home

What Digby Said About Hillary

By Big Tent Democrat

People wonder why I spend so much time defending Hillary Clinton from unfair and sexist attacks in the Media and unfortunately, progressive blogs, including, maybe especially, the A-List blogs. I do not support her. I wish she would not have run and put herself through this. But Digby captures it:

The reasons she didn't go for the jugular is that she knows it doesn't work for her and, contrary to popular myth, she won't do or say anything to win. I know that's shocking to those of you who are convinced that Clinton is a monster, but it's true. Her campaign has not been, by any historical standards, a negative or nasty one. She has stated repeatedly, and again last night, that the party would be unified and in light of the fact that she is losing, that remark takes on a different character -- she will not turn the Democratic party inside out just for the fun of it or greatly damage the front runner in some quixotic quest for power. (It's hard to believe that anyone but Ann Coulter would ever believe she would do such a thing, but there you have it.)

Her final comment was gracious and heartfelt . . . This is a person of maturity and depth and one of whom most Democrats in this country are actually quite proud.

It is a shame that progressive blogs have led the charge in demonizing this fine person who has dedicated much of her life to progressive causes. I am not sure I will ever get over what some have written about her. The unfairness, spite, falsehoods, nastiness and sexism demonstrated will be hard to forget. I imagine I am not the only person who feels that way.

(Comments now closing.)

< Obama's Soldier Story Confirmed | OPR Opens Investigation Into 2002 DOJ Torture Memo >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    tell me again why you are not supporting her? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM EST


    Obama is the better politician (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    who is more likely to win. They are virtually the same on the issues and the big difference, health care, is not one I have as a high priority.

    I think Obama has the potential to trandform politics, BUT ONLY if he begins to fight for Democratic values.

    HE has been quite a disappointment.

    Hillary has too many enemies, in the Media and elsewhere, to successfully wage the fights that need to be fought.

    [ Parent ]

    The only part that's relevant, I think (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    is your last sentence. I can accept that Hillary has too many enemies to be viable. To me, everything else you describe (with a difference) goes to Hillary:  I believe that Obama has very little chance of "transforming politics" and that he, so far as I can tell, doesn't much care about the Democratic party.

    (Granted, I don't think Hillary can transform politics either, but that's not a standard I would hold any politician to).

    [ Parent ]

    The big difference, healthcare, is the one that (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    matters most to me, BTD. If he won't fight for that basic Democratic goal, at a time the country seems ready for it, what else won't he fight for. I have health insurance and probably not a lot would change for me, but what he is willing to go out on a limb for is important. He fails that test with me

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps Obama is the better politician (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    because it is more acceptable for him to behave like politicians behave.

    But what your IF isn't realized before the Dem. convention?  

    Also, is HRC becoming more electable against McCain?

    Finally, is there any merit to Kos's position today that Obama will carry so many more states?

    [ Parent ]

    That is a fair point (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think you're wrong (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by dk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    in not seeing health care as a high priority.  I personally do not believe there will be meaningful progressive change in domestic fiscal policy without health care reform.

    But, I applaud you (and Digby) for treating Hillary Clinton with the respect that any self-respecting liberal, and Democrat, owes her.  I'm a pretty cynical person, I guess (which is perhaps why I still don't buy what Obama is selling and why I think an Obama presidency will not advance progressive policies).  But, I have to say I had placed a lot of hope in the progressive blogosphere and, to be honest, I've lost respect for most of it.  It's very sad, actually.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, me too. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Coral on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    It's been a most disillusioning season. Except that my respect for Hillary Clinton has grown tremendously. What a great lady she is, and a brilliant mind.

    [ Parent ]
    The reason that health care is so important (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    on a macro level, is the opportunity to take that weight off of the corporations allowing them to be more competitive and to give us the opportunity to increase their contributions to the overall economy.  The share of taxes from corporations compared to individuals has steeply declined in the last 25 years.  At the same time their profits have increased.  There is a disconnect here.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's supporters are largely Obamacrats (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by horseloverfat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    and largely attracted to Obama personally rather than to his nominal party.  Not people I would count on to vote Democratic in downballot races, or work hard to get Democrats elected.  I prefer a candidate who can inspire Democratic partisans who will work hard for the whole party, not just the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    That makes no sense and does not explain (none / 0) (#275)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:34:59 PM EST
    Obama's margins of victory of late.

    [ Parent ]
    The better politician doesn't stand up (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    against the misogyny, much of it in his name?

    That may have been the acceptable definition before, but let's consider that the Clinton campaign may change the political landscape as much -- or more, with more women voters -- than the Obama campaign.

    Obama's changes are strategic (caucuses) and tactical (cell phones, blogs, etc.).  There probably will be reform again in primary season processes.  There will be new technologies even sooner.

    The change that may could in the core of the Dem voters, women, would not be as visible.  It would be missed by the pollsters who don't ask the apt questions, by the media because they rely on the pollsters, etc.  It may take more time . . . at least as long a time as it will take for a woman to attempt to run again at the top as a Dem.

