The Worst Offense Is Intelligence

by Molly Ivors

(h/t to the wonderful noblejoanie)

Things have been busy here (and will be for the foreseeable future), but in and among all the wallpapering and weeding and end-of-semester tidying, I've had some time to think. Atrios is fond of posting "What Digby Said" as a link in and of itself, and I'd do that if it wasn't his thing.  Because what she says here cuts right to the core of why, exactly, I have found this primary season so troubling.

Cable news, MSNBC particularly,  has been a major contributor to all the sturm and drang of this campaign. One of the main sources of frustration among the Obama supporters has been the notion that it's been obvious to everyone for months that the race is over, and yet Clinton refuses to quit. But that hasn't been obvious to Clinton voters (who are highly unlikely to be MSNBC viewers at this point) since she is still winning primaries. There is a disconnect with the greater public on this that the cable networks have exacerbated, much to the chagrin of the Obama voters who are anxious to call the race and get on with it and the Clinton voters who are furious at the coverage of their standard bearer and are digging their heels.

I realize that this seems ridiculous to most Obama supporters who view the press' take on this as being correct, and I don't particularly blame them. (Indeed, I'm crossing my fingers that MSNBC's positive coverage doesn't disintegrate as soon as their nemesis is gone and they are forced to choose between Barack and the manly flyboy.) But to the loathed minority of people like me, who don't particularly love or hate either primary candidate, all this still makes MSNBC as unreliable as it was in the run up to the war. As Chotiner points out, since their friendly Democratic bias seems to stem from an idiosyncratic, personal basis, they are not behaving with any more journalistic integrity than they ever were, it's just that their corruption is benefiting our side this time.

I highly recommend reading the whole Digby post and its link to the genuinely thoughtful analysis of MSNBC's coverage of the primary. Chotiner, Digby's source author, is an Obama supporter, but that doesn't mean he's comfortable with the tone of the coverage from the likes of Olbermann and Matthews. This is personal for them, very very personal, and they just hate her. Not her policies, not even her campaign (though that's been bad, for sure, but this all started long before that)--just her.

Living here in upstate New York, we see a lot of Huck Fillary sorts of things from the bumper-sticker-and-bar-sign crowd. And it strikes me as weird, because she's been an objectively good senator, domestically speaking. Aside from the war (which her haters around here generally support), she's been right on a lot of things, or at least not more wrong than anyone else. And she's brought the first jobs to come to this area in literally years. But the hatred continues.

It's been especially perturbing to see the same lines of attack coming from the right and the left. One friend even said "Gee, I wonder if she really did kill Vince Foster?" in a bizarre recursion that proves that, if you dislike someone, no attack is off limits. I see sneering at those making less than $30K a year, at those without educations, even though they're registered Dems voting in huge numbers in the primaries, because they happen to support the "wrong" candidate, for what must be the wrong reasons. I see regular abuse of women, particularly older women, from people who know better: sly comments about the "Menopause Caucus" and idle banter about "The Pantsuit Riots." And I'm not getting into the accusations of racism, which started long before there was any actual evidence to support them. But then maybe I've been to too many rock shows to hear all those imaginary dog whistles.

I'm not a person who looks to be inspired or emotionally connect with a candidate: I want administrators, not heroes, running my government. (And no, I'm not using words like "cultists," though I do think it's a little weird that some Obama supporters cannot brook even the slightest bit of critique of their guy, whether from me or Paul Krugman.) I think there are genuine reasons to view Obama with caution, not least his cultivation of religious support which I, like anyone, would like to see on the side of progressive politics, but which all too often comes with the baggage of a Donnie McClurkin. And I want universal health care. And I don't think one person should centralize all the fundraising for all the candidates on their side of the aisle through their personal campaign. It's a bad precedent, even worse than the DLC, and yet no one wants to talk about this issue except to praise the amount of money being raised.

But even sensible caution about these issues is likely to get one tarred as a vaginista, and I admit, I'm becoming quite shy about sharing my primary support with those who don't already know it, and that I'm genuinely surprised when people express a preference for Clinton out loud to me. It's become like a secret vice, discussed on an as-needed basis, but otherwise not. And when we find each other, we all sigh in relief. Finally, we can talk about issues and not personalities. I've spent a lot of time this last week with people I don't know too well, and it's been enlightening to see how many people share my view.

