The Scumbag Line

I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section. But I think it's interesting. One of our longest-time contributors goes by the name of "Petey" and has traditionally had a lot of interesting things to say about both politics and basketball. Lately, though, all of his posts consist more or less of calling me a "trust-fund scumbag" and accusing me of being opposed to universal health care.

It makes for an odd argument. Basically, before Iowa Petey strongly supported John Edwards. My feelings were more mixed, but I came down softly on Edwards' side. Now Edwards is out of the race. Petey thinks Hillary Clinton's health care plan is better than Barack Obama's. As it happens, I agree. Petey also thinks there are other problems with Hillary Clinton. As it happens, I agree with that, too. To me, the problems with Clinton outweigh the fact that I think she has a better health care plan -- among other things, I think the outcome of 2008 Senate elections will have a larger influence on the ultimate shape of health care policy than will the outcome of the Clinton_obama primary -- but Petey disagrees. From this rather narrow disagreement, a huge amount of bile has spewed, including repeated insistence that I oppose the idea of universal health care when I clearly don't.

There are no perfect presidential candidates any more than there are perfect presidents. But by the end of January we had two options, and I think Obama's the better one. As of today, it's even more constrained than that -- if Clinton does poorly tonight, she'll be forced out of the race and progressives will be in good shape to acquire a level of political power we haven't had in decades. If she does well, she'll stay in the race and an incredibly destructive Democratic primary will continue for a while longer and the odds still make it overwhelmingly likely that Obama will emerge as the winner. That would be bad. I like her health care proposal more than I like Obama's (and I like Obama more on foreign policy, climate change, and several other issues) but I hope she does as poorly as possible tonight and gets out of the race. Either way, though, it's deeply irrational for people with similar political views to get so mad at each other just because we may disagree about which politicians do the best job of imperfectly embodying those ideals.

Comments

You actually read the comments?

Posted by dry_fish | April 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Petey: It's really time for the Clintons to go

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 2:56 PM

among other things, I think the outcome of 2008 Senate elections will have a larger influence on the ultimate shape of health care policy than will the outcome of the Clinton_obama primary

Thank you! Jesus, I'm sick of people acting as if we're electing an absolute monarch. My own feeling is that Clinton can do more to influence health care from the Senate than from the White House, even if she were to squeak out a victory against McCain. And as her comments of the last twenty-four hours prove, she is both BushMcCainLieberman-lite and a complete panderer on foreign policy.

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 2:57 PM

Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?

I think neither candidate is very good - they are a pair of cautious Center Left candidates. I certainly do not see this big progressive win you are sure of if Obama wins. Certainly not in policy at any rate and certainly not in terms of an argument for a strong contrast with Republicans.

Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP. It is a High Broderist message.

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil. To me, Obama resembles no one more than Bill Clinton circa 1992.

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

oh boy...this is going to get good. where's the popcorn???

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Matt,

Al has suggested that Petey's bile is prompted more by you implying that he is a racist for not backing Obama. Your thoughts?

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

I think angry Petey is a doppelganger.

Posted by bobbo | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

Why do you like Obama more on climate change? And why do you consider this primary to be "incredibly destructive?"

Bonus: Why am I supposed to put that question mark inside the quotation marks even though you weren't asking a question?

Posted by Anonymous | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM

I like what you wrote. You addressed Petey without responding in kind with vitriol. It is too bad he has become not only so reflexive in his political outlook but so unhinged with ad hominem spew in your direction. He actually can make a good point and seems to me--prior to this electoral turn--to be a pretty principled liberal. Something too often lacking.

Posted by jeff | April 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Petey: In short, the Democratic Party are proven fools when they don't nominate Iowa's choice.

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:01 PM

I'm sort of with Armando, with the proviso that I don't think Obama is "Broderist", he's certainly more liberal than that.

But the abuse and bitterness being heaped on Hillary is very confusing to me, and a little upsetting too. Hillary and Obama are working within a very narrow range policy-wise. Most of their differences are stylistic and tactical. Obama has no shortage of flaws. This cult of personality stuff is garbage.

Matt's comment -- "it's deeply irrational for people with similar political views to get so mad at each other just because we may disagree about which politicians do the best job of imperfectly embodying those ideals" -- is absolutely right on. I hope the party can recover from this and bitterness doesn't last into the general.

Posted by mq | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM

What I'd really like is a progressive candidate, which we don't have. (I have few illusions about Obama, and I know that progressives will need to hold his feet to the fire if he's elected.) What I really DON'T like is a supposed Democrat- Clinton- campaigning like she's auditioning to be McCain's running mate. Why is that so hard to understand? seems pretty straightforward to me.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM

Matt, It is not you. you are a fine person. People have been unhinged by this primary. I love the work you do. Please do not let the unhinged get to you.

