Hatred More Important Than Wining?

More food for thought today from Big Tent Democrat:

Would a Democrat say:

There’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when Clinton was president, and in this decade when Bush was President.

Or would a Democrat dispute that point? In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld – they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama’s chances of winning in November.

And speaking of the hatred…

Members of the progressive blogosphere today applaud Barack Obama for his “subliminal cultural reference” aimed at Hillary Clinton. There’s nothing progressive about this crap from the Big Boyz in the Blogosphere. What the f*ck is wrong with these guys?

Obama took some heat in the debate last night, some real heat for a change and now, he’s using projectionism to “twist the knife a little bit.” But that’s what he does, isn’t it? All the while claiming to be running a “clean campaign.” And he gets boosted every time by the Big Boyz cheering him on and helping to “twist the knife.”

Clearly hatred is more important to the Obamabots that decide who gets to be a Dem, than winning in November.

Read: “Progressive Derangement Syndrome” and “tiny tent dems” (h/t to Tom Watson).

Finally, I’ll note in my opinion many of these same “progressive” blogosphere infected with “progressive derangement syndrome” did diddly, yes, diddly to support John Kerry in ’04. They nit-picked at every little thing he did (I’m talking to you Markos) or didn’t do, often helping to reinforce the negative from the wingnuts. Same story, different candidate.

Anyone who thinks that these holier than thou, so called “gate-crashers” will support Hillary Clinton whole heartedly if she becomes the nominee, can think again. They won’t. They’ll spend the months between the convention and the general election pissing and moaning about why Obama shoulda been the nominee (like they did in ’04 over Dean) and they will tear down HRC at every opportunity. Mark my words.  

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Hatred More Important Than Wining?

  1. Pingback: The Democratic Daily

  2. Pingback: links for 2008-04-18 | Flamingo House Happenings

  3. Jemma says:

    I find this post ironic. I came to this site a few weeks ago, read a few posts, misunderstood the name of the blog to mean it was for Democrats and posted that I would vote for the Democratic candidate regardless, even though I was an Obama supporter. I quickly found out this was a rabidly pro-Hillary anti-Obama site when I was roundly attacked by many for supporting Obama. Now this post is attacking Obama supporters in anticipation that they will not support Clinton. I will not speak on behalf of other Obama supporters for how they will vote because after some really awful posts that I cannot even repeat against him, I do understand how they feel. However, since Clinton supporters are convinced of her invicibility in a general election, I cannot imagine why they think they need the votes of Obama supporters. She’s invincible, we are elitist, we are latte liberals, we are young and stupid, we are caucuses, we are small states, we don’t matter. Since we don’t matter, since the party is split irrevocably and since this site like many others like it promote that split, how can you logically complain about the result? Obama supporters know and assume we will need to grow the party to make up for those that will not vote for him, be they irrevocable Hillary supporters or any other. We have to assume that Clinton has a similar plan to make up for the Obama supporters that have become equally hardened.

  4. Jemma

    The post FYI is a response to Obama supporters attacking Clinton supporters. Get a clue.

    And you have obviously missed the countless times I have said here that I would support the nominee and I have likewise urged others too as well.

  5. JoeCitizen says:

    Funny, but it sure seems to me that Obama hatred, as a stronger motivator than the interests of Democracts, is what this site, and much of the Clinton fan base, has been all about for the past few months.

    She isnt going to be the nominee. Its been settled for weeks now. All of you are indulging in a petulant hatefest. At least I can understand Hillary’s motivation – she wants Obama to lose so she can try one more time in 2012. What about you? Why are you doing this?

  6. JoeCitizen

    This site is about a lot of things but Obama hatred isn’t one of them. Thanks for sharing.

  7. Jemma says:

    Get a clue? How many Obama supporters do you see on this site? Five? The post was dedicated all those five Obama supporters? And how many posts here are attacking Obama? Nearly all. I stand by my comment. Clinton supporters shouldn’t fault Obama supporters if Clinton gets the nomination and doesn’t prove to be as invincible as they claim. They should make plans to grow the party to make up for the votes they may lose. It’s just good politics.

  8. And how many Clinton supporters do you see on blogs supporting Obama? Not many eh? It’s the nature of the primary battle, but again, this blog is about a lot more than the primary and always has been.

    And Jemma — I speak from experience about what happened in ’04 with the very same bloggers that support Obama because I worked for the Kerry campaign as a blogger.

  9. Jemma says:

    If you saw this first hand with the Kerry campaign, is your suggestion that Obama supporters disappear so Hillary supporters get Hillary the nomination because your theory is that only Hillary voters will vote anyway? If you saw first hand that Dean voters didn’t support Kerry, was that because you filled this blog with hate posts against Dean? Then wondered why those Dean voters didn’t fall in line? If you saw this first hand before and your experience was that the party was split with a complete lack of unity when it came to the general election, do you think it would have been better to grow the party to compensate for the voters that didn’t follow or just give up? Because the anger is there on both sides as you well know. Blaming one candidate’s supporters is not going to help because Clinton supporters have said they will do the same thing and have declared so at a percentage in the range of 20-30%

  10. Good gracious Jemma take a chill pill. I’m not talking about random supporters I am talking about bloggers, well known bloggers like Kos and others who support Obama now and supported Dean in ’04. And I am not suggesting that anyone get out of the way or anything to that effect. I am simply stating my experience is those well known bloggers supporting Obama will probably not be as supportive of Hillary as they could be, if she gets the nomination. And frankly that would be sad. Just as it would be sad if Clinton supporting bloggers like myself don’t support Obama if he is the nominee.

    Again — I have said here many times I will support him if he is the nominee. And again I am not the one who started the blaming of candidates supporters.

    So again get a clue and don’t make assumptions about this blog.

  11. Jemma says:

    No, you’re right, “these holier than thou, so called “gate-crashers” probably will not support Clinton with the same level of enthusiasm. Might be because Clinton supporters call them “holier than thou, so called “gate-crashers”. It would seem illogical for them to suddenly write grand supportive posts about a candidate whose supporters openly trashed these same bloggers for months. There won’t be time to recover, even for these bloggers. Clinton wants this to go to the Convention, it will be 60 days to the general. The election will be the result of an open and bleeding wound. Can’t be helped and bloggers will likely be writing about the anger on both sides for those remaining 60 days.

  12. First let me say that I think we are extremely fortunate to have two quality candidates of the caliber of Senators Clinton and Obama. Either of them would make a great president. Unfortunately we face the predicament, that only one can advance. I myself, as regular bloggers to this site are aware, am an Obama supporter. However, like Pamela, Hillary would have my whole hearted support if she becomes our nominee. What has made this prolonged campaign so bad, is that it has been a PR nightmare. “McBush” will not have to have speech writters. All he will have to do is use the speeches of the democratic candidate that finishes second best.
    Some argue this deviseive campaigb will better season our candidate to face GOP talking points. Others say that the blood letting will result in the implosion of our 2008 bid. I’m not politically estute enough to venture a guess as to which senario will play out. If it’s the later, we will have once again wrestled defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Rather than spending so much time on attacking one another, top priority needs to be given to DEFINEING OURSELVES AS A PARTY! Republicans have had no problem telling their story, although it be a false one, since the election of their Savior Ronald Regan. For a more detailed explanation of what I mean, you might want to refer to my previous post under “Food For Thought”. Why do we continue to allow the GOP and the “Moral Majority” to distort our image? I think our inability to accurately define ourselves as a party represents the primary reason for Senator Kerry’s defeat.. The public at large needs to hear our story. We too are for a strong national defense. We too have faith and our God fearing people. We too respect our troops. FDR was not the supreme socialist that they portray. He provided this nations poor with a safety net of programs that enabled us to survive the Grest Depression and beyond. Our perceived fear of right wing pundits, has facillitated their corruption of the definition of the word LIBERAL!! By Not telling our story, we have allowed them to turn “liberal”nto a four letter word. None dare to refer to themselves as being “LIBERAL” They have convinced us that we must use the more politically correct word “PROGRESSIVE.’ They need to be reminded that Webster’s defines “liberal” as: “someone who is open-minded and an advicate of human rights.” On the other a conservative is defined as” “an advocate of the status-quo”. ” One who adheres to traditional methods, as opposed to change.” Above all else, once we have settled on our nominee, we must both UNITE and then RELATE THE PROUD STORY OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERAL! (oops, I used the “L” word, which we have allowed the likes of Sean Hennity and Rush Limbaugh to corrupt with impunity!!!) Buzz