets sharing it). Her pimping unity upon losing is kind of a given, if she wants to continue a career as a Democrat, but it's going to take some *seriously* pointed retractions to get me to forgive those earlier remarks. What is said is what is said, switching gears without denouncing those earlier statements pretty directly isn't going to diminish how damaging they were to Obama. I can't even think of a good excuse she could use to retract those statements. "Oh yeah, that was just a dirty kitchen sink tactic, sorry." I just don't see her admitting that most of her campaign has been dirty attack politics that would have no basis in the general election (pimping your experience when your eventual opponent clearly has more?). She's too righteous.

Ooh, something to actually argue over or about.

The poll re Democrat defections was based on a sample of n= 214 Obama supporters and n=185 Clinton supporters. They estimated 25% of Clinton supporters would defect and that 10% of Obama supporters would defect, a point estimate of a 15% difference. A 95% confidence interval for the difference is (7%, 23%). That is, if the sample were truly representative one shouldn't be surprised if the true difference in defection rate is as small as 7% or as large as 23%.

Considering the small numbers and the shifting sands I have reservations that the sample is representative of anything interesting. If the survey does mean something it may not be as bad or it may be worse than reported.

My impression is that Obama supporters will hold their nose and vote for Clinton based on court appointments if nothing else.....but that Clinton supporters have swallowed the Clinton/McCain kool-aid that he's "not experienced" and "not a Muslim----that I know of". I have seen more Clinton supporters use the middle name Hussein than McCain lately.

That's what happens when you base your campaign on fear and ignorance.

I read the striker's post. It doesn't seem unreasonable, what she's asking for. Actual discourse and discussion about the candidates instead of personal attacks and vitriol (and people suggesting that they should dig up real life information on her).

I know it's the internet, but it seems like her sentiment is that the people at DailyKos should want to be better than the right-wing massess. And, would that be so hard?

Though, even here at Slog, I almost didn't click on the comments since I knew it would be all like, waaah, people are mean on the internet, suck it up.

keshmeshi@30:

Take a look at the Wright thread. Are you still going to claim that Hillary supporters are never nasty?

You know kesh, you are one of the best writers around here, but I honestly think you guys are going off the deep end. I took a look at the thread as you asked. Here's what Clinton supporters said about Obama:

* It's over for your guy.
* He Really Isn't Any Worse Than Anyone Else
* Obama was a blank slate for many people... Obama was delusional... He has not been vetted... (from someone who says he'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee)
* Obama has been acceptable to many voters as long as he seems like one of the nice blacks -- you know, a Will Smith type. This all makes him blacker than black.

And here's what Obama supporters said about Clinton:

* a shrill opponent who SCREAMS "SHAME ON YOU"
* shit the Clintons have rolled in the last thirty years
* Clinton saying "fag" would probably give her a small boost with her base with the party
* pardons that Hillary's bothers paid for... ties to the Carslile group... Saudi money donated for his library...

If you think the Clinton people were the more partisan ones in that exchange, then your sense of victimhood is finely honed indeed. Or put another way- which lines would be more at home on a Rush Limbaugh show?

Repent because the END IS NEAR. Obama is the ANTICHRIST and has come to take the faggots and lesbians and drug users and KILLERS OF BABIES straight to Hell where YOU WILL BURN FOR ETERNITY it is NOT TOO LATE to find redemption and SAVE YOUR IMMORTAL SOULS!

Yup, the Democrats have lost this one.

Amazing, it should have been so easy.

Thank you Big Sven. I read the thread after she made that post as well, and had the same reaction.

Re: first paragraph of #41, after clicking through the link, I can't tell if any official Kos contributors are even joining the strike. As far as I can tell it wasn't even bumped to the front page. It looks like it's just a bunch of whiny diary writers. In that case, lmao.

#42, good point. I'd be interested to see a more recent poll on this subject with some larger samples (though the sample sizes here don't exactly give horribly large confidence intervals)

I looked into the confidence intervals and here is what I came up with:

Obama supporters: sample size 214 at 10% defection rate gives about +/- 4% confidence (thats 6% to 14%)

Clinton supporters: sample size 185 at 25% defection rate gives about +/- 6% confidence (thats 19% to 31%)

At one end (14% vs 19%), Clinton supporters are only 1.35x more likely to defect. At the other end (6% to 31%), they are more than 5x more likely to defect.

This is all 95% confidence. It should be noted that even with 99% confidence, the intervals do not overlap.

What Nos. 5, 11, 14, 22, 31, 38, 42, 46, and 49 said.

Nos. 2, 6, 15, 19, 23, 28, 36, 40, 44, and 47 couldn't be more wrong.

#16, sometimes I can't tell if you've come around, are parodying Obama supporters, are parodying yourself, or what.

What I find so typical about this is that the strikers want the Daily Kos superusers to override the regular democratic system the site already has in place. Currently a majority of trusted users are able to hide comments that are too offensive. As we've come to expect, these rules don't work out in Hillary's favor, and so they are demanding intervention from on high.

@45,

I was referring more to the Clinton supporters' attack on Feit for daring to say something nice about Obama. He supports Clinton! I mean come on. Are Clinton supporters going to eat their own?

I've read other blogs that are very pro-Clinton and anti-Obama. At first, I defended my candidate and myself. Then when I got sick of it, I stopped reading. I didn't complain about how unfair Clinton supporters are compared to Obama supporters.

The fact is that when one group is in the majority, many of them wind up saying hateful things and the peanut gallery (nasty and nice alike) drown out the minority (nasty and nice alike). No group can claim moral superiority in this fight.

Of course, what should really happen is for comments to be shut down on DailyKos. 1000+ comments on one post? No, thank you.

Yeah, I can just see Nappy on Kos: "I agree with comments 187, 264, 492. . . ."

Or Will in Seattle: "#893 wins."

It looks like they got through about 1200 comments before they realized that being on strike must mean you're not supposed to comment on anything...

Innernet peeps is weird.

@43 - See, the difference is that Hillary supporters take what she said re: the Muslim rumors as sincere. Speaking for myself, I saw her interview and didn't read anything into it. Perhaps you see snarkiness because that's part of your nature, but don't paint the rest of us with that brush.
And MOST certainly, don't make the supposition that Hillary supporters would vote for McCain over Obama - how ridiculous. Rather, look to one editor of this newspaper, who posted on Slog that he couldn't support Hillary if she were the nominee. For anyone who feels that way - do you really want President McCain? Do you really want the Supreme Court completely lopsided for a generation?! Do you want to get drafted for the Iranian Invasion?!
Ultimately we'll have to unite behind one Dem nominee. Obama may have the lead, but it's not a huge one. There is a whole segment of the party he'll have to bring over, if the upcoming state and territorial elections make it more decisive. Let's see how these contests go.
Thankfully I can look to Obama himself to win me over. It will be NO THANKS to his current supporters.

I'm not being won over by Clinton OR her supporters. I've never appreciated being told I am not a feminist or I am sexist because I am a woman choosing not to vote for a politician just because she's a woman. I've never ever seen Obama pull out a line like "he's not a Muslim-so far as I know." I've never seen Obama scream for the head of a Clinton adviser who made an albeit stupid off-the-record comment to a reporter. The reason I will vote McCain over Clinton is because I cannot stomach someone in the White House, Democrat or no, with such low integrity, who is using the office as an ego boost, who seems to use everyone around her.... to someone who has been tearing asunder the party instead of gracefully dropping out when Obama started to prove that he can win it. Poll after poll has shown Obama can win the independents Clinton cannot not, and independent and disillusioned Republicans (holla) will win this, because McCain is not all that evil. For a Republican, he's actually quite mild, and without a strong base of unity from the Democrats, he will win with the sheer virtue of experience and moderation. Can anyone explain why Clinton HASN'T pulled out, even though she is trailing in delegates... why she's demanding a redo in Florida? For nothing else but her inflated ego. And I refuse to elect a president because they need a boost to their self-esteem.

Marty,

Please provide a youtube clip of Clinton "screaming for the head" of anyone.

