Barack, It’s About What’s Best For America

Holly, you're vile. Really. I think many of us are still waiting eagerly to hear your reasons of why you so passionately hate Obama. I just hope it's something with substance rather than belched platitudes of "why he can't win."

Even if that was the case, then that's an issue you should be taking up with the Democratic party's "activist base" rather than Obama himself. But then it's much more fun to pout like a spoiled child and simply kvetch until November. If McCain wins in November, try not to have an aneurysm from the schadenfraude you'll doubtlessly experience.

Holly,

I have watched with glee how you seem to so despise Obama. From the one sentence posts that simply say "he is not electable", I truly wonder if you are seriously more inclined to vote for McCain over Obama. I mean, he might not be your favorite this time around, but would you seriously vote for someone else who agrees with you on virtually nothing?

I'm not one of the Obama disciples, but if you agree with Hillary on much of her platform, I find it very hard to believe that you wouldn't vote for the other guy who shares the majority of her views.

Amen Lit3Bolt. Holly, you just pouted your way right out of my feedreader. The Moderate Voice has generally been a voice of reason with some great reporting, but this type of post negates all of that. If I want a cesspool of ad hominum attacks, I can go read the comments section at The Politico. [unsubscribe]

Waah, waah, waah. Poor little baby Holly throws a temper tantrum, picks up her ball and goes home. Waah, waah, waah.

Seriously, does Holly's knee-jerk sputum belong on the MODERATE voice? Seriously?

Holly, it's hard to know if you're whistling in the dark or just venting. I suspect a little of both. In any case, your use of the phrase, "denial of reality" is one you ought to reconsider given your own attitude on the subject.

Gee, Holly, BITTER much?
Are you sure you want to live your life that way. Full of hate and bitterness? Angry at the world because your candidate ran a bad campaign. That is not Obama's fault. It is Hillary's. She made the choices she did. She failed to see the country has changed since 1992 and the old politics do not play anymore.
We cannot afford the luxury of the game playing of the Clintons.
We need someone who will be honest and decent and with the intellect to deal with the problems. Someone who can run the country like he's run his campaign.
And someone with newer and fresher ideas.
The era has come and gone for the Clintons. They have had their turn and now it's time to move on and say goodbye.
If you want a glimpse of Obama and how he deals with the world and how the world sees Obama I would urge you to read this and then do some thinking:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Mea...

Wow. So he wants to the party to unite behind him if he gets the nomination, and that suddenly makes him unelectable? But, I'm sure if Clinton said that, it'd be "Yay! Good for her. She's right!"

Look, I defended Clinton this morning on attacks she's getting about turning into a Republican because of the campaign she's run, pointing out the the likes of MoveOn won't be too nice either. So, what I say is definitely not some blind Obama supporting.

But, you cannot deny the facts. Obama got North Carolina by a lot. Clinton just didn't have such a good. Whining about it certainly doesn't help.

Hillary Clinton deserves a tremendous amount of respect for getting so many people involved in the political process, and for the many battles she has fought over her life. Holly, you are representing your candidate when you post on this site, and it is unfortunate that you have chosen to do so solely by issuing ad hominem attacks; many who read this site (including myself) would have welcomed the opportunity to gain additional insight into the arguments in favor of Senator Clinton being the nominee.

I just have to ask the question...you say that Obama is not electable. Do you really think that Hillary is? If you really want a get-out-the-vote operation for the Republicans, what better could you hope for than for Hillary to be the nominee? Republicans truly hate her. Half of the Democrats hate her. That seems to me to not be good math for someone to win the general election.

By the way, the so-called Limbaugh Effect needs to be kept in mind when looking at Sen. Clinton's numbers in Indiana. Most democrats don't get terribly thrilled about republicans trying to tip a primary.

I don't really have anything against Holly, and I think it's good to air out Obama's problems, and not get caught up in magical thinking. But at the same time, the level of discourse needs to be raised. There has to be something more than, "I hate him, all my friends hate him, we're all moderate Democrats in Ohio, ergo, Obama cannot win the general election." Why cannot Obama win? Is he too liberal? Black? Anti-war? Too nice to Republicans? Inexperienced? Lies too much?

I'm eager to hear evidence and reasons and to argue with your analysis. But "He can't win" or "He's a disaster" is not analysis.

Hey, what is this? I don't see how this post contributes meaningfully to the dialectic going on at themoderatevoice. Honestly, this post reads like an run of the mill internet troll. My vote for worst post on this blog in the couple of years I've been reading it, this one!

