RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Enough. (a long GBCW essay)

I posted this diary at Daily Kos last night. Why I did so is expressed in the diary. (GBCW stands for “Goodbye Cruel World,” a frequently-used acronym at Daily Kos.) My Website. My bio at Daily Kos: “Openly gay man living in Great Falls, MT. Please allow your imagination to run with that…”

Enough. (a long GBCW essay)
by jarhead5536

Goodbye, cruel Kossacks, I fold. You win, Obama wins, my candidate has not, cannot, and will not get a fair hearing here, and I’m done.

It has been what seems like weeks since anything positive has been said about my candidate for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is one of the most accomplished, respected and admired women of the 20th century, and yet you people have not stopped baying for her head on a spike since she announced a year ago. A few things I have to get off my chest:

- I don’t care that her husband cheated on her, or that she took him back afterwards. I really don’t.

- I don’t care that her husband made some calculated political decisions that ultimately didn’t work out. Kossacks seem to forget what he was up against during his entire Administration. The legislative branch was not giving an inch, out of nothing but pure spite.

- I actually don’t care that she won’t apologize for her AUMF vote. Wait, I take that back. I do care, because to apologize for something she thought long and hard about shows a lack of courage of her convictions. In fact, I defend her vote for what it was, in the starkest possible terms: a WOMAN that wants to run for President in sexist America cannot be seen to flinch from the use of force, period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. To me, the vote was intended to be saber-rattling done on the cheap, only the President was out to show that he has a bigger dick than his father. Crude, yes, but I think accurate.

- I don’t care that she is rather unimpressive as a speaker. We’re not electing the president of Toastmasters here.

- I don’t even care that she is a creature of the Washington establishment. I used to live in DC, so I know how things work there. It takes an insider to make the whole mess function at all, let alone accomplish any good for the country.

I do care that she cares about this country. Her entire life has been one of nonstop public service, from law school onward to today. Her personal story inspires me more than I can describe. Her desire to improve the quality of life for all Americans is genuine, and it’s a shame that she has difficulty articulating that desire publicly.

She’s been horribly burned, almost disfigured, you see, by the media. She has been maligned as a militant feminist that didn’t know her place since Bill was governor of AR. Much of the bile was due to animosity towards her husband, a man that has always engendered strong emotions among his followers as well as detractors. A lie machine has been in place to attempt to bring down the Clintons for almost 20 years – its existence is well documented, and frankly I am shocked into silence that all of you have forgotten how effective it has been at poisoning the well in America against the two of them. Indeed, many, many of you here spout the filth that Richard Mellon Scaife paid so much to have created in order to smear them.

None of that should matter now, you say. Let’s talk about the campaign. I actually thought running a virtual GE campaign from the beginning was a good idea. It eliminated the need for pandering to special interests on the left, which always comes back to bite the candidate on the ass later as “flip-flopping.” She was not prepared for Barack Obama. Actually, many of his own now fanatic supporters say they really werent’ prepared for him either. Anyhoo, the campaign. She was doing great until the fateful October debate, when she was tripped up on a REPUBLICAN issue, immigration. A colossal blunder from which she never fully recovered. And the Obamaniacs pounced, nevermore to let up.

The thing that has finally sent me running for cover is the mean-spirited hostility that is all over here now. I guess it’s true that we need an enemy after all. Bashing Bush has clearly gotten boring, and Lord knows you guys all resemble screaming girls in 1964 awaiting the arrival of the Beatles (I lifted that one from something I read here yesterday) at the mention of your candidate’s name, so it might as well be Clinton that is demonized. For you people, it is not enough that Barack wins, Hillary must lose, and lose completely, crushingly, humiliatingly badly. You obviously want her face down on the ground, destroyed, ruined, run out of town on a rail. I cannot describe what I read on these posts as anything other than pure hatred. Scaife and the Arkansas Project have finally won.

(Whew!) I do not reciprocate this animus. Even though Barack Obama, a committed supporter of GLBT rights, gave the floor to a committed homophobe (exgay homophobe, no less – you have no clue how insulting and offensive that is unless you’re gay), thereby displaying shameless pandering to SC’s black evangelicals, I ultimately agreed that I would vote for him rather than abandon the party, as have most Clinton supporters. Even though I personaly feel that Sen. Obama is an empty suit that talks pretty, full of platitudes one can probably find stitched on a pillow at Grandma’s somewhere, I recognize that he has tapped into something that Sen. Clinton, for all her capability and good intent has not – the sense that our government is too far gone to simply put in reverse and make some repairs (I obviously disagree with this sentiment). I feel that the kind of change that Obamaniacs envision will be too much, too soon, and the people will rebel at that much disruption and uncertainty in their lives. My opinion is that Hillary Clinton’s presidency would be a season of rest and recovery, followed by the quiet, peaceful revolution of Barack Obama in 2016.

In any case, Hillary may yet win (although Kossacks will insist with their dying breaths that she had to cheat to do it. Hillary can’t possibly succeed at anything without cheating, you know.). If she does, this website may become radically transformed in ways yet unforseen. The country, however, will be fine. She has made some errors in her campaign, to be sure. Her husband has inexplicably run off his mouth in the most unfortunate ways. She has thus far proven unable to turn her enormous campaign machine on a dime and relaunch her campaign once it became clear that Obama was not going away, but again this may change. She has managed to overcome crushing negatives to battle the nomination contest to a virtual draw, and that’s not nuthin’. She came into this with those negatives, and they explain the amorphous, undefinable distaste you may feel for her. Throw in a couple of policy disagreements and voila! she is NOT your candidate and never will be.

