Sorry about all the

,

What are the particular things Obama has done that make you so angry?

Well, just for instance:

IA, SC, GA, IL, MO, MN, ID, WA, WI, ME, AL, LA, VA, MD, DE, WY, VT, KS, UT

That's just a start, but I think it includes some of his major offenses.

Occasionally they say they're mad at Obama *supporters*, rather than Obama himself. But personally, I think it's unfair to blame all of Obama's supporters for Sinbad's actions.

Obama's actions against Senate opponents? What? Please describe.

I'm no more a fan of Hillary than I am of Obama and I'm going to vote for the ticket, either way, but I have to reiterate something TUnderwood said; I think the issue may be more with his supporters than the actual candidate.

James Carville, a talking head, said something and there were easily three dozen posts making the same basic points in disagreement. I just commented to another thread and now I'm waiting for someone to present their challenge to a single definition. There are other blogsites which are full of name-calling and though this site is better, there's still a lot of personal negativity toward the candidate.

Heck, I disagree with your perceived Hillary slights because one is open to interpretation, one appears to me that it has a grounding in a single example, but it has grown to mythic proportions and both candidates are going to need superdelegates to get the nomination.

Not to mention all of the calls for her to drop out, though she's not only still garnering a significant percentage of votes, but she won some the last round and will probably win some in the next. Also, whenever someone says that she should drop out and disenfranchise the voters in the few states which remain, a lot of them inevitably say that the race is over and Obama needs to focus on McCain, while few of his supporters ever seem to do it and instead, they just keep rehashing their individual bits about Hillary, over and over.

Oh, and just yesterday morning, the daily meme was that some unnamed source expressed their opinion to the Politico last week, then David Brooks halved the unnamed source's number and the blogosphere appears to have taken it as fact.

I've also cautioned in the past and I'll do it again that because Obama looks like he'll most likely become the nominee, his supporters are going to have to tone things down because the general public will hold a lot of these tactics against Obama and this could very easily cost us the election.

People don't like to be called dumb, disingenuous, racist, old, cynical, classist or any of the other adjectives which are currently being deployed, even if it's sometimes true.

For me, the intense dislike for Obama began around the time of the "fairy tale". Donna Brazile labeled it a racist slur. Where was Obama's high-minded call for a post-racial world then? Non-existent. Why? Because he knew he if this spread, if the Clintons were labeled as race-baiters, he would not only push up his black support, but there would be a backlash among liberal whites.

Not only did Obama stay silent, but his campaign compliled a memo stoking the race-baiting flames, that he had to denounce in a debate (can't remember which one).

Then, his campaign pushed the Ferraro flap. They called for Hillary to denounce and reject. Not content to just leave it at that, they put out a memo saying that the Clinton campaign had an pattern of these sorts of comments. Why? To push the race-baiting theme again.

Then the Wright flap occurred. Obama gave his highbrow speech. What did he do just days later? His campaign sent the photo of Bill Clinton with Wright to all the media outlets. For some reason, he wanted to continue this controversy but that got little play. Now Josh Marshall is all in a tizzy over Hillary reviving the Wright story when he had very little to say about Obama doing it.

I'm pissed that there is constantly a double standard. I see Obama getting away with the grossest crap, while Hillary gets slammed for even the slightest thing. I don't know that I should hold it against him, and I wouldn't, if he didn't claim to be some kind of new politician. Holier than thou.

Media Bias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4c47X5ASw8

I agree with you that it's a terrible idea to stereotype Clinton supporters. I'm married to a Clinton supporter, so I've learned to walk a little lightly for the sake of party unity!

But realistically, magister, you know the blogosphere is full of nonsense on multiple sides. Especially on comment threads, we like arguing maybe a little more than we should. I could catalog the offensive attacks I've heard on Obama from HRC supporters . . . but I think you can imagine them, and I'll spare us.

The bottom line is that it makes no sense to decide a vote in Nov based on irritation at the geekiest 1% of a candidate's supporters. And fortunately for all of us (on both sides), most Americans have no idea how annoying we all are on the blogosphere.

Not mad at him...just wish he'd get those ears clipped. Always amazing that a big wind doesn't swoop him away :)

When the Media and the Left blogs deplore the negativity of the Democratic presidential campaign, especially from the Clinton campaign, they ignore that they are a major reason why it has happened. Why? Because they attack the Clinton campaign no matter what it does while ignoring or defending every negative attack and questionable tactic of the Obama campaign.
The examples are legion. There is not an ounce of doubt that it was the campaigns challenging Hillary Clinton last fall that first engaged in negative attacks. The Media and some of the Left blogs were imploring the Barack Obama campaign to do that and certainly not a single word of reproach was written about it.
Led by Tim Russert and Brian Williams in the October 2007 debate, and followed eagerly by the entire NBC network and many Left blogs, the attacks on Hillary Clinton, especially on her character, were applauded on a daily basis.

Correction duly noted. Obama is a fraud because of

"his considerable gift for oratory and his exotic background"
his book
his campaign manager
the fact that he markets himself well to the American people

and so on. In short, because he's a very successful politician.

I understand that these are reasons to resent his success in the primary. But I don't see any substantive reason here not to vote for him in the general.

To another_reader: Thank you for listing some specific things that, I agree, are legitimate reasons to dislike someone ... if they are accurate and if that person/campaign was responsible. But I would ask that you simply re-check your facts about each of those situations.

-- "fairy tale", race-bating incidents: As I'm sure you know, Donna Brazille, Rev. Clyburn and others who reacted to this and to the MLK/LBJ comment are not affiliated with the Obama campaign. On Meet the Press just before the Nevada caucus, Hillary had a chance to put the matter to rest but she instead she continued the (unfounded) complaints that the Obama campaign was using it against her ... and then she went to sit applauding while Bob Johnson said his ugly stuff. The following day (Mon) was the first time Obama - or his campaign - spoke on the issue (other than to say the MLK/LBJ was 'unfortunate' in an effort to diffuse things) and he firmly put an end to it in a press conference he called for that purpose. In it, he praised Bill and Hillary Clinton for their contributions to equal rights and, yes, called for attention to be focused on the issues and common problems, not on the divisiveness of feelings about race.

-- the memo to which you refer was compiled by one lower level worker in the SC office at the request of someone (never clear who); it was NOT released to the press by the campaign; the worker was censured - personally - by Obama; and, as you note, Sen Obama disavowed it at the debate without protesting, as he could have done with reason, that compilation of the list was not authorized or used by the campaign. --- In the meantime, Hillary had - and still has - an entire web site devoted to listing every tiny thing that Obama or any of his surrogates, or anyone they choose to claim is a surrogate, has said that is in the least sense negative towards Hillary.

-- the Ferraro flap. I am trying very hard to get confirmation but it appears that her quote was made public NOT by the Obama campaign but my MSNBC ("Morning Joe"0, who then questioned Obama's representative about it. Identical statements had been made by her a week or so earlier on the John Gibson show had been totally ignored, and I'm confident the campaigns monitor Fox radio more than they do the Daily Breeze newspaper. The Obama campaign did (perhaps rashly, I think) ask that she be disavowed by the Clinton campaign, but you have to remember that this occurred just days after Samantha Power had made her (she thought) off the record comments and the Clinton campaign had demanded that she be fired ... despite the fact that she immediately, and fulsomely, apologized and the Obama campaign apologized. In his 3/18 speech, he tried to make it clear that it was *wrong* for people to take a chance remark like hers and conclude the person was a racist, but Ms Ferraro chose to take that as in insult as well.

-- I believe the photo of Rev. Wright and Bill Clinton was sent out to show that the minister everyone has been badmouthing and demonizing is not a far-out cult figure but instead an acknowleged as a respected member of the mainstream national clergy. I don't blame them one bit for making that point, as the man has been unnecessarily pilloried. Actually, I find less justification for the Clinton campaign's sending out the picture of Obama in Somali dress, and the person to whom that picture was sent stated unequivocally that it came to him from the Clinton campaign.

--- "Now Josh Marshall is all in a tizzy over Hillary reviving the Wright story when he had very little to say about Obama doing it." I'm afraid I don't understand this point: the Rev. Wright story involved Obama and **of course** he had to respond to it. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, initially took the admirable position that it wasn't something she should or would comment on ..... until suddenly yesterday she decided to do so. Why the change? (One has to wonder if it were not to get the press attention to move away from the Bosnia debacle).

