I am so fucking sick of the Billary Bashing

I fucking hate groupthink, and that's what's going on with this bullshit that the Clintons have crossed some line of propriety, while Obama walks on water with a halo over his head.

Obama's supporters ginned up a convenient twistunderstanding of their comments, in order to pull a racism card from the bottom of the deck. WTF, seriously WTF? Do you asswipes repeating this crap actually believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists? That they disrespect Martin Luther King, Jr.? WTF?

I just watched this week's Bill Maher, and Richard Belzer is trying to sell this crap, and even while Bill rolls his eyes, Belz is successfully catapulting the propaganda -- and then tossing out a new, completely unsourced rumor that... well, fuck that!

I think Obama's win in SC was in a huge measure due to more people believing that the Clintons are hitting below the belt than Obama. I saw this dynamic all over the internet this past week and in quotes from voters on TV.

BTW, I'm voting for this candidate.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

by whining he's being attacked unfairly, and demonizing
the Clintons. CNN and MSNBC are pounding it into the ground.
Obama was very sneaky about putting operatives in the liberal blogs
to smear Hillary Clinton for weeks and weeks, while he played Pure and Upbeat.

Very shrewd of him to get the public to scream "Muffle Bill." Her great
resource.

The Right Wing always fools us into killing off our strongest candidates.

We are fools.

But his incessant embrace of GOP frames (and if anyone thinks that began with the "Reagan" flap, s/he hasn't been paying attention) turned me off more by the day. Since all three candidates are relatively close on policy, I'm choosing the one who is most dedicated to reframing the national conversation -- e.g., to make it publicly acceptable to discuss progressive issues like poverty and excessive corporatism. That candidate, to me, is the one named John Edwards.

But still, all this Clinton-bashing seriously pisses me off, and I wasn't too thrilled to hear Joe Trippi stirring the pot a little on it tonight.

I don't worship either Bill or Hillary by a damned sight. But this shit is unworthy of our party.

And just like the Repubs shouting "liberal media," when the media is deeply rightwing biased, we have nonstop Clinton-bashing from the Obama side and then boo-hooing about what the big, bad Clintons are doing to them. And people fall for it. Bleh.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

and going along with the media frenzy. He knows that it is based on bullshit, but he goes along anyway.

Why cant he take it on the chin like a man? Hillary has taken it on the chin for 15 years without playing the victim card. Which one has the balls in this race? Obama would get eaten alive in the general election.

and with the help of the media, it will work this time too.

That is not what I want.

Some people easily get caught up in it.

If I read one more fucking post here about Clinton scandals, or how "polarizing" Hillary is, I'm going to fucking puke.

This is our fucking turn, if we'll just stand up and proud and tall about being Democrats, instead of this scaredy-cat bipartisanship bullshit, and cowering at and respecting every crap-covered meme the GOP ever coughed up.

That's where Hillary started the race, but she seems to have smartened the fuck up about it. How about you, Obama?

Why is it that we never hear Republicans go on and on about cooperating with Democrats and bipartisanship. ESPECIALLY back when Shrub also had a Repub-controlled Congress. Do you think they cared about working with Democrats? No, Democrats were "traitors" if they didn't go along with what Bush and the Repubs in Congress wanted.

Did we really wait eight years to just capitulate to Republicans?

Does "I met Harold at the playboy mansion" ring any bells?

Give Bill credit for eight very good years - except for the idiotic NAFTA deal and a couple of other fuckups (not Monica). And give Hillary some respect for being a very smart and courageous woman.

But it's pretty fucking ironic for Obama to ride around on his Unity Pony, while his organization and fan base feed the last Democratic president and his wife into the wood chipper.

But I really liked Clinton during the 8 years in office. I don't like his actions recently, wish he'd just go in the shadows for now and let his wife run.

I seriously think people are starting to get sick of them because of his actions as well.

I'm so sick of people declaring positions they don't agree with "groupthink."