Petey:A trust fund does not make someone a scumbag.(I am not saying Matt has a trust fund. I have no way of knowing) You can easily be a scumbag without money.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | April 22, 2008 3:05 PM

I like what you wrote. You addressed Petey without responding in kind with vitriol. It is too bad he has become not only so reflexive in his political outlook but so unhinged with ad hominem spew in your direction. He actually can make a good point and seems to me--prior to this electoral turn--to be a pretty principled liberal. Something too often lacking.

Posted by jeff | April 22, 2008 3:05 PM

Petey: Senator Clinton needs to be politically slaughtered with extreme malice. I think we all agree about that.

Comity!

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:06 PM

pete's a dude?

Posted by pete-tette | April 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Matt,

I think you are brave just to allow comments on your blog. I have seen all sorts of attacks, SPAM and such in the comment sections of several blogs. I believe Megan recently had problems with her comment section also.

However your post regarding Healthcare and the current nominees got me thinking. What type of Healthcare plan do you think we will have if Senator Obama is elected president and Senator Clinton remains in the Senate? My guess is crafting a Healthcare bill will be her number one priority and it will be based on her talking points throughout the primary. It could even become the key issue that Senator Clinton wins in order to drop out of the primary.

Posted by Michael Fisher | April 22, 2008 3:11 PM

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil.

AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, Flag Burning Amendment, federal laws about videogames, obliterating Iran, name-dropping Louis Farrakhan, John McCain is a moderate who's prepared to be commander in chief (but Obama isn't),

Like Steve Labonne, I have no illusions about Obama being a progressive hero, but I think he is more likely to try to change the political conversation (not the whole system) than Clinton. I also think Clinton is the tailor-made candidate to lose a GE against McCain.

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 3:11 PM

Well, now I have a question...do you have a trust fund?

Posted by curious | April 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Realy? After all the racial stuff the Clinton campaign played around with in South Carolina? After the Clinton campaign repeatedly undermined the legitimacy of Democratic caucuses? After Hillary agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count but then ignored that promise when it suited her? After Hillary implied McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief but not Obama? After she criticized Obama for complaining about treatment during a debate just weeks after she whined about the exact same thing? And the list could go on and on and on.

You really can't see how the behavior of Hillary and her campaign has provoked a lot, in not perhaps all, of that bile? Really?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | April 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"Al has suggested that Petey's bile is prompted more by you implying that he is a racist for not backing Obama. Your thoughts?

Posted by Fred | April 22, 2008 2:59 PM"

If that's what Petey thinks MY wrote, then he's just plain stupid, which is a definite possibility. Pointing out that the people who said that race played an important role in their decision broke for Clinton in Ohio led to her margin of victory there isn't the same as saying all Clinton supporters are racists. Petey has become stuck in a Manichean worldview where anyone who doesn't bow down to a certain policy the working class hates just hates working people. Petey just has very little understanding of how the world works in any real way.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Somewhat off topic but is Mr. Yglesias going to comment on the latest Israel/US spy scandal? Come on now, we really need to here from Mr. Don Williams who, I am sure will have some trenchant comments.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=4701450

Posted by SLC | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Considering all the crap she pulled during the campaign, thus confirming the worst of Republican talking points about her ?

Posted by David | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

I agree that unhinged Petey seems to be a different person from the reasonable and intelligent Petey I read so many comments by last year. But if unhinged Petey is a doppelganger, what happened to the real Petey?

That said, Matt has not always been so high-minded himself. He's posted a lot of snark-heavy anti-Clinton conspiracy wankery these past few months. Now that HRC looks like she's sure to lose (dare I hope) he seems to be laying off a bit. But, time was, the racism charges were flying fast and furious from Matt's keyboard. It would be perfectly reasonable to be bitter (to use that dangerous word) about such things and taunt Matt for a while.

Also, if Matt reads the comments, I wonder why he responds to them so seldom? Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald regularly respond in their (much much more active) comments sections. Some weeks back, when I called him out for calling Barak Obama a "boy" while simultaneously taking much less serious slips of the tongue by supposed Clinton insiders as a sign of some insane conspiracy, I thought surely he'd deign to mix it up with us plebes, but no such luck.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 22, 2008 3:15 PM

Lmao, in a post about how scummy Petey is, Armondo manages to find a way to say 'but Obama supporters are a billion times worser!!!!'

Fuck Armando. He's a racist who think black people shouldn't count. He spends half his time at TalkLeft(where he posts as Big Tent Democrat) arguing that nominating Obama is a terrible idea because he only gets 36% of the white vote. Nevermind that that is all ANY Democrat ever gets.

Not hard to figure out why he chooses to use different pseudonyms on different sites, he doesn't want to have to defend that shit anywhere where he can't delete opposing comments or demand that they leave.

