Note to Indabuff
This post tracked back to this one here, and it insinuates that I, as an Obama supporter, am somehow going against Obama’s call to hope, etc. because I have mocked some of Hillary’s supporters.
Barack Obama will have won this primary battle by the end of the week. He will have won it fair & square. He will have won through hard work and a novel grassroots campaign/funding strategy. He will have won despite the fact that Clinton had lined up institutional Democratic support for her campaign throughout the country. He will have won despite the fact that the Clinton camp played junior Karl Rove since about South Carolina in an effort first to derail him, and later to try and render him damaged goods so that, should he lose, they can say, “We told you so.” She was inevitable. Then came Iowa.
As an Obama supporter, Clinton’s behavior, and the behavior of many of her supporters, has grown more and more disturbing to me over the past few months. I think that what she’s doing is harmful to the party and the nominee the party selected over her.
Your post reads:
Ah…the audacity of hope…yes we can…a vision that all will share in the American Dream…along the way…it is okay to mock people…a true message of hope…we can bring people together and recognize that what unites us is greater than what divides us…yes we can.
Far be it from me to tell you what to write on your own site, but can we Fisk it? Yes, we can.
Setting aside the overuse of ellipses and the incomplete sentences, it’s intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. It’s not OK to mock the likes of this woman? On top of that, in the next line of your post you say, “but the things I have read on these internets from Obamatons pushing hate against her supporters is irony at its purest.”
Obamaton?!
Those sound pretty “mocking” and “hateful”. You think I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. That’s fine, and you can post all day and all night about it. But don’t let’s play make-believe about how above the fray you are, and how shocked - SHOCKED! you are. Just keep on posting about how the party is a “sham” despite the fact that it had the guts to undergo something rather unpleasant this past weekend transparently on live TV. Despite the fact that it’s winning federal-level elections in traditionally safe Republican strongholds.
When I insinuated that the Ron Paul people were cultists, they merely confirmed the point by spamming my site with hundreds of insane rants. I use my site to support my candidate, as I have done throughout the existence of this site. Furthermore, when my candidate’s opponent and her supporters behave like imbeciles, I’m going to post about it if I feel like it, regardless of your delicate sensibilities. Because that, too, is something I’ve done since ‘03.
Don’t get all self-righteous about mockery and hatred when you spread it around yourself.
hank Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
“Barack Obama will have won this primary battle by the end of the week. He will have won it fair & square. He will have won through hard work and a novel grassroots campaign/funding strategy.”
And McCain will kick his socialist, anti-capitalist,anti free market, generally inexperienced ass in November. He’s the next Michael Dukakis.
Hillary would have given him a run for his money, or won.
Your candidate, your site, your right to support whom you choose. That’s America.
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
this is absurd alan.
a couple of posts ago, you stated that clinton was now “despised by a good half of the Democratic Party.” using that logic, one would have to make the case that obama is despised by a good half of the democratic party as well, since half the dems voted against him. actually, more than half voted against him.
this site has used al jazeera, a news organization in a country with no freedom of speech, where a woman can be executed for committing adultery, as a reliable source for information on typical clinton supporters. that was vile.
you made no mention of rev. wright, father pfleger or michelle obama’s bigoted and hateful speech, thus implying that it was ok. if you think it is ok, you ought to defend it on behalf of your candidate. conversely, every time some cracker from west virginia opened his toothless mouth, it was big news here, and presented in such a way as to imply that the millions of clinton supporters around the country are all like that.
the power elites in this country, who are comprised of white, college educated professionals earning well over the dreaded “$50,000 a year,” chose obama prior to the iowa caucuses. these are obama’s primary supporters, according to the various polling organizations.
the 90 percent of black voters were a gimme, since the vast majority of black voters will vote for any black candidate over any white candidate and there is tons of data on this which was especially useful in explaining marion barry. you have repeatedly described clinton’s white support as bigoted, while this overwhelming support for obama by poverty stricken, uneducated blacks in america’s inner cities has gone unmentioned here. again, if you think it’s ok, you ought to defend it rather than attacking the motives of others.
the black/white thing is further exacerbated by the democratic party’s own rules, which give a disproportionate number of delegates to congressional districts that are most likely to elect democratic representatives. since black voters, even though they represent a minority within the party, always vote democrat in overwhelming numbers, they have more representation in the nominating process than white voters living outside of urban/suburban areas, despite the fact that all congressional districts have roughly the same number of people. it is inarguable that blacks have an unfair advantage in the process, which can only lead to white resentment. a discussion of this might have been useful.
the allegation that clinton has somehow prolonged this process is an outright lie. what has prolonged it is the daft idea of “proportional representation,” which, without looking it up, i believe was instituted in 1988, so it’s not like written in stone or anything. if the person who won the primary got the delegates the primary season would have ended, in clinton’s favor, following california.
but i’m a drunk, racist dick still clinging to my guns and religion, according to this website, so you’re free to feel superior. one thing though, you’re not going to win over many clinton supporters by constantly referring to them in hateful terms or by being a complete tool. and as much as you may find it distasteful, obama needs a solid majority of clinton supporters to have any chance of winning in november.
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
I think it’s odd that, despite Obama’s since-February lead in the delegates, Clinton keeps winning primaries. Apparently, it’s not just Clinton who wants her to run to the end. So whine all you want… but she’s just looking to have the strongest hand possible when it comes time to negotiate her withdrawal. That’s politics, and it’s also nothing new:
So too does Clinton. You may not respect her, but you damn well better respect her supporters, or Obama will be setting sail on the boat of fail. He’s not gonna win if they don’t come out for him.
Or, you can keep making pointlessly divisive posts; whatever.
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
@Snarky: She may keep winning (I know Puerto Rico is going to have massive significance in November when it doesn’t vote for President with its zero electoral votes), but she’s already lost. Her withdrawal shouldn’t have to be negotiated. It should just happen. Losing is also part of politics, and it, too, is nothing new.
As for Clinton and her supporters, I do respect them. But I do not, and will not, respect people who behave like this.
Russell Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
Because the Dem party does not trust the rank and file members of the party and cannot trust average people with an important decision, Clinton has not already lost. In fact, she will not lose ’til the votes are cast at the convention. Although the regular delegates must vote for whom they were elected to vote for, the superdelegates can vote how ever they want. They can even change their mind 100 times ’til that vote is cast if they like. So this could be far from over, all because Dems leaders don’t trust the people.
BP, are you at all concerned that Hillary is still winning big in these last states and that it is very obvious Obama is not well-liked in some key constituencies of the Democratic party?
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
@mike hudson.
Evidently, you’re county Florida and Michigan, which bucked party rules and were told ahead of time that their votes wouldn’t count if their primaries took place when they did.
However, if you then count in every other popular vote tally that didn’t count, (which includes Nebraska, Washington, and Idaho - caucus states that held unofficial, non-binding primaries), Obama received in total 82k+ votes more than Clinton. I think the difference here is that Obama’s supporters are upset at the petulant behavior of many who support Clinton - those who are so despondent at her loss that they blame Obama for victimizing her or for being sexist or something. I think they’re upset that Clinton would bus people to make asses out of themselves and disrupt the rules & bylaws committee meeting this past weekend. Obama asked that none of his supporters do the same.
Was the story untruthful? Or was it the location of the news outlet that was “vile”? You attack the messenger and the source, but I didn’t see you attack the substance. The laws of Qatar are wholly irrelevant to al Jazeera’s reporting.
I did post Obama’s response to Wright’s speech. I didn’t post about Wright’s speech because I didn’t see how it was relevant to anything. What did Michelle Obama say that was “bigoted and hateful?” And no, I didn’t present it as “big news” every time someone in West Virginia opened their mouth. As a matter of fact, a search of the term “West Virginia” on my site reveals one post relevant to that contest. A search of the term “Clinton” on my site reveals no West Virginian “crackers” being posted about whatsoever. So, your memory, Mike, is faulty and untrue.
When have I ever “described clinton’s white support as bigoted”, much less “repeatedly”? Another rank lie that you could have possibly supported by searching the site and supporting a link, but you didn’t because you couldn’t. It’s far easier to accuse me of it, facts be damned. When people made racist comments - Ferraro, for example - I sure as hell posted about it. But I never, ever said that white people were racist for supporting Clinton. If you can find where I did, go for it. It must be quite comfortable for you to just wildly make shit up.
Discuss it in your paper, if it’s so useful.
So, because Clinton might have won under 20+ year old rules, she should be the nominee now? Is that the point you’re trying to make?
*Sniff*. Aw, did Chris make fun of you? Because I never once called you any of those things. If it makes you feel better to ascribe them to me, then so be it. But the only time those words have been used against you is in comments by others. I don’t censor comments for being offensive.
Apart from calling that Harriet Christian woman “dreck”, which she quite palpably and objectively is, I haven’t referred to her supporters in hateful terms, much less “constantly”. Again, you’re just making shit up as you go along, because you’re remembering discussions you have with OTHER PEOPLE in the COMMENTS section with things that I ACTUALLY POST. Get your fucking shit together before you let fly bullshit, halfassed accusations you cannot back up.