Fucking stip it. You're embarrassing yourself and alienating others.

think on it.

thrown out by people who are losing a debate in a democracy.

Let's just be honest here. All supporters have both good reasons to support their candidate and affective attachments to their candidates. All supporters respond on these bases most of the time. When people start yelling "groupthink," it's usually because they're losing the argument. It's condescending and anti-democratic in principle. Oh, it makes some people feel better to think that it's the other guy who's engaging in groupthink, but usually both are, to some degree, and usually both are not, to some degree.

It's a cheap and weak response.

... a cult of personality developed around a candidate, and that candidate's followers refused to accept any form of criticism of that candidate, making a new pastime of explaining what the candidate "really meant" as the candidate continually said things that shocked many of his potential supporters.

Previously respected politicians who entered his orbit were now the subject of kneejerk and heated derision at the hands of these followers.

Just hypothetically, of course.

What would be the preferred term for describing such a dynamic?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

1) "Cult of personality" - A total crock of shit. People attach themselves to a candidate for all kinds of reasons. People who are interested in substance investigate those reasons. People who are interested in meritless sniping and propagandizing call everything they don't like "cult of personality." One may even take the most extreme example of Hitler. Sure, many people yell "cult of personality," while serious historians study the real political dynamics in local contexts and provide evidence for why various groups attached themselves to the NSDAP banner.

2) Your hypothetical description of the supposed "dynamic" - You see things as a partisan, imagining that others are behaving in these ways merely because they take positions you don't like. In democracies, people hold different positions, and they argue for them strenuously. I'm a grown-up, so I know that many people will disagree with my positions. I don't consider them under the sway of some irrational pop psychology crowd phenomenon for that reason. Rather, I try to think of ways to argue my position such that we can find common ground on some issues, and move some things forward. I also know that it is sometimes rough, because positions harden around interests and beliefs. You may as well ask me a hypothetical question about what happens when Martian lizards go scuba-diving. I don't assent to your terms or your description; I find both absurd and childish on their face.

The term you seem to be looking for is, of course, your supposed "groupthink" or "mob mentality" or some other such nonsense. I think you'll find that if you study that those terms, from Tarde and Lebon to Singhele to Freud, from their importation into American sociology through Robert Park and the Chicago School, from the organizational studies that both preceded and followed William Whyte's The Organization Man, down through the massive critiques of the concepts that came from empirical studies of crowds in the 1960's, and then Clark McPhail's work, and now to the excellent work going on in non-human crowd dynamics, especially those works on stigmergy and swarm behavior in social insects, and self-organization in cellular automata, I think what you'll find is one consistency: the charge of groupthink was almost always deployed by elites who felt that they were losing an argument to upstarts. You'll find that people start yelling groupthink when they've abandoned the field of argument, when they have no ammunition left. Of course, you must have already studied the history of the terminology you're using, since you're so interested in substance...

It couldn't possibly be that you're just using it because you heard other people use it in the same way. We're well beyond that, yes?

Does this look like cult behavior to you?

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruis...s?autoplay=true

Does it exist, or is it a phantasm -- something that simply doesn't happen?

If you agree it does happen, then we can talk about whether the Obama Fan Base is indeed cultish. If you don't agree that it does happen, then I guess we'll agree to disagree, and you'll be safe and secure in world where no one indulges in irrational groupthink, and the creation of the term was just a fantastical whim.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

It is bullshit, and always has been.

The old "everyone else agrees with me too" routine that most people stop using as an argument sometime during junior high school.

Cutting.

Don't be a Mean Girl, Jim Sagle. Have something substantive to say!

your post is hilarious (and nonsense)

did you take stuff from columns a, b, and c, from wikipedia and string them together to make a paragraph?

studies in groupthink are valid, and the terms are not imposed from above by elites at all

Asch, long ago, noticed the power of conformity and groupthink

but cognitive neuro-scientists have recently presented evidence of even more startling groupthink processes..... MRI studies show individuals' very perceptual capacities are influenced by their peers' positions and attitudes

Wow! What a shocking discovery. Of course, since I never said people WEREN'T influenced by their peers (which would be a truly stupid thing to say), that's neither here nor there. If you want to take a very broad definition of groupthink as something like "an individual exists in a social milieu, which affects their very perceptual capacities," I would say, well, duh. Yeah, of course. But then you'd be hard pressed to accuse any subset of groupthink, since it would be a universal human condition. I was trying to be a bit more modest by just dealing with the laughable charges of "Cult!" and "Mob!" thrown out so uncritically by the poster above. I'd be happy to have a more general discussion of the human condition with you, though.

Now please give me one of your scientific definitions of so-called "groupthink" that has some non-trivial basis, and does not follow out a genealogical line straight to the transformational crowd psychology of Lebon and Park.

I'll spend the next few seconds investigating your evidence.

this is probably too much for you to read.....


www.ccnl.emory.edu/greg/Berns Conformity final printed.pdf

I had to get it from this link, though I'd be happy to read the paper itself: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/science/28brai.html

Recent neurological studies that support Asch's contentions are well and good, but the condition as described is a generalized condition, and can't be charged to any given subset. The study essentially proves that individuals exist with others, which is, again, perfectly obvious.

you've missed its key points

I am well familiar with group dynamics. In fact, I didn't just pick those cites of wikipedia as you charge. I'm well-versed in the literature. The two problems with all these studies is simple: while they register actual phenomena, these phenomena are generalizable conditions of culture, so specifiying them on to any one group is a misuse, and they are so easily misused by people, as in the whole "Obama cult" charge. If what that study shows is actually the case, then, as the article says, perception itself becomes a group phenomenon. While this may be a strange revelation to people in various sciences, it is not strange at all to people in the humanities, who have been saying it for years (about 2,500 hundred years, actually). But then you can't go accusing the OTHER guy of "groupthink," because your own perception might be similarly affected (and it is, by virtue of your social relations, by necessity). This is called living in a society. It certainly appears as verifiable local phenomena (group of teenagers out on a rampage, etc.), but it is a much broader phenomenon. I'm glad the neurosciences are contributing to our understanding of these phenomena. The ideology of the individual is so fucking tired I can't stand it. And, indeed, the critique of most cognitive psychology is that it retains that ideology in some basic premises (see merlin Donald's excellent criticisms on this score).

We are ecologically connected, yes, at the macro-level of belief and the micro-level of perceptions, too. But if that's the case, don't you see how shouting "groupthink" at one particular ecological niche or other in the wider network is a rank absurdity?

i'm glad you're trying to delve into the literature

unfortunately, nothing you just wrote makes sense, or stands up to scrutiny

no one is "specifying" anything onto any one group...you have written a lot of gobble-de-goop

you are confused as to the appropriate units of analysis, or how samples are actually drawn, how studies are conducted, etc....

for starters, try reading Dawkins on memes

for comprehensives. Years ago. None of this is new to me, as you continually impute.

The article I linked manages to draw the larger conclusion from the study (I've since read the published study in the Journal of Biological Psychiatry - thanks for the citation!), and it has nothing to do with units of analysis, or samples, or how a study is conducted. You are focusing on methodology instead of seeing the big picture. If perception itself is affected by social relationships, then it seems a very strange move to single out some subset for criticism, since we are all involved in social relationships as a matter of course. The accusation of groupthink is always political, since ALL thought (and perception, as your study demonstrates) is "group" think, which is to say, is based in and affected by social relationships. The accusation of "groupthink," to put it another way, is not dishonest and silly because people are NEVER influenced by their social groups (as you seem to think I was saying), but because they ALWAYS are. The suspect category in most social influence scholarship, and in Berns et. al. particularly, is not "conformity," but "independence." It turns out that you need a great deal of social information to evaluate the relative length of line segments, or "abstract three-dimensional stimuli," as the case may be. Now, certainly, we can discuss degrees of "conformity" (whatever that means), but that's where we have to start.

The difference between the so-called "groupthink" response and the non-groupthink response in ANY of these social conformity experiments is not one between a positive phenomenon and a lack of it, but the difference between a localized, intense, and fast-forming social convention, on the one hand, and an generalized, repetitive, and well-established social convention, on the other. It's all groupthink, in other words. One version just has more power.

Perhaps we can have this conversation without the vitriol and petty sniping?

Your study is here: Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelowa, Caroline F. Zinka, Giuseppe Pagnonia, Megan E. Martin-Skurskia and Jim Richards "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation." Biological Psychiatry. 58:3 (August 2005), 245-253

You should have access to the full-text via Science Direct in your university library database.

Exactly like his followers...cult like worshipers. My mother..sister..aunt...very sickening..they love him..can not speak on issues...call you names...go live in another country!!..Your a trader!! It's very disturbing to me...I can see parallels in appeal denial..of facts!

And repeat labels that you hear others use.

I'll leave you to it, creative thinker.

.

Labeling opposition as 'groupthink' is wearing as thin as the recently abandoned tactic of branding anyone with a critical opinion of HRC as a misogynist.

This shit of trying to stick negative labels on all that don't want to march in lockstep with a particular group is not pretty when the neocons do it and it is especially unbecoming used by DEMS against their own.

... with a swig of Kool-Aid in the mouth is proof that progressives are just as bad as conservatives.

More goddamn equivalation.

I am an Edwards supporter.

Get any exercise besides jumping to conclusions?

It ain't no quick jump.

SUBSTANCE.

You are throwing labels around here randomly and when you get called on it you throw garbage and sand.

Seriously, Get some rest. Tomorrow will look better.

Used indiscriminately by supporters of other candidates to smear Obama supporters. But it's really the three fingers pointing back at the accusers, who seem to deploy these platitudes about groupthink and kool-aid without even realizing that they are thinking and imbibing the same by using such platitudinous language. I only wish they'd come up with something original to accuse other of lacking originality!

Tiresome in the extreme, it is.

... "Argument from I Know You Are But What Am I?"

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

I think you need to revisit Aristotle's rhetoric. The whole bit on pathos might be interesting to you.

As it stands, I was merely pointing out that you engage in the same behavior you accuse others of. There is a term for that, of course.

Interesting that the people accusing others of groupthink seem to be the least original bunch on these boards. Come up with something interesting if you're going to accuse others of lacking individualism and originality, at least. Practice what you preach, Kool-aid boy.

... a platitude-spouting hero, what is the preferred word for describing that?

That Senator Obama is spouting platitudes, and I don't agree that people "reflexively" defend him, and I don't believe he is a hero, and I don't believe that there would be a shortage of descriptions for that were it happening. So, I disagree with all your premises, and I still think you are being horribly unoriginal for somebody accusing others of blind loyalty.

The debates I've had with the Obama fandom are identical to debates I have with literalist fundies and Ron Paulites.

99% of the time, they'll go any which way but logical. I didn't anticipate that this would happen, but it does, it does.

Like so: http://www.correntewire.com/the_low_spark_of_obama_trol...

My interactions with Hillary supporters, though I disagree with them, never go like that. They know how to concede points and make legitimate arguments. But Obama is treated as a Transcendent Figure Who Must Not Be Doubted.

Walk a mile in my moccasins, and you'll see it over and over and over.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

Other than how cool and experienced you think you are?

Talk about cult of personality! You seem to be engaged in one as well...with yourself.

Listen, I can make up Cool Capitalized expressions Like They Mean Something, too, but I don't pretend that that constitutes anything but a fanciful conceit. I certainly wouldn't consider it an argument. Oh, that's right. I'm supposed to believe your assessment because of how cool and experienced you are. Right. With substance like that, who needs rhetoric? And I do take it, as a matter of substance, that your "99%" figure is thoroughly anecdotal, substance-wise?

I might decorate my witty posts with the ROTFL smiley. But cults don't exist, anyway....

You deny something happens, and I explain and document that in my experience, it does happen.

Understandably, that doesn't have the empirical weight of, say, Obama claiming that Jesus put him on a mission to be President, but it's the best I've got. Sorry.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

Other people don't exist inside your head. For that reason, when you have a position, it's best to explain it.

Please feel free to do so at any time.

and generalizations.

Ya know, I heard a wise woman say if a whole lotta people disagree with you, it might not be them thats wrong.

And on and on and on....

Easy enough as an argument, I guess. Never impressive, but easy enough.

and barred the door.

Do you find that unbecoming?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

I've seen a lot of people stating that the Clintons are race baiting, which, of course, doesn't make them racists, but deeply cynical opportunists.

On the other hand, I've seen numerous comments by supporters that are - in my view - racist. So. No. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out racist commentary when I see it. Of course, many Clinton supporters now think something is only racist if it comes packaged in a Klan mask and burns a cross on your front yard. There is no systematic racism anymore, you'd think, to listen to their complaints about their victimhood.

Of course, I guess the default in this thread is to defer to "your experience," which stands as almighty evidence of any claim whatsoever.

And I have posted many times that the campaign TACTIC is not becoming nor helpful to either the Clinton campaign or Bill Clinton's standing in the public's eye. Resorting to key buzz words to try and instill fear or hit on old nerves, trigger points in part of the population is the way Rove campaigns. I am truly saddened to see the Clintons resort to such an obvious and hateful use of the method. Having been a supporter of Bill Clinton and a big fan of Hillary, for the many good things she has done, it breaks my heart to have to turn away from them for using such blatantly desperate and downright UGLY tactics in this campaign.

What I have posted about here, in this thread, is the MISUSE of broad brush and inaccurate labels by people who just seem pissed off sore losers without enough self discipline to either channel their honest hurt into constructive means to help their candidate, or failing that, have the judgment to walk away from the keyboard before they do more damage to their candidate.

And that is what it is many of you are are doing. By the pit bull method of attacking and labeling those who do not agree with you and your candidate on all things, you are estranging many people (lurkers included, who come to learn) who might otherwise give your candidate more consideration. It smacks of the shit the neocons used to intimidate others into agreement with them or silence.

THAT I find unbecoming in the extreme and damn foolish too. What I find just plain sad and ugly is the seeming inability of some rabidly pro-HRC attack-posters to LEARN anything from their repeated run-ins with those of us who advocate talking issues instead of labels and attacks on anyone who posts anything critical.

Incisive and substantive.

You're all about "substance," right?

get some sleep and tell me about "sibstance" in the morning. Yer killing me Get some rest.

The poster was trying to be clever, I suspect.

Too clever, by far.

Having studied a bit in Early Childhood Development, I see someone who needs a nap.

And what may be ibivous to you is not necessarily so to those of us too old to jump to a lot of conclusions.

I don't like the charge of groupthink.

What sort of substance would you like to see to support that?

It's late and the little darling has had a very rough time. WAY past bedtime perhaps.

Where did I ever say I didn't study that too?

Is that all you guys got? Personal (lame) attacks when your methodology is exposed as bad? Jeeze. Hope the week goes better for you all, but HRC's week? Not so much.

Obama is an SOB. He knows how to play the field. He is no victim.

Gimme a break.

He/She has been doing this for decades. He/She can use code words the same way Bush or Rove or Cheney can.

They all play the same game.

Obama does not have a halo over his head, he just isn't apiece of crap and that looks fantastic by comparison.

... playing "What Obama Really Meant."