I began this primary season as an Edwards supporter, and for me, class is still one of the key issues in this campaign. For better or worse, the only reason HRC is still in the running is because (belatedly, perhaps calculatedly) she has seized the fallen banner of populism and is waving it for all it's worth.  The economy is in freefall, and people who used to think they made a decent living are now finding themselves shopping at Aldi's with everybody else. Populism is more important than anything, even the war, at this point. Edwards has endorsed Obama, a decision I respect but find curious, given Obama's generally more centrist domestic program, but the amount of sneering at actual, you know, poor people among Obama supporters, at least in the left blogosphere, is disturbing. I recognize the distinction between the candidate and the virulence of some supporters, but plenty of otherwise sensible people become genuinely unmoored when talking about my senator, and it saddens me.

I'll support Senator Obama when he becomes the candidate. I'll do so more enthusiastically if his VP choice indicates that he understands the frustration of my various demographics: as a working woman in my forties, a mother and wife, two generations removed from Appalachia, one from the factory, with family in a wide range of blue-collar professions. I've seen all of these demographics trashed at various points in the last six months, because we tended to vote "wrong." I guess the Starbuck's drive-through by campus and the PhD mean I have a free pass into Obama's world, when it's time for me to go there, but it would be nice to go to a place where one is respected, not disdained.

But I may never watch Keith Olbermann again.

Comments

[trifecta]

I think everything you wrote here was true.

It's kind of odd being an Edwards supporter myself and seeing it somewhat dispassionately.

If roles were reversed, Clinton supporters would have been yelling at Obama for months to get out.

If roles were reversed, Obama supporters would be saying that this was all about racism.

Don't even get me started on Florida and Michigan. If roles were reversed, Obama's people would be talking about disenfranchised voters, and Clinton's people would be talking about falling the rules.

There seems to be so much homerism here just like a sports contest. There are bad things about both candidates, but both sides' followers tend to have a hard time acknowledging that.

The Celtics are cheaters. The Lakers are showboats. Your team sucks.

[PopeRatzo]

Now, which one of the candidates did NOT try to cultivate religious support?

And I've yet to hear "sneering" at the poor among Obama supporters. You can put me down as one who sneers at ignorant bigots, though, and at those who would use that bigotry to further their own political ambitions - and if I see Obama do that, I'll sneer at him too.

[Molly Ivors]

trifecta,
Yeah. What's strange for me is that I have no problem acknowledging my problems with Clinton as a candidate. But I also don't let each new outrage throw me into a tailspin. It's politics. We'll be in fine hands come January, and those hands won't be John McCain's.

[Molly Ivors]

PopeRatzo,
You need to spend more time at Eschaton. You'll see plenty.

[mattsmom]

Molly, I'm a long time Atrios lurker (and PowerPop and Whiskey Fire). I haven't been lurking as much in the comments at Atrios (or any other of my once-favorite blogs) because of the unkind things that people are saying. I'm hoping that will pass after the primary is over, but we'll see. However, I will never watch KO again.

I too agree with everything you say, except for voting for supporting Obama UNLESS his VP choice meets your criteria (I'm almost the same, but I'm 50, single mom by choice of 10 yr son, removed from Appalachia by 2 generations on one side, farmer grandparents on both sides, parents who were blue collar/working class, the first in my family to get a college degree and a masters', but worried about being laid off by my major corporate employer - we've already had 2 series of layoffs in the past 4 months with more to come).

I'm hoping that he does, because I don't want to find myself in the voting booth trying to decide whether to hold my nose and vote for Obama (never McCain) or just vote for the down ticket candidates.

However, I live in Indiana (used to live in Texas), so my vote for president will probably not count because Indiana will most likely go Republican.

[mattsmom]

Oh, and I agree with Molly in her response to the Pope - it's getting to where some of my favorite commenters have really disappointed me. And I have noticed that Molly, Hecate and Echidne have not been commenting as much as they used to - but maybe that is just me.

[ql]

Molly, nobody sent you an invitation to my mind. Please leave.

I stopped even trying to say anything nice about Hillary when I posted a link to her Colbert appearance and mentioned that she was well received. Within two minutes someone posted well O was well received too! Um, okay, that's nice.

[GWPDA, yclept Irate Historian]

"I guess the Starbuck's drive-through by campus and the PhD mean I have a free pass into Obama's world, when it's time for me to go there, but it would be nice to go to a place where one is respected, not disdained."

