• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on Trump visits Walter Reed
    bellecat on Trump visits Walter Reed
    Propertius on Trump visits Walter Reed
    riverdaughter on Trump visits Walter Reed
    Ga6thDem on Trump visits Walter Reed
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Standing O
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Trump visits Walter Reed
    riverdaughter on Trump visits Walter Reed
    Ga6thDem on Trump visits Walter Reed
    Catscatscats on Standing O
    William on Standing O
    Ga6thDem on Standing O
    riverdaughter on Standing O
    Ga6thDem on Standing O
    William on Standing O
  • 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

    December 2009
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov   Jan »
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Hope Is Bullshit
      I am unintersted in “hope.” Or as we called it in the Obama bullshit years, Hopium. Hope is not a plan. Hope is bullshit. Luck is real, but you don’t count on luck other than in the sense that the harder you work, and the more things you do, the more likely you are to […]
  • Top Posts

Doublethinking History

I dropped by Hullaballoo the other day and saw this post by Digby reacting to a post by the Littlest Cheeto denying the existence of buyer’s remorse in the Kool-aid Kingdom:

Ferchristsake. Please, please spare us any more Drudgico stories about “the left.” Dredging up the primaries is nothing more than cheap link bait, designed to create a story where none exists. The left has been pushing Obama hard from the moment he took office, which seems to come as a surprise to the denizens of the village who assumed that everyone would spend the next four years sitting around playing the “I Got A Crush on Obama” Youtube on a loop while muttering “yes we can” under our breath. The only one who who seems to have actually done that is Tom Hayden, and when he finally looked up he felt, like, so totally betrayed.

Clinton and Obama are both mainstream Democrats who occupy exactly the same political terrain in the party and always did. That’s what made the primary so bloody. It was about personal identification, style and aspiration — the differences between the two camps were never about policy because there was no substantial difference in their policies.

I said the other day that there are two basic types of Obama supporter:

1. The Kool-aid Drinking True Believer – Believes that Obama is a unique and special leader of the type that only comes along once every generation or so, and whose impact is transformational and destined to be of historical significance. Thinks Obama is a genius with Jedi-like political skills that mere mortals cannot even comprehend. Is certain that Obama is one of the greatest public speakers in history and thinks the ability to motivate and inspire people made Obama the best candidate for President. Is grateful to be part of a movement that is going to forever change the way Washington does business.

2. The Cynical Pragmatist – Has no illusions about Barack Obama. Knows Obama is a politician and expects him to lie and break promises. Supported Obama because he thought Obama had the best chance of winning because he was the media favorite. Expects and is content with modest, incremental changes in government policy. Thinks Hillary would have done everything pretty much the same as Obama has done, but believes a McCain/Palin administration would have been really bad.

According to Digby, Tom Hayden is not only a Type 1 Obot, he is the one and only Type 1 Obot in existence. All the rest of the Obots are Type 2’s, and they are neither surprised nor disappointed with Obama’s performance thus far. In fact, everything is going exactly as they expected it to go. Really.

Most of the commenters on Digby’s post agreed with her, but there were a few of those paranoid shrieking hold-out PUMA types that showed up and started harshing everyone’s mellow with their usual lies and disortions, trying to re-litigate the primaries again.

It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly two years since the Great Purge of Left Blogistan.  For several years the left side of the blogosphere had been mostly united in opposition to George Bush and the Republicans, and we were looking forward to the Democrats regaining control of the White House and extending their majorities in the House and Senate.  The conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton was the “establishment candidate” and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, but there were a couple other contenders on a slate a eight candidates.

Then virtually overnight the supporters of Hillary Clinton became pariahs at the lefty blogs they had called home for years.  Even before Edwards left the race anyone who spoke out in support of Hillary or who offered even mild criticism of Obama became the target of insults and derogatory comments from Obama supporters.

I have been arguing politics since I was  kid and I never saw anything like it.  The hostility and ferocity of the Obot comments was only exceeded by their vulgarity.  Even during impeachment craziness of the nineties the Republicans were not as unhinged, and the Obots were attacking fellow Democrats.

There was no mutuality to these attacks.  They originated from the Obots, they were unprovoked and even when Hillary supporters tried to fight back they were outnumbered and got little or no support from the blog administrators.  At Cheetoville and other blogs were diaries and comments could be rated by other members, the Obots worked together to “rec” pro-Obama posts and “troll-rate” pro-Hillary posts.

I don’t have to remind you of how toxic the atmosphere was at Cheetoville and other lefty blogs.  The Confluence was founded as a refuge for Hillary supporters fleeing the insane hatred of the Obots.  But they weren’t satisfied with  driving us away from our old blog hang-outs, they tried to follow us here and continue their attacks.  They failed, thanks to a strict moderation policy and the vigilance of Katiebird and the other original moderators.

We haven’t forgotten the Great Purge, nor have we forgotten the cult-like behavior of the Obots.  We recall the way Obama was portrayed as a messianic figure while Hillary was demonized and belittled.  We still remember the way voters were accused of being racists because the voted for Hillary.

Attributing what took place to “personal identification, style and aspiration” makes it sound like we all had a collective bad-hair day.  I don’t identify with either candidate, but I have more in common with Obama than I do with Hillary.  I’ve noticed that the Obot stereotype of a Hillary supporter is a white female high school graduate in her 50’s who never paid attention to politics until Hillary ran for President.  They imagine these hypothetical Hillary supporters are racist “vagina-voters.”