Hillary is MY candidate, however. I agree with her on 98% of her choices, and support for marriage equality will come to her one day, I am sure. She may not get the chance because the Democratic Party has managed to in one year what the Republican Party could not after over 20 years of trying – destroy Hillary Clinton.

  • eurokin

    liz –

    The thing is, his family background is not
    “easily viewable” on his website. As a matter of fact, there is no information about his family background except the statement that he ivied his formative years in El Salvador.

    In various interviews he has claimed that he is an “immigrant” and that he does not come from a monied family. He also claimed that he enlisted because he needed funds for college. The truths are far from these assertions. I recommend that you check out the links provided in my previous post.

    I’ll repeat — Markos’ intentions have been to fracture and divide the Democratic party. This may have just been an arrogant attempt to create the party in the image he most desired, or it may be something more sinister. Either way, like I said, it explains why The Daily Kos has now become the hall of shame for the Democratic party.

  • lizpolaris

    I think this is overly harsh.

    Kos has always revealed that he was a Reagan Republican, became disillusioned and switched parties. His first printed article in Newsweek was critical of Reagan.

    Also, he’s made no secret of his less than stellar opinion of the Clintons.

    His family background is easily viewable in the bio on his website. If anything, it highlights his choice to serve in the military as very patriotic.

    I have disagreed with a lot of what Kos himself writes in front page diaries. (Whereas I have tremendous respect for the writing of MeteorBlades, DarkSyde, and nyceve among others.) And I have left dailyKos for it’s invasion by empty-headed supporters of Obama.

    However, I see this as a failure that’s in the nature of the website community. Kos’ great accomplishment was in attracting good writers and creating/enhancing the community forum software that allowed you and me to participate there. However, we are all seeing first hand the novel nature of this experiment has some flaws. How to administrate vs. self-police the site?

    Also, I observe that Kos has lost focus on what he says is the central tenet of the site – to elect Democrats. By actively choosing a side so early and allowing mob witch-hunts, he’s losing credibility and readers. I think he will come to regret this blind spot.

  • eurokin

    I was once a daily reader at Kos — it took me about four months to realize that something was terribly wrong there. This was before the Obambots began to rear their ugly heads. Then a friend shared some rather interesting info about this Markos Moulitsas Zuñíga person.

    He is a complete fraud — and a disturbing one at that. This is the guy who said nearly two years ago that Hillary Clinton is unelectable because she had a “Bill Clinton problem.” No surprise there as Markos worked on Republican Henry Hyde’s election campaign — you know, the guy who pushed for Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

    It seems that Marko’s objective has always been to fracture and divide the Democratic party and he’s done a hell of a job of it. But then, what do you expect from a Reagan/Bush supporter whose family’s business makes at least 5 million dollars of foreign investments in El Salvador.


    Once people find out the truths about Markos shady background — and the lies that he presents about himself — it’s easy to understand why his site has become a hall of shame for the Democratic party.

    To read about Markos’ curiously odd background see here:

  • Carolyn Kay

    >> no advantage can accrue to Senator Clinton

    Yes, I asked an Obama supporter yesterday if he will hold the same attitude about the superdelegates if Clinton wins more un-super delegates than she. I have yet to receive a response.

    I was never a great fan of Hillary Clinton, though I hated how she was treated by the vast right wing conspiracy. But I have become a rabid supporter now that I have seen so clearly how many so-called progressives, including an abundance of white males, have bought in so completely to that conspiracy that they actually believe many of the lies.

    A group of us will be hitting the Democratic Underground state forums tomorrow. Please join us if you can. Links are below.

    Wisconsin (the vote Tuesday, maybe there are a few undecideds who might be persuaded to vote for Clinton.




    Carolyn Kay

  • Ramasan

    I am very concerned for our country. After all these years of Bush, people are allowing themselves to be whipped up into an emotional frenzy over an empty vessel named “Hope”. A mature, evolved candidate would never stoop to that type of astral emotionalism.

  • fribbles



    I used to read Kos and Americablog, and TPM until I slowly awakened to the misogyny (unintended, I’m sure, and unnoticed by them as they are too invested in their own narrative to deviate with honest self-reflection at this point). Coupled with the weird circular thinking about Obama in the last few weeks, and I was creeped out.

    Then something Aravosis wrote about Hillary was so shockingly Limbauesque that made me so angry I went over to Clinton’s site and donated $100.

    Jarhead’s right. The “progressives” have destroyed an able candidate using wingnuttia’s dirty tools. I doubt they’ll see the irony, though.

  • LuigiDaMan

    Obama + McCain = President McCain.


  • myiq2xu

    I got in a heated discussion at another site (not DK) with some people who kept going on and on about how the Clintons would “cheat and play dirty because they always do.”

    I challenged them to back that accusation up with facts. Demanding facts always pisses off the cultists.

    I’ve been watching the Clintons since 1992 and I’ve never seen them cheat or play dirty. But even if they did it in Arkansas before Bill ran for President I’ve never heard anything specific and verifiable.

    They are good campaigners and don’t pull their punches, but politics ain’t beanbag and as long as they tell the truth it isn’t cheating. It’s like a linebacker in football putting a hard but clean hit on the other team’s running back.

    I keep hearing how they slime people but I never hear an example of someone they allegedly did it to. The closest thing to “proof” I’ve ever heard is when the Clintons would produce evidence that someone who was accusing them of wrongdoing was a liar, like they did with Kathleen Willey.

    IOW – When the Clintons tell the truth about a liar, they are cheating.

  • Fred C. Dobbs

    If Obama is the nominee, I will, for the first time in dozens of elections, vote for a Republican.

    The condition of our Union and our economy is almost perilous. If we tip into a deep, deep recession, I want to be sure that a Republican is at the controls, the better to marginalize those people who have brought this upon us.

    I do NOT want the Harry Belafonte clone to have the con. That condition will cause the Republicans to marginalize the Democrats, and possibly become a major setback for black politicians in general.

    FYI, McCain is fairly disgusting but not completely loathsome to me. If Obama is the Dem nominee, it would be much easier to vote for a GOP loon of the Gingrich/DeLay/Frist mold, knowing that they would urinate copiously upon their shoes, thus making easier to point at every GOP candidate for the following 20 years and laugh.

    Just like we did to Goldwater!

    • CK

      Goldwater did indeed lose badly in 64.
      From 68-76 you had Nixon/Ford
      From 80-92 you had Reagan and then Bush the Older
      From 00-08 you have had Bush the younger.
      So for the 44 years since Goldwater lost, you have had the pleasure of laughing for 4 years with Johnson, 4 years with Carter and 8 years with Clinton; 16 years total. And 28 years of being on the outside.
      It appears to be an unequal trade especially if it involves another 8 years of rethugs in the white house.

  • Alan L.

    I have never seen a candidate maligned as relentlessly and unfairly as Hillary Clinton. Not Dukakis, not Gore, not Kerry. Everything she says, everything she does, everything her husband says is mocked, belittled and treated with contempt. Given that no candidate could possibly be this awful; and that Clinton is far better than that; this is beyond pathological. It is sickening and depressing. It gives me no hope for the future of this country, no matter who gets elected. Do you think that “oh, if only the Clintons will just go away,” then all the Kossacks will become rational again? That the media will stop being partisan and manipulative? That all our problems will vanish on a puffy cloud of hope and change? I never loved Hillary Clinton, but she is clearly our best chance to actually fix some of the country’s many problems. That so many people absolutely hate her tells us much about what ails America.

  • dcgaffer

    Larry, never posted on your site – or dkos – but I’m an avid reader of the blogs. I greatly admire your efforts in support of Mrs. Wilson. In this matter, respectfully, I think you and many of you who are angry and frustrated right now need to step back and take a breath.

    I understand the frustration, but it’s been said so often it’s a truism, this is the nature of the online community. Tempers are high, but remember the goal.

    At my point in life, I naturally should be a Republican, but am not nowadays since it no longer is a political party but more closely resembles a criminal organization.

    Regarding Hillary versus Obama, Hillary is clearly the most experienced, the most known quantity. She has endured the most vile attacks and hatred of any politician in my lifetime. Yet, for my own lone vote, I came to the conclusion that while Hillary was more than deserving, Obama has a better chance to win because a Hilary campaign will empower the haters on the Right (just as you see she empowers those on the left). That hate will ‘energize’ the Republican base, and I assume that a more blank slate like Obama will increase the likelihood that the Senate and House races will be blowouts for the Democrats, driving a stake through the heart of the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Finally, if Hillary were to win, it would likely mean 28 years of the US Presidency being controlled by 2 families. I do not believe that is healthy for our Democracy regardless of how deserving she may be.

    I would strongly urge everyone to fight for your choice with passion but tone down the rhetoric. If that means staying away from each sides “base camp” that’s probably a good thing. Neither side should burn bridges, so they can have influence in 2009 with whoever wins. I’m confident that either Hillary or Obama will win – because they must win.

    Finally I would ask you all to consider our friends from the Right have planted their Agent Provocateurs to put people at each others throats. I’m not dismissing the passion and understandable anger in both the Hillary and Obama camps for each side’s missteps – but embers are being turned into forest fires.

    Karl Rove is still out there. He – and all he represents – is the real enemy. He is the face of the party that’s reveals CIA agents’ identities out viciousness and spite.

    • Mike Howell

      And for some strange reason Karl Rove just can’t say enough sweet things about Obama…

    • kenoshaMarge

      A few months ago I was saying the same things you are saying. Then the Obama supporters and surrogates decided to trash talk Bill and Hillary Clinton and lie about them as bad or worse than the Republicans.

      There have been only 2 Democrats in the White House in the last 40 years. Carter for 4 and Bill Clinton for 8. Bill sure are hell wasn’t anywhere near perfect and made some bad moves, and I am not talking about the whole damn Lewinsky b.s. which should be between him and his wife, but about policy decisions I did not agree with. Still considering how the Republicans did everything within their power to bring his administration down he still left office with about a 60% approval rating. In other words a successful presidency.

      So why would any Democrat denigrate that? I cannot now, in good conscience vote for a man I consider a weasel. I am an Independent so I don’t vote by a party line anyway, although I usually do vote for the Democrat in the race. I disliked Kerry intensely and voted for as a vote against Bush. I’m not voting for Obama. I can’t.

      • Louise

        Just found this site a few weeks ago, linked from Taylor Marsh’s site, so I’m a first time poster.

        I have voted the Democratic ticket for the past 30 years. Back in 2004, I did not really care for Kerry that much but I did work locally to get him elected and also contributed to his campaign.

        I am a Clinton supporter and up until a few weeks ago decided that if Obama won the nomination that I would hold my nose and vote for him in the GE. That’s changed now. If someone had said to me six months ago that I would NOT vote for a Democrat for President in 2008, I would have thought they were crazy.

