I didnt watch the clip because I didnt want to ruin the episode, but we all remember hillarys it's 3am and scary things are happening at night, fear card right? and hillary saying mccain is more qualified than obama, and bill saying mccain and hillary are patriotic enough right? and obama is playing the fear card? tell me when u come back to reality. I hope whatever is in this clip doesnt make me eat my words but cmon norm your blinders are clearly showing. and remind me whos won more states, delegates, and votes? why dont you just make another site for all things hillary so I dont have to see this crap anymore, it's getting old. If it's mccain and hillary I would never vote for mccain, but I might not vote at all, because if obama doesnt win, it obviously doesnt matter what the people want.

The point isn't that one canidate is using fear over another, the point is that the process is taking too long, and making McCain look better with each day. Whomever the nominee ends up being needs to use this time to shape their message and strengthen his/herself against McCain. This is far too important an election for the Dems to squander it like this. And frankly, I think we need to take a bit of a look at some of these votes that are going to Hill, anyways, as she is getting quite a few republicans voting for her because they think she would be easier to beat in November. The Repugs hate her, and they'll have an easier time getting people to the polls in November if they're voting against someone they loath. Obama doesn't have that problem, but Hillary's too stupid to understand that, and is willing to rip the party to shreds just to obtain her quest for power. And we're god damned fucking tired of it.

To address your question, I really think that a lot of Obama supporters will have a difficult time voting for her if she gets the nod because of her stance on the war, her funding from the health care companies, and the fact that she was a Republican in college. She's too close to McCain (even sucking up to him by saying they are the only two candidates qualified to be president. Excuse me?) for comfort. Hell, I can understand voting for McCain if Hill gets it, might as well vote for the repug that doesn't lie about which party he belongs to.

Personally, if Hillary gets it, I can't in good conscience vote for her for the reasons stated above. To me, this entire election boils down to the war and the economy. Don't know who has a better stance on the economy, but I do know who has a better record on the war. I wont vote for McCain, either, so I'll probably end up writing in Al Gore and toss out my vote. It'll make me sick as hell in the process, but at least I'm not voting for someone who believes this war was a good idea.

if you are an Obama supporter ... you would be wise not to continue your condescending disrespect of those who support his opponent

What, are you gonna disembowel or ban us if we continue it? I'm not an Obama supporter. I just recognize that while I know far less about Obama, than Clinton -- from what I know of Clinton, she is far more likely to be a greater evil than whatever Obama might be.

Also, who do you think might actually win the election, in a Clinton-McCain or an Obama-McCain election? Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to register as Democrats, and vote for Clinton. That oughta give you a clue.

So in closing -- you're either a Republican provocateur, or slightly off your nut.

Good luck processing that.

glenn greenwald disembowels cnn's john king http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/12/king/index.html

johnking weakly responds http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/16/king/

on the headless mccain smear http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/21/mccain/

he goes after the media http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/20/mccain/

So which candidate's supporters are more likely to "defect" in the main election?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105742/Democratic-Groups-Most-Risk-Deserting.aspx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7319647.stm

28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, and 19% of Obama supporters would do the same in the event their candidate failed to garner the nomination. Even if you look at specific demographic groups (to "correct" for the fact that Obama gets a lot of support from black supporters, who traditionally stick with the party), Obama supporters still are less likely to vote McCain.

So please, keep admonishing Obama supporters about they betraying the party.

if you are an Obama supporter ... you would be wise not to continue your condescending disrespect of those who support his opponent

wtf? "Condescending disrespect" coming from Obama supporters?!

Did you actually type that with a straight face? Jesus christ. I really need to re-examine why it is I keep coming to this site. Because statements like that are infuriating.

I don't understand how McCain could win - I though Hillary and Obama were the most electable candidates the Dems had to offer? Isn't that why I've been told so many times my donations and support for Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards were a waste of time - because they'd lose?

Too bad we don't have Kerry again. Now that guy was electable!

After the past seven - going on eight years - and all the carnage, devestation and ruin that has been reaped on Americans and the world, if McCain still wins it's because Dems nominated a crap candidate. (They'll still blame Nader though).

There is condescending talk coming from both sides. As a supporter of neither candidate it is obvious both sides think the other is crazy. But if neither of the candidates are tough enough to survive the primaries intact through the convention, then they are weak because nothing Obama and his supporters say about Hillary and nothing she and her supporters say about Obama is worse than what will be said, insinuated and perpetuated about them in the general election.

But if any one is truly happier with not voting or voting McCain to be president then voting for the Democratic candidate they don't like - you are a hateful, selfish and petty person. Might as well enlist to go serve in Iraq for a hundred years, or maybe if you're really lucky you'll get to fight in a nice new war in Iran and "fight Al Qaeda" there too!

I'm voting for either one of our current crappy Democratic candidates over McCain and will be proud to do so because I respect human life over my own ego.

Montu,

Why do Republicans loath Hillary so much if she is apparently one of them as you say?

Go ahead and vote for Gore. He's another "electable" candidate. Or you could grow up, stop pretending Hillary is a closet Republican instead of just a crappy middle of the road Democrat willing to do and say anything to get elected - and if she gets the nomination still vote for her because McCain is NOT better than her.

Does "the fear card" beat three of a kind? I forget...

Little Mickey and others: I keep coming back ONLY for the occasional ironic piece about religion, or some nice thing about literature, science, culture . . . the 'political commentary' - if you could call it that - is crap these days.

Norm, as I've said before in so many words, you're seeming like a poser, keeping the pot stirring and the charge on high ... is it just for the hits? Be honest.

As I said the other day, there are many MORE Clinton supporters who say they will vote McCain if Obama is nominated (compared to Obama voters asked the question in reverse). Norm, your targeting Obama supporters as the ones showing 'condescending disrespect' is just nutty.

But it gets us interested, right? More hits, right?

All this posturing is just the time we're in. Obama has said unequivocally that he feels Hillary should stay in as long as she wants. I think all the voters should have their say. We're just well beyond the silly season, and deep into the vicious and vitriolic season. Lots of hits and absolutely off the charts television ratings. Time to ride the rapids. Steady. Patience.

...you would be wise not to continue your condescending disrespect of those who support his opponent

wtf? "Condescending disrespect" coming from Obama supporters?

I have to second LM's reaction to this. Some of the criticism of Obama I've seen here starts at condescension (they're nothing but sheep...) and then gets worse (choose just about any one of Lemos' rants). While some Obamaphiles have offered little more than slogans in favor of their candidate, I've also seen vigorous factually supported arguments - particularly from Adam and JoAnn and a couple others.

I'm voting for the democratic nominee - period. I prefer Obama and Hillary's comfort with what I think is nothing more than American imperialism bothers me a lot. But Hillary is a damned sight better than McCain and there is no way I'll vote for that son of bitch. The few things I liked about him - independence from the theocrats in his party and some semblance of fiscal sanity - he has abandoned. Fuck him. I am throughly anti-Republican now,

re: Hillary

This is over folks. Whether you like it or not, whether she believes it or not, Hillary has lost.

To defend the Hillary camp: I think their loyalty is based on three main points: 1) love of Bill Clinton and 2) fear that Americans won't vote for a black guy and 3) a fear that Republicans are secretly boosting Obama just to stop Hillary.

While I appreciate #1, Mr. Clinton has already had his turn at the wheel. I don't think the "first spouse" has, or should have, any significant position besides supporting the President. To suggest that Hillary is a 2-for-1 deal is obscene. Why couldn't Mr. Clinton advise President Obama? In other words, assuming Mr. Clinton wants only to help the nation, this point is a wash- he could just as easily support either Presidency as an unelected adviser.

Regarding point #2, I have no answers, only the hope that this is untrue.

Regarding point #3, here is my own anecdotal evidence among my GOP brethren. About 33% refuse to vote, or promise a Ron Paul write-in, 33% prefer McCain, 33% want Obama. The final third may be voting against McCain moreso than for Obama, however, a great deal of them (myself included) would sincerely like to see Obama win. On the other hand, the only GOP-ers I have known to vote for Hillary are either neocons who think she is "good for terror" (see also: Ann Coulter), or playing games with Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

However, like I said, this is all moot. Reality is this: she can't win, and all she is doing now is hurting the party. When the Hillary camp starts talking about superdelegates and convention fights, it reveals the very type of Machiavellian ideology I find disgusting in the current administration.

Finally, a heartfelt thank you to Hillary Clinton. I've hated you since the Waco masacre, and I sincerely enjoy watching your decent into madness. People like you make me wish that I could believe in a place like hell. Either way, soon you will be a forgotten old lady. Good riddance to the 20th Century!

This Democratic primary is a nightmare. Michigan and Florida break the rules by having their primaries early and the result is that they have to have another primary in order for this to be fair. That is insane. Why did they even bother having early primaries if they knew that this would result in having to have another costly primary? Am I the only one who finds this situation to be completely ridiculous?. Can any state just have their primary whenever they want to have it? Are there no rules after all? If Michigan and Florida can have a new primary, can other states also have a new primary? Where does this madness end?

It's as though the rules are being made up along the way. This demonstrates to me the incompetence of the Democrats in this primary. Are the rules so fuzzy that no one can even figure them out?

Hillary Clinton said:

And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.

If this is true, then why would she say that she is so concerned with Michigan and Florida voters "having a voice" when she's hoping that the pledged delegates will switch and when she's hoping that the super delegates will override the results from the pledged delegates?

So it's not a matter of popular vote and it's not a matter of pledged delegates which are allocated proportionally afterall. It's just a matter of the Democratic delegates pledging for whoever the hell they want to pledge for. If this is the case, then why bother even casting a ballot in the first place and why pretend that this is about voters "having a voice". It seems that "delegates" elect the Democratic candidate, not the voters. And that stinks!

I am so sick and tired of this screwed up voting process and I am so sick and tired of the infighting between Clinton and Obama people.

One thing is perfectly clear. The way that Democrats nominate their candidate is fucked up. Big time.

And this discussion of who's worse, Obama supporters or Clinton supporters, is just ridiculous.

Maelstrom said:

28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, and 19% of Obama supporters would do the same in the event their candidate failed to garner the nomination.

So according to this statistic, it is the Clinton supporters who should be admonished for playing the "fear card".

They're lying JoAnn. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.

It's just like all the people who say they won't shop at Wal-Mart anymore. They tell the pollster what they think he/she wants to hear. It means nothing.

They're lying JoAnn. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now.

Yes, I agree Syngas. I'm just saying that people from both camps are "playing the fear card", that is, they're lying. It's all so ridiculous and annoying.