Digby’s explanation makes even less sense if all the Obots are Type-2 Cynical Pragmatists.  If Obama and Hillary “are both mainstream Democrats who occupy exactly the same political terrain in the party and always did” and the Obots expected that as President either one would bring about the same modest, incremental changes, then what the fuck was all the insanity about?

On the other hand, if the typical Obot is a Kool-aid Drinking True Believer,  then their behavior can be explained as religious fanaticism.  It still doesn’t excuse or justify what they did, but it provides a motive.  It also explains why that conduct still continues to this day.  Cynical pragmatists don’t conduct holy wars, but fanatics believe they have a monopoly on righteousness.

So why are so many Obama  supporters now claiming that they are and always have been cynical pragmatists?

Reality bites, and it has sunk its fangs into the collective hindquarters of the Kool-aid Kingdom. They have tried to be patient, and they have rationalized and made excuses for almost a year now, but they don’t have much to show for it.  But they can’t admit they were wrong either.

The Obots didn’t come up with all that cult worship stuff on their own. It was the result of the Obama campaign’s use of very sophisticated psychological manipulation. Remember the people fainting on cue at Obama rallies? That’s very similar to what you see with faith healers in holy-roller churches.

They used imagery of Obama as a messianic figure and reinforced it with a narrative the depicted Obama’s life as if he was destined to be president. They used the psychological techniques on young people who thought they were smart and sophisticated and never realized they were being used. They manipulated the blogosphere too.

Although Obama never actually said he was the new messiah, he did make a lot of promises. It’s not just that he has failed to keep those promises, it’s that in many cases he has done the complete opposite of what he said he would do. Even worse, his attitude towards those broken promises is similar to a guy who tells a girl “So what if I said I love you? You should have known I only said it so you would sleep with me.”

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

224 Responses

  1. Good post. Every now and then it does the soul good to see someone just come out and say what a pr!ck Obama is. And, as a result, how f^cked we all are now. Thanks a heap, Obots.

    • I don’t know about prick. That would imply that Obama did something instead of using people to do it for him.
      He is more like the sludge seeping under the bathroom door from a stopped up toilet.

      • I agree MrMike. As far as I know the Executive Branch hasn’t presented one written proposal–healthcare, cap and trade, employment, etc.

  2. Even though Digby never acted like a Type-1, she let the Obot jihadis run loose on her blog.

    • You know myiq2xu, you say you’d never seen it in politics before, but I had … I remember having the same damn thing done to the so-called Rockefeller republicans in the 80s by the evangelicals and they’re sense of purging every one who wasn’t antigay, antichoice, and christian. I couldn’t believe how closely this obot invasion mimicked that.

      • Didn’t a lot of the Obots come from the young republican camp? The lie and smear tactics were the same. A bunck of failed Karl Rove wanna’ bes looking for another pond.

      • That’s interesting, because the evangelical movement and the Obot movement are both clearly cult phenomena.

        • the sense of true believership and just anger at any one who suggested you might not know the truth had similar roots to me … it was this mean, nasty, I’m right and I’m going to make you get it at all costs that really got to me … I remember when I tried to convince the republican party not to remove their support of the ERA or choice in the platform, there was that same sort of booing and hissing and I got the same feeling I would be hunted down like a stray dog and caged … really, it was the same call for purism

        • YES!!!

          Tonight we can agree!!

          I was calling the 0bots cult members way back at the Orange Stain. The 0bama brand had all the ear marks of a cult — sort of like the Moonies.

          Many kids on the left were never exposed to the evangelical hell fire and brimstone — double speak garbage and so they were ripe to anyone who used the ancient cons used by Obama. Did he do this on his own — or was this the result of his think tank behavior scientists — we may never know.

          • I grew up around fundies, and attended “revivals” etc. I know the behavior and the disconnect well, and recognized it for the mass delusional hysteria it was, as well as its viciousness underneath..

            It’s interesting to me that many of us who are very familiar with Pentecostal type churches were very creeped out by Obama and his swooning crowds.

          • Explains why he got the youngsters while Hillary got the rest of us.

          • Remember the revival-like campaign appearance he did with Oprah? I just heard a couple of clips, and it was creepy.

    • This is a great post, myiq. One of your best ever!

    • “I don’t identify with either candidate, but I have more in common with Obama than I do with Hillary.”

      How so, myiq2xu? Just curious, since the body of your posts (IMHO) appear to show your affinities with Hillary.

  3. awsome post & i think hit it dead on.
    but i alsi think he sent his paid blogers & did the same to thing to right as he did the left .& used some psychological manipulation on them .
    rember the REP core stayed home in mass this past elect..

    • There was a bunch of astroturfing involved, but religious con-men use paid shills too.

      • Kinda funny how the GOP was so quiet last year, wasn’t it? It was like they really didn’t want to win or something.

        • GOP establishment didn’t want Mac to win. They wanted O to win.

          • Obama as Trojan Horse?

          • It sure seems like it.

          • Actually don’t think the right was entirely quiet during the primaries, the Dem ones I mean. They did not want to run against Hillary, and they did just enough.