        Like Marge, I cannot in good conscience vote for this guy after what’s transpired over the past two months. Obama has split this party apart and what’s worse is he’s so self absorbed he does not even realize that he needs the Clinton supporters to win the GE.

  • S. Markom


    You might already know this. The person in charge of Hillary’s gay and lesbian strategy is Stephen Herbits.

    What is interesting about Steve is that he is a former Under Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford. He was also a close advisor to Rumsfeld in this administration but had a falling out over the Iraq War. He had a bitter separation and then turned from a conservative Republican to an active HRC supporter. Steve has been a high profile gay activist for many years.

  • BernieO

    For an interesting analysis of the supposed “colossal blunder” in the October debate read today’s post at Interesting media reaction to Obama making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE two weeks after, when he had had ample warning that this would be brought up.

    I know I sound like a broken record, but until Dems wake up to how much damage the media has caused our candidates, we’re doomed. Obama supporters better wise up because they are very likely to turn on him in the GE. McCain is a long term love and much more macho.

    • kenoshaMarge

      Likely to turn on him in general? Ab so damn lute ly, positively will turn on him in the general. They may not be happy with McCain but he is when all is said and done a Republican. Obama whiners about mean nasty Clinton attacks ain’t seen nothing yet!

  • Hope

    Jarhead thank you for your tempered, well-expressed article. Forget Kos – their nothing more than ultra-leftwing terror-evangelical nazis. They’ve got their own Ten Commandments. It’s like living 24/7 in SF. Been there – done that.

  • Mark E. Smith

    You guys are serious, right?

    You really care about which corporate candidate wins which rigged election?

    You think it will make a difference? Maybe not to the continuing war crimes and crimes against humanity, but possibly to something?

    If you REALLY want to be attacked, go to any Democratic party cheerleader site like dKos or DU and mention the name Ralph Nader or Bev Harris. You ain’t seen hate or mob psychosis until you’ve done that.

    This is too funny.

    • Mike Howell

      Isn’t Ralph Nader having reasonable rational discussions with himself like shoephone/shurin now that nobody wants him for President?

  • Michael Lafferty

    I read Kos—daily—and I too find myself growing more disenchanted as time goes by. I thought I understood the the thrust of his thought process, until he became consumed with his relentless bashing of John Edwards for having agreed to accept public financing. I understood his point, but found his dismissive attitude of ‘things Edwards’ rather disconcerting.

    Now, just today, he posts this diary:

    This is a complicated issue, and results from a set of relatively stupid assumptions and demands on the part of party leaders in both Florida and Michigan. But, what’s done is done. The difficulty for me with regard to Markos is his insistence on the fourth option, and the twisted, convoluted observations and assumptions that lead him to recommend it.

    A careful reading discloses these salient points:

    • voters in these states should not be disenfranchised by the stupid decisions of their party leaders
    • the DNC cannot compromise for fear (and, well placed fear) that they will lose control of the process
    • Senator Clinton must gain no advantage over Senator Obama

    Hence, the proposed solution. What I find objectionable is that the logic is driven by the outcome—the undisclosed belief that no advantage can accrue to Senator Clinton—rather than the outcome being determined by a set of facts and a logical presentation of them.

    I believe it is safe to say that the diary would never have been written that way were Senator Obama to gain the upper hand through the inclusion of these delegates, and that haunting suspicion is what bothers me so much about what I read there now.

    Whether it’s pro-Obama or anti-Clinton, the outcome is always the same: Senator Clinton cannot be allowed to prevail.

    Twisting logic and intentionally failing to disclose the real agenda, attempting to create the impression that this would be no different if Senator Obama were to gain the advantage, is disingenuous.

    Sad.The ‘great orange satan’ has veered off the tracks…

    One relatively bright note: the commentary following the post, particularly in the early comments. Surprisingly rational, critical of Markos, and generally free of the anti-Clinton screeds that are so often posted there. Maybe there is hope after all.

    • bluestategirl

      I used to call DK “The Great Orange Satan” as a joke. Sadly, it seems to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • Arabella Trefoil

    That was marvelous Jarhead. Bravo.

  • ebonyscrews

    I’m channeling my frustrations into blogging and making calls for Hillary. If any of you kind folk are able to take a few minutes out of your days–click on the link and sign up. Make calls for Hillary and show her that we have her back. We came out in droves with mula since last week–14 million bucks last time I saw that will be well spent in advertising for TX, OH and PA.

    Click on the link and make a goal of calls to make before Tuesday on this amazing woman’s behalf. I’m shooting for 100 (in Wisconsin).

    This call clock was put up yesterday afternoon on hill’s website. it appears that in about 24 hours, her supporters made over half a million calls.

  • Sandy

    Thank you, Jarhead. Well done!

  • dragoneyes

    Great diary Jarhead! Since I rarely go to DKos anymore I wouldn’t have noticed it there. But after I read this, I popped over to add a few recs.

    Keep fighting the good fight for Hillary!

  • bayathena


    • LOL

      Plan to. No vote for Obama for this liberal. He is no liberal

  • LOL

    Really good diary.

    I really think the Great Orange Satan has become the Roman Empire. Can we really believe anything they write anymore, with such clouded judgment?

    I’m glad you finally left. It’s much better here.

