The Few, the Proud...the Clinton Bloggers

A funny thing happened to my Lijit social search results (that little box to the right) - "Johnny Thunders" was replaced over the last eight weeks or so by "Clinton blogger." That means more people are coming here because I'm somehow perceived as a pro-Hillary blogger than as an aging fan of a long-dead New York glam-punk rocker. Where they get this notion, I'll never know. Funny how the world turns, but as Johnny might intone in a voice that, dare I say it, may have occasionally seemed shrill: "it doesn't pay to try, all the smart boys know why."

But enough of lyrical asides from Max's Kansas City circa 1979, and on to more pressing matters. "Clinton blogger," eh? Well, I guess it's fair. And come to think of it, being a somewhat prominent Clinton blogger puts me an elite group - fewer in number, I suspect, than the roster of drummers employed by the Heartbreakers in their, uh, heyday.

To be a Clinton blogger in the progressive blogosphere is to be hated, shunned, passed without notice in the street. We sit home on Friday nights, cursing at Chris Matthews and being censored by Al Giordano for commenting too often in a field of swaying Obama supplication. We're not welcome at all the best dKos parties - if we show up, we're cursed with the universal epithet of those who challenge the Obama hegemony: "troll," they call us. Sometimes "f'ing troll." We're Rovian in our embrace of the monster, closet Bush backers and much worse - Lieberman types! Oh, the pain. The pure pain. I can't stand it. Makes me want to quit, embrace that messianic goodness, and stand down - for the sake of the party, of course - from any pursuit of a Clinton presidency.

Or perhaps...not. Looking over the (all-too-short) lineup of Clinton bloggers is enough to stiffen any political  spine. We don't have numbers, but we do have quality. And with seven weeks to go till Pennsylvania, it's worth a little time to look around the room. There's Taylor Marsh, of course - unapologetic, in your face, deeply annoying to those who decry "the Clintons." Why, her very name launches vast armadas of angry commenters, her very name has become almost synonymous with hard-fisted Clinton blogging. We like her out front, in other words.

And look, we've got James Wolcott - the intellectual equivalent, according to some recent Pew research, of a combined 14,392 DailyKos Obama diarists. (I must note: he'd probably disapprove of the label "Clinton blogger" but we have to stretch things on our roster at times and he did coin the memorable phrase: "so shun me, I voted for Hillary," which has pretty much become our rallying cry - the T-shirts are on order). Then there's Big Tent Democrat and Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft - absolutely fabulous analysts and media critics. We'll include Lance Mannion, who has never named his choice but makes the always curious decision to actually defend Hillary Clinton in multiple posts - yes, he's one of us. Blue Girl, of course, and in Ohio too - so very crucial.

Let's not forget the prolific Riverdaughter, a feminist of wide-ranging abilities who always seems to nail what's so important about the typical Clinton voter (hint: they work, and they work at hard jobs). Our circle is made richer by the addition of the indomitable Shakespeare's Sister, a former Edwards blogger and all-around blog-whoring (her term, don't shoot me!) maestro.

Who else? John Amato at Crooks and Liars - playing it fair these days makes you a Clinton blogger. Fred Wilson and Jeff Jarvis? Well, they voted for her and actually admitted it in public. Joe Gandelman? An always moderate voice who seems to lean her way (I could be wrong). Jon Swift? The rare righty who doesn't hate Hillary. And I'm thinking Jane Hamsher leans our way. And Jessica Valenti. Digby too. And hey, maybe Tina Brown?

Heck, that's a team. Who else qualifies? I know I've missed someone. Let me know! You may qualify for a limited edition Peter Daou bobblehead doll.

UPDATE: The suggestions are flying in - can't believe I missed some of these, since I read 'em all the time. how about these fine, brave souls: eRiposte and Jeff Dinelli at the Left Coaster and netroots pioneer Jerome Armstrong and Todd Beeton at MyDD. Let's not forget Pamela Leavey, Larry Johnson, Tennessee Guerilla Women, Lane Hudson, Perez Hilton, Susie Madrak, the Daily Howler and and everybody at Hillary's Bloggers.

UPDATE II: They keep rolling in; we do like to stick together. Many more to add to the roster (can't believe my addled state to leave off some of them). There's savvy   Anglachel and The Redstar Perspective, not to mention the ever-vocal NYC Weboy. Lots of great perspective at The Hillary 1000, too (though we're a blogger or two short of a grand). Let's not forget the fierce Blue Lyon and the The Reclusive Leftist, and the growl of Mojave Wolf. Keep 'em coming and add these good people to your feedreaders and blogrolls.

UPDATE III: What a list, and it keeps on growing. More in a moment. But I'd also like to make an observation from visiting these great blogs - most (not all) of what we're calling Clinton blogs are really progressive political blogs, left of center and run by political realists. They are in the main, not hysterical about Hillary Clinton's opponent - indeed, many is the kind word to be found about Barack Obama. I'd venture this is the obverse of the more vocal Obama blogs, where the opponent has been cast not as a valid if secondary Democratic choice for president, but as a monster and far worse. OK - to add to the list (and I'm addled for having missed some): Adorable Girlfriend and her buds at Republic of Dogs bring the attitude. The RealSpiel is a real find, and we certainly leave out the amazing Bartcop. Let's not forget the noble Donna Darko, nor the important voting bloc over at MOMocrats. And even in the darkest depths of Mordor (spring, 2008 version) a little light can always be found in the charming personages of Alegre and BrownSox. And let's all add the feisty Delilah Boyd and Sugar N Spice to our blogrolls as well, along with outspoken I Have an Opinion and the cringing but proud West and Divided. Save room there for the elegant Democratic Wings and the erudite Progressive Involvement blogs. Old favorites Feministe and Susie Madrak have been suggested, and will indeed be noted, as has blogging buddy Dave Johnson, who usually plays it down the middle - and should receive our praise and linkage.

Comments

[judith]

oddly, anyone who is fair is considered a Clinton supporter. I have read most of the people you cite, but not all, so thanks for the list. James Wolcott is my favorite - hilarious and so darned on target. I used to be fair, and then I got insulted one too many times and I got mean. :-)

I have also enjoyed the leftcoaster -

[judith]

oh funny - you said the same thing about "fairness" - I swear I was thinking it when I came here as I was at another site wherein someone was bashing Obama's oratory skills. That is just stupid, imo, and makes one look follish. I dont like hanging with silly people. I also dont like the Clinton supporters who sneer about intellectuals or latte lovers or people who like wine and cheese - I happen to be the latters and aspire to the other!

[Linda]

Yes, they are hard to find, but many of us have had to just to keep our sanity these days. You should also include eriposte at The Left Coaster, Larry Johnson's No Quarter, Corrente, and the always brilliant Anglachel. Incidentally, I recall Digby admitting that she voted for Obama, but she is always fair.