          • I’m not entirely sure it was “O as Trojan Horse” so much as it was them looking at the political reality, looking at the clueless and vain Obama, and deciding he’d be the perfect goat. The GOP didn’t want to have the mess Bush left on their plate – they had no intention of winning in 2008. Almost ANY Dem was going to win in 2008, and they knew it. So they picked the one who would screw it up the worst.

            Help him get elected, knowing full well he’d make a mess of everything and ruin the Dem brand – and they’d be able to revive the party that Bush/Cheney killed.

          • Perhaps the perception that the repubs weren’t trying, and that Obama was the natural course, was all part of the manipulation? Who can resist a messiah?

          • WMCB, absolutely dead on. Someone is a helluva chess player, and it ain’t King Nothing. And I’m beginning to have nightmares about another Cheney/Bush ticket in 2012.

          • Absolutely.

            McCain was ahead and gaining when the doodoo hit the fan on the financial meltdown. No one will ever convince me that the panic created over bailing out the kingpins couldn’t have waited a few weeks, until after the election.

            It was the October Surprise.

            The Republicans wanted Obama nominated, I thought at first it was so that they could defeat him. But when they started the panic, knowing that an economic crisis was the only thing that could give Obama an advantage, it became evident that they wanted him elected, as well.


            So that they could blame all of Bush’s failures on him. Which they’re now doing, quite successfully.

            Carolyn Kay

        • and they had so much amo to use in there attack adds
          then any other time i can rember yet they were used preety much none of it.

          • I kept wondering what happened to the GOP smear machine.

          • Remember also the game was pretty much up once the financial collapse hit.

          • if there one thing that you can say about the GOP when they use GOP smear machine. its 2nd to none.

          • Three Wickets, I’ve read Palin’s book. And one interesting tidbit in there is that she pushed early on to make the economy the focus, NOT the Iraq War. Certain of the “insider DC crowd” of McCain’s advisors refused, and continued with a strategy of constantly talking about the surge success.

            The way it’s written, it almost (but not quite) sounds like she’s saying they deliberately sabotaged McCain. Personally, I think they did. I think Mark Penn and Solis Doyle were moles and saboteurs as well.

            *shrug* Call it tinfoil, but that’s my gut feeling.

          • If they really wanted Mac to win they would have rallied around him.

          • That whole economic crisis was the turning point.

          • Oh, yeah. The market was going to tank anyway, but the money boyz timed it perfectly for Obama. The charts show the massive money that moved to make that happen.

          • Or it could be that Mac wasn’t pure enough for them so they stayed home.
            He ran a decent campaign unlike the Obama crew so there should have been no reason for a conservative not to get out to vote for him.
            Me, I voted for McCain because I wasn’t about to reward the DNC for the shit they pulled, not because Obama wasn’t progressive enough to suit my taste.

          • People always underestimated Palin on the economy. I may not have agreed with her positions, but she knew more about the economy than Mac. CNBC had her on regularly, before she was nominated, and more than any other candidate.

          • I remember that!!!

            I remember seeing a political cartoon that featured Rove inside of a candy store just waiting to use the giant collection of Obama mishaps.

            And nothing.

            eerie silence.

            The GOP went soooo hard against Bill, but they let Obama stroll right into the White House. The GOP machine was turned off.

            Who ordered the stand down??

          • Who ordered the stand-down? Karl Rove.

        • Perhaps they didn’t want to be labeled as racist?

        • I keep thinking about “Republicans For Obama” claiming they were just ordinary folks who were so swept up in Obama fervor that they came together in 2006 to encourage him to run for president.

          That, and the fact that used Segretti/Rove’s playbook to get elected to the Senate, and he’s from Illinois, where for all intents and purposes, there is only one party.

    • mabey so but bambis people were more successfull manipulation them . becuse he got them to stay home in the million’s.

  4. Excellent post. “Cynical pragmatists don’t conduct holy wars.”

    People are going to keep scrambling to rewrite history.

    • Obama supporters will continue to jump ship and those who remain loyal supporters will continue to rewrite history long after he leaves office. The only link left to the Kennedy dynasty are Michelle Obama fans who think she’s a trendsetting fashionista like Jackie O. Even that is ludicrous to those of us with at least a minimal amount of fashion sense and color coordination. Her fashions are a mix of hits and a lot of misses. But Versailles will come up with their own version of both political and fashion history to keep the Obama/Camelot image alive.

  5. “Attributing what took place to “personal identification, style and aspiration” makes it sound like we all had a collective bad-hair day.”

    Good line.

    During the primaries, my gorgeous twenty-something daughter backed Hillary from the start. I initially backed Edwards (because I have great hair, a union background and was first on mom’s side of family to go to college and on to graduate school?). While watching the debates, it soon became clear who was ready to be president and I was proud to support her historic run.

  6. So digby’s argument is that Obama’s supporters conducted this holy war because the two candidates were so alike that they were driven into a frenzy of hatred and lies, but deep down, they were just frontin’?

    • digby’s argument is the same ol lame ol “they were both the same, so instead of disagreeing on issues, people got caught up in the personalities.”

      • But she knows better. She was afraid of her own commenters, what does that say about “both sides” being caught up? Most people were at the place of “either one is fine by me” before they started.

        • I remember people pledging to vote for “any Democrat” but then Obama became the only real Democrat.

          • Remember the “unity ticket” moment during a debate? Th whole auditorium stood up and applauded. Within minutes Moveon took that stealth vote with 1% of membership and decided they support Obama. The next day Pelosi declared: “No unity ticket!”
            That’s when I became convinced about the Dem fix.

