|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Bart, consider YOUR OWN interests As seen on Link
I'm a long time reader. I'm clear this is YOUR
page. This is YOUR site.
These are YOUR opinions and - Koresh bless America
- you're entitled to them.
I like your site and I intend to continue spinning
your hit counter.
I'll even contribute again should I ever again
enjoy "disposable income".
You are very nice.
The point is, in demonstrating your fervent support
for Hillary, you've taken to
insulting Obama supporters. I think you would
agree that Obama has a huge following.
To me, that indicates that a huge percentage
of your reader base supports Obama as well.
My mail has been 75/25 Obama for maybe a year.
Hillary backers either don't exist or they tend
not to write.
Allowing this debate to devolve into personal
attacks on the people who support
one candidate over the other is short-sighted
both to the Democratic party and
- more importantly to THIS post - your site.
There is a mean and nasty debate
going on, that's for sure. I think I've been a model
of restraint in that nobody can quote where I've
attacked or belittled Obama.
I figure that's my gift to the party :)
Suggesting Hillary is getting a raw deal
in the press or repeating some
anti-Obama slur that has been disproved or pretending
you can never
navigate Obama's site or some such is one thing.
Whoa, back the truck up.
I don't play that game where you define my position.
Hillary IS getting a raw deal from the press.
Would you send me a quarter
for every nasty thing written or said about Hillary
if I send you a dollar
for every nasty thing written or said about Obama?
You can't - you'd go broke before the sun went down.
Also, I'm not aware of any "anti-Obama slur that
has been disproven."
Did you think you could sneak that by Ol' Bart?
And watch that "pretending" bullshit because you're
calling me a liar
and I thought the point of your message was to
cool things down...
But suggesting that your own readers - upon whom
you count for support - are
wishful thinkers, engaged in "idiocy", or not
thinking like "adults" could well end up
hurting your own long-term interests.
Got a Snickers bar? This could take a while...
You didn't quote me, at least not in context, so I have to guess what you mean.
But if
I think my party is about to make a MAJOR MISTAKE that would probably
give the White House back to the Fascist bastards,
I should keep that to myself?
If I can't have my opinions, whose opinions should I have?
But you are right about my "long-term interests."
If I had any damn sense I would've hopped on
the Obama bandwagon
like 98 percent of all websites and media outlets
- but I'm just too stupid.
Like an idiot, I said no to the money.
Wait, let's start over because I AM an idiot.
Why am I not getting rich like
everyone else?
This is crazy - I need money more than most people
and here I am
making some boneheaded stand on principle - and
for what?
So Hillary can get back in the race and send Kos another $40,000?
<Bart does a shot>
The truth is, the vast majority of us WILL back
the Demo candidate regardless
of who it is or what we say today. (What, we're
going to vote McCain?!?)
The Obamas have declared their reluctance to help
in November unless they win.
Should I take them at their word?
In slamming your own reader base, though, you're
insulting people I would guess
you'd like to have around (and potentially contributing)
AFTER the election no matter WHO wins.
That's why we need for this war to be over.
I have two choices - I can fight or surrender.
Which choice seems more like me?
As I've tried to indicate, I know it's your page
and I always take you with a grain of salt
and STILL I feel, from time to time, some personal
sting to your characterizations of Obama
supporters. I can tell you, flatly, that you're
not going to say anything that's going to alter my
support for Obama but you run a tremendous risk
that you might say something to alter my
support for YOU. (I'm trying to make a point,
not issue 'never-coming-back-again' threats )
If
I talked about Obama the way people talk about the Clintons,
I could certainly understand a bunch of people
getting pissed off.
But the worst thing I've said about Obama is
that he's low on experience
and that his followers seem more idealistic than,
say, older voters.
We on the left should be very, very careful not
to destroy ourselves by attacking
each other just because we have a difference
of opinion on who should be the nominee.
I'd like to see the debate limited to discussions
of the issues and leave the "intangibles"
and media-driven "conflicts" out of it.
Really?
We're going to leave media-driven conflicts out
if it?
So the Clintons weren't blamed for getting all
racial on Obama in Carolina?
Whew, I feel better.
When every pundit on TV (except Dan Abrams) "admits"
the Clintons are racist scum,
I think a page refuting that fraudulent charge
would be a good thing.
BTW, your "who-wants-a-pony" chart is wrong. The
race is about garnering delegates.
From that perspective, NV wants a pony, too.
But would it REALLY be so difficult to say, Iowa
preferred Obama, NH preferred Clinton?
Macrobank
OK, I plead guilty to applying "pony" status to states that I think voted "funny."
Everything cool now?
BTW, you're doing a great job at the BartBlog
Thanks, I wish we had more of you.
Note: If someone had been away for a few years and
came back today and saw
how nice I was to you they'd probably think bartcop.com
had changed hands.
Maybe old age is mellowing me :)
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog