• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    jmac on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    jmac on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Kansas Nope
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Kansas Nope
    Propertius on I Think That There Are Democra…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I Think That There Are Democra…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

Memorial Moment: The ONE June Primary WE Remember

Ask me about key states in cycles past? I’ll remember a few, and get some of those right. Press me for dates, though, and with ONE exception I’ll go look them up. That ONE exception is California, 1968, because of what happened next.

That ONE memory is indelible, visceral. It’s an anchor in memory … the same way MLK’s end date stays tethered to memories like an approaching birthday, a cast on my leg, and the walking we did in his memory, in the drizzling rain, in spite of the cast.

When Hillary mentioned Bobby Kennedy’s assassination this week people who should know better, like people who wouldn’t, eagerly stepped up to discount the obvious innocent interpretation in favor of more poisonous parsings. They pride themselves on citing closer historic analogs to this year’s extended contest — 1980 and 1984, for example.

But the context is June, and Primaries, and when WE remember June primaries that mattered, just ONE eclipses all others. And by “WE“, we don’t mean Hillary and friends. All season, WE — press, pundits, politicos, even Obama endorsers — have all relied on Bobby’s assassination as that commonly accessible icon, that temporal landmark nobody has to step out to look up.

Monitoring the billion-word torrent of routine campaign verbiage, BO08’s Echo Machine Drama Queens scan and filter, relentlessly, looking for hooks to hang outrages on, and they will find them … then parse, twist, magnify and repeat until the spectre of Keith Obamamann rises from his anchor desk, foaming at the mouth with “Special Comment”.

In the New Media world, you can run a campaign that way. Maybe you can even win a campaign that way. But what happens if you run a government that way? History is full of ugly examples — many of which are temporal icons in their own right, looming much larger than the assassinations of the 1960’s.

Stop. Just stop. If there’s a leader somewhere among you, for heaven’s sake, stop it now.

86 Responses

  1. ronk- Every crystal clear, beautifully crisp fall day now reminds me of 9/11. I wish it did not, but that is how my mind will work for the rest of my life.

  2. You know, in the cold light of day, I’m still furious. The big money/media Obama echo chamber truly did make me turn a corner yesterday.

    It says a lot they still need to rely on manufactured faux outrage and Drudge at this late stage of the game.

    I have two options: (1) the Obamafans are even more bottom-feeding than I thought, that they’d use something so over-the-top for political points. I mean, **Drudge**? Are they proud? Or (2) Obamafans are far more batshit crazy than I ever suspected — I mean, Jim Jones crazy, feverishly pushing their phony and creepy Messianic complex.

    I’m not sure which of the two options scares me more. Either way, among the many steps that backfired with me — bringing me from an opponent of Clinton to a strong supporter of hers, and, as of yesterday, someone who will actively work to defeat Obama — this one is the motherlode.

    And, thinking of how this could translate into governance truly, genuinely makes me nervous now.

  3. I just watched the Obamaman shit-fit from last night.

    What a putz.

    (actually, I just watched the first couple minutes, that was all I could stand.)

  4. Charles,

    One of the first things that turned me off about Obama happened very early on, well before the Iowa primary. He made a statement in Chicago in which he said that Hillary Clinton represents the past and that the country is ready to move on from the baby boomers and their partisan fights and “the excesses of the 1960s. Basically, the way he talked about the baby boomers was so dismissive that I started to wonder what he was really about. He criticizes baby boomers in his book, The Audacity of Hope in much the same way. Republcian talking points.

    Isn’t it ironic that this campaign is turning out to be all about the ’60s, the Kennedys, the reminders of 1968 and the contested nomination as well as Obama’s resemblance to McCarthy and McGovern, his attraction to young people and the attempt by young people and elites to force a candidate on the party. I mean it’s all so similar.

  5. myiq2xu,

    I forced myself to watch the whole thing. It was fascinating, because he went on so long and in such obsessive detail that he truly became first ridiculous and then boring. It might have worked from the OFB standpoint if he had kept it short and to the point. But he apparently felt compelled to list every one of Clinton’s supposed sins during the campaign.