          • When did Obama give that hoodwink bamboozle speech in response to that?

        • She’s — (1) a liar, (2) is in the early stages of Alzheimer, (3) has a poor memory and can’t read, (4) Thinks her readers have a poor memory, (5) is a chicken sh*t.

          • both (1) and (5). most of her readers are Obots which implies that they have a poor memory since they are no longer willing to remember what happened or what they did during the 2008 primaries.

          • She’s a liar, she’s chickenshit, she wishes everybody had a poor memory, and hopefully feels guilty about taking a dive in the primary, so she’s trying to rewrite history and pretend what happened, didn’t, and what’s still happening, isn’t.

      • I’m just sitting here laughing because Obama and Clinton sure weren’t so alike during the primaries. Obama was god’s gift to America and Hillary was a vindictive, petty c-word. And, and, and Hillary voted for the war and Obama didn’t and he was going to get us out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

        I always had to remind people that only one candidate didn’t vote for the war and her name was Cynthia McKinney.

        • Obama was going to to win the nomination come hell or high water. The pressure on the super delegates and back room deals should have been illegal.

          The focus was always on his small internet campaign donations, when most of know where the big $$ were coming from. And isn’t it interesting that a “nobody” first-term senator started the campaign with almost as much $$ as Hillary? They’ve even stolen some of Howard Dean’s thunder–saying it was the first time a candidate used the internet so effectively.

          I don’t know what happen with the repubs, but I’ll tell you one thing, I bet there are a whole lot of repubs that wished they had voted for McCain.

  7. Brought this up from downstairs as it fits better here.

    By the way, where were the fauxgressive Obamapologists when in Obama’s May 21 speech in front of the constitution he proposed his new policy of prolonged detention (i.e., indefinite imprisonment without trial). Not just your average power grab, but worse than even GWB’s. Seriously, after that I can’t understand how even the most powerful kool-aid IV can keep you in hopeyville. They’re truly loony.

  8. Yeah, because cynical political pragmatists ALWAYS plaster blogs with pictures of naked women tied to stakes, with BURN, WITCH, BURN! captions when they win a primary.

    Ho hum – the usual “testy” political discourse between the camps of practically identical candidates.

    • And this idea that the left have been holding BO’s feet to the fire from the day he was sworn in, what bullshit. They’ve only started making serious noise in recent weeks. They were all on high dosage koolaid from the beginning, with the possible exception of the master handlers who are now scrambling to manage the confusion in the ranks.

      • Sounds like the Bush’bots it took the FEMA debacle to wake them up to the fact that Bush was a zero.

    • lol

  9. myiq, I think there is a third type, which doesn’t distract from your analysis: the proto-access blogger. These are a relatively small number of individuals who saw their traffic or ad revenue grow by at a minimum failing to act against the astroturfing and religious fanaticism and at most actively encouraged it. Maybe a better name is the “Wannabes”.

    They MUST rewrite the history of the primaries now in order to cover over the evidence (which is all still out there) of their epic wrongness during the primary and general campaigns.

  10. As I write this there is a run on something called Zhu-zhu Pets, or something like that. Consumers ( your children) have been told that their life won’t be complete with out one. So now they are selling for 4x their list on auction sites.
    Even at this inflated price parents who should know better will buy them so little Johnnie or Janie can have the perfect x-mas.
    Zhu-zhu Pets, game consoles, hit granny with a shovel Elmer, Beaner Babies, and Obama, all things brought to the gullible by a slick marketing campaign.
    Like the guy who bought an Edsel when they were new the ‘bots can’t admit they f**ked up big time. Some are that brain washed they don’t even realize they’ve been thoroughly boned.
    Digby , Tabbi, cheeto, they’re all irrelevant anymore Obama couldn’t care less about them he got what he wanted.
    At least the ‘bots didn’t fall for Jeb!.

  11. Obots will continue to argue the myth that Obama and Hillary are exactly alike in order to justify Obama’s failed policies and demean the Clintons’ record, passion, and ability.

    Hillary never ran as a messianic figure that would change the world. Pragmatic Democrats largely supported Hillary during the primaries. There were very few Obama supporters who fell into the Type II category. The only ones that come to mind are BTD because he kept making the media darling argument and Hillary supporters like Chuckie Lemos, Jeralyn and Taylor Marsh who jumped on the Obama bandwagon because they believed they had nowhere else to go but also to salvage their careers as C-list political bloggers (ironically, some like Taylor permanently damaged their careers and lost a ton of readers).

    Hillary supporters for the most part admired Clinton and became more defensive as the primary went on because of the attacks from Obama supporters and the media. Even though a lot of us did not completely agree with her (especially in terms of foreign policy), we knew for a fact she was more prepared and experienced than Obama. We also figured that she was to the left of Obama on the most important issues on the domestic agenda including health care, the economy, and protecting women’s rights. Not only did we believe that, we knew that because of the “right wing conspiracy” and media attacks on the Clintons, Hillary was more likely to be held accountable for her actions thereby forcing her administration and the Democratic Party to go more to the left than to the right.

    • I like Joan Walsh, but she is a bit of a type 2, though I don’t think she’d argue that Hillary would have been just as bad as Obama.

      • I remember a reporter asking Hillary last May how she could possibly challenge BO’s opportunity to accept the nomination on the 45th anniversary of MLK’s I have a dream speech. I asked Joan about that recently. She said, we don’t talk about the primaries.

        • Yes, the primaries were so brutal, so awful that most in the mainstream blogosphere and media refuse to discuss it or attempt to remember their own acts of sexism, race baiting, and advocating for disenfranchisement. If they forced themselves to relive those crimes it might also force them to come to the realization that they are at fault for giving America a third Bush term.

        • The scheduling of the convention and the nomination acceptance speech is the giveaway that Dean and the DNC were in the tank for Obama from the get-go.

          The convention dates were announced in January of 2007. The late August scheduling was extremely peculiar in that, as the party not in the Oval Office, the Democrats had to have their convention before the GOP. Historically, the first convention occurs at either the end of July or, at the outside, early August. It has never been scheduled for the end of August like it was last year.

          The scheduling resulted in the presidential nomination acceptance speech falling on the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. A common GOP meme is that the Dems take the African-American vote for granted. If Hillary or Edwards had been the nominee and given the acceptance sppech on that date, they’d have been roasted with it. The only candidate who wouldn’t have been was Obama, and that’s because it could be spun that he was the fulfillment of King’s vision. Obama was always expected to be the nominee by the powers that be, and they did everything they could to ensure it would happen.

          Dean will claim that this is all a coincidence, but I don’t buy it, primarily because I don’t think he’s a bleeping idiot.

          • Exactly.

            When I found out that Obama would give his speech on MLK’s anniversary, well, that just further confirmed my belief that the whole nomination process was rigged.

            Any other nominee would have been labeled racist, because of course, only a Black nominee could that speech, on that particular day.

    • Also:

      Not only did we believe that, we knew that because of the “right wing conspiracy” and media attacks on the Clintons, Hillary was more likely to be held accountable for her actions thereby forcing her administration and the Democratic Party to go more to the left than to the right.

      Yup… and not just the rw and the media, but the nutroots too.

    • This talking point actually pretty much started the day Obama was coronated at the convention. Remember, they started immediately coming here and elsewhere and saying that we should have no problem supporting O because the two are exactly identical? You wouldn’t think even they would have been brazen enough to use that argument after everything, but…

      What’s hilarious, though, is that back then they used it on us to try for our votes, but so much hatred had been ginned up they wouldn’t dare use it on each other. And now, of course, it’s their big go-to to deflect blame from themselves and Obama and somehow put the blame on Hillary.

      • it was what they were told. They would post diaries telling each other, “this is how you talk to a Clinton supporter, even if you can’t think of anything nice to say about Clinton, make up something, and then tell them you understand how upsetting it must have been to have your dream of a woman president not happen, but Obama and Hillary are basically the same…”

        • It was so funny, they’d get cussed out and just return with the same transparent, lameass talking points.

        • I didn’t support Hillary because of her gender. I didn’t oppose Obama because of his race either.

          I considered her gender and his race positive qualities but not a basis for supporting either one, and certainly not a substitute for experience or knowledge. I considered Hillary the best qualified candidate. She just happened to be female.

          • I didn’t support her because of her gender, but starting out in the Anybody But Hillary camp and watching it all unfold and watching, dumbfounded, as the others started worshipping Obama when up to then we’d considered him the biggest disappointment around, I couldn’t lie to myself anymore about how misogynist in expression and yes, motivation, ABH actually was. It was pretty blatant.

          • It was always as simple as that.

          • Funny, at the beginning I didn’t support Hillary, not because of anything she did but because I knew the media would savage her and we needed a Democrat in the White House.
            Little did I know that her own party would attack her so viciously.

          • I didn’t start out supporting Hillary, but then I saw her in the debates and she was the best.

          • same with me

          • How did my remark with a later time stamp end up above DK’s remark??

          • dakinikat’s remark was supposed to nest somewhere I think

          • yup … it was

          • magic?

          • … and we didn’t get a Democrat in the White House.

          • seeing her in the debates made me realize there was a HUGE disconnect between the caricature of her by the nutroots that I had been exposed to, so I went and researched things deeper for myself and found out a lot of what they were saying was complete bull.

          • Yep. Pretty much. I had to accept that there was no Theoretical Superliberal Best Option who was running, that I wasn’t going to hold her to a higher standard that other candidates and give everybody else a free pass (ask me about the time Kerry’s staffer told my friend her AUMF vote disqualified her from being Prez), and that she was significantly better than the other guys, yet treated like the town pariah.

          • Biden they thought was a good VP candidate and didn’t undermine Obama’s “change” campaign, but somehow Hillary would have… really ridiculous

          • Absolutely. Hillary was simply very prepared and ready to be President, on Day 1.

          • It was no contest. The debates made that abundantly clear. And then there were the decades of experience vs. virtually zip.

          • OMG, the Biden thing. Hillary can’t be VP because she’s a warmonger but Biden is a superduper choice? Let’s not even pretend anymore. Jeebus!

      • Yea, they also use that to make every imaginable excuse for Obama’s hypocrisy. He was the “anti-war” candidate (and they went ballistic when Bill exposed it as a “fairy tale”). Now they say: Hillary would have done the same thing.

        It must hurt to twist yourself into a pretzel like that every day.

