who is really behind clinton-obama online feud?

on the internet, lately, supporters of hillary clinton and barack obama have gotten more and more heated in their discussions, and often condemn the other candidate, and threaten to vote for john mccain or for an independent or not vote at all if their candidate is not the one who wins the democratic nomination. but a lot of these so-called “supporters” are really what is called an “agent provocateur”, namely, they are loyal republicans and staunch conservatives who pretend to be democrats. there is a post about this on dailykos.com. that post has a youtube video posted by one of these provocateurs. there is a name for what they are doing... it is called “operation chaos”, and it is orchestrated by drug-addicted hypocritical neo-fascist radio talk show host rush limbaugh. what is the purpose of this? it is to provoke supporters of one democratic candidate into not liking the other democratic candidate, to provoke them into either voting for john mccain in the fall or voting third-party or not voting at all. it is to provoke loyal, liberal democrats into turning against their own party. i, for one, detest many of the tactics of the hillary clinton campaign, but as far as policies go, she and barack obama have very similar policies. and as far as whether i would prefer a person of one race or another, or one gender or another in the white house, quite honestly i don’t care. so, here are some hints to tell if someone is a republican posing as a democrat in order to cause strife:

1) they mention vince foster, whitewater, monica lewinsky, or any other scandal from the 1990s involving the clintons.
2) they mention barack obama’s pastor jeremiah wright and talk about how awful he is, or they question whether barack obama might be a muslim, or they call him osama or mention his middle name hussein, or say that he is unpatriotic, or they bring up tony rezko.
3) they insult hillary clinton by calling her a bitch or a whore or some other sort of derogatory language towards women.
4) they insult barack obama by calling him a nigger or some other sort of derogatory language towards black people.
5) they say that john mccain or ralph nader is better than whichever (obama or clinton) they are pretending to dislike, and say they would never vote for (obama or clinton, whichever they pretend to dislike).
6) they accuse barack obama or hillary clinton of being too liberal (hint: if anyone thinks being liberal is bad, there is about a 99.9% chance they are either a conservative republican or some dumbass from the “mainstream media” who has been brainwashed into thinking that “liberal” is a swear word).
7) they insult all the followers of the other candidate, saying that they are like sheep, or like members of a cult, or any other sort of insult against all the other candidate’s followers.
8) they use a lot of swear words, or type in all caps, or misspell a lot of words.
9) they post a huge amount of comments, again and again and again, on a news story or blog post, in a heated argument with supporters of the other candidate.
10) rather than relying on facts, they peddle false information, lies, innuendo, and insults, and if they do provide web links to back up their information, the links are to right-wing websites such as freerepublic.com, newsmax.com, townhall.com, or media outlets owned by rupert murdoch or sun myung moon (new york post, wall street journal, washington times, etc.).
11) the news story or blog post they are commenting on is linked to from the drudge report (everything matt drudge links to is flooded with comments from right-wingers).
12) they are anonymous, or using somebody else’s identity when they post online.
13) they only seem to care about electing the first woman or first black person as president, and try to argue about whether black people or women suffer worse oppression/discrimination and who deserves to get the presidency first, as if that is even a legitimate argument.
14) they use untrue ad hominem attacks against the candidates like calling barack obama an empty suit with no experience who has no clear policy positions and only talks about hope and change and other silly meaningless platitudes.
15) they never say anything bad about john mccain.
16) they seem to care a lot more about personalities (barack obama and hillary clinton) than issues facing our nation such as the war in iraq, universal healthcare, the economic downturn, the national debt, global warming, immigration, etc.