[Redstar]

I am a big Clinton supporter, and blog at my own site The Redstar Perspective (http://www.grahamad.com), and also group blog at The Hillary 1000 (http://www.hillary1000.wordpress.com), which originated as a fundraising site. We have a long blogroll over there of Clinton supporters; you all should check it out.

NYC Weboy @ http://www.nycweboy.typepad.com is a great Clinton blogger, as are the women at TN Guerilla Women. Donna Darko, one of my fellow bloggers at The Hillary 1000, also has long been a vocal Clinton supporter.

[zeke]

Tom,

This line from your post struck me as particularly ironic: "playing it fair these days makes you a Clinton blogger." Give me a break!

While Clinton backers like to luxuriate in their perceived victimhood, Obama is actually the candidate who is most consistently being smeared, either by full frontal assaults from the likes of FOX Noise and Rep. King, or by innuendo from Clinton herself (Obama "not a Muslim as far as I know") and by Clinton staffers like Wolfson (asking for release of tax returns = Ken Starr tactics.)

I'm all for fairness and balance. But please, take that friggin' mote out of your eye before you complain about those nasty Obama supporters.

[April]

OH Zeke,

I think we hit a sore spot........do you need a tissue??? Its ok to cry you know. Everyone hurts sometimes and after all they are picking on your hero. there there baby, let it all out.

[Tom]

Also, don't forget the talented Anglachel's Journal:

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/

[judith]

I just went to Anglachel's Journal and enjoyed it. Pretty level headed.

[zeke]

April,

Or is it Judith? - the snide and gloating tone is so very similar. I think I'll be able to pull through, thank you very much for your mock concern. And believe me, I am long past looking for heros in the realm of elective politics.

Since working on the McGovern campaign in 1972 I have learned to endure life's little disappointments with good grace. I'm sure that you, too, will one day learn the art of playing the good loser. Perhaps even sooner than you think.

[gob]

How could you leave out Echidne of the Snakes???

[Muataman]

Zeke has hit the nail right on the head- He's a good loser. He'd rather be right than win. He loved Bill Bradley, he loved Nader, and he only whined a little when they started swiftboating Kerry. Now he's really found his man, and he gets to whimper about negative tactics like "as far as I know" and bringing up Ken Starr. Oh the horror.

And this time he may have struck paydirt, he can be right and actually win an election. I wonder if he can handle it, And then when we get stuck with 4 more years of republicans in the fall, Zeke can go back to being a good loser.

[zeke]

Muataman,

I applaud your foray into the realm of the seer and the mind-reader. Sadly, like most of these charlatans, your psychic readings are less than stellar. I voted for neither Bradley nor Nader (good God, especially not that preening fool). Fought hard for Gore and Kerry, and was righteously pissed off by the tactics of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans.

But here's where your pitiful attempt to characterize me falls especially short: I will fight hard for Hillary Clinton in the general election if it comes to that. But current polling suggests that she will have a harder time defeating McCain than will Barack Obama. Which is only one of the many reasons I am supporting his primary campaign.

I'd like to hear whether or not you intend to work for Obama if he is the nominee. If not, then perhaps the mantle of "loser" would fit more comfortably on your shoulders than mine...

[carissa]

I'm not big, but I'm fiercely pro-Hillary over at Blue Lyon

[Bluegrass Poet]

Tom,

You left out Reagan Democrat. That's one that really hurts me.

Thanks for a great post. And a great list of Clinton bloggers.

[Ralph]

I don't care who is for Clinton, or who is for Obama in blog-land. I have tried to be fair to both sides after Edwards pulled out (he was my choice), but now I find myself leaning towards Obama because of the way Clinton has conducted herself during this campaign.

[judith]

zeke - perhaps all women are the same to you, but those are two different names. And that is the only answer you will get from me to your snotty post. Go wipe your nose...you are a tad old to be such a baby.

[Bluegrass Poet]

We might add The Reclusive Leftist. I just found her this afternoon. Riverdaughter links to her.

[jason]

Thanks for the list! Several here I hadn't known about.

In weird coincidence land, I posted on exactly the same topic today, so I guess you can add me to the pro-Hillary bloggers, if live journal counts as a blog --

http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/48191.html

I was trying to give a link to a post by everyone, so didn't mention all the blogs I eventually plan to, including yours. I suspect I will link to this post with a laugh at the timing next go-round. (& we found you through searching for Clinton bloggers also, btw)

Not all my writing is political or election-oriented, but lately more of it has been; here's a link to another pro-Hillary post of mine that I especially liked(hope two links to myself isn't breaking any rules?): http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/47599.html

And as long as people have mentioned the left coaster, can't believe they left out Turkana there!

[Tom W.]

Great suggestions, all - I've updated.

Zeke & Judith, you seem evenly matched - although Zeke, as a Clinton blogger, I'm going out on a limb to say your mild slings are welcome here (and very well-answered!) - the same isn't true in the more Stalinist quarters of Obamaland. I wouldn't agree that Muataman is a charlatan, however (nor you a loser in the more pejorative and less literal sense). Let's all get along, and be happy warriors herein.

Ralph, do you mean the lackluster performance of her staff? That's certainly fair. If you mean this so-called "dirty" campaign, then you're not making the sale - this thing's a polite tea party with pinky raised in the air compared to the average Bronx city council race.

[Roxie]

Hope I'm not too late to the party. I'm a yellow-dog Dem and, oh yeah, a dog, but my blog has become fiercely pro-Hillary in the last few months. I've had a few posts featured on BuzzFeed, including one on Hillary's "tears" in New Hampshire (http://roxies-world.blogspot.com/2008/01/hillarys-tears.html) and another (from December) speculating on the effects of Oprah campaigning with Obama (http://roxies-world.blogspot.com/2007/12/once-you-go-black.html). My latest post is a tribute to my human companions on the occasion of their 24th anniversary, but usually I'm a pretty political animal. Thanks for standing up for (and collecting!) the few, the proud, the Clintonistas in the blogosphere. Great resource!

[slag]

In case you're curious, here's The Thing That Hillary Supporters Just Don't Get.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Tom,

1) I am talking about the wishy-washy reply of Hillary's when asked whether she thought Obama was a Muslim or not. "I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that"...."No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know." Ahhhh! She leaves the door of doubt open just enough, heh?

2) Hillary Clinton: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." Huh? She's willing to drag down her fellow Democrat and prop up McCain? What else is she willing to say to smear Obama? All that experience didn't help her when it came to questioning the rationale for invading Iraq, did it? Really pathetic.

3) Clinton’s campaign questions Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief but also promotes him as a vice-presidential choice should she win the nomination. This is what happens when you put your own ambitions above the party's goal of winning the White House. And how arrogant for her to suggest that the candidate in the lead take the second spot?