Posted by Soullite | April 22, 2008 3:15 PM

To answer Armando's question about Obama: I'm a lot less interested in Obama than I am in his organization. I think there's a small, but not incalculable, chance that his organization will go off-program once he's in office and start directing serious anger and threat at entrenched power, including President Obama himself. I give it maybe a 1 in 50 shot. If that happens our society might actually stand a chance, or at least the rest of the inevitable spiral downward will be less humiliating and more fun.

Posted by Pesto | April 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Petey: Sure a Hillary administration will screw over organized labor, but I'm sure if she's elected, she'll make sure to take care of the leaders who've endorsed her, even if those leaders' rank and file get screwed.

Link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/seius_big_win.php#comment-611961

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:19 PM

To be fair, Matt, you are a trust-fund scumbag.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 22, 2008 3:19 PM

Isn't Petey actually Lee Siegel's alter ego?

Posted by Sir Charles | April 22, 2008 3:20 PM

I called Petey to tell him his ice cream was cold. He wasn't happy. Turned into some big harangue about a guy with no shoes and some other guy missing his feet. I couldn't follow it all and my head started hurting. Dripping clocks and ocean waves lapping at my feet. Feet I was happy to have, let me tell you! Petey. Petey! Come back! 'Bye, Petey.

Posted by steve duncan | April 22, 2008 3:21 PM

"Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP. It is a High Broderist message"

Well, blame the Constitution and the Senate rules. You need 60 votes to get anything through the Senate, and small-population states - mostly rural and conservative - are grossly over-represented there. That's the game. Obama is preparing to play the game to win: first by crafting his message to make Democrats competitive in the not-so-deep South, the mountain states, and the Northwest, giving a better chance to get more Dems in the Senate; and secondly by mobilizing independent and moderate-Republican voters to put pressure on Republican office-holders to offer something more constructive than knee-jerk obstructionism.

In substance, Obama's proposals - government money to make affordable health insurance more widely available; winding down our ruinous entanglement in Iraq; a solidly liberal-internationalist foreign policy; phasing out the most egregious of the Bush tax cuts - are ok, and in most respects better than HRC's. If he needs to talk nice to Republicans to make it happen, that's a price well worth paying.

On the other hand, HRC's strategy seems to be to shoot for a maximum 51% in the Electoral College with no discernible coattails, and then face a uniformly hostile GOP which has demonized her for 15 years. How does that get us any vaguely progressive legislation ? And given that this comes from the same geniuses who couldn't be bothered to organize in caucus states, and didn't have a Plan B to compete in the month after Super Tuesday, you have to have some doubts ...

I'd be more sympathetic if she would at least
promise to stop the torture. But no, she has waffled even on that simple issue.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Petey: I think Mark Penn is going to discover this January that the bulk of the Democratic Party isn't partial to Liebercrats backed by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch. Mark Penn has his finger on the pulse of everything in America, with the minor exception of Democrats.

link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_cougar_threat.php#comment-435920

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Yeah, guys. We should all embrace Democratic candidates who claim the Republican nominee would be better for the job than their Democratic opponent. We should embrace Democratic nominees who themselves embrace republican talking points. What's so difficult about that to grasp?

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

At least for me, I have no understanding of why Obama is viewed as the progressive savior and Clinton is viewed as the Triangulating Devil. To me, Obama resembles no one more than Bill Clinton circa 1992.

You may not have noticed this, but Obama's black. That means he can't really sell us out to the South, and thus, to the Southern Conservatives. WJC could and did, and HRC is trying as hard as hell to do so now. Selling us out like that can have bad effects. E.g.,the Iraq war and the rhetoric surrounding it.

This isn't very hard.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

Either way, though, it's deeply irrational for people with similar political views to get so mad at each other just because we may disagree about which politicians do the best job of imperfectly embodying those ideals.

It may be irrational from our perspective, but for the politicians it's absolutely necessary. They have to make the differences between them important, and to some extent make their adversaries appear distasteful in order to lock in their support.

I often feel heavily provoked by the Clinton campaign, and I'm sure the same feelings run on the other side. Most people react relatively moderately to the provocation. But it's not surprising that a few folks like Petey get pushed over the edge.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

The first mistake that you (and Ezra) have made is mentioning Petey at all. The second is to assume that he is either rational or acting in good faith.

I remember Petey from back in 2003 when he was banned from dkos. He was an instigator and nasty person back then, too--but a bit of an inside joke (does anyone remember Susan Nunes?) He especially had it out for the "Deaniacs", so it's no surprise to me that he can't bring himself to favor Obama either.

I don't know what makes Petey tick and don't want to waste any time thinking about it. However, the big mistake here is to take some sort of lesson out of this about how the primary is deranging people. Petey was already deranged. He's simply not a good example.

Posted by JMS | April 22, 2008 3:23 PM

Every time I come across Petey's comments, or comments like them, I have remind myself that I'm not in a sports forum. It feels like that - Obama vs. Clinton, Cavaliers vs. Wizards. (If you saw last night's game, the correlation could fit, I guess.) While this isn't sports, the vitriolic comments seem to have more in common with what you'd hear from an opposing fan two seats down, or in the sports bar.