Every fucking day, he says something that whitewashes the Repubs or badmouths true progressives, and it all gets explained away.

I am saying Billary did it too, and started the racism problem our party is now suffering.

Racial, Pundits on MSNBC described it as "Bill Clinton put down the blunt instrument and picked up a chainsaw".


If you honestly don't know what is going on you are not worth my time.


If you do know what is going on and are being dishonest you are not worth my time.

what exactly did Bill say, verbatim please. With link.

There was nothing racial in what Clinton said, this is the punditry knocking the Clintons yet again.

I just want to see the comment.

Brainwashed america.

and anyone who accepts the rhetoric of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" etc.....is dangerously ignorant, or naive, or disingenuous

you can't reach across the aisle to the likes of those who launched all out class warfare, or supported the military commissions act, or gut environmental protection regulations

Obama does not represent a progressive agenda

Obama represents vague, and at times, highly neo-liberal sounding rhetoric and platitudes

So I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Thank You so much for this and your excellent post!
-


--" Martin Luther King III to John Edwards: I challenge all candidates to follow your lead"

'…I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the
economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice.
And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election."

Save it for the Repubs! That's the big contest.

It is the very fact the the Clintons are not considered racists that made the race-baiting tactics they used so difficult to understand. Truth be told, I fully expect that a Clinton administration would contain an impressive number of people of color in positions of high responsibility. For reasons which appear to be only to get Hillary into the Whitehouse, tactics were used which angered many people. The suggestion that this was somehow generated by either the Obama campaign or the MSM is to simply miss the point.

Racism is a mighty big charge, especially against a Democratic ex-president and his candidate wife.

Saying that Martin Luther King collaborated with LBJ was twisted into a racist statement. I guess people did hear things I didn't hear, because they weren't fucking said.

The use of race-baiting tactics does not equate one as a racist in my mind -- the Clintons are demonstrably not racists. However, they are very much determined to nominate Hillary. I do not believe that this desire allows one to use any means available, and it would appear that a good percentage of people in SC -- if exit polling is worth a damn -- feel the same way.

As for the MLK/LBJ comments, they need to be viewed from the black viewpoint to understand exactly how they were received. The black community is not exactly overwhelmed with universally revered figures. Black people are very sensitive to MLK's memory and legacy, it is a source of intense pride. The suggestion that he somehow needed LBJ to carry him across the finish line was extremely poorly received, and it beggars credulity to suggest this could not be understood by politicians who have a strong connection to the black cultural identity. It is not "playing the race card" to be offended -- it is to be offended.

1. We are expected to be shocked that the Clintons described a collaboration between MLK and a politician, and it's accepted as gospel that any genuinely nasty thing that happens during the campaign occurs at the specific direction of the Clinton campaign (e.g., the "Muslim" e-mails)
2. We are expected not to believe that a sudden rush of interview ops with black leaders claiming the MLK/LBJ anecdote was beyond the pale (an unfortunate phrase, but it's the one that fits) is an orchestrated tempest in a teapot

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

Especially #2.

#1 is the cost of being the presumed front-runner. With parity in the race, going forward Obama will very much be held accountable for the activities of his campaign -- both directly and through surrogates.

#2 is the cost of doing, or in this case saying, something provocative. The response to Obama's Reagan comments, as well has his relation to Rezko are indicative.

#1. The media hates Hillary, and they fear Edwards so much they won't even tell people he's running. Even on Limbaugh and Fox News, you should hear how flattering they are to Obama. Let alone the Beltway Broders and Brookses, and even the George Wills, et al.

#2. In the end, people believed the spin that the Reagan comments weren't significant, when they were in fact the tip of the iceberg of an endless string of progressive-demeaning comments from Obama. And there was more backlash on Hillary for bringing up Mr. Slumlord than there was impact on Obama.