  6. That Senator Clinton is up in the polls against McCain is great news.

  7. I enjoy reading your posts! I think people need to calm down on both sides of this issue.

    Obama supporters need to chill because not everything is about HIM. Sometimes people have entire conversations that are not about HIM and THAT”S OK! Notice at every turn he sees some awful slight in every coment from anyone who is not in love or heat with him. Get over it!

    Clinton supporters, we need to chill also because we know what she was talking about and screw them anyway! This just shows more and more that he’s paranoid and thinks he sees slights and threats everywhere! He’s terrified that if he doesn’t get her out of the race now she will win! That’s why the venom.

    In a way it kind of makes me smile that he is so convinced everything is about him. What a child!

    Pamela AKA – CQ4Hillary

  8. ronk, this was good!

  9. RonK — It’s so obvious — Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

  10. Pamela,
    Why should Hillary supporters “chill”. This is egregious and beyond the boundaries of common decency. This political pornography (see def 3) must stop. This is Rove on steroids.

    Why does Obama want to funnel money away from 527s and have it go toward his interests? Its a pattern and a big problem. McCain is scary, but this irrational “two minute hate” behavior is equally, if not more scary. With Mccain we’ll have dissent. Will we with Obama?

  11. is there a link to the “obamaman shit-fit.

    Funny isn’t it how some of us were for him before we were against him and now not only will we not vote for him, we will activly work for his defeat.

    He is a scarey potential president. He gets rattled very easily when confronted by authority figures and will cave to god knows what. I don’t know which is worse, McCains temper or Obama’s weak ego.

  12. Not zero, let’s not forget his visits to Kenya where he publicly lectured the Kenyan government on corruption 🙂 Just spreading his message of hope and change…
    Joseph Wilson wrote:
    “How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him “a stooge” and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?”

  13. Charles: “Obama has ZERO foreign policy credentials. ZERO.”

    That’s obvious. The Republicans are going to tear him limb from limb. So why is he getting so much support from the Democratic leadership? The only explanation I can think of is that they want to lose. But that makes no sense.

  14. Tonva,

    You can watch it at Taylor Marsh’s blog


    You’ll have to scroll down some.

  15. Guys, I’m humming the last movement of Beethoven’s ninth. The trend line from Hominid Views is telling us something. The VOTERS are telling us something. They are saying they are waiting for something to happen. They are in a holding pattern. And Obama aond Co. know it. That is why they are so stubborn about FL and MI. If they give in, they open the door to Clinton wide enough for public sentiment to come streaming in. Voters want a reason to rally around her and they need to see that it is not hopeless. So we have to really push hard to open that door. Now, think, think, think. How do we get the message out that if the public wants the door to open, we have to all push together to make it happen. They can’t wait for fate to take its course.

  16. I think the point Pamela was making is that this really hasn’t changed anything. This wasn’t a “gaffe’ at all and it won’t hurt her in the general. Bosnia was a gaffe. Her supporters see it for what it is and Obamabots/Jonestown Dwellers are still exactly what they are. This does show that they are afraid of something or it was just an immediate knee jerk response to drive the stake through the heart of your enemy. My mind was already made up about the possible Obama/McCain race.

  17. The Obamans must feel like this is slipping away. Excellent point Riverdaughter. I would again recommend going to Rasmussen and watching the video about how obama should really be trying to get Hillary’ s supporters right now. There is buyer’s remorse out there. People want a Hillary/McCain race. They want a real choice between qualified candidates. They don’t want this racial drama. They see a Hillary they never knew existed. Even the most true Republicans I know now have a grudging respect for her.

  18. BB, I think they do want to lose. I don’t think they want to be the party that has to deal with the economy and the war right now. They are more comfortable just complaining about it and doing nothing.

    Plus, it’s all about the money. That matters more to them than winning. Then, you have the added bonus of getting rid of the Clintons (or trying to).

  19. obama’s demographic is running the party PLUS donna brazille speaks for AA’s and the threats are heard. A few more high profile members (that have not been torn apart by the media yet) stating the obvious… maybe? um, guys, you aren’t wearing any clothes.

  20. Oh, sorry – I meant to say high profile members of the Hillary supporter crowd. It was in my mind, just didn’t make it to the comment.

