Michael - I keep trying to envision anyone in a hoarde of yelling skinny peaceniks or overwrought code pinkers calling a black camera man "boy."  Nor do I recall anyone ever yelling out "kill him."  And of they had, the rest of the crowd AND  the candidate would have whacked them, not cheered them on.

Although I'm sure being called a war criminal by these folks was a heartbreaker for old GWB, this is not an equivalent situation to put it mildly - go to lunch man, you all are getting bored down there.

But did Democrats yell out that Bush was a "terrorist" at Kerry-Edwards rallies 4 years ago?  Did Kerry himself ever say that Bush had ties to terrorists?

Over-the-top rhetoric is always out there; it's certainly been there all along about Obama in this campaign.  But openly bringing this stuff out at CAMPAIGN RALLIES, and directly out of the candidates' mouths, is clearly an escalation.  

I won't deny that there are unhinged wingnuts on the left just as well as on the right, but I do think there's a difference here.  Overheated rhetoric aside, liberals (indeed, human beings) had good reason to be furious at George W. Bush because of specific actions he undertook, as a representative of the United States, which brought clear harm to the nation.  The fury directed at Obama is rooted in a hatred of the mere idea of him, or what he represents - either politically or culturally.  That's far less grounded in civility or reality.

Oh, and the gulf between "Impeach him!" and "Kill him" is miles wide.

Good question to raise. No political party can corner the market on shrieking belligerence. But equating the current set of McCain rallies with the Kerry rallies in late 2004 doesn't really work. In fact, the difference is instructive:

1) The main issue is not the mentality of the losing side, it's the response of the candidate to that mentality. Did John Kerry whip up the crowd with a bunch of personal slurs against President Bush? Did he validate the rants of his most unhinged supporters by agreeing with them? I'm pretty sure he didn't.

2) The losing side in this election appears crazier than the losing side in 2004 because their accusations are so untethered from Obama's modest record. They call him a socialist when he plainly isn't, accuse him of treason for taking positions that millions of other Americans agree with. By contrast, the Kerry supporters called President Bush a war criminal for specific actions he took that, in some people's view, violated Federal law and the Constitution. In 2012, Republicans may also be able to quote chapter and verse against President Obama. But right now, the gap between the Democratic candidate they see and the one most other voters see makes the Republican firebrands look downright delusional.

I haven't had the opportunity to see how these angry mobs are being played on the evening news (maybe someone here can share their observations), but I can't imagine it's reflecting well on the Republican ticket. Much of the blame for Bush Sr's loss in 1992 is credited to Pat Buchanan's pitchfork brigade appeal at the GOP convention, as it supposedly drove away moderates and independents. I have a hard time believing that these ugly rallies are being any better received by that same group. And McCain cannot win without them.

Actually, what this all reminds me of is '92.  Remember when Bush Sr.'s campaign brought up Bill Clinton's college age trip to the USSR?  That was that year's Ayers (just as draft dodging and Gennifer Flowers were that year's Jeremiah Wright).  And the same with the anti-MSM sentiments, etc.  It betokens a panic brought on by losing, something Democrats are used to at the presidential level but which Republicans since Reagan seem convinced is evidence of a universe out of joint.

The difference this year seems to me to be a greater degree of anger behind the right wing unhappiness, perhaps brought on by some of the factors mentioned by Peter Beinart in his Time piece referenced by Judis, or by the creeping realization that this will not be just a presidential loss, but a possible Democratic sweep.  After years of people like Anne Coulter calling Democrats "traitors," this sort of anger has been legitimized.

Jezus Michael, this is about what the candidates are saying to whip up anger, not what a few whackos are saying. That is a huge friggin' difference.  Remember it wasn't all that long ago that abortion doctors were being shot at (some still are) because some preacher whipped a crackpot up on Sunday morning. Add that Obama is black, and look at the vitriol that oozes from some of this campaign rhetoric and you have a ripe situation for an assassination attempt.

Ask yourself this, Michael:  does anyone think George Bush was in serious danger of assassination?  On the other hand, does anyone think there is reason to worry that some unhinged bigot, desperately afraid for his country and furious at seeing it -- in his view -- go down the hole, wouldn't be tempted to extreme measures?  I think the answer to both questions is obvious.  The anger on the right is the type of populism that in this country has led to really hideous behavior.  

I also think that the GOP has a sense of entitlement to power that is sui generis, qualitatively different from Democratic expectations.  For thirty years liberals have EXPECTED to lose, and usually with good reason. (Admittedly, that came after a half century in which the left could enjoy the same sense of entitlement.)  The GOP hated Clinton because he was the only Democratic politician in forty years with a genuine ability to galvanize popular support.  Obama, in his own very different way (and not precisely with the same segments of the electorate), has the same potential.  Expect the worst from the other side as they contemplate the near-term future.

In the same vein as the preceding post, I'm reminded of my shock a couple of years ago -- this is a measure of my naivete where the rabble-rousing right is concerned -- at hearing Michael Savage call liberals "vermin" on his radio show.  This is language that is beyond the pale in my book.  You know what you do with vermin:  you exterminate them.  I'm teaching a course this semester on the German churches and the Third Reich, so perhaps I'm abnormally sensitive to coarse threats.  Still, you wonder:  vermin?

