Timmy on MSNBC: Clinton supporters will be all over the web for the next 48 hours

[Patsy Stone]

pushing the popular vote argument. He says it's all they have left, and after Tuesday night no one will listen to them. He predicted a surge in posts from pro-Hillary bloggers and her supporters on internet message boards.

Yes, there is a coordinated plan; so don't get into the argument.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Thanks for posting this - K & R.

It has been noticeable.

[papau]

21. We can always count on MSNBC & Tim to work hard forObama /against Clinton

[tularetom]

2. Did he say it would stop after that?

I can put up with anything for 48 hours.

Especially if I know all these screaming freaks will go the fuck away at the end of the 48 hours.

[Patsy Stone]

5. He said

it will go away until August, if they somehow get it to the credentials committee, or November if Obama loses to McCain and they drag it up as an "I told you so."

I was actually surprised he said all this with such conviction and offered it up to begin with.

[roguevalley]

13. unless a michigan dem leader takes it, they have no standing.

[Patsy Stone]

14. Correct

And that's a good thing.

[Pirate Smile]

7. I was feeling pretty good but now I kind of feel like this

:wow:



But I sure as hell know that this isn't going to change Barack being the nominee. It is over. The only question is how Hillary acts.

[Muttocracy]

3. thanks - save ourselves the effort of explaining the basics! nt

[bigtree]

4. people have a perfect right to express their opinion

I don't understand why there has to necessarily be some argument. We should be able to debate these issues by presenting our point of view and leaving the personalizations aside. Discussion.

And, I'm always dismayed how some folks here view the minority of posts in dissent of Obama's candidacy as such a threat that they can't allow them a respectful hearing.

[Kittycat]

6. Any new threads tonight, BT?

I do enjoy them. :)

[Patsy Stone]

9. And they have a right to gather and spam as much as they want.

The right to free speech is not infringed upon by pointing out a coordinated effort to deliver the message.

[bigtree]

15. how are their minority of posts any more spam than the repeated ones opposing Clinton?

It's just a dishonest representation to posture as if there is something pernicious about organization and coordinated efforts in a campaign. Certainly there are numerous examples of coordinated or echoed responses and appeals from the Obama campaign as well.

[Patsy Stone]

19. When five posts appear within 30 minutes

all pushing the same talking point, it's spam, no matter who does it.

And, threatening to vote for McCain en masse if they don't get their way isn't pernicious? I disagree.

[bigtree]

20. the Mcain thing is a new point you're adding. Of course that's wrong.

But it's just not credible to come on here complaining about some coordinated effort by supporters to represent and advocate a point, which is widely held by many of her voters, as unacceptable spam. We present campaign arguments from our own perspective here all of the time. It's a cheap political tactic to portray your opposition as insincere because they echo the campaign's agenda and concerns. And, there's plenty of room for your position to prevail here at DU without attempting to denigrate the dissenters from your view.

[Patsy Stone]

25. You said "coordinated efforts"

and I used the "I'm voting for McCain" thing as an example of a coordinated effort. You said I was posturing dishonestly, and I proved I wasn't, because some coordinated efforts are, indeed, pernicious.

I made no value judgment in the OP. It was to let anyone who is thinking about responding to those posts, or who notices that those posts keep springing up and asking themselves why, that their existence is not a coincidence. I think it is useful information for them to have before they make the decison to engage in the same discussion over and over.

[bigtree]

28. If you are being equitable in your judgment

. . . you will have to acknowledge the similarity of posts which express views favorable to your candidate. You must also recognize how that effort might appear coordinated to those who hold an opposing view. Politics.

(I don't think you're being dishonest. That was a poor choice of words which I regret)

[merh]

22. Oh please

I post on a board that is composed of centrists, righties and lefties. I swear that 90% of the thread OPs posted by hillary supporters here are identical to the rightie OPs posted on that other board.

And when does disputing a talking point or debunking distorted facts constitute an argument? If you want debate then expect debate, if you want an echo chamber then go post on some other board that supports hillary, if you want unity stop posting divisive threads. It is a pretty simple forumula.

[bigtree]

24. you just refuse to accept that your own point of view as expressed

. . . can be seen as just as controversial as your opposition's appears to you. It's a transparent double standard that you're promoting here.

And, 'disputing' a point made isn't and argument. But, if you insist on representing the opposing view expressed by your candidate's rival's supporters as a mere talking point' you will certainly get an intractable, perpetual argument.

[merh]

34. No double standard at all. I am not the one that posts for unity

while posting divisive points or that complains about arguments when posting "facts" that are not facts but opinions which are easily debunked. If you don't like the heat then, well, you know the rest.

And may I suggest you read your last few lines over and over again and take them to heart.

And, 'disputing' a point made isn't and argument. But, if you insist on representing the opposing view expressed by your candidate's rival's supporters as a mere talking point' you will certainly get an intractable, perpetual argument.

[wileedog]

11. Of course they can

And Obama supporters can point out the fallacy of the popular vote over and over and over and over and over again.

But at some point it is no longer discussion, it is Whack-A-Mole.

[bigtree]

17. I might agree if there wasn't such a sizable amount of support for Hillary Clinton

It's just folly to treat and regard the bulk of those supporters as 'moles'.

[Major Hogwash]

33. Yeah, tell me how all the racist threads started by Hillbots at DU helps the Dem party?

Go ahead, I'm listening.

[Colobo]

8. It'll be over this week.

[Jim Sagle]

10. It'll be over when the lady in the pantsuit says it is - and not one damn second before.

[billyoc]

12. But if they're arguing with me, they can't influence some uninformed voter.

:hi:

[Muttocracy]

18. takin' one for the team :)

[cliffordu]

31. Yep! That's heroism, folks!!

:patriot:

[JackBeck]

16. For months they have moved from one talking point to another.

In light of any given primary.

Only to abandon them by Thursday afternoon, after they realize they need to recreate another ultra-reality.

The examples are endless, but for me, Ohio was the most scrambly for the Hillary campaign and their supporters.

This too, shall pass, but I do share everyone's frustration in trying to tolerate and inevitably having to parse and debunk their talking points.

[Thickasabrick]

23. K&R - thanks for posting!!

[Thickasabrick]

26. ABC News comments section was horrendous. All this "Democrats

for McCain" seems to be gaining momentum - or else a few posters are really, really busy. It's so disgusting that people could even mention Democrats and McCain in the same sentence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Mostly it is the second

also you have people who are very loud but a small minority

[PFunk]

27. the best solution to this is to treat it as SPAM and move on.

For Clinton the primary is over and it's now time to concentrate on McClain

[SoCalDem]

30. Shame on the media for KNOWING , and still allowing them to DO it.

:grr:

[Major Hogwash]

32. So, spewing on forums is all Hillary has left!!

Wait, she'll get mad if she sees me say that.

LoL

[blogslut]

35. Can I tease, wisecrack and/or be snarky?

?

[candice]

36. I think the definite loser should be the nominee...keep up the Democratic track record...

Nominate the one who can't win the swing states. Go for the big defeat!

[bleever]

37. Sez you.

(Addressing myself: ) Oh yeah?!?

Me: Yeah!

(Punching self in jaw: ) Take that!

(Me, to other self: ) Ooof!