Yes, I am 'nakedly biased.' This is a blog. These are opinion pieces. It would be wrong of me to pretend to be detached when I am not. Others, including you, are free to differ. Your information may be different or your premises may be wrong. As for naked bias, go back and read your own comments. They're the best retort .

I have no intention of defending my opinions to you. I do not find your arguments persuasive, but that may be because of the sneering tone. As I asserted in the piece, “You are too stupid to see the light” never strikes me as particularly persuasive.

1) You are missing the point re; avaricious. How does that describe Obama folk and not Clintonistas or McCain supporters or any supporters?

2) I prefaced the quoted part with 'Do you not admit that the Hill folk have….' which indicates I am not stating you said that. Then we get back top avariciouus, where you typed, 'They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.' about the Obama folk. How does that not square with 'but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort.' You are dancing semantically, but not quick enough to not trip on your own claims.

3) It is mu threshold. The point?

4) Your link points to a blank page.

5) I copied and pasted your quote: 'They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.'

How is that NOT a sweeping statement?

1. My comments? My words. I stand by avaricious regardless of how many people it describes. That's my observation. I take responsibility for it.

2. I never said any of this or intimated any of it, so don't put words or ideas into my comments that aren't there in the first place: “Do you not admit that the Hill folk have chided Obama folk as idealistic dreamers? So, you are saying, that in online arguments, most O folk are not that, but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort. But, that's not so of Hillary folk, even if we accept your syllabus of the argument.”

3. This describes your threshold, to which you are entitled. “Even the worst Right Wingers who post here- Superdestroyer with his racial paranoia, and DLS with his Right Wing comments, I would not describe as avaricious in support of this or that folk, so again the claim seems strained.”

4. I invited you a several comments ago to look at the instances to which I'm referring. Go look at Buckeye State Blog. Just search on “clinton.”

5. Again – I never said anywhere at anytime to anyone anything that would indicate i felt this way. How it is that you make such an assertion, I can't say. “And, if so, what makes you think that is the majority, when you have objected to similar sweeping statements against others?”

How is the supporter of any politician, by using your definition of avarice, not avaricious. They all want to see their guy/gal get power. That's what politics is about. It's when power is the only driving force, which far more resembles Hill and her crowd than the Obama folk, whom the Hill folk accuse of naive te and idealism, even ripping him and them for it.

Do you not admit that the Hill folk have chided Obama folk as idealistic dreamers? So, you are saying, that in online arguments, most O folk are not that, but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort. But, that's not so of Hillary folk, even if we accept your syllabus of the argument.

Even the worst Right Wingers who post here- Superdestroyer with his racial paranoia, and DLS with his Right Wing comments, I would not describe as avaricious in support of this or that folk, so again the claim seems strained.

Can you link to specific comments where this rapacious Obama support resides. And, if so, what makes you think that is the majority, when you have objected to similar sweeping statements against others?

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think we are generally in agreement but simply finding differences on the edges.

I believe there is a tendency to see base motives in other candidates while seeing only high moral motives from the candidate we have chosen. And in the world of blogs it is that much more pervasive because so many blogs tend to being egregiously biased. They spin stories to favor their candidates. I have been posting on TalkLeft for a few weeks in an attempt to temper the fervent pro-Clinton anti-Obama rhetoric there. And I can tell you that there are certain known facts about both campaigns that cannot be challenged because they are entrenched matters of faith.

I really do believe that some people are far better at controlling the media narrative. Ronald Reagan was exceptionally good. John Kerry was horrible at it. Certainly how the media views the person is a factor. But some people treat the media with disdain and really don't care how they are portrayed. The current President is a good example of this.

I wasn't talking about Obama. I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about a very discrete group of individuals.

You are totally losing it here – I've never, ever written a “pro-Hill post” – seriously – what are you talking about?
reply'

Again, how is the supporter of any politician, by using your definition of avarice, not avaricious. They all want to see their guy/gal get power. That's what politics is about. It's when power is the only driving force, which far more resembles Hill and her crowd than the Obama folk, whom the Hill folk accuse of naive te and idealism, even ripping him and them for it.

So, they are avaricious and naive and idealistic. Which? What have all your posts here been but blatantly pro-Hill? Hello….

BBQ- I've not duh anything, I've watched Dam and Jill distort with spade and fork, and simply am calling the instruments by name.

Dam: You did express an opinion, and a nakedly biased one which you have been called on, by me and others. And while I will vote for O come Texas primary, I am under no illusions that he's a savior, but he's far and away the best of the 3 major candidates, for reasons I and others have enumerated in the past. Like has nothing to do with it. He could be an asshole in person. I don't care, but he has the best ideas and temperament to be the 44th Prez.

It's this conflation of 'liking' candidates with their real world qualifications that leads to so many probs. Yes, I think W- as big a moron as he is, is more likable than Gore or Kerry, but most of the folk who voted for that reason alone likely regret it.

I am infuriated by the treatment of Hillary by the Democrats. I was not a strong Clinton supporter when this began but have rallied to her. The Clinton's lead over a strong economy and left office with a surplus, taking office after 12 yrs of Republicans. The Obama Dems are acting like crude idiots in their treatment of the Clintons and “Clinton Rules”

Obama was just an Illinois state senator just 4 yrs ago….He is being compared to JFK, but what did JFK do in the short time he was in office besides Bay of Pigs and gross adultery. I am an educated White Male.

Although I am a lifelong democrat but voting for MCCAIN if Obama wins the nomination.