There is something missing from this rant Holly - you didn't call Obama or his supporters anti-semitic.

I can understand Holly's perspective. Barack has a lot of catching up to do before he even breaks even in a one-on-one match with McCain.

Come on, guys- lay off Holly. We all know who Holly is rooting for and who her second choice is. Holly has said many times that Obama does not meet her "experience" threshold and she will vote for McCain. McCain certainly does have tons more experience than Obama, especially in the issues which Americans consider the most important, the Iraq war and the economy. With the Iraq war McCain will continue the current policies and will not withdraw the troops and in regards to the economy McCain wants to make the tax cuts to the wealthy permanent. Personally I don't like the way Bush has handled either of these issues and I don't like McCain being 100% behind these issues. But hey, a lot of voters find the Bush experience, which is promised to be carried on by McCain, the new Republican standard bearer, to be comforting. But that's the American way- we get a say in the process.

So we all know Holly is anti-Obama because he doesn't have enough experience but let's not knock her if she votes for her second choice. It's Holly's decision and if she chooses not to go into much detail about her choice, then so be it. Democracy in action.

So yeah, it might be nice if Holly were to engage us on this topic, but after months of showing no inclination to do so let's just accept Holly's decision and move on to more productive issues. Nothing is accomplished otherwise. Our overtures to Holly have all been rebuffed and when she is ready to discuss she knows where to find us.

Holly,
Just a few hours ago, I defended your right to support the candidate of your choce,
I've even defended Clinton, even though I think she practices what I dislike most about politics.

This is your response?

Thanks for making it so hard to defend you

BTW, you're not doing Clinton any good, either. It makes it harder to defend her as well.
2nd BTW,, This is exactly the mistake the over-eager Obama fans made. They lived to regret it. Learn from their mistakes, instead of duplicating them.

Gee Holly, just because America is more ready to elect an African-American as President before they are ready to elect a closeted lesbian is no reason to go so postal.

i know ALL posts on TMV are not "moderate," but i expect them to be moderately insightful. there are plenty of blogs specializing in simple-minded rants. it's a shame to see one here.

I have been reading TMV for about a year now, but I've only just now registered for the comments section

I think the TMV editors need to consider cutting Holly off the staff. Her posts represent everything I come to this blog specifically to avoid. This inexplicable troll level analysis has no business in the comments, much less the front page. Does anyone remember this surly post that rages about how Obama lacks the poise to lead because some Clinton signs in Holly's neighborhood may or may not have been stolen?

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/...

I think someone might've hacked Holly's account. There's no way she actually posted this...

HappySurge: I doubt that anyone hacked Holly's account. This has been her standard fare for months now. In fact I would think that someone had hacked her account if she HAD contributed something thoughtful on this.

Wow, what a dog-in-the-manger attitude. I can't believe I'm reading such unprofessional tripe on TMV.

Holly's a 'Joe Lieberman Democrat'. As long as she has it her way it's her party but as soon as it doesn't...

Goes to show you that wing nuts come in all flavors.

::snark::
Sheeesh... Even Michelle Malkin can write a more persuasive post than that, and I haven't agreed with her since... Well, I'll stop there. It makes me feel old.
::/snark::

I have to agree with NordicAngst and Leebot here. There is very little in the previous posts by Holly that make me believe that she is an example of a Moderate Voice. (For another example of a non-moderate philosophical outlook, see Shawn Mullen's recent postings.) This post is yet another example of the same trend.

Yet we, as commenters and readers, are not exactly in a position of power to demand that those with posting privileges be cut from the roster. Instead, I would ask that more obviously conservative individuals be brought into the fold as a counter-balance to keep the general philosophical balance on the level.

Might I suggest Karl from Protein Wisdom as a start? His presence would definitely be enough to balance the scales.

Oh, don't start talking about more conservatives here - that REALLY pisses Joe off.

Back in the day, there were a lot of us conservatives here, both top line writers and readers/commentators, but almost all of them have been chased away by the Kos-lite attitudes here.

There are only a couple of us that bother coming around anymore, and rarely for more than the occasional bomb-lob. Just no point, really.

AustinRoth,

The conservatives that stopped posting here were extremely intolerant of their opponents. I think they chased themselves away by insisting on codes of speech from which they, themselves, were exempt.

Tit-for-tat just doesn't work.

Some were (as were/are some from the left, too). But many tried to have conversations, and 50 - 100 comment runs were not uncommon. HArd to do that when everyone is just piling on with variations of the same viewpoint.

And there were many very introspective conservatives, as well as the flamers, but even they have been made to know they are not really welcome here anymore.

Speaking of inconsistently applied codes, isn't this exactly the sort of comment thread where the management typically steps in to remind everyone that the degree of moderateness of the bloggers here isn't open for discussion? That there's a rule against attacking the blogger instead of just debating issues?

I know that whenever criticism is written about Shaun Mullen, for example, that's what happens. And I have no problem with any blog owner who sets and enforces those kinds of rules. Let's hope they're not selective though, as Holly's coming under some pretty nasty attacks here.

It's interesting how much response she generates with very succinct posts. I happen to agree that it'd be more convincing if she'd elaborate on why she supports Hillary over Obama, but it certainly is telling about the readers here to see the animosity that she generates just by having the gall to prefer McCain to Obama if Hillary doesn't get the Dem nomination.

CStanley, I agree with you there. I don't understand why folks continue to try to engage her when doesn't engage back. And then they get mad. These sorts of posts (whining about her choice) seem petty to me when we all know what Holly's response (or lack of one) will be.

If folks really want to engage on TMV, then they should move on to other posts. If they want to moan and complain, then they can continue to do so under Holly's.

Shaun has gotten a couple hits on this particular thread... I just want to say that whether you agree or disagree with Shaun at least he engages.

Shaun may be anti-Hillary and his posts come across as strong at times, but he has strong feelings on the matter. I don't always agree with him... or his style... but considering politics cause intense feelings and deciding which candidate to support is not only based on facts (but also how a candidate resonates with someone) I generally give Shaun a free pass.

I'm not sure I want a blog filled with people who just look at the facts and are balanced all the time. A variety of viewpoints... and styles... offers a richer experience. At least to me.

WIth that in mind, I agree with Off_Colfax's statement, "....that more obviously conservative individuals be brought into the fold as a counter-balance to keep the general philosophical balance on the level."

At any rate I don't read every posting on here, and I have some bloggers I follow more closely than others, but I love TMV, it's range of topics and the personality of its bloggers (even Holly, after a fashion). It's like a family (love him... hate her... there HE goes again, I wonder what he'll say this time, etc.).

I don't mind that Holly's opinions might be immoderate from time to time. However, I do think it's unprofessional that she rarely offers any rationalization for her viewpoints.

Holly,

I have to disagree with you and point out that most of what you espouse are the far right's talking points on Obama. Very Taylor Marsh of you to attack ad hominem rather than address the issues ( The gas- tax holiday is just a PR scam and anyone who can add knows that. )

Austin,

Problem is a lot of hysterical blathering happens on both sides. It gets turned out of phase so much the original subject gets left in the dust like a bad game of telephone. People should go back and read the great discussions between Wm F Buckley and Murray Kempton in the newspapers ( what's a newspaper?) arch Conservative against Arch liberal- oh yeah and they were good friends irl.

This thread is amusing, it really is. So many Obama fans make Ron Paul supporters not only sane, but refined in comparison, as well as even better-behaved insofar as the racist far-right Ron Paul subset of people is concerned.

C. Stanley -- this blatantly liberal site has always declined to engage in enforcement of any moderation (and quality control) when libs go crazy.

" I just want to say that whether you agree or disagree with Shaun at least he engages. "

He's a lunatic and rabidly hateful about the war, Bush, and Clinton because of her refusal to be rabidly anti-war (and anti-USA-and-West), but at least he posts items of substance, like 'em or not. There's at least one other lib poster on here who is radical to the point of delusional (Sixties Sickness Regurgitated) and another lib (a typical dishonest "moderate" or "centrist" who is an obvious lib) who is the site's equivalent of Maureen Dowd (vaporware). Shaun is neither of these. He reminds me of the owner of the place I used to frequent where I lived in Upstate New York, between sets of live entertainment bashing Bush incessantly. (The customers did as well. "Your SHOES have more intelligence than [Bush] has!")

"" I just want to say that whether you agree or disagree with Shaun at least he engages. "

He's got a stellar eye when selecting photographs, too!

DLS,

And what qualifies you to pigeonhole people as "libs"...or is it your FOX noise style of "weigh anecdotal evidence, make a judgement" style of analysis. Or does your CV list educational background from a Public Polcy institution. Please quantify.

You're one sentence shy of flinging out "moonbat" epithets that I see so prevalantly on RWN and the like. Who's teh lunatic. Shaun has a shelf full of trinkets and bona fides, what have you got?

CStanley, though I agree with you about the double standard, I can also see where some of the commenters are coming from. This frustration does not occur in a vacuum. Holly has been off the wall fanatically anti-Obama for months. She very very rarely gives even the mildest justification for what is clearly hatred. Repeated calls for her to explain the reasons behind her positions have gone completely ignored, and eventually people got angry and/or dismissive of her opinion re:Obama.
I'm not saying that simply attacking her is justified, but that the fact that you aren't seeing a lot of policy discussion behind the attacks is partly due to the fact that she is utterly inmune to rationalization when it comes to this subject. Jill Miller, for instance, opposed Obama and gives actual REASONS, making discussion actually possible with her.

Oh and runasim, as for the conservatives leaving because of their "intolerance" I couldn't disagree more. What they were was tired of having to put up with frequent attacks that were never controlled, or being accused of non-moderation, while other bloggers could literally tell people to go Cheney themselves without consequence. Double standards really sting.

Dear Everyone
I apologize, this is errant in being posted in a more timely manner, but editors would appreciate the discussion here being brought back to the topic, which as I understand it from reading Holly's post, is whether Bararck Obama is living in denial of reality when he said the Demo party will unify-- and if yes-- does this qualify as reason he not be considered a stellar candidate for president? and if no, etc. Things along those lines.

Read the comments policy if you're not sure what the guidelines are. It is printed below the comments here.

Thank you, and with warm regards,
Dr. e

Thanks for the voice of reason and equal standards, Dr. E.

And thank you, Lynx, for this:

Oh and runasim, as for the conservatives leaving because of their "intolerance" I couldn't disagree more. What they were was tired of having to put up with frequent attacks that were never controlled, or being accused of non-moderation, while other bloggers could literally tell people to go Cheney themselves without consequence. Double standards really sting.

At least someone on the liberal side gets it. Although I wouldn't have used the word sting, it's more like those inequally applied 'rules' poison the environment for real discussion- it ends up enforcing an orthodoxy so that only certain kinds of commentary are respected. It's easier to dismiss someone than actually defend your argument against them, that sort of thing, and if you try to make a point and continually get dismissed, you eventually decide there's no point in it.

As for your point about Holly, Lynx, I get it- but that's still just a criticism of her unwillingness to engage rather than a justification for saying she's not moderate or doesn't belong here. I think the reasons for her preference are pretty obvious, and although she's been succinct in her comments about it I suspect that's just because she also sees that there's not much point in stating things that just aren't accepted as valid viewpoints in some circles. I think she wants to remind us that not everyone on the Dem side feels that way- but she knows that it's pretty pointless to argue about the reasons. Maybe I'm inferring too much, but that's what it seems like to me.

BTW, Lynx, if I"m not mistaken I think I remember that when Jill Miller made those arguments, she was treated in a pretty disgusting manner- with all sorts of insinuation about gender being the only real reason she supported HC. I think one of my least favorite commenters even made a "must be that time of the month" type of comment. Does that at all affect your opinion about Holly not being willing to "engage"?

I really can't speak much about conservative though being "run off" TMV. But I can say that the Democratic race has boiled over one too many times among supporters. I find appealing qualities in Senators Clinton and Obama. I understand the passion and emotion. I just think everyone that's emotionally vested in the Dem primary season needs to chill (for lack of a better word). Among Clinton and Obama supporter sites, you would think Adolf Hitler and Che Guevara are running for the nomination based on the level of venom being produced.

For myself, Obama has a special place in my political heart simply because we're both black. And I have to be honest with you, I would love to see a black president for many reasons. One big reason is that perceived barriers to black folks "ascending" would be smashed. But I also have to decide who can run this ol' country with the right plan. So I'm conflicted. And that's a good thing in my book.

BTW, Lynx, if I"m not mistaken I think I remember that when Jill Miller made those arguments, she was treated in a pretty disgusting manner- with all sorts of insinuation about gender being the only real reason she supported HC.

Yes, I remember that too, and those attacks were, IMO, totally unwarranted. I don't personally remember a time in which Holly was even vaguely open to discussion about Obama. Though I agree that there are people who would attack no matter how moderate and reasonable the post (as Jill has had to tolerate) I also think that there are people who tried initially, but then gave up in disgust.

And now, to get into Clarissa's good graces for straying off topic, I'll actually address the subject at hand; party unity. I agree with Howard Dean, who said party unity is going to depend on the losing candidate. It's that's candidate's sad chore to put on a brave face, and feigning enthusiasm, try to convince their voters to go over and vote for the person they've been fighting for months on end. It's an unenviable task, and won't be easy for either one. I see Clinton as less able or willing to pull off the task of bringing her voters to Obama, though it won't be easy for him either. Also, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, I suspect the anger and disillusion within the black community will be huge. I'm not silly enough to think they'll vote for McCain, but many could decide to stay home.

I think your analysis is about right regarding the 'unity'. Basically I'd phrase it this way: Hillary is probably less willing to do what she has to do to bring her supporters into the fold, but Obama may be less able to (since many of his supporters will see it as a slap in the face if he doesn't get the nom- he hasn't necessarily encouraged that thinking but that's the way people seem to be feeling- and oh, I did see Michelle DEFINITELY encouraging people to feel that way.)

dear lynx, cstanley, tsteels and all here, thank you for your comments (and lynx with such a beautiful name you chose to live in, you already have grace) re unifying after bashing each other half to death.... having participated in some long court trials and some long squiring of bills though legislatures, it was amazing to see how heartily men (it has only been very recently that sig numbers of women act as lead prosecutor or defense in court or as legislators)...how mostly very genuinely men bridged with their opposition afterward.

IN part, because they know they may have to rely on each other as allies in the future, that both may need to court the other's good will some day. Also, I had the impression, and I could be wrong, but alot of those old boys were in sports in high school and college and sort of had the brain groove already, that you fight as hard as you can, and afterward, admire the other team's endurance, and maybe learn a few things from them too.

I think, personal grudges certainly exist in some. But, that's like a set of dams on a river. It's better to do something other than hold grudges. Not forgetting if someone really 'done someone wrong,' but forebearing for larger reasons. Easy to say, sometimes hard to do. But worth striving toward, I think. Just my .02 worth.

I think any group can unify if they have a large enough goal. There will always be those who spit and go away. But hopefully they too, will come back, if even at the periphery and participate.

I hold that thought. I know many others here do also. Id rather if people want to see people throwing each other around all over the place, they go to any Czech tumbling show, or the WWF. lol.

dr.e

CStanley,
When did Michelle do that? I'm curious.

CStanley and Lynx,
I dont't want to refight past wars,(although I will, if you want), so let me just state my POV, and I think you'll see where we differ.

When I visit a restaurant, I choose from the menu. I don't demand that the management change its cuisine to suit my taste. I may comment on the quality of the food or the service, or I may leave. The reaction is up to me., How to run the restaurant is up to the management..

Even though Holly and I seldom agree on politics, I would never dream of demanding her departure. The comments alluding to Holly in such a manner are out of line, Imo. I would defend her against those who make such demands. .

My choice is: comment on a post, or don't readi it and just scroll past. As a visitor, i expect no more say in who writes posts or what they say in them than I expect to dictate the cuisine of a restaurant I visit.

I hope you see where our point of dfference is now and where it was in the past so we can let it drop.
If not, that's okay, too.

Chris: Let's just say that a speech like this one isn't exactly what one does to unify supporters around the opposing primary candidate should he not prevail:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQ1MzFkMW...

Runasim: We agree completely about all of that (though if I"m dissatisfied with a restaurant or find that it isn't living up to its potential or its billing then I might offer constructive criticism instead of just walking out and not returning.)

The difference of opinion is just over whether or not the kind of support that you feel that Holly deserves (and I think that as well) has been extended fairly and equally in all cases. I imagine that we will have to agree to disagree about that.

"There's at least one other lib poster on here who is radical to the point of delusional (Sixties Sickness Regurgitated)...."

Oh, I hope that's me! Please let it be me. I'll be really disappointed otherwise.

Did I mention that Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton's "Black Power" is currently sitting on my bed?

It has to be me. It has to!

Schraubd said:

Oh, I hope that's me! Please let it be me.

Me, too!

Liberal Education...
Bozo the Clown Blotter & 'Horse Caps'...
Career, family... Children, Grandchildren...
Retired by 60... Crappy golfer four days a week ...

Sure glad I didn't buy into the negative, pessimism pouring from the mouths of those calling themselves "conservative"...

The constant drone of naysayers reminds me daily of the terrible path I might have taken. Life is good... Thank you.

a