You and I have argued frequently without getting into personalities. Did the trap lines of basic courtesy really hurt you that much or prevent you from expressing your opinion?
Considering where no-holds-barred argumentation can lead – see the Randi Rhodes story- some basic trap lines seem like an excellent idea. When it gets out of hand, everyone is shocked!!!! But a fire starts with a tiny match. It's a good idea to keep an eye on where and how we throw the match, you &%#@&……1

All this sniping between Clinton and Obama supporters both in the media in general and on TMV in specific is puzzling. Aside from foreign policy, there's not much difference between political platforms of the two. All this back-and-forth sniping amounts to a bunch emotional rhetoric rather than a discussion of issues.

In defense of Holly, just because she has (unfortunately) taken a hawkish stance on Middle Eastern foreign policy, that doesn't mean she “lied” to us. Unless you have factual evidence to support your claim, I would plead commentors not to question the honesty, integrity, or patriotism of fellow commentors or posters.

Normally I'd just ignore this post as I do so many others, but I do have to say that reading this, I did sort of sulk and go 'awwwwwwwwwwww'…

Because, I mean, Jimmy Carter is like Hitler to the right wing…

Dear god…do we have to worry about “trap lines” every time we go out the door now?…so it has come to this…oh, the humanity!!!

Well, as any rational discussion about policies has gone out the window it seems…we are left to quarrel over which wacko decides to endorse who (and, of course, which candidate is truly a “who*r*”).

I doubt Obama has even met Jane Fonda. Guilt by six degrees of association.

Still, endorsement by two leading liberals (I suppose Fonda is a liberal…altho she married Ted Turner because of what she described as her fascination with being dominated by a rich man…so I am not sure what she is really)…can't do Obama any good with his claim to reach out to Independ and GOPers.

But it is sorta mad, you got to admit. Now Obama has to reject association with someone he has never met.

Hahahahahahahahaha…As they said on SNL: “keep the crazy train rolling…”

The first two things started in the previous administration so it never made sense to me that he caught the hook for those. And the hostage rescue screwup seems like a botched military affair and I'm not sure why he's taking the wrap for that either. Unless I am missing something. Any of you that lived thru those years care to illuminate me?

In general, endorsements mean very little in terms of turning out actual votes. But if Carter were to come out with an actual endorsement, that would be another very nice feather in Obama's cap.

(And speaking of other ex-presidents, it has been sort of sad to see how much Clinton's stature has shrunk in the past couple of months. I never did share the gauzy-eyed love of Clinton and his administration that those who are politically left of me seem to have. He had his good points and his bad points, and in the balance my opinion of him as a president was “okay”. But over the last two or three months it seems to me that he has turned into a real turdblossom, as if he is intentionally trying to wreck his legacy. As far as ex-president endorsements go, I would consider Bill Clinton's touch-of-death to be much more toxic than Carter's. And we all know who Bill Clinton endorses.)

My claim is not that Holly is exceptional in her views, my claim is that she is an almost prototypical description of a neo-conservative including having their left-wing past. If you review some of her previous posts and comments and you'll see that Holly is well on her way to joining the right wing neo-cons in their view of the world.

Also, as far as bashing a blogger instead of their views; when a blogger continues to espouse views that not only contradict the facts, but also perpetuate a discredited policy that blogger becomes part of the conversation.

I'll throw out two quick examples of Holly's posts and comments for you to peruse,:

This is her comment in response to DAVID SCHRAUB post on Jews booing Obama for his comment “I look forward to a day where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace.”

“It says that we don't trust Barack Obama. My friends, all college-educated professionals, use words like “creepy” and “frightening” in reference to Sen. Obama.”

This is her post on the Dec. 2007 NIE and its findings on Iran.

Dec. 2007 NIE

I must admit the NIE post is what really opened my eyes to the fact that Holly cared nothing for the facts if they contradicted her world view, she had joined the neo-cons in there wiliness to manipulate American opinion in order to facilitate a war with Iran. And realize I place this all in context of the fact that we were previously lied into a war that has killed over 4,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis, I refuse to sit by and let it happen again.

I disagree with Holly often, but to claim that she is exceptional in her passionate
adherence to certain views is ridiculours, particularly as you, yoursellf, proudly announce your hunt for neo-cons.
In fact, I think it speaks badly for those who make the argument personal, by bashing a bloger,, instead of just stating what ideas you disagree with.

I am a huge Sen. Clinton supporter[...]

Best of luck with your weight problem

I am a huge basher of Holly, not because of her partisanship, but because she is a neo-con. She is part of that group of people who have lied us into the Iraqi mess for which their is no good way out. She is one of those who bear responsibility for the lies that have killed over 4,000 of our soldiers and countless Iraqis.

I have made it one of my goals going forward to challenge these people everytime they rear their head with some off-the-wall un-American piece of garbage. The last time they spouted their crap I kept quiet figuring the American people would see through their lies, I was wrong. This time I will shout from the rooftops if necessary to alert the American people to their lies. And if it means I start at TMV, so be it.

P.S.

I am a huge Sen. Clinton supporter, I have donated and volunteered, and I have to tell you, with Sen. Clinton supporters like Holly I sometimes question my support of Sen. Clinton.

As far as she and others like her are concerned President Carter lost all his credibility when he pointed out that Israel by building a wall through the Palestinian homeland was practicing their own form of apartheid. And Jane Fonda lost her credibility not through her actions during the Vietnam War, but through her longtime support of the Palestinian cause.

Fonda, not so much, but why would anyone think somehow Obama is damaged by her saying she supports him is beyond me.

I hear Kim Jung Il loves Hillary. Boy, she's toast!

Or are you saying we CAN hold Hillary responsible for whatever kook decides to vote for her?

Calling a hurried reply to a reporter an endorsement, is stretching it a tad, IMO.
It's not like Jane Fonda was a speaker at one of his fundraisers. Even if she had been, Ann Coulter's appearance on stage didn't bring Romney down.

I agree with Shamfu. We are going way overboard in reading meanong into every move, every word and every handshake.

There are certain supporters that I will give more weight to than others. If I think poorly about a given supporter, the weight will be less. Now, if a given candidate actively seeks said supporter's approval, only then do those negative aspects of the supporter start to sway my opinion of the candidate. Instead of looking at it from the supporter's perspective on associations and reasonings, I then look at it from the candidate's. To do so beforehand (in my opinion) is unfair to any candidate.

To reach the full spectrum of the conversation, I agree that there are individuals and/or groups that I have decided have enough negative connotations associated with them where denouncing support is preferred over neutrality on the part of the candidate. But, again, this varies per voter.