  21. I couldn’t agree more with Riverdaughter’s assessment.

    I am extremely frustrated by the Obama campaign and its followers, and cannot and will not ever vote for Obama. Every time they do something like this — get a media type like Keith O. (“Oba-mann”) to froth at the mouth — makes it even more likely I’ll end up holding my nose and voting for McCain.

    Taking the most qualified candidate and throwing her to the wolves is bad enough; slandering her as a racist was worse than that. But attributing an innocent remark about a historical, factual event as somehow impacting on today’s Democratic nomination — absolutely insane. It bears no resemblance to the facts!

    Do these Obama people have any education whatsoever? Have they all had lobotomies? What’s with them, and their manufactured outrage?

  22. What is particularly stunning about this latest attack on Hillary is the media response again. It tells just how corrupt the media really is and how much of our rights have been so casually stolen. We all know Hillary was responding too, the fact that it took until June to decide a candidate so why the rush to get her out? But they collectively seized upon and distorted that statement to bring her down.

    You know the media is corrupt when they did not stand up to Bush and Rumsfeld regarding photos of dead soldiers. When they refused to challenge the lead up to Iraq. When they became “embedded” like cheerleaders with the troops to solidify the reason for being there. When they sit day after day in press room and allowed Fleischer, McClellan, Snow and Perino to lie, lie, lie, without recourse. When they own the cable stations and present the Obama chant without balance. We know who Fox is. Do we know who we are?

  23. Thank you, Ron. Well said.

    In the New Media world, you can run a campaign that way. Maybe you can even win a campaign that way. But what happens if you run a government that way?

    It’s too bad that American don’t know much about history of other countries. If you studied not the West, but the revolutions in poor countries, it’s full, full of examples of a group coming to power by promising people everything, and moreover by making them aware of how bad they have it. In other words, they get to government by slogans. Once there, they are incapable of governing.

    The west has had its own examples of dancing with rhetorical leaders, and then being sadly disappointed when it came to action.

    The once you can say though, at least in past rhetorics, the slogans touched on REAL needs of the people, although those doing them were incapable of governing or finding solutions. Bascially, they said, Look at all these problems. Elect us.

    Bush and Obama has done the modern version of this. But neither of them has offered ANYTHING, except a clever, twisted way to use Clinton hate in the media to their advantage.

    I had to laugh when Romney supporters had CHANGE signs in his events. Pardon my ignorance, but Romney looked clownish doing it. In the case of Obama, CHANGE has a huge significance. Edwards’ campaign focused on poverty as its central theme (a policy issue). Obama’s campaign blantantly said from the beginning, “I am NOT Hillary.”

    That’s what the CHANGE meant. It means NOT status quo, and defines Hillary as the status quo. That’s all. The second act was MANUFACTURING enthusiasm in the form of rallies. It’s a marketing ploy. You make something the ‘IT’ brand, and pretty soon, everyone wants one.

    The gasbags in American media, of course, don’t get (or don’t want to get) any of these. Their idea of cultural experience is drinking a different kind of wine in a Paris restaurant. They think that’s the height of sophistication.

    In all honesty, I prefer the conversation with a farmer in rural America to any one of them, any day. The farmer has real, earthy experience, which they utterly lack. I bet you that Hillary would too.

  24. Riverdaughter,

    I guess the meeting in DC is going to be a big deal. Hillary has a lot of supporters on that committee. But we need to be making a lot of noise between now and then, I guess. I agree with you that the voters are doubtful about Obama. He’s still drawing big crowds, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to votes.

  25. RD– Jeralyn had a post yesterday about blogging credentials for the meeting too. Gary was planning to go.

  26. RD, you don’t have to look at simulations. You can look to actual votes to see that Hillary is getting more support over the last three monts. A cool half million more actual votes than Obama since March 4th.

  27. He criticizes baby boomers in his book, The Audacity of Hope in much the same way. Republcian talking points.

    Isn’t it ironic that this campaign is turning out to be all about the ’60s, the Kennedys, the reminders of 1968 and the contested nomination as well as Obama’s resemblance to McCarthy and McGovern, his attraction to young people and the attempt by young people and elites to force a candidate on the party. I mean it’s all so similar.