I started out this campaign assuming that I would be a Clinton supporter once Sen. Biden dropped out and I've watched it with as open a mind as I could. If there is a double standard, it's gone the other way. Hillary points fingers and mocks if Obama does anything less than angelic (Can you imagine what she would be saying if he told a lie like hers about Bosnia?) .. while her campaign uses lies (the flyers in Iowa, NH, NV), lawsuits (NV) and rule-changes (FL and MI), and utterly ridiculous charges (his kindergarten essay???) to attack him in any way possible -- but no one notices those very much because, well, you expect that sort of thing from the Clintons.

We may simply have to agree to disagree on this, but I wanted you to know that the legitimate things you are focusing on can, equally legitimately, be seen in a different light.

Why does change, or confidence to try, need to be only in hubris? I counter its more than marketing, the public discussion of race has changed this week. Will it mean anything? I dont know. Even the media showed a few signs of self awareness. Nonchange, or Non-Elvis, is the discussion of gender is the same finger pointing.

We're just finishing an 8 year run with an administration that meets behind closed doors and decides on some rather dubious policies and then creates a marketing plan to sell it to the american people at all costs.

One of these democratic candidates uses exactly the same approach to creating change: meet in secret, plot, execute.

The other has a different idea... meet in the open. Drive for a concensus and execute.

I'd like to see this one single implemented.

Politics by character assassination leads to really poor choices in the end for most voters. The loss of trust in any candidate leads to an apathetic, easy to manipulate electorate.

Choose open change. Closed change makes me very nervous. Let the debate become a conversation. Let's get to talking again.

Why? Let me help you out there, basil. To begin with, it's not "mad at Obama".

...that people took a very dim view of his dismissing the South Carolina primary on the ground that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, too.

Saying that JJ won SC in 84 and 88 is not "dismissing" the SC primary. It's a statement of fact. And I'm wondering why Obama and his supporters think it is "dismissing" the primary. They seem to think it's some sort of insult. I voted for JJ in the Colorado primary in 1988 where he narrowly lost. He did win 5 primaries on Super Tuesday in 1988. Is stating that fact "dismissing" the current year results in those primaries?

Jackson went all the way to the convention in 88 even tho Dukakis had it wrapped up. Is Obama on record anywhere asking for Jackson to drop out or concede in the 1988 primary campaign?

That's just for starters.

Oh come on.

Saying Jackson won the 84 and 88 primaries is just a statement of fact? So he was just giving us a history lesson on campaigning? Then why leave out the facts that 4 years later, he himself won South Carolina, and John Edwards in 2004?

It was clearly meant to be an implication that the black vote was the reason he won South Carolina. And this is coming from a person who thought that the fairy tale comment had nothing to do with race and the Geraldine Ferraro comment was completely overblown. I don't think his comment was racist, just an attempt at pointing out that his success in the state was due to the African-American demographic, and thus painting him the "black" candidate.

Besides, Jackson's win in South Carolina in 88 was a caucus, and we all know those don't matter.

Lalo *is* one of the crazies. He agrees with every word of the incredibly vile and offensive manner in which Hillaryis44.org reported on Obama's speech on race and religion in America. EVERY WORD. Go and read it if you have the stomach.

You are making a big mistake if you want to have an honest dialog with him of all people.

I notice that many of your comments are perceptions of either the Obama campaign or Obama himself. None of them can be backed up by fact.

You feel he is arrogant.
You feel the media is bias
You feel Obama supporters are mean to the Clintons.
You feel it is Hillary's turn.

My basic reason for being scared of the Clintons is one I don't believe in political dynasties, so Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

Two Hillary failed at healthcare when given the chance. She likes to talk about the experience that she has but the single most important task she had she failed and almost cost Bill a 2nd term.

Since that time I have found a lot more negative surrounding Hillary. Even with all her political experience and with her being the establish canidate she has been out campaign by Obama. He has raised more money, gotten move votes, has more pledge delegates, won more states. If Hillary name wasn't Clinton she would be out of the race.

Hillary surrogates such as Penn are dispicable and care more about lining their pockets than getting a Democrat elected president.