It is indeed curious to see just how inverted the Democratic Party has made itself. Red diaper babies would never be welcomed now - just as old lefty broads are subtly or not so subtly excoriated - just as boomers are reviled.... I am not pleased by the current advocacy politics of personality because in the end, they will fail and the country will be damaged, again. And I am not at all amused by the antics of the recently enraptured Obama supporters who have apparently exchanged party solidarity for the worst of the recent Republican excesses.

[Molly Ivors]

mattsmom,
I will support him, and wholeheartedly. But things like finances and active canvassing will depend a lot of who else is on the ticket.

[noblejoanie]

I'm thinking Thers should put this up as his FDL contribution tonight...

[noblejoanie]

What GWPDA said.

[fidelio]

The one thing that has given me pause about Senator Clinton's campaign has been the less-than-stellar performances turned in by some of her paid staffers. Things like not knowing the Democratic primaries weren't winner-take-all, Penn's conflict of interest issues, the inability of too many of these people to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and find alternative strategies does not make me happy; picking good personnel and getting the best out of them is such an important part of being president.

She's been treated like a dog by the media, no question about that. I was impressed with her ability to handle the egregious Matthews when she went one-to-one with him early in the primaries, and hoped to see more of this, because she's much harder to smear when she does that sort of thing. When people in her campaign tried to call members of the media on this sort of shit, they often ended up just sounding cranky instead, so their gamemanship didn't look very good there either. Charm and wiliness count in that sort of thing, fair or not, and I saw it in her, but not in many of her people.

Like you, I started out with a strong lean towards Edwards, to say the very least, and there are quite a few of Clinton's domestic policies that I prefer to Obama's (years of work in a state welfare system gives me a powerful prejudice in favor of universal healthcare, preferably single-payer).

Thank you for having the clarity of vision to see we have to go with the Democrat this fall, whether joyously or with resignation, because the cranky old man isn't going to fix a thingand for putting this whole mess in such good perspective.

Also, every time you stick the knife in MoDo, an angel gets its wings.

[Hecate Demetersdatter, Runnymeade Conspirator]

Molly,

I love you.

[dave™©]

You nailed it.

[aimai]

This is a great post, but count me as an Edwards supporter who reluctantly went Obama and became progressively disgusted with both Clinton and (some) of her supporters. I think there is absolutely no denying that there are scads of supporters on both sides who are irrational, focused on the supposed evils of the other side, angry, willing to say they will sit this one out, etc...etc...etc...

I, personally, spent a lot of time fighting for Clinton's bona fides and for her supporters good intentions qua democrats because as a woman I tended to see the agressive misogyny in many of the comments. I stopped posting or reading dKos over it. Neither Clinton nor Obama is a truly progessive candidate. Neither has a plan or a program that I endorse 100 percent. I am a voter looking for a democrat who can beat mccain. I'll settle for a democrat who will beat mccain up if that is what the party system throws up.

That being said the way racism, classism, ageism and outright lunacy have played into the clinton voters refusal to say they will support the nominee is, at this point, indisputable. I started this race thinking that it was Obama supporters who were weak democrats--argued it all over the place on the strength of those weird early comments from republicans saying they'd "vote for obama or mccain" and young voters still under the sway of the "maverick" thing. But polls of real voters and people I "know" on the internets indicate that it is, in fact, the clinton voters who (for whatever combination of seems good to them reasons) are talking about taking their ball and going home and refusing to back the Dems for the presidential stakes if Obama is the nominee.

I just can't get behind that. I don't care if Obama killed clinton's mother on TV. The only enemy is McCain and the republican juggernaut of apparatchiks and bureaucrats that will remain in power or come back into power if McCain gets in.

I have my suspicions of Obama--he's too nice, too centrist, too bipartisan for me. But he's not *too* all those things compared to McCain. And that's the only matchup that matters to me.

aimai

[ny mark]

Molly, Nice to see someone who has the same take on recent events as i do. It sometimes looks very lonely when you're lurking and don't feel in agreement with most of the comments.

[dave™©]

I don't care if Obama killed clinton's mother on TV.

But every word out of Hitlery's mouth must be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Because she's evil... EEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLL, I tells ya!

[camelot]

From my comment at Eschaton:
Wow, that post was excellent! You are definitly inside my head. I, too, have sat back a little, not sure I am liking what I see.
I have also been shocked and disappointed at the division among liberals when we need to beware of our 'herding cats' attitudes. Of course I mean the treatment of 'other' among us is reminding me of Republicans.
At times, I get very frustrated that the majority of the electorate is voting without any concern of the issues or voting records, and then, thank God, I read a post like yours and realize I am not the only one.