    I think it is interesting because, as a gen x’er, I can tell you that gen x’ers have been known to really resent baby boomers, ever since I was in high school. I remember years ago someone giving me the book 13th Generation as if he’d discovered the Holy Bible in that book, and it was really exciting to see us described as something other than the disappointment that followed the boomers. People passed that book around as if it was just this incredible thing that changed lives. I also remember my son showing me what his DICTIONARY said about Generation X – I still can’t believe this, but the dictionary condemned my entire cohort as if being born during a particular time frame made you selfish and materialistic. And, yes, it used words like “materialistic” and I think it even called us greedy.\

    Literally for decades, we heard about how wonderful and perfect and righteous baby boomers were, and how mediocre, greedy, mindless, flawed, and imperfect we were. That adds up to a lot of anger.

    So why shouldn’t Obama use such a powerful base of resentment? After all, resentment is what he is all about. He is gathering every resentful person in the universe unto himself, and he is going to unleash them all…well, who knows where? (I bet the media does…since they seem to be absolutely spoiling for a riot.)

    As for the 1960s – there is a lot of unresolved business that needs to be resolved. And it’s getting resolved. Now. Like it or not.

  28. Ronkseattle, I hope the following is still relevant to the topic here:

    I am trying to trace the ORIGINAL NEWS SOURCE which FIRST made an issue of Senator Clinton’s RFK comment on May 23/08. I’ve called the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and confirmed that the original interview took place between 2-3 pm EST.

    Within the MSM and the blogosphere (even at Confluence), The NY POST and DRUDGE are credited , respectively, with initiating the ensuing media fire-storm. However, the 5/23/08 NY Post story was posted without a time stamp. (I’ve made phone calls to the Post but couldn’t establish a time stamp.) Drudge was, inarguably, quite late to the party. I believe it all started with POLITICO.

    (Note: The Drudge Report archive is still a useful point of reference and provides links to all stories cited below. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap.htm)

    My findings are far from complete, but they contradict the official narrative.

    1) POLITICO: at 3:36pm EST, Jonathan Martin reported the story. (Note: Martin did not cite any preceding story; including the NY Post story which I believe was run after the Politico story.)

    2) HUFF-PO: at 3:41pm EST, the editor(s) posted the story. They also did not cite any preceeding story (from the NY Post or elsewhere). However, they linked to the TPM video which was posted on YouTube by then (without a time-stamp).

    3) TPM: at 4:37 EST, Josh Marshall carried the story, without much editorial comment, but with a link to their own YouTube Video.

    4) DRUDGE REPORT: at 7:48: EST, Drudge linked to the NY Post story; later, at 8:24 EST, Drudge linked to the Politico story. This gives the impression that the Post carried the story before Politico.

    I trust that this information is useful in terms of extracting accountability from the individuals who initiated the despicable twisting of Senator Clinton’s simple comments.

    Thank you for reading.

  29. Jaclyn,

    Of course we baby boomers were criticized the same way for being materialistic, our horrible rock ‘n’ roll music, etc. It happens with every generation. But the generational resentment was the first thing that Obama triggered at DK. Now Obama himself is stuck in 60s/baby boomer metaphors. He’s McGovern and will lost just as badly.

  30. Pie Hole,

    Very interesting. Before DK teamed up with Politico and Drudge, there were diaries that established that those two sites were operating symbiotically. Good work.

  31. Pie Hole,

    Fox News was reporting about Drudge pushing the story at 4:42 EST yesterday, so Your Number 4 has to be wrong.

    It may be irrelevant when Drudge actually linked the story on his site. He was already associated with it at 4:42. If the story wasn’t up at his site until later that just makes it more curious about his role since Fox already had his name connected to it.

    Leaking about posting?

  32. Besides, it has all the hallmarks of Drudgery.

  33. Bostonboomer: the point is, he is milking a resentment. This is the guy who calls himself a “uniter”. I don’t mean to bash the baby boomers (I did enough of that when I was younger).

    Interestingly the same guys who wrote the book 13 Generation also wrote another one, called Generations, where they made a lot of predictions that sounded really crazy then (these predictions were based on past conflicts that these guys thought were similar – historian plays fortune teller). Anyway the only reason I bring this up is because I remember one of the more impossible-sounding predictions was the idea that generation X would unite to follow the inspired leadership of a Baby Boomer.

    And I remember some years later, I found that book and as I flipped through it, I was absolutely horrified at the idea that this “inspirational” baby boomer could be W. But you know, Hillary is a boomer 🙂

  34. Obama has “graciously” agreed to give Hillary “the benefit of the doubt”.

    “You get tired.”

    Isn’t that sweet of him?

  35. Jacilyn,

    Yes, I understood. I didn’t take what you said as bashing. But I did recognize a lot of that attitude at DK. Obama clearly set out to divide us. He dissed baby boomers to separate himself from Hillary. Unfortunately for him and for the “Millenials” who are his most passionate followers, we boomers and X-ers are going anywhere soon. Divide and conquer. It has worked fantastically for the Republicans. Obama and Axelrod apparently learned at the feel of Rove, Atwater, and Segretti.

  36. Any updates on Puerto Rico?

  37. SM or anyone with Puerto Rico info, what’s the PR media like on the situation in Puerto Rico?

  38. They have a thread at TLeft. If I understand it correctly (not sure though), BTD says that it may be close. Can somebody tell me if I read him right?

  39. Latest from electoral-vote.com:

    Obama finally has pulled ahead of McCain, although Clinton still enjoys a bigger lead over McCain than Obama:

    O 266, Mc 248, ties 24 [IN and VA tied]
    C 314, Mc 207, tie 17 [MI tied]

    However, if the Dems nominate Plastic Jesus, he gives the GOP attack machine much rich material to work with, whereas they’ve been going after Hillary since Bill first ran for governor of the Arkanshire in 1978 and they STILL haven’t knocked her out.

    [I live in the Arkanshire myself, and have rarely left it, hence my choice of name, since the real bird MIGHT still exist here.] 🙂

  40. Upstate, that got me concerned too. He’s saying its up to the pro-statehood machine and who they support that will decide the margins.

  41. WS: yeah, that is how I understood it.

  42. From my understanding, in the pro-statehood party, Fortuno, a Republican, supports McCain, but his successor Perluisi supports Obama. But Hillary has the backing of many politicians like former governors of the pro-statehood party. Also, 4 superdelegates on the island support her to Obama’s 2 , one including the disgraced Governor.

    There’s also that post at mydd citing the NY Observer, a pro-Obama newspaper, that turnout may be lower because of Obama is perceived to have won it already (the Observer just cites one person who they call to be a PR elections expert). Is that true or is it just a haka?

  43. The Governor of PR is from the pro-commonwealth party.

  44. jacilyn — I get tired. I get real effin’ tired of of Obama’s high-handed attitude. Here he’s pretending that teh comment was offensive on it’s face, but forgivable only because Hillary blundered into saying it … and that only because the pace is taking a toll on her.

    Not the most insulting thing he’s done, but it ranks well up there.

    And Matthew Dowd is a “Bush Democrat”. He’d rather see the weaker Democrat nominated, and his is the kind of help we don’t need.

    Bridges are burning.

  45. It sounds like the Obama campaign got stung with a backlash. He has issued a statement saying Clinton didn’t mean it and there’s nothing to see. Turkana has a post on it at theleftcoaster.
    Man-o-man, would I like to be a fly on the wall at *his* campaign HQ right about now. They must be in panic mode if they felt the need to do this.

  46. BB:

    He’s still drawing big crowds, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to votes.

    Like McGovern, who packed out stadiums?

  47. RD: “Man-o-man, would I like to be a fly on the wall at *his* campaign HQ right about now. They must be in panic mode if they felt the need to do this.”

    (humming) Too much, too little too late to ever try again.

  48. Barack is tired. Yesterday he once again didn’t know where he was. He had a rally in Sunrise, FL, but kept talking about being in “Sunshine.”


  49. Lord, he misspeaks about as much as W does.

    Did he tell them “he loves them back”. That irritates the crap out of me.