  • http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

    funny this article was posted today … i was up late last nite surfing the web and finding a few progressive blogs that arent actually consumed by the hagiography of obama. guess what, i found more then a few! subsequently, i deleted dkos and air america from my browser. i went to sleep a very happy camper!

    i will not return to them until after the general election. no matter how the election turns out it will be interesting to see what remains … if obama should win the primary … how would a lose in november impact the kossacks and the radio talkers … what excuses will they offer up … who will they throw under the bus in a frenzy of self righteous blame. it might be even more fun if obama should somehow win the general … how will they react when obama is not the man they thought … will they question him or continue to be happy as he embraces the right and turns his back on the democratic agenda.

    only time will tell … maybe, just maybe, none of this will come to pass, and hillary can pull a victory out. a victory for america and the “real” democratic party. i can only pray.

    • dragogoneyes

      In the past couple of weeks I’ve found lots of other great blogs that aren’t Obama-centric. Many of the writers I used to enjoy at DKos have moved on to create their own cyber communities. Got me to to realize the positive side of the downfall of Big Orange. Now I’m enjoying all these other sites and don;t miss DKos much anymore. I have moved on… and that includes unsubscribing from MoveOn.

      If Obama gets the nomination and loses the general, who do you think they’ll blame? The Clintons, of course. We know all the evils in the world are their fault, right? After all, that’s what the Reublican think tanks and mdeia have taught everyone to believe. It’s nice how simple life is ocne you know the truthiness of it :)

      • CK

        Just a hypothetical for you.
        What happens if Barrack goes against McCain and Barrack wins? Hillary will still have her senate seat, she might even bestir herself to replace Mr Reid. Bill will still be her husband. Barrack might even ask him to become an ambassador without portfolio but without bringing GHWB along.
        Looking at the turnout numbers and the national opionion polls, there should be a lot of new democratic faces in the house and several new dem faces in the senate. Enough new senators that the party can jettison Lieberman. It’s all about the coattails. And that is why the turnout in all those “solidly red” states is important. You turn them blue by district and by senator. Just like the dems turned colorado blue and montana blue in 06. So if Obama looks to be winning in October will the clinton’s get behind the party or will their efforts be nugatory? Remember Bill and Hillary have both told us how much they like and respect olcrazyMcCain a man even the senators in his own party loathe.
        It’s just a hypothetical but it is highly possible that either Dem candidate could give McCain a 40 state to 10 state thrashing. And if it’s Huckabee it will be 42 to 8.
        I suspect that is why there is so much angst among the clinton supporters. An obama win leaves the clintons not much air in the democratic party.

        • Sha

          I suspect that Dems will lose seats in Congress because of this sessions terrible record. So don’t count on Obama as POTUS with a Dem House and Senate.

          Not going to happen!

          • CognitiveDissonance

            Let’s not forget that Obama’s Red State strategy was to get repubs to become dems for a day. Don’t think for a second they’re going to vote for him in the general. He’ll never win those red states in November, were the rest of the dems to have the appallingly bad taste to nominate him.

        • Steve Judd

          If Obama becomes president and then Harry Reid steps down as Majority Leader bet all the money you have and could ever assemble that the new Majority Leader will be Dick Durbin (currently number 2 in the Senate). He is senior senator from Illinois, is national co-chair of the Obama campaign and was one of the earliest proponents of his presidential candidacy.

          It’ll certainly be his for the asking. And I’m guessing he’ll ask.

          But Majority Leader Hillary under president Barack? Never, never, never, never. Did I mention never?

          • CK

            Durbin it is then.
            Bout time Illinois regained its place at the head of the table.
            So who gets the veep spot if it’s Obama at the top of the ticket?
            Likewise if it’s Hillary at the top?

            • TeakwoodKite

              So who gets the veep spot if it’s Obama

              Some one who knows what #$^% is going on and they better damn well know where all the bodies are buried and in who’s closet the skeletons are stashed; Or Obama will be doing the “dance” for four 4 years and out of someones elses pocket.

              ( Most likly from the south ’cause Obama would need more than what he has now to carry it.) And I don’t think Edwards would put up with Obama’s “crap” for long…You recall the open mike comment made between Edwards and Hillary? Edwards wanted to take it to Hillary not Obama, Who he wanted gone.

  • Cee

    Goodbye, cruel Kossacks, I fold

    Oh, boo hoo!


    • CognitiveDissonance

      I suspect that Kos is going to start thinking people are serious when he notices that his audience has shrunk by half, and all he has left are the craziest trolls. And even they will be gone once the primaries are over and they’ve gone back to their wingnut sites, secure in the thought that they’ve sunk the dems yet again.

    • chris

      actually, thats one author. or must you lump everyone together? very interesting method of attacks happening, grouping, aka guilt by association. no need to see the nuances between what the people here support and why, just lump them together. great call.

  • Silver

    Jarhead, that was such a great post!!! I’m speechless, or rather writeless!!

  • briank

    Well put, jarhead.

  • Patrick Henry


    That was a very well written Diary..Intelligent..thoughtful..Meaningful..and all TRUE..It needed to be said..yours is another Voice that Must be heard…You speak on Behalf of Millions of people who are being ignored right now…Just as Obama has decided to Ignore his supporters and fund Raisers in San Fransico..for the same reason as his turn around in S.C. and the Bible Belt..Looks like Hes got the Money and Momentum now…so he feels he can be more selective..

    I have been a life long Democrat..because I believethe Democrats are the PEOPLES PARTY..The Party that truely supports the Articles of Our Constitution…and supports EQUAL Rights…for all of our diverse society..and all races ..and Life styles..and Freedom of Choice..

    Hillarys record on policy and Human Rights and Leadership on Equality and Supporting Domestic Programs that truely try to Represent EVERYONE or Improve the Quality of Life for EVERYONE…are Consistent..Well Known..and Tested..over and Over..

    Thank you Jarhead ..I Welcome you here and hope you continue to Post here in such a Eloquent manner..

    I am Glad that No Quarter has Published your Diary today..

  • CognitiveDissonance

    Wonderful diary, jarhead. I couldn’t agree more. I think many of us have watched this whole debacle of a democratic primary with unbelief.

    I expected the right wing Clinton hatred, but never thought what came from the left would be far worse. What has happened to our party that we so blithely swallow what the propaganda machine has fed us? We are really lost if we can’t wake up and see what it is.

    What I didn’t expect is a black democratic candidate who appears to believe that stirring up racial hatred is the way to win an election. Or who eagerly accepts the misogyny of a rotten press to crown him king?

    If he somehow manages to win the nomination – which may happen, given the MSM spin machine – we can definitely expect a 49 state slaughter in November. And the democratic party will have itself to blame.

  • kenoshaMarge

    Thank you for a terrific diary. But no matter how true the words, and how honest the diary, the closed minds that you were speaking to will never “get it”.
    But thanks for trying.

    By the way, and because I want to talk about it, I just got back from the Municipal Building in Kenosha, WI with two of my friends where we all voted for Hillary Clinton on absentee ballots. We ran into two other women who also voted for her.(There is snow up to our ass here and more is on the way so we were afraid maybe we wouldn’t be able to get out to vote next Tuesday. Plus, as I said, I just wanted to brag about it.)

    Polls say that we are going to lose. But they can take the polls and shove um where the sun don’t shine. Cause we voted and we voted for our candidate and we’re damn proud and glad we did.

  • Steve Judd

    the Democratic Party has managed to [do] in one year what the Republican Party could not after over 20 years of trying – destroy Hillary Clinton.

    Amen, brother, all beautifully said.

    And I hope you’re wrong. But if correct and Obama is the nominee, of course I’ll support him. However, when the party honchos who should have taken control of the tone of this train wreck come around looking for my 2300 for the Senate or House campaign committees like in ’06? No way. They can call some Obama supporter in Idaho or the Dakotas or Nebraska as far as I’m concerned. I’m done with this crew. I wonder if I’m alone in that view.

    • John

      I totally agree, except for the part about voting for Obama. If he’s the nominee, I’ll write-in Al Gore and hope that we can bounce back with a real nominee in 2012.

    • Sha

      Not alone! Count me in.

  • Sometime-CIA-Defender


    You have my undying respect. Extremely well-stated without having to dip into (yet) unproven accusations against Obama. Sums up my feelings very closely.

    I missed that Obama sucked up to anti-gay powers in SC, but then I attribute my semi-calm composure to all of this to not listening to most of the rhetoric. Of course, it could be that he is just being smart in order to win. Always hard to tell until it’s too late to do anything about it.


  • ebonyscrews

    I just have to add that this woman loves and respects Hillary for all she has accomplished, as do countless other people–men and women alike–though you wouldn’t get that from the media and the flaming blogs. For her life’s work in compassionate political and humane service. For her unwavering strength in the face of cruel opposition. It’s unfortunate that a lot of misogynistic, mentally-unbalanced individuals have come out of the woodwork this election to stoke the waters of hate.

    • Shirin (not an Obama supporter!)

      her life’s work in compassionate political and humane service.

      Compassionate? Humane?

      Tell that to the tens of millions of Iraqis who suffered and died for eight years while she cheered on her husband’s policy of regime change by means of strangulation and brutalization of the population (oh, but I am sure the price was worth it).

      Tell that to the parents of the half a million children under five years who died as a result of what has been described by U.N. and WHO officials as genocidal policies.

      Tell that to the orphan daughter of one of Iraq’s greatest artists, Layla Al Attar, who was permanently maimed when her mother and father were killed as Bill, supported by Hillary, bombed Baghdad to punish Saddam over an improbable allegation that he tried to kill George H.W. Bush. Oh yeah, Saddam was punished all right! Oh yes – and of course many of Layla’s works were destroyed also in the bombing.

      Tell that to the millions of Iraqis who have suffered, the approximately 1.5 million who are dead, the estimated 5-6 million who are internally and externally displaced, as a result of the shock and awe, invasion, and five year occupation to which Hillary enthusiastically gave her all-out support (in fact, she helped sell the lies that excused the invasion) until it became clear that her support was harming her chances at the nomination.

      Tell that to the 1.3 million Palestinians imprisoned in Ghazza without access to food, water, fuel, electricity, vaccines, medicine, or any of the basic necessities of life, in a genocidal siege which Hillary Clinton supports.

      Tell that to the Lebanese whose 33 days of hell, death, and destruction Hillary gave her full and explicit support. And tell it to the families of the Lebanese children who are regularly being killed and maimed by the millions of cluster bomblets (the gift that keeps on killing) with which Israel – with Hillary’s support – carpeted souther Lebanon for two days AFTER the armistice had been agreed upon.

      And while you are at it, tell it to the hundreds of children, aged eight years and up, whom Israel regularly imprisons for months and years, perhaps arbitrarily, perhaps for being near where someone may have thrown a rock at a tank, or perhaps to be held hostage because they cannot find the child’s “wanted” father or brother or uncle. And tell that ESPECIALLY to the children, some very young, whom Israel chooses to torture. I am sure they would all be very interested.

