My post got cut off (as usual). Here is the rest:

My concern is not that these insults are being voiced, but that they are being voiced so frequently by fellow Democrats, and more specifically, by supporters of Hillary Clinton. There seems to be a disconnect in play here: With a scant few exceptions, every Obama supporter I've ever met was also a Clinton supporter in the 90s. We remember Bill Clinton's rise to prominence. We remember how he was maligned as being too young, inexperienced, and unprepared for the job. We remembered how he was called a "fancy talker" and an "empty suit" who didn't understand Washington and needed some time to get his act together. We cheered him when he sat in on saxophone with Arsenio Hall's band. We voted for him. We stood behind him. We celebrated the economic gains that he helped bring about. We stood up to those who attacked him and his intelligent, strong, passionate wife Hillary. We denounced those who unfairly mocked his young daughter Chelsea. When his first term was nearing its end, we rose again and supported him. He rode that support to a defeat of Senator Robert Dole and he thanked us for standing with him.

Many of the folks who are supporting Barack Obama right now are the same folks who saw him look into the camera and lie about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. We decried what we were told was a politically-motivated witch hunt fueled with nothing but lies to bring our beloved candidate down. We believed in him. We believed him. When he perjured himself, we defended him with thin excuses about how embarrassed he must have been to have a personal weakness dragged out into the spotlight for political reasons. We supported him even though he lied to us. We supported his wife and his daughter. We shed tears for the hurt we knew they felt. We supported them. When Al Gore sought to distance himself from our President, we criticized him for it. We called him ungrateful. We stood up for the Clintons yet again.

When Hillary Clinton decided to take the unprecedented step of transitioning from First Lady to United States Senator, we rallied around her once again. We knew that she would be attacked and maligned by a GOP who had grown to hate everything attached to the name Clinton. Even though she wasn't actually "from" New York, we shouted down those who would call her a "carpetbagger." It was within the law, and if the people of New York wanted her to represent them, we were bound and determined to see it happen. When people said she wasn't qualified to sit in the Senate, we told them they were wrong. We reminded them of her intelligence, her resolve, her passion, her commitment.

Has Senator Clinton forgotten all these things? Have her supporters forgotten them? Have they forgotten that so many of the people who support the candidacy of Barack Obama now are people who once stood shoulder to shoulder in support of all things Clinton? I haven't. But it seems that many have. As I noted in my comment on the earlier thread, it seems like many people have lost sight of the difference between loyalty and blind allegiance. It seems like many people have come to ignore the many flaws in exhibited by the Clinton Campaign during this contest.

Are they ignoring the disdainful air of inevitability?
The signs of dismissive entitlement?
The disorganization and infighting?
Bill's remarks after the defeat in South Carolina?
The absence of traditional concession speeches?
The sad claims of victory in a race in which her opponents’ names were not on the ballot?
The slow and tepid response to Geraldine Ferraro's divisive, destructive, sad remarks?

I don't expect people who believe in a candidate to take these examples (along with the many others I could have cited) as a pattern of racism or take them as a preponderance of reasons to drop their support for her. I don't think Hillary Clinton is a racist. I don't think her campaign is brimming with racists. I don't think the bulk of her supporters are racist. And I don't begrudge them for supporting her. If they feel she is the best candidate and the best representation of their values, I want her supporters to continue to be engaged and vocal in their support. I encourage the fair-minded, open examination of the distinctions between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. After all, isn't that what this process is supposed to be about? I'm not writing to discourage that. I just haven't seen much of it lately. Instead, I write today to decry the apparent absence of critical or objective judgment on the part of so many of Senator Clinton's supporters, particularly in this forum. You don't seem to remember that many of us who you are now attacking were once Clinton supporters too. As Larry so succinctly put it, Hillary Clinton "got our antipathy the old fashioned way: She earned it."

You don't seem to remember. We can't forget.

Clinton's conduct - knowingly promoting race hatred, prejudice and stereotypes - is beneath contempt. She has shamelessly aroused fear and trepidation among minorities, perhaps in a desperate effort to deter them from participating in the political process. Clinton's campaign is reminiscent of the JIM CROW era, an era when Southern Democrats employed "divide and conquer" tactics in a vain attempt to perpetuate the status quo.

Aaron, I'd be proud to serve on your committee with both DF and Larry Geater. And I agree with everything you've said, except the one about "shedding tears." But I'd say my heartfelt condolences were there.

Just wanted to add that list of mis-steps:
endorsing McCain for the Presidency over Obama.

That was the big one for me until Geraldine one upped her.

Very well said, Aaron. I was one of those staunch Clinton supporters through thick and thin -- right up until Hillary's recent campaign behavior. I now consider Hillary a grossly selfish, dishonest person. If she is the nominee I will stay home on Election Day.

DF posted... Barack Obama is winning this contest on...

Caucus votes.

Excellent post.

God, but I love you guys. I truly do.

Peace and good night,
Lis

Great Post. Sums it up quite nicely. I love the (insert excuse here) brackets. Remember the list of the Penn excuses Rick Horowitz put up?
http://rickhorowitz.typepad.com/yesrick/2008/02/late-results-fr.html
There have been many, many more since that article. It is interesting to re-read your post with any one of these plugged into it. It is almost like the political version of mad-libs.

I wholly agree with this post. Granted, there have been times during the course of campaigning where Hillary's conduct has socked me where it's visceral and I've lashed out with invectives. But honestly, at this point, I'm tired of using pejoratives.

I've seen some Obama people sound off with a righteous anger at the Clinton campaign and practically bay for a public beheading, which I suppose isn't so appealing for Clinton supporters. But what really piques me about the Clinton supporters on this website or The Huffington Post is the unmistakable snideness and condescension that lace their insults. Take the term "Obamabot," for instance. I can also remember one person on Huffpo, gracefully named "RISEUPAMERICA," derided the Obama camp's demands for Geraldine Ferraro's resignation by writing "Oh, looks like the kiddies are angry again." That's what irritates me. I generally try to avoid pegging Clinton supporters as a certain type, keeping my criticism generally towards her and specifically the way she carries her campaign. On average, I usually see more hostility towards Obama supporters from Clinton supporters. Like we're all delusional or PC zombies or immature or naive or something else that belittles our decision.

Although I can't say I've always done it or that other Obama supporters don't abstain from it, I've tended to try and go easy on Clinton's soi-distant foreign policy experience. I don't really believe it's as extensive as she says it is, but I try to avoid spending too much time ridiculing her role in Northern Ireland (because it seems pretty debatable) or her speech in Beijing, other than the "hey pot me kettle" irony of it. Rather, I've tried to steer my attacks outside of the framework that assumes foreign policy experience is even an important factor, dismissing the notion more than the specifics of the claim.

But with the ol' Clintonistas, I find that the disparagement of Obama is a lot nastier, a lot more cynical and unattractive. If Obama supporters can be lambasted for occasionally going after Clinton with a self-righteous fury, Clinton supporters callously lampoon Obama, trying to denounce his entire platform and message. Whatever change he brings, I do not believe Obama is a charlatan, or, as it seems to be echoed verbatim throughout the Clinton camp "a typical politician" or "just words." It doesn't really express white-hot emotional outrage over something like Ferraro's comments, but it's more of this cynical, patronizing fatalism, as if they know we're just a gaggle of vapid hope-drones.

I suppose it's kind of unrealistic to hope for civil, thoughtful debate on any internet forum, but I would be interested in hearing why Clinton fans support their girl and her policies. Because, at least in spin theory, she could pull off the nomination, and even though I would really relish every mudball Rove slung at her, chances are I'd still vote for her. But I haven't really heard why I should. Only why I'm not (because I'm a fool).

Your column is such a relief. Hillary's divide-and-conquer, microtrended, "my way or no way" tactics are truly sociopathological. I have seriously wondered whether Hillary is emotionally and psychologically unbalanced. She doesn't seem to be able to accept defeat. The Clintons have damaged the Democratic Party. Their strategy is to so damage Obama that he will not be a viable candidate. Imagine! The Democrats have one of the most exciting and brilliant candidate for president we have had in decaded, and Hillary wants to destroy him. We have all suspected, for years, that the Clinton are interested only in their own power and ambition. They have certainly proven it this year. I am embarrassed for women who have allowed themselves to be manipulted by Hillary's gender-baiting. When she is behind, she plays victim--and all the angry 1970s feminists rally to her. I'm in my 50s, a woman and I don't buy into her victim-as-candidate tactic. She is using women--preying on their frustrations and anger. Hillary appeals to the worst in each of us--because she is a weak person, of weak character--and she can win only by appealing to the weaknesses of others, as George W. Bush has done. If fact, her strategy is so much like Bush's I'm surprised that more Democrats don't recognize it. As you pointed out, when FOX television and Rush Limbaugh are the Clinton's new allies, it should tell Hillary supporters something. At this point, I think Hillary's supporters would follow her right to the Republican Party. That is the problem, Hillary has divided Democrats from the Democratic Party. The Clintons are a political party unto themselves. Obama speaks to the best in us--his very candidacy says that--how could an African American man run for President without believing in the best in each American. He see us united--as he himself symbolizes racial, ethnic and class unity. He knows unity is possible. Hillary fears unity because she cannot function healthily. She thrives on conflict. She is a pathetic person, really, and it says something about how women perceive themselves that so many women identify with her as victim. Hillary is unhealthy and this year, she is spreading her illness throughout the Democratic Party.