I will say that there was a frontrunner's lull in Obama's campaign between Iowa and NH. He tried to coast, and Hillary tortoise-and-hared him. But with Super Duper Tuesday in a little over a week, both campaigns will be in overdrive, so nobody's going to Fred Thompson this phase of the race.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

1. The evidence-less propagation of the meme that the Clintons have done some sort of xtreme, unacceptable dirty tricks, while Obama's been angelically above the fray (despite low blows like the twistunderstanding of the MLK comments and the "Say Anything" ad -- which he had to rush off the air because it was so over the top... and then he repeated the money line from it in his big victory speech tonight!)
2. The pathetic acceptance of the Republican's Clinton hate and Ken Starr's jism hunt like they're a reflection on the Clintons, not on the fucking GOP bastards we're supposed to be standing up to

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

near as I can figure.

... your well-thought out opinions on how the Clintons are racists who deserve to be treated by us as the GOP treated them during Bill's presidency, because that's the topic here.

GET SOME REST

... on the grounds that my definition of bashing was unfair, because what I called bashing was actually just being more astute than I. Was that not your point?

Assuming that was your point, I highlighted the kind of bashing the OP and my follow-ups pertained to, and I wondered how those holding such positions were in fact being thoughtful.

Perhaps lacking a good argument (or healthful rest), you chose a straw man approach, by claiming I'd accused you of staking out those positions.

Anyway, this is how W.O.R.M. is played. Nothing may ever stick to Obama or anyone who loves him. No matter what.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

and pitch fits?

of Clinton bashing; and the "idolization" group mentally of Obama supporters. Truthfully, the more I see Obama speak, the less I am impressed or inspired. Just another "politician."

worthwhile looking through the muck.
There was some acceptance of the MSM phony support in 2004 as well. When asked why they are so embraced by the MSM, Deanies answered: "maybe they saw the truth?"
of course, the truth seekers went and crowned kerry before any vote was cast and threw dean under the bus quite unceremoniously after Iowa (after having contributed greatly to his defeat with intense negative coverage just before the caucus).
kerry then enjoyed a very brief honeymoon - just until they made sure all competition was out - then they let him have it.
And unbelievably, Obama supporters who believe their own press think the good times will go on - because he is so very likable - and the MSM will carry him through GE.
And they really think they had to FIGHT - and they endured hardships.

No 2004 candidate ever had this much help from the MSM (and Rush as well):



Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

But they still complain, and ask for Carville and begala to be banned - because 47% positive coverage just ain't enough

What's the source of the data?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

source - maybe McCain people compiled it. I am still looking for a source.

We don't know the context of it - was he asked a question, did he volunteer it - but it's supposed to be offensive.
Personally, I admire Jesse far more than Obama , so...

I smell faux outrage. Again. Link please.

She is a divisive character, and has the power to draw the most vitriolic hate from all over America, that I have seen from any other candidate.

Seriously, you should take this into consideration. Before Obama's win in SC today (wooohooo!!!), I cannot tell you how many self annointed political analysts told me that there is no way Obama would win a Southern state even in the primaries. Well, now its wide open again, and indeed Obama CAN win. Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton can win much or any of the South?

Think carefully before answering, and use only a number two pencil, filling in all dots thoroughly.

Just wait until the MSM gets done with the race card. I think it's really going to piss off and motivate white republican voters to come out. Remember, this country is 80% white, 12% black. Registered republican numbers aside, if people get pissed off enough, they will turn out in record numbers. Remember when Reagan got elected? That was because 1 million new republican voters registered. It could happen again.....and then some. I just don't think republicans have kicked in yet.

I think both could be a disaster to be honest. That's why people should have thought very carefully about the choices they made way back in Iowa. Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

But already this is an interesting race. People were telling me two weeks ago that there was no how, no way that a Black man would take a Southern state, even in a primary. Now look at Obama's SC win. Couple that with the shocking number of youth who came out to vote for him and you have a major cog in the wheel of the machinery marked As They Have Been.