Where in my comment at 19 above did I dismiss you or use sarcasm?

You didn’t Bob…I’m working off history

As for your rebuttal - the fact that you never addressed Sen. Clinton’s agreeing to the penalty and suddenly changing her mind when she realized the vote totals favored her pretty well sums it up. If it favors Clinton, do it.

The penalty was decreed by the DNC. She acknowledge it by committing not to campaign in those 2 states as did all the other candidates. Nothing more, nothing less.

She NEVER agreed to disenfranchisement - only not to campaign there…I’m sorry the distinction eludes you.

My argument @ 20 still stands but I did ask a question that you must have overlooked…

If the primary is supposed to be a test of leadership, then explain to me, where is the leadership in enforcing rules to cover one’s screw ups?

Bob : you can’t argue against anyone who spews the disenfranchisement crap, logic be damned the votes favor Clinton so they just scream ignoring her agreeing to said disenfranchisement.

Bob can’t argue with anyone because he immediately drops to dismissive, sarcastic mode to ensure that all debate ceases.

As for whitey: put words in mouth all you like, it only serves to show your irrationality, I never said she wasn’t a Democrat, not even close so you can go smoke that straw man. Also I found your “blah blah blah” a very engaging way to compare and contrast how the two candidates framing has exposed the party to Republican frames.

I am not sure where I said we should ignore Bill Clinton’s presidency either, but I guess it fits your mold so you had to put it in there.

If it’s not Republican frames then I suppose that it would have to be racist. Honestly, there is no purpose to characterize her comments as anything other than comments except to load up their intent with some extra and irrelevant meaning.

The elitism comment was especially apt because where is he making this objective analysis of embittered, small town mid-western voters who cling to their guns and their religion but of course, in San Francisco to a group of wealthy donors. This from the guy who is wondering about the going price of arugula at Whole Foods in IA and buying $99 per pound ham in Philadelphia.

Now to consider your absolute insistence on this notion of Hillary being engaged in Republican frames, you are clearly ignoring Obama’s admiration of Ronald Reagan and his desire to return to that era…and that he is the one to lead us there. I suppose you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

Ignoring the record turnout in the FL primary so that you can favor rules over the principal that peoples votes actually count for something is a strategy to win the nomination but lose the general election.

It probably is too much to think that you might admit that the DNC screwed up here, Obama screwed up by removing his name from the ballot in MI and now these schmucks have glued themselves into a ridiculous position of insulting voters in 2 battleground states because they can’t admit that they fucked up.

If the primary is supposed to be a test of leadership, then explain to me, where is the leadership in enforcing rules to cover one’s screw ups? Preferably without sarcasm if it’s possible for you to do.

As for whitey: put words in mouth all you like, it only serves to show your irrationality, I never said she wasn’t a Democrat, not even close so you can go smoke that straw man. Also I found your “blah blah blah” a very engaging way to compare and contrast how the two candidates framing has exposed the party to Republican frames.

I am not sure where I said we should ignore Bill Clinton’s presidency either, but I guess it fits your mold so you had to put it in there.

Clinton is an idiot for calling Obama “Elitist”, she is doubly wrong - she is enforcing a Republican talking point, but more importantly, she is re-enforcing a republican description of the democratic party, that the party is elitist and in my mind is a worse offense.

You should probably be commenting at dailykos where everyone is pretty much of the same mindset.

It’s clear that Clinton isn’t a Democrat and that all she can do is spout Republican talking points and blah, blah, blah…

Ignoring that Bill Clinton is the only success that the Democrats have had at the presidential level since 1976, that makes a lot of sense. Ignoring the fact that Hillary has consistently won more registered Democrats votes that would make sense. Ignoring that eviscerating Hillary will alienate an awful lot of Democratic voters will significantly impair Obama’s candidacy in November should he get the nomination, that would make a lot of sense.

I am quite sure that drinking Kool-Aid in Guyana made a lot of sense to some people too.

I’d hardly call a strategy of alienating voters in FL and MI, alienating long time Democrats and women as the kind of thinking that ‘unifies’, signifies the ‘audacity of hope’ or is the kind of strategy that wins in November but hey, what do I know…I’ve only been a Democrat since the 60’s

Also both candidates have used “Republican” tactics/arguments against each other/ for themselves.

Obama is an idiot for saying the crap he does about about social security, he’s wrong and enforces a republican point.

Clinton is an idiot for calling Obama “Elitist”, she is doubly wrong - she is enforcing a Republican talking point, but more importantly, she is re-enforcing a republican description of the democratic party, that the party is elitist and in my mind is a worse offense.

And that is how I would summarize the whole race, I think both candidates suck and aren’t the answer to america’s problems, neither are willing to offer real health care, both still believe in insurance and not care, neither have been willing to take on the Bush administration, I could go on. The difference has been that in my mind, Obama has been a little less repulsive and as a bigger unknown than Clinton offers me hope that he could be better. I also recognize that he could in fact be worse than Clinton. But he isn’t the DLC candidate and he doesn’t extend the extremely harmful to democracy Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty.

That being said, and as someone who doesn’t live in the US, I think that in terms of rolling back the harm of the Bush administration (and only those issues that are domestic), the best thing for the US would be President Clinton. I think that the right when armed with the idea that Hillary could “legally” carry out the worst abuses that the left has accused the Bush administration of, those changes will be rolled back and fast and probably end with the impeachment of Clinton for simply not having canceled every Bush program known and unknown to her the first moment she took office.

And finally, my prediction is President McCain with big dem gains in the house and senate, that is unless the nominee is known early, both can beat him if they start now, but both will be crushed if the current situation carries on.

actually, i think the “republican-style” attack charge is stupid, no matter who uses it.

Meanwhile I see in Talking Points Memo that Clinton has just declared MoveOn to be outside the pale of good Democrats.

Look, if Obama can win by taking the high road, more power to him, but if Clinton wins by taking the hard road, then more power to her. But be honest, Obama would use whatever technique it takes to win this nomination, so would Clinton. Please spare us the fake outrage over party credentials. Its a loser.

Jerome is saying essentially, “who gives a shit”.

Eriposte seems to be saying, “I care, just look at my list of Obama’s transgressions”.

You’re saying Obama supporters only care when Clinton does it.

Unbelievable, the whole concept that Democrats should avoid criticizing each other using right wing frames and talking points is now declared invalid. Up is the new down.

you can’t be serious.

“Neither of these two candidates were my first choice for 2008, but whichever wins the nomination will get my vote– it’s not even a question in my mind.”

can you say the same thing susie?

“it blows my mind that people like Reich are now trying to define tactics as being either Republican or Democrat.”

and just an hour and a half early you also “ditto” (this time with a block quote) paul krugman who says that the obama campaign sounds just like franks who “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans” krugman’s comment, of course, comes on the heels of months of his writings in which he claims obama has adopted republican rhetoric, a claim you’ve also echoed here.

so here’s the question: why is it wrong for reich to do what you and krugman have been doing for months?

i’ve long said that classifying language or campaign tactics used by a democrat as “democrat” or “republican” or “progressive” or “from the right” or “from the left” is both pointless and nonsensical. but you seem to disagree and use that type of argument all the time. but if it’s okay when you do it, it’s okay when reich does it. and without that criticism (which again, i basically agree with, which is why i argue with you so often here), i think armstrong’s post pretty much falls apart.

or are you just going to let it stand?