Posted by Scientific | April 22, 2008 3:24 PM

Actually I am quite disheartened by this half-hearted attempt to paper over legitimate concerns.

Petey clearly feels that you cannot possibly represent his view as your perspective (purportedly a jewish, male, harvard-educated, trust fund scumbag, from New York City) is so alien from his.

Why is that? Maybe this is what is wrong with the Democratic party these days -- the party has been dividing and calculating based on class, race, and gender for so long it can't stop detailing and provide a cohesive plan for america -- everything is couched in struggle politics not winner politics. Love him or hate him, Gingrich (and Reagan) presented a cohesive marketing plan that attracted positive attention (much like the barack of, oh, say, 60 days ago).

Address that!

Posted by mike c | April 22, 2008 3:26 PM

Hmm, on second thought, I can see why Petey's vitriol stands out to the incredibly civil commenting we see in this thread.

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

How does the fact that Matthew is the son of a very successful and talented working screenwriter make him a trust fund scumbag? Whatever my issues with his politics, young Mr. Yglesias pretty obviously earned his way into his position through being an interesting thinker and amazingly prolific blogger. I actually quite envy the man's work ethic.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Trust Fund Scumbags would be a great name for one of those hip bands that Matt likes so much

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

Hmm, on second thought, I can see why Petey's vitriol stands out to the incredibly civil commenting we see in this thread.

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

I don't put much stock in this "trust-fund scumbag" stuff. But it does touch on some legitimate issues, as much as I find it unfortunate. What I would really like is for Matt to actually consider, in a long and thought out post, what effects his privilege has on his career on his pundit; how the Atlantic blogroll is filled with people from similarly academically and financially privileged backgrounds; and what consequences that has for the output on the blogs. I think that's relevant, connected to his progressive politics, and a very important question for the new media.

Posted by Freddie | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

Armando/Big Tent Democrat: The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

Yes, yes, so very perplexing. Why would I produce bile for a candidate who slandered the activist base of the party by falsely claiming that a major organization opposed military action in Afghanistan? I mean, that's not at all similar to the kind of slander we've been receiving from Rush/Coulter/Fox News types for the last several years, right?

Feeding into the myth that the democratic base is somehow filled with weak-kneed DFHs who secretly want to hold hands with Osama bin Laden is just enraging. It's Leiberdem-tastic. And it makes me hate Hillary.

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:30 PM

the bile and outright Obama Hate coming from Jeralyn and Armando over at Talk Left and Lambert et. alia at corrente amazes me. this primary is bitter, no doubt, but the endless parade of Two Minute Obama Hate posts from these two sites in particular have been really over the top. the low point, in my estimation, was the posting of racist songs at Corrente and the near hysteria over Obama scratching his face (excuse me, flipping off HRC) by both sites.

it will be interesting to see if they are willing to let go of their fear and hate once Obama secures the nomination. but watching Armando and Lambert make jackasses out of themselves, each and every day, sure has been instructive.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | April 22, 2008 3:32 PM

My impression of Petey has always been that he's primarily motivated by a desire to be viewed as some sort of hotshot, visionary political strategist/activist. His postings have mostly involved trying to cultivate that image, rather than any substantive ideological agenda.

His self-association with (and obsessive promotion of) the Edwards campaign, and his somewhat deranged response to its failure, can probably be best understood in those terms. Getting involved in political activism for purposes of ego gratification generally leads to bad outcomes.

Posted by N | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

I'm with JMS. Why give any more attention to this pathetic little troll? Petey clearly isn't sincere about any of this, as Hlah shows. Or if he is sincere, he's simply lost it, which means the guy's just another psycho who, in a pre-internet age, would be burdening his family with his issues rather than unspooling his crap all over internet forums.

Posted by Ryan W. | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

What's a "trust-fund scumbag"? Is that someone who lives off of a trust fund their parents gave them, or is it someone who believes that the Social Security trust fund is solvent and therefore the program is in no need of privatization? I assume Matthew was, ironically, being called the former, which he is not, and not the latter, which he is (I think).

Posted by Jack | April 22, 2008 3:33 PM

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?

Sheesh. Irony is dead

Lick my asshole, you DLC hack.

(Mise en scene irony isn't.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen.

It's not a mystery. We mean what we say. Those of us who loath Hillary Monster do so for reasons other than policy (though her monstrous qualities do end up have some policy implications, such as her fear mongering regarding foreign policy, and her Bush-like beliefs regarding executive power; however, the policy differences are secondary). Not everyone has quite the same reasons for hating her, of course, but for the most part it comes down to a sincere belief that Hillary, to a much, much greater extent than most politicians, is a power hungry monster with few if any real principles who will do anything to gain power.