Hillary had an advantage because she can lean on the record of Bill clinton. However she choosed to embelish it.

Hillary is now using the kitchen sink strategy and Tonya Harding option. She is using Rev. wright as a politcal football. I happen to like Rev. Wright so this is a no no in my book.

Now are these are facts and not how I feel.

"And fortunately for all of us (on both sides), most Americans have no idea how annoying we all are on the blogosphere."

Now THERE'S a comment we should all be able to get behind.

When you take a step back, sometimes you just have to laugh at how silly we all are.

Clinton must be held accountable for every word from her supporters according to the Obamaniacs. and they all mesh to prove to the believers that she is a racist. But it's not fair to expect OBama to be be responsible for or accountable for the words of his supporters. Why? I don't know, but it typical Obama double standism.

They complain about her sense of entitlement at the same moment they wonder why she doesn't get out of the race. and are blind to this hypocrisy.

They ascribe racism to Clinton's support among the workings class never one considering that these are the people who have the most to fear from Obama's buying into the rightwing "need to reform Social Security" lie and that they have a legitimate and urgent reason to support her over him: better health care policies, better economic policies etc. But the classist, privileged Obama supporters accuse them of racism when really they want to keep a roof over their heads.

It's not Obama that bugs me, it's the yuppie privileged assholes who support him.

Okay, I'll just admit it.

I got mad because he was winning and I didn't want him to.

That's it.

I'm over it. I still think Hillary would be a better president. I also still don't accept that this is over (I am mad, though not at Obama, over us not revoting Michigan and Florida) and I'll support her for as long as she's in the campaign. But, I am over being mad at Obama over this.

I am now officially very angry at Mark Penn.

But if Obama is the nominee I'm not going to be angry at him over it. Unless he hires Mark Penn.

"It's not Obama that bugs me, it's the yuppie privileged assholes who support him."

Fun fact: Obama leads Hillary by in donations from US military.

Seems like a harsh way to speak of kids getting shot up so you can sit there and badmouth people.

You are the "classist asshole" you speak of.

"l understand why some Obama supporters are angry at Hillary -- for talking up McCain over Obama, for flirting with the idea of relying on superdelegates to overcome the results of the voting, for stoking the Jeremiah Wright story. I don't really understand, though, why some Hillary supporters are angry at Obama.

It's really funny.
I understand why some Obama supporters are angry at Hillary. She is an evil racist monster.
I don't really understand, though, why some Hillary supporters are angry at Obama. He is a son of God, perfect in every way, kind, honest, straightforward uniter, the One we have been waiting for 2000 years. Only evil racist people can't see this.
Hillary supporters, Are you evil hate mongering pervert racists or what?
Why don't you see the Light? The time to join the revolution is now. God Bless the Obama revolution and damn everybody else.

I think the ultimate reason some Hillary supporters hate Obama is the same reason why so many Republicans hated Bill Clinton. For the Republicans Bill Cinton's unforgivable sin was his becoming the first Democratic President after Ronald Reagan. They felt that they owned the office after the reign of Saint Ronald and saw Bill was a usurper. It seems to me that more than a few Hillary supporters feel similarly cheated. Obama has had the bad form to get in the way of her inevitable presidency.

I think one of the qualities of Obama I most admire is his sense of empathy. In every speech he makes and in his writing empathy is ever present. I've talked about empathy with people several times and on a couple of occasions I've been told that while they can and do feel sympathy they just don't feel empathy. Usually these people who say they don't feel empathy for the plight of others lean towards or are conservative in their politics. Some people just don't feel empathy. I guess we all have our blind spots.

I wonder if Obama just doesn't resonate with some because empathy isn't in their tool box. To them when he gave his speech on race, he was 'just a guy reading off a tele-prompter' and 'throwing his mother under a bus'. When I hear comments like these I wonder how people could have listened to the same speech I did and failed to hear.

Maybe the Obama haters are tone deaf to the very quality that resonates so strongly for myself and others. That would explain the names they call us.

I think one of the qualities of Obama I most admire is his sense of empathy. In every speech he makes and in his writing empathy is always present. I've talked about empathy with people several times and on a couple of occasions I've been told that while they can and do feel sympathy they just don't feel empathy. Usually these people who say they don't feel empathy for the plight of others lean towards or are conservative in their politics. Some people just don't feel empathy. I guess we all have our blind spots.