now obviously there are many actual supporters of hillary clinton or barack obama who have gotten upset by the online postings of these provocateurs, and have themselves started behaving in some of these ways. and some supporters of hillary clinton or barack obama may genuinely dislike the other candidate and express this dislike in an inappropriate fashion online that does not benefit the democratic party’s chances in november. we all need to be very careful what we say, so as to not provoke supporters of the other candidate into not supporting whoever the eventual democratic nominee is. lately, i have at times been very harsh against hillary clinton, but my critique of her is that she has too often capitulated to the bush administration and republicans, and shown herself to be dishonest, and that she has a win-at-all-costs kitchen-sink strategy to try to win the democratic nomination through character assassination against barack obama, and that she is perfectly willing to overturn the will of the people who vote in primaries and caucuses by using superdelegates, and that she decided she wanted florida and michigan to count only after she won both states, having been opposed to having those 2 states count prior to that happening. this critique is based on my assessment that hillary clinton has no chance of winning the nomination unless she cheats and steals the election, and that she was just re-elected to the senate in 2006, so she is not up for re-election until 2012, so any damage i inflict upon her with this blog will be incredibly minor, if this blog has any affect at all, which it probably does not. i am just trying to be part of a chorus of people denouncing her win-the-nomination-at-all-costs campaign tactics, who believe she is tearing the democratic party apart with her attacks on barack obama, and that she is so far behind in pledged delegates she has no chance of winning, and the longer this fight goes on the more damage it will inflict on both hillary clinton and barack obama, and the more it will benefit john mccain, so her campaign is effectively part of the john mccain campaign, and everything she does benefits john mccain. if you look at history, you will see that there were other candidates who stayed in the race for the nomination after they had no chance of winning, and this almost always sank the campaign of the party’s nominee in the general election. of course, the 1968 convention was the worst one ever, but in 1980, 1984, and 1988, all 3 of those years, the democratic candidates went on fighting for too long, and whoever emerged as the general-election candidate was badly damaged by the infighting with other democrats, and went on to lose badly. that happened 3 elections in a row, all in the 80s, and jimmy carter, walter mondale, and michael dukakis all lost, partially due to attacks on them from fellow democrats. now ronald reagan popularized what he called the 11th commandment, namely “thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow republican.” perhaps we democrats ought to adopt a similar approach. but we still need to allow for freedom of thought and diversity of opinion within the democratic party. our critiques of fellow democrats must be rooted in democratic principles, in our loyalty to the democratic party and various issues in its platform, and in holding up our elected officials to the highest standards, and expecting them to be as liberal as their constituents allow them to be. why is it that conservative is not considered a swear word or an insult, but liberal is? why do we often hear of a “conservative movement” but never hear of a “liberal movement”? the right-wingers in the republican party have done an excellent job in manipulating the english language for political purposes, to advance their cause and discredit liberals and democrats. why do you think we had to adopt a new term to replace “liberal”, namely “progressive”? it is because the word “liberal” was so badly maligned, many of us liberals decided to abandon it and seek a word that had not yet been completely vandalized. we need to stop acting like sissies and defend our turf, defend words like liberal, and make them positive instead of negative, and turn words like conservative and republican into swear words and insults, words nobody wants to be associated with. i am proud to be liberal and i will never abandon that word, no matter how badly it is maligned by its detractors. liberalism is what made the united states of america the greatest nation in the world. liberalism is what gave us freedom and equality, what gave rights to women and black people, both groups who had previously been denied the right to vote and considered property. it would be a shame if we liberals allowed conservative republicans to create and exploit divisions within our ranks in order to ruin our chances for winning the elections this november. at times, to a supporter of hillary clinton or barack obama, it may seem like the other candidate is acting like a republican, or that their campaign is operating like a republican, and “swift-boating” the other candidate. go ahead... let out your anger or disgust or other negative feelings. but never accuse a fellow democrat of being too liberal. accuse them of being too conservative, or republican-lite, or like joe lieberman or zell miller. accuse them of having karl rove-style tactics. every insult or accusation must be based on the premise that republicans and conservatives are bad, and democrats and liberals are good. so, whenever it becomes necessary to attack a fellow democrat, do not accuse them of being too liberal, too left-wing, practically socialist or communist, too intellectual, out of touch with the voters, or of just appealing to latte-drinking, volvo-driving “limosuine liberals”. never perpetuate negative stereotypes of liberals or democrats. instead, perpetuate negative stereotypes of conservatives and republicans. like, for instance, you could call them dirty, stupid, inbred hick rednecks who have been brainwashed into thinking everyone with different beliefs than them is going to hell and tax cuts for billionaires are good for dirt poor losers like them, and are so insecure in their sexuality that they feel threatened by the idea of gay marriage, and so idiotic that they do not believe in science, and think creationism makes more sense than the big bang, evolution, and global warming. in other words, basically, every republican is either a complete idiot and a sucker who is dumb enough to fall for anything, or a wealthy beneficiary of corporate welfare. that is a good stereotype to get out there. we democrats have to remember who the real enemy is, in our political disputes: the republicans, and to a lesser extent, any traitorous democrats who act as enablers to the republicans (for instance, by voting to authorize the war in iraq). and of course, there is an even realer real enemy: the terrorists, who are the enemies of all humanity. but we democrats can only fight the terrorists once we control the united states government and have one of our own as commander-in-chief. of course, you can never eliminate terrorism completely. but we can eliminate the conditions that cause terrorism to occur in the first place, and make terrorism not look like such an attractive option anymore. we can be nice to other nations and get the people of other nations to like us again, and then, through winning more approval for the united states, there will be less anti-americanism around the world, and therefore less people ripe for recruitment by terrorist organizations. what is a good way to win more approval? stop attacking other nations and killing people. when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, that made him a lot less popular around the world. the same thing happened to george w. bush when he invaded iraq. except it not only made george w. bush less popular, it made the united states less popular, it made americans less popular, and it make western civilization less popular. part of the way of winning popularity back is not going around invading countries and killing people unless you have a really good reason for doing so. and we can talk to other countries and actually listen to them with an open mind. and not just talk to governments, but to leaders of civil society, and opposition leaders, in countries around the world, in order to reach out to more people and get more of their opinions and show them we care about them. some united states allies are oppressive dictatorships, like saudi arabia, and this gives rise to terrorism, since we are helping out the oppressive dictators of those countries and not the people. to combat terrorism, we should stop helping oppressive dictators, and focus on helping the people of those nations instead. that might help convince more of those people not to want to kill us. but, before we can take over from george w. bush in fighting the terrorists, and end the stupid war in iraq, we have to win the election, and that means we democrats have to work together instead of bickering like immature children about whether black people or women deserve to have one of their own become president first. i have been disappointed by many feminists such as gloria steinem who have made stupid, pointless arguments about why women deserve the presidency before black people. and geraldine ferraro was also a big disappointment. of course, there are plenty of other feminists, and feminists are not a monolithic group of pod-people who all think the same and have a hive-mind. not all of them are as single-mindedly focused on electing the first woman president as gloria steinem and geraldine ferraro, and plenty of them realize that true gender equality means treating candidates of both genders the same, and not showing favoritism towards female candidates just because of their gender. as for black people, i do not even want to get into that argument, because, as a supporter of barack obama, i do not want to do anything to undermine his candidacy, so i am glad that so many black people support him, and i hope they continue to support him. i do not want to question their motives in voting for him, because that might undermine barack obama, and i really really want him to win. i just hope that all the supporters of the losing democratic candidate rally behind the winner. i was a dennis kucinich supporter all throughout 2007! i am willing to come around to support the winner. i am a reasonable person. let us not be tricked by republicans trying to divide our party. if we democrats unite behind a common leader, and stop our mindless bickering, we will win. if we fail to unite, and remain divided, we will lose. united we stand, divided we fall. and, perhaps, after the elections, we may need to even cooperate with the republicans. after all, the united states senate is structured so that you need 60 out of 100 votes to get anything passed, so legislation can only pass the senate through bipartisan cooperation, unless 1 party gets 60 votes or gets really close to that. because of the structure of the united states senate, we will be forced to make unfortunate compromises with the republicans, even if we win the presidency and increase our majorities in both houses of congress in november 2008. there is no way we can get 60 democratic senators this time around, although that would be a good long-term goal for future election years. anyway, in order for the government to properly function, legislation has to pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president, on a regular basis. the use of the filibuster in the senate and the use of the presidential veto both impede the legislative process, and should happen as rarely as possible, in order to keep the government functioning smoothly. we have had a problem with illegal immigration for many years, but the federal government has failed to do anything, because of gridlock. the same thing goes for universal health care. and many other issues, many other things that need to get done. republicans might be the enemy whenever there are elections, but we have to find a way to work with them to get things done, or else our nation will end up turning into a third-world former superpower, like russia. that is what is so complicated in politics. right now barack obama and hillary clinton are enemies, but they will have to ally together to defeat john mccain in november. and then after the election in november, politicians from both parties will need to ally together to get things done for our country. it is very strange, how we have these regular cycles of people switching between being allies and enemies. but that is how politics works. i just hope more people figure that out, and stop getting so caught up in a clash of personalities that is currently going on that they lose sight of the big picture. anyone who really cares about the issues, who agrees with most of the platform of either hillary clinton or barack obama, is someone who ought to vote for whichever of them wins the nomination, since their positions on most issues are very similar, but starkly contrast with the positions of john mccain. those people who are willing to consider mccain but call themselves democrats are not people who care about issues, they are just silly people who care about personalities and life histories of individual politicians, rather than what policies those politicians would enact if elected. why can’t people realize what is really important, and look at the big picture? i am saddened that so many supporters of one democratic candidate are unwilling to support the other if they win the nomination. it shows a lack of maturity. it is like a little kid pouting because they don’t get their way. obama and clinton are so similar in their policies... why can’t we supporters of both of them just get along with each other? i know i have not been perfect in this respect, in fact i have been far from perfect, but i had good intentions whenever i criticized hillary clinton: i was doing it for the good of the democratic party, out of my loyalty to the party, and my belief that hillary clinton was turning into a traitor like joe lieberman and zell miller. i was doing it because of my intense desire to beat john mccain in november, and my belief that barack obama was a stronger candidate. i was doing it because on the few issues where the 2 of them disagree, i agree with obama on almost all of them. i was doing it because obama has gotten so far ahead in pledged delegates, hillary clinton can’t win, and her campaign at this point is foolhardy and only benefiting john mccain, and i thought people needed to know this so that we could do what is best for the party and unite behind barack obama and pressure hillary clinton to quit until she finally does. you see, once hillary clinton quits (if she does), we can finally start healing these wounds and uniting our party. but the longer she puts that off, the more damage is done to the democratic party. and it not only affects them, but it affects every democrat in congress and every democratic governor. they are superdelegates, and they could be punished if they make the wrong decision the next time they are up for re-election, so there is a lot of pressure on them. if hillary clinton drops out before the superdelegates all decide, this makes it easy on them, and helps out the democratic party, preventing us from splitting into the clinton party and the obama party. if we have to wait for the superdelegates to decide this mess, or we go into the convention without knowing who the nominee is, things will be much worse. do we really want a repeat of what happened in 1968? seriously people, let’s just have some common sense for once. and let’s stop allowing republicans posing as democrats online to provoke us. just because someone says they are a clinton supporter or obama supporter does not make it true; if they say it online, half the time, they are probably lying. so, since so many people are lying, stop believing everything you read online! half the stuff on the internet is just made up! and the other half is porn! in fact, just stop using the internet. please. just go away. turn off your computer. don’t watch tv either. just go eat or sleep or go to the bathroom or do something else your body probably needs to do right now. computers and other machines are evil. if there were a war between robots and humans, who would you side with? humans, right? so get off the damn computer already! unless you have something useful to do on it, that is. like playing a video game for fun. or looking at porn. or downloading software or mp3s or movies for free illegally. or whatever. just try and avoid news and politics on the internet. it is mostly a bunch of bloody rubbish. and that includes this blog of mine too... blimey!

of course, if you are in one of the few states that hasn’t voted yet (like pennsylvania) and are eligible to vote in the primary or caucus coming up, or you are a superdelegate, you are one of the few people who should keep paying attention to political news, because unlike me, you haven’t already voted and gotten it over with, so you need as much useful information as possible in order to make an informed decision. there is a blog that is much, much better than mine, that lays out the case for barack obama extremely well, and shows why he is the candidate that every loyal democrat should support, if they want the party to win in november. obamaiswinning.com is the site. it is extraordinary. now, that site has the same exact blog posts as jedreport.com. but obamaiswinning.com has some extra stuff on the right side of the screen, charts and graphs that show you what you need to know about all that delegate math stuff. the same guy who blogs there posts some really good videos on the same subject at youtube. if you check out obamaiswinning.com thoroughly enough, you will either be convinced that barack obama is the right person to support, or you are not a real democrat, because the site is just that persuasive, and everything is backed up with logic, reason, solid math, and plenty of evidence to back up all the arguments, in the form of hyperlinks. and you know what? maybe you aren’t a real democrat, and don’t really care about having the democrats win in november. and in that case, fine, don’t support obama. but if you are a democrat, and actually care about winning, check that site out, and you will see why supporting hillary clinton is not a good idea at all (although you are certainly entitled to support whomever you choose, it is a free country).