Double standards and Clinton support

[intaglio]

In the past day I have seen many posts from supporters of the Clinton Campaign that have sought to denigrate and belittle one of the few defenders of Democratic values in the public arena, Keith Olbermann. Accusations of bias, sexism, irrelevance and egoism have all been thrown at this man. There have been requests that the Clinton campaign take him to court - there is probably more but I truly cannot stomach the double standards - the bigotry - of these attacks.

You have ask "is this different from the Olbermann who defended Hillary back in summer last year? Or a different Olbermann to the defender of Bill? To the Olbermann who many here praised for taking an supine congress to task and who was lauded for speaking truth to power (with no dissent on this board) when he criticised Bush or others of the dynastic cabal that has been ruling the US?" and of course it is not.

I am beginning to see the supporters of Clinton as blind, lobotomised fools who cannot accept their heroine has feet of clay and the electoral tactics of a weasel. These automata must truly really believe that this politician they idolise is perfect and without any fault. Can they not see that in their attempts to justify their continued support of this crippled losers campaign they are also justifying the machine politics that has nearly destroyed the Democratic Party.

The political machine can subvert the convention and has given indications of how it will try to do so. The appeal to Superdelegates shows that they will receive bounteous favours similar to those offered by previous presidencies - with the added assurance that having a previous president promising them can give. That is bad enough but I suspect that the observation that committed delegates can "change their minds" means that inducements will be offered to Obama Delegates to change their support. This sort of corruption of the party will lead to it's collapse and, possibly, worse.

Earlier I said that machine politics has nearly destroyed the Democratic Party but left out the other part of my belief, that machine politics will also destroy the USA. I will be accused of hyperbole (and the usual sexism, hatred etc etc ad infinitum) but I think it is truly the case. A Clinton candidacy this autumn will destroy the Democratic party; if she loses the election the Democratic party will be seen as unelectable and will loosed funding and relevance unless they become "leibermen" DINO's; if by some miracle (or fix) she wins, she will ensure the dominance of the DLC and the the "liebermaning" of the party. In either of those events the conservatives will have won the political argument and Corporatism will have supplanted democracy.

/edit spelling

[NanceGreggs]

1. Well written piece!

REC'D!!!

[intaglio]

8. Thanks that means a lot

(btw it was one of your pieces that persuaded me to sign up) :bounce:

[NanceGreggs]

25. Right back at ya!

RE: btw it was one of your pieces that persuaded me to sign up

THAT means a lot to me!

[saracat]

2. The word is loses not looses. Not so well written after all.

[LakeSamish706]

4. Yeah and trust you to come along with criticism of either gramer or spelling.. go figure.. n/t

[saracat]

11. Hey ,that "loses" "looses" thing really annoys me. I rarely correct anything of that nature.

I make too many mistakes myself to be the spelling , typo , or grammar police. Just don't like that mistake because it is done so often by so many and it just irritates me. The two words are not the same and they are being used that way.

[LakeSamish706]

14. Right! And I'm certain that many will note that about you. n/t

[alteredstate]

18. It's obvious you won't be asked join the punctuation police force.

:)

n/t

[islandmkl]

5. reminds me of the english teacher who is more concerned with diagramming sentences...

than teaching how to use language to express one's self...

[XemaSab]

9. Maybe she's loosing the blood-dimmed tide?

Did you consider that? :shrug:

[juno jones]

3. K&R

[mudesi]

6. Can I recommend this post a few dozen more times? (nm)

[ericgtr]

7. Great Post K&R

I have finally used the ignore feature on saracat, I am all for a good argument but making a post like that just shows utter bitterness and no thought.

[jlake]

10. Sad. KO is not a deity to be worshipped because he has done some good work.

[intaglio]

15. Where did I say or imply he was a "deity"?

Odd how often a certain campaign throws that accusation out - could it be transference?

[jlake]

17. calling others out for questioning him as if he is beyond reproach... it was implied.

[intaglio]

19. 3rd para, 1st sentence n/t

[TahitiNut]

23. He may not be a "nog" ... but he's a good egg.

:rofl:

[jlake]

24. Yes, you Obamamaniacs can only win on technicalities.... sad.

[TahitiNut]

26. Zeal apparently makes you schizophrenic and delusional.

When you lash out at anyone who fails to toe the line of total obeiscance to the personality cult to which you subscribe, you use an epithet to engage in name-calling without the slightest consideration for the target.

I am NEITHER a 'supporter' of Obama nor 'supporter' of Clinton. Get THAT through your fat head, asshole.