And people should drop out of a very close race because someone else "started to prove" they can win? Hillary has proven she can win. She's won Senate races in New York twice against well qualified and well funded Republicans with strong independent support. Obama has proven he can win against... Alan Keyes. In a race in which the Republican he was supposed to actually run against dealt with a major scandal. Wow, how tough for him, what great experience, he sure is ready for the Presidential contest!

And hasn't Obama actually been trailing in the delegate count for most of the race?

As for Florida... one of the candidates apparently prefers not to be an establishment stooge and does not support the disenfranchisement of millions. The other candidate is Obama. Now there's some hope for ya.

They're both politicians, they both have huge egos, and to think otherwise is to delude yourself.

Have you ever stopped to consider you're part of the problem with America? Way to go hero, you must be so proud.

god damnit can we get some new posts here? dan you're a lazy sinner if you don't post every day!

Marty, if you had seen the entire interview clip of that question and answerS (not the abridged YouTube versions), you would know that Sen. Clinton said "No, of course not" about 8 times, under repeated questions about whether or not Obama is Muslim before ending with "As far as *I* know." Her tone implying: "You keep asking me this question and I keep giving you the same answer - NO - perhaps you know something I don't?"

Nobody talks about the number of electoral votes of the states that Obama or Clinton has won - probably because the tally is something like Clinton - 258, Obama - 209 - or the fact that Obama is winning states that Democrats have little chance of winning in November. But no, let's keep our eyes on the BIG prize, which is obviously the nomination! We'll worry about that pesky electability thing after we've crowned our nominee - the one who doesn't yet have enough delegates yet, but who *deserves* it because his supporters say he does - at the same time they say that Clinton is the one who's got entitlement issues!

I never thought I'd see a reprise of the egregious media treatment of Bush v. Gore so soon, much less happening within Democratic party. If only we'd remembered how disturbing it was to see the media fall all over themselves for Bush, instead of merely feeling relief because this time the candidate is "ours."

The proper answer to the "Obama a Muslim?" question was not anything to do with "as far as I know." The proper answer is something like "That question is ridiculous. The record is so clear that he is a Christian you might as well be asking me if I'm a Mayan Sun Worshipper."

To imply that somehow Obama might have more to prove or reveal on the question of his religion was beyond the pale.

Clinton is a whip smart lawyer. It is just not credible that she do not know exactly how doubt-filled it sounded.

Examples of fear mongering and pandering to the basest bigotry have never abated in her campaign.

Yet, Clinton supporters want us to believe that she and her campaign people are a bunch of innocent buffoons that have no control or consciousness of the words that leave their mouths, but rather just want a fair chance [or two or three or four]. Bush maybe, but not Clinton.

DARN. I said I wouldn't post anymore on these stupid threads!

@ 60

Trailing most of the race?

Obama has held the lead in committed delegates for the entire race.

@21

You haven't seen any hate from the Hillary people? So when they made that commercial where they darkened his skin and widened his nose was a form of love?

That right there is just ONE reason I'll never vote for Hillary. I've got dozens more, but you get the drift.

You reap what you sow.

@8

One can only hope...joking. I like her perspective, it reinforces daily why I support Obama.

Also, Clinton supporters don't realize that the Right wing wants her to run against McCain because she will mobilize their base to vote against her. So much so that Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for her in the Texas primary to beat Obama. They know they can beat Hillary, but not Obama.

I think Clinton's supporters are former Naderites.

How do so many of you people find it in you to so passionately give a shit about something like this? Not the actual primary election itself, mind you - that makes perfect sense to passionately give a shit about - but this.

I would think the Clinton supporters would have been more upset at losing another 9 delegates to Obama in Wisconsin, when all the Edwards delegates refused to back her, and wanted to move forward with Obama.

But hey, protest if you want.

Hils may be the new black, but Obama's the new President.

How stupid.

Obama has a clear path to the Nomination.

Hillary Clinton has an impossible path the the nomination.

John McCain's path rests on Hilary's head right now.

Turns out it's 20 delegates now.

Even more impossible, and yet Sen Clinton won't stop with the attack ads.

Two LL's, my bad

OMG! Did y'all read that post? Somebody used the word "decent" to describe Hillary! Hilarious!

OK, what's Daily Kos.