The drug comments were low blows. Period. I didn't like the comments when I heard them. They weren't racist, though, just hypocritical (only by association) given Hillary's own husband's admission about marijuana.

I CAN see how the Jessie Jackson comment might have been construed as racist. He should have picked someone else to illustrate that winning South Carolina doesn't mean one will win the nation.

I don't think the MLK comment was a mis-step: she was stating that she would be helpful to such reformers in a practical way. Some of Obama's media-linked supporters ignored crucial parts of her statement, began screaming, and the media amplified it.

Like you, I don't expect candidates to be pure as driven snow. and if they're not, it's not wise for them to falsely imply that their opponents are “dirty” on the very same issues regarding which they, themselves, have dirt in their history. That's as hypocritical as IF (note the “if”) Bill Clinton had accused Barack of being a womanizer or deal cutter.

Hillary didn't pounce on Barack over political donations or the war until AFTER he tried to pass himself off not only untainted but also comparatively cleaner than she is. He opened the door on that one. Can you think of a reason that she should not have reacted with counterpoints?

Again, I'm not trying to argue here that one is a ton better than the other overall; I'm just pointing out that some of Obama's actics have smacked of hypocrisy — again, NO OFFENSE to his supporters, who aren't responsible for the candidate's choices.

Does anyone really “let” the media create narratives? They seem to do it on their own — without regard for objections from folks like you and me. As Fox and Limbaugh have shown for years, people who don't do their own research often don't know that they're being misled (or manipulated or lied to). They turn on the TV, see guys and gals wearing suits and using crisp diction, and they think they're getting facts. Go figure!

Mrs. Obama could have done likewise at GMA: it was a scheduled interview. She CHOSE not to go that way. I was just a small-time candidate (once), but I never went to a scheduled interview without a good idea of what I would and wouldn't say. The Obamas (and Clintons) have far more at stake than I did.

Whether Bill was president or not doesn't relate to my point, which was that now — as a husband and campaign volunteer — his words have been imputed to Hillary. The same is true for Michell/Barack (and would be of the McCains, if Mrs. McCain actually spoke).

Anyway, I still hope we'll see a joint ticket, whoever wins top slot.

I don't expect any candidate to be pure as a driven snow. He is cultivating his image just as Hillary is trying to cultivate her image as the wise and experienced leader.

I think that people try to take individual quotes and extrapolate them into larger messages. Michelle Obama said she would have to think about working to support Clinton. So what? She is the wife of someone running for President.

She is NOT a former President of the United States so I think it is a little silly to try and put her on similar footing as Bill.

FTR, the MLK comment was simply a misstep by Hillary and on its own it would have disappeared. But then came the NH co-chairs comments, Then came the Robert Johnson. Then came Bill's utterly stupid comparison of Obama to Jackson.

If you allow the media to create a narrative, they will.

I am “digging myself in deeper”, how?

I expressed an opinion. You do not agree. It's fine with me if you differ. You haven't said anything to change my mind—you seem to think that it's because I don't understand, when it's just that I don't accept how you're framing the facts.

I am pro-Hillary, as between Hillary and Obama. That's not something I am going to apologize for. I imagine I've gone into the facts at least as thoroughly as you, but my conclusions are different. Each must choose her own best option.

The day may come when something happens to change my mind—but it won't come from something someone says to change my mind, because I've pretty thoroughly looked into the facts. It'll have to come from Obama himself or from Hillary.

I do get that you dislike Hillary and like Obama.

I hope I come to like Obama too. But people who bash Hillary repeatedly aren't making me like him better. Rather the reverse. Which was the point of my post.

I don't think Bill or Hillary brought racism into the campaign. As I recall, the MEDIA created the issue after Hillary made the factual, non-racist comment involving LBJ and MLK ( my paraphrasing): Reformers like MLK need presidents like LBJ, and I would be one (a positive message that some people twisted beyond recognition).

Michelle Obama's comment was a big deal, as it sounds like a message to supporters to stay home if Hillary wins. That message is a slap to the roughly 50% of Dems who now support Hillary: it's like saying, “We're in it to win, and we don't give a damn about the rest of you Dems if we don't win.” THAT's hugely divisive, and it came from the candidate's wife. [Remember, Bill's words are imputed to Hillary, so Michelle's are equally imputed to Barack.]

Frankly, I'd like to see a joint ticket — whoever takes the top spot.

On another note, I've been troubled by Obama's tendency to make comparisons that don't quite gel with reality (NO OFFENSE to his supporters). Examples:

1. He implied that his hands were much cleaner than Hillary's re: corporate and lobbyist money — though he's taken a healthy share. Hillary has too, but she didn't start the false comparison.

2. He implied that he is better re: the Iraq war, though a) his neck wasn't on the line with an actual vote in the pre-Katrina climate, and b) his and Hillary's war-related votes since 2005 have been about the same. The upshot: NEITHER candidate is an anti-war activist's dream.

3. He claimed during the campaign that he stood up to the nuclear power industry, and he did — AT FIRST. In the end, he rewrote the bill to give the industry what it wanted (i.e., don't FORCE us to actually report small radioactive leaks). I DON'T BLAME Obama for his original version's being sunk by fellow legislators. I DO blame him for posturing as though he had not ultimately capitulated. Here' s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/0...

My point is NOT that Hillary is better on all issues. Mmy point is that Obama had no business claiming that he was somehow untainted when he wasn't — and yet, the media is buying and amplifying it (which isn't his fault, I know). Still, it's frustrating to witness.

Cosmo,
Why do they need to dig when you have already dug a big enough hole?