Given the overall mood of the political blogosphere . . .

[mojave_wolf]

I posted this as a comment over at Anglachel's blog earlier, thought I'd repost it here (for a more positive take, see here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27616) (from an electoral horse-race point of view, NC was about what I expected and Indiana

Comments

Re: Heh, I can't tell if your last sentence was serious or sarcastic . . .

[mojave_wolf]

I think this may be where some of the difference came from in perception--I was really shocked at the democrats and supposed democrats (I still believe some of them are Republican plants, but I'm sure some of them aren't) who basically bought into all the right wing smears against the Clintons, and against Hillary in particular. I still remember this one person I got into an argument with who kept talking about Gennifer Flowers (and I keep seeing Obama people arguing that Bill cheating was Hillary's fault and keep thinking wtf???? No it wasn't and who cares what goes on in their marriage as long as they're okay with each other? it's nobody else's fucking business) and "travelgate" and stuff . . . I even remember reading one of her supporters saying they liked her in part because they thought the whole "dragon lady" thing was appealing. I can't believe (non-Republican) people bought the whole smear against her over the years . . .

The other thing, when people said they opposed her because of her vote on this that or the other, or because they blamed her in part for something Bill did policy-wise, I don't think that pissed off the Hillary supporters. We might have disagreed or been dismayed, but that isn't the same thing as feeling insulted. It's the people who ran around with the personal attacks, including the personal attacks on the Clintons--and that came from people at the top of his campaign, starting w/Jesse Jackson Jr talking about Hillary crying about her hair, not about Katrina, and then the racist crap . . . and then there were all the personal attacks on Hillary supporters . . . simply defending the Clintons can get you called "racist" really fast (I have first hand experience w/this). I kinda doubt you said anything like that . . .

Re: Heh, I can't tell if your last sentence was serious or sarcastic . . .

[caliantrias]

Wow. You must be encountering a lot of Reagan democrats. I have never encountered the people you describe. My experience comes from the far left where we view Clintons as centrists-at-best and closet conservatives at worst. Our frustration is that they are faux-progressives - promoting policies that seem liberal but in the long run (or in the details) are shams.

Nobody I know gives a damn who had sex with who or who slept in what bedroom. For all we care they could fucking aardvarks as long as it was consensual on the part of the aardvark. I personally was really pissed at the people who kept badgering Chelsea about the Lewinsky matter. (Although I think she missed an opportunity to turn it around and say straight out that they are blaming the victim).

Most of the racism I *have* encountered in this race is from people denying that race or gender have anything to do with it.

As far as blaming/crediting Hill for Bill's work - If I were president my wife would be at my right hand as an advisor officially or unofficially. I'd be an idiot to exclude her. I sense the same situation with the Clintons. Two married lawyer/politicians, she can't have an outside job for security reasons - I couldn't possibly believe she had no input.

Re: Heh, I can't tell if your last sentence was serious or sarcastic . . .

[mojave_wolf]

Weirdly enough, most of the people I've encountered who call themselves Reagan democrats are for Hillary(they mostly are at Taylor Marsh or No Quarter), just as a majority of the people who online call themselves "far left" (or some variation) say they are for Obama, frequently touting his progressive policies, usually w/out saying what they are (because they aren't, for the most part, more progressive than Hillary's; I can think of exactly two exceptions and she is wrong on both, and I don't get why people aware of these aren't willing to do a balancing act comparison).

It is one of the extreme weirdnesses of this race that *democrats* are buying the media narrative of the two candidates without checking further, so no one knows he voted for a gas tax holiday 3 times in Illinois, for example (which seems to have had good results, it should be added), and she gets flamed by either Frank Rich or Rich Cohen-- Iforget which--for voting for a flag-burning amendment, and they declare this is why they absolutely can't vote for her, and they don't mention until a small later addendum that their guy Obama voted for same (and I agree this amendment was stupid and wrong; I'm sure both Hill and Obama think so too).

I dunno what the hell the Chelsea attackers and the "we believed the drummed up right wing scandals of the 90's" people like that Insomnia dude who posted on "progressives" a few time are . . . like I said, I think some are Republicans masquerading as Obama supporters , but I think others are Kos people, and the majority at that place has always been both misogynistic and non-liberal (anti-Republican, yes; truly liberal, no) in its thinking, even tho it did used to be worth checking out just because it became sort of a magnet because of its popoularity--they probably love Obama because he's all about branding and marketing, and so are they . . .

Re: Hillary/Bill working together -- I assume this also. I have always thought she seemed the more genuinely liberal of the two, or at least more committed to liberal economics. Going back to before their joint presidency, she supported micro-lending programs a decade before I'd even heard of them, and once defended a Black Panther, for heaven's sake, both of which entail more than just following the crowd on what is popular.

But ultimately, he got voted in, not her, and it was his views that I'm assuming prevailed when they differed; certainly, my wife and I don't agree on everything (and she almost always turns out to have been right on those differences). I expect her to be better on government regulation in general and on more progressive on LGBT issues than he was, tho for what it matters as an excuse, I'm 100% sure he would have been more progressive on social issues but for having been essentially in a really nasty position where the conservatives were out for his blood and congress was blaming him for their every trouble--still, huge mistake on his part w/DOMA and telecom dereg--I can understand/justify everything else about his presidency--which was on the whole a very good thing, I still think--except those two.