Now obviously many people disagree with those characterizations, or have convinced themselves that it doesn't matter. And I'm not going to waste time marshaling evidence; if events to date haven't convinced you of the truth of my statements above, nothing short of Hillary killing an infant and drinking its blood on national television is likely to convince you. But agree or disagree, 90% of the Hillary hatred comes from people who sincerely share the beliefs about Hillary outlined above.

Posted by LarryM | April 22, 2008 3:34 PM

For my part, Sen. Clinton's transparently false claim, during a debate, that Obama had said that Reagan and the GOP had better ideas than the Democratic Party really made me start to look askance at her.

The other incidence that everyone else here has mentioned then pushed me into CDS-land.

We need a Democratic government; we have selected a Democratic nominee; but Clinton is pursuing the "kitchen sink" strategy (her campaign's term!) to tar our nominee's name in an effort to seize the nomination over the will of the voters. Not great.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 22, 2008 3:35 PM

Matt: the same must be said about your negativity toward the Lakers. You are a Knicks fan (and have adopted the Wizards by virtue of the move from NYC to DC). But while your loyalties may have been distributed between the Knicks and the Wizards, your completely rational dislike of the Celtics remains firmly in place. There are only three teams with deep hatred of the Celtics: Knicks, 76ers and the Lakers. Therefore, you should lay off the Lakers (although you've been lightening up on them since the Gasol deal). Unless the Knicks are in it, then you can't really disfavor the Lakers, because their glory hacks away at the nasty bramble which is the Celtics condescension, self-righteousness and smugness. You must admit that these past twenty-something years of Celtic futility have been good ones, even if that means that the Lakers had a few championships during this time.

Posted by Cal | April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

i think N (@ 3:33pm) is right on. that is the same impression i got from Petey

Posted by sean | April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Petey: Penn is an idiot. Bill Clinton has been stuck in the bubble for a decade. And Hillary Clinton has atrocious political instincts. They're are a horrible operation, and it's all of our duties to put them out of their misery before they're able to regroup enough to grind their way to a narrow nomination win and the disaster that would then ensure.

Link: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/ways_of_winning.php#comment-1083430

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 3:37 PM

We've probably all become a little too vitriolic about this campaign. But I don't necessarily think it's our fault. When this campaign started, I was a Hillary supporter. I didn't like Edwards and I didn't think Obama could win. Now, I'm warming to Edwards, support Obama, and can't stand Hillary. It's at the point now where I hit the mute button on my television whenever Hillary is talking. I've been trying to figure out how someone like me, who was predisposed to Hillary, could end up hating her so much. No doubt some of the blame rests with me, but most of it has to rest on Hillary. For me, I really think it's her tone of voice. I hate to think that a decision like this would rest on something so trivial, but I don't really have a better explanation. The only other thing I can really think of is that, in my international travels, Obama has been the clear favorite. But that's only really why I prefer Obama. It doesn't explain why I've come to dislike Hillary so much.

Posted by fostert | April 22, 2008 3:37 PM

the bile and outright Obama Hate coming from Jeralyn and Armando over at Talk Left and Lambert et. alia at corrente amazes me.

Doesn't amaze me as much as their pearl clutching over "waffle-gate", "bitter-gate", and other trumped up "controversies" where Jeralyn and Armando gleefully join up with the right wing pundit class to predict yet another sinking of Obama. They want him to lose so bad they can taste it. Unfortunately, they've hitched their wagon to horrendous campaign that has essentially no chance of winning. Everyone sees it but them.

Posted by Seitz | April 22, 2008 3:38 PM

What's a "trust-fund scumbag"? Is that someone who lives off of a trust fund their parents gave them, or is it someone who believes that the Social Security trust fund is solvent and therefore the program is in no need of privatization? I assume Matthew was, ironically, being called the former, which he is not, and not the latter, which he is (I think).

Posted by Jack | April 22, 2008 3:39 PM

Petey really does coarsen the discourse here, doesn't he?
Sheesh. Irony is dead.
Posted by Armando

Just curious: Were you even conscious of the two gratuitous, sneering swipes you took at Obama supporters (fainting+savior=naïve cultists) in your post pleading for "civility"?

Posted by Jim | April 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Petey's a dick. Dicks with interesting things to say are still dicks and their dickery should not be encouraged.

This argument also works if you substitute "Christopher Hitchens".

Posted by schwa | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

My impression of Petey has always been that he's primarily motivated by a desire to be viewed as some sort of hotshot, visionary political strategist/activist. His postings have mostly involved trying to cultivate that image, rather than any substantive ideological agenda.

I think that's why he's so mad. Petey always emphasized political realism and electability. He threw in with Edwards mainly because he thought Edwards was the electable white male, and then Edwards got beat - somewhat undermining that theory. So then Petey pretended it was all about health care all along, and moved to Clinton. Then she got beat. So he has double egg of his face.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Nice discussion.

But as long as we're on basketball: when is Matt going to post on the fascinating Wizards/Cavs series? Isn't he finding it interesting and compelling to watch Lebron ascend yet another level on the mountain of superstardom, posterizing various overrated Wizards as he rises?

Posted by mq | April 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Matt wrote:

I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section. But I think it's interesting

No it isn't. And wading into disputes with live-in-mom's-basement commentors is always a bad idea.

But clarifying if you are indeed a "trust-fund scumbag" is a good idea. Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Ikram | April 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Matt wrote:

I don't know how many readers of this blog check out the comment section. But I think it's interesting

No it isn't. And wading into disputes with live-in-mom's-basement commentors is always a bad idea.

But clarifying if you are indeed a "trust-fund scumbag" is a good idea. Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Ikram | April 22, 2008 3:43 PM

I'd just like to thank hlah for performing a public service.

Posted by live | April 22, 2008 3:44 PM

Well, a couple of years ago I made a negative comment about Petey's extolling the virtues of smoking and was called any number of names by him that shocked the other commenters with their vehemence.

I feel your pain, Matt.

Posted by Randy Paul | April 22, 2008 3:44 PM

Armando: "Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?"

There's a huge difference between attacking Clinton or Obama, politicians running for the Presidency, and going on another progressive democrat's blog and attacking them in extremely personal terms. Kind of like if I went on Talkleft and started calling you a Wal-Mart sellout racist, or something.

Clinton's running an ad in Pennsylvania that closes, quoting Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." And I think that's entirely appropriate for politicians who are putting themselves out there to get votes. It's not clear to me why Yglesias or anyone else needs to be nice to rich, powerful egomaniacs like Clinton or Obama who somehow think they are the most qualified to be the President of the United States. On the other hand, Petey's attacks on Yglesias are just rude douchebaggery of the highest order. If the guy wants to rant against Yglesias, he should get his own blog.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:45 PM

"Scumbag" is old 50s slang for a used condom. Doesn't that make the word even more vile? Just saying...

Petey had a lot of unsavory habits before he went all deranged on Matt and Ezra. He's a conspiracy nut who relishes in ad hominem attacks and will badger any commenter who disagrees with him. I have seen many a thread go on for dozens of posts with Petey attempting to shut down anyone with a slightly different perspective. Unlike Al the Friendly Troll (whom I begrudgingly respect), he brings nothing to the conversation.

Posted by Philly | April 22, 2008 3:45 PM

I feel that I should say something, because Petey and I were on the same side of everything for so long. Given that past association, I've felt pretty bad as I've read his comments lately. And I've started writing about ten different comments to him at times, only to delete them.

I'm hoping that the end of the primary will bring back the old Petey whose comments I appreciated so much.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 22, 2008 3:46 PM

Rob Mac:

"Also, if Matt reads the comments, I wonder why he responds to them so seldom? Kevin Drum and Glenn Greenwald regularly respond in their (much much more active) comments sections. Some weeks back, when I called him out for calling Barak Obama a "boy" while simultaneously taking much less serious slips of the tongue by supposed Clinton insiders as a sign of some insane conspiracy, I thought surely he'd deign to mix it up with us plebes, but no such luck."

Boo F'ing Hoo. Go taunt those guys then. What I don't understand is why commenters get so pissed at bloggers. Just don't read the blog, go elsewhere.

Last fall I was torn between Obama and Edwards, before Iowa I tilted to Obama - recognizing he had a better chance and has that special something - and was ecstatic when he won Iowa and Hillary came in third.

At that point I thought Hillary would make a fine President and didn't really harbor any ill will towards her. Now after months of being insulted by her and her supporters I can't stand them. They talk to us like we're stupid and act like their shit don't stink.

Hillary has permanently damaged her reputation. Edwards too. Who knows why Petey went loco/insane in the membrane? I don't really care.

I am excited about the general election and probable Obama Presidency (possibly a year from now). Should be fun!

Posted by Peter K. | April 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Armando: "Interesting post. Certainly no need to get that mad at each other. Which really begs the question, how come being so will to hurl invective about Hillary Clinton is considered fine?"

There's a huge difference between attacking Clinton or Obama, politicians running for the Presidency, and going on another progressive democrat's blog and attacking them in extremely personal terms. Kind of like if I went on Talkleft and started calling you a Wal-Mart sellout racist, or something.

Clinton's running an ad in Pennsylvania that closes, quoting Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." And I think that's entirely appropriate for politicians who are putting themselves out there to get votes. It's not clear to me why Yglesias or anyone else needs to be nice to rich, powerful egomaniacs like Clinton or Obama who somehow think they are the most qualified to be the President of the United States. On the other hand, Petey's attacks on Yglesias are just rude douchebaggery of the highest order. If the guy wants to rant against Yglesias, he should get his own blog.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:49 PM

JMS is right. Petey's always been a big weirdo,and what's interesting to me is how few people who've understood that. They didn't know about the Kos stuff and perhaps took his extremely categorical, dead certain statements about every topic under the sun as shtick and hyperbole, which I don't know if it was. But what about the recurring rants about Moulitsas?

Posted by David Weman | April 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Korha:

I accept that point. I get called that at other blogs, including this one. But I do not allow it at the blog I post at.

If that is Matt's point, taken.

But if it is broader than that, then I do not take the point and I think this thread pretty much demolishes that point.

Clearly calling everyone but Matt everything under the sun is considered good discourse.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

The real question is whether Petey makes an appearance on this thread....

But yes, it would be interesting to hear thoughts on the Cavs-Wiz series.

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

Poor Petey.

Posted by Freddie | April 22, 2008 3:50 PM

JMS is right. Petey's always been a big weirdo,and what's interesting to me is how few people who've understood that. They didn't know about the Kos stuff and perhaps took his extremely categorical, dead certain statements about every topic under the sun as shtick and hyperbole, which I don't know if it was. But what about the recurring loopy rants about Moulitsas?

Posted by David Weman | April 22, 2008 3:52 PM

P. S. If Hillary Clinton had a blog, it would be probably just as rude to go there and attack her in extremely personal terms as it is on any other blog. There's a certain presumption of guest privilege that is involved in commenting on someone else's blog. Minimum standards of decorum ought to be observed.

Posted by Korha | April 22, 2008 3:53 PM

There is one key empirical point you disagree on: whether Hillary Clinton has a relevant chance to win the nomination.

To people who support HRC, they probably feel suffocated not just by supporters of a candidate they oppose, but by people who deny their very legitimacy by saying she should drop out.

To people who support Obama, they are desperately afraid that this primary won't just be about picking a nominee, but could rip the party apart, embarass our already-chosen nominee, and ruin this perfect chance to get the presidency.

Most of the real bitterness in the Democratic primary can really be charted to mid-February, when 70% of the blogosphere woke up and realized HRC couldn't win the nomination anymore.

Posted by Shock Mouse | April 22, 2008 3:54 PM

I am waiting for Petey to come bitching with bated breath

Posted by bend | April 22, 2008 3:56 PM

I concur with those above who say Petey has always been abusive.
I have been an Obama supporter since the get-go and I remember full-well the torrent of insults and delusional proclamations Petey made after the Des Moines Register poll signaled Obama was about to win IA.
So when Edwards withdrew and I read people like Ezra Klein say "Well Edwards brought a lot to the race including wonderful commenters like Petey", I was like WTF ?
It is nothing new but I guess you only notice when you are the brunt of his abuse.

Posted by Benjamin | April 22, 2008 3:56 PM

Armando/BTD -- are you now suddenly some kind of fainting GOP prude, sickened by the garden variety comments in this thread in the manner of theocons fainting at the sight of Janet Jackson's nipples or the thought of BJs in the oval office?

What, exactly, has so troubled your delicate sensibilities in this thread?

Also -- I'd love to hear a defense of HRC's outrageous comments regarding MoveOn & Afghanistan...

Posted by MY Strikes Again | April 22, 2008 3:57 PM

Indeed, Obama's central theme is his post-partisanship and how he will bring the country together, working with the GOP.

No, Bringing People Together (tm) is his tagline. His "central theme" is that Americans actually prefer core Democratic positions on most issues.

Sheesh... it's kinda hard to respect the political assessments of people who not only don't understand marketing, but are iffy at best on narrative and character development. The first weakness is natural, given that cynical commercialism is more a GOP thing, but I used to think that liberal-arts-lovin' lefties would at least get the latter two.

Posted by latts | April 22, 2008 3:57 PM

Petey's actually mad because--despite being a trust-fund scumbag, you never bought drugs. Not once.

Posted by nitpicker | April 22, 2008 3:59 PM

I concur with those above who say Petey has always been abusive.
I have been an Obama supporter since the get-go and I remember full-well the torrent of insults and delusional proclamations Petey made after the Des Moines Register poll signaled Obama was about to win IA.
So when Edwards withdrew and I read people like Ezra Klein say "Well Edwards brought a lot to the race including wonderful commenters like Petey", I was like WTF ?
It is nothing new but I guess you only notice when you are the brunt of his abuse.

Posted by Benjamin | April 22, 2008 4:00 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Well, I pretty much look at that quote and see exactly where my bile has come from. Again, we have someone saying that, since I support Obama, I must be some sort of fangirl, fainting teenager who is too stupid and self-centered to understand I should support the candidate the "grownups" (apparently like the poster who wrote this) tell us to.

I hate to tell you, but the bile spewed by Clinton supporters and the candidate herself at me has created a deep distaste and distrust of them. I am 50 years old. I am not a giggling teenager nor have I drunk Kool Aid in the last 40 years or so. I'm intelligent, I'm well informed, and I make my decisions based on the facts, often having to compromise some points in order to come to a decision that has the best chance of coming to fruition.

I had nothing bad to say about Clinton and her supporters until I started having those sorts of oh-you're-obviously-too-naive-to-know-better interactions on a daily basis. That began in late January. And nothing Clinton or her followers have said since has been a bit less insulting to Obama or to people like me.

Posted by geg6 | April 22, 2008 4:01 PM

The primary season has dispelled any notion I had that people on the left are more rational than people on the right. If your views differ from someone by even a fraction, prepare for the ad hominem insults to fly. In a primary where the white guys (several of them very well qualified) all went home early leaving a black man and a woman, many people argue with a straight face about how racist and/or misogynist Dem voters are. It's just sad.

Posted by Jack H. | April 22, 2008 4:01 PM

"Armando/BTD -- are you now suddenly some kind of fainting GOP prude, sickened by the garden variety comments in this thread in the manner of theocons fainting at the sight of Janet Jackson's nipples or the thought of BJs in the oval office?"

Hardly. I can dish it out with the best of them. I am responding to the post's concerns.

Posted by Armando | April 22, 2008 4:02 PM

"The bile towards Clinton, as opposed to the fainting for Obama, is as perplexing as anything I have ever seen."

Well, I pretty much look at that quote and see exactly where my bile has come from. Again, we have someone saying that, since I support Obama, I must be some sort of fangirl, fainting teenager who is too stupid and self-centered to understand I should support the candidate the "grownups" (apparently like the poster who wrote this) tell us to.

I hate to tell you, but the bile spewed by Clinton supporters and the candidate herself at me has created a deep distaste and distrust of them. I am 50 years old. I am not a giggling teenager nor have I drunk Kool Aid in the last 40 years or so. I'm intelligent, I'm well informed, and I make my decisions based on the facts, often having to compromise some points in order to come to a decision that has the best chance of coming to fruition.

I had nothing bad to say about Clinton and her supporters until I started having those sorts of oh-you're-obviously-too-naive-to-know-better interactions on a daily basis. That began in late January. And nothing Clinton or her followers have said since has been a bit less insulting to Obama or to people like me.

Posted by geg6 | April 22, 2008 4:03 PM

The danger is looking at Liberal A, Liberal B, Liberal C and concluding since they roughly all have the same platform, there would be no difference in how they lead the nation. Akin to saying no difference in results would happen if either Conservative A or Conservative B is elected when one is Reagan, the other Dubya.

People with reservations about Obama base that on concerns that he is smoke and mirrors and lacks executive decision-making ability...most recently charged by those noting Obama melted down and failed to make decisions in a nuclear crisis wargame he was part of, and his decision to associate himself with some very unsavory people in Illinois. Fear that Obama is cocky, arrogant, and lacking in ability other than appealing to black voters, youth, and giving good prepared speeches in his "Black Reverend speechifying style" - and when he is vetted, he might be another Kerry disaster.
So it isn't a case that Liberal A, B, C, or Kucinich "D" is "just as good" because they want the same programs...and the important thing was to have picked one last February.

And the Democrats did not field their best governors because the govs saw no opening with the Senate Candidates using their clout to scoop up all the money donors beholden to the Senate's whims....Kane, Bayh, even Rendell would have been better than Hillary or Obama. Certainly better than "Slick".

Posted by Chris Ford | April 22, 2008 4:04 PM

I'm hoping that the end of the primary will bring back the old Petey whose comments I appreciated so much.

Me too. Even though I disagreed with most of what he said (true of 95% of commenters, probably), even on the basketball threads, at least it was often interesting and substantive. But the trust fund stuff is repetitive and boring.

Also, I agree with Korha that there should be a standard of decorum vis-a-vis the host. The problem is that it's difficult to know what that standard is (I think that "scumbag" crosses the line in a way that, say, a comment that Matthew is lying about something doesn't - but that's debatable on both ends, I suppose).

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 4:05 PM

I can't believe we're discussing polite discourse with Armando here.

Hey, did he just flip me the bird? Roll that fabulous bean footage!

Posted by Davebo | April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

You know who almost no one can get mad at?

Turd Ferguson.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Anonymous asks: "Why do you like Obama more on climate change?"

I think Sen. Clinton answered that question by agreeing with Sen. McCain's proposal for a gas tax holiday. We're on track to have a rare down-turn in driving in 2008, but a gas-tax holiday designed to lower the price of gasoline will result in more CO2 released than need be. She's too quick to respond to a bad idea that sounds attractive as a marketing idea with agreement. She knows better, but does it anyway.

Posted by Lukeness | April 22, 2008 4:07 PM

Watching Petey over the years I lean towards the hurt ego theory but the volume and craziness o