It's just like all the people who say they won't shop at Wal-Mart anymore..

Now hold on there. I refuse to shop at WalMart and I don't, never do, and never will. I do all of my shopping from local merchants.

And in the Gallup poll linked to by Maelstrom, note that of Non-hispanic Blacks who support Barack Obama, 10 percent say that they would vote for John McCain in a McCain vs Hillary Clinton contest.

26 percent of women who support Hillary Clinton say that they would vote for John McCain in a McCain vs Obama contest.

So women supporting Hillary Clinton are playing the "fear card" more than Blacks who are supporting Obama by 16 percent.

In fact, Blacks in both categories are less likely than any other group to say that they would vote for John McCain. Seems that Blacks are the most loyal of all categories of potential Democratic voters.

It's also interesting to note that it is Independents who are most likely to vote for McCain if their Democratic candidate of choice doesn't win in the primary and in this instance, I don't think it's a matter of the "fear card".

If you are opposed to a candidate playing the fear card don't be hypocrite and ignore it when that is what the surrogates for your candidate are doing.

I think it's unfair to lump a) all Obama supporters together and b) Obama in with his supporters. Obama can appeal to his supporters in an attempt to constrain their rhetoric but he can't actually control what they say. And the average supporter has no control at all over what other supporters are saying so don't lump them all together.

I've seen multiple instances, on OGM and elsewhere, of people saying outright that they won't vote for Obama because they don't like his supporters, which seems to me about the worst informed way to pick a candidate short of flipping a coin.

Stupid Girl, I'm not "pretending" anything. She was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley Collage and describes herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HillaryRodhamClinton#College

As to why the republicans hate her, she's Bill Clinton's wife.

And no, I wont "grow up" and sheepishly vote against my principles. She voted for the war, and then lied about "not knowing what she knows now" (paraphrased). That's bull, and she knows it. She had all the information she needed to vote against it. Hans Blix of the IAEA was screaming from the rooftops that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN also knew prior to the beginning of the war that the mustard uranium memo was a hoax, and that there were no ties between al Queada and Hussein. That's a lot of info to miss out on, and if she's too blind to see that (or she willfully ignored it), what else is she going to miss? What other stupid wars are going to be started? She's party to the mess we're in, and honestly, I don't want to become party myself. At least if I vote for someone else who has never supported the war, I can point my finger at everyone else that just sheepishly followed the party. Fuck electability, vote your conscience, maybe then we'll actually hold some of these people accountable.

Montu - What other stupid wars are going to be started?

So you'd rather let McCain win? His judgement is better than hers? His values mesh better?

About your advice to vote my conscience - that's not what Obama and Hillary supporters were telling me a few months back. They were telling me Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards were unelectable.

Most likely you'll still get to vote for Obama because it does seem Hillary is losing this race. I'm just saying that if you're happier having McCain in the president's seat over Hillary you're out of your mind. You'd rather have him nominating more conservatives to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department and to run social programs into the ground? Hillary is a crap Democrat, but I think the past twenty years have proved she's not a Republican (Vast Republican Conspiracy comment ring a bell).

I was against both Iraq and Afganistan invasions and read much more proof that the excuses for war were BS and all those crap politician and media people whining they were lied to piss me off too. Hillary has long been one of my least favorite Democrats since she ran to be my state's Senator - but I will not pretend she is worse than McCain because I don't like her.

Think about what choice you are making by abstaining from voting. If you're in a blue state, your protest non-vote is fine, if you in a swing state or a red one you may want to reconsider your stance.

O think a couple quotes from norm need light from a different angle:

"I don't believe the idea that the many who say they won't support the other Democratic candidate if theirs is not chosen is true, but if you are an Obama supporter and you believe it to be true, you would be wise not to continue your condescending disrespect of those who support his opponent."

"Certainly you don't think the statement is meant to apply to every Obama supporter?"

To speak very loosely, you've intended to chastise "Obama-supporting propogandists." I'm sure you would also love to criticize "southern racists" and "religious authoritarians." However, there are details in there that are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand, namely "Obama-supporting," "southern," and "religious." Usually when you start singling specific groups of jerks rather than jerks in general ("propogandists," "racists," "authoritarians"), it's a reason for concern.

Granted, for convenience, sometimes it does help to single out a particular sub-group or group of sub-groups, and I can understand that. However, when you generally target certain groups (and ignore their accomplishments) while generally praising others (and ignoring their demerits, writing off that non-religious sorts have the potential to be authoritarian, and that some Clinton-supporters are in fact propogandists), you paint greater judgments about those groups, that Obama-supporters and religious sorts (I'm only mildly the former and definitely not the latter) are broadly bad people, you're demonstrating prejudices and are bound to commit discrimination against them.

I'll offer a few counterpart pairings you probably find problematic: "homosexual child-abusers," "black deadbeat dads," and in the case of a windbag particularly eager to attack rival groups, "feminazis." It's a corruption of language that frames the discussion in such a biased way that you're primarily going to get reactionary dumbed-down debate (as you would get with a broad array of Fox-related programming).

Granted, these programs are far more dedicated to self-serving causes than you could be even if you tried to. However, you can be better than a watered-down "liberal" (or at the moment pro-Clinton, which is after being pro-Edwards, which was probably after something else) version of that. Endorsing your goals is not even the entire objective of the blog, and it's sort of a sick joke that it's in here. But you are going to human like anyone else.

And the end of the day, readers are each ultimately going to make their own judgments, and you yourself will have to judge what sort of deep-seated feelings you have towards certain other groups of (it's something that affects everyone, myself included). So I will end with a quote from Shakespeare (which is quite rare for me).

"This above all: to thine own self be true"

Norm: >Certainly you don't think the statement is meant to apply to every Obama supporter?

Here is how your post begins:

"Obama supporters are playing the fear card."

There is not one word in that sentence that indicates you feel anything other than Obama supporters are playing the fear card.

So, the answer to your question is: yes, as someone who has gone on record here as being one of the pin-wheel-eyed Obamazombies, I'm afraid I DO read that and think that you're accusing me of playing the fear card.

But evidently the onus is on the reader to assume intent where there is intent, and none where there is not. And that's cool.

If it helps you avoid having to stop and consider how a segment of your readers might react upon reading your posts (and what blog owner wants to do that? ick!), then I'm glad to help!

Regarding your opening statement, Norm, I think there are supporters on both sides that say if you vote for the other candidate, McCain will win. Hell, part of the McCain campaign rhetoric was that he's the only one who can beat Hillary.

The clip doesn't really play into the intro. I DO agree with Maher that Hillary's justified in staying the race. She's close enough. I just hope Obama is the candidate over her.

As for the polls, I cannot but into any of them. They change weekly, daily even, and have not panned out enough times this election cycle to be reliable. I think that the public is hit with so much information that the short memory factor among the voting populace will render today's bloody battle a distant memory in November. It's not that I support the bullshit of the Democratic campaigns and supporters - or the yellow journalism, it's just that I do believe (gasp - faith! no facts to support this!) that when the Democratic convention is over, most Dems will line up behind the candidate and McCain will be the new target.

Norm, thanks for the reply and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't purposely pushing buttons.

But I have to say, I think you're being a little unfair to expect your readers to practice "careful reading" when there is some evidence to suggest that you put very little effort into your writing.

Leaving your typos and punctuation issues alone, if you had only begun your post by putting it this way:

"The demands for Hillary to quit the race is playing the fear card"

Or this:

"Obama supporters who are calling for Hillary to quit are..."

...far fewer hackles would have been raised.

Underlying points have a far easier time of nestling into brains that aren't in defense mode. And these are hair-trigger times we're in.

you would be wise not to continue your condescending disrespect of those who support his opponent.

hehehehehehe.

Come now norm, misogynistic Cultists duped by a snake oil salesman can't possibly have the capacity for that type of condescension.

For the record

Hillary staying in is not a problem.

Hillary...

Attacking Obama's Patriotism

Attacking Obama's Ability to be Commander and Chief

Blaiming Obama for the invalidated primary's in Michigan and Florida.

Bringing up the Reverend Wright controversy.

Embittering her own supporters through some claim that this primary has been unfairly stolen from her...

ALL SERVE TO ELECT JOHN MCCAIN!

She wants to stay in and run a positive campaign, that's fine. Huckabee did zero damage to McCain and if McCain had self destructed he would have been right there to take the nomination.

Hillary needs to figure out what is more important, her personal ambition, or her Party and her Country

Am I...on punishment?

If you'd like to continue commenting here

What purpose does all this conflict serve?

How about a citation on that charge.

I was referring to the highly reported on statement by President Clinton where he said Hillary and John McCain loved their country and left Obama out of the equation.

Obama supporters are playing the fear card. Supporting Hillary is a vote for John McCain, they say. Floor fights at a convention can me a messy thing, but we're months away from a convention and they want to end it now.

The argument has been misstated. If the campaign were neck and neck, the demand that HRC drop out would be absurd. But, since an insider from the Clinton campaign has himself concede that her chances of winning are around 10%, and some put it at even less than that, on reasonable grounds, it is not unfair, or unreasonable, to say that if she does not close the gap in PA or NC, she should gracefully concede. What is the point of staying in a race, and launching a tirade of smear, if even your advisers say you cannot win? That is not fear-mongering, it is the voice of reality, telling you when you've already lost. I find plausible that she is really following a 2012 strategy.

As an aside, if Obama were where Clinton is now, people would have demanded long ago that he concede. But for some reason, our media seem to believe the Clintons to be magical and invincible.

I was referring to the highly reported on statement by President Clinton where he said Hillary and John McCain loved their country and left Obama out of the equation.

Don't you see it as a problem, that the lack of a positive statement is interpreted as being a negative statement? Do you consider it fair? Why do you do it? What purpose do statements such as that serve?

I suggest that we would be a lot better off if that sort of sophistry was avoided.

I suggest that we would be a lot better off if that sort of sophistry was avoided.

Forget the patriotism statement. The point is that Clinton has repeatedly suggested n89758.html". If that is not like saying to the Democrats: 'either me or nobody', I don't know what is. And after 7 and half years of disastrous Republican rule, which McCain, in pandering to the far right wing, seems to intent only to extend, that is an recklessly irresponsible and below the belt suggestion. What it means is that the values of the Democratic values don't matter, only her winning.

Dammit. n89758.html". Sorry!

Clinton has repeatedly suggested that McCain is a superior candidate to Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html

If "fear"= having or urging concern about some bad outcome, then I think the fear card should be played in most or all elections. I don't agree with people using the fear of violent death and/or Muslim hordes irresponsibly in an election campaign.

I don't know if a convention fight will be a disaster. I think it probably will. Hillary wants to go to lodge a complaint in the credentials committee, and i guess get the nomination through her insider connections. It probably will never come to that and if it did it probably wouldn't work, but it is a very provocative threat, which provokes Obama supporters, who then sometimes get really lathered up and alienate Hillary people, which then destroys the chances of the Obama in the general.

One of the big challenges of this campaign will be trying to get a good majority of white Democrats to vote for Obama. Racism is a serious problem, even in the Democratic party. This was not a challenge that Hillary created, but she is making is much harder to overcome.

If she lost fair and square rather than being pushed out, it would be easier for her supporters to accept it. But she has almost zero chance now. That increases calls for her to drop out, which in turn hardens her supporters against the idea of anything less than a bitter-end campaign. So I don't like that idea of Obama trying to force her out (he's not, right now), but yes I think she should have either dropped out or run a very different campaign after it became clear she had little chance. She could have done what Huckabee did after Florida.

"Don't you see it as a problem, that the lack of a positive statement is interpreted as being a negative statement? Do you consider it fair?"

I don't know how to interpret it, but it is strange that the Clintons are making nice with McCain while McCain is attacking the Democrats, and while Hillary is going all out on Obama. I'd much rather see a nomination fight where as soon as McCain got the nomination, HRC and Obama competed to see who could bash McCain more. Obama's attacked McCain to some degree, but Hillary's camp can't seem to say anything bad about him.

it is strange that the Clintons are making nice with McCain while McCain is attacking the Democrats, and while Hillary is going all out on Obama.

And don't forget Richard Mellon Scaife. They recently sat down to chat and evidently she dazzled him with her charm. The old boy is smitten.

well, i penned this long post when there were 5 comments on this; now there are 40 and it may no longer be timely... but here it goes. (thanks norm for working out the registration glitch).

how does your analysis (another critique of the "obamamaniacs") match with this clip? if anything, this clip shows that the media's trumped up claims, based upon a single poll, that clinton supporters won't support obama in the general, and vice versa, is hooey. and it shows that the rabid obama supporters who have so infuriated you are also a minority, or at least level-headed enough to regain their senses right after the heat of the battle moves on to the war in november. i don't quite see how saying we (dems) might lose to mccain is playing the fear card-- this is a valid strategic call based on the following for either candidate: 1) who is more electable? 2) what are the implications of having a candidate 2 months before the general versus 6-7 months beforehand? and 3) will a prolonged primary drain the enthusiasm of a newly invigorated democratic party (which had been proclaimed dead & buried after the 2004 cycle). fear is a card when it is divorced from reality, used to confuse or or obfuscate, or pinned to one group, party or perspective without reasonable verifiability. issuing threat alerts as political diversion is playing the fear card. intimating that adversaries will cheer one party or candidate over another is playing the fear card. suggesting that if the democrats do not select a candidate quickly (30-60 days) versus 5 months from now is a legitimate analysis based on the criteria above, regardless of which candidate is the beneficiary. the case for clinton would be 1) she can go toe to toe on experience with mccain and the wright thing makes obama unelectable; 2) mathematically, neither side can actually secure the nomination outright without unrealistic blowouts, so let's decide now-- she has won the big states and swing states, so let's go; 3) folks are getting worn out and things will only get more nit-picky and vicious as the media gets more headline hungry. i've heard many clinton supporters make this argument. obama supporters use the same criteria: 1) he offers a clear contrast to mccain and brings a mass movement behind him; 2) same as above except he has won more states and run well in the big states she has won (including actually winning more delegates in texas); and 3) same as above.

i am an obama supporter who thinks that the race should be called after puerto rico votes in june, and not before, and by called i mean that the superdelegates should make a mass move that makes it clear to whichever candidate that they should withdraw. i am also an obama supporter who would vote for hillary in a hot second, without hesitation. lastly, i am an obama supporter who thinks that the best way to resolve MI and FL would be for the clinton votes to be counted and for obama to get the remaining voters with consent from the other candidates (dodd, edwards, kucinich), and nobody puts the states in the win column. this would seat everybody, and net clinton 100k votes and about 20 delegates. that she broke the rules is irrelevant now (just like whether we should have ever invaded iraq is no longer relevant to our withdrawal strategy); what we need is a solution prior to august 25th. i am confident that it will be resolved mid-june after puerto rico. all this media driven frenzy about dropping out or staying in, or dems tearing each other apart, would be meaningless if it wasn't so damaging to relationships and the quality of the discourse. folks really need to relax.

look norm, i share your frustration with the sad state of our national discourse-- poor critical thinking skills, limited historical context, zero active listening, and an inability to be self-critical or to depersonalize disagreement-- but i think that the only way this can possibly change is by way of example. norm, sometimes your ridicule of religious people is as condescending and disrespectful as the fervent comments of obama supporters. i'm just as firm a believer in the flying spaghetti monster as you are, and my point here is not to criticize you for your posts-- it is to ask that you extend some understanding, empathy and ultimately forgiveness to those who unjustifiably attack you (or sen. clinton).rise above the nonsense, my friend.

on another note, if you have a chance to post tavis smiley's discussion of patriotism on real time, i thought he was very effective, and that your readers might benefit from his perspective. this whole uncritical and frequently selective analysis of patriotism has been on full display with the wright controversy. was ron paul's character dragged through the mud for weeks because he said 911 can't be viewed outside of the context of blowback? nope, why not? when gary webb (sj mercury news) and robert parry (ap), two white reporters, broke the story about the relationship between the c.i.a., the contras, and the principal distributor of crack cocaine in the u.s., were they dismissed as conspiracy theorists, or simply challenged on their facts? what made that discussion (somewhat) more civilized? when we, justifiably in my opinion, affirm the right of israel to be a jewish state, why don't we say, "if the word jewish was replaced with black people, people would be up in arms... it's a racist double standard?" (the answer is that a history of oppression and persecution is what justifies the jewish state, just as the legacy of slavery, legalized segregation up until just 44 years ago, and contemporary defacto desegregation for a significant economic underclass explains why one might need to be unashamedly black). and when dr. alan cantwell, a dermatologist and cancer researcher, also white, argues that aids/hiv is man made and was distributed to gay and african populations through world health organization sponsored vaccine programs, do we simply challenge his facts, or do we assassinate his character? my point here is not to debate the validity of these claims-- i think they are far from reaching the threshold for fact-- but rather to look at the quality of our discourse and the disturbing retreat from fairness that may or may not be influenced by the racial codes we grow up with. is being pro-you the same as being anti-me? not necessarily. is being pro-atheism the same as being anti-christian or jewish or muslim people? so why is being pro-black the same as being anti-white? where was the hate speech? how do we call a church with white members, that is part of a white denomination, that accepts gay and lesbian members, and that has members from all up and down the economic ladder a "racist" "hate teaching" "cult" (all unchallenged quotes from talking heads on the MSM)? are we scared by unfamiliar, colorful clothes that affirm the african origins of the wearers?

look, i'm not religious--some may even call me an atheist-- and i am one of the church's fiercest critics, but that church in chicago is not part of the problem. it uses religion for about the only thing it is good for and that is to motivate people to work to better the conditions of the least among us. in fact, rev. wright is the only kind of religious figure i can respect despite deeply disagreeing with his primary unit of analysis (the bible)-- that is a religious person who demands that his congregates get off their asses in the here and now to work for the betterment of their communities, to be self-critical instead of worrying about what other people are doing or believing or who they are sleeping with, and to face the realities of fear, hate, and greed that confront all human beings.

enough eye strain for us all; thanks for this forum.

g.ken patton

Don't you see it as a problem, that the lack of a positive statement is interpreted as being a negative statement?

If it was an isolated incident, I would be an ass for interpreting it that way.

But its not.

Complimenting your opponent is campaign tradition and complimenting the Republican candidate without mentioning the democratic front runner is not an accident you repeat without intent.

g patton:

if you have a chance to post tavis smiley's discussion of patriotism on real time, i thought he was very effective

And the entire paragraph you wrote after that statement was marvelous. Welcome to OGM (if you are new here), I'm glad to see such a comment from a new commentor.

g ken patton said:

and it shows that the rabid obama supporters who have so infuriated you are also a minority, or at least level-headed enough to regain their senses right after the heat of the battle moves on to the war in november.

In fact, the Hillary supporters are even more rabid. We have seen via the Pew poll that there are more Hillary supporters who say that they would vote for McCain than Obama supporters who say that they would vote for McCain.. hmmm... This post started out with the following sentence: "Obama supporters are playing the fear card". As Little Mickey said, the first sentence did not say "Some Obama supporters are playing the fear card". By leaving out the word "some", Norm, that sentence does, in fact, imply that the statement is meant to apply to every Obama supporter. And yet more Hillary supporters are "playing the fear card", so this post should have been addressed to Hillary supporters.

I'm glad to see such a comment from a new commentor.

I too enjoyed reading this well-thought-out comment

SG (I don't want to call you by your screen name because I don't want to offend you), I don't think McCain is better then Hillary, which I have stated. Neither am I a hypocrite, I voted for Kucinich in New Hampshire. At that point I had no opinion about Obama, but I really liked Kucinich. After he dropped out, I had to pick from the remaining canidates, and I prefer Obama.

If it makes you feel better, if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote in DC for Gore, our vote doesn't count for anything (I spend half my time in DC and the other half in NH). Obama gets the nod, I vote in New Hampshire where the vote carries more weight. However, I simply can't vote for her because this war is responsible in large part to a lot of the problems we're facing. Yeah, I'm being stuburn, but but I just can't do it, I can't vote for her. At the very least I can vote in a place were it doesn't matter as much.

If it was an isolated incident, I would be an ass for interpreting it that way.

But its not.

Exactly. She has implied many times that McCain is a more superior, "safer", and more desirably candidate than Obama.

In other news, Fox News, according to Clinton campaigner Ed Rendell, has provided the "most balance" coverage compared to any other news organization. (Surely when they took Obama's race speech, and spent 3 or so hours deliberately distorting everything the man said beyond recognition, yes, that was balance, that is Clinton's idea of balance, and it's Rove's).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Rendell_fond_of_Fox_You_hate_both_of_our_candidates.html

In fact, the Hillary supporters are even more rabid. We have seen via the Pew poll that there are more Hillary supporters who say that they would vote for McCain than Obama supporters who say that they would vote for McCain..

gentle reminder- Obama's greatest supporter won't support Clinton even if Clinton gets the nomination. Would you call Michelle Obama, rabid?

