This election has been fairly polite and the candidate level, and increasingly ugly in the blogosphere. Frankly, it doesn't reflect well on the netroots, and I don't think you can say that one side is to blame.

I acknowledge that a lot of ugly things have been spoken against Obama online by supporters of other candidates also, even if in my experience more ugliness gets thrown at Clinton than at him - if for no other reason than the fact that he is less "disliked" in general and he has many more online supporters than Hillary Clinton has. Still that is a very fair point, a literal viscious circle tends to set in.

The reason why I chose this subject is precisely because Obama campaigns on the theme of putting divisive politics behind us. Not only is that not a Clinton theme, but Obama is not very subtle about sometimes linking the divisive politics of the past with the Clintons in specific.

Good diary.

I don't hold either candidate responsible for their zealots, b/c I don't really think they have control of that.  You can only get your message out there and I think no matter what, there are people who are always going to misinterpret or go about it the wrong way.  I don't think either campaign has given any signals to their supporters to act like idiots on the internet or do this "If not my candidate, then I'm voting for McCain"  thing.

accountable for enabling the war. I think you'll recall that I have consistently applied that view to all active presidential candidates all along the way.

"Clinton said she would not vote the same way then if she knew then what she knows now."

She has stated way too many nuances on that point over the course of time to assertively make this claim.

The critical moment, however, was in March 2003, days before the war. As you probably know, Blix and ElBaradei were reporting (in late Feb and early March) that no WMD/nukes could be found. Hillary Clinton should then have called on Bush not to rush and invade.

Instead:

1. On March 6, 2006, she was asking Saddam to "disaram" (of weapons the UN inspectors were telling he didn't have)
   
2. On March 17, 2003, she was cheer-leading Bush:
   

March 17, 2003
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President's Remarks to the Nation

   When the President of the United States addresses the nation about possible military action, it is a solemn occasion for every American. Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.

Tom, however hard you try, you cannot simply sugarcoat and wish away Hillary's bad war record for which she is accountable, not alone, but along with her fellow members of congress that voted to authorize Bush and Bush himself for waging the war.

"...because when he reaches out to the other side seeking common ground he will not be doing it by himself; he has "a movement" backing him up."

People like to talk healthcare when comparing these two candidates, so lets talk health care.  Folks want to argue which is more universal, which of their plans covers more people, and that totally misses the point.  The plans don't cover anyone, cause they have to get passed first.  

This year we couldn't get a simple expansion of healthcare for poor children passed in congress, and you think some sort of universal healthcare is gonna make it?  And maybe even single payer?  Ludicrous.  

The only way either plan has a chance in hell (and make no mistake, neither plan has a very good shot, even after we win in the fall) of getting passed is if we replace a significant portion of our congress with Democrats.  Progressive Democrats.  

Which campaign is working on that?  Which is drawing in huge numbers of new Democrats?  Which is clearly and forcefully articulating Democratic and progressive values to independents and people of faith?  Which is building an incredible GOTV organization?  Which is raising huge amounts of money not simply for themselves, but for the members of congress up for reelections?  Which candidate is campaigning heavily for our party's other candidates?  Which is doing this in every state in the nation?

The problem with this entire line of thought is that it's impossible to know whether an online "supporter" of Obama is really that, or if they are somebody with an alterior motive. What's to stop a freeper from registering a user name and posting all manner of slanders and slurs against Hillary (or Barack for that matter), while pretending to be a supporter of the other?

In addition, even assuming that they are true supporters, it's online, man -- it's no secret that the anonymity of the online world promotes this kind of behavior. I think it's silly to make decisions about things based on the more extreme things that are said in online forums. I think some of the Hillary supporters around here are pretty crazy, but it doesn't really change anything for me. I'd gladly vote for her in the general election if she wins.