    (Republicans historically have been the best to women seeking office, so I may be back to saying that we'll see a GOP woman president first.)

    [ Parent ]

    On Huff Post there is a piece (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:43:23 PM EST
    saying U.S. needs to elect a black person President before a woman President because so many other countries have already had elected women to such positions.  Then, of course, the writer goes on to say how much more credible the U.S. will be in the eyes of the world if we elect a black person President.  

    [ Parent ]
    Wait A Minute (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:13:58 PM EST
    Depends on "whose" eyes count.  I daresay that women around the world would cheer the election of Clinton in the U.S., particularly being a feminist who has championed women's rights.

    [ Parent ]
    My reaction also. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:17:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Credible to whom? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    Over half the population of the world are women, not to mention most of those suffering descrimination of all kinds in many countries.

    India, for instance, had Indira Gandhi...but women are still killed by their husband's family or by their own for bringing 'disgrace' to their sensibilities.

    I doubt Barack Obama gives a good goddamn about any of that...or ever thinks about it unless someone brings it to his attention.  I have no doubt that Hillary does.

    They say that poverty can best be overcome in any country by educating the women.  I won't be holding my breath for the Obama initiative to push that theme.

    Would Hillary transform US government and politics?  I don't know...but I think she could if she wanted to.

    [ Parent ]

    WE could if we wanted to -- (none / 0) (#248)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    and thought that with a woman at the top, at last, it was safe to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    Any argument with terms like that (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    be it that we must first elect a woman, or first elect an African American, for any reason, strikes me as completely idiotic and irresponsible.  I think it really underestimates the complicated feelings people from other countries have about America that go way beyond who our Prez is and have more to do with MTV, Coca Cola, our foreign policy, etc.  I've heard a few times that if other nations see Obama, the non-WASP, their image of us will change as if by magic.  That just seems completely crazy to me.  Not to mention that it's kind of offensive that people don't assume that upon seeing the US elect a woman, nations would think, wow, the land of equality and freedom for all has elected someone new.  It's all just so, so stupid.  Same with arguments that Hillary should give up now because we have to unify, and so many people hate her.  Let her stay in and give her a chance to win votes and change minds.  Why should we accept as a given that people hate her, especially because so much of that hate is rooted in sexism and expresses itself in sexist terms, however "casual"?

    [ Parent ]
    Black men got the vote first (none / 0) (#165)
    by nycblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    This was the argument when the suffragettes ceded the vote to black men first, too. Let them have it, and women will get it next. And how much longer did that take?

    That being beside the main point, which is that the most qualified person with the best ideas and knowledge of how to get things done should be President!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Jim Crow held up (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    African Americans from really voting, whatever the law said, for quite some time....

    [ Parent ]
    See below (none / 0) (#185)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:58:21 PM EST
    First woman elected by popular vote to US Senate: 1932.

    First African American elected by popular vote to US Senate: 1966.

    Voting rights for most African Americans were purely theoretical between 1878 and 1966.

    [ Parent ]

    First woman in Congress: 1916 (none / 0) (#244)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    And by then, more than 16 million women had suffrage in this country.  The 19th Amendment only made sure all women had it (although it still took a Supreme Court case until 1923 to force the last states).

    First woman suffrage territory: 1869

    First woman suffrage state: 1890

    First women in what would be America: 15,000 years ago.

    Shall I go on?

    [ Parent ]

    Cx -- "could come" (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:33:13 PM EST
    not "may could come" in the first sentence.  Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    I have thought a lot about your reasoning. (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by ghost2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    It's a tempting reason, and I agree that the media hates her.  

    Thanks for posting Digby's comment here.  She has it exactly right, and contrary to the noise that Obama campaign created with the help of the media, she didn't play the race card.  

    She has been the model of graciousness and has put her country, people, and her party first.  Media doesn't like to see or report this, but I believe the hell that Hillary went through in the impeachment fiasco transformed her, and made her find her centre and her values.

    Your critique of A-list bloggers (we know who they are) is spot on.  Amazingly, or predictably, they have co-opted the media tactics.  At the orange place, they sometimes write truely inconsequential posts about her her that are positive, and are supposed to balance their ad-nausum nitpicking and negativity about anything she does or says.  

    But back to your reasons for supporting Obama, yes, that is tempting.  There are two things about such reasoning that really worries me.  One: you are, in effect, making a deal with corporate media, the same crowd that brought you the Iraq war.  Second, Obama's campaign has reminded me a lot of George Bush's 2000 campaign.  He is really an unknown quantity.  We don't know where his core values are, and what he would do in a crisis.  We really don't.  It worries me that to prove himself, he may start another war (heaven forbid) just to show that, yes, he can.  


    [ Parent ]

    I think a distinction need to be made (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:40:22 PM EST
    between politicians that are good campaigners and those that are good officeholders.  