The feminist 'agenda' seems to be deemed evil, or oh so over, while I think it is in dire need of reinvigoration.
I'm glad to hear that you got to spend time with people who share your view; I'm glad they are out there. Count me as one of them.

I think it is interesting that we 'smarter than conservatives' liberals, have pulled back because of the vitriol. It seems the division among us is that some decided to play the Republican game of "the louder and meaner win," and some truly want to play by different rules.
I, myself, am a tweener generation that loves me some espresso and education but could never deny the UMW,and USW family members that are extremely intelligent without a PHD, and a Teamster mother that gets more liberal with every year.

I would like to second noblejoanie's idea concerning FDL.

[Hecate Demetersdatter, Runnymeade Conspirator]

Yeah, it would be great to see this at FDL.

[iamcoyote]

Thank you, Molly. Nailed it.

[steve simels]

Aside from the war (which her haters around here generally support), she's been right on a lot of things, or at least not more wrong than anyone else.

Well, isn't that really the heart of it?

Aside from the war? What?

C'mon -- she would have the nomination nailed months ago if she hadn't been such a jackass on the war.

I hate her for a zillion reasons, but I can tell you that if she had been unambiguously anti-war I would have swallowed my objections and supported her enthusiastically.

[aimai]

Well, no, dave. I'd say the same thing about Hillary if she were going to be the nominee. My only objection is to people on both sides of the debate acting as though if they dont' get their candidate, for whatever reason, its such a great offense against nature and god that they can't possibly support the other candidate. I'm not out there picketing the rules committee on behalf of obama, and I'm kind of disgusted with the clinton supporters who are doing it on behalf of clinton. And my feelings would be just as strong if the positions were reversed.

they are both ok candidates and both would/will make a good run at taking the country back from the republicans. I want to get on to the next part of the fight and I'm tired of the wrangling. but the fact of the matter is that although there is much right on both sides there is also much wrong and the wrongest wrong of all is that the more the HRC people feel they are losing the angrier they get and the more destructive to the party and the other voters. Would that it were not so. Perhaps it would be the same if the Obama people felt they were losing (I'm sure it would be) but the fact of the matter is that the most bizarre stuff is coming out of clinton supporters at the moment and I don't see clinton reining that in.

I love molly 's post and I loved digbys and I think there is tons to be said about the racism and sexism of this race, and of the electorate. But just because hillary's supporters and hillary are struck with the sexism bomb over and over again doesn't mean that the racism bomb isn't just as bad, or worse, for the party as a whole and for the country as a whole this time around. Can anyone defend Ferraro's statements today as other than an appeal, utterly naked, to white racist sentiment and white fears of a black backlash from an utterly moderate candidate supported by a broad coalition of white and black supporters? In other words, as a white racist claim that Obama can never speak for, or represent, white voters when he has demonstrated that he already does? Its a demonization of Obama's support as vicious, in the american context, as the accusation that he represents only "elites" and "upper class" people. Those of us who had a hard time coming to vote for Obama because of his early playing of the white/christian/kansas card nearly spit up when we started to see the "elitist /hollywood/liberal" canard dredged up by the media, the republicans, and the clinton voters.

aimai

[Molly Ivors]

steve,
I love you, man, but I don't believe that for a second. It would have been something else.

[Me]

I'll admit I'm an Obama supporter mostly for pragmatic reasons. I want to win in November, and I think he has the best chance. That's pretty much it.

I've sat back and laughed at much of the hysteria of this primary season. It seems we have an inordinate number of fucking pussies in the Democratic Party, most of whom seem to hang out at DKos. Chicken Little would tell them to chill. The whole process has gone pretty much the way it's supposed to, as far as I've been able to tell.

[steve simels]

steve,
I love you, man, but I don't believe that for a second. It would have been something else.

I'm speechless. And profoundly depressed that you think that.

[Avedon]

I share your doubts about Obama, Molly, and I share people's (rational) doubts about Clinton, too. Which is why I can't pick one over the other. But I definitely don't share all the irrational hatred of Clinton that daily infests my comment threads. The whole thing makes me want to chew lumber or something.

