Systematic Harassment of Bloggers on HillaryClinton.com by Obama Supporters Leads to Censorship

Clinton supporters beware, for there are intellectual censors amongst you;  particularly the people who come onto the site purporting to be Obama supporters.

They create their own blogs attacking Clinton.  They leave countless, ad hominem comments in supporters' blogs.  Trolling is nothing new to the internet, particularly in the blogosphere.  A candidate's official website isn't exactly a breeding ground for eloquence, either.  But lately it's proven to devolve to the point where it's easy for an Obama supporter to "flag" legitimate blog entries in order to silence truth.  You don't read about this because, like I said, it's nothing new.  But it is terribly annoying.

I mince no words when I talk about my candidate and I do understand that people support different candidates for different reasons.  But in an effort to stave off the same kind of ignorance about Presidential candidates as demonstrated in the PIPA report conducted on the 2004 Election, I've taken to real ideological comparisons between the candidates for the Democratic Party nomination, particularly Clinton versus Obama.

Back up for one moment.  The PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) 2004 pre-election report of Bush versus Kerry voters concluded that people who supported and were going to vote for Bush were largely mistaken about Bush's stance on everything from the Kyoto Treaty to including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.  Kerry voters, on the other hand, were largely in tune with Kerry's political positions.  Draw your own conclusions about those little tidbits.

Now, back to the issue at hand:  An ideological comparison between Clinton and Obama that's been censored several times due to harassing Obama supporters flagging the post.  I don't pretend that this is a complete, thorough breakdown of the Clinton vs. Obama picture, since I raise merely three issues out of the dozens of issues I could compare/contrast the two candidates on;  these three issues are important to me.  The most important?  Maybe not.  But they're a starting point.

AIDS/HIV

One of the issues that I have always felt
strongly about is HIV/AIDS; I have friends and people that I know
who're infected, and another friend of mine (ex, actually,
entertainment business) has many friends who've died from
AIDS-related complications. My very first official logo I ever designed
for money was in 1989(?), and I was paid to do a logo for a New York
City's pediatric AIDS newsletter. Anyway.

Here is what Obama's "plan" re: AIDS says:

Fight
AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected
with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader
in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines
to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback
(R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater
investment in the global AIDS battle.

I also did not find one mention of AIDS in Barack's lovely Blueprint for Change...unless my PDF reader was malfunctioning. As well, whoop dee, he convened with a Republicon Senator at an evangelical church
to address the global AIDS issue ("In December, 2006, Senator Obama
discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.").
What is he gonna do, send some missionaries overseas to teach people
that it's a sin to have premarital sex and use birth control? No, no,
sorry Obama...I think I'm going to go with a more realistic approach,
kthnxbai. G-d isn't going to help anyone save anyone from AIDS,
especially since the church has been woefully pathetic about HIV/AIDS.

Here is Hillary Clinton's plan.

As you can see, it's far too long for me to repost here unless I cut it.

Iraq

Take a look at both plans.

Hillary's.

Obama's.

Which
one sounds more doable and less fanciful/idealistic? "Press Iraq's
Leaders to Reconcile"? What kind of crack (no, that's not a racist jab)
is Obama's camp smoking to think that something like that would
actually work? It's obvious by all military accounts that immediate
withdrawal (as he's proposing) isn't exactly doable (because if it
were, it'd been done by now). Hillary's plan sounds much more
realistic, grounded and feasible.

Niche Issues

Hillary's site on Women's Issues.

Obama's site on Women's Issues.

What,
no link? That's because there's no link on his site addressing women's
issues. The G-dless Clinton woman would prefer to address the issues of
her gender rather than blather on more "faith-based" dogma, the same bunch of junk we've been subjected to under Shrub. But just as Obama rambles on about how

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

he subscribes to Trinity United Church of Christ's 12-point "Black Value System".

True,
the argument was breached by conservatives scrutinizing Obama back in
February (like I said, old news*), but I'm addressing point-by-point
here: While that's an admirable value system for a man of his race,
it's still not exactly saying much for the argument that "There's not a
Black America" while talking with black nationalist faith-based breath.

I'm done for now. There's so much more and it'll be covered, but I just wanted to get this initial junk off my chest.

For non-official site Cliffs Notes on the two, here:

http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm

From there you can also read up on everyone else.

*Apparently,
not-so-old news. As of last month, Obama's pastor Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A.
Wright bestowed his church's magazine's self-titled Lifetime
Achievement Award last month to noneother than penultimate racist Louis Farrakhan.
No, this doesn't illustrate that Obama is exactly in bed with
Farrakhan, but it does go towards demonstrating the moral platform that
Obama shares. My girlfriend pointed out that in a semi-recent issue of
the East Bay Express there was a rather large article on Hillary's religion/faith; however, Hillary keeps her faith personal. Faith is a personal thing, and Hillary is a Methodist (she used faith to get over Bill's affairs/other tough patches in her life), but she doesn't shove it in peoples' faces, nor does she make an "issue" out of it on her campaign site, so it's not
something that's fair game to pick at. Obama, on the other hand, puts
his faith out there and even has it listed as an issue on his campaign
website...therefore it's open to scrutiny. Interestingly enough,
Trinity was Oprah's church, too...but in 2002 was said to've not
attended services in over 12 years.

I've been too busy with my offline life to follow the post up with more ideological comparisons, but I also have to admit that constantly battling off Obama supporters' incessant harassment (they spam pro-Clinton communities everywhere, including my other blog home on LiveJournal) has drained the "hope" for "change" in the name of political blogging, and says volumes about the lengths ignorant vote-wiedling zealots will go in the dirty game of politics.