  12. I’m in moderation

  13. Updated: 8:28 PM CT
    Mayor of Houston

    40,890 51%

    38,994 49%

    13% reporting

  14. Heh. True.

    You know, this blog is the only blog that has the ovaries to call out The Great, Sacred Digby of Hullabaloo on her crap. Well, okay, this blog and the wonderful Arthur Silber, but that’s it.

    Keep it up.

  15. Has anyone posted this today? Funny. I hope it works:

  16. Updated: 9:24 PM CTMayor of Houston

    Parker 62,684 52%

    Locke 57,939 48%

    53% votes counted

    She is on the phone with CNN right now.

  17. I was present a few days ago when a couple of recovering type1’s waxed confessional. We were in public in broad daylight, and there were witnesses, so I didn’t whack ’em upside the head and yell “Where the f*ck have you two idiots been?”

    However slowly, the light is beginning to dawn on some of the more intelligent ones.

    • One of my nephews (26 years old) was a major Bot. My sister tells me he looks queasy and leaves the room now if Obama is under discussion. She says there is no way in hell he’d vote for him again in 2012.

  18. I’d say there was a third type of B0bot. Whether it came straight from the GOP, or simply swallowed whole every bit of anti-Clinton rhetoric in the media in the past 16 years (or less, as they are usually younger), their investment in this is really not FOR Obama but against Hillary. To this day. It was the existence of this type of B0bot that made the postings on DU drop 60% between the “clinching” and the Palin nomination. They simply lost interest as there wasn’t anyone to hate.
    There was a bit of animation during the VP speculation (Obama needs food testers if she is VP), but Palin eventually got the full brunt of the rudderless Hillary haters. These people cannot be disappointed, they never really wanted any ponies – just a good public flogging.
    And while the hatred element was part of every B0bot devotion, for this group it was the only reason they suddenly paid attention to politics.

    • Like I said, Young Republicans, standing on the side lines watching the cheerleaders date the jocks and hating all women because of it.

    • Yup. That subset just gets their jollies beating up on a woman, esp. an older woman. If there is no woman to villify, they’ll get bored and go back to their video games and self-pleasuring.

      Maybe they should’ve been breast-fed longer, or potty-training was rough or something – I dunno. But they are some twisted fucks.

    • What a sad and pathetic reality that is. Probably two subsets there too. The ones who for whatever reason can’t stomach the Clintons. Then there are the straight up misogynist bigots.

    • That makes a lot of sense to me. Lots of people bought into every bogus scandal 100%. Look over there, Vince Foster!

    • Excellent description. It was realizing that Obama attracted this type that really started to turn me against him. There’s something really ugly and hinky about a candidate (doesn’t matter what party, gender, color, or whatever) that pulls in large numbers of people whose chief passion in life is verbal wilding.

    • Bob Somerby is awesome. He’s a partisan Democrat who will defend Obama from media attacks but he tells it like it is. He’s one of the few fair and balanced journalists out there which is why he quit mainstream journalism to write a journalism accountability blog.

      His entire comment deserves to be pasted here in full:

      And yet:

      Obama worked the “I will meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions in my first year” line very hard, accusing Clinton of being “Bush lite” because she wouldn’t match his pledge, which was obviously absurd. This went on for mnonths. Many lib/Dem voters bought that can of corn, thinking they were in the presence of a policy difference.

      The first year is almost over. Any sign of a meeting with Kim Jung-Il, without preconditions, in the next few weeks?
      bob somerby | 12.07.09 – 5:01 pm | #

      • Bobbie Somerby is a partisan male chauvinist pig who thinks Stupid Stupak is just great — and wonderful and super. Anyone supports Taliban Stupak is the enemy.

        Bobbie says he stands with Stupak.

        • Please point to a link where Bob Somerby said that.
          Everything I read from him about the Stupak amendment was the failure of the media to explain it.

          • Starting on 13 November — Bobbie’s website — and several follow ups.

            I read it and blogged it — which is why I started keeping a blog — so that I can log the names of the back stabbers like Somerby.

          • I ijust went back and read the 11/13 Daily Howler column.

            No where in it does Somerby say “Stupid Stupak is just great — and wonderful and super.”

            He does say:

            For ourselves, we think pro-choice groups have every right to bail on the bill if they decide it ends up affecting choice in unacceptable ways. But then, we also think that anti-abortion groups have the right to make the same sort of decision. That is, to jump ahead just a bit: We assume that different people, acting in good faith, may judge the morality of a measure in different ways.

          • on 17 November bobbie writes:

            WE’RE WITH STUPAK: It’s possible that the current attempt at health reform will fail over issues concerning abortion. The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the recently-passed House bill remains the focal point of contention surrounding this ongoing matter.

            The SOB has been defending Stupid Stupak — when there is NOTHING to defend and anyone who defends Stupak is the enemy.

          • You left out a little bit:

            Stupak-Pitts came center stage on Saturday, November 7, during final wrangling in the House about the bill. (The bill, containing Stupak-Pitts, passed in the House that night.) But what would the Stupak-Pitts amendment do? Heaven help any New York Times reader who would like to find out!

            In the ten days since Stupak-Pitts became famous, the New York Times has made no attempt to explain, in its hard-copy editions, what the famous amendment does. And this morning, matters only got worse! This morning, the Times let the intrepid Katherine “Kit” Seelye take a crack at explaining Stupak-Pitts. (Although she never mentions the amendment by name in her short report.)

            Seelye tackles Stupak! For readers of our greatest newspaper, this represents the journalistic equivalent of a slow, painful, agonized death.

            Seelye starts by describing a new TV ad by supporters of abortion rights—an ad which takes place in a comedy club. But before Seelye’s editor could get out the hook, the scribe had tried to explain what Stupak-Pitts would do. (For a slightly altered version of Seelye’s piece, just click here.)

            What follows is the first attempt to explain Stupak-Pitts in the New York Times’ hard-copy edition—the paper’s first attempt in the ten days since the measure got famous. (Sources: Nexis archives, and the Times’ own “Times in Print” archive.) In the second paragraph we present, Seelye explains what Stupak-Pitts would ban. Do you understand what she has written? We’ll admit to being kerflubbled by the passage we highlight:

            SEELYE (11/17/09): The commercial, to run beginning Tuesday on cable stations in Washington, is one of several actions by abortion-rights activists in recent days urging the Senate to exclude an anti-abortion measure approved by the House.

            The House measure would ban insurance coverage for abortions for women receiving federal subsidies under a health-care overhaul and for those who are part of a government-run insurance plan. It could also have the effect of curtailing the availability of abortion coverage for others, even those paying for the insurance with their own money, because if one person in a plan was receiving a federal subsidy, no one else in that plan could receive abortion coverage.

            We think we understand some of what Seelye has written:

            Under Stupak-Pitts, a woman couldn’t buy an insurance plan which covered abortion if she was getting a federal subsidy to help pay the cost of the policy.

            In addition, the reform plan’s “government-run insurance plan”—the so-called “public option”—wouldn’t offer abortion coverage. If a woman purchased the government-run/public plan, she wouldn’t be getting abortion coverage.

            We think we understand that much. That seems to comport with what we’ve read about Stupak-Pitts in other locations. But after that, things get hazy. According to Seelye, Stupak-Pitts could also “have the effect of curtailing the availability of abortion coverage for others, even those paying for the insurance with their own money, because if one person in a plan was receiving a federal subsidy, no one else in that plan could receive abortion coverage.” We’ll be candid: We simply don’t know what that means. We aren’t even sure what kind of “plan” Seelye refers to here.

            We don’t know what Seelye means. And we’ve tried to figure it out—oh lord, how we’ve tried! In part, we’ve tried to compare what Seelye writes to a full-blown attempt in the Washington Post to explain what Stupak-Pitts would do. This full-length report, by Alec MacGillis, appeared in Sunday’s Post (just click here). We are even a bit unclear about some of what MacGillis says. But his report does represent a formal attempt to explain the Stupak-Pitts amendment—the kind of effort the New York Times still hasn’t bothered to make in its hard-copy editions. (For a longer blog post by Seelye in the Times, just click this.)

            It has now been ten days since Stupak-Pitts came center stage in our health care debate. Amazingly, the New York Times still hasn’t tried to explain it. For the record: In this morning’s hard-copy Times, Seelye’s report lies directly above an equally incoherent report by another scribe—an equally incoherent attempt to explain a separate health reform issue.

            I’m with Stupid, tee-shirts say at the beach. We thought of those shirts as Seelye clued us on Stupak this morning. We’re all with Stupak, the analysts cried, ruminating on this murky debate.

            We’ve been with Stupak for ten days now. The Times still hasn’t explained it.

            No where in it does Somerby say “Stupid Stupak is just great — and wonderful and super.”

            Somerby is critiquing the media, not defending Stupak.

          • Nope — he is defending Stupak — no matter how you want to spin it — that is exactly how this comes across.

            “We Stand with Stupak” — that says it all — and he is defending that Taliban chauvinist creep.

            “WE STAND WITH STUPAK” was in BOLD.

            Guys just don’t get this at all.

            If bobby doesn’t want an abortion — fine he doesn’t have to get one.

            HE DOESN”T GET IT. And I guess you don’t either.

          • Actually he said “We’re with Stupak,” as in “I’m with stupid.”
            It was all caps and in bold because it was a header.

            You still haven’t shown where he said “Stupid Stupak is just great — and wonderful and super.”

            Come on back when you find it.

          • Sometimes men are so dense.

            That was my executive summary of bobby’s standing by his guy — Stupak.

            NO where did bobby point out that what his buddy Stupac is doing is trying to force his/Stupac own wack-o religion on the NATION — which means that Stupac is trying to try a back door run at the insertion of a state religon — HIS religion.

            I am very much opposed to a church sponsored religion — although I was raised in an evangelical cult church — one very good thing they pounded into us as youngsters is their strong support for the SEPARATION of church and state. Of course they have their own reasons — they didn’t want the schools to teach religion, including saying a pray at the start of classes.

            To say that one stands with stupak as bobby did — means that he doesn’t understand stupac’s hidden agenda.

            The way bobby comes across in his support for stupac is exactly how I summarized what bobby wrote. That is the central theme — the take away message by Somerby. If he intended something else then he needs to learn to be a better writer. I rank very high in English comprehension. So the problem is not mine — but rather his.

            IF stupac wants to preach on a corner — or do his thing in church — fine — but stupac has crossed the line by forcing HIS religion into a bill which will affect millions — and bobby crossed that line as well when he decided to stand by his guy.

