I’ve been looking for an example: a single example, to explain some of the more obnoxious taunts and comments slathered over the web and in public. The worst ones would require many, many links, also requiring “scroll, scroll, scroll… click… scroll, scroll, scroll… click… scroll, scroll, scroll… But this one article does examine some of the more problematic, more public, comments aimed at one side of the Democratic divide. First… a few quotes. Then a link.
“Ditto for blogger Wil Wheaton, who played Wesley in the TV series ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation,’ who dubbed Clinton ‘the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic party.'”
“And we know, don’t we, what to do with psycho ex-girlfriends? Drown them, club them, electrocute them. Meanwhile, analogies between Clinton and that flat-eyed, metallic, multimovie franchise character ‘Terminator’ are copious to the point of cliche. You may or may not like Clintonor any other female candidate. You may or may not agree with their policies. But is it really necessary to order a hit? Isn’t it enough just to vote for somebody else?”
Note: in cases like this I would say if it’s fair for O’Bama supporters to add meaning that isn’t within the sentences, then it’s fair for Clinton supporters: or those like myself who would just wish both parts of the party would cut the sludge.
“On CNN, pundit Alex Castellanos said Democrats must realize that ‘it’s time to take the family dog to the vet.'”
Hmm… dogs and women. “Cute.” And, if we were to insert meaning… well, let’s not go there. But one of my favorites, except in some cases like this, did go there…
“Keith Olbermann expressed the hope that ‘somebody will take her into a roomand only he comes out.'”
Ah, but one: admittedly famous, mainsteam, pundit’s comment in the larger scheme?
“CNN’s Jack Cafferty gleefully floated the specter of Clinton being run over by a flatbed truck. A recent Tribune editorial compared Clinton to a euthanized Kentucky Derby contender.”
“One?”
Oops.
Finally…
“It’s natural to wonder whether Obama approves of the death-haunted images that surround his opponent like a phalanx of vultures. Surely he doesn’t. He is an intelligent, sensitive, enlightened man whose life has been enriched, as he frequently acknowledges, by the presence of strong women, most notably his late mother and his wife. I wish, therefore, that he would publicly condemn the trend of evoking death and destruction when it comes to Clinton. Perhaps, someday, he will.”
Amen. Indeed, may both sides address attempt slights real and imagined. Unfortunately, “attempt” will probably be the best they can do. It’s hard to reach those so swallowed up in images of hate and, in some cases, violence, they are using…. when they won’t even admit that’s what they are wallowing in.
It’s an interesting article that might help O’Bama supporters understand just a smidgen more why others are just as pissed as they are. My only overall comment: this is no way for either side to run a “successful” bid for the presidency.
Honestly, I think that a lot of the “ridicule” is coming from people everywhere who can plainly see that a Hillary presidency is a lost cause and a mathematically impossibility.
Some of us have known it since February, and a growing number have been realizing it ever since.
Not all of the slings are coming from “Obama supporters”. Many of the slings come from people who have a negative view of Hillary in general.
You have to remember, (and I have been saying it here for a long time) that Hillary has almost as many people who actively dislike her as there are who love her. Of all the candidates, she has unusually high negatives for someone running for president — even higher than Bush.
There will be people who will actually come out to vote against her rather than stay home to protest McCain.
While a LOT of the Corporate Media is still focusing on Obama and his pastor, Obama and “The White Vote” and other ‘scandals’ Hillary’s campaign helpfully pointed out, you want to complain about “O’Bama” has been careful not to tell people that the Republican candidate is more qualified than Hillary, or that people won’t vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
He also enjoys a sizable and insurmountable lead in the delegate count, so he isn’t desparately trying to claim convoluted math and strawman claims as a reason to stay in the race when it is clear to just about everyone that there is no way to come from behind and win.
Obama has made it a point to come out and say that Hillary has every right and should stay in the race until the end. He is not calling for her to give up and pack it in. In fact, even today, he praised Clinton and her campaign.
But Obama has to start moving on now. McCain has had several months of a head start on the General election, and now Obama has to focus his attention there as well. Personally, I think that both he AND Clinton should have each started to do that two months ago, and let the voters pick who they think is making the strongest case against the Republican. Instead, Hillary chose to try and bloody Obama, giving McCain ammunition to use against Barack.
So there isn’t really a mystery involved here. People who would have ordinarily supported Hillary if she had won the nomination are turned off by the way she and Bill have run their campaign.
People genuinely like Obama because he comes across as the nice guy, who tries to rise above the low-blows.
But he isn’t a push-over either. Unlike John Kerry, who was slow to respond to those Swift Boat claims and the ‘Flip-Flop’ accusations, Obama quickly fires back on his opponent with style and hard facts — and people like that, and they respond.
Don’t have time to comment now… libarary closing. Tomorrow.
Well here I am again, DJ: 20 minutes to go. I’ll do my best and attempt to get back on later…
I think you’re comment about this type of criticism is wrong, but neither of us have tables or stats: not that either is even possible. I know that Mike Malloy has been raging for quite a while and somewhat over board at times. I do know I have been reading and hearing such comments long before “the math” was seemingly part of the equation.(God I hate that phrase for it has nothing to do with reality. As I said before, though unlikely if Barack had 2020, he could still lose it. That’s the way it works: not that I think that’s a good thing.)
We disagree. In Feb she still could have won. If you wish to include something other than “the math” then… perhaps you’re right. The sheer and utter hatred of everything Clinton does figure into this. How much? Well, IMO, it took a while to be sure.
We agree. In fact, as I have been saying over and over I think that trolls and Reich Wing talking heads have been a large part of this. Everything is to be gained by getting and keeping the two camps at each other’s throats. It amazes me after eight years of Rove, black baby stories, Bush aide riots and yada yada yada that I find Lefties treating me like this is nothing more than a tinfoil hat talking. Do Dems ever learn?
You’re right, when it comes to most of his rhetoric regarding Hillary I have nothing but praise, except his recent “unfortunate” comment. That could be read as encouraging Barack supporters to claim Hillary wants Barack killed like Bobby. Indeed this has been my only main problem regarding Barack. Certainly he must know some of what’s being said in his name but it’s much like his head is turned, hands in pockets with, “I see and hear nothing.” I would hope he’d do more to discourage this. It does nothing for this “high road” everyone says he wants to travel.
One more thing: I really would like Barack supporters to openly admit this is wrong. Like on any playground, in this case, doesn’t matter what the other guy did.
He doesn’t come across to me that way (“Nice guy…”) …but perceptions are only just that: perceptions. He does respond back, but I often find his responses, like the Wright speech wordy and skewing away from the topic as if he’s avoiding it. Somewhat Kerry, but no where near as bad.