4) The fact that she came out and stated that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated regardless of a re-do is outrageous. "Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary." Huh? Those were bogus primaries that prove nothing, and she wanted to seat them all regardless? Maybe now she pushing for a re-do, but the fact that she even held that position is bad enough.

5) What about Clinton's ability to win in November considering how badly the Republicans want to run against her? Could they know something Clinton supporters don't? It seems that hundreds of papers from the Clinton Presidential Library are being blocked from their release. The papers include pardons that Clinton approved. Do you know anything about this? Should we be concerned?

[vb]

Add me to the pro-Hillary bloggers. My URL is Katalusis.blogspot.com. And while I'm at it, I'll respond to Redstar's obvious attemt to smear Sen. Clinton. Media Matters of America has been kept busy lately calling the media to account for misrepresenting Clinton's remarks during that 60 Minutes interview. Most recently, the online media watchdog has taken Bob Herbert of the NY Times to task. Here's the link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803090001

[zane]

I have found my home!

a curse on the house of Kos!

[Redstar]

vb - that wasn't me, that was zeke (the name is below the comment). I am a Clinton supporter!!

[zeke]

vb,

If you consider accurately recounting Clinton's and Wolfson's remarks as an attempt to smear Clinton, then you are operating in a different universe than am I. One where the air is a bit thin, I'm guessing.

zeke (not Redstar, who also shines brightly in your universe)

[donna darko]

Clinton bloggers and commenters are fair and calm.

We can be vocal but only to fight the constant, uphill battle of media and netroots sexist bias.

[zeke]

donna darko,

"Clinton bloggers and commenters are fair and calm." If this is a prescription for Clinton bloggers, fine. But if, as it seems, this is intended as a categorical statement of fact, then it is a matter of little effort to refute. Howard Wolfson's many lunatic pronouncements alone serve to undermine your assertion.

And just as a matter of curiosity, do you consider all opposition to Clinton's campaign or support for Obama's campaign to be, by definition, sexist? Am I exhibiting sexist bias when I castigate Clinton for her vote to authorize the use of force or her vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman? Or am I merely being unfair, as vb suggests?

Hope you can clear up these matters for me.

zeke

[weboy]

Ever vocal? I'll take it. :)

Thanks for the link. And zeke, I think there's a difference between Wolfson, who is her spokesperson, and caring bloggers; I too find that the pro-Clinton bloggers are calmer (except, possibly Taylor Marsh) and more inclined to take the long view (i.e. unity is what matters in the end) than the Obama bloggers and commenters. Just my observation. I think, in th end, this has been a terrific primary - more people, being more vocal, and feeling more that they are a part of. That has to help. Even if we do wind up with Mr. Vaguely Hopeful.

[HR]

I'm glad to learn of your blog! I''ll be back!

[Fredster]

Great! I have another site to bookmark now in my blogs folder since I've been deleting some right and left.

Doing a quick read I didn't see Taylor Marsh's site: http://www.taylormarsh.com/

It's a good one!

[kat]

RalphD,

What? Her response to that ridiculous question: "Of course not" wasn't strong enough for you?

[gary rosche]

zeke--you should read eric boehlerts (sp)? at media matters regarding the much touted 'hillary called barry a muslim' smear spreading like wildfire through the obamablogs. If you have seen the whole video of the exchange between hillary and that creepy guy from 60 min you have to be either slow or a deceptive shill to think she was being "sneaky" or "hedging". He was goading her. Her first response was "of course not", after being asked 3 more times she said, "as far as I know" in a mocking tone directed at the interviewer. And as far as the Kyl Lieberman act, how did Obama vote on that one? oh yeah, that's right, he managed to avoid taking a stand on that issue too, just like he's done on just about every important issue since being elected to the senate. Take your talking points to a place where they might get some traction...And if you really believe there is not rampant sexism in this campaign coming from not only the MSM but the lefty bigblogs--most annoyingly from Arianna Drudginton, then you really do need to open your eyes.

[gary rosche]

And speaking of Arianna, I wonder if most of Obama's youngster supporters are aware that less than 10 years abo she was a card carrying republican, married to a closet case millionaire hoping to join the likes of Larry Craig in the US senate. I'm sure a lot of you remember her nonsense on the daily show pitted against the much smarter Al Franken. She has never been a liberal, and never even approached having an ethical bone in her body

[brownsox (Arjun Jaikumar)]

I'm a Daily Kos front-pager, and I support Hillary Clinton.

I wrote about it on the front page here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/5/1402/62139/465/450060

[Mark Woods]

This is a breath of fresh, unlike the stagnation I accidentally sucked in at America- er, I mean Obama-blog.

Whew! Glad I made it here in one piece! Finally a place where it's safe to breathe!

I wonder how many of us have changed our blogging habits and are now 'in exile' because of our fairness or God forbid, our support for Hillary?

[kid oakland]

Clinton bloggers are welcome in my pro-Obama diaries at dkos. For what that counts for, and I've said that repeatedly at dailykos.

I think if you are someone who does politics and talks to people in real life as well as on the blogs, the idea that we bloggers would burn bridges over a primary election, especially with so much work to do on Senate races and House races and in the states is clearly counter productive.

That being said, are there things that crossed the line on the blogs this primary season? Yes. I think that's clearly been the case on some specific blogs.

But in the abstract, should there be a stigma to being a pro-Hillary blogger? No. Absolutely not.

Thanks for your post.

[Chris Blask]

:~)

Good for you Tom!

I couldn't disagree with you more on the Democratic Candidate thing, but good to see you speak your mind and maintain a sense of humor! Should your side (somehow) win we'll get even further apart (I'm a right-wing Indie), which could make for even *more* good clean fun. ;~)

May the best (tall, skinny, young, eloquent, controlled, intelligent, educated, experienced) man win!

-cheers!

-chris

[lambert]

I thought I'd mention The Mighty Corrente Building where I blog because -- lambert blushes modestly -- Paul Krugman said I "channeled" him ("Obama Stump Speech Strategy of Concilation Considered Harmful").

Oh, the Obama "not a Muslim as far as I know" talking point is debunked by Media Matters here.

[andre lee]

I don't really have anything to add other than I'm glad I found this site. I had to take DKos and Matt.Yglesias off of my tabs because it seemed their ideas and the ideas of so many of comments were in no way to be questioned or, much less, posted with any doubt to the rightness of their ideas. The idea of discussing and not dissing as a way to engage opposing views or even persuade was given the weakest support I'd seen since realizing republicans had blogs too. Thanks. You have my support.

[pocochina]

I'm small-time, but count me towards that thousand! pocochina.livejournal.com

[Buster]

Go Hill!

We are upset over here in the Floribbean - Mommy's BFF has jumped off the Hillary Ship and is wildly ranting anti Hill rhetoric.

It is depressing when you switch on Rush or Fox News to hear something nice about Hillary.

Well, this is what I say - it ain't over till the convention. Bark is NOT winning - it is a race too close to call. Keep on Hill - GIVE EM HELL HELL!

Buster

[Ralph DeMarco]

Well, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton would rather see John McCain win if she cannot be the Democratic nominee. I'm sorry, but that's the way it seems to me. How else can one explain her flame-thrower attacks? I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, because I still like her. But, man, for the sake of the party, she should present a more positive message. I am still waiting to find out what sort of experience she has that will make her more appealing to the larger electorate. To me, character and ideas are more important than just 'experience'. Hell, Abraham Lincoln had very little experience, and he turned out to be one of our greatest presidents.

[Tom]

um, Jon Swift is a satirical blog.

guess the clinton campaign can't be too picky.

[Susan Nunes]

I was an Edwards supporter, but I have been absolutely disgusted by the anti-Clinton rot infesting the blogs and message boards.

I can't stand Obama, so I have come out for Clinton.

[jawbone]

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

Riverdaughter is DKos persona non grata and blogs very well at The Confluence. A refuge.

[andre lee]

So am I just so late to the party that all the rhetoric busting, politician-of-change challenging bits in this article have been passed, hashed over and dismissed already?
It sure would be nice to get some more revealing pieces from somewhere-anywhere on the Senator.
Not imaginary ones though, I at least want a semi-informed opinion.

www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/

[jawbone]

http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-obama-photo-from-kenya.html

Andrys discovered who first downloaded The Photo (Freepers).

Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest (my post disappeared when I went to get the Andrys link) posted about The Photo making the rounds among the rightwing blogs on early Sunday evening, 2/24, Drudge made his post with the Clinton slime line on early 2/25, and Dave posted again about it on 2/25.

www.seeingtheforest.com

Both seem fair and actually balanced.

[jawbone]

Uh, slag @ 10:54, 3/10--

Hillary's reply to Kroft's first go at asking if she thought Obama was a Muslim was immediate and was "Of course not."

Kroft would not let rest there and asked her three more times the same essential questions. Now, that's usually a trick to trip people up, to get some alternate way of saying the same thing which then can be criticized or used to try to get additional changes to the answer. It's a trick. And Obama got the question only once.

How interesting that Hillary was asked 4 times about something only Obama knows for sure--and he was asked only the once.

[Lisa]

More excellent blogs that are pro-Hillary: suburban guerilla and feministe. Being in exile has given us new blog lands to explore, and I'm enjoying the journey.

[donna darko]

zeke, obviously not. It's sexist for you or anyone to assume accusations of sexism are instances of oversensitivity. If anything, we've just covered the tip of the iceberg concerning the sexism of Obama's campaign.

I always noticed Clinton commenters on big blogs were fair and calm. A month ago, I thought there were three Clinton bloggers. Now I see many Clinton bloggers and they are the best--fair and calm!--bloggers.

[John Petty]

Hey, me too! Check: www.progressiveinvolvement.com.

[judith]

this thread is great.

[Veronica]

What's the evidence for Jessica @ Feministing being pro-HRC? From what I can see, she's so not. I could be wrong...has happened before. ;-)

[Agnes]

Here is another one: http://www.democraticwings.com

[whoframedrudy]

I'll do the non-partisan thing in the general election and vote for the best candidate. Since Obama claims to be so non-partisan, I won't be swayed by party attacks on McCain, whom John Kerry asked to be his VP. Playing the race card so brazenly, and the whole 'Animal Farm' thing -- not interested in 'unifying' with that.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Why are we fighting so much? We all need to be unified. We are all Democrats who want to take back the White House and have a filibuster-poof Senate. How do we get there if we are just bickering amongst ourselves? How can any Democrat hate Hillary Clinton or hate Obama?

[mw]

I cringe at being called a Clinton Blogger -

But after trying to maintain a semblance of balance - I find my posts and comments are increasingly Hillary Centric and getting more so.

It just boils down to this - Obama supporters really honest-to-god seem to believe that Hillary Clinton has no right to campaign against Barack Obama - it's just wrong somehow. It is really quite odd. And to suggest in any way, while campaigning, that she might - just might - be a better President than Obama? OMG! OMG! The bitch!!!!

[Mawm]

As far as Senator Clinton's comments about Obama's credentials to be Commander-In-Chief in comparison to John McCain's and hers, isn't it just a statement of the obvious? You may not approve of the choices John McCain has made in foreign policy, but no one can deny that he has spent many years involved in national security issues. Keeping quiet about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience or any experience for that matter is what Obama supporters want the most. They think if they cover their ears about all of the real problems with Obama, and shout down anyone who mentions ill of him, they can squeeze out enough pledged delegates from Republican states to get the "high score" at the end of the game. Problem is the game doesn't end at the convention, and all the things the Obama supporters don't want to hear will be front and center in the MSM.
I can imagine a commercial of malnurished black kids with their mother huddled together around a space heater living in one of Rezko's Chicago slum projects. A voice over explains how Rezko helped Obama buy a million dollar house while people languished in the slums Obama helped create.
Harsh isn't it? Get ready for worse than that. I'm a real soft hearted person.
Fox has a video already that links Obama to Sadam Hussein in less than 3 minutes. That along with Obama's meeting with our home grown terrorists, William Ayers, and his Weathermen will be enough to cement the image of Obama as too radical.
Obama gave John McCain all the ammunition he'll need when team Obama hit the trifecta with Price saying He wasn't ready to pick up the call, Goolsbe telling the Canadian's to look the other way, and Price saying Obama's firm withdrawl committment was BS.
Please, none of that was Clinton's doing. Obama is toast in the general election period. The only reason Clinton is offering him the VP is because half of the Democratic Party has gone crazy and wants to jump over a cliff with their empty candidate. The left wing nuts of the party have fallen victim to their own fantasies and stubborness. Clinton doesn't always say what they want to hear, but Obama will. Whatever you want, Obama's got it. All this projection feels fun right now I guess. I mean, Obama is going to win Nebraska right? North Dakota, too? Come on guys, that is not going to happen. But if you look at the electoral map where he beats McCain, he is supposed to win there. No way. There is no hope in that.
There is hope however. Clinton can win with Obama as VP. Blacks will still vote in the numbers they have been voting with Obama as VP. You know they will. Clinton can bring in the Women and Latinos. Clinton running without Obama would cause a nightmarish break in the democratic party for this election. There are so many crazy Obama people, the mob cannot be denied. She knows she can't win without him, and he can't win period. That's politics baby. Winning is important. We have to take back the White House from the Republicans. Our lives depend on it. Come on. Let's get behind the Democratic ticket that can win Clinton/Obama.

[Kim]

I never, repeat never, thought I'd wind up supporting Clinton, nevermind having to seek out websites favorable to her just to keep my sanity, but here I am. I even find myself defending her when she doesn't deserve it. What's happening to me? My husband thinks it's rather amusing when I start throwing stuff (nothing breakable) at the TV when some anti-Clinton blathering is taking place. And I was fuming when I read the NY Times op-ed piece that opined that Clinton's 3AM ad was racist.
And, by the way, Jessica Valenti is an Obama supporter who recently ran a piece in The Nation belittling all the paleofeminists who support Clinton. Not that feminists are required to support Clinton. Just saying.

[Opinionated]

Well I am a proud Clinton Blogger.

http://haveopinion.blogspot.com. Please visit me.

[donna darko]

The statement about McCain was factual. They have more foreign policy experience to be president at this point in time. In fact, she was vetting him for the general election should he be the nominee. She does that sometimes in a motherly, teasing way. Remember that debate when she was smiling at him like a Cheshire cat so she could tease him in an ad the next week? Vetting.

Jessica is not committed to either candidate but rails against the ageism in feminism.

[donna darko]

She seems like an Obama person come to think of it.

[zeke]

Gee, looks like I've got my work cut out for me. At least Ralph is making some sense up there.

Donna writes: "If anything, we've just covered the tip of the iceberg concerning the sexism of Obama's campaign."

I'm more than willing to admit that many in the MSM, esp. the execrable Chris Matthews, have been sexist in their coverage of Hillary Clinton. But if you are going to allege that Obama's campaign is sexist, I'd like to see you back that up with a few examples. I've certainly heard nothing from him or his advisors that even comes close to being as objectionable as the drivel trickling out of Wolfson's mouth, or the incredibly offensive comments made by Geraldine Ferraro today. And when Powers let slip a regrettable hyperbolic word or two, she had the good grace to retire from the stage. Ferraro, on the other hand, came back for a curtain call.

gary writes "And as far as the Kyl Lieberman act, how did Obama vote on that one? oh yeah, that's right, he managed to avoid taking a stand on that issue too, just like he's done on just about every important issue since being elected to the senate."

Besides his very avant garde disdain for capitalization and a cheeky penchant for the run-on sentence, gary is also either disingenuous or (my guess) a partisan shill who has somehow managed to forget that Obama spoke out forcefully against Kyl-Lieberman. The fact that he didn't return to vote against a bill that was already assured of passage in no way detracts from his on-the-record statements. Hillary's vote in favor speaks just as plainly of her alignment with the Bush-Lieberman stance towards Iran, and had the added detriment of actually helping to enable the bill's passage.

And Mawm - the very notion that Obama will be more vulnerable to the Republican slime machine than Clinton is laughable. Experience is a two-edged sword, and Clinton has given her prospective foes in the general election much more ammunition than they will ever dig up about Obama. Obama polls better with independents than Hillary, and polls also show he is the stronger candidate against McCain. Finally, the notion that Obama supporters are so "crazy" that they will not support Clinton should she be the nominee is belied by polls that show just the opposite. But you just may be on to something with your suggestion for a winning Democratic ticket...too bad you're dyslexic as well as misinformed.

All for now,

zeke

[Tim Davenport]

Pay a visit to http://www.dlc.org

Who is one of the four rotating heads of the great Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party at the top of the page -- the gods of the "new" (sic) Democrats (sic)? By golly, it's Hillary!!!

It's time to face facts. Hillary IS a monster intent on nothing but PERSONAL POWER . There is, at this late date, absolutely NO SCENARIO short of Obama turning into Eliot Spitzer by which Clinton can win the nomination without blowing up the Democratic Party. The votes are in, the delegates are apportioned, the race is essentially run. No one is asking you to supplicate yourself to Obama, merely to FACE FACTS and ANALYZE THE SITUATION HONESTLY.

The truth is, the Clintons' entire life has been a scam. They are all about personal power. Always have been, always wil be. Unprincipled political reptiles. For 7 years, Hillary has done an able Mitt Romney impression to feign liberalism in a liberal state. But now, with the chips down and the big spotlight on, when it's a contest between her and an authentic progressive -- hey, she goes low road, racializing things in an attempt to sew up conservative whites in Pennsylvania. No tactic too disgusting for someone that cares about one thing only -- PERSONAL POWER. Her phony claims of "experience" are laughable and would be blown out of the water in a matchup this fall with John McCain. We may thank the stars that we will not have to face THAT Dukakis-like catastrophe...

This race is OVER. Anyone who can count knows it... The question is how long the Clintons and their synchophants are going to protract the fight. The choice is a tsunami of new voters and a massive Democratic victory in the fall behind Obama -- or implosion and destruction behind the pied piper of Liebermanism, Hillary Clinton.

Choose fast.

t
Corvallis

[Chuck Butcher]

Funny, I wound up in the Obama end by default, he was far down my list and I found his supporters a little silly in their enthusiasm. Yep, even the rabid ones, a little silly. Then I started running into the Clinton camp and discovered rabid. I see spit difference in their policies, all the difference is in philosophy and world view. Experiential difference is laughable, Presidents hire experts, good ones hopefully, to build their vision.

Now, I haven't had much use for Hillary since early in her actual political career - NY Senator. They're both middle of the road safe politics Democrats in policy, so whats in that regard.

Now bringing up Ken Starr is really stupid, the fact that the R hate machine cranked up something that wasn't there doesn't mean nothing was there. It was, crummy shady behavior based on short term gain. Not indictable behavior, just shitty. You get so wrapped up in defending against the hate machine that you ignore that there was something there and it smelled. Deliberate blinders is self-destructive.

Using Republican talking points on your Democratic opponent is real damn stupid and destructive of the electorate. It is short term gain in the face of long term loss and it is bad for the Party. I don't care whether it works or not and this is not a General where there is plenty of garbage to hit the other side back with, it is a Democratic Primary. Besides that, it's based on vapors.

The real issue is the Clinton campaign regarding MI & FL. The exact truth is that those State Parties own their elections and did not have to violate the DNC rules and they have yet to hold a valid delegate selection process. Clinton has nothing to say on the matter and neither State government did either, beyond what they would fund. DNC sets the rules for conduct and the State Parties set their election process within those rules and everybody else gets to butt the hell out. That is the exact legal status. At anytime Feb 5 on either State could have held a valid delegate selection process. Hillary made promises she could not keep and had no business making and has stirred blame and discontent with DNC which is blameless in the entire affair. She is deliberately harming the national mechanism of the Democratic members. That stinks.

Terry McAuliff ran the DNC into the ground and made it a loser for almost everybody other than Bill Clinton. It has taken Howard Dean years to repair the damage. Neither Hillary nor Terry have any use for the Dean model of the DNC which is bottom up organization and small money, their model was top down big money autocratic rule. Dean's organization is producing wins, and wins where they were unexpected, versus McAuliff's losing version. The DNC election rules were built by McAuliff/Clinton to benefit Clinton, they're not this time so they don't like it.

To run a campaign that doesn't repair immediately the harm of someone like Ferraro is either not smart or running on it. Any campaign is going to have someone commit gaffes, it is in the nature of large organizations to happen. The measure is what you do with it.

If is very short sighted to campaign on out right lies or lies of omission. The energy bill Obama voted on was full of the exact things Hillary claims it wasn't, she's now been fact checked and found wanting. The NAFTA mess was cleared up within a couple days, she continues to make false claims. The Clinton campaign leaks that they've got blockbuster dirt on Obama but they're too principled to use it, just how McCarthyistic is that?

These problems share a common root, short term thinking of the self-centered orientation. It is a thinking that reinforces some people's ideas that if she isn't the nominee she doesn't care if McSame wins. I'm not sure she's that Machiavellian, but it is a bad idea to foster. What I am confident of is that if she continues to damage the Party there will be consequences in November. In some scenarios they could be huge and long lasting.

Winning is important, especially if you think you're the best, not to mention want it real bad. You have to be in that space to run for it. It is also true that there are consequences to how you win and some make winning pointless. I may not think there is any way Hillary can win, but regardless her presence in the campaign can help shake out policies and give people choices, if the campagn is about real issues. The way the Clinton campaign is currently running their show may get her some more delegates but it is tremendously destructive and in the end run will cost her dearly with Super delegates.

For example a big win in PA might net her a 20 delegate pickup, it's not enough to do squat except be used as a big state argument with supers, the same supers who are looking at the party damage caused in that minor pickup and who did it. These people are either running downstream of the candidate or are the builders of the DNC. Think about that, depressed voter turn out is bad for them and banging up the DNC is bad mojo with DNC people and makes candidates' lives more difficult. Long term thinking will get you much farther than narrow short term thinking.

Reading the comments makes it clear that I've probably wasted a bunch of bytes because the Clinton supporters won't look at it except to make excuses. The Clinton campaign shows no signs of being open to long term thinking. But I have a Party to worry about and getting rid of the scum that inhabits so much of the Republican Party is my agenda. Too bad it's not your's.

[Delilah Boyd]

Unapologetic Clinton blogger here (Click my name).

Also add Sugar N Spice to your list.

[andre lee]

Politicians, like salespeople, use a persons need for emotional connection to sell their product rather than the merit/quality of their position/product. This usually works best with folks who are wired to respond to emotional connections more-so than others. For others, it seems that their knowledge gained through examining the product itself (however that's achieved, to whatever degeree) allows the product to sell itself regardless of or in conjunction with emotional appeals from the salesperson, i.e. the photograph and the taste of a New York slice compared to the photograph and taste of DiGornos pizza. It seems Obama applies this strongly and folks who it appeals to strongly stick to him strongly, no matter what sometimes. My guess is since the attracting force is for these folks is their positive emotions triggered by Obama then that above all determines their support and that, in turn, must be supported above anything after that. That would also mean for these particular people the inverse for negative feelings towards Hillary/the Clintons and may help to explain some of the 'only Obama or McCain, but not Clinton sentiments' that have been expressed. Policy proposals, a history of past appealing positions, etc. seems to be some of the strengths of Clintons appeal to her supporters and may explain the much fewer comments I've seen on blogs, Dkos, mattyglesias, pro-clinton sites, etc. for 'only Clinton if not, McCain' appeals since Clinton's policy positions are much closer to Obama's than McCains. It seems this is what her supporters care more about. That's the rub though. If positive appeals to emotions work to attract folks then negative ones work to repel folks. It's what people respond to. It's nothing new. Campaigns are going to use it because it works for the tons of people wired that way. I've seen Clinton supporters who excuse it, those who condemn it and folks who say if that is how the game is played and won by Republicans so you better be able to play and win at it too. Obama may as yet get called for engaging in it too as folks on this site have pointed out.
Ironically, I think Obama would have to mention this for me to think he was really going to change how things are done in Washington if he was elected. This is how political campaigns will remain as long as enough people vote solely or mostly on how their emotions have been jarred, in either direction, rather than according to the feeling that comes after examining a clearly presented relaying of the ideas a person/candidate possesses about what he/she is going to do, how they're going to do it and what their past actions may show about their future actions. If that continues to be the case then that's what politicians/salesmen are going to emphasize to the voter/customer. The clear risk is that the product itself is not presented to be inspected intently, hence Clinton's claim on Obama i.e. vetting, 3 a.m. call, etc. and Obama claim that Clinton is against change in government, is racist, etc.. Which are verifiable and which are for emotional charging for an 'us against them' platform. Personally, I think that the strength of demanding a 'fact' laden argument rather than an emotional one is that it can be verified to a much greater extent that determining if a candidate is 'honest', 'for change', 'part of the problem', etc.. For me, appeals heavy on emotions are too malleable to rely on as determining the actual effects of the proposals/products being presented.

[KnowVox]

please don't forget "Alegre" from dKos, who has been a tireless Clinton blogger. See her handiwork here:

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Alegre/diary

[helys]

Oh yeah You're right. I simply get a high that replaces judgment from seeing someone with integrity who is not part of the ruling political dynasty and won't be hiring the same old hacks to fling the same old muck.
If HC had an ethical bone in her body she might attract some of that support. But Oh I forgot, you HC supporters are the underdoggs and need far more TLC from us Barack-loving bullies.
By the way, Didn't anyone notice Carville IS Voldermort.

[Linda]

I posted an essay on a blog I created (www.obamasnakeoil.blogspot.com)for the sole purpose of expressing it, when I found I couldn't get my usual liberal website to post it. I worked hard on that thing and still stand by most of it, except perhaps the last line -- that I'd like to see a Clinton/Obama team with Obama as veep. The way Obama is continuing to find ways to create racial tension out of nothing, that he's using all the ugly racial sins of the past to solidify his support with black voters, has so disgusted me that I've added to my original instinct -- that he's a fraud of the snake oil salesman type -- the worse conclusion that he not only doesn't give a damn about "uniting" America unless it gets him elected, but that he would actively sow divisions to get elected. Because that's what he's doing.

[PunditMom]

Here and blogging for Hillary at my place and at MOMocrats!

MOMocrats, http://momocrats.typepad.com

[Susan Nunes]

Dean better than McAuliffe? Are you kidding me? Dean has screwed this election up with his antics regarding FL and MI, and now we may be stuck with a GE turkey on our hands.

Obama will be lucky if he wins a single state by the time the smear machine gets done with him. If he can't take the Clinton criticisms, which have been mild, he won't stand a chance against the Rove machine in the fall.

Which is why the Republicans and the media have pushed this horrible candidate on Democrats.

Dean will be gone, mark my words, if Obama is the nominee and the party is destroyed in a 50-state blowout by McCain.

[helys]

Fact is Obama can take anything they try to throw and I have no idea where you get the notion he can't -- He still is winning the pledged delegate count remember.
He just won two states -- but that doesn't count because Mississippi is Black? And well Wyoming just too Western to count I guess.

[pdxatheist]

great space here...i'm an obama supporter from oregon (big surprise, i know) but until the south carolina primary i supported hillary clinton. while i think obama will be the stronger candidate in november, i'm not a starry-eyed obamanista the way so many people on my 'home blog' at blueoregon.com are...mention one iota of support for hillary (or even any slight degree of fairness in the debate) and one is castigated as a bloodthirsty, delusional warmonger and forced to defend one's right to exist as a human being. kudos to hillary supporters; i doubt she'll pull it out, and think she'll have an awful hard time winning against that turd mccain in november, but all power to her if she does win, and unlike so many of the suicide voters that i constantly rail against, (can you really call yourself a progressive if you would vote for mccain over hillary clinton?) hillary will have my enthusiastic support should her unlikely bid for the nomination succeed. i'll be coming here more often...

[donna darko]

zeke,

I'll go as far as to say the subtext of his campaign is putting a woman in her place. White men including his campaign managers and supporters get the most excited about this. It's a constant not just specific examples. The media and blogosphere complete the sexist triangle. For instance, the number one political blog, Huffington Post, has questionably sexist headlines and is anti-Hillary.

[zeke]

Donna,

1. Huffington Post, which was created and managed by a woman, is a forum in which diverse points of view are represented, some of which I agree with and some of which I find reprehensible. Thus the HP cannot be, given its very nature, either pro-Obama or pro-Clinton. If Arianna herself supports Obama, she also offers a forum to very partisan Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh. I thus find it incredible that Huffington has come in for so much criticism from Clinton supporters. She is a strong, successful woman with a point of view, not unlike Hillary Clinton. How she can possibly construed as a sexist is beyond me.

2. Obama's campaign is, by necessity, predicated on demonstrating that Clinton is less qualified to be president than is he. This can only be accomplished by holding her failures up for scrutiny, and by creating a convincing narrative that Obama is both more likely to win in November and more likely to govern well once he is in office. What seems to confuse you, and many other Clinton supporters who post here, is that Obama is running a campaign against Hillary Clinton, not against all women. Hillary is not synonomous with WOMAN any more than Barack is synonomous with AFRICAN AMERICAN. They are two individuals contending for the same prize. When they question the qualifications or the voting record or the tactics of their opponent, they are not engaging in sexist or racist attacks. They are campaigning.

On the other hand, when a surrogate like Geraldine Ferraro suggests that Obama has only gotten where he is because he is black, she is engaging in racist cant. Whether she herself is or is not a racist is beside the point. And she didn't do much to reassure us on that latter score when she not only reiterated her statement, but claimed herself to be the victim of reverse racism.

I know of no analagous sexist statements emanating from the Obama campaign, which is why I asked you for examples of his campaign's alleged sexism. When one of Obama's advisors unwisely characterized Clinton as a "monster" (not a sexist term as far as I know), her role in his campaign was terminated. As of now, two days after her racist remarks, Ferraro retains her role in Clinton's campaign.

[Ralph]

Blaming Obama for what sexist bloggers or pundits may imply or say about Hillary Clinton is just silly. It's like blaiming Clinton for what Ferraro said. Let's just stick to what the candidates and their campaigns are saying - or not saying. Jeez, what is wrong with some of you people? Again, experience in foreign policy does not mean you will make the right foreign policy decisions as president. Ideology often trumps experience or the facts. In this case, Obama is very smart and his views on foreign policy are spot-on.

[judith]

Ralph - that doesnt work anymore. The problem is that Obama refuses to distance himself from the bile spewed in his name (let alone the bile he spews himself) so after a while I gotta think he actually likes anything that helps him even if it is insulting to a segment of the Democratic party. At some point that sticks to him and he cant just shake it off. Personally, I dont like him anymore. He is a sales guy showing some lovely powerpoints; just try to install the piece of crap he actually drops off after the check clears.

[Tom W.]

Zeke - gotta disagree on HuffPo (and I've written for it myself) - it's an Obama shop. Sure, there are a few pro-Clinton voices, but the management is rabidly anti-Clinton and lets it show all over the site. Glance at any combo of headlines over the past 10 months - it's aimed at taking Clinton down, basically in the same style as Hardball (which also has the occasional non-Hillary-hating guest as well). HuffPo's become an embarassment.

[zeke]

Judith,

You continue to rail about the "bile" spewed by Obama and his campaign. I invite you to provide at least a couple of examples of this "bile", if you can. And I'm not talking about the "bilious" comments that spew forth from partisans here on the blogosphere.

Just give me one thing Obama has said that you would define as "bile." Because if you can't back up your case that Obama is "spewing bile," then perhaps you should stop characterizing Obama's campaign as a "bile spewing" operation. And while you're at it, check your mirror -I think there may be a few flecks of "bile" on your own chin.

As far as distancing oneself from the "bile" spewed by one's surrogates, you really need to take off your blinders and pay attention to the daily news cycle. Though I see that Ferraro has finally been sent packing - but only after the "bile" she spewed was allowed to ripen in the sun for a couple of days.

Biliously yours,

zeke

[zeke]

Tom,

I link directly to the blog entries at HuffPo, so I can't comment on the headlines and news page. But even if it is an "Obama Shop," I don't see how that makes it an embarrassment. (But then I wouldn't, would I?) As I said, Arianna is a smart woman with a point of view, and after all it's her blog.

As you have very ably demonstrated with this post, there are no shortage of "Clinton Shops" in the blogosphere, not all of which are exactly fair and balanced. Why, some are even downright "bilious." I might even characterize some of them as embarrassing if I weren't feeling charitable.

But in the end, the only thing any of us will have to be embarrassed about is if we let ourselves become so partisan in our support of either Clinton or Obama that we sit on our hands in November and allow McCain to become president.

[Tom W.]

Zeke - the diff with HuffPo is that it has positioned itself as a left-of-center shop with a very wide scope - a big tent, to use the cliche. Yet, it pushes one liberal candidate obsessively over the other.

[slag]

Uh, jawbone @ 9ish, I didn't say anything about Clinton's wishy-washy statement on Obama's religion. But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. That seems to be the latest Clinton campaign strategy, so keep up the good work!

[judith]

I am totally with Tom W on Huffpo - Arianna turned into a fulltime Clinton attacker at least a year ago.

Some nice posters over there that I am happy to see employed, but she personally is a joke. Go watch her on Charlie Rose from a month or so ago - show with Halperin where he said the media was indeed unfair and biased about Clinton - she interrupted over and over again with inane comments and made a fool of herself. She hasnt stopped since.

[judith]

zeke - dude - I think I said spew once so perhaps you should not use the word "continue" as it shows you to be an exaggerator. You wouldnt want to be seen that way now would you?

Now I am going to assume you are over 18 and therefore are capable of basic internet reading skills. As such, it is not my job in life to do your reading for you. Here is what I suggest for you since you insist on taking part in a conversation with people like me who obviously think and have thought about their opinions before psoting here or anywhere else: go to the top of this post and actually read it. There you will find a list of at least 20 websites keeping track of the spewing. Come back after reading several of the back posts on them going back since January. Please make that effort or you are welcome to skip over my posts.

Thanks and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[zeke]

Judith,

I don't have the time or inclination to comb through more blogs than I visit already. I check in here because I enjoy Tom's writing, and with the exception of the current Democratic primary campaign I usually find myself in sympathy with his points of view.

Hence, I am participating in this particular thread on this particular blog, and I am attempting to hold you accountable for your comments here. If you will not produce evidence to back up your assertions, I presume the reason is that you cannot. That being the case, I will gladly skip over your posts in the future as they will evidently continue to be devoid of substance.

Bilious as always,

zeke

[Edgeoforever]

I have to add Bartcop here - the pioneer of them all. he was at it before some of us knew what the internet was
http://www.bartcop.com/

[texas democrat]

Oh god, oh god, I feel like I have found a raft on a sea of bitterness! I've deleted half my politcal bookmarks, removed MSNBC from my remote control, questioned my sanity, wondered what on earth has happened to my party. The hatred for the Clintons just astounds me. Thank god I tracked down this site from riverdaughter's clues. Thank you ALL. I'm nearly giddy. And don't forget Bartcop!

[Becki Jayne]

I'm late to the Clinton blogger party, Tom, but count me in.

Mentioned your post Monday at The RealSpiel.

Been meaning to get around to your blog and say thanks for the great work you've been doing. Keep it coming, Tom.

[Mawm]

zeke,

When is the first time you got to know Arrianna Huffington? Was it when she was a card carrying Republican married to a closet gay intent on destroying Bill Clinton and the Democratic party? To say that Huffington has created a diverse place, and cannot therefore be either pro-Hillary or Obama is laughable. One look at her front page will confirm her bias. This is all just a continuation of the tricks she pulled 10 years ago. She has wanted to be part of the Clinton's destruction since the 90s, and she has not changed. It is all about ego with her, and she is not to be trusted.
I can't believe Democrats right now. They are so willing to throw out the most winning members of the party, and to replace them with the likes of the Republican Huffington. Left wing nut = right wing nut.

[Adorable Girlfriend]

Add AG and Republic of Dogs to the Clinton Blogger Team.

Go Team Hillary!

[zeke]

Mawm,

When is the first time you got to know Hillary Clinton? Was it when she was a Republican college student? Or was it when she sat on the board of WalMart? Perhaps you only cozied up to her as she was making a mess of health care reform. I know many of us came to love her right about the time she was voting to cede warmaking authority to an amoral idiot intent on attacking Iraq.

Gee, Arianna has an ego? Arianna used to be a Republican? Arianna plays political tricks? You might as well be describing Hillary. And the relevance of Arianna's husband being gay eludes me. Hillary's husband was (is?) a serial adulterer. In neither case should the sexual preferences of the husband be construed as reflecting poorly on the wife.

Arianna has a bias. Tom has a bias. You have a bias. You fling the word around as if it is a pejorative. Arianna also has a blog on which she encourages people with biases different from hers to publish their thoughts. That she should also prominently display her own political preferences during a long and hard-fought primary campaign is neither remarkable nor objectionable. She has never purported to be a bastion of journalistic objectivity, and to hear people like you and Tom complaining about her "bias" for Obama strikes me as disingenuous. If she were running a "Hillary Shop" I'm sure she would be lauded here as one of "the few, the proud..."

I would respond to the last two sentences of your message, but I can't make any sense of them. But I guess we can agree that a nut is, in fact, a nut.

[jason]

I confess, while I used to be all for calm and reasonable and "let's all stick together in the end", I'm not one of the calm and Obama-friendly people (though I do try to be and I hope I am fair).

Over the course of the campaign I've developed a genuine loathing for the guy, and should he get the nomination I will have a real problem voting for him in November (which isn't to say I won't) (and there's absolutely no chance of me voting for McCain, or Nader, or not voting).

I'm not two years old -- if it was just as matter of "do I vote for someone I hate but who will unquestionably do a much better job for the country and world?", of course I'd have to vote for him.

But that isn't the exact equation. Aside from I genuinely worry about what Obama's going to do on various policy positions that is important to me, the other problem is that a vote for him in many ways validates his campaign thus far, and the way the media has covered the primary. I can't stomach validating either of those.

Whether I can stomach voting otherwise in a close election is a hard call. Up until the last couple of weeks, despite increasing misgivings I assumed the Republicans would make sure I voted for whoever the Dem nominee is. At this point, though, unless he does a *lot* to win me back over (and some of what he'd need to do, I no longer expect him to do), I'm not at all sure I'll be voting Democrat in the fall unless the nominee is Clinton.

[zeke]

Jason,

It's your funeral, man. Maybe literally if you're between the ages of 18 and 35. I'm just curious who the hell you WILL vote for if Obama is the nominee. You've eliminated McCain, Nader, and not voting as options. What's left? I guess you could write in Clinton's name, but that's really the equivalent of not voting. Maybe Bloomberg will change his mind and help you out of a jam...

I'm really feeling the hate from a lot of the other posters here too. Here's hoping you all sober up in time to stumble into the voting booth and pull the lever for Obama if he's the nominee.

zeke out

[Tom W.]

Zeke - I'll vote for Obama if he's nominated. Not sure about the 18-35 reference - the war, perhaps? Despite some of the lively back and forth here, you're one of the moderate pro-Obama voices I've found commenting online - you probably realize so much of the growing Obama backlash on the net revolves around overly zealous "supporters". Stick around - the fun's just getting started.

Tom, there are overly zealous "supporters" on both sides of the fence here. I just don't understand how any Obama or Clinton supporter can actually hate the other candidate. This is madness. I feel like I'm in a virtual reality game that Karl Rove has created. Jesus, I mean, they are both great candidates who are not very far from each other on the issues. I will vote for either one with enthusiasm in November. I think the problem is that some people decided years ago that they supported Hillary Clinton come hell or high water. Nobody thought that Obama would be in the position he's in right now, especially me. I think many Clinton supporters are angry at Obama for being a contender. If he had lost to Clinton early on and dropped out, you would all be gushing about how he should be the Veep choice, and how wonderful that ticket would be. But, since he has been -gasp- defeating Clinton in primary after primary, those folks in love with Hillary are aghast. They and the Clinton camp didn't see it coming. So now the flame throwers are out on both sides and we are all getting burned. Please, people, realize what's going on here. They are bo