You are desperate.

[cali]

Yes, you. You as in the folks who keep frantically flinging shit at Obama hoping something sticks before the primary tomorrow.

I'm not talking about intellectually honest criticism, or suggesting that there aren't areas where he can be legitimately and harshly criticized, I'm talking about lying bullshit.

Bullshit like insisting his campaign manager is a lobbyist. Not true. One of his NH co-chairs is a registered lobbyist, and that seems so minor as to be laughable.

Bullshit about how people only support him because he's black.

Bullshit like declaring that he has no substance.

Bullshit like stating he's owned by corporations without providing a shred of evidence via votes or his own words that he's a "corporate tool".

Bullshit about how he maybe sorta kinda isn't really pro-choice when he has a 100% rating from NARAL.

Bullshit about how Obama really stole Iowa by bringing in voters from other states to caucus.

You folks are desperate. And green with envy. And yeah, it makes me want to crow about how well he's doing when I see thread after thread of ugly lies.

[vi5]

1. Not an Obama supporter per se but...

..what got me was when someone in another thread accussed him of sliming Clinton and pulling out the negative campaigning against her with smears.

I can say things about Obama that may be less than complimentary but I will say I haven't seen one shred of evidence that he or anyone on his staff has gone negative. At least nothing compared to the Clinton camp which has with him (always though surrogates and campaign staffers though).

The thing is that my one complaint about Obama is that he's too nice and his whole unity, let's everyone get along and be nice routine just isn't going to cut it in a GE.

But Clinton supporters accussing him of going negative just struck me as complete la la land out of left field stuff.

[keep_it_real]

5. I agree

The dude is keeping it positive.

[indimuse]

45. and you never will...

http://attacktimeline.com/

Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama released an opposition research paper on John Edwards in response to requests from a local union (United Auto

Workers Region 4.) It was full of cheap shots; one of which may come back to haunt the "positive" candidate. From an ABC News blog;

The cheapest shot ... that Edwards somehow has something to do with Whirlpool when the company was closing down Maytag plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas.

Why is that a cheap shot? Because the link is that Edwards worked for the controversial Fortress Hedge Fund while it owned stock in Whirlpool as it was shutting

down those plants.

But some argue a far more direct link exists between Obama and those plants shutting down.

The Crown family -- Lester, Renee, James, Paula -- have been supporters, fundraisers, and bundlers for Obama.

Lester Crown was on the board of Maytag when it decided to shut down a plant in Galesburg, Illinois, and sent those jobs to Mexico.

In August 2005, Crain's Chicago Business reported that the Crowns stood "to reap an estimated $86 million from the sale of appliance maker Maytag Corp. to rival

Whirlpool Corp. After a bidding war, Newton, Iowa-based Maytag agreed Monday to sell to Whirlpool for $21 a share in cash and stock. Maytag has said the Crowns

hold about 4.1 million shares."

Shortly after that merger was announced, Whirlpool shut down those plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas.

Do I think Obama is responsible for the plants shutting down? Nope.

But he should know better than to attack Edwards on the same subject.



IF YOU think Obama has run a positive campaign. Hillary maintained the high road for -months- before finally answering some of the mud.
Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama.

And at least some journalists agree.
See for example http://attacktimeline.com/ "...

"She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."




Richard Holbrooke| BIO | I'M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER
Setting the Record Straight: Hillary's Foreign Policy
Posted December 18, 2007 | 01:42 PM (EST)

"She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he

was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws --

wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
So when Obama attacked Hillary with the "Lite" label even though he's been more pro-GOP and pro-Bush/Cheney appointee in senate voting (and in his criticizing of

resistant Democrats), the Clinton campaign should have seen it as just, you know, constructive criticism?

And all the way back last June when the Obama campaign developed an oppo document referring to Hillary Clinton as (D-Punjab), it was really just an innocent policy

distinction? Ah, I see, that wasn't racist, xenophobic, or tasteless - after all, he's so handsome, and he's half-black, he lived in Indonesia, he would never...
Obama has been quietly running a dirty and hypocritical campaign for months; from (D-Punjab) to the oppo smears against Edwards.
IF YOU think Obama has run a positive campaign. Hillary maintained the high road for -months- before finally answering some of the mud.
Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama.

And at least some journalists agree.


See for example http://attacktimeline.com/

[Occam Bandage]

2. K&R. Obama has many huge problems, but this recent bullshit is just disgusting.

[City Lights]

3. Pathetically so.

I think we need a "sour grapes" smiley.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. I could say the same in regards to all the bullshit posted here about Clinton.

[cali]

9. Indeed you could and it would be true

The way DU has treated Clinton has been disgraceful and disgusting and because of my defense of her, I've often been sneeringly called a "hillbot".

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Don't forget that he "may have" had a role in releasing Jack Ryan's custody records

Oh, it was "only a question, not an assertion." These people are sad cases.

[thoughtcrime1984]

7. Cocaine

You heard me, obama_ (bot, bozo, etc.)!!

[thoughtcrime1984]

11. McClurkin

Hope, change, hope, change, McClurkin, Cokebama!!! Take that! LMAO!

[Occam Bandage]

13. Thank you for your contribution.

[thoughtcrime1984]

17. I was joking, over the top accusations, ya know!

Haha? I'm a huge Obama backer, btw.

[TankLV]

30. McClurkin. That's it in a nutshell...

but you obamabots will never understand

[peoli]

8. Agree 100%

Hillarys campaign tactic. Throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.

[davsand]

10. You nailed it, Cali.

Every Primary here on DU is ugly, but this is just breathtakingly awful.

I'm not sure if it exceeds the Green / Nader wars for stupidity--yet--but it is getting pretty damn close to it.

K & R.


Laura

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. I was wondering if 2004's DU primary wars were this bad. I joined in June '04 and by then

there was united front in support of Kerry.

I am astounded at the charges and smears leveled at each of our candidates here on this board.

I am hoping there is a light at the end of tunnel. MKJ

[Meshuga]

54. It was ruthless :-)

Kerry supporters vs Deaniacs mostly.

[qwlauren35]

59. Yes, it was this bad.

I was a Deaniac.

It was actually mainly Dean/Kucinich/Kerry with some Edwards thrown in.

There is no one on the planet more progressive than Kucinich... except maybe the long shot Alaskan governor.

And our progressives weren't going down without a fight.

Mud flew 4 years ago. I can assure you.

[suston96]

12. You left out the real bullshit - the "change" he claims he will bring but won't define.

Change the status quo? What does that mean?

When politicians promise "to change the status quo" that usually means they have a gullible audience and actually have no agenda but getting elected.

[cali]

21. oh, thank you sooo much for your "wisdom"

I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. Invaluable.

:sarcasm:

[suston96]

34. No problem. I like to respond to bullshit posts with bullshit of my own.

[Jim Sagle]

14. He's an empty suit.

[cali]

20. ooh, I get to use more Saglicious rhetoric: Chickenshit bullshit

and JE is an empty suit. nyah. nyah.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Ghost]

15. Amen my friend.

n/t

[gulliver]

16. "One of his NH co-chairs is a registered lobbyist" is a red herring.

Obama denied it on national TV in debate. It turns out not to be true. That's the issue. That part is not bullshit. Obama should not be denying something that is both true and a material criticism. His NH co-chair is a lobbyist for big pharma. That is material--very, very material. Obama denied it. That is very significant. He may be able to sweep it under the rug, but that doesn't mean it is "minor." Had he denied a fact in the GE, he would now be tail-spinning in the media.

[sandnsea]

23. He should ask him to step down

I don't know the details, but it would be better if he had no lobbyists on his campaign. Just like it would be better if Hillary didn't have homophobes on hers. And who knows how many lobbyists she's hired because she's buddy buddy with them all anyway.