I agree with timteeter.  This seems a lot like the Republican reaction to Clinton in 92.  The anger and suspicion, wildly out of proportion to the actual "threat", is fueled entirely by culture-war paranoia and rage - which has been openly stoked for years by the far right.  I hope a majority of Americans are finally growing disgusted with the right's version of anti-Americanism.  

Good point Crowley, although we'll see how much uglier it gets.

What Adaglas said. And to which I would add, the unhinged liberal fury (as opposed to the legitimate liberal fury) against Bush and Cheney was not stoked by Kerry or Edwards (as noted by Helitzurl), nor did it feature in the vast majority of critiques of Bush published in left of center magazines and newspapers. Thus, contrary to Mike's implication, there's no equivalence. There were legitimate and illegitimate critiques of Bush, the legitimate ones mattered, and the illegitimate ones were, well, illegitimate. Bush and his supporters focused on the illegitimate ones - "see, they don't disagree with Bush, they hate him, and by extension, you." This relieved them from having to respond to the legitimate critiques, which would have been much more difficult, partly because nearly all of them were echoed by many honest conservatives, who, unlike liberals, could not be as easily tarred by accusations of Bush- or America-hatred.

The same thing is happening with Palin today - she's objectively unqualified, and many conservatives are willing to state out loud this objective fact. But, what we hear from her defenders is "all opposition to her is from smug, condescending elites who look down on small town, heartland folks." Fine, if you want to bash some smug liberals, be my guest. But, if you want to be intellectually and morally honest, you have to address the legitimate concerns too. Conservatives can easily understand that the fact that some people oppose Obama for racist reasons is not a sufficient reason to vote for Obama. The corollary of this is that the fact that some people oppose Palin for the wrong reasons is not a sufficient reason to vote for her.

"does anyone think George Bush was in serious danger of assassination?"

I did.  I am surprised he wasn't assassinated.  Commenters in this thread underestimate the intense, unhinged anger that pervaded the Democratic party at the voter level four years ago, an anger that only really abated in 2006.  One man's Obama-Terrorist is another man's Bush-Hitler.  Each situation is unique, but I don't think it serves Democrats well to make excuses for their unhinged voters will attacking Republican unhinged voters.  Far better if we just accept that unhinged voters of any stripe diminish our Republic.

As a Democrat who was turned away from the party over the past five years or so due to the radicals, and who feels (as a McCain supporter) punched in the face every time somebody slurs Obama at one of their rallies, I'd say it's fair to say that the going-too-far anger is equivalent.

This thread also ignores the lunacy pervading the Democratic party this year regarding McCain - there's a zealotry on the various online communities that seems almost worse than what has come before.  It's a frightening analog to the lunacy regarding Obama, and it doesn't become us.

If Ron Suskind's book is accurate then an objective person would have to say that Bush is a war criminal.  It might not be of course, but i think the comparison to calling Obama a terrorist or allowing supporters to drop the n bomb about him at rallies is a completely ridiculous comparison.  Looking at the 2004, the better comparison would be whether the kerry / edwards campaign called Bush an incompetent drunk (an irrelevant, vaguely true personal attack designed to rev up the base,) at rallies.  As far as I recall, they didn't.

I mean watch this: www.youtube.com/watch and tell me with a straight face that this is the equivalent of someone condemning the president for leading a war that they consider illegal (i.e. a war criminal).  It's absurd, and it's worrisome that liberals aren't taking the threat of violence seriously.  I worry about the people on the other side of that sidewalk trying to stare down this mob!

phargle, with respect, that is utter drivel.  There has been dislike and even contempt for McCain expressed here (sometimes with what I think is a kind of sneering age-based dismissal) but your terms "lunacy" and "zealotry" are simply baseless.  Your attempt to create a kind of parallel between anti-Bush rhetoric in 04 and anti-Obama hate-rhetoric now falls for the reasons mentioned by others above, and the parallels between anti-McCain rhetoric now and anti-Obama tirades are countered by the sheer absence of that kind of feeling at Democratic rallies.

What "radicals"?  The anti-war crowd, you mean?

Crowlely, I think you miss the mark with this post.  I don't doubt, nor could I prove, that Democrats were using incidenary language against Bush.  What wasn't present, however, was a very explicit effort on the part of Kerry or Edwards, or their surrogates, to play upon that minority voice.  Perhaps if you had evidence to support the notion that Kerry/Edwards was doing what it could to play up their supporters irrational statements, your argument would have more validity.  As it stands, you are, frankly, comparing apples and rocks.

There was one very strong reason Bush was never in danger of being assassinated:  Cheney would have become president.  Liberals calculate that kind of thing, you know.  

Yes, the rage of the right is unique.  Imagine, if you will, that Bush v. Gore had gone the other way in 2000.   The right is peopled by those who feel that political disagreement is treason, that anyone who doesn't follow the GOP platform is a traitor, a terrorist, an anti-Christian damned for eternity.  

