I Really Don’t Get It
Apr 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm by Susie
I don’t understand why Obama supporters are so driven to publicly savage, insult and demean Clinton. What is it in themselves that makes them act… well, like Republicans?
It turns out that Randi Rhodes event for which she was suspended was a fundraiser sponsored by local Obama supporters and advertised on his official campaign website.
As she called Clinton “a big fucking whore,” the Obama fans apparently cheered her on.
Stay classy, guys!
UPDATE: I should have been more clear - where are the examples of Obama being treated this way by other Democrats?
And I’ve seen some horrific crap thrown around by Clinton supporters.
It sucks, and it should stop, but it’s not one way.
Maybe because the Clintons make more money than even most Republicans? heh Drudge says they made $109 Milliion in last 8 years- not bad huh.
People keep saying that about the Clinton supporters, but I’ve yet to see one example. Got any?
it’s a contentious primary. everyone is getting nasty to everybody.
want examples? well the whole “cultist” thing was extremely demeaning and insulting to both obama as well as to his supporters. i’ve seen quite a few clinton supporters call obama sexist, an “empty suit”, “anti-american”, some of them right here in this very blog.
the nastiness is all over the place. for some reason a lot of clinton supporters only seem to see the stuff directed against clinton and are blind to anything directed against obama, even when they do it themselves. (and also vice-versa) that’s the weirdest thing about this race, IMHO, the number of people on both sides railing about the assholes on the other side as they themselves engage in assholery.
Hey, I am an Obama supporter and I think Rhodes was completely wrong to say anything resembling those remarks.
Clinton is not a whore, bitch, or whatever female specific term people throw around. She is brilliant, informed, and ambitious (good way).
I, and most of the people I know who support Obama, think Sen. Clinton is a good candidate, and Sen. Obama is a great one. The comment I heard “Clinton is Salieri, to Obama’s Mozart”.
well the whole “cultist” thing was extremely demeaning and insulting to both obama as well as to his supporters. i’ve seen quite a few clinton supporters call obama sexist, an “empty suit”, “anti-american”, some of them right here in this very blog.
Noz, do you honestly consider those things comparable to the sheer vitriol and bile directed at Clinton, or are you just being a lawyer? Because if you’re serious, I have to wonder. (It didn’t seem to bother any Obama supporter to call both Clintons racists, for instance.)
Those things you cite may hurt people’s feelings, but they’re nothing like attacking Clinton as evil, a whore, bitch, cunt, Nazi or as one commenter recently put it, “the Joan of Arc of the dry pussy demographic.” The amount of hate and personal spleen vented at her is like nothing I’ve ever seen. If I started linking to it every time I saw it, I’d do nothing else all day.
I’m an Obama supporter too and I also agree Randi was way off. I am thrilled we have two great candidates for the presidency, but you can only choose one. There are plenty of Obama supporters out here that do not demean, insult or criticize Clinton supporters. Don’t lump us all together just as we shouldn’t lump all rabid Clinton supporters together.
Point taken, Joy. Unfortunately, I keep stumbling across the other kind.
noz:
“IMHO, the number of people on both sides railing about the assholes on the other side as they themselves engage in assholery.”
Tell me about it. TELL me about it.
Today in the daily news, Gar Joseph referred to Obama supporters as “glassy-eyed cultists”.
It’s so lame. What bugs me about all of it (on both sides) is the cheap shots. Randi Rhodes “whore” comment is a cheap shot. Michael Barone’s thoroughly disingenuous column about electability is also cheap.
I like debate as much as the next person, but I really cringe when my intelligence is insulted.
it’s also a bit of a cheap shot to say thing like “those smart obama supporters and the stupid bigoted everyone else.”
I don’t think someone supporting clinton is stupid or a bigot, and it personally offends me to be lumped in with those who would. It’s a totally unconstructive thing to say, especially when you seem to have readers from both sides.
Save that stuff for the real stupids and bigots supporting McSame.
I think a lot of the offenders ARE Republicans, or former Republicans. They’ve switched teams because their team is so sunk, but they haven’t changed their worldviews.