[gulliver]

24. Agreed. Or he should explain his mistake. Or both. n/t

[cali]

27. why? I know several lobbyists in my small state- which is

similar in many ways to NH. They often lobby for pharmaceutical firms and environmental organizations and gay marriage- all at the same time. That's the way it works in places like Montpelier and Concord.

By the way, YOUR candidate has indeed taken lobbyist money- just not from lobbyists who work in DC. And there's nothing wrong with it.

[sandnsea]

32. My candidate? n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

42. why? because he himself found it embarrassing enough to deny last night.....

and lots of progressives do have a problem with his strong ties to Big Pharama. Is that news to you?

[cali]

46. it was a big mistake for him to deny it. no question

as for the simplistic shit you're into- well, I'm a liberal with progressive views on economic issues, but I do nuance- unlike a lot of you black and white "thinkers".

[bettyellen]

47. nuance, is that what they're calling it these days?

good one!

[MadBadger]

19. The Co-Chair is a registered state lobbyist.

[bettyellen]

38. and the lobbyist contributions to his campaign made me gasp!

he seems to be in deep.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

[MalloyLiberal]

22. He does have no substance...

It's just a fact.

Fluff about hope, no real issues.

It's a real shame, because if he actually had some real experience, and real issues, I'd be behind him all crazy like you.

[cali]

26. no, meltdownboy

that's not a fact, genius. That's your ungrounded opinion.

[ButterflyBlood]

25. So true

But hey, they can throw smears all they want, they'll just be sobbing when it all fails.

[no name no slogan]

29. Obama's no better (or worse) than the others

He takes pharma money. He takes defense contractor money. He probably takes Wall Street money, too, just like all the rest.

None of them are clean. Which is why we need publicly-financed campaigns, and campaign finance reform NOW.

[Lerkfish]

31. post.of.the.day

I agree, we desperately need to reform campaign financing.

[killbotfactory]

37. What is he supposed to do?

Tell people in those industries to fuck off and to not donate to him?

[no name no slogan]

39. Why not?

Who says you have to take their money?

Principles are there to live by, not just to mention in campaign speeches.

[Uben]

33. Obama isn't getting anymore slimed....

...than any other candidate here. I think they all have had their share of sliming. We all want to defend our respective candidates against what we think are untrue charges, however, you have to take into consideration the passion everyone here has to back the one they want.

I think Clinton gets bashed more than any of them, but that may be because I am a supporter and tend to take more offense at those who dig at her.

I don't put much stock in any derogatory thresds about any candidate. If you can't tell me why your candidate is better rather than cutting another one down, you are part of the problem, and that covers a large percentage of folks here!

[cali]

36. Clinton has been mercilessly bashed

I defended her when the worst of it was going on- a lot. And now I'm pointing out the bullshit threads about Obama that are dominating the landscape. I still take offense at the Clinton bashers ugliness and I just threw the kitchen sink at an Obama supporter who posted an awful thread taunting Clinton supporters.

[lwcon]

35. A lot of us want to find a way to like Obama

He may be carrying the standard for the Democratic Party in November, and the "cult of personality" defensiveness of Obama's supporters isn't helping get us to where we may need to be.

There are more than a few of us who are concerned about what he's saying -- and not saying -- on the campaign trail.

Like this guy:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/6/92919/99130/666/431569

Oh, sorry, he's a "trial lawyer," so let's follow Obama's cue and dismiss him.

Since, if Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, a lot of us are going to be donating time and money to get him elected, perhaps you might consider arguing your points, rather than just writing us off.

My issues are (again) in this post and several linked by it.

If your candidate is so all-fired great, make the case willya? He's got the inside track to winning, so help us rally 'round. But don't ask us to do it with a dose of Kool-Aid.


___

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

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Human nature.

We're witnessing herd mentality at its most primitive right now, and it's never a pretty sight. Obama benefits from some and suffers from some, so it's a mixed bag. With the upsurge of support, I'd say he's benefiting from the bandwagon dynamic much more than he's suffering from the unfair derision dynamic.

You can't just have the good without the bad; that's not the way life works. This is like celebrities complaining about being bothered in public: they get more of everything than anyone else, but it's got a drawback; many want only the good.

If you seriously feel that all the newfound support is purely from true intellectual honesty and newfound reassessment and that all derision is unfounded partisanship from unscrupulous opponents, then go ahead and stay miffed, but remember that you're miffed in fantasyland. Much of the support that anyone gets in situations like this is the sheep-like flock that wants to be one of the cool people and be with the winner. Much of the derision is frustration of supporters who support someone else for legitimate and deep, personal reasons, and some of it also comes from sheer outrage that's been kept at bay.

It's human nature. You've been very active here for awhile and you know who the other players are. If you can honestly say that those of us who are supporters of others have been consistently unscrupulous and seizing upon any greasy issue to gain the upper hand, then you're far less perceptive and modulated than you've given the impression of being before. You'll note that some of the more adamant supporters of certain other candidates have actually toned down their derision since Thursday, and it's not just cynicism or cowardice. Some of us respect the outpouring of joy from people who've weathered the storm for so long and see the looming prize so suddenly clear in the distance. Some of us consider times of high emotion to be times where circumspection is a duty of a community member.

There has been much unfair said from all sides, and although that doesn't excuse anyone, it should be seen in perspective. Step back for a second and note that you've thrown down the gauntlet of repeated threats to those who would offer any resistance that it doesn't necessarily help your cause that much.

Oh, and accusing others of being committed liars when tortured with extreme jealousy in the face of your guy's superiority doesn't reflect well on the team, either. By what cosmic right do you demand the privilege to be angry and combative on an extreme personal level and vilify anyone who is similarly anti-social? Never forget the contrarian nature in many pluralists: much as the bandwagon will benefit him, it'll have some downside.

You're not the only one entitled to be strident, and not everyone in opposition is "unfair".

Some qualifiers are always a nice touch, and constantly threatening the opposition as one big undifferentiated lump of ugliness is hardly hopeful. Others suffer too, others love their candidates too and many who support others do so with restraint just as many who support your candidate do so unpleasantly. Daring the world and threatening retaliation is simply unwarranted in this situation.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nailzberg]

43. That's what all the girls at the bar think of me, too.

[BringBigDogBack]

48. Good post.

Kicking

[live love laugh]

49. And it's only going to get worse unfortunately--the better he does the worse it gets nt

[Skip Intro]

50. I'm sorry, empty Hallmark words like "Hope" are pretty, but empty nonetheless. nt

[ClericJohnPreston]

51. Your post....all form, no substance is fitting

as it reflects the reality of your candidate.

I'm going to give you a chance here.

Tell us, please, those who can pierce the corporate veil and are Edwards supporters, how your client takes more money from the drug lobby than any REPUBLICAN, and then can broker a deal for healthcare in the interests of the People???

Hmmmm????

[bvar22]

52. Hey, Cali.....

It was Hillary herself, in person, on a national stage, who accused Obama of having a Lobbyist for the Pharm Indistry as his New Hampshire Campaign Chairman, which is indeed TRUE.
Hillary clearly thiought this was important enough to disclose to America.

Are you saying that Hillary is "frantically flinging shit at Obama hoping something sticks before the primary tomorrow"?
I am used to seeing you defend the conservative candidates. It is unusual to find you atttacking Hillary with such venom.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

53. Yet another thread literally screaming...

...for the DU Says-A-Me Street Playroom forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3738260&mesg_id=3738346

Huge surprise it would originate with Cali -- I'm just shocked.

[Meshuga]

55. Nice attempt of relaunching a locked thread!

That was sooo slick of you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

56. Gee thanks, Mr. Wiggles -- if that is your real name. nt.

[we can do it]

57. I "HOPE" You Are Joking

[Virginia Dare]

58. This is a sandbox fight at the playground compared to November..

Obama better be ready Cali. I don't like the politics of personal attacks, but better to season him now if he will be our eventual nominee. This is my one big fear about Obama, that he's not ready for this fight yet. I hope he is.