      Compassionate? Humane? Depends, I think on whose interests are being served.

      • LOL

        And Hillary did all that by herself? Wow, what a woman!

        • LuigiDaMan

          Damn…she’s good!

          • shirin

            And you too. Don’t be disingenuous. Either deal with the information I put down here, or just let it stand.

        • shirin

          Come on, don’t be disingenuous. I said very clearly that she SUPPORTED all that.

          How can someone support those kinds of things and still qualify as compassionate and humane? The answer is that anyone who is truly compassionate and humane would be compelled to speak out against those kinds of massive abuses of human beings, particularly children.

          • bmobley

            OK, you’re right about all that. She is not Mother Teresa. As to what Bill Clinton did during his time in the WH, yes he was actively looking for a causus belli to take out SH. I don’t think most of the public was aware of some of the devistating effects of our Iraq policy until late in his administration. I personally didn’t even own a computer at that time and only knew about what I read in my local paper or saw on CNN. I was also working then and wouldn’t have had the time to do the research on the internet if I had had a computer. I just don’t think the majority of Americans were aware of the extent of damage done, nor are they probably aware now. Or don’t care.
            But I take it that that’s your point. Either we didn’t know or didn’t care and neither did she. It bothers me a lot. I do agree with Jarhead that because she is female she was locked into certain positions in order to show she is tough enough to be the “COC”. But I find it worrisome. What would she have done if she had been President instead of Bill. Would she have found a way to lift the embargo? Halt the bombing raids? Given the rabidity of the Congressional Republicans at the time, would she have been allowed to?
            You must be aware that the America we both live in will not accept a woman in the WH that does not have the requisite “balls” to use the military to defend what they see as treats to America. What they consider “threats” and what you or I might see as “threats” may differ, but I think their perception is in the majority. Even now, knowing what they know about the “collateral damage” of the past misadventures of the country. They largely view it as an abstract, real but not really real to them. As to HC as a possible President, she is smart and competent which is about 1000 times better than we have now. As to BOB as a possible President he is smart, we don’t really know much more about him. I think he may also be lazy. He doesn’t seem to have used his Senatorial seat in anyway to further the progrssive agenda. She is consistent. I don’t know that I can say that about him. Still I am torn between the two. I voted for HC in the IL primary, knowing that she wouldn’t take the state. I have also donated to her campaign, though I had vowed I wouldn’t give her my vote because of her vote on the war. I voted for her because of her superior health care plan. I don’t much like it but it is better than his. I don’t like either of their close ties to the DLC, but I don’t have the option of a truely universal plan. I just don’t feel comfortable about Obama. And I have this really bad feeling that we can look forward to a very contentious 4 years of investigation of “terrorist ties” if he gets elected. Whether there is anything there or not, the opposition will fully exploit it. This election is likely to give me ulcers. My stomach is in knots and I’m seriously thinking of going on Xanax to help with the anxiety. Worse, my Grandson keeps walking in on me when I’m screaming at my TV. He says “seriously Grandma, you need to not watch this stuff so much”. Maybe he’s right.

            • lidia

              She is not Mother Teresa

              As a matter of fact Mother Teresa was a supporter of crooks and dictators (like Baby Doc) if they gave her money, which she spend on convents, not on helping the poor.

              But I guess it was one more thing that the majority of Americans are not aware of :(

              she is smart and competent

              Yes, she would bomb Iran (or Syria, or Russia or…) much smater than Bush bombed Iraq. Big comfort for Iranians

            • shirin

              She is not Mother Teresa.

              Well, even Mother Teresa was no Mother Teresa!

              yes [Bill Clinton] was actively looking for a causus belli to take out SH.

              In fact, Bill Clinton (and his predecessor George H.W. Bush) thought that if they strangled, starved, and brutalized the Iraqi people enough, THEY would help to take out Saddam Hussein. Ironically enough, the Israelis have been trying that tactic, and failing, for decades, but neither the Israelis nor the Americans have figured out yet that it generally produces the opposite results.

              Bill Clinton also, by the way, manipulated the (nominally) U.N. weapons inspection regime in an attempt to create a casus belli, which manipulation resulted in so-called “Operation Desert Fox” (I love how they give their filthy, bloody military killing-and-destruction sprees such cute and romantic names!).

              I don’t think most of the public was aware of some of the devistating effects of our Iraq policy until late in his administration.

              I don’t think most of the American public was aware even after his administration ended, despite the tireless efforts of people like former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinators Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponek (both of whom resigned in protest), former Chief Weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the amazing Rani Masri, and hundreds – perhaps thousands – of us throughout this country who tried for years to bring it to public attention.

              I just don’t think the majority of Americans were aware of the extent of damage done, nor are they probably aware now. Or don’t care.

              All of the above is the most likely. Even today most nice, liberal, and even some “progressive” Americans insist that 1) the sanctions were not imposed by the United States, but by the U.N. (and if true that would make committing genocide on the Iraqi people OK?), despite the fact that it was mainly the U.S. that was blocking imports of items critical for maintaining basic humanitarian conditions, and only the U.S. that prevented a lifting of the sanctions and import embargo.

              But I take it that that’s your point. Either we didn’t know or didn’t care and neither did she.

              Exactly. Only she knew, and yet she fully and explicitly supported the policy.

              It bothers me a lot.

              Glad to hear it!

              What would she have done if she had been President instead of Bill. Would she have found a way to lift the embargo?

              Not on your life! She openly supported it, and her record as Senator plus her statements as a candidate make it clear that she would find such things perfectly appropriate.