As has been noted, the derision and name calling is usually reserved for his supporters. You should read your own site some time.
just imagine how the conversation would be different if someone linked to the Clinton campaign (or McCain for that matter) referred to Obama with the “N word” in a similar venue?
as I thought. just more double standard. ok to hate on the woman, even if you are one.
You know, Susie, the only people I’ve ever seen drawing any attention to what Rhodes said are Clinton supporters who want to score points against Obama. I certainly haven’t seen any Obama fans holding it up as the very soul of wit. That, in itself, should tell you something.
Now, what I don’t understand is why Clinton supporters are so driven to publically badmouth Obama supporters and suggest that they all just hate Clinton. I guess I’m just a DFH because I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and not stretching the truth to try to punish the people I disagree with.
Maybe you’re not even aware of it, but you write mean and hurtful things about Obama supporters on your blog every day — or rather, you write about bad people and then suggest that they’re bad because they’re Obama supporters. Fine, lots of people do this, but don’t be so sanctimonious while you do it. Realize that you’re getting down into the gutter to smear your enemies, don’t delude yourself into thinking you’re speaking truth to power by calling Obama voters out-of-touch elitists.
To be fair, there are a few pretty spectacular Obama slurs out there. There are some anti-Islamic bigots out there who fault Obama for not attacking Islam, based on the fact that he’s got an Islamic father.
That’s pretty spectacularly offensive. And I strongly suspect that the tainted-by-a-drop-of-blood nature of the slur comes directly from his father’s skin color, so it’s two slurs wrapped into one.
Well, susan, the McCain campaign did recently fire a staffer for distributing a YouTube video that interspersed shots of Obama with shots of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. And Clinton’s campaign has also disciplined staffers for distributing the Obama-is-a-Muslim email.
speaking as someone who advanced a candidate (wes clark) to an event in portland, one of the silent guys many people in the hall knew, up on stage with the speaker, had my guy gone overboard like that i’d have walked into him, taken the mic and tried to recover my guy’s creds and my local party’s creds.
i don’t think it was coordinated, but i do think there is too much tolerance for it down the food chain, and the campaigns are erring in not jerking up the surrogates who decide to, or like ms. rhodes, may not be completely capable of mature reflection, become, the “news”.
whatever the obama campaign message of the day/week/market is, it is wicked unlikely that it is air america’s p&l statement, or ms. rhodes ability to turn a phrase.
Noz, do you honestly consider those things comparable to the sheer vitriol and bile directed at Clinton
actually, i thought the cultist thing was incredibly nasty both to obama and to his supporters. i realize it’s hard to measure relative nastiness (”whore” is probably worse than “cult leader”, but not by all that much. and the cultist thing had an additional smear against all the people who support obama who were essentially being called mindless idiots)
as i said above, the most remarkable thing is not that the campaign is nasty, but that the people being nasty seem to be completely unaware how they come across to people on the other side.
“the Joan of Arc of the dry pussy demographic.”
Jesus, you’re kidding.
I wish I was kidding.
At least one Obama supporter comes across as a cultist, judging by the button I saw her wearing: blue, with “Obama” at the bottom and in the middle, in large type, just the word “BELIEVE.”
An example. Enjoy.
No, Chris. Arguing that Barack Obama is in his way as racially divisive as George Wallace IS NOT THE SAME AS CALLING HILLARY CLINTON A FUCKING WHORE OR CUNT.
It’s not even close.
It’s not like calling Clinton “the Joan of Arc of the dry pussy demographic,” either.
This stuff is contemptuous. It’s reducing her to nothing more than her genitalia. It’s as if women are only useful when they’re “fuckable,” and if they are not, they should be torn apart for daring to show themselves in public.
Is there some reason that it’s difficult to understand that insults based on behavior (i.e., divisiveness or starry-eyed idol worship) are of a different magnitude than insults based on identity or essential nature (i.e., dry pussy demographic, bitch, cunt, whore, etc.).
It’s the difference between insulting people for what they do and insulting people for what they are. And if you can’t see that, and you can’t see why one is far more toxic than the other, I’m not sure what to say to you.
No, Susie. A title that says “Barack Obama is the George Wallace of the Left” is offensive. You wanted examples, and if that title doesn’t strike you as one, then we’re seeing things very differently. No, it’s not as offensive, juvenile, demeaning or one of the various ists as what you’re citing. But really, calling any modern Democrat “George Wallace” is about as low as you can get without getting into a discussion of genitalia. And of course, people who are looking to buy into something are buying into it and they think it’s a perfectly reasonable argument, so I’m sure they don’t see it that way. Fine. That doesn’t mean that they’re not Democrats being shitty and offensive to a candidate other than Clinton. I could type it in all caps if it would make more sense.
I didn’t ask for “offensive” - which is the lowest possible bar. You can always find someone who’s “offended” by something. Someone expressing an opinion you don’t like is not the same as a vicious personal attack.
I asked for instances of other Democrats treating Obama in the same nasty, personal, hateful way as Clinton is treated. I still have yet to see anyone calling him by racial epithets or reducing him to his genitalia.
Ok, I misunderstood what you were looking for. Sorry. Shit like this is probably about as close as it gets then, but even that pertains to doing rather then being, or whatever Zuzu was getting at.
It is really discouraging to me to hear all venom and outright hosility directed at Hillary - from Democrats. I was hoping to find our more about Obama before I voted for HRC. I looked around at my favorite news blogs…but I found that people’s minds had already been made up. The discussion wasn’t about policies. It was personal attacks. It wasn’t any invitation to hope and change and unity etc.
Maybe people really thought the candidates were so similar that they had to go for the war of perceptions right off the bat.
The atmosphere is hard to describe to Obama supporters, I find. The response I’ve most often gotten is the view of how terrible Clinton supporters are to Obama.
When I ask what the attacks are - all they come up is that he is portrayed as “weak” and an “empty suit” and that his supporters are naive.
This is insulting, but it is not hostile. It is not portraying him as evil.
Hillary called all kinds of EVIL and her supporters the evil insiders except for the bigot, racists, or low information voters, lower class (implying more than lower income) voters they gull. I’ve never heard older women who support Obama sneered at for being…older women.
C itizens U nited N ot T imid is an anti-Clinton group. ( These are not Obama supporters, just Hillary haters. ) I guess they sell a lot of T Shirts.
It’s been troubling to read so many Obama supporters parroting the AnnCoulter vintage poison of the right, or at the very least, not being too upset about it now - because she’s on the other Democratic team?
Well let’s see, That Clinton ad where she had the image of Sen. Obama darkened, the fake radio ad in Ohio on the day of the Primary where she lied about Sen. Obama talking to the Canadians behind the voters back regarding NAFTA, Her and her husbands praising McCain at the expense of another Democrat, you know the Black Guy, Her criticism of Sen. Obama when he said something nice about Reagan while she herself lists Reagan as one of her fav Presidents, her love affair with Murdoch. Her lie about being under sniper fire(just like a Repub Chickenhawk), taking credit she did not earn
Is that enough? If not just wait a day. mmmmm ooops, you said Obama supporters acting like Republicans. Not the Military Complex Whore Herself. Me bad.
Whatever lies the Clintons and their supporters throw, Sen. Obama will still win in #of Delegates, States Won and the Popular vote. I have no doubt she will put on a Convention fight. Like a good Republican her aims are to destroy any chance of Sen. Obma winning in the General and stopping a Progressive Agenda. It’s one prediction she might just make good. With a bunch of help from her supporters.
Peace.
because the media has been hammering Hillary mercilessly, the blogosphere believes they can hammer her with impunity and it becomes a cycle.
We reached a point where supposedly ‘liberal’ pundits like Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller feel that Hillary is fair game and they aimed and fired.
Well, all they’ve done is fractured the party and contributed to the ill will that may not clear up in time for the general election in the primary. Perhaps that is the point…by being the anti-Clinton candidate, Obama becomes acceptable to those on the right that hate everything Clinton much like McCain benefits from not being embraced by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity or the pundits from the right.
It’s pathetic that Randi thinks that Ferraro is a fucking whore for stating that she doesn’t believe that Obama would be viable candidate today were it not for the fact that he is black.
It’s pathetic that these ‘professionals’ are so tone deaf that they think their sentiments are acceptable.