And my point lately has been that Clinton doesn’t want Obama to have that support, because she wants to spoil it, say “I told you so” and come back in 2012. At least, that what her words and actions have been saying with crystal clarity lately.
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
You don’t have to respect every single Clinton supporter, obviously, and I’m sure you also don’t respect every single Obama supporter out there; you’re playing language games. YAWN.
Much like the specious point re. P.R…. whatevs. Did Obama win there? No. End of story. As we know, it’s been virtually impossible for Clinton to win a majority of delegates for some time. But in the face of that fact, she still wins primaries like Penn, like Indiana, Kentucky. Why is that, do you suppose? Because she’s an evil, vile trickster? Really? Because all her supporters are dumb, or racist? Is that what you want to say? Because there’s no imaginably good reason to support her candidacy? Really? Not one, sensible, logical reason? Hurm….
Posts like yours, calls for her to quit–all while she wins primaries–are far more damaging to party unity than her continued running. When she quits, when she tells the huge mass of people who honestly want her to be president to vote for Obama (after, I’m guessing, she’s traded withdrawal for a role in vetting his VP choice, or some such political tool with which to sharpen her legacy- cabinet position also possible) Obama will have secured the presidency. It’s pretty simple, actually.
That you don’t understand how this all works is sort of surprising. “Should not have to be negotiated” is nice, and heck, I might agree. But it ain’t so, son; c’est tout!
Now, why not a nice post on how Obama (finally!) stated that, if elected, within his first 100 days he aims to review all those illegal signing statements. I think positive stuff does indeed better reflect the vision, and also the policy, of your man’s campaign. You need to get over your little Clinton thing instead of whining about your right to say what you want on your blog, which nobody disputes; you were called out fair and square.
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
When did I ever say or insinuate any of those things? Hurm indeed.
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
So, that’s a tangent and not a direct rebuttal of my overall point, but hey, that’s how this whole lawyer thing works, right? ’cause that’s JimO’s modus operandi, too. La ti da… I’ll play.
I flung those out as arguments I thought you’d not make, clearly, and invited you to, rather, answer the initial question: Why does Hillary keep winning primaries when she can’t win the overall nomination? Since those patently ridiculous and ultimately destructive positions/explanations are all out, it must be because there are legitimate reasons for her to be supported, and ergo, for her to run until the full extent of her support is counted. Turns out that’s how it works. Sorry if that rankles you, but your candidate of choice has neither been nominated yet nor is he acting pouty about Clinton- he’s moving on and starting his presidential bid. Make of that what you will. But clearly you buy into the ‘Clinton-will-destroy-the-party-rather-than-loose’ meme, which is a MSM/Republican one. Spread it at the expense of Obama’s getting the maximum of her supporters, by all means.
You know the Republican’s have really no good reason to even win this election, right? I mean really… this place is not looking so perky these days- iraq, oil/gas prices, recession or something much like it, etc. Don’t you think McCain’s basically doing his last service for the party by feigning a plausible campaign? They’ll do much better regaining strength while playing “pin-the-fail-on-the-Donkey” for four years or more. Obama better be clever if he wants to avoid a proverbial knife-in-the-back/Dolschtoss attack.
iNdAbUff Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
OMG…a whole post about me…KTHXBAI
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
alan, you haven’t spent much time in a courtroom, have you?
“The laws of Qatar are wholly irrelevant to al Jazeera’s reporting.”
no, actually they’re quite relevant, in that EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO/BROADCAST HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF QUATAR, WHICH ALSO CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF WOMEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED ADULTERY.
“I know Puerto Rico is going to have massive significance in November when it doesn’t vote for President with its zero electoral votes.”
like obama’s wins in idaho, nebraska, utah, alabama, alaska, mississippi, wyoming, georgia and other states which will not be carried by the dems in november? and i would bet thousands of dollars on that, alan, so if you’re so sure that the most liberal member of the u.s. senate is going to win with dean’s “50 state strategy” let’s go!
and when have you become so interested in electoral votes? that’s something obama supporters rarely talk about, because — not counting florida or michigan — clinton has won in states with 264 electoral votes as compared to obama winning in states with 224. add in florida and michigan, and she has 308 electoral votes. considering you need 270 to win in november, she is far more likely to prevail if electoral votes are used as the yardstick.
“Get your fucking shit together before you let fly bullshit, halfassed accusations you cannot back up.”
quite the measured response from a shyster who couldn’t hack it on the east coast, especially in a post arguing how civil he is to those with opposing viewpoints.
“When people made racist comments - Ferraro, for example - I sure as hell posted about it.”
you are a goddamned liar. there was no post criticising obama’s “spiritual mentor” jeremiah wright’s comments because you didn’t think it was relevant? the guy has known the candidate for 20 years, brought him to christianity, married him and his wife, served as both his pastor and advisor, had an official role in the campaign, supplied the title for his first book etc. and that’s not relevant when the remarks of someone hillary clinton wouldn’t know from adam are relevant?
you’re wrong about the primary vote count, of course, but even if you were correct and obama did get 82k more than clinton out of the SEVENTEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND CAST, you are still left with half of a party that, by using the twisted logic you applied to clinton in the previous post, despises obama since they voted against him.
speaking as a member since 1976, the democratic party deserves to be ruined. it’s been taken over by assholes.
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
@mike hudson:
Where’s “Quatar”, and what does adultery have to do with the reporting on race in America? And your statement concerning Jazeera’s censorship is false. While it generally doesn’t criticize Qatar or Saudi Arabia,
So, no, there isn’t a Qatari censorship commissar overseeing every story.
Yet Hillary Clinton, of all people, would? After the race she just ran?
You’ve repeated this nonsense before, and it presupposes that Obama wouldn’t win California or New York come November. It’s a non-argument.
There has never, ever been anything I’ve done in an unethical or unscrupulous way, so for you to call me a shyster when I’ve called you - nothing - is really incredible. You can call my legal abilities into question all you want, but evidently you have a real problem reading and comprehending words - which are supposed to be the tools of your trade.
And I don’t have any responsibility to meet incivility with civility.
Hillary doesn’t know Geraldine Ferraro? Ferraro was one of her surrogates on the trail and was specifically given permission to speak for and on behalf of the campaign. Wright had no such role. Things that he said in his church from his pulpit had no bearing whatsoever on the Obama campaign, except for journalists who needed a good story and for Obama-haters like yourself.
Have a great day, Mike.
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
I noticed this trend, too, starting around 1976. Weird, huh?
iNdAbUff Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Personally, I hate hypocrisy
My site is my site…if you don’t like what I write about or how I write it, you don’t have to go there.
Sorry if you don’t like the term “Obamaton”…what did you say about Ron Paul and cultlike?
I have and will always calls it da way I sees it…I may be right…I may be wrong…but I accept critcism.
I am neither self-righteous or beyond mocking people…like you…I have always done things on my site the way I want to.
If anyone’s delicate sensibilities seem to be affected, I think they are yours.
So it goes…
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I couldn’t care less if you use the term “Obamaton” or whatever. Just don’t then pretend to be above the fray when it comes to mockery and “hatred”.
Also - I’m not the one being hypocritical. You want to call it as you see it, then do so. As will I. You’re the one who suggests that it’s hypocritical for a supporter of Obama to criticize the supporters of another candidate. I disagree. You don’t. Why you care is beyond me as the whole party is a “sham” anyway, according to you.
I never said you couldn’t post whatever you wanted on your site. By the same token, I am free to critique it as I see fit, and call it as I see it.
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“And your statement concerning Jazeera’s censorship is false.”
try going there and handing out bibles. you can tell them all about the first amendment right before they cut your hands off.
“Yet Hillary Clinton, of all people, would? After the race she just ran?”
i of course never said that, or even implied it, but if the race she just ran was so terrible, why are people still voting for her in large numbers? i had her written off after wisconsin, yet millions of people have continued to vote for her and she has continued to win in all the big states.
“You’ve repeated this nonsense before, and it presupposes that Obama wouldn’t win California or New York come November. It’s a non-argument.”
it does not presuppose that obama will not win california and new york, it presupposes he will not win pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, west virginia and florida, which he likely won’t.
“Hillary doesn’t know Geraldine Ferraro? Ferraro was one of her surrogates on the trail and was specifically given permission to speak for and on behalf of the campaign.”
nice pre-law dodge. of course she knows ferraro. does she know that woman you posted from you tube? does she know the people interviewed by al jazeera? according to this web site, those people represent hillary’s base.
“Wright had no such role. Things that he said in his church from his pulpit had no bearing whatsoever on the Obama campaign, except for journalists who needed a good story and for Obama-haters like yourself.”
according to a march 14 press release from the obama campaign, rev. wright’s official position in said campaign was on the african american religious leadership committee. he left the campaign on that date, according to the campaign. now you want to tell all these nice people that wright had no official role in the campaign, go on ahead. like i said, you’re a goddamned liar.
alan, the only argument you seem actually able to win around here anymore is the one where you say, “it’s my website and i can say whatever i want, nah-nah-na-na-nah.”
go on, it’ll make you feel better.
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
What does handing out Bibles have to do with Jazeera’s news gathering/reporting? What does Sharia law on adultery have to do with Jazeera’s news gathering/reporting? Aren’t you done with this particular argument yet? Because it’s just a silly one.
And yet she still trails in delegates and popular vote.
Or might. I guess we’ll see, since he’ll be the nominee.
I have no idea whom Clinton knows and doesn’t know. Do you? You keep bringing up Al Jazeera to me, but I didn’t post it. The woman who made an ass of herself at the rules & bylaws committee? I don’t know whether Clinton does or doesn’t know her.
OK. He had an official role. My apologies. He was not, however, shunted around to act as a surrogate for the campaign nor to speak on its behalf.
Except for the ones you don’t bring up again because you have no counterargument.
iNdAbUff Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@BuffaloPundit
@ the end of the day…I love you, man
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
@indabuff
Likewise. Families disagree - sometimes vehemently - all the time.
Chris Smith Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I think you’re all a bunch of assholes.
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
i’m with chris.
hank Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
This is GREAT!!!! LOOOOVE to see y’all demos goin’ at it like this.
Moot point–Barry O gets the nomination, he loses.
His approval numbers have been in a swan dive for the last 3 weeks. Closer he gets to the nomination the less voters like him.
He’s got no experience. Toke that Hope and Change Bong all y’all want…
The demographics tell a big story. As much as you’d want to wish it so, there aren’t enough college educated liberals and negroes to put barry O over the top. Your basic blue collar, hourly wage-earner, union member caucasian Democrat don’t want what Barry O is sellin’.
Chris Smith Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Mike and I finally find common ground. Hey Mike, you gonna return my phone call to set up a video interview?
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
didn’t get the message chris, i’m rarely in the office. but of course i’ll do a video interview. you gotta come to the falls though, as i don’t do buffalo. send me an email.
mike hudson Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
hi hank. as an aside, i might mention that freedom house, founded by eleanor roosevelt and wendell wilkie, of all people, is a non partisan international organization that monitors the status of democracy in countries around the world.
according to their 2008 report, the press in qatar is “not free,” al jazeera is state subsidized, there is in fact a censorship office that reviews everything that’s run on qatar television and radio, the government censors content and blocks sites on the internet and self censorship is commonplace.
now, if anyone wants to define that as a free press that’s fine with me but as a journalist of some (ill?) repute i wouldn’t consider them a reliable source.
sorry about the shyster crack, alan. it was indeed uncalled for.
Hawk (Not Hank) Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
After reading these comments I will leave you with a quote from Will Rogers that seems appropriate:
“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
Buffalopundit Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
*Group hug*
Greg Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
As someone that despises clinton (still waiting on those jobs), and doesn’t think obama is a good choice, seeing the democrat party at each others’ throats is great
Many republicans don’t like the idea of mccain as the republican choice, but they aren’t tearing into each other over it
STEEL Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Fact is that Hillary is NOT going to win. She knows that and party leaders know that. For her to keep running on that basis means that she runs because she either:
1,truly believes that Obama would be bad for the country and she must do everything she can to stop him
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Are you shitting me? Read much? Bob Barr’s entire run is predicated on finding McCain inadequate, and the evangelicals have been having shitfits about McCain since day one; don’t be so ignorant.
Celtic Tide Says:June 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Boprah get’s the nod and reality sets in in November; people are starting to smell what he’s stepping in.
hank Says:June 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Snarky Snarketh:
Are you shitting me? Read much?
I’ve read enough to know that a FORMER republican named Bob Barr has strapped on a Tinfoil Hat, and has gone over to the Libertarians.
And As I’m sure a snarker would know, there’s only ONE PERSON QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT to a libertarian. RON PAUL. He’s not gonna get the nomination though.
Greg Says:June 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Sure there’s some shit flinging on the republican side, but not to the level of the democrats right now, and not as in the general public’s face thanks to the main stream media focusing so much on democrat primaries
Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone Says:June 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
yeah, Ron’s such a Libertarian god that he sought the Republican nomination. Way to go! That sure worked out…
hank Says:June 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Snarky–HE DID run for President as a Libertarian party candidate.
That ALSO went over like a fart in church. Waddayagonnado?