The worst domestic terrorism is from the right, from Timothy McVeigh to Rudolph-what's-his-name who bombed the Atlanta olympics, an abortion clinic, and a gay bar.  And, considering the targets (Democratic Senators, news outlets) I contend that the antrhax attacks were politically motivated.  I

Right wing talk radio, FOX is nothing more than raging.  

The left grumbled about Bush, maybe wrote a few nasty editorials, and MoveOn is over the top but I don't recall anybody from Moveon.org standing on the White House lawn emptying an AK-47, nor fly a plane into the White House  as  right wingers did during the Clinton administration The GOP never accepted the legitimacy of the Clinton Presidency, and this open disrespect, for example, Sen Helms' assertion that Clinton, the Commander in Chief, woudn't be safe on a military base gave rise to that violence.

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../they-made-them.html

yes, calling bush a war criminal has the same factual underpinning as saying obama is a terrorist. riiiigghht.

dubyadoubte is right tho.  even in the face of actual wrong doing, the left did not resort to violence.

maxblum,

Interesting video.  It's kind of like looking through a vortex, one of the most common insults was a variation on "Why don't you go live in Russia you commie!"  While that may have been effective 20, 30 years ago, it just doesn't seem to have any relevance today.  It's like a large cross-section of these people refuse to acknowledge this is 2008, not 1978.  Weird.

Yea I mean I think it was probably edited in a michael moore like manner, but it's still deeply disturbing video.  I mean like your saying where have these people been for the last 20 years?

here's another video along the same lines: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../hes-got-the-blo.html

I agree that if there is an analogy to be drawn, it's Clinton 1992 and not Bush 2004.  Four years ago, Bush was the incumbent.  It had already become apparent to much of America that he and his administration had lied us into a war of choice, so whatever railing there was at the time had a basis in his record over the prior four years.  In contrast, the unhinged right's reaction to what - at least for now - looks like an imminent Obama victory conjures up the paroxysms of ideologically-fueled rage and hatred that attended the election of WJC, at the time the incumbent governor of a small southern state with no national record to speak of.  Remember the accusations of murder and drug-running?

More to dubyadoute's point...How many liberals have we witnessed walking into places where conservatives congregate and open fire like the conservative man in TN this summer who mowed down the congregants of a Unitarian church because he wanted to kill some liberals? Are there any angry liberal sececessionist groups who want to blow up federal buildings? Who's safer, Fred Phelps picketing at a gay soldier's funeral or two gay men holding hands down Main Street in Jasper, TX?

ironyroad said: "phargle, with respect, that is utter drivel.  There has been dislike and even contempt for McCain expressed here (sometimes with what I think is a kind of sneering age-based dismissal) but your terms "lunacy" and "zealotry" are simply baseless. "

Utter drivel.  Not even slightly drivel, or mostly drivel, or partially drivel.  Baseless. . . not even partially based, or slightly based, but baseless.  This all-or-nothing stuff isn't good. . . and a quick surf around the Internet, or hanging out with excited Democrats or excited Republican, will turn up data points supporting my argument with trivial ease.  There are lunatics on both sides that have worked up a hysterial and unreasonable hatred for the other side.  One of the reasons I like TNR versus other political sites is that the comments section are normally free from the post-bombs and angry viciousness we see elsewhere.

I think we're not served well by playing this mote-in-your-eye game, and should be against the angry lunatics in both parties.  But I'm  a moderate swing voter - maybe I'm crazy.

Neither are we well-served by claiming equivalences that don't hold up under scrutiny.  I dispute with some vehemence that "both sides have worked up hysterical and unreasonable hatred for the other side, " and I'd like to see some evidence of that.  Again, there's a big difference between a fringe of nutters and the primary leaders of a campaign proactively encouraging that fringe.

the difference Crowly, is that the kinds of people that mccain is whipping up into an angry fury are morelikely to act on it in violent ways. I think this is far far scarier than the democratic anti-bush mobs.

I've been sick with worry all week, wondering when the heck McCain was gonna be investigated by the secret service,wondering when they were going to tell him he'd better knock it off.

This is our first black candidate. There is a very real danger that some nut thinks McCain has given him/her permission to kill obama. I am horrified and outraged that McCain and Palin did not stop their rallies in mid-SENTENCE to castigate those people in the crowd who said "kill him"or "terrorist."

I now officially hate McCain. I have fantasies about what might happen to him -- it's that bad. But fantasies are as far as my hatred goes (and maybe a little more crankiness this week toward my family).

Unfortunately the hate he incites among his supporters is far more dangerous .

www.salon.com/.../index.html.  Read the link above, if you care to, for a dissection of the ongoing, slavish efforts of the "liberal" Crowley and the TNR to make howling racists and Bush critics morally equivalent.  The hackishness of this guy and the cringing court-lackeysim that he demonstrates to the hard right that has brought us to the brink of ruin are truly astounding.  But I'm sure the real problem here is that liberals are angry about the mess they've gotten us into, not the mess itself, and not the fact that McCain and Co. want to distract us from the mess by suggesting (or just stating) that Obama is a Scary Muslim Black Dude.  The moral emptiness of guys like Crowley never fails or subsides.  It will abide forever as long as long as there's a Strong Daddy GOP Establishment to cater to.