When the campaign started, it seemed clear that the winner of the presidency this cycle would be a Democrat…any Democrat. Now, with the party in self-destruct mode fueled by self-absorbed, self-important hacks like Randi. Randi’s pathetic and I noticed it a few weeks ago just before I changed radio stations, never to listen to Randi again. I’m not surprised, nor am I disappointed. If we Democrats nominate Obama and march ourselves off a cliff like lemmings, that would be just like us.
Liberal media indeed…
#28: I don’t think that anyone outside the Obamasphere believes that the Clinton campaign darkened any pictures of Mr. Obama. Desaturated the picture, sure, but not darkened. And if Mr. Obama didn’t want to have the Canadian government running around claiming that he was lying about Nafta, well, the solution to that would have been to just not talk to the Canadian government in the first place.
But exploiting a foolish comment by the Obama campaign is not even on the same continent, let alone in the same ballpark, as being called a “Military Complex Whore”. And it’s pretty much routine now — a Clintonista will criticise Mr. Obama on policy points, political experience, or voter suppression, and back will come the crudest possible sexist slur possible against Ms. Clinton the woman and not Ms. Clinton the candidate.
Gosh, I can’t see *any* reason why we wouldn’t want to vote for your guy after this.
David Parsons. Desaturated? Is that a Bushism? Like “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”?
Voter suppression? Who is buying that? Just because her surrogates like Rendell and you keep repeating it does not make it so. Sen. Obama has played by the rules from the get go. Hillary has not. Did you know the Canadian Government contacted both Hillary and Senator Obama? Did you know both met with them? Do you know the meetings were weeks before? Why did the Canadians and Hillary lie about Sen. Obama’s meeting just right before the Ohio Primary? Who do those fake “News” report ads remind you off? So, because the Canadians lied it’s okay for Hillary to do so?
Policy points? You don’t mean Iraq do you?
Experience? Let’s see who has more time in a Legislature?
I guess you didn’t like the fact that your candidate receives the most from the Mighty MIC? Guess which Dem receives the most from the Troops themselves?
Guess which candidate really did lie about NAFTA?
If you want to believe Hillary and her surrogates lies about Sen. Obama go ahead. But it don’t change the facts.
And on the personal side, you like so many have a transference complex. She’s your candidate, not your wife. Or you. it’s called politics. It’s okay. I was feeling the same way about my 1st pick, Rep. Paul. Then I moved on.
And for the record, they are all Whores. I just want one for us. It’s time for We The People to get a Slice.
Peace.
I think in part it’s coming from just how low the debate has become in total and an out growth of the treatment of the Clinton’s for the last 15+ years by the Republicans and of Bush for the last 8 by the Democrats. Too many have come to accept the not just name calling but down right vicious attacks as normal or even expected.
clinton doesn’t bring any of this on herself?
There is such a level of frustration with the Clintons. it should go without saying, but I don’t support what Rhodes said either. I just remember the Clinton’s in the 90’s when I was in the Navy. Everything, EVERYTHING that came out of their mouth’s was double talk, parced and so evasive.
For a couple that acts like they are above politics as usual, they have no problem sinking to the lowest possible level when need be.
“Brings it on herself”? Did you really just say that? Yes, female victims of violence, physical or verbal, always seem to “bring it on themselves”. Everyone knows that. It’s like that very funny, evolved, pro-woman joke about why the woman had two black eyes: “Because some bitches just… won’t… listen the FIRST time!”
Sheesh.
Fine, do you really want us to wander into the fever swamps?
Obama is same old sexist shit. (By the way, why didn’t he denounce the thugs in Kenya who beat up a female candidate for Parliment which put her in the hospital for twenty days?)
speaking of a–holes- why was Obama absent in Memphis? For somebody that is supposedly concerned about the black community he sure does snub them all the time!! I guess since he knows he has the black vote in his pocket - he just doesn’t care. What a selfish, arrogant scum bag!
right now Keith O is whining and trying to make a huge deal out of the falafel man (O’Liely) being a racist against bitch Michelle Obama.
What a horror to have this woman as the First Lady. God forbid it should come to that!
