Oh my god.  I recognize a LOT of names there - folks from TalkLeft, for example.  If anyone says "go back to red state" to someone, they may not be joking.

Anyway, it's hilarious.  It starts off well "I heard an Obama supporter call Paula Abdeles [the PUMA who's last political campaign was to try to keep the descendants of Sally Hemmings out of the Thomas Jefferson reunions] and poor dears and such, and then it just goes apeshit.

Try as they might, they can't hide the fact that they can't stand the Clintons.  Much moreso than Obama.  They're reaching out to Clinton supporters, but they're doing it with clothespins over their nose and tongs.

Do you want to see stuff from NoQuarter also?

I don't want to educate them, but if I thought they wouldn't ban me (which they probably would), I would still like to talk policy with them -- not to change their minds, but in the interest of a good debate. People posting on RedState aren't going to vote for Obama or come over to the Democratic party. That doesn't make them any less interesting to talk to.

But again, I imagine they'd just ban me, so there isn't much point. So who exactly do I misunderstand? Republicans, or people in general?

What's strange is it reminds me of nothing but the sort of complete self-referential insanity I used to see back at the height of the Monica wars on places like Pathfinder and Free Republic?

Rightwing nuts would insist the press was not reporting Clinton murders, Presidential rulings stating Bill was going to declare Martial law...

Stuff that was SO outrageous that no matter how much you maintained the media was "in the bag" for the left, you would have believed the BBC, or the right wing media, the WSJ, SOMEBODY would have picked it up?

Same thing, someone truely believes a Clinton campaign office was "firebombed" and the news story was suppressed?  What, like the Clinton campaign was complicit in this media suppression?

That is beyond deluded, that is demented!

So, how ironic, these crazy Puma's now have de-evolved into the same kind of "urban myth" true believers as those classic Clinton haters in the 90s.

And the RedStaters don't exactly know how to handle them, either.

I know, that's been my favorite part of this whole phenomenon.

Wow.  It takes a special kind of nuts to be too nuts even for Republicans on the Internet.

You're right...my apology for commenting rashly. In my zeal to stifle all dissent for the greater glory of Dear Leader, I completely trampled on that most Democratic of principles, the right to free speech.

Remember, if we ever stop allowing dissenting comments, including those which attack us, our party and our nominee despite this being a purportedly pro-Democratic blog, then we are no different from republicans, the Taliban, Hitler and Mao.

Redstate actually has a handful of liberal democrats who post there.  They actually seem to allow a smidge more dissent than we do here.

Please.

This isn't a martydrom contest. We don't have to suffer the McCain infiltrators here just to "prove" how much Democrats love free speech and debate.

Are you actually suggesting that websites should not have moderators? That anything goes for fear of being labeled a freeper? If so, I sure hope you've never given anyone a 0, you free-speech hater!

This is a blog to elect Democrats. If someone can't comport themselves to that mission, they do not belong here. That's how it goes everywhere on the net. If you hate a sports team and show up on that team's blog merely to rant and rave against that team, you'll likely be banned. If you hate an actor and show up on that actor's fan site merely to rant and rave against that actor, you'll likely be banned. There's nothing magical about this site that forces us to tolerate jackholes trying to sow misery and discord.

But just remember...he's not a sell-out party-traitor piece of shit. He's doing it for the good of the party. He's doing it because he cares.

absolutely.  I was distracted mojo-ing comments. =)

True enough.  Behold:

ok, 07 you have repeated this several times:  by David Hinz

   

But I will guarantee you that Hillary Clinton never systematically had death threats made against her opponents supporters, their children, their elderly parents, burned down the opponent's campaign offices, or had drive by shootings through the windows, etc. I'm trying to convey that there is a whole new level of corruption that is possible, and it is there that all people of reasonably good, Democrat and Republican, will have to take a stand.

Send me your evidence by way of my contact form. Send whatever links you have, whatever evidence you have. Let me examine it and if it's real I will write it all up on our site.

Yep, that's on Redstate.  Depressing, isn't it.

that I would not get instantly banned, rather.

Alegre's corner pretends that every poll, person, or pundit that says anything positive about Obama is completely wicked, or phantasmagoric.  It's like their own carefully cultivated (yet I'm certain boring and ultimately unfulfilling) garden of eden.  

They've also been inundated with McCain trolls, whom they let frolic freely as long as they say effusive things about Hillary every other time they post.  But their real agenda is to distort McCain's record on women's issues to make him seem more palatable to Hil's castaways.

All in all the way they're being preyed upon is disturbing.  I'm obsessed with reading it.  I'm also impressed that they're able to find enough subject matter to feed their strange worldview (or weltanschauung, german words are great).

Which is why he will never scold PUMA sites to "open up their discussion".

Did I say it was not a good thing to write about? Hmmm... nope.

I said is it a good thing to LINK to RS

Progressive Blue

I'm sure it makes you happy to believe its all about someone else's angers. It appears to be your common theme.

If you put the archives of redstate and dkos blogs written about the Clintons side by side, they are very similar in vileness and contempt.

"The degree to which Clinton supporters are alienated will show very dramatically at Denver and in November."

First, those folks are NOT Clinton supporters, they are angry petulant narcissists engaged in a navel gazing McTantrum.

Yes, they will embarress themselves AND Senator Clinton in Denver, the few that will actually show up.

And, they will be a blip on the radar in Nov.

BTW, '07, How's in going convincing RedStaters How cool the Clintons are?  

Not a lot of luv for Bill and Hill in that pit of rightwing nuttery?

You're welcome to associate with Paula Abeles.  She posed as an old African American woman so she could somehow con the descendants of Jefferson and Sally Hemmings from attending a reunion.

I'll have nothing to do with such a person.

As for "This odious charge of "racism" leveled at every person who opposes Obama", well frankly you're being hyperbolic and whacked out on anger.  My best friend in the world was an ardent supporter of Senator Clinton.  It caused some angst between us, but I never, I repeat never thought, implied, or stated anything of the kind (racist) about him.  More generally, it just did not happen in the way you insist.

You wanna get mad and assume that the big, bad underdog candidate and his supporters did you wrong, well that's fine.  You want to associate with nutjobs (at the worst) and increasingly bewildered but opportunistic Republicans?  Fine.

You live in a fantasy world.  Your grievances are so unbelievably exaggerated as to caricature them.  Sexism was real, yes.  It was not, however, the cause of Obama's victory.

Next time support a candidate who doesn't say something as boneheaded as this:

"A much less compressed environment. So from my perspective, you get up every day and you get out there and you make your case and you reach as many people as possible. That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run. It's not a very long run. It'll be over by February 5th."

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/01030 8Burns.shtml

I'm not attacking Senator Clinton here.  She screwed up.  That's part of life.  You wanna blame somebody for your pain, your sense of loss, your anger?  Blame your candidate for her foolish lack of planning.  Next time (and there will be a next time) she'll do better.

The internet is a very dangerous place for someone as credulous and excitable as you are.  Your intelligence and ability to write out your anger coherently does not diminish the absolute mockery of Senator Clinton's cause and candidacy you are.

Good luck to you.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote they were used to it in that they could handle anything being thrown at them.

All right, it's been a few seconds since I hit post. I apologize to the blog community for putting that comment. I was caught up in the 07rescue's reply here and then see this, and like a Tourette's victim  I hit post when I typed that for fun. It's too bad I can't delete my own comment.

The sentence began without a quotation (as part of a larger quoted passage) so I mistook it as diary commentary on a quick read.  As I said, at that point I stopped reading.  Dumb.

My apologies.