MSNBC in particular, of course, makes me want to barf. It took a few years of George Bush completely destroying our country, murdering over a million people, losing an American city, torturing people, and spying on everyone in America to get Keith Olbermann to finally lose his patience and let loose a "Special Comment", but then he lost all sense of proportion and put Geraldine Ferraro in the same category because she said Obama was benefitting in some way in this primary from the fact that he's black.

And everyone is behaving like that makes sense! Look!

"Can anyone defend Ferraro's statements today as other than an appeal, utterly naked, to white racist sentiment and white fears of a black backlash from an utterly moderate candidate supported by a broad coalition of white and black supporters? In other words, as a white racist claim that Obama can never speak for, or represent, white voters when he has demonstrated that he already does?"

Really, is that what Ferraro said? Of course not. But it's so satisfying to pretend she did.

And the MI and FL delegates? Everyone wants Hillary to get out of the race, and she said she won't until the delegates are all seated - but even though it won't make any difference to who wins, Obama supporters still insist that they mustn't be seated because it's what Evil Hillary wants.

Who cares? She's still not going to be the nominee, so why not seat them?

Because if we do that, we won't be able to hate Hillary anymore, and where would be the fun in that?

[Molly Ivors]

No, there's been this weird thing this year where people pretend that each new offense from the candidate they don't like anyway is the deal breaker.

But steve, you've been coming in for months with "how can Clinton supporters defend A or B or C?" Bill, Ferraro, doing shots, "hard-working white people".... It's been going on for ages.

Don't pretend that any one of those things wouldn't have been the dealbreaker too.

[Porlock Hussein Junior]

Well, it's hard to engage in discourse with someone who responds to a critic by telling him flat-out that he's lying. Or, to be an ultra-fair wishy-washy liberal about this, maybe she's just saying that he does not know his own mind. May I join Steve in being a trifle depressed about this?

Still, just for padding, here are a few more Obamabot lies, or self-delusions.

I actually thought this was a pretty good post, despite all I disagree with in it. That's what's depressing about Molly's giving Steve, if not the Lie Direct, at least the I Know You Better Than You Do.

My own experience of the Crazies may be affected by the fact that I don't read the Big Blogs. They're messy, and I'm rarely masochist enough to read the insanely over-long and consistently stupid comments threads. If somebody says something useful there, I expect to see it linked by one of the B-list blogs that I like. So, my sample is biased.

But for weeks I was seeing a distuturbing amount of really crazed crap from alleged Clinton supporters, while I was hearing about how awful the Obama guys were, and seeing only an occasional bit of Obama-ite stupid petulance about how evil Krugman was to prefer Clinton's health care plan. Some of the pro-Clinton stuff seemed to begin with "I'll vote for McCain" and go on from there.

I reminded myself that there were Obama people just sa bad, somewhere, but I just wasn't seeing them. Because I know, having figured it out in about 1960, that people on one's own side aren't necessarily right-minded.

And now, after the RFK thing, sure enough: Lunatics for Obama! Digby the right-wing conspirator who won't cover the plot to assassinate Obama! Etc.

Personally, I knew at the start of the campaign that the conservative, Republican-pandering policies of the DLC were not my first or second choice for the Presidency; but the sexist crap being dealt out against Ms. DLC was hateful. (Oh, and it received massive and furious coverage from the blogs I read, which with one exception have turned out pro-Obama or studiously neutral. Just needed to mention that the complaint that it has been ignored is a lie.) But if she was nominated, I'd go to the polls without needing to wear a clothespin on my nose as so many Socialists did in France a couple of years ago.

Now I'd need the clothespin. Starting with Clinton's declaration that on the issue she advanced as her most important qualification (experience) she ranked the Republican over the Democratic front-runner, and going down from there, she has just lost it. One really didn't expect it to get down to hard-working white folks, but there you are. Or there I am, still not expecting after all these years that one of the pretty good folks (Democrat, not Southerh fascist subsecies) would behave this way.

But this is a waste of time and electrons, isn't it? Just more hateful lies from a hateful deluded Obamabot, and I'll deserve everything I get when McCain is elected.

Shorter Porlock: Aimai has it right, again.

[Turbulence]

Molly,

I'm curious about what you think of Clinton's relationship with The Family. Do you find her association with odious religious groups focused on secretly enhancing conservative power to be more or less troubling than Obama's association with other ministers? Also, were you aware of Clinton's associations with The Family?

[Molly Ivors]

Well, sorry to disappoint, Porlock. You're undoubtedly missing that this is an ongoing and sometimes fraught but generally respectful debate between steve and myself--going on six months now. We're good friends, we adore each other on many levels, we're just not going to agree on this one.

I have largely disengaged because of the crazy coming from both camps, actually, but what bothers me more is the utter inability of *any* critique of Obama without the screeching "TAYLOR MARSH! LAMBERT! YOU SUCK!" I hope I come off as at least even handed: as a woman, I'm more sensitized to issues of gender, but I have acknowledged race repeatedly, and my MoDo smacking addresses her bullshit about both our candidates.

I saw myself as one of many voices calling out the misogyny in the campaign, and yet it continues unabated: and many who once called it out now host it zestfully. That's a sad thing.

And still no one wants to talk about the financing thing. Curious.

[Molly Ivors]

Turbulence,
I've been vaguely aware of that, yes. But as I haven't seen any of these folks stumping for her or appearing at concerts in her name, or any evidence of their influence in her policies, I don't take it too seriously.

[Turbulence]

Molly,

You have a blog. If you're so concerned about how no one wants to talk about the financing thing, may I suggest that you write something about it? I'm not sure what you want Obama supporters to say, so I can't really say it. What do you think of the financing thing and why do you prefer to make insinuations about it rather than direct declarative statements?

[Molly Ivors]

Well, I don't know a whole lot about campaign financing--it's not my area. But I've seen lots of handwringing about the DLC and their power. That's a money thing, mostly. But at least the DLC is, you know a committee. I admit I'm not comfortable with one campaign controlling that kind of money and distributing it only to loyal soldiers. I didn't like it when they did it, and I don't like it now.

And why don't I post on it? because of comments like that.

[Turbulence]

Molly,

Thanks for answering my question regarding The Family. Given that The Family strives to keep an extremely low profile, why would you be reassured that they don't stump for her in public or appear at concerts on her behalf? I mean, stumping for a candidate or hawking them at a concert doesn't really fit with a secret organization, now does it?

I'm curious why you think she associates with them. They're a pretty secret organization, so she doesn't get any public benefit from them. What possible gain could she get from secretly meeting with dictators and conservative lowlifes every week? My guess is that it she goes every week because that sort of religious belief appeals to her and because she likes the other people who go as well. Do you know of any reason to think otherwise?

As for policy influence, it seems like Clinton's work on flag burning amendments with a republican senator from Utah along with her work on video game violence with Brownback and Santorum might be related to the close relationships she's developed in her Family cell. Other examples might include her support for the anti-human trafficking law that had the side effect of seriously harming safe sex organizations and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act which would have given legal protection to anti-chioce pharmacists and doctors.

I'm genuinely stumped: did Clinton run with these very bad policy ideas because she genuinely believes in them (in which case her association with the Family is an effect rather than a cause) or was she persuaded to back these bad ideas because of her relationship with The Family. Neither explanation seems good.

[Jemand von Niemand]

I'll mostly go along with steve simels on this, but not entirely, and for all the same reasons.

I started as an Edwards supporter; hadn't done much research about Obama. If Hillary had been solid in voting antiwar in the Senate, I would have considered her more favorably.

For me, the war is a symptom of the system which created it. I look at a candidate's position on the war, first, with the erosion of civil liberties running a close second; and, I believe I'm not alone.

Then, there's the DLC. I'd like to see a party more populist-driven, and the DLC is the antithesis of that. Bill and Hillary's cozy relationship with them is troubling, to me.

In the end, I want to vote for FDR -- we need someone like him -- but he's not around. I don't believe either Obama or Hillary should be judged against that yardstick -- but if anything about the past eight years stands out, it's been an era of lies, parsing, misinformation, and cognitive dissonance.

The Democratic President needs to lead us out of that -- and, for me, in choosing who the candidate will be, there can't be any ambiguity on the large issues about their positions, and they need to be as fairly consistent as I can judge. They need to have clearly articulated their political and personal priorities. This is strictly a personal consideration. It isn't about electability.

Obama isn't 100% up to the mark, for me -- but I'll support his candidacy and work for it.

[Jemand von Niemand]

Oh, jesus -- that should read: I'll mostly go along with steve simels on this, but not entirely, and not for all the same reasons.

When I grow up I'm going to hire a proofreader.

[Turbulence]

Well, I don't know a whole lot about campaign financing--it's not my area. But I've seen lots of handwringing about the DLC and their power. That's a money thing, mostly. But at least the DLC is, you know a committee.

Perhaps we read different sets of blogs. Most of the criticism of the DLC I recall reading focused on the politics that the DLC espoused (and the general dishonesty). DLC money was only a problem insofar as the DLC consistently advocated really bad policies and also pushed really dumb politics that might benefit some Dems in the short term at the expense of all Dems in the long term. I'm not sure why the committee-ness issue matters: the reason we're concerned about giving too much control to a single person is because individuals tend to screw up. But the DLC has already screwed up on a vast scale (see: War, the Iraq). I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm waiting to see what Obama does with this fundraising after November; there doesn't seem to be much information for drawing conclusions right now.

I admit I'm not comfortable with one campaign controlling that kind of money and distributing it only to loyal soldiers. I didn't like it when they did it, and I don't like it now.

Well, it wouldn't be an issue if people weren't donating to Obama. It seems like many Democrats disagree with you on this point. Presumably if Obama acts inappropriately with all this cash, his funding will dry up.

And why don't I post on it? because of comments like that.

I'm sorry but I'm quite confused right now. Comments like what? Did I say something offensive? If so, I apologize, but since I have no idea what you're talking about, would you mind clarifying for me?

[Mark Anderson]

I'm with aimai and steve simels. I think Obama and Clinton are both way too conservative. I was very reluctantly reconciled to voting for Edwards for largely populist reasons. Clinton has been abused misogynistically by the media. But she has run her campaign on a classic DLC-type, swing-state version of the Republican's southern strategy. To suggest that Clinton's GOP-lite, right-wing populism is more progressive or more in touch with working class interests is simply counterfactual.

I'll vote for whichever wins the nomination, but Clinton has actively and personally promoted racist white-backlash and surrealistic election fraud. In spite of my lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, I'll continue to believe my lying eyes, thank you very much.

At this point, opposition to Clinton is opposition to outdated DLC-style identity politics. It's not the 1990s anymore. Why triangulate with the Republicans when the Republicans themselves are beginning to repudiate it? Why the insulting insistence that Clinton's transparent opportunism is a morally righteous cause?

You seem to have a lot of friends who oppose Clinton for messed up reasons. That doesn't make Clinton's own policies and the Rovean tactics her campaign is grounded in any less anti-progressive. I prefer her health policy too, but to suggest that makes her more progressive when she is personally suggesting that white voters are the only real American voters is to refuse to engage with the words coming out of her own mouth. Her adamant protest that an election in which her opponent didn't appear on the ballot is an expression of the will of the people is classic Rovean surrealism.

She has actively chosen to run a corrupt, racist campaign. She spoke the words with her own mouth and continued to employ the operatives that promoted them when she was finished. The fallibility of her opponent's supporters or the transparent misogyny of her demonization by hacks like Matthews doesn't diminish her personal responsibility for self-consciously choosing to run a reactionary and resolutely anti-progressive campaign: "Don't vote for Obama, he's a closet Marxist!," both she and her operatives have repeatedly suggested.

A campaign that actively demonizes its Democratic opponent as "too liberal" is not a progressive campaign! How much more transparent can the motives and values of the Clinton campaign be on that score?! How can you witness the Clinton campaign's incessant liberal-baiting and suggest that the Clinton campaign is progressive?! How do you reconcile the screaming contradiction there?

A Clinton campaign that actively attempts to delegitimize and demonize liberalism is the very definition of anti-progressive. That is what the DLC does. Clinton's campaign has warmly embraced that stance, start to finish.

The suggestion that anything about Clinton's campaign is more progressive than Obama's is too fantastic for words. Rovean identity politics grounded in the Appalachian strategy is not progressive policy, it's the GOP southern strategy applied to the swing states.

The complaint you primarily voice in this post--that Obama supporters are elitist--was the centerpiece of the GOP strategy to peel off working class Dems for Reagan as described by Rick Perlstein, to use identity politics to defeat progressive challenges to capitalism on the policy front. Your post itself enacts the identity politics of the southern strategy. To suggest that Clinton's embrace of the GOP southern strategy in a Democratic primary was a moment in the struggle for progressive ideals is counterfactual and condescending.

Long live Hillary Clinton, liberal-baiting champion of "progressive" causes.

[par4]

I'm still an Edwards supporter

[mrstrailerco]

Hang in there Molly - you are not alone. And your feeling aren't unjustified, as witnessed by some of the later comments. It's not about who ran the better campaign, or whose supporters are jerks. It's about how hard our media SUCKS. And it grinds my ass that these meatheads are getting rich for doing such a piss-poor job (I'm looking at you Charlie 2 professors at a small university make over 250k a year Gibson)
I just want to repost something I said last week @ First Draft.

I thought, up until now, that I would just avoid certain places in the media/internets until this primary was over. Then I could go back and we could make up and all be friends again. Now - not so much. I don't know if I can ever watch KO again after this. He hates her so hard, and with such glee. He's determined to MAKE her drop out. When did that become his job?

I've followed Keith across the media since his days on Sportcenter. I even watched him on Sunday night on Fox Sports - and I hate Fox Sports. But this quest of his is making me sick. For someone who touts his journalistic integrity, he really seems to have lost his way.

I feel the same way about the rest of those Bozos on MSGOP. And I haven't watched CNN since they hired Mrs Dan Senor.
(Feel free to add the usual disclaimer about how embarrassing HRC's campaign has become here.)

[GWPDA, yclept Irate Historian]

Molly, I do not think there is any way at all to penetrate the thickheaded, bigotted, besotted, quasi-Naderite 'NuPoliticals' flooding the airwaves. My only hope at this stage is that they will, as is the wont of the infatuated, move on to more thrilling thrills and more personal amusements soon.

[dave™©]

I'd say the same thing about Hillary if --

"Dear Penthouse..."

[dave™©]

BTW, I see Mr. Fighting Dem Hope and Change Man has just thrown his entire church under a bus.

Next brilliant move: a trip to Faux News to beg forgiveness.

How much you wanna bet he joins the homophobe fundamentalist preacher's church?

[Mark Anderson]

Molly Ivors:
No, there's been this weird thing this year where people pretend that each new offense from the candidate they don't like anyway is the deal breaker.

But steve, you've been coming in for months with "how can Clinton supporters defend A or B or C?" Bill, Ferraro, doing shots, "hard-working white people".... It's been going on for ages.

Don't pretend that any one of those things wouldn't have been the dealbreaker too.
*********************
Let me get this straight--the higher the evidence mounts that the Clinton campaign is explicitly and intentionally anti-progressive, the less legitimate it is to accurately call them out for it because that obviously demonstrates that the motives of their critics are impure?

What happened to reality-based politics? This really sounds like "Any criticism of Bush is a symptom of Bush-hatred." What am I missing here?

This response reflects an utter failure to address the substance of Simels' point by simply impugning his character.

[pseudonymous in nc]

You know what I think about this from my comments at Digby's place.

The Clinton campaign has been dancing a merry jig with the cablenets (including MSNBC) for the past two months to the tune of 'Appalachia Uber Alles'. It keeps running in case the front-runner does a Barbaro.

Also, your favourite band sucks, apart from the time I saw them in a club way before they got famous.

But they don't suck as much as the band that set the venue on fire.

[sightunseen]

I gotta go with Mr. Simels on this one, irregardless of his horrible taste in music. Ha

[¡Bat Boy!]

IF everyone who said "I used to be an Edwards supporter" had actually been an Edwards supporter, Edwards would be the candidate now.

[k]

"I'll do so more enthusiastically if his VP choice indicates that he understands the frustration of my various demographics: as a working woman in my forties, a mother and wife, two generations removed from Appalachia, one from the factory, with family in a wide range of blue-collar professions."

No. You already have that candidate--it's goddamn Obama, himself. Some entitled white woman like Clinton sure as hell can't empathize with you, no matter what your chromosomes tell you.

"Identity" politics, and the folly of appearances, is what got us George W. Bush. Enough already.

[Me]

BTW, I see Mr. Fighting Dem Hope and Change Man has just thrown his entire church under a bus.

Yeah, in a perfect world he'd tell everyone to fuck off with all this bullshit about his church. I firmly believe that anybody who aspires to the Presidency is, in reality, not the tiniest bit religious. At least in any authentic way.

But this world ain't perfect, and the fucking idiots who take to the pulpit at his former church can't keep their fucking mouths shut, so what exactly could he do? I actually admire his restraint--if that were me, I'd tell my former church to go to hell. That is, if I went to church.

[Chup]

What aimai, steve simals, and "me" said.

Beat the GOOPers.