I wonder if Obama just doesn't resonate with some because empathy isn't in their tool box. To them when he gave his speech on race, he was 'just a guy reading off a tele-prompter' and 'throwing his mother under a bus'. When I hear comments like these I wonder how people could have listened to the same speech I did and failed to hear.

Maybe the Obama haters are tone deaf to the very quality that resonates so strongly for myself and others. That would explain the names they call us.

I don't think anyone is mad... I just think that a lot of the left wingers in the party need to realize that not everyone is on board their train!
There is nothing to change that either...

The gallup poll I saw today that said if Obama is on the Democratic ticket in November, 59% (millions of votes) of Clinton's supporters will not vote for Obama. With 28% (again millions of votes) of them to be cross over votes for John McCain! Believe me this is not some media spin or joke! It's real!

I'm going to be one of the cross overs (both in vote and money) and I've got a long and growing list of friends and colleagues that are also following suit on the issue. We just DO NOT like Mr. Obama the same as a lot of you don't like Hillary Clinton! It's just that simple... We just don't trust his character or judgement PERIOD!

I will also remind all the whiners out there that this is a CONTEST! A good contestant isn't going to drop out before the end of the game no matter how much of a tantrum one throws about it. As one former President once said: "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen!"

Obama is a carpetbagger who speaks a good speak, has as much political baggage as any candidate out there, and no real solutions for the problems! His solution is to wait until another candidate comes out with theirs and then he tweeks it to craft his own... only to later criticize the other candidates idea!

Leadership qualities in question??... Well absolutely number one is: Not distancing himself from all the controversial stuff prior to this run was a major political mistake! I see that as lacking good judgement! Also, a good leader wouldn't take a vacation in the midst of a tough campaign! I haven't seen Hillary or John McCain take one...and, hell, McCain is already finished with his primaries so it's a perfect time for one! I guess though that Mr. Obama's feeling that same sense of "entitlement" that he claims of Hillary to the Presidency! He expects it to come to him because, after all, he is the great Messiah with that bright light shining on the easily confused in this country.

I would liken him to a brand new car...once you've bought it and then finally get to drive it for the first time, you're going to find out it just wasn't what you expected of it!

So for me and a lot of others...this has nothing to do with being mad at him. Our support is solidly behind Hillary Clinton (both in vote and money). This has to do with principles and sticking by them! I know to left wing liberals principles are like the wind... they blow in and blow out... so I wouldn't expect you to get it!

The Hillary supporters I've talked to who will support McCain over Obama aren't really mad at Obama. They've just bought into the whole experience argument, thinking that's more important than anything else. They also know little of McCain other than he's a moderate and maverick.

Directed to the HRC supporters:

From what I've read, it comes down to a mistrust of his style. Fine whatever, no one can really change your mind about that because you'll end up viewing everything he does with that colored lens. What DOES surprise me is that you would rather vote for McCain because Obama and Hillary do not differ too much on policy. Even if Obama turned out to be a fraud, do you really think he'll swing so far to the right to make McCain look like a liberal?

What election cycle that Hillary herself run that was tough besides the one for President?
Just comparing how they managed their campaign during this election cycle has convinced me that Obama is by far the better CEO. She started off with the better name recommendation, the cw was that the primary season was set up for a quick victory for her, and she started with a bigger war chest.
My disappointment in Hillary is the way she run her campaign, this election was teed up for her and she blow it BIG. If she would instead run her campaign against McCain and throw him under the bus, instead of building him. Bringing up FL and MI does her no good by directing her complaints against Barack are just wrong (imho) and then say that she is going after pledged delegates. The rest of her attacks on Barack I am not going to address here.
Attack the common enemy and I believe that it would help her in the long run and might even booster some of her augments including winning some states and possible retaining some super delegates.
From a policy perspective both candidates are close, however neither of them will be able to pass anything that they will like without it going through Congress so what they are going to propose will most likely will not be what gets into law if anything without support. Unless we get 60+ Senators and retain the house majority.

Yes, it is. I have never said that if my candidate loses I will pick up my toys and go home. I know politics is not about my ego.