I have been VERY clear on my support for Kucinich, with significantly less support for Edwards.

I see very little ideological difference between Obama and Clinton ... but differences in character seem to becoming clearer.

[WonderGrunion]

30. You are right

Only if you consider being ahead in every way possible a technicality.

[alteredstate]

Excellent post.

:kick:

[XemaSab]

12. Error: You've already recommended that awesome thread.

:banghead:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. "...blind, lobotomised fools..."

Rough.

[Ninga]

16. Sometimes political supporters back themselves into an impossible corner, and have

a difficult time coming to terms with the truth of the campaign vs. their perception.

It has happened to me many many times. I hated Gore and loved Bradley. I disliked Kerry and loved Dean. But I always came around, and voted for the D in Nov.

But the stakes are much higher now. We have never been faced with losing so much...as a party...as a people....as a nation.

[intaglio]

20. I've tried reason and seeing their point but

They cannot accept that, perhaps, Clinton has made mistakes yet they castigate Obama supporters for supporting a flawed candidate. Similarly, these political zombies are content if they can convince themselves you are "one of them"; as soon as there is a suggestion that anyone might be attacking their American Idol that person becomes prey to their slow footed attacks. There is one saving grace; fantasy zombies attack in huge numbers but there are only a few Clinton supporters left (despite their abilities at cloning)

It's very sad

[Ninga]

27. I know it is hard. I appreciate very much your attempt. I just don't know what to say

without sounding superior or like a know-it-all.

I think there is a tremendous amount of transference going on among supporters of both candidates (see Eric Berne: Transactional Analysis, I'm OK You're OK

I do not want to sound like a simpleton, but every women who has ever been victimized by a boss, a lover, a father, etc. can easily sympathize with Hillary, and now Silda Spitzer.

The same goes to some of Obama supporters, their attraction to him has nothing to do with the quality (or not) of his candidacy.

It is a falsehood to think that people are attracted to candidates just on the issues, or their judgment, or their experience.

It never ceases to amaze me, why people vote the way they do.

I guess that is why negative ads work. People cry foul, and yet are influenced.

[sfam]

21. Good post! K&R

[TahitiNut]

22. It's not just a single campaign or single candidate.

The scorched earth battles for control of the Democratic Party have been going on for a long time. At one time, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party were typified as "Southern Democrats" and were inclined to form a third party (Thurmond's Dixiecrats or Wallace;s American Independents) rather than go GOP. But - make no mistake - the GOP had a healthy LIBERAL faction in those days, consistent with Lincoln's mythic legacy.

Then we had the "Reagan Democrats" ... an electoral base formed by a realization that a defection to the GOP (instead of third party or boycott) was DOUBLE the threat. The "frosting" on this strategy was the venom and vitriol hurled at "tax and spend liberals" and those "leftists" who had the temerity to vote Green or Nader when the sell-outs became too toxic for a New Deal Democrat or liberal Democrat to vote for without a corruption of conscience. (Some DUers call them "purists" and other names ... with derision and cooperation with the corporatists.)

Make no mistake, however, the forces behind the scenes have remained the same. To corporate plutocrats and fascist sympathizers ... akin to Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin ... who are more than willing to 'support' a "Democrat" and tolerate a window-dressing of social liberalism just as long as the power and wealth of corporations is increasingly unleashed. That means destroying or taking over labor unions. That means converting our immigration laws into a system of trafficking in human labor. That means "bankruptcy deform" and "tort deform" and the "war on the middle class" and "open borders for capital" and NAFTA without labor standards.

It's sad. It's much of why I'm a steadfast independent liberal ... strangely more concerned with the corporatist/fascist takeover of the Democratic Party along with the GOP ... than the rabid partisans for whom ANY means is OK to serve the "ends" of party primacy.

What does it mean to gain the whole world if you lose your soul?

[alteredstate]

28. k & r

[intaglio]

29. Thanks altered, I don't kick my own stuff normally

[Perry Logan]

31. Selected bibliography of Obamite lies, smears, and bullshit at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4746049&mesg_id=4746049

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4774225&mesg_id=4774225

Pointed out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4779500&mesg_id=4779500

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4849238&mesg_id=4849238

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4922044&mesg_id=4922044

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4942967&mesg_id=4942967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4964704&mesg_id=4964704

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4982708&mesg_id=4982708

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5036756

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5065868&mesg_id=5065868

Reporting threats against Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4999545&mesg_id=4999545