This is a trollish diary. Repugnant and has no place anywhere were Democrats convene. Brutally wrong, pigheaded, and divisive. Just utterly disgusting.
2012 will be the re-election campaign for President Obama, just as it would have been if Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, or any other Democrat won the nomination.
I want to puke.
Your insults make me want to do the same.
We have been hearing it was over for months. The Obama people keep acting like having the campaign is hurting the party and not good for theobvious nominee. We do not have a nominee, not even a presumptive one. You can't use supers to clinch it. She is supposed to stay til Denver.
What are they so afraid of that they just cannot stand to let the process complete?
Because it is over and if Senator Clinton does not take the opportunity to withdraw now, she will completely destroy her and her husband's legacy and become a villified figure on the order of Joe Lieberman.
It's over. I'm all for reconciliation, but not with those who continue a fight that is lost.
And I'm sure you were trashing Kennedy's endorsement of Obama for the same reasons right? He's divisive, he took the fight to the Convention, he destroyed his brother's and families legacy...blah, blah, blah.
That's all crap. The SD's don't even cast votes until the convention. Hillary hasn't indicated whether or not she will contest until the convention or take a fight to the credentials committee. But the hyperbole that by what was in her speech will destroy her and Bill's legacy is pure fallacy and is just an attempt to continue to demagogue and pound on the Clinton's.
The nomination is NOT wrapped up, because if it was I wouldn't be heading to our State Convention and being able to cast my vote for Hillary instead of Obama.
You can have your version of 'your' truth, but the facts are facts, and you can't change them. Should Clinton conceed then, all DEM's should even somewhat loosely coalese around the nominee. They don't have to canvass or call or even participate in the actual process...all they have to do is vote against John McCain and the other down-ticket Rep's come November.
Why would I trash Kennedy's endorsement of Obama? Because of a mistake he made 28 years ago?
The credentials committee meme is a canard. Florida and Michigan could be seated as is at full strength at this point and he would still have the requisite number of delegates.
You can keep telling yourself that the superdelegates are going to change their mind en masse, but it's not going to happen. He is the presumptive nominee.
Oh and I never suggested that her speech was what would damage her and her husband''s legacies. But taking the fight to the convention most certainly would.
It's money. Obama gets to tap his big donors twice: $2,300 for the primaries and $2,300 for the general election. Last month, the inexhaustible well started to dry up. They have $250 or $300 million that opens up once Hillary is shoved out.
Otherwise, Obama is very much better off letting things go on to ther convention. The Hillary-Pbama battle freezes McCain out of the front page and takes away his earned media on TV. Since he can't raise money, that's a crucial hit.
Look at the MYDD electoral vote calculations every day. McCain has been sliding down, not gaining, during the Democratic fight for the nomination.
Take the money out of the equation and Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats are much better off taking this to the convention.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SEEMS TO DISAGREE WITH YOUR VIEWPOINT:
Yes, he's not "officially" the nominee until the convention, but he is the "presumptive nominee", which means that barring some colossally unforeseen events, he WILL BE the nominee in August.
The superdelegates could defect to her. But they aren't. The only superdelegates switching sides are the ones who are moving from Hillary over to the PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE'S Campaign.
Howard Wolfson himself said that she will be endorsing Obama this weekend. What part of all of this aren't you getting?
THERE WILL BE NO CONVENTION FLOOR FIGHT.
It's OK to be upset that your candidate lost a hard fought and extremely close nominating contest. But please try to stay on planet Earth while you are lamenting this...
Whether you recognize it or not there has been something of a breakthrough tonight.
Clinton supporters are accepting that Clinton will not be the nominee. If they want to hope for a future run then that's fine. (I still hope for a future Howard Dean run, doesn't mean I live for that or will turn my back on a perfectly good dem or languish from disapointment if he never runs again)
Even if Obama wins, that doesn't entitle him to run unapposed for his second term. It's traditional but it's not a foregone conclusion.
So rather than bash someone for hoping, recognize that Obama has earned 4 years of (hopefully) a working presidency to change their minds and bring them onboard.