  50. RD,

    Axelrod was already trying to walk it back yesterday. Gary thinks the Kennedy family may have told the Obama campaign to cut it out. Since RFK was quoted as saying it was no big deal while driving down to the cape yesterday, what do you bet he was on the phone to Axelrod next? Bobby’s kids *do* support Hillary.

    But is anyone else tired of Turkana’s schtick about how Obama is “smarter and better than his supporters?” Sorry, I don’t buy it.

  51. tabby,

    It’s like you expect him to break out into a ‘number’ and start crooning, at any moment. He’s got love for the bobbysocksers I guess.

  52. BB:

    “But is anyone else tired of Turkana’s schtick about how Obama is “smarter and better than his supporters?” Sorry, I don’t buy it.”

    Not sure what that tells me, exactly. Given …

  53. Sorry if I was opaque. Turkana just keeps saying that in posts at TLC, comments at Talkleft, used to say it all the time at DK. It gets on my nerves, because I don’t think Obama deserves to be let off the hook for the sexism, race-baiting, and faux outrage. That’s all.

  54. RonK,
    I with ya on the effing tired. I’ve decided that if Hillary isn’t the nominee that I’ll be an independent. If Obama’s the nominee, I’ll just laugh when those 527’s come trucking along.

  55. New post up by Paul Lukasiak on Obama and buyers’ remorse at Corrente.


  56. Oh no, BB, I got what you were saying. 🙂

  57. BB,
    The fact that he has done nothing to alter that dynamic is what bothers me. I’m sure his campaign knows what is going on at those blogs. Heck, I’m sure they have campaign operatives posting there. He’s even tacitly encouraging that kind of behavior.

  58. Like Turkana, I thought he was better, too. Now, I think he (Obama) milks it for all it’s worth. I never dreamed I would end up disliking and having no respect for him. It just blows my mind. I thought he would be the future of our party in 8-12 years. Now, I wish he’d run for Gov. after he loses in November and stay in Illinois.

    (Sorry to anyone in Illinois)

  59. It seems to me that this is Obama’s M.O. He sits back and watches the firestorm, knowing that the big money media, Drudge, his Jonestown supporters and the BlogBoyz will do his nasty work for him.

  60. Ga6th, does Ga have party registration? We don’t in Tn so I’ll just have to protest some other way. I’m game for a true Independent Party is it stands for the Democratic values that I appreciate in Hillary.

    I was impressed with BTD’s comment to you yesterday about how you make him realize how deep the split in our party is. He sees that it is real because he knows how sensible you are. There are a lot of loyal Democrats like you who feel the same way. If he hadn’t left DKos, I might still be around there just to see him put his fellow Obama supporters in their place. That would have been so much fun to watch. I wish Jeralyn would let up and let him be a little more heated in his posts.

  61. Alice,

    That’s certainly what he did in SC. I think he expected that ‘flap up’ to completely destroy Hillary’s candidacy altogether.

  62. BB, I was impressed with Paul’s post too.

    Charles — Please don’t take down that post…. 🙂

    {{tabbycat}} how’s the baby?

  63. I wish I had the chance to ask all these people to come up with one single other date that they remember from any past primary season. I’ve always only been able to come up with the 1968 California primary every time I’ve tried to recall anything of this nature.

    Bostonboomer, it took me months before I could break the DK habit, but I finally did a few weeks ago and am never going back. The obvious incitement of bitterness between generations was the first thing that turned me off Mr. O.

    The last straw at DK was someone quoting some professor as an expert in “generational science”. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    Of course, generation resentments were only the beginning of the antagonisms BO’s stirred up in the name of “unity”.

  64. tabby,
    When I orginally registered to vote we did but I understand that now you don’t. Mostly my protest will be by changing my screename where I can.

    BTD is a good guy and I’ve know him for probably about 5 years. He and I have disagreed but never strongly enough to cause any animosity. I knew he was at Kos but then something happened between him and Kos. He told me but I don’t remember what it was. Anyway Kos banned him but he said that Kos would probably unban him at this point. Frankly, I just don’t think he’s interested in going into that swamp again.

    I was one of the original posters at Kos and MYDD almost 6 years ago that’s why so many people know me. I’ve really learned a lot in the past few months and not all of it good.

  65. Kos didn’t ban BTD. He gave BTD a warning, and he left rather than go along with it. They asked him to stop being so rude to other commenters. I never paid attention to it. I’m not sure if that was the real reason though, because DHinMI is worse than Armando ever was, and he’s still a front-pager.

  66. Barack is a day late and a dollar short on this one. The time to say something was yesterday. There is something in the wind. Big time back lash.

  67. “I never paid attention to it.”

    I mean, I always got a kick out of Armando. He was rude, but he was so smart and funny it didn’t bother me. But I guess they got a lot of complaints about him.

  68. Ben,

    Do you think so? I haven’t had TV or radio on. Have you heard anything about a backlash?

  69. Should we expect any polls out of Puerto Rico? We haven’t had one since early April.

    About the backlash, the new Newsweek poll did say that defections from Clinton supporters and working class people are causing the dead heat with McCain.

  70. Mawm,

    Thanks for indulging my Media Matters/Lois Lane quest. I think you’re right, Drudge was probably leaking RFK-gate before he posted it.

    I don’t know where TL got the story but BTD was posting about his outrage toward Clinton at 4:00pm EST. He didn’t mention any news source at that time; he just linked directly to the TPM YouTube Video. (Obviously TPM had uploaded the video at some earlier point.) But, was TPM pimping the STORY to other outlets before they posted it themselves (at 4:37pm).

    I’m of the mind that POLITICO is mile-marker #1 on the road to hell. I was persuaded by the Glen Greenwald article: “Is Politico a GOP Shill? [yes]”. So, I’m trying to figure out if they were the first to write about it on the blogs (3:36pm EST).

    QUESTION: Does anybody have a TIME STAMP that would determine whether the NY POST was actually the first to post the story on their site; that’s the MSM’s meme. (I found my first link to their story on another website at 4:07pm EST.)

    Sorry if this is tedious and/or OT. Thanks for bearing with me.

  71. I loved Armando. Talk about rude posters…just look where they are now!

    katie, my baby is hanging in there. He played just a little bit with his ball but he is mostly sleeping. Though, with the huge doses of prednisone, he will wake up and come to you if you dare eat anything. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. Thank you for asking and caring.

  72. Obama always waits until the damage is done to descend from the Heavens to offer His forgiveness of Clinton only to appear “gracious” and “classy,” especially in comparison to the vilified HRC. He did it after his initial race-boating in SC where he said he was sure the Clintons weren’t trying to marginalize him as the “black” candidate.

    Hilariously, Obama knew being seen as the black candidate was his trump card.

  73. bostonboomer, that is really interesting about Obama vs. the baby boomers. I’ve noticed a lot of people purporting to be young, anti-feminist women going on about how we need to move on from the 60’s. It’s obviously a canned talking point, but it seems like such a non sequitor, especially coming from someone in that age group. I’ve actually taken to asking other young people if they’ve ever in their lives thought about how much we need to move on from the 60’s, only to be met with ‘are you okay?’ type scared looks. I don’t understand what he’s getting at, it’s like he’s trying to appeal to 19 year olds using talking points that sound like ‘you kids–get off my lawn!’ The 60’s are so far out of our frame of reference that it’s a romanticized period for us, and many of us tend to think of the heroes of that period as our heroes and icons. Frankly, I think it has to do with the blogger boy demographic, they’re guys who are getting older but still want to think they’re the hip young anti-establishment rebels fighting the evil boomers–rather than as the misogynistic, elitist problem that a new generation of idealistic young people should be fighting against. 🙂

  74. Pie Hole,

    As I said before (maybe not that clearly), I have heard that Politico and Drudge coordinate when posting scoops. I don’t think there is any real difference between the two except that Politico tries to seem a little more respectable. But they are talking to Drudge all the time and coordinate their stories.

  75. From Hillary’s campaign:

    Soon after the editorial board, some in the media began hyping Senator Clinton’s comments in a sensationalistic manner and the Obama campaign sent out a statement attacking her comments. This morning, the Obama campaign sent a transcript of Keith Olbermann’s attack on Senator Clinton to reporters.

  76. ben, where did you read that about his campaign sending the KO transcript?

  77. Little Sister,

    Appealing to younger people is part of his purpose, but he’s using Reaganite talking points, e.g., “excesses of the 1960’s and ’70’s.” That is code for “sex, drugs, and rock n roll.” But what about the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the anti-war movement, etc? Those happened in the ’60s too. He isn’t specific about what the excesses were so different groups read in different meanings. All along Obama has hoped to appeal to Republicans.

    Now we can see that he’s willing to cut out the working class, Latinos, and I guess women, in order to attract various Republican groups–evangelicals, liberatarians, and lots of the bloggers like Kos are really libertarians. They don’t give a shit about social security or health care, they are just liberal on cultural issues.

    He seems to really believe he can build a new coalition. Maybe he didn’t expect to do it this year, just put the narrative out there and then run again in 2012. But he did better than he expected. But the scary thing about Obama is that he does not support the traditional Democratic domestic agenda–social programs, unions, etc. He’s going to throw most of us overboard. I guess the elite Democratic leadership is OK with that.

    We’ll see if it works for them. It doesn’t look too good at the moment.

  78. @Ben Carlson: Obama being a shamelessly divisive, hypocritical bastard? Nevah!

  79. That’s an excellent point, bb. When I hear people say “the excesses of the 60’s,” I assume they’re probably Republicans who long for the good old days of segregation and being able to mistreat your wife and have it enshrined in law and all the rest.

    I know appealing to Republicans is like the Holy Grail for the blogger boiz, and everybody under the bus to make that happen…but I have a hard time thinking he would get ANY Republican votes after months of blanket media coverage of William Ayres, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko. It’s kind of stunning that they didn’t have enough foresight to think that people who think the 60’s were a horrible time of excess would maybe not flock to a guy who’s close allies with a domestic terrorist from that era. {brain explodes}

  80. As far as the story leak via Drudge, many/all of the A-list bloggers have a mailing list and that’s probably how stories hit all those blogs instantly. I don’t know if BTD is on that list or not. If he is, I bet that’s where he got the story, but I also bet they have some omerta rule about it.

  81. You know, in that Argus interview, HRC did also mention the 1980 and 1984 campaigns where the men who were in distant second didn’t drop out. It was just before the “June” comments. I wish someone with know how would extract the 1980/1984 bits from the video. I wish the video that is all over the web had actually included that part.

  82. There’s another political figure who has organized a fanatical youth movement and made “boomers” (And Washington DC) the scapegoat for everything condemnable.

    Lyndon LaRouche.
    See this romp thru history in the Washington Monthly.

  83. Pie Hole — The Argus ed board interview was streamed live on the internet. Anybody could have picked it up “first”.

    Here’s Kit Seelye’s somewhat sympathetic NYT traveling press recap of the day and the story roll-out from an on-the-road perspective.

    DEM — Here’s the transcript segment mentioning 1980 and 1984:

    [Editorial Board]: The reports this morning and overnight were that your campaign had made certain contacts or overtures to Mr. Obama’s campaign just in the past 24 hours and were working on some sort of deal for your exit.

    CLINTON: That’s flatly untrue. Flatly, completely untrue.

    EB: No discussions at all.

    CLINTON: No discussions at all. … I’ve never seen anything like this. I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees went all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries were determined to carry their case to the convention. …

  84. […] not going to talk about how what Senator Clinton said was, in fact, rock-solid historical fact, as Riverdaughter and Red have already done, or that we are utterly foolish to construe it otherwise, as RFK, […]

  85. For those who wish to stay together in a long term commitment to the ideals and rinciples that Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime promoting, http://Together4Us.com offers access for activists, funders, students, policy-makers and ordinary people to come together in support of each other and their goals for America. Please come to our website and join, use the code below to put our linked logo on your website and distribute our message and this code to all your network. Spread the word. We will be happy to put up a reciprocal link, your own co-branded web page on our site, or your own blog.

    Thanks so much,
    Gretchen Glasscock,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: