Netroots Turning on Obama?

You want to know what people dislike about the MSM? This is a great example. With all the important things going on, what is the MSM focussed on? A petty squabble, which is probably 90% media hot air.

Why does the MSM focus on "A petty squabble, which is probably 90% media hot air."?
Ana has to go with what she knows.

Paul, no not that one:
"Ana has to go with what she knows."

Buttsex?

I think I've turned to the dark side:

Joe Trippi said, of the ad produced by Gibbs' group, that it was, "...the kind of fearmongering attack we've come to expect from Republicans..."

At least those tactics win elections.

I want to be offended, especially because I still love Howard Dean. I just can't get there. Gibbs has, if nothing else, been effective for Obama thus far. If he starts to screw up...maybe then we can string him up. Till then, though...

Another Hairball attack. Somebody clean out the litter box and get back to real issues. What was it a week ago that two Bloggers for Edwards got death threats and lunatics like Donohue gained credibility by using 'Catholic' League and I'm sure filled their treasuries.

It's like the ANS judge said: Get the DNA tests, enough already.

Obama's schtick, running as a political Messiah will be his undoing.

It is not sustainable over a long campaign.

He will end up hiring dirty tricks consultants, getting in the gutter and fighting and looking like a typical politician, saying one thing doing another.

He will look like a hypocrite.

His campaign is all about style over substance. His argument is that he should be president because he will transform politics and usher in an era of civility.

This sounds good short term. Long term it can't be a platform for a presidential campaign.

"And, to head some commenters off at the pass: I promise I'll post some GOP catfight next."

Good. Sounds lke AMC is getting trained and trying to at least avoid a Jay Carney-like whupping.

Can someone start a spreadsheet to keep track of all the Swampland posts about Democratic squabbling vs. Republican squabbling between now and the general election? The betting line starts at 15-1, Democratic mentions.

This is how Bush was elected in 2000. Allow Giuliani to make general comments about "turrists", "evil doers", "lower taxes", and "family values"....while ripping the living sh#t out of the Democratic nominee.

"but it suggests that there's still an opportunity for another candidate to become the web darling"

John Edwards has won both of the DailyKos Strawpolls in 2007, which have had over 20k votes.

now, kids, be nice to ana, she linked to me in this story.

ana, i take back most of what i ever said to you!

but, to be precise, i am not one of those in blogtopia (and yes, i coined that phrase) who is so gung-ho in favor of barak "to the future" obama to start with.

true enough, i did say that obama "refused to back down" in this dust up, and i did portray the hillary camp more as whiners than the obama camp. but i was just reporting things as i saw them in this specific instance. and in this specific instance i think obama came out looking more like the adult.

that does not mean, however, i endorse obama over hillary (or versa visa). i don't like obama's pandering to religiosity so much, and i don't really even know where he stands on most issues.

in fact, that he is considered a "superstar" by the mmm (multi-millionaire media) is enough to make me suspicious.

but, feel free to link to me anytime, and you are actually doing a better job than jay "hey rube" carney with actual links and cites to back up your positions.

Okay, let's see if I've got this story straight.

"Do you know what Maureen told me? She said that Hillary was upset because she thought that David liked her but then she found out that he liked Barack better so now she's mad at Barack. Then she started telling everyone how she never really liked David anyway..."

Are we back in junior high?

I read MyDD and Kos every day and I like a lot of what I read there --- but I can't imagine more quick to the trigger thin-skinned people than the bloggers mentioned. The majority of Obama's netroots support actually tends to come from a newer Facebook type of crowd.

I want Howard Dean to do something crazy like drop out of the DNC to chair Hillary's campaign so the netroots eat themselves.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how Obama's Hollywood connections could affect the view of him out in the so-called Heartland? I wonder if there's any possibility of Geffen's remarks having an unintended negative effect on voters who don't like Hollywood types messing in politics. Just a thought.

This was apparently a fight over money bottom line. The Queen thinks that if you give her money, she is entitled to all your money. It is an act of disloyalty to give money to anyone else. Plus, she wants all the money, not just most of it. As part of America's other royal family she is entitled to it after all. Just like she is entitled to the job. Admitting mistakes is something the common people, the little people, do.

Luckily, Clinton has surrounded herself with dick swinging, southern hillbillies, who just can't keep their dick in their pants. Trying to blame Obama for something Geffen said, when it is really about money, is an example her hillbillies primarily use their dicks to think.

By the way there is no Netroots. It's just people with computers, who can think for themselves.

Ooookaaay, now. I'm new to these finer points of order for the netroots rules of politiking....lets see if I have gotten these rules right?
a] candidate is to be held responsible for whatever supporters may say
b] candidate is to be held responsible for any past history of any staff person hired
c] candidate is to be held to negative account for receiving money from any supporters who are critical of other candidates
d] candidate is to be held to negative [suspicion-alert!] account for receiving free press coverage

So, ahem, any candidate who is worthy of netroots support must only attract mature non-judgmental supporters, must only hire staff with perfect non-controversial pasts, must not take money from persons who speak against other candidates, and [bizarrely in light of rule #c] must also never attract free press coverage.

For what its worth, I am a Deaniac AND an Obama fan. Both of these guys have what it takes to evoke the deepest values and common sense and share that with whomever really listens to them. And that common sense includes the maturity to realize we live in and grapple with an imperfect world, not the 'idealized' world inhabited by fools.

"I promise I'll post at some GOP catfight next."

How about the cat fight going on between McCain and Bush? For example, who kept the idiot Rumsfield on for 4 years. Why has he done nothing about the environment? Is McCain getting even for the black child and the Manchurian Candidate story. Did McCain just suck up to Bush to get his money men on side? Does he phone Bush at night to apologize for ripping him all day?

That sort of thing.

Donna thank you
I too believe this stuff about being disapponted by Obama because of Geffen's comments is full of crap.
If he doesn't respond, he's avoiding the issue
If he says I'm not going to muzzle a supporter making a personal statement, he's a hypocrite.

As I pointed out in another post. SC Sen Ford made a statement that Obama couldn't be elected because White voters were rascists (that was the take home message). Geffen stated a personal opinion about the Clintons.
HRC campaign manager goes on Chris Mathews to continue the acttack. To my knowledge, Obama is moving on to other issues.
After GW, I'm open to any Democratic Party candidate. This episode leans me towards Obama.
Wolfson stated that John Edwards' request for Hillary to clarify her Iraq war vote was a negative political maneuver. That's bizarre.

OK I gotta be the outsider here, I just can't muster up the enthusiasm to be interested.
There has got to be something more substantial in the realm of electoral politics to talk about than this, doesn't there? Have either HRC or Obama doen anything worth talking about in say the last week or so?
As a reluctant Dem this time around I am about to end my own life rather than face the prospect of voting for either of these two. But alas, GW has forced me into the belief that the GOP has to be immediately disbanded, it's leaders banished and it's name never spoken of again, so we can pretend the damage done by his administration happened to some other country...
For the sake of the many of us that know we have to elect a democrat this time around, because the RNC is diseased beyond the hope of redemption, please let this go and find a story that makes one of these people look like a viable candidate.

Oh get a grip Ana. You read two posts and come to the conclusion that the netroots will dump Obama?

Ana, you've officially become a member of the DC inner bubble. I thought you had a better understanding of what the blogosphere is all about but I guess I was wrong.

I bet Obama wished Gibbs was there for him when he slipped and referred to his fellow Senator, Barara Boxer as a....cutie?

MMMMM, not exactly a good move to make a sexist comment like that, especially if you want to be Presdient.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/?blogid=14

Linda, (responding to your thoughts on my tour of the head to head polls in an earlier thread)

I was working from the Real Clear Politics
averages of a basket of national polls (Marist, Qinnipiac, Rasmussen etc). As an average it makes a reasonable stab at washing out the biases of individual polls as well as
the effects of different sampling techniqiues and differnent definitions of "likely voter".

I think you interpreted me as being overly optimistic about the Dem's chances in the general. I'm not. In fact where I was saying that they need to avoid hubris. Particularly the sort of hubris that implies that it doesn't matter what we do to each other in the primary because the nominee will win the general election. I'm happy to stick with with my conclusions. Which are :

The Democratic base is staying fairly loyal regardless of which prospective nominee you ask
them about, but the GOP base is not.

Nevertheless, a moderate(ish) GOP nominee with security credentials would still have a real shot at holding the middle ground and winning the general election.

The GOP can blow their chances in the general election by nominating the wrong person.

The Dems will have a fighting chance in the general election by nominating any one of their front runners.

So, the biggest factor and highest priority for the GOP is to pick the right nominee. By contrast, the biggest factor and highest priority for the Dems is to position their nominee, whoever they are, to compete effectively for the middle ground in the general election. Importantly, this means that the Dems need to avoid delivering a nominee into the general election arena who is too damaged by the primary process to compete.

So, the sort of thing we've seen over the past few days, which makes all candidates come off as vicious, small and immature is exactly what the Dems don't need. Which is why I'm happy to pile on and say that both David Geffen and the HRC operatives who started all this have been both dumb and disloyal to their party.

Obama is nothing like Howard Dean. He has CRITICIZED Dean, while failing to do much in his two years in the senate. He's all glitter, but no substance. By the way, Hillary Clinton SUCKS.