            My major complaint is the separation of church and state is further being breached — and the fact that the American Taliban is intent on forcing women back to the dark ages. Women’s control over their bodies is just part of the bigger issue of the separation of church and state.

          • What you call an “executive summary” is what I call “making shit up.”

            Bob Somerby is a widely respected lefty blogger and he’s been blogging for over a decade now. If he was a sexist it would have shown up a long time ago.

            If you’re going to smear Bob Somerby you better have specific facts and not just your opinion of what you think he meant. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

            If you keep misrepresenting what Somerby has said your comments will be deleted. If you keep making sexist comments about men in general and me in particular you will be banned.

            BTW – I am not the first moderator here at TC that has had problems with you.

      • On occasion Bob Somerby has defended Bush when the media got it wrong about him.
        He is a media critic first and foremost, that the media suffers from CDS makes it seem he is pro-Clinton.
        For all I know he might be.

    • Hee.

    • Yes, funny. Think they are probably pulling his hands back from the big dials, gradually but surely. Direct talks for him with the enemy…would be a risk. Also noticed during the China visit, the Chinese Premier spent more time with BO than their President. That was a bit embarrassing I thought.

  19. And right now, I’m skeptical about what has – and will – be done in this Administration. At this moment, I seriously wonder why I worked so hard to get him elected President.

    [writes Paul Hogarth, 10 Dec 2009, BeyondChron – San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.]

    This guy is from group 1 — he is one of the devote followers — who seems to be waking up.

    But I just won’t forgive nor forget.

  20. ok, nesting has gone haywire again

  21. 68% in, 53-47.

  22. 88% reporting!!!

    Annise Parker 53.55
    Gene Locke 46.45

  23. From the Blogstalker Online Forum:

    So the leftosphere “purged” people who, their preference for nominee denied, avowed support for the cancerous little Republican septuagenarian and his wind-up golem.

    Someone needs to buy a calendar. The purge took place in Dec 07 and Jan 08. Hillary was denied the nomination on 5/31/08.

    Some (but not all) Hillary supporters voted for McCain in protest.

    BTW – this same blogstalker was one of the commenters to Digby’s post

    • What a surprise. Lol I loathe Tom Hayden, but digby doesn’t even have the right to patronize him. I understand being scared, anybody in her right mind would be terrified of this lunatic cretins. But she played along and threw them red meat to keep them off her, pretending won’t make it other than what it was. She’s not even fooling herself.

    • If all Hillary supporters had voted for McCain, Obama would not be president. I’m a little bitter about that.

  24. Eventually, it’s going to get to the point when the Obots will start to deny that they even voted for Obama.

    1. He’s the messiah!

    2. ..Well, I knew that he wasn’t that different than Hillary, but she was so polarizing, so I voted for Obama to make sure the Democrats won.

    3. I didn’t even vote for Obama.

    4. I ALWAYS supported Hillary.

    These are the same type of voters that just LOVED Dubya, then denied that they used to support him.

    • Much like all the Great Democrats are all exRepubs and most “Hillary is a warmonger” bloggers used to be the biggest war cheerleaders and shamelessly ridiculed those of us who were opposed from the start.

      • Balloon Juice is Kool-aid Central but John Cole was a hard-core Bush supporter and Iraq war hawk and didn’t switch parties until 2007.

  25. On the topic of psychological manipulation by the Obama campaign – some folks still might not be familiar with the following story (written by an apparently approving reporter in April):

  26. >>I have been arguing politics since I was kid and I never saw anything like it.

    I, on the other hand, saw something EXACTLY like it–in the message board wars of 2000.

    The fact that we didn’t learn from that, and that most of the left blogosphere still hasn’t seen how thoroughly they were taken for a ride and made fools of, makes me wonder who will be the next beneficiary of a flame war.

    Unless we learn, we just keep repeating the same insane behavior.

    Carolyn Kay

  27. Did they really run on the same platform or was it Hillary taking a stand and Obama basically saying “I agree with Hillary”?

    From what I’ve seen so far Obama refuses to take a definitive stand on anything. He kind of talks out of both sides of his mouth.

  28. i stopped reading her altogether about tone year ago, but at one point it was reported [I believe accurately] that she admitted that she had had been cowered into a defensive fetal position by the attacking Obama fanatics.

    So if this recent post of hers is accurate, then she knows herself to be a liar. I find her remarks very strange since anybody who takes the time can prove that is full of it.

    But I want add, I was not a Hillary fan until I started hearing Obama fanatics, use terms like cunt, whore, witch, bitch and others obscenities against Clinton. That sounded so vile to me and it was so consistent/ubiquitous…and then the Obama campaign said they were unable to control or address there followers about their brown shirt tactics. That I became sympathetic to Hillary and her supporters. Obama fanatics sounded like the fascists of the 30’s and I have seen nothing to make me think their fanaticism has mellowed, I think the “dead-enders” simply can’t admit that they had been made fools. I will also add, that in my all my political conversations totaled together, which date back to the sixties, I have never heard directed, nor have I ever been assaulted by some many vile obscenities as the Obama fanatics threw during Obama’s 2006-8 campaign.

    To me the Obama fanatics are only one leader away from being Brown Shirts. And as my dad, who fought the Nazi’s always reminded me, Hitler was elected.

  29. […] Doublethinking History I dropped by Hullaballoo the other day and saw this post by Digby reacting to a post by the Littlest Cheeto denying […] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: