onegoodmove

the Obama campaign has become something of a Cool Kids Club. Either you are a full-fledged member (with the secret handshake and the decoder ring) or else you find yourself voting for a well-known, albeit flawed, alternative called Hillary Clinton.

What the hell is this guy talking about? Not only are we offered daily dose of anti-Obama nonsense (targeting his stance on flag pins, autism, and whatever the hell his minister says) but we also have a steady stream of descriptions of Obama supporters as robots, fanatics, and hippie dreamers. Let´s just hope than when Obama wins the nomination the Clinton folks can help him sway the geezers and the hicks (I guess two can play the label game) to stay with the Democratic Party in November.

@leftbanker: Nope, only Clinton supporters can play that game. Obama supporters doing so are racist, sexist, or "OMG destroying teh partay!"

That said, I'd better get back to my drum circle. I think it's about time for the animal sacrifice.

on obama's website, there's a section that details the issues he's running on. you can read it here.

the suggestion that "Obama has deliberately forsaken bread-and-butter issues as a means of persuasion," is preposterous. "bread and butter?" that means nothing.

i'm for a candidate who doesn't change his stand on issues from one state to the next, from one week to the next, blown by the polls and political winds. in the course of this campaign, clinton has demonstrated her lack of conviction for anything but personal victory. and bill? he's running for re-election, that's all this really is. may it pass quickly.

This place stinks of bias.

The article pretty much indicts Clinton & Obama equally, but Norm cherry picks his data to create a particular impression. That's what Fox News does - artificially recasts issues on false premises.

Given the rigidity of his position, I'd say his are not the actions of a thoughtful human being interested in the truth, wherever it may lie. More likely, he's on the dole.

I still like some of the article he links to, but I've pretty much lost my respect for Norm.

This place stinks of bias More likely, he's on the dole.

I don't recall you ever complaining of 'bias' when it reflected your own bias. As to your comment suggesting I'm on the dole, provide some evidence or retract your statement and apologize or find someplace else to spend your time. That single statement is more offensive and more untrue than anything I have ever posted here. Wait, let me make this a little bit more clear. Go fuck yourself perspicio.

The whole Obamaphiles are cultist true believers meme is getting annoyingly old. Repetition doesn't make it true, and doesn't make me believe it's true. It's an effective meme for Clinton people to use, as it's a way to say that Obama people are not in touch with the real world, not realistic, immature, and beneath the notice of Clinton people. If only those Obama followers would grow up, learn to think for themselves.

Pretty condescending, and an obvious red herring. It doesn't take on Obama's record or his stated policies, doesn't do the hard work of comparing policies and actually educating the reader/listener. It is an ad hominem attack, not on the candidate, but on his followers. Such generalizations are not susceptible to proof or disproof: they are articles of faith, shorthand for concepts that are too complex for the author/s to take time to investigate and give due attention to complexities and shades of gray.

I, for one, think Obama is the better choice of the two remaining candidates. I was an Edwards fan. Before that, I worked my ass off for Dean's campaign, until the media manufactured the scream and derailed Dean's cause. Obama has potential. His positions are very close to Clinton's: close enough that the difference between them is insignificant, given that any of their initiatives have to be churned through the Congress, which will change them to a greater degree anyway. I don't like dynasties, especially mediocre ones: Bill Clinton as the Democratic high water mark is evidence that we live in a world of diminished expectations. We can do better. Hillary will be different than Bill, but I don't see her being significantly better, and the possibility that she would be is overshadowed by the downside of fostering a dynasty/aristocracy.

In other words, I have reasons for my (grudging) support of Obama. I have drunk no Kool-Aid. I know others in the Obama campaign who are similarly well-grounded in reality. This robot/cult/ meme is annoying, and shows laziness and chauvinism.

Perhaps perspicio will point us to his comments at Daily Kos or the Huffington Post where he accuses them of being on the dole, and takes them to task for their 'bias,' Hell Arainna has already landed a job as an intern in an 'Obama Administration' rumor has it she was fitted for a blue dress months ago.

The whole Obamaphiles are cultist true believers meme is getting annoyingly old. Repetition doesn't make it true, and doesn't make me believe it's true.

It's true of both camps. You don't say so, but I assume you understand that the charge is not all Obama supporters or Hillary supporters, but a subset of both. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it is more common among his supporters than hers. Why, because his campaign pushes more emotional buttons than hers.

Repetition doesn't make it true, and doesn't make me believe it's true.

But it does make it louder, which is what really matters. And it's not intended to convince Obama supporters, but to make Clinton supporters feel better about her having less support.

And Norm, your suggest of self-fucking is neither offensive nor unreasonable. In fact, we intend to incorporate it in our ghoulish cultish rites.

Ugh. "Your suggestion." Sorry.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it is more common among his supporters than hers. Why, because his campaign pushes more emotional buttons than hers.

Not unreasonable, perhaps, but both your assertion and your reason for it are, I think, unprovable.

Yes, I understand that it's a generalization, and generalizations can sometimes be useful, even though All Generalizations are False. I maintain that it's not a useful generalization, regardless of which campaign it describes, and is a red herring.

Now, if we'd like to talk about the "lynching" of the Dixie Chicks, the firing of Bill Maher, and other examples of nationalism/cultish behavior in the aftermath of 9/11, that would be an interesting discussion. But I don't get why the cult generalization, applied to either camp but, I think, most often applied at OGM to the Obama camp, is either relevant (since unprovable) or interesting.

Phidippides: The whole Obamaphiles are cultist true believers meme is getting annoyingly old. Repetition doesn't make it true, and doesn't make me believe it's true.

Norm: It's true of both camps. You don't say so, but I assume you understand that the charge is not all Obama supporters or Hillary supporters, but a subset of both. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it is more common among his supporters than hers. Why, because his campaign pushes more emotional buttons than hers.

A remarkably weak rejoinder, Norm. You state that it is true of both camps, then offer an unconvincing 'plausibility' rationale for stating that 'cultish' support is more prevalent among Obama supporters. You support an ad hominem attack with an ad hominem attack, 'because his campaign pushes more emotional buttons than hers.' Phidippides has already disposed of this kind of argument, "Such generalizations are not susceptible to proof or disproof: they are articles of faith, ..." Plausibility arguments are a dime a dozen; for example, .Obama polls better among more educated primary voters and it could be argued that such voters are less susceptible to emotional appeals. (The link is for Ohio, you can check out exit polls for other states as well.) Of course, that doesn't actually prove or disprove that Clinton's supporters are less rational, but then neither do your bald assertions prove the converse.

You seem to disapprove of emotional appeals as a basis of support or opposition to a candidate. Nevertheless, you hosted a string of Charles Lemos' tirades against Obama - rants that were so extreme that most of your regular readers were disgusted. Furthermore, you have had the charge that 'Obama supporters are sheep' amply refuted by some outstanding posts by Adam, JoAnn, BDM, Phidippides, and others. Sure, you have conceded that not all Obama supporters are sheep, but why do continue to pound on this pointless argument? Walter Shapiro has a column to put out - his speculative overanalysis is understandable, if not excusable - I can't understand your persistence at all.

Oxy--

Obama bin Lassies.

I for one am certainly no Obama-agape mouth-breather. I'm just a plain old Clinton-hater.

"On the whole, Obamaphiles are dul"

"The whole Obamaphiles are cute..."

"On the whole, Obamaphiles are cool"

"Kids"

"Di(c)ks"

Whatever.

What about those of us who are anything but Obamaphiliacs, Obamerasts, Obombthrowers, Obama-babes-in-the-wood(ies), prickly pineapple groves, saguaro stands, etc. Bamama plantations. Plantain O-bama-mama-nations etc.? ... God blush,

Ameri(costa)rica, what about those of us who just can't stand, can't abide ... (by the way quit calling her) "Hillary", (call her what she is....: C l i n t o n. We don't call Bush "George". Only bots call him "w" even. Noriega, "Manuel", well, "pineapple face", maybe, pineapple, hmmm... Bob?) Speaking of Dole, I voted against Bob. Not for...C l i n t o n.

Well... I did but I didn't want to.

Dull.

--Moron.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/?p1=email_to_a_friend

No Comment

that boston globe article is spot on. thanks for the link, RedSeven. i love the title so i'll repost it: Hillary Strangelove. it concludes:

"A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night."

well yeah.

It shouldn't be surprising as her husband was responsible for the worst genocide in Iraq's history (theres been a few), I guess this is what she calls experience. I take it that if she gets elected it will be another 4-8 years of the United States refusing to Ratify its agreement with the International Criminal Court, seeing as many have already expressed interest in trying Bill, the first Bush and the current one.

I see we now have a disclaimer at the top of the page:

"I do not necessarily agree with the point of view expressed in the links I post. I do find them interesting for a variety of reasons, and in general worthy of discussion."

Actually it looks more like an act of cowardice. Or maybe there aren't so many "interesting" polemics about Hillary out there. If you really want something worthy of discussion, post something thoughtful and intelligent instead of crap like this.

This site used to be my home page. Now it is a silly sideshow I visit once a week when I'm feeling intellectually morbid. Like when I visit Bill O'Reilly's site.

If you really want something worthy of discussion, post something thoughtful and intelligent instead of crap like this.

You think the link about Darwin is crap, or the piece about superstition? No of course you don't. You just don't like that I post something critical of Obama supporters.

You think the link about Darwin is crap, or the piece about superstition? No of course you don't. You just don't like that I post something critical of Obama supporters.

And the fact that progressive, intelligent, well educated, generally rational people disagree with you on this point after agreeing with you or at least seeing your p.o.v. on most issues for years doesn't strike you as a little odd?

A scientific principle suddenly comes to mind.

Occam's razor

links are down.

And the fact that progressive, intelligent, well educated, generally rational people disagree with you on this point after agreeing with you or at least seeing your p.o.v. on most issues for years doesn't strike you as a little odd?

There are many progressive well educated, generally rational people who agree with me on this point. The fact is that the demographic of this blog includes a large numbers of twenty somethings which is also where much of Barack's support comes from. It doesn't support the point you're trying to make. You really out to be ashamed that you offer such an obviously weak argument.

Hell Arainna has already landed a job as an intern in an 'Obama Administration' rumor has it she was fitted for a blue dress months ago.

I'm confused on what you mean by this 'blue dress'? Bad joke?

I don't recall you ever complaining of 'bias' when it reflected your own bias.

First of all, Norm, I know I was a bit heavy-handed in coming after you the way I did. If you want to know why I went after you in particular, it's because I expected better from you. And I still hope for better from you. Just as I expect and hope for better from myself, every day.

Secondly, if you point out a specific example of what appears to be bias on my part, I'll be happy to discuss it. But without an example, it's just unsubstantiated rumor.

As to your comment suggesting I'm on the dole, provide some evidence or retract your statement and apologize or find someplace else to spend your time. That single statement is more offensive and more untrue than anything I have ever posted here.

I cannot apologize for alighting upon that idea as a possible explanation for your behavior. I'd like to think there is some reason besides mental deficiency that explains why you have been using Fox News-style propagandistic tactics to narrow and distort the context of the conversation. The profit motive is usually a pretty safe guess, particularly since I've seen this pattern before, and that is what has usually been behind it. But I fully and freely admit that I might be wrong in this instance.

So instead of an apology, I offer you a clarification and a concession. I was not accusing you; I was just speculating "aloud". And I don't intend to make a habit of it. I generally prefer facts over speculation anyway.

Fair enough?

Thankfully, your commenting readers, even those who disagree with you, seem even-keeled enough not to dogpile on my (perhaps somewhat irresponsible) speculation and make a separate issue of it. So we can both be thankful for that.

You really out to be ashamed that you offer such an obviously weak argument.

I don't think suggesting that you might find something as a reason to think as "an argument". If I was making one of those, would have told you what to conclude.

I think if I was going to conclude something, it wouldn't be that "you should listen to all the smart commenters" which seems to be how you took it. It's more that perhaps you are pissing off many because your anti-Obama argument is more the appeal to emotion then are the appeals for support from the Obama campaign.

As an aside, some of us became Obama supporters, not because of his appeals, but our own assessments of the field.

Also, as much I I would like to delude myself, sadly, I can no longer claim to be in my 20's, the same is likely true of a large number of your pro-Obama readers.

Anyway, I don't think its productive to call you a "coward" or "on the dole" or the other insults lobed in your direction on this string.

And in hopes of reducing the emotion in this conversation, I would clarify

"your anti-Obama argument is more the appeal to emotion"

Would be better said,

" some of the anti-Obama arguments you share(including link to) have just as much, if not sometimes more emotion..."

might find something as a reason to think as "an argument".

Of course it's an argument. It implies that since there are smart people that think Obama makes the best candidate, I should pay attention to them.

I also think Obama is a good candidate just not as good as Hillary. There are also many 'smart' people that believe she will make a better candidate.

You see my appeal to authority here is just as weak as yours. But I didn't tell you to make your judgment based on what 'smart people' who agree with me think.

As to Obama supporters providing good arguments on why one should prefer him to Hillary there have been few of any substance recently. We are more likely to hear that she has a shrill voice, and wears red lipstick.

The demographics of the site are what they are whether you personally fit them or not. Twenty somethings are as they've always been, they tend to believe they are smarter than everyone else.

I've heard some of the arguments from the Obama campaign, that Hillary lacks character for example. That's not change that's the same old politics as usual.

I've, to this point, tolerated a lot of personal attacks against me. Comments that consist solely or mostly of such attacks will be deleted in the future and the commenter will be banned.

Probably time to add Obamamaniacs to the list of "brain-rotted hordes" and delete all their comments. Then the argument will be settled once and for all . . .

http://tinyurl.com/6cattq

Norm, you get attacked because you post daily attacks on Obama. Now some of those posts have genuine value about Obama as a candidate and potential president, but Many, just haven't. They are talking point spin. Often baseless electibility attacks from the right.

Now I don't believe that you believe all of it and that the disclaimer on your recent links is an honest attempt to clarify.

But when you post the first link every day as one of these spin attacks about Obama's reverend or something, someone is always going to tell you to go fuck yourself in some high fa looting way. If your response for that is a fuck you too, then you will continue to find the dialoge here frustrating and unproductive.

Ban whom you like, but I honestly don't think it will matter. The most insulting people end their rants, with the statement that they won't be coming back. For the most part they have been sticking to their word.

My advice, take a day or two off, stick to more substantial comparisons, expect the occasional flame in discussion of a race which is on the verge of ripping the party in half, regardless of your tone.

• Peace

As to Obama supporters providing good arguments on why one should prefer him to Hillary there have been few of any substance recently.

1. "totally obliterate them"

2. Thinks the gas tax cut is stupid policy

3. He's winning and this game needs a winner so people will start looking at how poor of a candidate mccain is.

4. Both candidates are the only "real" choices (....don't start) and pointing out that they are not god-like is not news or helpful.

5. Hillary has discounted much of the democratic party in her quest for power, and would need a superdelegate coup to take the nomination, which could potentially rend the democratic party asunder, at least make many "twentysomethings" like myself give up on politics, since the "predestined" Kingship is always awarded to whomever will do whatever it takes to win. Regardless of what it does to the country and what everyone else thinks of us.

Do you really think nobody else in the world heard Clinton talk about her Nuclear Umbrella? I highly doubt it was the non-issue it has been in the US.

Thanks.

funny funny. well, i had said months ago this site seemed to have developed a pro-clinton bias, when in the past it had always seemed to be particularly impartial. anyway, so norm's a clinton supporter, that's sorted out. no big deal, but i feel better seeing that out in the open rather than having to deduce it from the various posts here. i like norm's take on things often. i'm baffled that he supports clinton. i respect his opinion, that should go without saying. but in this weird post monica lewinsky world, when fox news mongrels bark and growl louder than anyone can reasonably speak, when interrupting and insulting are standard practice, when ann coulter is considered acceptable, it seems necessary to state certain things that should go without saying. so even though i am surprised that anyone remotely liberal can support the clintons, and while i take it for a natural fact that this is a re-election campaign for the clintons, while i see them as war hungry hypocrites who hope only to put a nicer face on the indefensible criminal enterprise of american policy abroad, i also understand that norm probably doesn't agree with all of that. it's the reason for the experiment in democracy that is currently in a swing toward failure. perhaps this will again be followed by a swing toward success. i would like to not see anyone anywhere near the white house from the families who have fouled the air there for the last twenty + years. part of the basis of this experiment, was you don't appoint the idiot son of the king. you don't have families entitled to power. that was one of the important bits.

sorry, parts of that were not very clear. anyway, best regards to all.

"to not see anyone anywhere near the white house from the families who have fouled the air there for the last twenty + years. part of the basis of this experiment, was you don't appoint the idiot son of the king. you don't have families entitled to power."

Kevin Phillips: The Evil Axis of Religion, Oil and Debt:

"A critic of the Bush family, [Kevin} Phillips sees little hope in Hillary Clinton."

"for a variety of reasons, including the Clintons' close and quite obviously mutually beneficial relationship with Wall Street, Phillips doesn't hold out much hope that either party is willing to address the roots of the crisis. The GOP's faith in markets is absolute, and the religious right's blind embrace of capitalism has eliminated populist dissent from the party's internal debate. The Democrats, meanwhile, are irreparably compromised by contributions from the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers, who are at the center of the current global meltdown."

I wonder what, if ant-thing, he thinks of Barack.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with the point of view expressed in the links I post. I do find them interesting for a variety of reasons, and in general worthy of discussion.

I'm curious to know exactly what it is that you do or do not agree with.

Trapped by the true-believer enthusiasm that the fledging Illinois senator arouses, the Obama campaign has become something of a Cool Kids Club

I am fifty years old. I am a woman. I support Obama because I am so against and appalled that the U.S. attacked Iraq and got into this fucking war which has destroyed our economy and our standing world wide that I cannot fathom supporting anyone who voted "yea" for the authorization for the war in Iraq.

And furthermore, Hillary not only voted for the authorization to wage war on Iraq, she also voted for the Kyle-Lieberman act which gives GWB the go ahead to wage war on Iran, the country that Hillary said she would be willing to 'obliterate'.

If we don't stop the war and stop the war mongering, there will be no universal health care.

I'm curious to know exactly what it is that you do or do not agree with.

All you have to do is ask? I don't have the time or inclination to comment on every link I post. My position on some of them is obvious, on others not so much. Some I partially agree with, it is not often that I agree completely with any specific link. Take the link to By The Fault, and Charles posting of the Hogan's Hero's clip. I simply found it amusing, I remember when I was much younger watching the series and the line "I know nothing," is a familiar one. It's an exaggeration of course in describing Barack's political statement that he now says he didn't really now the Pastor's views. It is hard to believe that after associating with the man for 20 years he was as clueless as he now seems to claim. I could hear him saying "I know nothing." Personally I don't care if he was aware of all of the Wright's view, and just chose to ignore the bad feeling there were enough positives to maintain the relationship. But running for president makes a hypocrite out of any candidate, and in that sense he's in good company. I thought Red's comments on that link silly. Did he think the idea was to associate Barack with Nazis? How absurd a notion is that, but with the polarization that exists in this race some, will grasp at anything. I include myself in that group, though I think I've done better lately, but understand that many disagree.

I thought Red's comments on that link silly.

I agree. My intention was to point out the silliness of the whole thing. I realized the implication of the which Nazi is Hillary after I hit the post button. Maybe Charles had that kind of ill will intended but one would have to read allot into his words to get there. Sorry

Even so, Obama doesn't claim complete ignorance, which is what makes it silly. He simply says he was not there for the controversial statements. And his pre-2007 contrversial statements were much less controversial then the more recent ones.

So while Obama was out campaigning his Pastor decided to jump into his spot light by going over the top, time and again.

When Obama denounced his words, so wright jumped up and down in the spotlight.

Wright is a self absorbed blow hard, whom like a Nader is right on many issues(wrong on some others), but is so in love with his own voice, so he must run amok until everybody pays attention to him.

Obama joined the most progressive black church he could find, the pastor was a character occasionally says something off kilter, 20 years later Obama runs for Pres, guy goes crazy for the new fame, starts spouting off every Sunday.

Big deal, who cares.

Think to yourself, all the private citizens that Kerry, Gore, Bush, Dole, Clinton, etc publicly denounced.

None pop to my mind. THey no doubt knew people with a few crazy Ideas.

I don't think Candidates should get in the habit of calling everybody the know out for every outside the norm Idea.

Every poster on this site has at one time expressed a non-establishment idea, some right, some wrong.

If someone you know runs for office, should they have to publicly humiliate you and denounce you?

It is hard to believe that after associating with the man for 20 years he was as clueless as he now seems to claim.

Reverend Wright gave sermons for over thirty years, multiple times per week. These sermons are taped and available for all to purchase and review. And yet from all of these sermons, there are only two clips played over and over. If there is further evidence, other than the clips from two of his speeches, where are they?

for over thirty years

Should have been for over twenty years.

There is this black lady reporter on CNN (forgert her name), who said that she went to the Trinity Church an number of times and never heard any of this and she said that she enjoyed the sermons.

It is hard to believe that after associating with the man for 20 years he was as clueless as he now seems to claim.

Who said he was clueless?

What was he clueless of?

Nobody and the future?