              Halt the bombing raids?

              Bill Clinton ordered the bombing raids, and she was completely supportive of them. So, what do YOU think?

              Given the rabidity of the Congressional Republicans at the time, would she have been allowed to?

              Congress did not order the bombing raids, that was Bill Clinton’s choice. Ditto the sanctions and import embargos.

              You must be aware that the America we both live in will not accept a woman in the WH that does not have the requisite “balls” to use the military to defend what they see as treats to America.

              The United States military has not been used in a defensive capacity for decades. And so, being a woman, she will be compelled to gratuitously attack other countries than a man would be? Looks like a great argument against voting for her!

              I am torn between the two.

              I’m not. I don’t want either one of them.

              I voted for HC in the IL primary, knowing that she wouldn’t take the state.

              I voted for Edwards in the primary, knowing he had withdrawn. :}
              I voted for her because of her superior health care plan. I don’t much like it but it is better than his.

              A rational decision, which I do respect.

              My stomach is in knots and I’m seriously thinking of going on Xanax to help with the anxiety.

              I am seriously thinking of leaving the country, as are quite a few people I know. One of my colleagues bought an apartment in Canada last year, “just in case”.

              Worse, my Grandson keeps walking in on me when I’m screaming at my TV. He says “seriously Grandma, you need to not watch this stuff so much”. Maybe he’s right.

              More people need to become informed at a much deeper level, and then to do something about it. As I said on another thread, neither Hillary nor Obama is going to lead you out of the darkness. The problems are systemic and go back way before Bush, and they cross party lines.

              • shirin

                I wrote:

                Even today most nice, liberal, and even some “progressive” Americans insist that 1) the sanctions were not imposed by the United States, but by the U.N. (and if true that would make committing genocide on the Iraqi people OK?), despite the fact that it was mainly the U.S. that was blocking imports of items critical for maintaining basic humanitarian conditions, and only the U.S. that prevented a lifting of the sanctions and import embargo.

                I neglected to add 2) it was Saddam Hussein, not the United States or the U.N. that starved the Iraqi people, which is a patently false claim.

                • lidia

                  I guess I cannot take seriously Americans who are seriously taking the “choice” between Clinton and Obama (or one of them and MacCain) They all are the same, at least regarding foreign policy.

                  I guess I have to start worry for whom to vote – for Olmert, Netaniahu or Barak :

      • Percy

        Umm…what about George Bush? What about Obama who voted for war funding ever since he has been in the US Senate…prior to getting to the senate he promised to vote against war funding. I guess it is just much easier to blame Hillary..

  • John

    I only listen to music on my XM now, because every news channel, ESPECIALLY Air America Radio, is All Clinton Hate, All the Time.

    Hillary will be Senate Majority Leader someday, and a respected public figure years after Obama has slunk away with the stench of his 49-state defeat wrapped around his sorry ass. Congratulations, Democrats. You fell for a “movement” instead of picking a candidate who can both win and govern.

  • ebonyscrews

    This diary hits the bullseye, jarhead. Beautiful and compelling. I highly recommend crossposting it on mydd and other such blogs. You very eloquently described the tragedy and betrayal taking place against the Clintons. She will come out stronger from this. They CAN’T break her.

  • Sha

    Correct. In every aspect, but most particularly this one:

    “She is one of the most accomplished, respected and admired women of the 20th century.”

    I thank Hillary Clinton for bringing everything I ever worked for to life….in my lifetime.

  • judith weingarten

    So fucking true. Thanks for saying that.

  • sherry shirk

    Thanks Jarhead. I read your diary last night at Kos. It’s even better on second reading. Such a shame Kos is losing so many talented writers.

  • CK

    Well you have gone from a place where Hillary is a witch to be burned at the stake to a place where B. H. Obama is the guest of honor at a low tech lynching. The recipes here are dismal. They don’t have troll ratings, but you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard if it makes you feel better.

    • Sha

      Low tech lynching – isn’t that what Clarence Thomas said?

      • CK

        No he said High Tech, those were the pre internet days.

        • Sha

          But it was a lynching just the same. I seem to recall that that’s a racist term.

          • CK

            Not really. it’s an accurate description of a prevailing modus operandi. In Thomas’s situation it was obviously a failed attempt, he still sits with windpipe intact but unused on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Thomas, who is black, used the term to describe the testimony of Anita Hill, who is also still black, under the direction of Joe Biden.
            Now it is a truth that hanging two nooses over the back of your pick up and driving said pickup past a civil rights demonstration will get you arrested under the hate crime statutes. But the hate crime is only a hate crime if the driver is not black.
            Lynching is not a racist term, it has a long history worldwide as the response to horse theivery, potato theft, and other crimes. Lynching has been used by racists, but so has fire, the internet, telephones, cryptography, diebold voting machines and other tools. Those pesky racists just abrogate to themselves the right to anything anyone anywhere uses.
            So to conclude, displaying the noose is a hate speech predicate even if you didn’t speak, but the word lynching is not racist, it is descriptive of a method of execution usually used without benefit of a formal trial, when there is a formal trial the term judicial hanging is preferred. Either way the intended is dead.

            • rjj


              abrogate means abolish.

              • CK

                ARRGH thank you for the correction. and the letters aren’t even that close together on the keyboarf

    • Hope

      What the hell are you talking about? You make no sense whatsoever. Where in the hell is jarhead talking about lynching and don’t come back to me with “nuance”. This is crap.