Many forget that The Fear card was played by the Obama camp very early on in this campaign.

zdzp,

The fact still remains that more Hillary supporters wouldn't support Barack, then vice versa. Those are the facts.

Here is the transcript from what Michelle Obama said:

ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee.

ROBERTS: Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

ROBERTS: That's not a given?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

Also, I don't find it all that shocking that Michelle Obama would be a rabid supporter of her husband. And considering the negative tone of the campaign, I don't find it surprising that Obama's wife is not all that thrilled with HIllary.

It seems that Krugman started this nonsense with this comment

Although he did correct himself with this update.

Update: Yes, she did catch herself — that’s why I provided the full link. But there has certainly been talk that if Obama isn’t the nominee, some of his supporters might walk — I’m certainly seeing that in my mail. I haven’t seen any of that from Clinton supporters, but maybe my mail is selective. And I have no idea what’s going on on the GOP side. Anyway, stop it: if this is about anything besides cult of personality — or, in the case of Clinton-haters, cult of of anti-personality — you shouldn’t have even an instant’s hesitation about staying with your party, whoever is nominated.

And now that the facts demonstrate that the opposite is true, where is Krugman to be found wagging his finger at the Clinton supporters?

Apparently his mail was, in fact, selective.

In fact, the Hillary supporters are even more rabid. We have seen via the Pew poll

We shouldn't over react to polling. People say what they want pollsters to hear.

The less likely you perceive your candidates victory the more likely you are to say you would vote for the opposition because you want the supporters of the opposition to know you think they are wrong.

correction

to say you would not vote...

You all knew what I was saying.

I think at the end of the day any liberals know how shitty mcinsane would be to have in the whitehouse.

MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

I'm glad you played Michelle Obama's response in its entirety because it leaves no doubt that she would not support Clinton if she were the nominee. If you actually saw the video of the interview it is even more clear by her tone and body language and facial expression she finds voting for Clinton repugnant. The mincing and parsing of words, the conditional easy out, is just a shrewd way of saying, I will not support Clinton, but I won't say it because that would make me seem petty. Knowing as most democrats know (and O and H supporters on this website have mentioned many times), that O and H are 99% similar in policy goals c/w McCain, this sort of response serves to do nothing but instill divisiveness.

I guess you can use rabid as you see fit, but rabid implies behavior without reason, you know, as in people infected with the neurotropic rabiesvirus leads to irrational paranoia, terror, hallucinations, aggression, progressing to delirium. I'm thinking most people wouldn't want to be characterized as such, spouse or non-spouse supporter.

I guess you can use rabid as you see fit...

Or, maybe, you can use the popular definition of the word, which means a strong, vociferous, (and occasionally irrational, depending on context) supporter. I doubt anyone uses "rabid" in reference to the etymology of the word anymore.

The mincing and parsing of words

Hehe.

is just a shrewd way of saying, I will not support Clinton, but I won't say it because that would make me seem petty.

Wow, you must have gotten a degree in body language to read such nuance into this statement. If i touch my face with my left hand, am I lying? What about if I write my "e" with a small loop, am I an introvert?

I'm glad you played Michelle Obama's response in its entirety because it leaves no doubt that she would not support Clinton if she were the nominee.

You are parsing the meanings of the word "support".

She isn't going to vote for McCain.

But is seems clear she isn't going to phonebank for her either.

remembers how hard Howard Dean's wife campaigned for John Kerry?

How hard Bill Bradley's wife campaigned for Gore?

How hard McCain's wife campaign for Bush in 200?

I don't remember any of that either.

Michelle's statements about whether or not she will do something that there is no expectation that she will do is irrelevant.

She isn't going to vote for McCain. But is seems clear she isn't going to phonebank for her either. remembers how hard Howard Dean's wife campaigned for John Kerry? How hard Bill Bradley's wife campaigned for Gore? How hard McCain's wife campaign for Bush in 200? I don't remember any of that either.

an excellent example of the strawman argument.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

how coy (that would be a nice way of putting it) do you have to be to avoid saying you would support the democratic nominee in the general election. now if you can point to an instance where any of those spouses mentioned in the strawman argument gave a response of no support to the democratic nominee then that would be worth addressing. 'even' Bill Clinton has declared his support for the democratic nominee, whoever that might be, in the general election.

Norm, you asked the following question:

Don't you see it as a problem, that the lack of a positive statement is interpreted as being a negative statement? Do you consider it fair? Why do you do it? What purpose do statements such as that serve?

I suggest that we would be a lot better off if that sort of sophistry was avoided.

What if Obama had said the following:

"I think it would be great if we had two candidates who weren't skirt chasers.

Wait that didn't make sense. What if Obama said something like, "I think it would be great if we had two candidates who weren't involved a sex scandal".. or something along that line.

an excellent example of the strawman

It is once you delete the first sentence of my comment.

Where I Say that I think you are misrepresenting her meaning.

When she says support, I think she is saying "work for" while you seem to be interpreting it as "vote for".

The remainder of my comment was to say "work for" is irrelevant because spouses(with the exception of former presidents) are not expected to campaign for their spouses opponents.

Very uncharitable of you to interpret my argument thusly.

JoAnn:

What if Obama said something like, "I think it would be great if we had two candidates who weren't involved a sex scandal".. or something along that line.

Exactly, its sophistry if we hound people for comments that they clarify, but the Clintons have made their comments and not retracted the pretty obvious interpretation after the press has widely reported said meaning.

Those comments could be featured in right wing ads this fall and damage the chance of a democratic presidency.

RedSeven

the Clintons have made their comments and not retracted the pretty obvious interpretation after the press has widely reported said meaning.

Yep, I'm with you on this one. If HIllary or Bill had submitted a press release saying that what they said had been misinterpreted, okay, but they didn't do any such thing.

It is once you delete the first sentence of my comment.

Perhaps ignoring the first sentence of your comment would lend itself to being a "strawman" argument.

Preponderance of the evidence speaks for itself:

Hillary Clinton said:

“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Bill Clinton (re McCain and Hillary Clinton)

They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

Hell, McCain even quotes Bill Clinton on his website

Very uncharitable of you to interpret my argument thusly.

(flashing lights) Attention - Attention- incoming strawmen muted sarcasm followed by gravitas:

spouses(with the exception of former presidents) are not expected to campaign for their spouses opponents.

Of course even if nobody expects her to campaign for her spouse's opponents, it's easy to say you will support the democratic nominee - vote for them, perhaps mention they are a good candidate, congratulate them whatever milquetoast version of support one would like to make up - nobody said anything about campaigning or manning phone banks until it was brought it up in the, uh, strawman argument .

oops, link above is dead,

link

perhaps mention they are a good candidate, congratulate them

LOL! Yes, congratulate them as Hillary and Bill have congratulated Obama by saying that McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama and by implying that only Hillary and John are true patriots... right..

(flashing lights) Attention - Attention- incoming strawmen muted sarcasm followed by gravitas

Do you have a clue what "straw man" means? It seems that your learned a new term that you bandy about willy nilly with nary a notion of what it means.

LOL! Yes, congratulate them as Hillary and Bill have congratulated Obama by saying that McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama and by implying that only Hillary and John are true patriots... right..

never miss an opportunity to make a talking point as out of context as it may seem...

we're talking about supporting the democratic nominee which Bill/Hill have already declared they would.

not to be confused with the bickering we see now going on between O and H

never miss an opportunity to make a talking point as out of context as it may seem...

You have taken Michelle Obama's words out of context, so why are you so astonished?

Anything that anyone says can be construed as a "talking point". Where we stand depends upon where we sit.

Of course even if nobody expects her to campaign for her spouse's opponents, it's easy to say you will support the democratic nominee

Hey, I will admit the statement is a politically dumb for her to make. But if you put as much effort into reading my comments as you did your sarcasm you would read that I am saying. I think when she says "support" she is talking about it in terms of how her husband might support the nominee if it weren't him. Events, fundraisers, recorded calls , TV appearances. IMO what she is saying is she would have to think about it before she would commit to doing that kind of stuff.

Is that the fallacy you are saying my argument is based on?

Here is the definition of a fallacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fallacy

Next time you call something a Straw man argument, how bout you point out the fallacy!

I think your fallacy is to equate the spouse of a candidate that is not a party leader saying, "I would have to think about before I would do (something that I will likely never be asked to do .)" with a former president and the candidate attacking the patriotism and qualifications to serve of the likely nominee, you have a rather skewed view of the political situation.

That musta been the gravitas you were talking about.

WELL I am deeply deeply offended. you call me ignorant and incompetent and unable to use simple words like straw and man in a run-on sentence and cast aspersions about my understanding of the English language and diction and try to overwhelm me with big words like willy and nilly and bandy and nary as if I am some mental midget on account of my religion, gender and ethnic background leaving me no recourse by to retaliate with a straw golliwog.

That bordered on ad hominem.

Although I support all JoAnn's arguments based on an ad verecundiam argument. Even when she doesn't stop to use commas.

the run-on sentence was self referential as was the ad hominem. there was no intent to make any ad hominem attacks on anyone but myself. just trying to end a discussion on a light note. now I will go brush up on my latin.

WELL I am deeply deeply offended. you call me ignorant and incompetent and unable to use simple words like straw and man in a run-on sentence and cast aspersions about my understanding of the English language and diction and try to overwhelm me with big words like willy and nilly and bandy and nary as if I am some mental midget on account of my religion, gender and ethnic background leaving me no recourse by to retaliate with a straw golliwog.

LOL! Thanks for the humor.

However, please explain why this was a run-on sentence?

It seems that your learned a new term that you bandy about willy nilly with nary a notion of what it means.

I realize I should have used, "you" instead of "your", but a run-on sentence? really? hmmm..

All my sentences are run ons, maybe he was confusing us.

the run-on sentence was self referential

Oh, okay...

I give up. ;)

I know these comments are crossing in cyberspace, but to be clear.

I am making fun of myself and my comment.

what I wrote was a run-on sentence (not what JoAnn wrote) and it contained the words straw and man which are clearly being used in a run-on sentence and any way I was trying to be clever but that usually fails because I have a problem reading people's body language, and now I'm just babbling...

Huh? Where is evidence of a run-on sentence on your behalf zdzp?

And yeah, it seems that we're all missing out on the humor and we're all just babbling. And today is not even Friday?!

"ad verecundiam argument".. I looked this up and it's an appeal to authority. Where was the appeal to authority? Shit, I'm all confused now.

Everything I say was a joke. Just kidding (Catch 22)

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/02/living-a-false-delus.html