Kos: Clinton's "Destructive Coup Attempt" Good For Democrats

Gosh, kempis, I was just thinking the same thing. Every time I glance at Markos' picture I think, "there's something wrong with this guy." He really does look weird. And I applaud your conclusion that he's officially become a Limbaugh of the left - well said.

You seem all too eager to cave in to the noise machine, seanwalter1969. You've apparently made no serious attempt to understand when you're supposed to put hand over heart, and you've fallen all over yourself to misunderstand an African-American church. Your statements are not merely unpersuasive, they're insulting. I hope you build upon your avowed respect for the democratic process by exercising a bit more due diligence than you have heretofore shown.

By the way, since I looked through your Profile posts, I used to like Krugman a lot, and perhaps I will again someday, but his arguments on behalf of Hillary have consistently shown more bias than logic, and I am very disappointed that he's abused his ability to influence public opinion with specious arguments. I recommended "The Conscience of a Liberal" as the political book of 2007, with reservations. I wish to formally disavow that recommendation here, and I should have listened more closely to that nagging voice that told me he was even then distorting the truth.

As has been evidenced in the past weeks, most Americans have not bought into the Fox spin of Senator Obama. Few Americans place their hand over their hearts for the National Anthem, and even fewer will criticize Senator Obama for not doing what they themselves do not do. Most Americans have also gained much more insight into the Senator's pastor and church than Fox News attempted to give us, and realize that Pastor Wright and his church were egregiously misrepresented by the media. The Republican Party may indeed try to still use this against Senator Obama, but they will be beating a dead horse; and those who will be persuaded by their swiftboating would not have voted for Senator Obama anyway. Senator Obama is as experienced as Senator Clinton, and she herself has given the GOP more fodder to use against her with her lies about her experience. According to today's polling, 53% of the Democratic base favor Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. The Democratic Party is more enthusiastic about this election and has come out in far greater numbers than the Republicans throughout this primary season, and if we are able to bring this energy to the general to support our nominee, then Senator Obama will have no problem defeating John McCain. On the other hand, if he loses, it will not be because of the Republicans; it will be because we have swiftboated ourselves by staying home or voting for the Republican nominee, thereby giving our vote away.

I'm curious to see how Obama is going to win in November without Ohio, PA, Florida, and Michigan. And if he wins Virginia and Texas as some of his more fanciful supporters think, I'll faint dead away.

Ann, please look at the map, and compare it to your statement. BTW, you have claimed many times that Clinton won the Bay Area. This is not true. Obama won the BA, and he won Northern California. The bulk of Clinton's vote came from the LA area.

I don't know if you have been reading these pages for an extended period of time, but there is a difference between the supporters that each candidate is unlikely to win from the other. There has been a steady, increasing stream of anti-Clinton rhetoric coming from the left. This started in the build-up to the war. There were many critical columns in HuffPo before Obama even emerged. What this means is that many, I included, would never vote for a Clinton because of their actions, but the anti-Obama rhetoric coming from Clinton supporters is mainly because of a sense of entitlement--Obama is an adversary, and the hate would be directed at any adversary, and the language wouldn't be different if Edwards were the front-runner.

Unfortunately, AnninCA has posted just after you. What was that about Hillary supporters?

CommittedDem,

I guess you could also say that Hillary has no chance without Obama supporters. If she were to succeed in stealing the nomination by cheating, she would lose much of that support. I guess either way neither wins and the country loses. The Republicans must be loving this.

Sean--Think over what you've said. Your disappointment is understandable, but that attitude has put us where we are now. Only 35% of voters turned out in 2006 to give the Senate a one-vote Dem majority. Nowhere near enough to work with.
A couple of reasons many folks feel the way you do:
This election cycle began far too early-- the Dem candidates of substance were largely ignored by the media in favor of the horserace story of wealth and celebrity. Most were out soon after the first caucuses. We're left with two capable, although relatively weak candidates. BUT-- they are strong compared to McCain. Either one can win a debate against McCain. That is, once a choice of nominee is set.
Meanwhile, we need to remember that we seriously need regime change. Although Clinton is not my candidate of choice, I will support her even if I don;t agree with some campaign tactics. Neither was my first choice, but that's just reality. We go with what we have. There are some over-zealous individuals supporting both candidates, but that should not color our good judgment. We can't afford to allow our global reputation to be further destroyed. That is what we'll get if we allow a Repub president and effective majority to continue.We deserve better.

We need you to stay in.

The word coup is not used so narrowly anymore. There are coups and attempted coups in corporations for example. Hillary Clinton has tried to win the nomination unfairly and that counts as an attempted coup in my books. I think Markos is right and that her attempted coup will weed out people who do not belong in a truly democratic Democratic Party.

"I forgive my candidate for foibles that do not go to the kernal of solving the problems."

Generally, particularly at the level of the federal government, one of the requisites to problem-solving is integrity. The "foibles" that you so graciously forgive your candidate for, are lies that speaks directly to her integrity, and she has none. In fact, the reason her health-care plan failed is because she tried to do it behind closed doors without transparency and without the participation of her colleagues, just as she is trying to win this nomination. I agree that all of the votes should count, but if the popular votes in Michigan and Florida are not counted, the story will be told someday of how Senator Clinton dishonered her agreement and tried to overturn the rules, not because she cared about the voters, but because she cared about the votes!

Hillary disenfranchised all the voters in FL and MI who stayed home in good faith on the night of their primaries because the primaries were not to have counted. Hillary agreed to their not being counted.

What "problems" has Hillary solved? She failed miserably to get her healthcare initiative passed (she didn't even fight for it when the corporate thugs paid millions for lying ads to kill it (and now she takes more money from these same thugs than does any other candidate). I guess that is a "solution" if YOU ARE A CORPORATE BIGWIG in the healthcare biz. For the rest of it meant that her (generously rewarded ) failure emboldened big healthcare to engage in even more price-gouging and more attempts to refuse coverage for legitimate claims.

Even now, with her third-hand story about the unlucky woman in Ohio, we ought to note that she was basically attacking HOSPITALS and not her pals in the health insurance and HMO biz. If the woman WAS insured, as she apparently was,the refusal to admit her would have been due to her insurance (either health insurance OR HMO) refusing to honor her coverage.

That is a HUGE part of the problem....people no longer trust their health insurance, and neither do hospitals or other providers. And the Clintons have done nothing about reregulating the insurance companies to hold them accountable for all of the bad faith stuff they are getting away with nowadays.

Why would they Clintons want to do anything about the real problems when the sources of the real problems are giving them so much lobbyists $$$$$?

A Primer in Clintonian Logic: Votes taken in violation of party rules should count--as should those where no one campaigned.

A self-serving, twisted gambit that tells us all we need to know. Not that it matters. The Empress' New Clothes are in tatters--and it's not a pretty sight.

With how many problems she has created for herself over the course of the campaign, I fail to see any of her problem SOLVING abilities.

And see the new story about how Hillary is trying to keep Florida and Michigan in dispute, and NOT resolved.