If he sends out MO to do the dirty work, that’s going to be worse because she comes off looking like the bitch that she is.
The main difference I can see between the pro-Obama sites and pro-Hillary sites — the ones I read comments on, anyway — is that on the pro-Obama sites, like DailyKos, there will always be someone there to rebuke people being unfair to the Clintons or applying ridiculous double standards. On the pro-Clinton sites it’s just a big pile-on, with some sites not even accepting comments defending Obama. This isn’t surprising to me, but it does make it sting a little when Clinton supporters sniff that Obama supporters are uniquely and exclusively unfair, naive, overprivileged, sexist, etc…
Oh snap!
Neil just put the smackdown to Susie’s whiny victomhood!
1. As far as the image darkening, can we please stop repeating this? Kevin Drum, to his credit, retracted his post on that topic, and apologized for passing on a Drudge smear–making it all the more curious, or not, that Obama himself has repeated the same false story. I guess that was before he decided he wanted to talk about policy…
2. As far as the “cult” thing goes, please read this Sacramento Bee story on how Obama organizers are trained. If the Obama campaign didn’t want people to confuse his supporters with cultists, then they shouldn’t have trained them to focus on their own “personal” “conversion” stories and deflect all questions on policy by saying “look at the web site.” If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you can hardly blame people for concluding it is a duck. (I thought I was going nuts when I still read DK, because Obama supporters would behave that way over and over again. I didn’t realize then that this was their training.) I understand that all Obama supporters aren’t that way, and I understand why the Obama campaign would want to put the toothpaste back in the tube now that it’s turned out to reflect badly on them, but stuck pig squeals, say I.
The MSM is clearly biased against Hilary in the current race and if Obama wins the nomination they’ll turn on him in the fall. The Village is nothing if not mendacious and immune to progressive commentary. (I actually heard Bill Maher claim the progressive crown for himself and Olberman last night, I would’ve cried if I hadn’t been laughing so hard.) In my experience the level of invective landed on Hilary’s head is far greater in Obamaland, but that’s certainly not a conclusive call. What is so dispiriting is to see how seamlessly right wing talking points (ie. outright lies) become commonly held wisdom across the board, a fact that is also reflected in an astounding ignorance of even recent history by the vast majority of pundits, bloggers and posters. My only hope is that the level of interest aroused by the ‘ultimate reality TV event’ is that it encourages more people to study history, a slim hope but one I need to cling to for my own sanity.
I see a lot of false equivilency in these arguments.
Yes, there are some Hillary supporters who go way over the line in their comments about Obama. But in sheer numbers they are drowned out by the HillaryHaters.
There are numerous Hillary supporters that are boycotting what were previously mainstream lefty sites. Many of these people have started or moved to new sites because they felt that they were driven out of the old sites. The new sites are relatively small in terms of posters and traffic. I haven’t heard of any major site that has driven out Obama supporters.
So when Obama supporters follow Hillary supporters to a new site to nut-pick anti-Obama comments from one of two refugees from previously mainstream sites it is not nearly the same thing.
I have been a political junkie for all of my adult life. I am unashamedly liberal and very outspoken. At times I was the lone liberal in a sea of conservatives (2003 for example) but I never experienced the personal attacks and insults I have experienced this year supporting Hillary.
I have numerous times posted a comment on a thread defending Hillary and received responses like “F**k-you, you dumbs**t.” I’m not talking just one or two trolls, I’m talking a plurality or more of the other commenters.
What’s really disturbing is smelling the stench of right-wing meme on the breath of so-called liberals and progressives as they recycle old CDS propaganda.
I almost hate to even get into this one, it’s a charged wire. I do have the impression that Hillary recieves more personal attacks than Obama, though it’s a dynamic that’s followed her all of her career and is not unique to Obama supporters, nor is it likely to abate if she gets into the general election. Whatever explanation one wants to give for this, I think it’s a reality.
As I’ve said before, I lean towrd Obama, and so that is my bias I suppose in looking at this stuff. I do want to address a couple things. First off, the “cult” accusations, which Lambert mentioned (and seemingly endorsed) above. The story he linked to says:
*The idea behind the personal narratives is to reclaim “values” politics from the Republican Party, said Marshall Ganz, a one-time labor organizer for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers who developed “Camp Obama” training sessions for volunteers.
When people tell their stories of how they made choices and what motivates them, they communicate their values, Ganz said in an interview.
“Values are not just concepts, they’re feelings,” Ganz said. “That’s what dropped out of Democratic politics sometime in the ’70s or ’80s.” *
Sounds like politics, not cultism, to me. And as one who has not attended any “training sessions” for Obama of any nature, it does get kind of galling and insulting to be labeled part of a “cult” for supporting my candidate of choice.
Re: “doctoring” of the Obama image - I have no idea if any deliberate image manipulation was done or not. I do know that Kevin Drum’s position that the image was merely “desaturated” and not darkened is hogwash. Anyone familiar with Photoshop knows that desaturating an image makes it … blacker. If you desaturate an image all the way, it becomes ENTIRELY black and white. Hence a black person looks “blacker ” in such a case. Again, I admit I don’t know all the circumstances surrounding this, just pointing out that Drum’s explanation of things doesn’t cuit it.
As for the “cult” line..I think that was validated a bit when people who supported Senator Obama often could barely name one major accomplishment of his but often described him terms such as “inspirational”, “charismatic” , “great orator”..again those are traits not actual accomplishments. That happened several times on television. For the record, I’ve tried to not use the word “cult” when I speak of supporters because I know that is not true of all his supporters. Plus for some reason it is my experience that many Obama supporters may not fully realize that his policy positions are not as “progressive” as they think they are but refer to him as the true progressive (and research shows that’s not always the case…(healthcare, social security for starters). I have been attacked and name called (with same words as others above have sited) for defending Clinton even before I came to mildly support her (she’s my third choice for candidate)….and frankly I just don’t understand it.
I find it discouraging that even a lot of pro-Hillary Dems that I talk to believe some of the false smears that the right wing put out in the 90’s because the media was so willing to repeat them as facts. I urge everyone to read extremely well researched and documented book “The Hunting of the President” by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason (or get the vido of the documentary that was made from it) so that you can fully understand the vicious tactics which the right wing is willing to use against Democrats and the willingness of our hapless press core to go along for the ride. Whether or not you like the Clintons, this is the kind of thing that any Democrat can expect. Just look what was done to Gore, Kerrey, Mac Cleland, etc. if you doubt this. Democratic leaders stood by and let this go on because they wanted to appear to be above the fray, something Republicans never do.
The Clintons were the first to get the full brunt of these tactics because they were developed in the 80’s by Bush’s man Lee Atwater. Although Atwater repented on his death bed for what he had done to our country his protege Karl Rove carries on his legacy with a vengeance.
Until we all wake up to this our candidates will continue to be trashed. We need to be prepared to fight back.
now come on I don’t mean that she brought the “fucking whore” comment on herself nor do I mean it in that way.
What I mean is when you parce words, say you flew under sniper fire and didn’t, say obama can’t win then say you misspoke, say you brought peace in Ireland and didn’t
don’t you think at some point that the double speak begins to catch up with you? Don’t you think that as a POLITICIAN not as a WOMAN that it is brought onto her?
Just like McCain brings it on himself? Doesn’t Bush bring it on himself?
I in know way meant it as a blame the victim snark and I would never blame the victim. Hillary is hardly a victim either.
She WAS a big part of the Irish peace process. See, you’ve heard so much of this back-and-forth crap, you can’t even see straight.
And as for the rest - Obama lies all the time, but he’s got magic Teflon powers and no one seems to even notice. Or care.
Like I say, double standard.
god, when the myiqx2u guy shows up, it’s all over.
it goes all downhill from here.
she is now apparently mis-speaking about a woman and her newborn dying at a hospital after being refused payment…her campaign admitted today is was not vetted…so she has brought a lot of criticism upon herself by sticking to stories that are flat-out lies or not researched enough…poor management all-around…she was a part of the peace process but saying she was a big part is somewhat dreamy…I guess the guy who was there and called her claim “a wee bit silly” is a wee bit sexist???
Didn’t Bill Clinton recently say something along the line “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen?” That statement of his was a response to some who were calling Hillary’s campaign mean-spirited in their treatment of her Democratic opponent. Why would Bill respond in that way if there wasn’t a hint of truth to the claim to which he was responding?
I’ve waded through a lot of so-called “progressive” blogs and read a lot of the ankle-biting, back-stabbing and name-calling on both sides, (the “sides” being Hillary v. Barack, Democrat v. Democrat), in article posts and related comments and I’ve yet to see any of these “progressive” blogs explain in simple terms why one candidate would be better as President than the other, without trying to engender feelings of guilt and sympathy for “our candidate” or animosity for the “other candidate.”
I want to know why Hillary or Barack would be the better President. I want to know why either one would be better than John McCain. I don’t want a running total of how many times Hillary has been called a cunt or a whore, or Barack has been called a Muslim or a nigger. (Oops. That was politically incorrect of me wasn’t it? I meant to say “N-word” even though we all think “nigger” when we see the sanitized “N-word” don’t we?)
It’s not too much to ask. If I want to see what each candidate says they will do I can go to their websites. I want discussions by bloggers about WHY one candidate or the other would be better. This isn’t a race to see who can garner the most sympathy votes. Poor Hillary. Everyone was so mean to her. She deserves my vote. ~OR~ Poor Barack. Everyone was so mean to him. He deserves my vote.
BULLSHIT!
Back to the topic of your post (paraphrased):
I don’t understand why Clinton supporters are so driven to publicly savage, insult and demean Obama. What is it in themselves that makes them act… well, like Republicans?
I gave you a couple of websites in a comment I wrote recently where Clinton supporters are doing exactly what you’re saying Obama supporters are doing. I bet you didn’t look, did you? There are PLENTY of other sites doing it. Geraldine Ferraro, the Randi Rhodes of the Clinton campaign, used “code words” because even she has enough sense to know she couldn’t use the word she wanted to use.
You’re deluding youself if you continue to insist that Obama supporters are the only ones “driven to publicly savage, insult and demean Clinton.” It’s simply not true.
Sorry to pop your bubble of self-righteousness, but yes, I did read your prior post. I removed Marsh from my blogroll as a result. That’s one. I can show you dozens that do the same - or worse - to Clinton.
I think that this isn’t the most productive use of our time. Obama certainly didn’t pick Randi Rhodes to stand up for him, just like Clinton didn’t pick Taylor Marsh.
I’m considering my vote based on the candidate, not on jerk-wad supporters.
Excellent point.
Obama didn’t pick Randi Rhodes to stand up for him but Air America picked Randi Rhodes to stand up for them and they now have a serious problem. The problem was already evident weeks ago and I finally changed the channel back then.
To suggest that Randi is merely a jerk-wad supporter ignores the fact that like DK, these supposed voices of the left have destroyed their credibility by succumbing to becoming the launch place for partisan hacks.
Sorry to pop your bubble of self-righteousness, but yes, I did read your prior post. I removed Marsh from my blogroll as a result. That’s one. I can show you dozens that do the same - or worse - to Clinton.
You’re right Susie. I did sound self-righteous and I apologize for that.
Thank you for looking at the websites I mentioned in my earlier comment. I shouldn’t have doubted that you would. I gave you two websites. I could’ve given you two hundred more that are even worse. Both sides are sniping at each other. That’s part of the reason this election cycle is making me so crazy. The message of the candidates is being drowned out by the noise of both sides arguing over which side is being meaner than the other. It’s wasteful. It’s hurtful. It’s making it harder for those who may still be undecided to sift through the messages and policies of the candidates and decide who to support and vote for.
I too have been horrified at the vitriol tossed back and forth between Dems. And this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” bit has gotten out of hand- - having such tunnel vision to parrot accusations about the Clintons from the most extreme right wing or praise the Fox Republican propaganda machine as “fair” because of their attacks on Obama (which have included outrageous lies like the “radical madrassa”).
I am extremely offended at the misogynist name calling against Senator Clinton. It’s true that most of the invective from Democrats against Obama is not so much (at least not so blatantly) to do with his inherent identity. But as an Obama supporter I can say a lot of the insults hurt not only vicariously but personally, since most are directed at his supporters. It’s a rhetoric of dehumanization that reduces opponents to being devoid of normal human intelligence and feelings, “not like us” - - that way one can be as nasty as one likes & not feel bad. As someone who has followed politics & current affairs for years, who knows too much about Chicago politics to think Obama is a saint, who weighed pros and cons for the different candidates, I am getting REALLY sick of being called a “cultist”, “clueless”, “Obamabot”, accused of “drinking the Kool Aid” etc. I have heard Senator Obama compared not only to Jim Jones but to HITLER and his supporters not only to cult members but to NAZIS. (I have seen the latter numerous times from Clinton supporters; I’m all the more sickened and repelled by people tossing around those words since I have studied a great deal about the 3rd Reich & the Shoah, and I have loved ones who are concentration camp survivors. )
I often hear ageism against Obama’s young supporters and this image is pushed by some media that revels in airing footage of the most inarticulate uninformed young Obama fans they can find. Sure, there are some who are not very well informed and were attracted to him based more on idealism than details — but the same is true of supporters of ANY of the candidates- -I certainly hear some Clinton supporters who know very little about the details of the candidates’ positions or records or have been misinformed by e-mail rumors - - as well as others who are very well-informed.
I don’t mean to imply there are no insults of Clinton supporters too, accusing Clinton supporters of being uneducated and dumb or making offensive generalizations about “bitter old women”.
Some of the most ridiculous comments come from those who think their candidate is SO perfect that the ONLY reason not to support him or her MUST be racism or sexism (or “self-hate” if you’re for a candidate of a different gender or race than your own). While racism and sexism do play a role- -as has been admitted in post-vote polling- -it is very wrong and divisive to make broad accusations of prejudice so as to not admit any legitimate reasons exist for not voting for your candidate.
***WHAT I HOPE is that we will call our fellow Clinton or fellow Obama supporters on the name-calling or dehumanization and point out the fallacies of generalizing. I have complained about Obama supporters using misogynist terms & I’ve remonstrated with them for saying Clinton supporters are “low class and uneducated” - - but I should protest more consistently & so should we all, on both sides
. The more we tolerate such insults just because we’re P.O.’d ourselves at the opposition or perhaps we’ve agreed with other things the offender has said, the more we are letting the other Democratic candidate’s supporters see the nasty comments as representative of most people who support our candidate - -thus by NOT speaking out we are encouraging more people to sit out the election in the fall, or even vote for McCain out of spite - - and hopefully most of us can agree that the country can’t afford more years of the policies we’ve had for the past seven.***
One last thought (finally!): the disgusting comparison of Obama to George Wallace stems from the media’s wrongful portrayal of Obama’s church & former pastor as “racist” and “separatist”, constantly “spewing hate” etc. Fortunately more and more people are looking beyond what they’re being spoonfed and realizing how they’ve been misled. (Check out the truthabouttrinity blog for a start….for example see what’s said by white church members like Jane Fisler-Hoffman and William von Hoene)
Factcheck.org has discussed and debunked the “picture darkening” of Sen. Obama. They’re discussion can be found here http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
The analysis is pretty good. Whoever said the image was desaturated doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There are many many reasons why an image may change after it’s been in post-production. Color correction is a big one. Expansion or contraction of mid-range tones is another. use of filters.
But in this instance, the choice of codec will be a huge factor. Sifferent codecs will affect different parts of the image differently—if you’re trying to lower the number of bits you’re using, you have to give up some of the data. That often means sacrificing chrominance (color) to keep luminance (light and dark).
Also keep in mind that different computer monitors display color and contrast differently. That’s why we use scopes (waveform monitors and vectorscopes) to check the signal. I use digital scopes packaged with my non-linear editing software, but will go to an old-fashion analog waveform monitor if necessary. Anyway, what may look light or dark on your monitor may be because the casing framing the monitor is a different color than mine, ambient light is affecting your vision, blah blah blah.
As far as Trina Bachtel? Yeah, she and her baby son are dead. It’s a true story. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/07/clinton_told_true_tale_of_woe.html for Anne E. Kornblut’s story and http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/7/202819/2022 for more discussion.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.