Troll rating me is bullshit, just like everything written in this "series." You can do it again here, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night knowing that I'm a true Democrat, a true Progressive, and not some kind of self-serving, tunnel-visioned, fundamentalist who can only see one outcome as acceptable.
If anyone agrees with me, mojo me to fend off the nonsense.
I would have worked to the death for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee, but the voters have spoken according to the system we all ratified before this began. The outcome has also been ratified by the party as the superdelegates came out for unity. Claiming 2012 as the new target is scuttling the party and the presumptive nominee and I wish you'd go vote for McCain. You're no Democrat.
In fact, to troll or hide rate what I wrote is despotic, undemocratic, unAmerican, and the kind of bullshit that Clinton people boycotted Kos over. Glad to see that you've allowed yourself to be corrupted by the very thing you decried.
Mike, I'm an Obama supporter, and I want you to know why I troll-rated you.
Alegre has written some of the most slanted, unfair, intellectually dishonest diaries I've ever read. That said, this isn't one of them. This diary is an impassioned expression of support for a candidate. I disagree with the call to action, but it isn't trollish. This diary doesn't attack Barack Obama, doesn't spew false facts, and is totally acceptable under MyDD rules.
There are multiple levels of contention that a diary can fall into. Advocating the losing candidate, even if her continued campaigning may be detrimental to the nominee, is not trolling. It isn't purposed towards divisiveness either. Alegre is acting based on convictions to support a woman with strong democratic ideals and credentials. Her goal is not to undercut Barack; it is to uplift Hillary.
It's very easy to let Alegre's previous posts color your responses to her, but the content of this post does not warrant the vitriol you've shown here. You came to this diary ready for a fight, and understandably so. It's best that we stop fighting altogether, but at the very least, don't create a perceived slight where there is none. Play defense, not offense. We're on the same team, so unless your teammate steps out of line, don't throw elbows.
Well said Penguin.
I'm sorry penguin, you're off base. Troll rating and hide rating are tools designed to fend off people with an agenda to distract, destroy, or disrupt. The tone of my comments may be harsh, but hardly something intended by the forum administration to be troll or hide rated.
Who is more worthy of a troll rating in a Democratic forum, the person who subtly suggests that the new goalpost is 2012, or the person calling them on it?
Make no mistake, anyone with 2012 on their mind on a night when Barack Obama is names the presumptive nominee is hoping for McCain to win. Why else would a Democrat look to that date with anticipation? A contested nomination of a sitting president is civil war. In either case, to pick this night to engage in that kind of Rovian nonsense, is horsesh*t.
So, troll or hide rating me for calling out that sentiment (and never Alegre by name) is abuse of the worst kind. It's exactly what prompted Clinton people to abandon Kos for MyDD. If anyone has 2012 on their mind with respect to Hillary Clinton on this night, they should probably just leave the Democratic Party and start some kind of 3rd party. This is a night for Democrats to be behind the nominee, and I would have said that if the nominee had been any one of the people who bravely stood up to seek the nomination of the party.
Someday this 2012-noquarter-hillaryis44 agenda will be outed for what it is, the biggest cult of personality in the modern history of American politics. Obama is the one with all the criticism of messianic followings, cultish supporters, and so on. What of Clinton? Surely this diary illustrates that whatever has been said ill of the Obama movement can equally be said of the Clinton movement. I will continue to call out anyone who seeks to scuttle the party for a cult of personality. Troll and hide rate away.
I am with you, Alegre killed the momentum towards unity tonite.
Please ignore her and look at other diaries.
With the phrase "We can't wait until 2012 Hillary. We need you to keep fighting for us now. If you're up for the fight then so are millions of your supporters all over America." she has lost all relevance tonite.
This is my last comment in this diary as it is not one that supports Democrats winning elections.
Well Mike, two things:
First, she's not looking to 2012. She's saying that she and others don't want to wait for Hillary to run again. She chose 2012 because she doesn't think Obama will win. I think this is a needless buzzkill for people like me who are riding incredibly high on the most exciting candidate to come out of the party since JFK, but based on everything she's said and written, its her genuine belief. The sentiment is pretty clearly, "We can't wait for you to run later, we need you now," not, "If you don't run now, here's hoping Obama loses and you get your next shot sooner rather than later." It's still, in my opinion, a needlessly pessimistic view, but I think it does nothing more than color the phrasing of a fair, if disagreed with sentiment ("Hillary now, not later").
Second, you're right about the ratings. The ratings are not a place to express myself; that's the comments. The ratings are a place to report abuse, and while I believe you've been hypersensitive, your reactions aren't abuse.
Thanks for engaging me, Mike. I love these communities because of people like you who are willing to dissect their motivations and the motivations of others. I hope Senator Clinton suspends her campaign soon for the sake of the party; the potential benefits to her are so unlikely and the definite costs to the nominee are so great. When that happens, I hope Alegre, Texasdarlin, and the rest of Hillary's most ardent supporters will prove their democratic metel by supporting Obama. I guess we'll find out who's on what team soon enough. In the meantime, I'm glad you're on mine. The people in this party make me as proud as the platform does.
PS. I've fixed my ratings for you. Just please do try not to throw gasoline on a fire. Even if its intentional, these diaries are just a match. Comments and attention are the fuel that makes them incendiary.
I agree on all points. My issue was with you labeling the diary as trollish. Counter-productive? Absolutely. Short-sighted? Incredibly. Foolish and incorrect? Very likely.
But trollish? Intended to damage Democratic causes or persons? Crafted to bait outrage? I think not.
My problem is not that you have a problem with Alegre; I do too. I don't mind that you have a problem with this specific diary either; I think its foolish and counterproductive. Nonetheless, your vitriol and choice of words should be reserved for diaries that are truly trollish. I understand wanting ideas and viewpoints which damage Democratic prospects to just go away quickly and therefore opposing them voraciously, but the fact is that this is well within the scope of progressive dialogue, and the attempt to squelch parts of that dialogue that threaten our electoral success, while tempting considering all of our near-losses, is simply not part of the netroots community, and it is that sort of idea intolerance that led to the rift we're now trying to heal.
Call it out as wrong. Call it out as dumb. Call it out as a waste of democratic energy. But don't call an honest opinion delivered without venom trolling.
With all good intentions towards you penguin, tell that to my kids. Tell them why bitter and divisive people split the party and got yet another right winger elected. Tell them why this kind of nonsense is rec'ed to the top of the list at a Democratic forum every time it's posted and gets ample enough airtime that it find legitimacy.
It's not Democratic. It's not Progressive. It's single-minded, tunnel vision with the intent to deliver for one candidate at the expense of all else. How in the world can we call this NetRoots. It spits in the face of everything that Jerome and Kos wrote about in the "This Ain't No Party" chapter of "Crashing the Gates."
I don't engage Alegre or many of the others with similar reasoning here at MyDD for the simple reason that their candidate was running in contested elections. I disagreed with them and found much of their writing awful. Tonight is a very different story. The implication that Obama won't win and that Hillary will carry the mantle in 2012 serves no NetRoots purpose other than to drive people away from the person who was named the presumptive nominee. It's designed to create the impression that we've put the party in danger.
What really puts the party in danger is sentiment like this that suggests we're going to lose. There's nothing about this dialog that contributed to the election of a Democrat to the highest office. Nothing. It is driven by a cult of personality movement that discredits everything that Hillary Clinton has worked for as a Democrat. It places her above the party on the night when the party has loudly spoken to the world about who will be carrying our banner into battle. I can't stomach that.
shrug Agreed. It's still not trolling.
Mike, I was gonna tell you why I, an Obama supporter, troll rated you. But, someone already took the words from my mouth.
You're not wrong mike. The ratings abuse that happens here is unbelievable.
He did.
"2012 will be the re-election campaign for President Obama, just as it would have been if Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, or any other Democrat won the nomination."
Absolutely. And anyone who says otherwise I would conclude doesn't have the best interests of the Democratic party, or the country, at heart.
