I'm curious to see whether the commenters(like say... Petey) who have claimed that HRC is the True Progressive Candidate will be able to jibe that with her apparent disdain for progressives.

However, to be honest, the only thing that bothers me about what she said is her repeating a Rove lie as fact... which she does all the time it seems... but her concern about caucuses not being truly democratic have been well documented and are probably justified... let's just say she phrased that point "inartfully". ;)

I'd like to note that MoveOn endorsed her opponent by democratic vote of the membership.

This seems to me to be more rationalization from Clinton--small states that went Obama don't matter, Florida and Michigan should count now, MoveOn and Netroots are a problem etc etc. She's losing so she HAS to think this way. We've all been there telling our friends that the guy/gal who just dumped them was an idiot anyway and not worthy of them. It is her way of going on.

yesterday, richard baum, one of the top clinton strategists on china, left her campaign, very upset with her stance regarding china, and endorsed obama.
with the endorsement for obama, of robert reich yesterday, and also sam nunn....
perhaps it might be, that the end is near.
....
be the change in the world that you wish to see.

I discontinued my monthly donation to MoveOn when they endorsed Obama before the primary process was completed. So now I give Hillary four times the amount MoveOn was getting and I won't vote for Obama even if he is the nominee. Thanks, MoveOn.

I'm not trying to minimize MoveOn, but the question of "important to whom" kind of comes to mind here. I'm not surprised they didn't endorse Clinton, but as with much of their populist driven passions, I'm not sure, necessarilym what they're for, nor am I necessarily convinced that they naturally reflect the best interests of Democrats. I don't mean that endorsing Obama is a bad idea or not meaningful... but MoveOn's usefulness and political savvy has been, and will continue to be, debatable. I don't think it's worth it for Clinton to "pick a fight" with MoveOn, but by the same token, I think criticizing some of its (their?) positions and approaches on issues is fair, and, frankly, a healthy discussion that Democrats need to have to help clarify whose role is what here. I think there's a larger question here, which will surely return once the primaries done, about just what role the "netroots" has in lefty, progressive politics... and, given the way the primary has riven some of the perceived unanimity of purpose, just who will be signing on to the movement going forward. That's probably healthy; but I think it means that future notions of a unified Democratic party may be harder to see, once a common enemy like George W Bush is out of the picture.

"I'm curious to see whether the commenters(like say... Petey) who have claimed that HRC is the True Progressive Candidate will be able to jibe that with her apparent disdain for progressives."

I don't think Clinton is the "True Progressive Candidate". I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty lousy candidates for progressives. I just think that Clinton is a noticeably less bad candidate for progressives than anti-entitlement Obama.

-----

And MoveOn, like Ezra, is most definitely not a representative of progressives. MoveOn, like Ezra, is a flack for the donor class of Democrats.

"This sort of thing really doesn't inspire confidence in Hillary Clinton."

The tripe you've been regurgitating of late doesn't inspire confidence in you, Ezra.

The tripe you've been regurgitating of late doesn't inspire confidence in you, Ezra.

The same could be said for you, Petey. You do remember how they got started, correct(meaning MoveOn)? For Clinton to bash them now is just dumb. Also, MoveOn polled their members first. Notice anything online? Ever look at the DailyKos polls? Or some of the other more established sites? Notice how well Hillary ever did in any of them?

[i]I just think that Clinton is a noticeably less bad candidate for progressives[/i]

And your evidence for this is, what exactly? That he plans to cut social security, medicare, medicaid? Guess what, dingbat: wanting to expand healthcare in this country is ipso facto pro-entitlement, not anti-entitlement.

Fellow Klein-readers,

Please stop feeding the Petey. He's being a dick on purpose. Textbook trolling.

And Ezra is complicit in this troll feeding, actually trying to address Petey as if he is serious about the mean-spirited bullshit he spouts. Just let Petey flame himself out and he'll go away.

The tripe you've been regurgitating of late

As opposed to Petey, a nickel-and-diming speculator, whose descent into neurosis has led him to believe that googlebombing wins arguments.

There's a connection here with Kos's endorsement of Obama, which is based as much upon his structural ambitions for the Democrats as it is for the candidate himself.

A campaign strategy that, because of its failure to seal the deal early on, is now committed to paring down the number of voters deemed to 'matter' and which now relies upon out-of-contest bullshit rather than election results to seal a victory is not one that translates into 'more and better Democrats', nor the legislative consequences of having more and better Democrats.

Whatever Clinton thinks about the activist base, it pales in comparison to the vile attacks launched daily at her and her supporters by MoveOn, Kos, and the netroots.

Remember, it was Clinton who had the spine to send Wolfson on O'Reilly to defend Kos. Remember, too, that it was who Clinton voted against censuring MoveOn, while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

Yet, despite these efforts, Clinton has received nothing but scorn from these thugs.

Further, Clinton supporters are quite familiar with the nastiness and small-mindedness of the netroot's thought-police.

We have been threatened, attacked, and banned across the internet from the beginning of this campaign. The bullying of Clinton supporting caucus-goers is well-documented. They believe that they alone can judge who is and isn't a "real Democrat", and woe to those who dare to advocate against or exercise their right to vote contrary to their draconian precepts.

I cannot speak for how Clinton really feels about the activist base. As for this life-long Democrat, they've done little to earn my respect, and much to earn my disdain.

Please stop feeding the Petey. He's being a dick on purpose. Textbook trolling.

Yeah. remember, this isn't a Democrats -blog, it's a n Obama-blog!

Joe, you are equating the actions of a woman who wants to be our nominee for president with anonymous posters on the internets?

Did Hillary give up her right to say what she wants without Omama boys dissing her ?

Obama supporters do not get to appropriate the term "progressives" only for themselves and no others.

I don't know whether Clinton is aware of what's been going on on the net these last months, or the full extent to which net tactics are being replicated in the field, but what she is objecting to is the same thing her supporters on the net and in the field have been objecting to, which is the bullying, vilification, yelling, drowning-out and full-throated attempt to intimidate the half of the party that shares very close to the same ideals but believes a different candidate has a better chance of making genuine progress on them.

The idealism of Obama supporters is admirable, the storm trooper tactics are not. The rest of us can only hope that when Obama loses either the nomination or the general election, they will go home and sulk or find some other enthusiasm, like pro wrestling or roller derby, where they can vent their aggression in an environment where it can't do any more harm.

Petey: "I don't think Clinton is the "True Progressive Candidate". I think both Clinton and Obama are pretty lousy candidates for progressives. I just think that Clinton is a noticeably less bad candidate for progressives than anti-entitlement Obama."

Hillary is not, in any way, pro-entitlement. She is in favor of a new obligation to pay money to the insurance companies. I fail to see how this is in any way progressive. Currently, as a driver, I have to pay for car insurance as a condition of keeping my driver's license. Is that an "entitlement" too, in Petey-speak?

More to the point, you need a refresher course in civics. The President doesn't decide the exact content of bills. Congress does. The important thing is having a Democrat in the White House who will sign a health care bill, rather than vetoing it as Bush and McCain would do. Universal health care will, unquestionably, be an important part of the Democratic Party campaign theme this year. And, when Obama is sworn in, Congress will start to work on a health care bill. That is when we need to apply pressure - to ensure that the bill they pass is true single-payer, and not the bastardized corporatism that has been floated so far.

"Please stop feeding the Petey. He's being a dick on purpose."

If you define "being a dick" as standing up for progressive policy and Democratic political goals to the lackeys of the donor class who will say pretty much anything to advance their own careers, then sure, I'm a dick. Last I checked, I do indeed posses a penis.

Guys who mindlessly defend Barack Obama despite supposedly being "progressive healthcare bloggers" in order to further advance their careers seem pretty dickless to me.

"Currently, as a driver, I have to pay for car insurance as a condition of keeping my driver's license. Is that an "entitlement" too, in Petey-speak?"

Look, fine. You've got a problem with Social Security and universal healthcare. It's a free country, and you can hold any opinions that you like.

But being against social insurance pretty much ensures that you ain't a progressive.

John S,

Petey is not on your side, no matter how "pro Clinton" he claims to be today. He is not a fan of anything. He is a narcissistic troll who has been slurring everyone for months. And he encourages the comments to rapidly degenerate into feces throwing.

I wasn't supporting Obama, I was suggesting that we don't encourage Petey's inanity. But I think I'm fighting for a lost cause.