    The skills required to excel in these two arenas are vastly different, the best example being Al Gore in my mind.  We elect politicians often on their campaigning abilities, but a talented campaigner is not necessarily, and often aren't, the best officeholders. Politicians rarely excel in both of these arenas.  Bill Clinton was one of the few that can do both very well.

    So while I agree that Obama is a better politician in terms of his campaigning ability, that does not translate into being a good president. I think Hillary Clinton would be a superior officeholder.  

    [ Parent ]

    I never will get over what we have seen (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:52:11 PM EST
    and what I have felt with her to my core.  Nor will I ever get over how male Dem leaders did not step in to do anything to stop it.

    I am a lifelong Dem, raised by a state party leader, worked my first campaign for JFK a decade before I could vote, worked for every Dem campaign since at the national level and donated to most (when I had anything to give:-) and ditto for many at the local level.

    I now am an Independent -- with my daughter.  If the party won't stand up for young women seeing this, which has had a huge impact upon her, I will stand with her.  And I will send my money and spend my time on other causes with her (a born volunteer) as well.

    I should criticize you (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    but right now, I do not have the heart for it.

    Your anger seems justified to me.

    [ Parent ]

    We're really all Independents in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:24:33 PM EST
    remember.:-)  And I don't see a Republican deserving of my vote.  I just don't see Obama as deserving of it, either.  It doesn't mean he won't get it -- it only takes one hand to mark a ballot, freeing up the other to hold my nose.  But like a superdelegate, I don't need to commit now and can keep monitoring him and the party.

    So I'm not even going to open all the mail from the state and national party, not send it back with donations, not give my time anymore -- not unless and until I see why the party deserves it . . . especially the men who did nothing to stand up and live up to the party's principles and platform for 55% of the Dem voters, women.  (Even more in my state, where women vote more than in almost any state.  Let's see if that holds true -- let's see if Wisconsin can stay barely blue beyond Obama.)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by ghost2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    The media and democratic party men have ignore the massive number of new women voters that Hillary will bring with her in the general election.  It will come to bite them in the ass with the depressed participation of woman voters.  

    They have managed to not only lose the new votes, but pi** off the biggest faithful bloc of democratic voters.

    Now, I think, idiots like Kerry think that at the end of the day, the woman should just vote for him to do the job.  

    Makes me appreciate Bill Clinton even more.  Gosh, the guy is truely liberated, and I can see why Hillary has stuck with him.  Her alternative would be patronizing cheuvaunistic idiots.


    [ Parent ]

    I feel for you and empathize totally (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I will never get over what we have seen also (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    I am so hurt and terribly disappointed in the "progressive" blogoshpere.  My heart aches...

    [ Parent ]
    Cream (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    I could not agree more.  I feel abandoned by my party, and that the HuffPo piece really is the core of the problem: a black man before a white woman.  Nothing has changed in the last hundred years.  To see a woman torn down and degraded, under the guise of "any woman but this woman" (when, of course, there aren't any other women who could do this) just makes me sick to my very core.

    I no longer think of the democratic party as my party.  We have become the very thing we despise.

    [ Parent ]

    Not 'we'.......it. Just sayin' (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    I'm with you both, Kathy and Cream.

    I will attend no more meetings, no more party fundraisers, lead no more workshops or training sessions, make no calls, doorbell no precincts, bake no cookies, run no more campaigns.

    I will support candidates of my choosing, stay with Emily's List and start a new life outside the Democratic Party.  After 53 years of adult Dem Party activism, I have had it.  

    No more.

    [ Parent ]

    Arianna (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:49:23 PM EST
    Huffington is a Hollywood...I won't say it, but she only really cares about celebrities and she's really a Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, things have changed (none / 0) (#200)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    Blacks didn't have the right to vote in 1920. I know some feminists would like to rewrite history and pretend that there wasn't a problem with blacks voting in 1920, but it's just wrong. Blacks didn't really have the right to vote between 1878 and 1966.  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, crap like literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks away from the voting booth--throughout American, not just in the South (which I will note is also America too).

    First woman elected to US Senate by Popular vote: Hattie Caraway in 1932.

    First African American to be elected to the US Senate by popular vote: Edward Brooke in 1966.

    I posted the total numbers of Governors and Senators who were woman and likewise for people who were African American. Needless to say, far more women (nearly 10 times as many) have held statewide office.

    [ Parent ]

    Could you tell me (none / 0) (#211)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    what point you are trying to make?  Because I've read everything you've posted and it's completely unclear to me exactly what argument you are trying to get across.

    Thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    My point (none / 0) (#219)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    That Gloria Steinem and others who say that African Americans had access to power before women are absolutely wrong when one considers history. The right to vote thing is the most ridiculous item of all. Yes, blacks got the right to vote in 1867 via constitutional amendment, and possessed it through the 1876 elections. But once reconstruction stopped, blacks lost the right to vote--in the North and of course in the south. Try being an African American in who wanted to vote in the 1920 election. At that point, pretty much all white women could vote. The same thing didn't happen for African Americans until 1965...

    My point is, I can see how feminists would be sad over Hillary's lost. I can see how some would be tempted to say, "It'll never happen." But white women have had access to power for so long, and are now in such numbers, that it's easy to see a woman President (may not be a Democrat) within the next 20 years. With exactly one African American Senator and one African American Governor, if not Obama, then it's hard to see anybody getting close in the next 75 years. That's my point. A woman will win, just not this year.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree with you (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    If what you are saying about women's rights is true, then we would have already had a woman president long ago.  The ERA couldn't even get passed at the height of the movement.  Women could not get home loans, buy cars, own property or open checking accounts without their fathers or husbands co-signing and approving well into the 1980s.  Even today, women continue to make less than men-black or white-in jobs.  Yes, we are the majority, but we are treated as a minority.

    I'm not getting into a discussion about who is more put-upon, but you fail to understand history if you think that women have had it comparatively easy.  Your statement about women having access to power is also factually incorrect.  If women had power, then rape would not exist and sexual predators would be among the castrati.

    Elizabeth Cady Stanton was told "not this year," too.  A century had to pass before it was time.  

    [ Parent ]

    That's precisely my view and situation (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    I'm joined there by my 3 sisters and, were she still here, our late, great mom would be of the same mind.

    We often had a one=parent home since both parents did work that involved being away for weeks at a time.

    Mom's the one who, in family meetings where we had to resolve a family crisis, would say about the most seemingly unresolveable problem, "C'mon, use your brains, use your skill. We can do this. We're women."

    I'm disgusted that the Dem braintrust not only permit sexism but promote it. They not only blame women -- esp. on the issues of medical privacy and moral choice -- for cynical persecution from the right, but actively court anti=abortion and anti-contraception no-choice deadbeats who'll use our funds, our contribution, our efforts and our skill to disenfranchise us ... yet have THEIR choice to strip women of inalienable constitutional protection revered as spiritual rather than what it is: misogynistic, medieval, cruel and as likely to be causing as many deaths among women, children and young people as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    When solicited by the Dem for the bux and activism I've provided in the past, I suggested they get it from the nearest no-choice deadbeats, foetuses or unsentient females being kept alive for 10+ years by machine, since I'm a non-person in the party's eyes.

    The intra-party sexism being levelled at HRC is enough to keep me looking more towards her rather than Obama, whose team has said they won't vote for HRC (and doesn't THAT speak volumes about the depth of commitment to this alleged "change".)

    I'm pissed enough at this point to keep open the option of writing in a prez/vp as protest, as having Dem majorities in congress hasn't accomplished much.

    And no, I don't think a President Obama -- the guy who's running on INCREASING working with the GOP, who have gotten pretty much everything they've tantrum'd for -- nor a One Party "united" congress will appoint decent judges to the SCOTUS.

    [ Parent ]

    Many of us feel this way (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by nycblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:47:20 PM EST
    I sure do.  Watching the male leaders stand by and ignore it -- men who I HAVE CAMPAIGNED AND VOTED FOR -- and Obama himself perpetrating it.  It makes many of us heartsick.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll vote, but the party's not my home anymore (5.00 / 2) (#287)
    by trishb on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:42:08 PM EST
    Cream City - You've summed up so much that I'm feeling, and I hear the same from my mom and sister.  This isn't our party either.  It used to be.  My grandpa was an elected judge for 30 years in upstate NY.  I had an appointment to West Point from our local congressman (couldn't go for health reasons).  My parents and I have both sent small amounts to Hillary, as has my sister.  We had a long talk today about discrimination against women.  No one in my family is happy with the current situation. It's funny, my dad is a real old fashioned curmudgeon sometimes, but he wants to see his daughters and granddaughter succeed, and sees that as less possible now.

    [ Parent ]
    Such Drama (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    Oh the tooth-gnashing, hand-wringing, and cries of "waily waily waily" around here. It's nearly enough to make one despair. Are Democrats really so weak that we can't play in the bloodsport that is American politics?

    I agree that there has been a lot of unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton in this campaign, by forces in the media, as well as in the party.  I also believe that there are people who support Obama that have and continue to say terrible things about Senator Clinton, and that this is wrong.

    However, many of these things have been reciprocated back towards the Obama campaign by some of the ardent Clinton supporters. Hell, reading through the comments here and on Tayor Marsh's site, you'd think that Barack Obama was a child-molesting vampire who loves nothing more than drinking the blood of newborn female children.

    If the Clinton campaign can't compete against the relatively benign environment of a Democratic primary, whose fault is that? It's her fault. Nobody made her choose to run her campaign in the way that she has. No one made her hold positions that other people feel are not desirable as a Democratic presidential candidate.

    She's had to run as her own woman, good and bad. If she loses in the end, is it because Barack Obama has voodoo powers of mind-control and has enthralled the majority of Democrats? Of course not, it's because he was able to be more persuasive that he was the person that we want to have in the White House. If his positions aren't yours, you should have had a stronger candidate.

    To stamp your feet and quit the game is just the sort of weakness that cost us the election in 2000. It's time to remember that either of the Democratic candidates are infinitely better than any Republican. There is no comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    we have every right (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    to be disgusted with our party--and to say so.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#187)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:58:35 PM EST
    Of course you do, and thank goodness for that. If you get mad and leave the party, please feel free, that is your right. What I am saying is that this fevered (and feverish) madness over the primaries is counterproductive. It leads to the kind of insanity that leads to people voting for Ralph Nader.

    I understand anger and disappointment as much as the next person, I am a Democrat after all. When I was younger I was much more radically idealistic, and I stepped outside the arena, choosing to get into anarchism, etc... I felt the whole "a pox on both houses" thing until after 2000. Then as things got worse and worse I realized that the only game in town is the one we have. If you want to have a say in the system, you have to fight in the system. Leaving isn't an option to someone with a conscience.

    If you're all mad about the way things are working out for your candidate. Work harder next time. Get more people to believe the way you do. Help get more and better Democrats elected. Hold them accountable for their choices.


    [ Parent ]

    That sounds a lot (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    like a pat on the head and "get over it, it'll be better next time".  That pablum may not be appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    You are calling (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    the people on this thread mad and insane.

    Thanks for invalidating those who disagree with you.

    [ Parent ]

    Why isn't treating women as PERSONS the default? (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    Why don't the Dems do that whether women "earn" it or not?

    Shouldn't Dem loyalists be promoting that rather than talking to women who are angered by egregious system wide, party-wide disenfranchisement and persecution in condescending, imperious, and supercillious terms?

    Tell you what ... why don't YOU work extra super harder to prevent women's inalienable rights and franchise being used as chips in a stupid political pissing contest.

    No personhood, no support.

    [ Parent ]

    "working out for your candidate" (5.00 / 4) (#227)
    by sumac on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:39:46 PM EST
    There's a passive way of viewing the way the MSM and an overwhelming majority of liberal blogs have dealt with this race.

    Even BTD, who is so fierce in defending HRC, makes a statement at the end of this post that causes me pause:

    "I wish she would not have run and put herself through this."

    As if all of "this" is her fault. She knew better. Why go through with it?

    Well, I'll say that I only admire her more. She is passionate about Democratic values and the American people. She is passionate about the defenseless (translates into women and children around the world). She is passionate about the lower and middle classes.

    Is she faultless? No. Has she run the best campaign? No. Has she been treated grossly unfairly by the media, the party, many supporters of her Dem opposition? I think you will find that a lot of us "mad" people would say: Yes.

    You say that leaving the Dem party "isn't an option to someone with a conscience."

    For some with a conscience it may be the only option.


    [ Parent ]

    What (5.00 / 4) (#238)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    you fail to understand is that we are not just upset with the betrayal of our party, but we are disgusted with lack of character Barack Obama has displayed in this campaign. For myself, I'm so disappointed that after 8 years of one arrogant, self-important novice, we will now have to endure another 4 yrs of it or another Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Character (5.00 / 4) (#249)
    by sumac on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:02:30 PM EST
    This is a great point.

    I have been trying, really trying to like Senator Obama. But I find his character off-putting. His arrogance reminds me, too, of a man I have loathed since he lived in our Governor's mansion in Texas. The character of a person speaks loudly, despite policy points or party affiliation.

    A true unifier would not stand by and let his supporters demonize his Democratic opponent.

    [ Parent ]

    I have been working for the dem party (4.83 / 6) (#199)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    since I was a teenager--literally.  I'm not making that up.  I feel kicked in the teeth right now.  I look at the sexist crap spewing from so-called liberal bloggers' mouths and think "that is not any kind of party I want to belong to."


    [ Parent ]
    Indeed you aren't (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST


    Me too. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    I wish she would not have run and put herself through this.

    I will feel relief when this is over with and it is probably a good thing we don't have to read and listen to this stuff or eight more months to the GE or four to eight years if she won.

    I still want her to be a powerful voice for Democratic causes and I hope the hate hasn't made her future in the party ineffective. I don't know how her fellow Senators who haven't defended her (I'm not saying support her over Obama) can look her in the face.

    In my eyes, the Democratic Party lost (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    all claims to credibility in defending human rights. This election cycle has shown how permissive this Party can be in the denigration of human beings.

    What makes it so much more frustrating for me is that I cannot understand how this happened.

    We're producing two historical figures. Yet, for some reason, the Party has deemed it acceptable that one of those historical candidates may be treated so inhumanely.

    I'm so very proud of her, and proud to count myself amongst her supports, because I know that if she loses, she'll be going back to that Senate seat to serve just as distinguished a term as she already has--head held high and fighting for the causes important to ALL people.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary could be a powerful Majority Leader (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:29:01 PM EST
    I'm sure she could have it if she wants it....She could likely get the position right away .....

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:09:32 PM EST
    Hold out those consolation prizes.

    [ Parent ]
    No. She couldn't. (none / 0) (#157)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary holds a lot of cards (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:59:25 PM EST
    If she can't get the majority of pledged delegates, Obama will still need a gracious Hillary.....She can name her price.....

    I see no reason why (assuming she doesn't win) she can't tell the Superdelegates she wants to be Majority Leader....I have heard even Harry said that he would be willing to step aside...I heard this so long ago I do not even begin to know where to find it....

    And If Obama does fall flat, Hillary would only be 64 in 2012....

    [ Parent ]

    What Digby (and BTD) said. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:58:14 PM EST


    I too have resigned my membership in the (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    Democratic party...I am so despondent about this...She is such a worthy and good candidate and has been reduced to sexist jokes and still continues to hold her head high...I stand with her totally and will follow her lead as she has proven to me what she is worth....

    Hillary will tell you why it is important to vote (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    for Obama in November athyrio. Listen to her. I know it hurts right now but we have to do this because it is the right thing to do.

    [ Parent ]
    Jury is out on that decision Teresa as the (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    health coverage means my very life is on the line...so we shall see how this plays out...I am hoping that I don't have to face that decision at this point of course..

    [ Parent ]
    She will be in the Senate trying to make (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    his health care plan stronger. We won't even get that chance with McCain. I don't much care for Obama's plan, but it will get rid of the pre-existing conditions that prevents you from getting insurance. That in itself is a big deal.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling well (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    But you won't be one of the uninsured, on Obama's plan, if you want to be insured. Though his plan does not, admittedly, achieve universal coverage, it should be fairly uncontroversial to claim that it does achieve universal access to coverage.

    From the perspective of your personal interests, then, the two plans shouldn't really by distinguishable. That's not, of course, to deny that the mandate difference is a real difference: it just won't make a difference to your ability to get insurance.

    [ Parent ]

    Hm, no (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    That is only true if you make the hand-waving assumption that health insurance can be made affordable for everyone without mandates.  It seems to me like he's just promising something for nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, so there's a real policy debate here (none / 0) (#58)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    But are you a health-care economist? I'm not: and the experts there are seem to disagree as to which plan will make insurance more affordable. For my part, I'm not sure what will happen, and for that reason I'm not making my decision about who to support on the basis of this difference.

    In any case, though, my understanding is that Obama's plan (and probably Clinton's as well) will guarantee universal access to health care; if the lack of mandates makes that more expensive, then the additional onus will be on tax payers, rather than on those who participate in the public health care program. So either way, the difference won't affect any particular sick person's ability to get insurance - if it affects them at all, it'll be through their (and our) tax bill.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    but what you don't appreciate is that only one side of the debate is insisting on redefining "universal health care" into "making health insurance affordable."

    [ Parent ]
    I'd rather see real universal health care as well (none / 0) (#274)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    Though I'm not sure that a mandate is the best way to achieve it.

    But my main point stands, I think: if Obama's plan is indeed inferior to Clinton's, it's not because one provides universal access to health care while the other doesn't. Both do that, so the remaining questions, I take it, are an economic one as to which would do it more efficiently, and a philosophical one as to whether it's universal coverage or just universal access to coverage that we ought to be aiming at.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:41:33 PM EST
    Clinton's plan quite clearly provides universal health care.  The only way to dispute this is by attempting to redefine the debate.

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman was spot on about GWBush's economic (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    coming malfeasance during the 2000 campaign. Dead right.

    I'll go with him on his analysis of healthcare costs and possible outcomes.

    [ Parent ]

    You are right, she will (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    ...And everyone, including Obama and his establishment supporters, know it. That's what make their attacks on her as "calculating," "vicious," "divisive," "will do or say anything to win" (the direct theme of Obama's negative commercials, not from some outside group, but from the campaign, and in his own words) especially cynical and cruel.

    And, of course, they are depending on the women in the party, who have been the mainstay of this party, who have dedicated their time, money, energy over decades, to swallow the insults too, and vote like "good little girls."

    Sorry. The DNC called me yesterday to renew my monthly contribution commitment. I said "no." And I told them why I was saying no -- I can't stand up any longer for a party that has demonstrated it has no interest in standing up for me.

    [ Parent ]

    Race v Gender (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    The contrast between the sensitivity to racism and the open celebration of sexism could not be more stark in this primary campaign.

    And only one candidate benefited from that.

    [ Parent ]

    Well said, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:10:54 PM EST
    esmense.
    We are the forgotten voters--at least, by the presumptive (at this point) nominee.

    And we have certainly been forgotten, if not vilified, by most of the progressive blogs, including the ones written by women.

    I don't understand it.

    [ Parent ]

    Donate to Hillary then (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by timber on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1

    They are fundraising to pay for ads in Texas and Ohio

    [ Parent ]

    Wait a minute! (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:17:15 PM EST
    We are talking like it's over.  It ain't over until it's over, and Hillary is still in this race.  We are letting the a*sholes get to us and spin us into thinking we are defeated when the fact is that she is still polling ahead, still has the money and still has the support to make this thing work.

    Remember what she said last night.  After all she has been through, Clinton has not given up.  I think we owe it to her to keep marching alongside her.  The crap we are seeing on the so-called left blogosphere is idiotic and painful and I am with the folks who are heartbroken about this, and feel abandoned by the party, but even though the party has abandoned us, this is not the time for us to abandon Hillary Clinton.

    Lookit, folks, let's shake off this melancholy and phone bank and rally and donate and do whatever we can to make sure that we give our girl a fighting chance.  She is less than 2% behind in the delegate count.  She can still get the popular vote.  She can still make her case as the best choice for the party, even though the upper echelon has chosen their man.

    Onwards!!!

    This is not over!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Not quitting on Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    Sent another donation last night after the debate.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry Kathy (none / 0) (#140)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:25:39 PM EST
    I already donated tonight. ;)
    I vented, I feel better.

    [ Parent ]
    The Legacy of the Campaign (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    The glee over her possible demise has been so repulsive on the "main" progressive blogs that it has deepened my alienation from them.  And all of those who celebrate the "unity" and "post-partisanship" offered by Barack will not extend that sentiment to Hillary Clinton.

    I really believe that the open celebration of sexism is so pervasive that right-wing talking points will serve as weapons against a progressive female Democrat.  The sexism of leftist men (present company excluded) was decried almost 40 years ago by feminist - does nothing ever change?

    And I wonder why the overwhelming support given to Obama by male voters is not examined or lamented - while the same phenomenon would be noted if it involved racially motivated voting by whites against Obama.

    Jaw-dropping idiotic moments just to pile on HRC (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    The pretzel logic involved in some of this egregious sexism (in the name of what, I don't know.) The inexplicable anti-HRC fervor strikes me as a form of pre-emptive cowardice in the hopes the GOP goon squad doesn't come after the hater.

    Or, it's a kind of superstitious mentality equal to modern scapegoating. This was supposed to "cleanse" --- unite?? -- a sinful society by pinning all past sins on a goat and sending the poor creature away to die quiety somewhere.

    Ridiculous criticism #1 -- She's "ambitious" merely for having turned up in the primary at all, which is BAD, because of the ambition of competing for a job for which she believes herself qualified. All of the other candidates are "fighters", or good or bad candidates based on their personalities, records, etc. etc.

    Ridiculous criticism #2 == was cap'd here by BTD (with a h/t to Taylor Marsh). It was a quote by the WaPo's Eugene Robinson, who is black:

    Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states that Barack Obama has been winning.

    and I wondered:

    Let's see, if -- perhaps when, since no campaign is perfect -- Team Obama makes a misstep, will Robinson declare it open season for the media to refer to Obama, relentlessly and in letter and spirit, in egregiously racist terms?

    The Hell???

    It's continually astounding to me to hear this kind of naked bigotry from people who have had MY support over the years.

    Ironically, I became an Independent because John Kerry, as an individual, and the Dems, collectively, failed to take a strong stand against the disenfranchisement of black and minority voters in '04, after I'd hung on post-2000 to correct that injustice and keep the WH from ... well, you all know what happened since.

    [ Parent ]

    actually... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:36:05 PM EST
    given the animosity that most of the liberal bloggers have towards Reid -- there could very well be a big push from the left to replace him as majority leader with Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I really doubt that . A diarist on Kos (none / 0) (#93)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    wrote a few days ago saying that Obama was going to need a strong person in the Senate to get a "tranformational" program through and the commentators on dkos went ballistic. No Way! Not HER!  Step on her, "out damm spot"

    [ Parent ]
    if she bows out... (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:21 PM EST
    .. gracefully and doesn't go scorched earth in the next two weeks. People are going to re-focus on who they hate they most in the senate. And that is certainly Reid for getting next to nothing done and bending over backwards repeatedly.

    Just give it some time.

    [ Parent ]

    This is more of the same disgusting (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    claptrap.  If she bows out gracefully?  She's still running and TX and OH vote on March 4.  No one should bow before Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    That's insulting (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    Give it time for them to get over their hatred? Oh yeah, I really want to give irrational Clinton-haters time to realize what a great asset she is.

    [ Parent ]
    Give irrational hatred time... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    to do anything?

    It's irrational for a reason.

    Just because time will make it go away doesn't mean it's somehow acceptable.

    [ Parent ]

    "Bow out gracefully, girls." (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:20:24 PM EST
    You've got to be kidding.  Those are the exact words the female principal of my elementary school said to us when the boys wanted the previously muddy baseball diamond back now that it had dried out. I'm still fuming and that was a really long time ago.

    [ Parent ]
    oh fairweather friends....n/t (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Definitely not just you (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by spit on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    I knew this was going to be an issue for Clinton to some degree, as I remember clearly the anger part of the left felt for her husband by the end of his term. I've been angry with them both before, too, for various reasons.

    But I never thought I'd see people -- progressives, supposedly -- sink as low as they have in trying to absolutely destroy her through any means necessary.

    This primary has been one of the most disturbing things I've seen on the left in a long time. I won't forget it, it's been very eye-opening.

    It's Hillary's choice to go on fighting and (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    I admire her for it.

    But at this moment I feel like a battered wife who suddenly realizes I am an idiot not to flee to somewhere where I am valued and respected.

    The misogyny blasting out of the media and the blogs took me completely by surprise, and I have worked in journalism for 15 years.

    I too will have a hard time getting through this.

    I have been saying for years (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    that sexism is a far bigger day-to-day problem in our society than racism. Never thought I'd be proven right.

    I've never been so sad to be correct.

    [ Parent ]

    The Media did not surprise me (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:10:23 PM EST
    The progressive blogs very much surprised me.

    [ Parent ]
    Sexism on the Left (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    An ugly side has been revealed.  It is not yet taboo to denigrate women in the way that Hillary has been portrayed.  This is a question of shifting the norms of acceptable behavior - we need men (like here) who are as troubled by this behavior as many women already are.

    And feminists have learned that sexism has an awful universality - it's both left and right.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd say... (none / 0) (#74)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:40:38 PM EST
    .. you're getting confused by an age-divide. Hillary has done a lot of things to anger the core constituents of liberal blogs (tech-savy young males). Some of that anger seeps in to mysoginistic jokes. E.g., her position on video games would be a nice example. Hillary didn't lose because of the jokes, she lost because of her history of negatives (fair or not, the republicans did it to her), her positions, and as you've stated yourself, Obama is a better politician.

    If anything, Hillary is very smart and capable women, but I think the continous battles she's been in with the right wing have taken their toll, and she really is now unable to be the ideal leader of the democratic party. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:47:48 PM EST
    No, policy differences cannot be used to rationalize the use of misogyny to denigrate women that you disagree with.  And young men will have to learn that.  Sorry. Unfortunately, the leftist frat rooms are self-amplifying, and enourage and reward hostility toward Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    they will learn it (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    when they move out of their mother's house and start working for a woman boss who does not coddle them like the babies they are.  They will learn it when they go to the bank to get a loan and have to talk to a woman manager.  They will learn it when they go to a car dealership and have to negotiate with a saleswoman.  They will learn it when their wives or girlfriends--or boyfriends, for that matter, ask them what the he*l is the matter with them that they are so threatened by women that their lives revolve around coming up with petty ways to denigrate them.

    And they will especially learn it when they realize that all those women who have been sending money in and clicking on ads that support their boy-party blogs are no longer there to pay for their sexist rantings to be heard.

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    Hillary has done a lot of things to anger the core constituents of liberal blogs (tech-savy young males). Some of that anger seeps in to mysoginistic jokes.

    Tech-savvy young males are the core constituency of liberal blogs?
    Mysogynistic jokes are forgiveable because young males are angry?
    A woman deserves whatever mysogynistic trashing she gets because her behavior has angered young males?

    What on earth are you thinking?

    The core constituency of liberal blogs is supposed to be liberals. Liberals hold justice and fairness as core values.  Liberals would not tolerate excusing mysogynistic anger -- this is why DK has turned into an echo chamber right before our eyes.

    [ Parent ]

    Wild prediction... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM EST
    But one that I think will come to pass. If Hillary loses this campaign, history will write that sexism played a significant role. (And if she wins, it will be against overwhelming sexist odds.)

    I can already picture the texts students will be studying in gender studies departments all across the nation.

    [ Parent ]

    clarifying my last point... (none / 0) (#77)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    ... she can't be a candidate for hope or inspiration, because she has already fought too many battles. Its just not realistic enough for her. She has been in politics toooo long. Become too cynical.  The same probably happens to everyone in politics after a while, but hillary is much further along the trajectory than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is inspirational (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    Because she has fought all those battles, and is still standing.
    Fighting the battles of the cause is virtuous. It's the way things get changed.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it's you on that trajectory (5.00 / 2) (#277)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    Do you even admit that possibility?  Try reading, really reading and listening to what is written here.  You are the one on an age-old trajectory, so engrained that I realize it is hard for you to realize it.  But that doesn't justify or excuse it.

    Put it this way:  You are not the one we have been waiting for . . . and neither is your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    If I were Obama (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    I would feel terrible riding to victory on the backs of Chris Matthews, Schuster, DKos, a