@63 Baloney.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002?f=h_column

@65 Baloney again.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013281.php

Love these anonymous liberal losers who have nothing better to do than pick fights with other anonymous liberal losers!

So what's the solution. How does one determine which attacks are biased and unfair, or what even constitutes an "attack" in the first place? Both candidates have nutso posters, but isn't that free speech? Bloggers calling for a restriction on free speech? This election really is out of control.

#68: Yes, do Clinton supporters not believe Republicans when they admit Hillary is their candidate of choice? Haven't staffers for the GOP even said they have "a basement" of scandals ready and waiting to unleash once/if Clinton is the Democratic nominee? They have been begging and hoping for Clinton to be the nominee since the beginning. They know how divisive she is.

I don't feel the Republicans believe they can't beat Obama....however they do see Obama as a great big "?". They'd rather run against the beast they are prepared for--the one where the independant vote for McCain will give them the edge. At least thats what my Republican friends tell me: that Clinton they can beat easily using the same tactics that have worked for Republicans the last, oh 30 years, but that Obama is going to be new territory and tactics. Might work, might not....

Also, to the people who pooh-pooh Obama's win in Red States, does that mean you think NY, California, and those big reliably Blue states will go McCAIN if Obama is the nominee? Of course they won't. They will go for the Democrat. Its certain swing states that matter, and those independants. California is not "in play" anymore than Texas is. So that whole argument can be manipulated by either side.

I'm too busy and have such a rich and fulfilling life that I can scarcely bear to spend even this moment or two on the computer but can't someone go patrol the freeptard forums and see if those windowlickers have started eating their own blastocysts over McCain? Threatening to fling their drool bibs to the floor and scrape their fecally encrusted Sponge Bob Square Pants XXL boxers off their Office Depot surplus computer chairs and go on STRIKE?

I mean, McCain was Flipflop Kerry's first pick for Vice Prez. The wingscum despise McCain.

@82

The WingNuts may despise McCain, but they're not stupid enough to support a 3rd party candidate - unlike the Democrats who voted for Ralph Nader. That man and every one who voted for him are personally responsible for the past 7 years of crimes committed by the Bush Administration.

@83

Along with those who actually voted for Bush, right?

I am glad Obama started with a Prayer in Indiana. His message and Rev. Wright's message that was played on the air, is completely at odds with one another and does not represent Sen Obama's views at all. He has from the beginning called for Unity, the unity of a Red state, a Blue State, for a United States, and it is the messengers of separatism who want to unite him with Rev. Wright and that message and not the message of unity that Sen. Obama has always reiterated. I hope thinking people and feeling people can see this rouse for what it is a smear, and a lie of what Sen Obama is and what he truly represents. They have done all kinds of things these past few weeks which should be beneath the tactics of ethical and moral people. They are swiftboating him like they did Sen. Kerry, making him something completely different than what he is. It should be illegal or a crime to assinate a man's character and purposefully lie and distort for one's personal gain. Barack has always said and states Out of Many we are One! Like he said we can't lose this moment, the Forces of Power (Clinton & McCain, as you know Clinton aligns herself with McCain) don't want that. There is too much power in a United People, they don't want that. Don't let them swiftboat and smear our man of Hope & Inspiration, Barack. Not everyone can inspire, it takes a Special Gift from God to Inspire a Generation, let's embrace this Gift from God to move this Nation forward and higher. Toward a more united and holistic place. Let's turn our back on the Politics of the Past which smear and tear down one's opponent instead of lifting up the country. Let's embrace the Future of Hope, Barack and turn away from the Past, Clinton the politics of hopelessness, lies and despair.

@77

Is Obama a Muslim?

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

The issue in this case is that she agrees that the Burden of Proof for Obama and Christianity lies with Obama. She agrees that he must convince others, but SHE takes him at his word.

For all other candidates the Burden of Proof regarding religion lies with anyone who wants to criticize. In this interview she legitmizes the double standard. Lawyer to the core.

OK, now take a deep breath and go read "im typing this from inside my closet".

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/16/13560/3566/1014/477995

Back to the "strike."

Getting blog commenters to not comment is like getting a junkie off heroin.

Don't call it a "strike," call it what it is:

Rehab.

@86 Wow. You are unbelievable. Nice how you left out the rest. She said Obama is being smeared and she has a lot of sympathy for him.

@86
I was just quoting the part YOUR source quoted as Clinton's first supposedly least offenisve response. Your article suggested it got less good after that. I read your link and this is what I found. I just didn't find saying it eight times and then saying it is a smear makes it better. See, in her mind it is a smear only because we might take him at his word that he is not a muslim. In fact the smear is that the whole idea is objectively absurd and the suggestion that Obama should have to give "his word" is intended clearly to create room for doubt about something for which there is objectively no room for doubt.

It is so Clintonian, just like wanting absolution based on a weasly "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" instead of a plain "I'm sorry for doing what I did"."

HRC = Evil
McCain = Not as Evil
Obama = Hardly Evil at All.
Nader = Needs to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart.

and dailykos comments are really frickin lame.

hey are there any awards at slog given for the most comments per line of the original post? Eli's up to 92 posts for only two lines. A Slogscore of 46!
powerful stuff.

@83: I think there are a lot better people to blame, like say the people who voted for Bush or perhaps the corrupt Florida legislature or an America that gave up on Gore, not knowing how bad things would become.

I voted for Nader in a heavily Blue State (that went to Gore) because I was tired of a corrupt two party system. It was a calculated risk in favor of democracy. It may have backfired, but it came from a good place.

Hey Chicagogaydude,

Don't you feel like voting for pro-DOMA Hillary is like voting against yourself?

Hillary makes a big show of being a friend to the gays but then refuses to stand up for them when push comes to shove.

@95 No, I think as far as the POTUS's ability to advance gay rights, the most important thing is to get a Democrat in there to appoint US Supreme Court justices. I think Hillary Clinton has the best chance to beat McCain, but I could be wrong.

Thank you, Bill Clinton, for justices Ginsburg and Breyer and Lawrence v. Texas.

Even if the Congress and the President could repeal DOMA now, (which Clinton wants to do in part), it won't suddenly make straight America think gay people are equal and it won't bring about gay marriage in this decade, which Obama isn't even for.

@96: But Hillary has said she's "authentically against gay marriage" as recently as last September. She's flip-flopped a lot on this, but I think the best we can expect from her is civil unions. And that's if and only if it's expedient.

forgot link: http://www.queerty.com/hillary-really-not-about-gay-nups-20070920/

@98 Dawgson, you are right that civil union is the best we are going to get out of either Clinton or Obama. I believe Kucinich and Gravel were the only candidates who supported gay marriage.

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage

The best insightful reply over there was..

"nothing has changed here...in terms of tactics or tone. We've never pulled any punches here when it comes to the centrists, the equivocators, the triangulators, the DLCers, and the Washington insiders. For Christsake, kos wrote a book about it. And the Clintons "wrote the book" on just those things we despise: equivocation, triangulation, the DLC, etc. How were our attacks of Lieberman any more respectful? The only difference is now we're attacking a candidate whom YOU feel strongly about.

Sorry. It happens. But if you don't understand why we dislike her, if you don't understand that she stood opposed to the blogroots for years, that this community grew into what it is today despite her, not because of her, then you're right, perhaps this isn't the blog for you.

You see, decentralized though we are, I've always felt that the vast majority of bloggers share a point of view. Out with the old way of doing politics, and in with the new. To many of us, Hillary Clinton, every bit as much as Joe Lieberman, typifies a wing of the Democratic party that is anathema, a wing that is responsible for the party's downfall, and complicit with the rise of radical conservatism. The wing that sells out its principles, moves ever towards the middle, which is itself ever moving right, the wing that allowed "liberal" to become a bad word, the wing that has neglected the democratic base for decades while getting bankrolled by most of the very same people who bankroll the other team. She wanted Howard Dean fired after the 06 election. She scoffs at party-building, and disagrees with the 50-state strategy. And her campaign has used tactics that are disingenous at best, and dishonest at worse.

So of course we attack her. Its what we do. She stands for everything the majority of bloggers have always disliked about the conventional Democratic party. And, as someone said below, nothing has changed here but your perspective.