"But being against social insurance pretty much ensures that you ain't a progressive."

Accidentally Anonymous. T'was I.

Ezra, I come to confess my sins. (I heard the pope do this during his mass today.)

I too, like Petey, have wished for Hillary Clinton to win. I wondered at the time of Move-Ons formation, why they were taking the Lieberman position. I too like hettie, was angry with Move-On for endorsing so early in the process.

And I too never actually thought that Move-On WAS democratic progressives and vice-versa. Or even that netroots was democratics progessives and vice versa.

Of course, by your math, that means that Move-On IS the netroots, wholely overlapping, and never dissenting.

And given how Obama has dissed Kos (see BTD for more), that must mean that Obama has dissed Move-On.

At any rate, I come here Ezra to ask you what sort of re-education camp you and your readers will be setting up for me, Petey, hettie, and others that happen to prefer a different candidate.

Will you use broomsticks, or silicone dildos?

I don't know why I feel like getting in the middle of the shit fight today, but whatever...

Dear Anon,

Move On was formed in protest to Bill Clinton's impeachment. How is that a Lieberman position?

As usual, Hilzoy says everything I want to say about this post was initially addressing in a more eloquent fashion than I could ever articulate.

while Obama skipped out of the Senate just minutes before the vote was held.

IIRC, the vote wasn't even close, either. I remember thinking to myself as I took part in the vote, that I thought Clinton would surely win it, if only because of the roots of MoveOn. I was surprised at the outcome.

"MoveOn polled their members first. Notice anything online? Ever look at the DailyKos polls? Or some of the other more established sites? Notice how well Hillary ever did in any of them?"

I think you just made Hillary's point, the "activists" in the party (Obama supporters) were the reason she didn't do as well in caucus states.

When Obama explained to the SF donors why the blue collars in PA weren't supporting him, his fans claimed he was right, people are bitter.

But when Hillary explains why she didn't do well in caucus states, she's awful.

Progressive "activists" are going to lose the GE for Obama. In the same way the religious right lost the majorities in congress for the GOP. This GE should have been a cakewalk for the Dems, not anymore.

Does no one remember that HRC defended MoveOn by voting no on the denounciation vote over the "Betray Us" ad in the senate? Remember how Obama voted on that issue? Wait. He didn't vote one way or another. He was totally AWOL on that vote like he does everytime there is a tough decision to make.

Oops, wrong quote. Meant to reference a comment about the fact that MoveOn took a vote about the endorsement.

With regard to the "skipping", I do beleive that Obama's position on these things is he doesn't beleive in these nonsense votes, and so doesn't participate in them. It is certainly consistent with his statements on how he approaches politics, but I haven't seen anything that shows whether his voting has been consistent in this regard.

"Petey is not on your side, no matter how "pro Clinton" he claims to be today"

Why is Petey a troll? Because he doesn't echo your thoughts? Am I a troll because I agree with everything he says?

Please stop drinking the kool-aid.

Progressive "activists" are going to lose the GE for Obama.

Hillary's activists aren't doing a bang up job of keeping the party together either.

But, hey, at least we'll have four to eight years of screaming at each other to pass the time during McCain's presidency.

Josh,
We will never have single payer in this country if we try to impose it. The insurance companies are not going away with a stroke of pen in a bill signing because that bill will never make it out of committee. People who want single payer are going to have to get realistic and get there by setting up a parallel system to HMOs. This is what HRC is proposing. When the government shows it can manage this effectively, people will flock to the plan, and give up their HMOs, but we are only going to have a huge fight if we try to eliminate the entire health insurance industry.
And we do need mandates. California used to not mandate car insurance and rates skyrocketed, because all the uninsured people drove the cost up. When they instituted mandatory car insurance, and rates went down. We need to do the same with health care, or the uninsured will continue to drive up costs.

Woo-hoo!

Hillary is ahead of Obama in the daily Gallup tracker for the first time since March 20th!

It's a good day for real progressives.

They may have the activists, but we've got the electorate. And I'm fine with that bargain.

They may have the activists, but we've got the electorate.

And McCain will have the Presidency. Woohoo indeed.

And we do need mandates. California used to not mandate car insurance and rates skyrocketed, because all the uninsured people drove the cost up. When they instituted mandatory car insurance, and rates went down. We need to do the same with health care, or the uninsured will continue to drive up costs.

1-800-SAFE-HEALTH: We'll take your money and say you have health coverage. Just don't try actually using it.

"And McCain will have the Presidency. Woohoo indeed."

You may be confused about the details, but in non-caucus procedures, having the electorate with you is how you win elections.

-----

And tangentially, it's worth noting that PA will be like the fifth or sixth primary day this election season where Obama peaked on the Thursday before the election, while Clinton peaked on election day.

Obama: A Great Candidate 5 Days Before the Vote!

Josh,
By the way, Obama is not proposing Single Payer, so you may want to rethink your support for him if that is a big issue for you. He supports insurance companies. He just wants to help people pay for it. However, not mandating coverage will continue to cause prices to climb due to the unisured using the system(No one can blame them).

Doug,
That is where legislation comes in, to ensure people won't be denied. This is a complicated issue. It is not going to be easy to get done. If people think that a magic wand is going to be waved and the insurance companies are going away, and we will have single payer, they are being unrealistic. Insurance companies need to be eliminated by attrition.
Also, Not mandating coverage will make it harder to create laws that require insurance companies to pay for services. The uninsured will continue to be a factor in rising prices.

You may be confused about the details, but in non-caucus procedures, having the electorate with you is how you win elections.

46 to 45 sure sounds like a whole lot of the electorate, but feel free to keep on with that tack of thought. When the Republican 527s and McCain's media fluffers descend on Hillary like a swarm of locusts, and she can't fight them off because the activists are sitting on their checkbooks, well... I'm sure it'll be someone else's fault.

For some context, see here:

Off the Bus Goes Off the Rails

God, I hope I remembered my html.

That is where legislation comes in, to ensure people won't be denied. This is a complicated issue. It is not going to be easy to get done. If people think that a magic wand is going to be waved and the insurance companies are going away, and we will have single payer, they are being unrealistic. Insurance companies need to be eliminated by attrition.

I would think that the insurance companies wouldn't stand by and let themselves get attrited to death. And, actually, I too live in an auto insurance mandated state. (Ohio) The airwaves are chock full of companies like Safe-Auto offering 'minimum coverage for minimum budgets'. My dad had the honor of having his truck hit by a Safe Auto driver. Fortunately, it was only minor damage to the front end, but even that was a fun ordeal in trying to get Safe Auto to pay the bills. Now imagine someone in the hospital for a real emergency with minimum budget health insurance. Maybe its just me, but I find that not much better - if not worse - than the boondoggle we have right now.

In any case, I think we're arguing moot points. Whatever health care plan gets passed, I imagine Ron Wyden will have far more input than either Hillary or Obama.

The only place Clinton belongs is in prison with her corrupt pervert of a spouse.

As for Petey, you'll be amazed to see how quickly he adjusts to sucking off McCain once Clinton finally gets her come-uppance.

And just because I feel like being an internets warrior this afternoon:

Rasmussen - O45, C43
Newsweek - O54, C35

Doug,
Do you believe that congress could muster the votes needed to kill the insurance companies? If they did indeed, would the single-payer system immediately kick in? With any new system there are always problems.
IMO I don't see congress voting for single payer, ever.
What Obama and CLinton are arguing over is mandates, not single payer. I happen to think mandates are important, in the same way they are important for car insurance. Congress can definitely regulate the insurance industry easier than it can eliminate it.

I'm not sure how this is a significantly worse anti-progressive expression than "Even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was I don't oppose all wars, specifically to make clear that this is not an anti-military, you know, 70's love-in kind of approach."

Wow!

Obama is closing his Pennsylvania campaign by running yet another ad attacking universal healthcare.

That donor class money sure is being put to progressive ends, ain't it? After all, the greatest heroes in the progressive firmament are Harry & Louise, right?

"Obama is closing his Pennsylvania campaign by running yet another ad attacking universal healthcare."

Think our friendly "progressive" healthcare blogger, Ezra Klein, will find this as post-worthy as how Clinton gets along with the donor class?

I didn't think so.

"Obama is closing his Pennsylvania campaign by running yet another ad attacking universal healthcare."

Think our friendly "progressive" healthcare blogger, Ezra Klein, will sign a petition condemning Obama for this?

I didn't think so.

Shame on Ezra Klein.

"...and she can't fight them off because the activists are sitting on their checkbooks."

That would be one particular group of activist, perhaps. She'll still have enough of us.

Clinton's tendencies to view progressives as the "them" to her "us"

....And McCain will have the Presidency...: Doug H. (Fausto no more)

The only place Clinton belongs is in prison with her corrupt pervert of a spouse... jasonq

That would be one particular group of activist, perhaps. She'll still have enough of us.

Which is why Clinton is being out-fundraised nearly two to one by Obama.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain

And quite a few Obama supporters think a vote for Clinton is a vote for McCain. So we're both screwed, huh?

Not to forget to mention that Senator Clinton herself disagrees with Obama's chances.

It's really disappointing that you've become such a shill, Ezra.

When are you folks going to coin the Democratic equivalent of 'RINO' and apply it to any Democrat you don't support?

"Which is why Clinton is being out-fundraised nearly two to one by Obama."

There's causal relationship there.

"Which is why Clinton is being out-fundraised nearly two to one by Obama."

There's NO causal relationship there.

oops

One thing that is now obvious is that Petey doesn't understand English too well. Obama is not attacking universal healthcare, just the botched-up idiocy of universal insurance that Clinton is selling for the lobbyists. Not that Petey would understand the difference there, but you'd think he might have a parent who could explain these things when he gets back from school.

I don't think this is an important issue. However, I do think attackin any part of the Democratic base is stupid. I thought it was dumb when Obama did it in the past on issues like "secularism versus the faithful" as he framed it. I thought the same on a number of issues. Clinton can't be defended here. Move On may not have endorsed her. but she's no more the Democratic Party that Obama is. The Democratic Party is more than either of them. Sadly, many of you have forgotten that. So you post arguing with who is the real democrat,a nd miss the point that both are. So is Move On. So is CLinton. I don't see why she's picking on them other than they didn't endorse here. So what? Many orgs didn't endorse her. It's their right. And it's stupid to say otherwise in such a fashion like when didn't they wait. For the reason reason the unions didn't wait. For the same reason why Clinton went after the endorsement of the teacher's union and got it. I don't deny their part in the Democratic base because they did it. In short, you people are really fucking retard, and need to grow up. but I doubt you will hear me. From past experience, I fully expect you to see what I am saying in whatever partisan Obama v Clinton frame as before. That's okay. In a few months, one thing I can be assures if that many of you will not matter except to the extent these sorts of conversation damage the Democratic coalition. That's where I draw the line. Petey and Weboy- onthat level. You sadden me. You wouldn't defend this comng out of Obama. You shouldn't defend this coming out of Clinton. It's that simple.

pardon the typos- I write this stuff fast because I don't want to spend too much time on posting my thoughts here anymore. You are all kind of just idiots. Every conversations becomes a grounds for repeating the same argues such as healthcare (I happen to agree with Edwards and Clinton) versus the subject matter at hand- in this case, I happen to disagree with Clinton attacking a Democratic base organization. It's just stupid. Even if your argument is you won't vote for the Presidential nominee- if you are voting down ticket. None of this should be acceptable except that you are too far gone to recognize the lunacy of attacking an org that will help the other down ticket candidates.

Oh my god, for the first time ever I think I totally agree with everything (typos aside) that akaison wrote. Celestial convergence.

Marc Ambinder shut off his comments sections. I think everybody else should do the same. As Jon Stewart would say "we're not helping."

It's a little odd to read you say you that you for the first time agree with me since I've been saying this same thing since from about a couple of weeks after Edwards dropped out. I realized neither choice was particularly wonderful, but 100 times better than Mr 100 Years war. I've consistently been saying this while experiencing attacks from Clinton and Obama supporters.

I still don't get it. I'm a member of MoveOn. They had a poll. I voted in that poll. They said, if a particular candidate got more than 50%, then MoveOn would endorse that candidate in the primary. Obama got more than 50%. I'm not a "party activist." I'm just a guy who has an opinion, and so are the other millions of members of MoveOn.

Akaison,

I actually think Obama is a pretty good choice, and a much better choice than Clinton. That said, three months of "Obama is teh suck!" "No! Clinton is teh suck!" bullshit is enough. I should probably go and bury my head in the sand until November when I can go vote for my straight Dem ticket.

Just wanted to point out as a casual lurker that much of this comment thread reads very much as though it's being COINTELPRO'd. Either there are some amazingly douchebaggish 'progressives' here, or there are some very clever, some very clever folks indeed laying waste to the comments section of an otherwise intelligent liberal blog. I agree: it might be time for Ezra to shut this crap down 'till it's over.

Wow, a conversation this vitriolic and I'm not even involved.

Congress can not yet muster the votes to kill Insurance companies. That doesn't change the fact that Clinton's plan is still not universal health care and will probably prevent universal health care from ever being passed. After Americans are exposed to the horror stories that will inevitably follow mandates, we won't see health care for generations. There's a reason people oppose mandates, and it's not because we're all stupid ogres who hate America. It's because we understand politics, while you only understand policy.

Okay third time's the charm. I keep posting, and it keeps going away.

Conrad:

I think shutting off comement won't help except to ignore this fault line.

Br:

I saw the handwriting on the wall of where this was heading with the two remaining candidates when Edwards had to scold them for these exact skirmages back in South Carolina. Obama maybe the cat's meow, but he sure as hell isn't show it with the way he's been running. Neither has Clinton. Meanwhile, Sen. 100 Years war is moving up in the polls and probably raising money (luckily not as much as us, but still how much does he need being the GOP nominee with favorable press ).

I want just one of these A list blogs to run a 24/7 trash McCain until Nov election day push. I am tired of people saying stupid shit like they will support the GOP nominee over the Democrats. Right now, the American people are suffering and have suffered immensely under the GOP. To say that one will suppor the GOP or give comfort to this notion is to spit in the face of everyone who has suffered.

Also, br/akaison: right on. Level heads must prevail in this shitstorm. Point her nose right into the banshee wail, trim the canvas and whilst the weak cower and cry mommy steer this fucker into port. And all you naysayers, backbiters, and take-my-ball-and-go-homer's (you know who you are) are a bunch of whining, spit dribbling fucking babies. Grow up. We got a country that needs, that desperately needs adults, not petulant deniers who would try and marginalize anyone who has the temerity to diasagree with their precious selves (are you listening, Ms. Clinton?).

What amazes me is the tone adopted by the "voices of reason"! Is it possible that you could actually be reasonable, and refrain from insulting everyone else while you demonstrate your virtue? How exactly do you hope to reunify the Democratic Party when your rationale consists of "it's the right thing to do, I know this, and the rest of you are retarded." Forgive me, but insults just don't win friends. If you want to make a case for Democrats coming together, try it without the attitude, and in language an adult would consider reasonably polite.

So not only do we have to read the sheenigans of various Clinton and Obama supporters here, but we now are suppose to make you feel good about being boneheads in order to bring you together? Silly me. I thought the fact there is a war in Iraq might do that. Or maybe the troops dying in Afghanistan. There are tens of thousands of people losing their jobs. The housing crisis continues unabated. There is, in all likelihood, a looming student loan crunch happening. Google news Sallie Mae's warning ont he subject. Healthcare rises a double rate of inflation. China and Europe contintue to solidify their power around the world. The Republicans are offering through McCain more of the same. Are any of these your concerns? No. Just how you feel put out for being called boneheads. This is exactly why you are boneheads. Wrong priorities. And, no, I don't think you feel good about yourself. You should feel ashamed of your behavior so that you will change it. By you, I mean most of the A list bloggers and the respective commentors.

"CLINTON VS. MOVEON"

This entire story is a sham. Clinton's remarks were strung together from two different conversations. Huffpost is just trying to even the score from Bittergate.

But, yaknow, Gotcha!

Clinton is the one who voted NO to censure MoveOn over its Petraeus ad; Obama snuck out before the vote.

Also telling is Ezra's ignoring ALL of own posts immediately preceding this one decrying this exact kind of politics.

Gotcha!

Michael: No. Welcome to the internet. This isn't a polite conversation, if you want to get the vapors and shriek about incivility, maybe you should move to Washington D.C. and hang out with David Broder.

Akaison, you don't just beat the horse until it's dead. You beat the horse until everyone knows its dead. Too many Clinton supporters refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and it's hard to switch to attacking McCain as long as Clinton runs around attacking Obama from the right. By doing that, she's essentially acting as McCain's VP pick while allowing McCain to act above the fray.

Soullite, have you considered becoming an adult? As for akaison's latest rant - I'd say the two of you were equally immature, and equally unconvincing for your candidates and positions. There's a reason why surrogates like you don't win votes, but turn people off politics altogether.

Michael, have you considered becoming an adult? Adults don't clutch pearls every time they hear the word 'fuck', 'shit', 'damn' or any other vulgarity. 16th century aristocrats do. Make an argument, or shut the fuck up. I feel comfortable telling you to do that, because you are clearly here to try and shut down any debate you think is uncivil.

Go move to the fucking village you worthless, stuck-up bastard.

And another thing, if you're going to take refuge in 'civility', you best not go running around accusing people of being paid campaign shills (surrogates). I don't take any money from any campaign, and wouldn't even if they offered it. Nobody owns me. Who the hell owns you?

Don't sit there and pretend you give a rats ass about civility if you're going to slander people with accusations of unethical behavior with absolutely no proof or evidence.

Soullite, I am happy to let you reveal just what sort of person you are. Anyone who reads your last posts will understand that you are unworthy of attention, and I shall waste no more time on you.

Another day, another rant from soullite. I guess the sad little troll is desperately seeking attention after being booted out by family and friends for purposes of mental hygiene. After all, who would want to be around this tedious little beast? Mchaelj has the right of it -don't engage the creature, but talk like an adult to the adults in the room.

Unfortunately the more rabid Obama supporters that do happen to overlap moveon have in fact shouted down and manipulated the caucuses. It's not an accusation, it's a fact. This is why Texas had a popular vote win for Clinton, and a Caucus win for Obama. It's the pink elephant in the room that the 'count all the vote' Obama progressives don't want to and can't face! This is the reality that the caucus wins are in fact not democratic they are political activism for the most part...

The truth isn't something that Obama true believers care much to hear these days though...

Funny, when Obama was caught dissin voters at a closed fundraiser it was commented on as a NON-NEWS WORTY STORY.

So why is Clinton so NEWS WORTHY?

Let's get back to the issues Obamatons.

Kass, lmao. You're a Clinton supporter who comes here to insult Obama supporters, and you're sticking up for a moron who spends his days defending high-broderism.

And I'm the troll? sure...

Really, you Hillary supporters come here to
a.) tell us we're all moronic cult members.
or
b.) that we're all uncivil meanies.

And I, who agrees completely with the content of this post, am the troll? You don't really know what that word means do you?

You, Kass, Michael, WTF, Petey, JoeCHI, KK, and Mawm are the trolls. You're the ones who don't belong here. Maybe you should get a grip on that and go back to MyDD and TalkLeft where you belong.

Nope, not even close, soullite. I am an Obama supporter, which I why I want something better from this board, and from politics in general. Now, given that you obviously belong to the Taylor Marsh lunatic fringe, why don't you go back there and you can play with your crayons instead of wasting our time?

they don't want him at TM either. trust me

All this petulant talk about who "owns" the commenting space on a fucking blog is ridiculous. It's no surprise that Democrats have fared so poorly in the last several decades given how territorial you all seem to be about who can join the vaunted commentariat on a goddamned internet site. Jesus. Big tent? Anyone?

Obama says McCain would be better than Bush

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-says-mcca.html

They both must be exhausted by now; I don't know how esle to explain it.

That was really stupid of him. I keep saying it- but both of our candidates are deeply flawed. I am left with only hope that we will win because of the environment in which the candidates are running this year.

"And, when Obama is sworn in, Congress will start to work on a health care bill. That is when we need to apply pressure - to ensure that the bill they pass is true single-payer, and not the bastardized corporatism that has been floated so far."

Amen.

And, by the way, isn't it this same "bastardized corporatism" that is the basis of Jonah Goldberg's "liberal fascism"?

I could do without the F-word but it is some sort of top-down authoritarianism, inflicted on the general populace, for "it's own good," no less

Yecch. More debt bondage to Citibank.