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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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.


    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).


    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

    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?


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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.)


    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.  

    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.

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


    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.

    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"?

    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!


    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....

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.)


    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.


    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
    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...

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    "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.


    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.

    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.


    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."

    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.


    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 .....

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

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


    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.

    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..

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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."

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    Well said, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:10:54 PM EST
    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.


    Donate to Hillary then (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by timber on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST

    They are fundraising to pay for ads in Texas and Ohio


    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.


    This is not over!!!


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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"

    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.


    "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.

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


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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, and other sexists. The longer he refuses to acknowledge the reasons for his victory, the more I'll dislike him. I'm saving up for a heavy-duty clothespin to hold my nose at the ballot booth in November.

    You (none / 0) (#239)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    echo my thoughts. Really, after serving this country faithfully and well, if this is the best Americans can do for the Clintons, I would not care if they left the U. S. and went abroad to any of a thousand countries where they are venerated.  

    I know I will never get over it, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#19)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    The unabashed sexism, the blatant misogyny, the painfully obvious double standards, the snickering frat-boy group cowardice, the post-impeachment internalization of Limbaugh/Fox News talking points directed against her.... and all at the hands of alleged fellow "Democrats."

    I'm not angry that Hillary will likely lose. Everything happens for a reason, and politics ain't tiddlywinks.

    I am angry at how it happened, and how needlessly.

    Exactly Jim (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:09:22 PM EST
    HOW it happened is extremely troubling.

    And let me make this clear, I do not blame Obama. He was running his campaign and trying to win.

    That is what campaigns do.

    It is the people I mentioned above.


    Never In A Million Years (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    Did I think a day would come when I'd have to hold my nose to vote for Barack Obama. And yet, if he's the nominee, that's what I'll be doing.  Not voting for one of the most talented politicians of his generation, someone I was genuinely excited about at the outset of this race, but simply voting against McCain.

    At the same time, (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    Obama has just parroted and thus legitimized the same things his supporters say. Calling for an end to "divisive" politics is pretty obviously a cue for the viewer/listener to conjure up images of Hillary as divisive, cold, bitter, etc that the Right has been trying to market for years -- but no one can sell it like a Democrat. There are many other ways to "run a campaign and win"; talking about issues instead of thinly-veiled personality politics is a good place to start, but Obama has talked about issues exclusively to prove his knowledge and positions are the same as Hillary's.

    I don't know if Obama is entirely blameless (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    Maybe I've just become so sensitized to sexism in this campaign, but his "claws" and "periodically down" comments struck me as particularly offensive. Even more so because they were not overt.

    Simultaneously, it legitimized the behavior of the media and some of his supporters. He had the chance, in my eyes, to redeem himself. A public denunciation. Last night, during the debates, when he listed the things that divide this country. He counted racism among those issues--but sexism never appeared.

    Worse than any snub. I felt so entirely dejected.


    The Campaign Started Off (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    With Obama saying "Why should I comment about what someone else says about my opponent," in reference to Geffen calling the Clintons liars.  And he was smiling when he said it.  Grinning ear to ear.

    On the other hand, Clinton supporters did say some things that were inappropriate, and Clinton did step forward most of the time and commented about it, saying it was wrong.

    I disagree with your comment about Obama deeply.

    Obama was smiling when he said "Why should I comment on what other people say about the Clintons."

    You can say he never overtly contributed to it, and hide behind "He's just trying to win an election, but he is not someone I can respect on this issue.


    Misogyny is still the most approved prejudice, (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by clio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    but, like many other prejudices, is not always obvious, especially in people who consider themselves  unprejudiced.

    Senator Clinton has been the object of attack since she headed the Clinton Health Care Task Force because it was clear that she wielded independent political power.  (Eleanor Roosevelt was attacked in her time for the same reason, but even she remained FDR's wife.)

    Now Senator Clinton is bidding to become the most powerful woman the world has ever seen.  Prime Ministers Thatcher and Ghandi headed parliamentary systems.  Prime ministers are not as powerful as US presidents due to the system set up.   There is no modern parallel to Senator Clinton that I can think of, and historically Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great are close, but even they had the idea of divine right as a support.

    A woman remaining in an expected position, even a position of some authority, is no threat and requires no attack, but Senator Clinton is not doing so.  Further, no one seems to be able to control her unfeminine behavior and ambitions.  Just the thing to trigger the unexamined fears and prejudices in many men who consider themselves supportive of women. These men have found that they are supportive of women in positions of authority only up to a point.  This point is individual and far different than the traditional, conservative expectation for women, but it definitely exists.  

    Senator Clinton has passed all those points, and remains so potent a threat that the urgency to discredit her, to insist that she cannot win, that she is leaving the race has become overwhelming.  It may even be true, but none of the cable commentators and many of the A-list "liberal" blogs are not, as noted many times here, trustworthy judges.

    THIS is indeed, dispiriting, although it should not be surprising to women who have stepped out of the pink-collar ghetto. Furthermore, it is dangerous to Democratic hopes in the general election.  A major demographic supporting Senator Obama in the primaries/caucuses is white men.  

    White men!  White men voting for a black man does not, IMHO, indicate the end of racism, but the overwhelming power of misogyny.  

    In November 2008 there will be a white man for this demographic to support.  A white war hero, no less.  How many of those who have supported Senator Obama against a woman will vote for him, a black man, then?

    This may not be a comfortable question, but it is a realistic one.


    Spot on (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    All those Obama supporters preparing to blame
    women if he loses the GE would do well to heed
    this post.

    Obama is not blameless in this (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:24:51 PM EST
    -- that's exactly the point.  He could have stood up and said even one percent of what you have, BTD.  It would have only helped him get more women's votes.

    He did not, and he may get my vote as the "not McCain," but Obama better not count on my support beyond November.  He will have to earn it, every hour of every day -- for every hour of every day that he did not stand up and speak up now.


    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:23 PM EST
    Hillary wasn't my first choice, but my first choice didn't run.  She wasn't my second choice, who dropped out.  My third and fourth choices dropped out before the second one did.

    I ended up supporting Hillary because I found myself defending her against unfair attacks by Obama supporters.  What was most disturbing about those attacks is that they were the same ones that the right-wing has been making against her for 16 years.

    Although I have issues with both Obama and Hillary, my biggest problem is with his supporters.  It's like listening to Bush supporters from 8 years ago.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by spit on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    I've said a few times that I could go for a little more "hope" and a little less "audacity".

    Many of the crassest things I've seen in politics in a while have been in pursuit of, uh, a new kind of politics.

    But if you call that what it is (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    You're just "bitter."

    I've also never seen anything like this (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    in the nearly 30 years since I've been voting. There were hard feelings with Bobby Kennedy and LBJ (LBJ dropped out as we all know), Teddy Kennedy/Carter and others, but this is the worst I've ever seen within the Democratic party.  Somehow she became a symbol for some sort of visceral hatred that's not based in reality.

    I also stopped visiting the "A List" blogs - very disappointed in them, and not because of I have any particular affinity to Hillary.  She just doesn't deserve that kind of treatment or disrespect.

    This commenter hatred.... (none / 0) (#123)
    by timber on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    Actually main bloggers have been fair and calm---but the diarists and commenters are really harsh and have same talking points.

    Are they doing this on their own or is there like a drive to flood the blogs and spew Hillary-hate.

    She does not deserve it.  In fact I agree with Kos when he said---that the more people see of Hillary the better they like her.  And they will wonder why they hate her.  Hillary should be more visible and have more interviews because she is very likeable.

    But I have a feeling,  Hillary will be as nice to McCain as she has been nice in this race---and if you are too nice sometimes--they will eat you.


    i have come to dislike (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    people i once respected. i have been embarrassed for people i once considered friends.

    Here is why I support her (5.00 / 17) (#42)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    Because in 2001, about 10 weeks after W was inaugurated, my husband broke his neck.  His injury changed our lives, of course, in 10 thousand ways.  We had the good luck to be insured, but I have bad news for those of you who think that even good insurance will protect you from this kind of catastrophe.  The out of pocket costs in the first year alone were up in the $80,000 range.

    Fast forward a few years . . . Christopher Reeve's death created a hole where there had been an advocate.  A few people from an online community got together to hold a rally in the upper senate park.  Hillary--not running for anything, not looking for anything--showed up.  She showed up again the following year, and the year after that, offering her support to a bunch of gimps in wheelchairs and their loved ones.

    She talked with us.  No press could be bothered with a pitiful little rally like ours; very few politicians had time for us, even though travel for quadriplegics is at best complicated and at worst dangerous.  Hillary Cllinton earned my everlasting respect for caring enough to look people in chairs in the face and tell them she would fight for them.

    If she stays in the Senate, I have no doubt whatsoever that she'll continue to do just that.  It's been a couple of months now since I could stand to visit websites that used to be like home to me.  I think the left blogosphere has poisoned itself, and that's been painful to witness when so much was possible.

    What an impressive comment. I can't (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:23:37 PM EST
    understand why people don't see her genuine concern for those in need.

    Best wishes with your husband. I have a friend who is in similar circumstances just this past year and it is horrible to go through.


    You Have... (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST
    Touched my heart with your story.  I have a blog, too (an old high school chum insisted I start one - I guess she thought it would be easier than getting a ton of emails from me on the subject of Clinton and the election), and I would very much like to put it in there, with your permission, of course.  

    I am fairly new to the whole blogging thing, and am not sure of proper protocol, like listing the link to it.  So, if anyone could help me out on that, and would like to read some pro-Hillary pieces, I'll provide the link.

    And while I am here - first, let me THANK everyone for writing what you have in terms of the incredibly blatant sexist, and MISOGYNISTIC, attacks on Clinton.  Frankly, it has been staggering.  I just cannot believe the level of vitriol being spewed from people I used to respect.  I was a faithful listener of Stephanie Miller until her show became one long commercial for Obama, and her attacks on Clinton were sexist in their very nature (one mild example, like her voice, for instance - that is just code.  Of COURSE she doesn't have a voice like a man's - she's a WOMAN, and her voice is higher!).  I was a FAITHFUL viewer of Keith Olbermann, and thought he was the Edward R Murrow of our day.  Now I see that he is just like the Fox Noise people he mocks, only on the left side of things.  

    And I DO blame Obama for a lot of this rhetoric.  Just last night, he's smiling at her, and shaking her hand while she's talking abt how in the end, they'll be fine, then he ATTACKS her this morning, claiming SHE'S plagarizing Edwards!  Like NO ONE has ever said "Whatev rhappens, we'll be fine" besides Edwards! He sends out these mailers filled with false info on her, he attacks her in EVERY SINGLE SPEECH he gives, brings up how he's a "Uniter" and she's "Divisive," and people think he's a freakin' saint!  He has made sexist comments - only a few feminists have mentioned it, for te most part, but not the MSM, no way, no how.  They are too busy keeping people in their ranks who call her a pimp and her daughter a whore.  Or allowing a Republican operative who started an anti-Clitnon 527 to come on MSNBC twice in the past couple of weeks to promote his group, the acronym of which begins with a C, and is 4 letters long.  You do the math.  I just had a feeling that was coming, and sure enough, there it was.  My heart just breaks at all of this hatred toward women, and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY not stepping up and saying it is unacceptable, even if Obama won't.  And if Clinton says anything about the rampant sexism, she's just ripped for being "too sensitve," another sexist remark.  

    All of that is to say, I do not know that I can vote for this arrogant, pompous, sexist man who stumped FOR Joe Lieberman AGAINST the Anti-War Dem. in CT, and has the audacity to patronize Clinton on HER judgment, who has nothing but rhetoric unless he steals Clinton's work (some he has repeated word for word), and reminds me way, way, WAY too much of Bush.  

    Finally, I don't know how I lucked up to find this most awesome of sites, but I am thankful for it, for you, for your righteous indignation at the very real injustices being perpetrated by the very people we thought were different.  So, thank you.  Thank you for getting it, and for providing a safe space to express our profound sadness, as women, as men who support women, as citizens of a country we had hoped was better than this...


    Hey, go for it. (5.00 / 2) (#273)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    And thank you.  One of the people at the spring 2004  rally --a staunch Bush-supporter and devoted evangelical whom I often argue with online-- told me that he noticed she made it a point to go up and shake the hand of every person in a chair.

    He had to admit that he saw nothing phony or cold or ambitious or whatever the hell they keep saying about her.  She was simply trying to give people the message that not everybody in Washington was indifferent, and that if funding research was possible, she would do it.

    This administration has cost my family.  I have spent the last 7 years working and waiting for someone better . . . it's not about "drama", as somebody said upthread.  Drama is when you don't have any genuine problems so you invent some to make yourself feel important.  I will of course vote for Barack Obama, because the alternative is just unthinkable.

    But I'm stunned to see evidence every day that some people whom I have been trusting as credible, out of the mainstream citizen journalists are in fact just as capable of twisting facts, inventing outrage, and sneering as the swarm at freerepublic.  We don't have a real alternative to the MSM here, people (this and a very few other sites excepted) -- we have a wannabe MSM with no conscience.


    The Little Tent (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    There were a couple of beautiful comments over at Correntewire about how many in the party, not just Clinton supporters, feel alienated by a "movement" that doesn't seem to have a place for them -

    See, Adriadne's Pitching a Little Tent
    and her follow up, "There Will Always Be Room for One More in the Little Tent".

    I don't think the party or many of the netroots yet appreciate the fissures they've brought to light in the democratic party and that these divisions cannot all be laid at Hillary Clinton's feet.

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by spit on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    Digby has been terrific. I was never a particularly regular reader of hers until recently, though I always respected her opinion.

    Some of what she's had to take in this cycle has been amazing, too.

    I think maybe it's time (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:29:30 PM EST
    to finally put her in my reader.

    Reading my mind (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by carolyn13 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    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.

    As usual, you've expressed exactly my thoughts and feelings. The blogosphere seems a little hollow to me now.

    About blogs (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    What's happened here is an opportunity for someone else to pop up and get huge!

    Maybe TalkLeft will just grow and grow and grow unless it's as big as you want it to be.

    And riverdaughter/confluence... (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    Not getting over things. (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    I have been most offended by Michelle.  I really think she has intentionally made false charges of racism against Bill and Hillary.  I thought her comment about not working for Hillary if Hillary is the nominee was very petty.  And I wonder why she would say she was never proud of her country until now. That last bit bothered me so much I even thought about supporting McCain for a day or so if Obama is the nominee.

    But I have also been shocked at people who blame Hillary for the Iraq War and call her a murderer.  I am shocked at people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz who have led the way on these sickening charges.  

    I think the Left Side of the blogosphere and its biggest allies have become what they despise.  We all fought against the Right Wing Noise Machine when it was impugning the patriotism of those who opposed the war. But this demonization of someone who voted for the AUMF, without allowing even the hint of a suggestion that they might have had legitimate motives in voting for it, is every bit as bad as impuning the patriotism of those who opposed the war.  I hope many of my friends eventually look back in shame for what they have done and said.

    The irony (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    is that Obama welcomed Kerry with open arms....Kerry, who also voted for the war, and I believe Kennedy did too!

    I wouldn't call them, as you do, "the left side of the blogosphere" -- I'd call them the OTHER SIDE of the blogosphere.  Whatever I call them, they had absolutely no issue with the Kerry/Kennedy endorsements.  Instead, they swooned.

    However, Hillary will never be forgiven for her war vote....

    And as a side issue, people (myself included) were outraged about Bill O'Reilly's 'verbal lynching' comment...

    Then I realized, Hillary is verbally Lynched every day in the "progressive" blogosphere, "liberal" talk radio, and the media and we're the only ones who seem to mind...It's sick....

    When I stop being SOOOO angry, I'm sure I'll have outrage fatigue.


    Kennedy voted against it (none / 0) (#137)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:24:39 PM EST
    But Daschle and Kerry voted for it (none / 0) (#207)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    ...not to mention John Edwards who went even further and helped draft it.

    What's even more ironic... (none / 0) (#160)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    I bought this to the attention of someone at HuffPo, a quote I came across here.

    MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton's campaign will say since you've been a senator there's been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you've not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of '04, Barack Obama, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of '04. And this: "I think" there's "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war." It doesn't seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

    SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

    The user's response was simply this:
    "Better to have opposed the Iraq war in no uncertain terms in 2002 and "seem" (love that word) "wishy washy" to some, than to have voted with George Bush to send 600,000 people to their death."

    I don't understand.


    They have (none / 0) (#208)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:13:26 PM EST
    lost all objectivity.  Looks cultish to me.

    I tend to miss the sexism (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by white n az on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:35:25 PM EST
    because I am a male and I often don't see it until someone points it out.

    What I do see is the acceptance of the right wing branding - all of the things but especially the notion that she is polarizing and hearing this finally coming not from Republicans but from Democrats (and of course the media). This cannot be permitted to occur, regardless of the candidate...we cannot allow the right wing to define our candidates.

    Then you caught the subtle sexism (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    and the rest will follow.  You caught more of it than many men I know who had to have the most vile stuff emailed to them repeatedly before they even now are beginning, grudgingly, to admit that maybe this isn't good for their daughters.  (The "daddy factor" historically has been significant in women's progress -- property rights, suffrage, etc. -- or as a woman put it in my state almost a century ago, "the last thing a man becomes progressive about is his wife."  The first thing, though, is his daughter.)

    Once the radar is put on alert, it doesn't go off again.  Wait and see -- but sorry, because it is going to be painful with little relief in sight.


    The A-List Blogs are about money and self (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by tineg on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:38:17 PM EST
    and nothing more. A decrease in page visits leads to a decrease in ad revenue, and there's NOTHING that'll drive people away from those blogs these days more than scrutiny and criticism, objective or not, of Obama. To the point that nothing less than vilifying Clinton will do. John Aravosis implied a few weeks ago that he was having trouble making it on $75,000. As a full-time Blogger. Does anyone really believe that he or Kos or Josh, then, would dare take a chance and be even-handed in this primary? It's why I've deleted them all from my bookmarks and can never trust them or re-visit their sites again. What a depressing eye-opener this has all been.

    Trailblazers (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    I am glad she is running for President, and because I'm one of those hopeful people, I think she'll still be running, present tense, after Texas and Ohio. Before she ran, I told my friends that if the most politically powerful woman in America couldn't run for President, that would be a damning statement about our country.  Well, she ran, and it was damning anyway.

    It has to have been a painful experience for her. It has certainly been painful to watch the reaction of many in my Democratic party.

    Someone had to blaze this trail and to expose these problems in our society. (Not to denigrate other women who have run in the past, but she is the first truly serious female candidate we've had.) When hidden, these things don't get any better. There's been nothing hidden about the sexism and misogeny heaped on Sen. Clinton, and by extension, on every woman.

    To borrow a phrase, I feel her pain. But I think we will ultimately all be better off for her having been willing to go through it. At least that's what the hopeful side of me thinks.

    Maybe I am still in denial (none / 0) (#113)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:10:43 PM EST
    But part of me is sure this is not over yet, and that we are all a little premature in counting Sen Clinton out. What has been said here is very true, I also have been shocked to see how much sexism is alive and well. And I have friends who I thought I respected (all male) who say and buy into the stupid mysoginistic Hillary bashing.

    Best cure I can think of is if she pulls it off.


    Today I askd a friend (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:42:58 PM EST
    who won the debate last night.  He said Obama and that it wasn't what he said, but that he said it so smooth.  Then I asked who he was going to vote for and he said John McCain.  You just gotta love it.

    AA here (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by sonya on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    I'm a black woman, and I don't consider anything said or done by Bill or Hillary Clinton during this campaign to be racist.  

    The only people exploiting the racial divide have been Obama and his surrogates.  If you don't believe me, then you haven't been listening to black radio.  

    definitely (none / 0) (#213)
    by jstrick on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    I'm down here in Atlanta and I have to listen to this stuff every day. It seems like our radio stations are simply Obama outlets making stuff up about what the Clintons say and what they have done. All of a sudden the Clintons are racists, have never done anything for black folks.

    Sonya....could you talk a little (none / 0) (#217)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    about this?

    What do you really make of it all?

    This may be an off-the-wall question but something I have wondered is this:  would you say that black women see themselves as black first and women second?  I really didn't use to think so and thought there was strong evidence against the racial ID for black women at the Howard U debate when the women in the audience gave Hillary a standing ovation.  But now...I dunno.

    As a white woman, I would say we see ourselves as women first...identify with women (and mothers) of all races before we identify ourselves as caucasian.

    What do you think?


    Well (none / 0) (#263)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    as a white man, I surely think of myself as a man first.

    Come on folks! (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM EST
    We all know anything can happen in 11 days.  She's still fighting, what makes you think this is over?  

    It may very well be, but for a sense of perspective, Super Tuesday was a little over 2 weeks ago and doesn't it feel like its been a lifetime?

    I'm with you (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    I'm losing hope in America to make the right choice but that has only given me more resolve. I've been writing emails and sending donations more furiously than any other time during this campaign.

    I encourage EVERY Hillary supporter to do the same--to do everything they can.

    If she is to lose, I hope that before it happens all her supporters stand up and make visible just how MUCH we support her. That, in the face of all this hatred, we're there to face it.

    Just as she has faced it.


    Hillary was my last choice (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    I was an Edwards supporter who was also excited about Obama, and expected to vote for him if Edwards didn't make it. I was already offended by both Edwards and Obama's willingness to play along with the media's sexism, but it was the Obama campaign's use of race, after their loss in NH, that shook me to the core. I could never see his campaign rhetoric -- about "unity" and a new kind of politics -- as anything but cynical after that.

    The argument the Obama camp was making -- that the Clintons would race bait to gain working class white voters in South Carolina and elsewhere (implying that the Clintons and Clinton voters were racist) -- not only didn't make sense in terms of political strategy on their part, but also assumed something very ugly; that working class white Democrats were naturally racists. THAT assumption was divisive, cynical and revealed ugly class prejudice, and/or a willingness to exploit such prejudice, on the part Obama and his operatives.

    I have thought about what you have said (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:15:37 PM EST
    Last night when I went to bed I could not sleep and over and over in my mind was that something is not clinking in for me. I felt like when I opposed the Irag war when it was getting pushed down our throats. Too little information and the big rush. No one is stepping back but following the mob rules. At any rate, Hillary is a role model to many daughters and children that woman can run for President. I am quite sure that if Blogger Dads put their child, wife, or sister in the race, they would surely think  twice about the cruel things they say now. And that includes the media too. And I am quite sure they would react differently when others insulted their family members also.

    DFHs again.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    It reminds me of the run-up to Iraq too.

    Of course, this time we have the blogosphere. Oh, wait....


    Texas & Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    I think she's going to better than people think.  If there were only 100 delegates between me and my opponent I would not get out. It would be a sign of weakness.   Plus if you did you would anger you supporters who have worked so hard. Let's say they are still about split with very little difference after Texas and Ohio you keep going all the way.

    The left has proved that it is a mirror image (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    of the right.  No substantive difference.  Unfortunately, the Democrats have largely proved they are no different than Republicans.  Same song with a little different chorus.  Different special interest groups but still special interest groups in the driver's seat.

    To anyone who is angry about the current state of affairs.  If you really want something to change, then you have to hit them where it hurts.  In the case of a political party, that's with money and votes.

    The only way you will make a point and really be heard is to not contribute a single dime to the party or any candidate you don't personally support for reasons other than partisanship.  Same for your vote, do not ever vote party, never.

    The loyalty of women has been misplaced and the democratic party doesn't deserve it anymore.  Make them earn it for a change.  Then you will get some respect.

    I was surprised by the rapidity... (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    ... of the deterioration. Perhaps, as usual, I wasn't cynical enough, though I do try.

    The Village is incredibly adept at reproducing itself, isn't it?


    Personlly, I left the party in 2000 (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    when the democrats in congress wouldn't stand up for Gore.  Showed me they had no spine.  After that I really didn't think I could get more cynical but I was very wrong about that.

    This has been a completely disgusting primary race in too many ways to count.  With few exception, and thank God for TalkLeft, Left Blogistan has become a wasteland.

    Sen Clinton is still running and, as long as that's true, I'm behind her.  If she loses, then I will do a write-in vote for her in November.  I have daughters and granddaughters so this has gotten much bigger than this one election for me.


    I'm moving your direction (none / 0) (#285)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:48:13 PM EST

    I have no daughters or grandchildren, so I'm willing now to turn this political world and all it produces over to the 'tranformationals.'  Whatever the Hell that means.

    I'll be working for women and children from now on.

    The guys are at one another's mercy and will soon be at one another's throats.  Again.  Good luck.

    I won't be there to mediate or threaten to call their moms.

    I'll be in the bar with their moms, their wives and daughters, telling stories and imagining the return of Lysistrata.

    Maybe Hillary's women should just go on strike when all is said an done...unless she wins, of course.


    Amen. (none / 0) (#242)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    If you were still in DK (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by timber on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    You could have controlled the Hillary hate comments.  Sometimes they need a big brother to stop the nonsense.

    I remember you did that to clamp  those conspiracy theories on 911, or election voting.

    No (none / 0) (#234)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    Kos himself could have said something about it.

    He did -- he encouraged it by calling (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton horrid terms on the front page.

    That's what Kos did about it.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    Two very strong candidates receive tremendous support and brought record levels of Democrats to the polls, and all you people can talk about is sexism?

    Look, sexism exists in this country.  It's a shame but it does.  I think that the really pernicious sexism exists on the personal level, rather than the political level.  

    But Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of sexism, assuming she does in fact lose.  If anything sexists STRENGHTHENED her candidacy.

    They had a bio on Hillary on CNN a few days ago.  And they showed the Hillary of 1992.  She was a much different person back then.  Confrontational, dismissive and even disdainful of traditional female roles.  This was the Hillary that built that hatred.  Unfortunately too many people latch onto an image of her from 1992 rather see the 2008 Hillary, who is a remarkably different person.

    It's time to let the hatred go.  

    When CNN defines the "you" of 1992 (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    and people in your party swallow that definition whole, you're screwed.

    Interesting that we're asked to realize that sexism exists, and is shameful, and then told it's time to let the hatred go.

    I don't hate anybody.  I'm profoundly disappointed in a great many people.  I had come to expect hatred aimed at Hillary Clinton from the right; I didn't expect for one second that it would turn my favorite blogs into swamps.

    How about, it's time to realize that something pretty ugly has shown itself -- yes, even with the record turnout.  Record turnout doesn't cancel anything, and we shouldn't pretend everything is okay.  


    And a lot of that turnout is Clinton's -- (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    look at 55, 60, and even higher percentages of the turnout that is comprised of women.  But the media -- including most blogs -- claim they are all out for BO.  That's B.S.

    Tell (none / 0) (#151)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    Chris Matthews and the commenters on the Great Orange that...and wait, I'm looking for my list...

    Insane hatred against 1992 Hillary (none / 0) (#175)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    is as bad as insane hatred against 2008 Hillary.  And I believe some people who hate her once she's out of the race (if she goes out) will be ready to praise her, who knows, maybe even the media will shift.  Praising someone who isn't a threat is an easy thing to do.

    The antipathy of the blogosphere towards Hillary Clinton stems from one thing in my view: her vote for the Iraq War. It is a legitimate policy difference--and record difference--between the two candidates. And in the minds of many within the Democratic Party, our candidate must not be a candidate who supported the war.

    See below for why I think that no one can legitimately claim that sexism is worse than racism in this country. Are there problems in both areas? Yes. Still here are some numbers for you: 35 women have served in the Senate; 30 women have served as a Governor; 5--and this counts reconstruction--African Americans have served in the Senate; 3--and this counts reconstruction--African Americans have served as Governor.


    Jeralyn, sorry (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    off topic, but this annoys me.

    Less than 15% of US population is black.
    Over half our population is female.

    If you are going to talk about statistics, you would serve well to keep the pool from which you are gathering "data" in mind.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#195)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    Arguments based on the number of African Americans or women who have served in Congress are at best incomplete.  There should be more from both categories.  Racism and sexism are much better measured by other data.  To use Congress as your measuring stick proves basically nothing.

    For that argument to be valid (none / 0) (#214)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:20:08 PM EST
    Then the number of African Americans to serve in the Senate should be a little less than 1/3 of the number of women (15% of 49%).

    Discounting reconstruction when black Senators were elected by military legislatures in Grant's administration, the percentage of number of blacks who have served in the US Senate is  1/12 the number of women who have served in the Senate.

    There's no way you can get around the issue: women had the unstopped right to vote in 1919--45 years before blacks were truly enfranchised in this country. A woman was elected to the Senate in 1932--34 years before a black was elected to the Senate. (Again previous elections of US Senators who were African Americans--and there were only two--happened in the reconstructing south and were not directly elected to the Senate).  


    To me that still doesn't prove that sexism is (none / 0) (#223)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    less virulent, or vice versa.  But I'm not Gloria Steinem.

    Are you noticing that (none / 0) (#264)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    some of those women were and are African American?

    If that were the reason (5.00 / 3) (#284)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    We would have seen places like DK explode with venom against John Kerry in 2004.  As I recall, it was possible to post a diary about him that year without having the hordes descend upon you.

    The rules are different for her.  Why is that?  Why would it have been out of the question to play right-wing-lunatic-mob against Kerry supporters?

    The AUMF vote all by itself doesn't make sense.


    This thread does read (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    like a post-mortem. It's not over. She hasn't dropped out. (I actually went and checked to see whether there was some announcement during the few hours this afternoon I was away from the computer -- that's how much of a eulogy it reads like.)

    Suggestion for Hillary supporters: Go give her $5.00  so she can have ad money to compete in TX and OH.

    Anything can happen between now and March 4 and it's not over before TX and OH vote.

    Win or lose (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    the reality of this campaign has been very depressing.

    Yes! Thanks, Jeralyn; Clinton still can win (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    But what I think this thread is saying, that you're seeing, is a post mortem for the Dem party -- the party that thought it could just count on women . . . and now, as my mother would say, may have another "think" coming.

    Calling in my next Clinton donation now -- thanks to your reminder.


    Agreed, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#147)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    But I think a large part of the mourning is for... A lot of hard work that a lot of us did, most of it for free, the fruits of which have now been seized and redirected.

    So true (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    I'll probably do a long post on that topic when the primary season is over if it ends the way it currently seems pointed.

    And my friend with the bleeding feet... (none / 0) (#190)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    ... will just have to keep on bleeding because it's looking like universal health care is going to be off the table if Obama's the candidate. Well done, progressive blogosphere! Well done, Boys On The Blogs! When I look at how we're snatching progressive defeat from the jaws of victory, I could spit.

    Seeing is believing (none / 0) (#167)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    I am an ardent Hillary supporter and I can tell you, with sadness and dismay, that in Texas she is losing going to lose and lose badly.  I live in South Texas and I never in a million years would have thought Obama could bring out thousands to his rallies.  After all Hillary is not a stranger to this area and she has always been widely admired but he is packing them in.  Like AA's, Hispanics are too quick to turn their backs on the Clintons.  It is unbelievable to me that they can disregard the Clintons'historical commitment to both communities for a silver-tongued stranger.  

    he had large crowds in CA, too (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    and that didn't turn out so well for him.  Lots of folks go to see what all the fuss is about.  Not all of them end up voting-or voting for Obama.

    It ain't over yet, folks.  Keep fighting.  Keep donating.  Keep calling.  Keep emailing.  Keep posting.

    Clinton is only 2% behind in delegate counts. She is poised to take back the popular vote.  Don't let them bushwhack us.


    Well said! (none / 0) (#191)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:03:13 PM EST
    It's the injustice that gets to me.

    And there's been so much injustice that it feels like injustice will always win.


    I'm a man ... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:29:46 PM EST
    but I was hugely offended by the sexism in the blogosphere.  But then it shouldn't be that surprising that a bunch of men who have time to sit at their computers all day would act this way.

    KO just opened with the three person Dem race: (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    Obama, the conciliatory Hillary, and the not conciliatory Hillary.

    Now, Hillary has said she will support the Dem nominee, she has indicated she will do nothing to damage the Democrats' chances for victories in November.  But to Keith Obermann, apparently, this is indicative of a split personality disorder--or something.


    But this is part of the left and simply non-right media piling on Hillary Clinton. I can't believe this.  Am I being overly sensitive?

    I think this fits in with the topic....

    Am I being overly sensitive? (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:11:59 PM EST

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.


    I do not support her. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by RollaMO on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    I'm not a newcomer to this site, but have not posted before.  I know what you have said in the past, but any reasonable interpretation of your writing clearly indicates that you do in fact support Sen. Clinton, and that's fine.  But please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by pretending otherwise.  It could look like you are saying this only to lend credence to your defense of her.

    Ah, the casual poetry of the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    I can't tell you how many times I've heard the idea put forward that nobody who's intellectually honest (often, honest at all) can support Hillary.

    Here, you accuse BTD of covertly supporting Clinton while overly supporting Obama.

    Me, I take BTD at his word. Just because he has criticisms of Obama doesn't mean be can't support him.

    Feel free, moderators, to delete this. But I have seen and experienced this line of argument so many times.


    Just curious (none / 0) (#256)
    by RollaMO on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:14:18 PM EST
    Why do think the moderators would delete your commnents?  They seem fine to me, I don't agree with them, but nothing out of line.

    Another Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by s5 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    who is grossed out by unfair and sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton. (Though unlike you, my support for Obama isn't tepid.) There's plenty to criticize about her, but the fact that she's a woman or "shrill" or has "bad hair" or may have cried once are all besides the point.

    I have a huge suspicion (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    that this primary will have very very long lasting effects in the democratic party...Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....Never forget it.....there are too many upset women for this to just go away quietly...

    Don't just get mad, get even. (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    There's a lot to be said for plain old fashioned vengeance.

    Bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    Hurt the party on this one.


    Mr. Digby (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    Indeed you are not. To me, the idea that some upstart green junior senator from my own state has the effrontery to trash not only a great Democratic First Lady, but the last great Democratic president in order to further his candidacy tells me everything I need to know about Barack Obama (the little that needed to be filled apart from the deplorable responses I got from this man as one of his Illinois constituents).

    I realized a couple weeks ago, what I really dislike about Obama is that he knew the only way he could get the nomination was to destroy Hillary and the only way to do that was to destroy the Clinton legacy and he has been perfectly willing to do that for his own gain. So, how is he different from George W. Bush and the neocons?

    When Obama Leaves Office (none / 0) (#237)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    With a sub 40 job approval rating, the Clinton legacy will still be alive.

    Sadness (5.00 / 4) (#243)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    There is a sorrow we feel.  We came here basically after being attacked by the voices that we thought shared our values.  We were shocked by an unquestioning brutality that had no room for opposing opinions.  It was sad to have that brutality be masked in so called progressive politics.  At times things got so twisted that up was down and down was up.  People we admired like Krugman for their critical thinking and political analysis were demonized.

     I am sorry to say I do not trust this mob.  This mob is no better than any other mob.  Now they have "power" but they are not to be trusted, cause they lost some core values.  In order to sanctify one, they demonized another.  I fought all my life against that kind of thinking.  And the more I looked at the sanctified one, the less I found to admire or respect.  Hillary will not give up, neither should we.  

    I feel as if we're being played (5.00 / 2) (#255)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    There is a primary race on and nobody has won yet.  Since that's the case, why all the premature pushing on the part of the Obama campaign, and their surrogates in the media and blogs, to get Clinton to drop out of the race.

    Could she be doing better than we might suspect for the March 4 contests and those beyond.  I think we should all be pushing for this to go all the way to the convention.  It should be fought out there like the rules dictate.  The Democratic party will get over it.

    Too much (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by Sunshine on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:20:53 PM EST
    At the end of all this, I would not be supprised if women didn't unite and just not vote.  The failure of anybody to stand up for women's rights has been unforgiveable... I have just about quit watching any news channels because I am sick of watching the talking heads tee-heeing about my candidate losing when it has been them that have beenb bashing her for ever move and not allowing anything negative to be said about Obama...  When did "roll the dice" become a racist statement, and Obama can say that "the claws come out" and that is ignored, is that fair... I just hope this is all being kept track of and we can get some kind of justice after all of this is over.. There is no doubt that Obama has not been hurt by racism but he would have been if there had not been sexism to take it's place in this contest...

    Lysistrata... (none / 0) (#259)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:21:59 PM EST
    but with the vote.  

    Justice for all (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by Sunshine on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    At the end of all this, I would not be supprised if women didn't unite and just not vote.  The failure of anybody to stand up for women's rights has been unforgiveable... I have just about quit watching any news channels because I am sick of watching the talking heads tee-heeing about my candidate losing when it has been them that has been bashing her for her ever move and not allowing anything negative to be said about Obama...  When did "roll the dice" become a racist statement, and Obama can say that "the claws came out" and that is ignored... I just hope this is all being kept track of and we can get some kind of justice after all of this is over.. There is no doubt that Obama has not been hurt by racism but he would have been if there had not been sexism to take it's place in this contest...

    Are sou saying that (none / 0) (#270)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    you wish Obama had been hurt by racism?

    I think you doth protest too much (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    in making the claim that you do not support Hillary.  Maybe it depends on what you mean by support, given the history of your posts in recent weeks.

    I agree with what Digby said.  At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that Hillary has been the source of some of her own problems by listening to horrendous advice and by having a pitiful organization on the ground.  I truly loathe some of the DLC people who surround her campaign.

    She was gracious and articulate last night.

    Primary season is unpleasant until we can all get behind a candidate.  My personal favorite, John Edwards, was also treated shamefully -- as if he didn't exist.  

    Obama seems to have the ability to transcend that.  I'm glad someone on our side is able to do it.

    Mob is a strong word (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:30:59 PM EST
    to be calling progressive bloggers but unfortunately, I think it fits.

    I, too, am a female child of Democratic politics.  My father was a union organizer and would take me to the rallies and sometimes, meetings. I've worked on dozens of campaigns and donated tons of money. I was a delegate for the state convention in 1992 and was an activist before Obama even thought about it.

    That stated, I too, am so disillusioned and disturbed by the treatment of Hillary Clinton by some of the most progressive blogs and MSM. I am not new to politics.  I understand the fight and the winning. But this time, I have been so angry that I have had to just step away, send Hillary more money. I feel like I have been 'marked' just like her at times. It is a sad place to be.

    I honestly do not know what I am going to do with the anger I have. I am trying not to be rash and ugly but it is difficult.

    Thanks to Digby and thanks for this thread.

    Time and time again (none / 0) (#283)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    my favorite candidate in Dem primaries gets zapped.  It happened this time to Edwards (whose rhetoric was far more progressive than either HRC or BO); it happened before to Bill Bradley; and I had no enthusiasm at all for Mike Dukakis or John Kerry.  (I admit to liking McGovern quite a bit).  Many times I thought it was grossly unfair.  The media treatment of Edwards this year was incredible, far worse than what happened to Hillary.

    Understand that a BIG part of the resentment of the Clinton camp this time was the position they took all last year that Hillary was the presumptive nominee and that everybody else was some sort of usurper.  

    However, people in the party would prefer to have been consulted.  You know, democracy and all that.  It's why we have primaries.  I know Hillary was not personally responsible for (all of) this, it was a strategy.  But she decided to place her trust in Mark Penn and his ilk.  A bad move, and frankly, one of the bases on which we can judge our candidates.

    Anyway, we had a lot of good progressive candidates this year.  Progressive blogs chose sides, as has this one, in spite of hollow claims to the contrary.  Buck up and help us get rid of the GOP plague that has been ruining this country.


    Puzzled (5.00 / 1) (#281)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama is such a talented politician.  A good candidate sure, but as a politician he's hardly been tested.  Just ask Kirk Watson.

    Also not sure why everyone is thinking it's pretty much over for Hillary.  It's darker days for her than most expected, but it's far from over.  Losing March 4th will tip me, but I find that unlikely.  

    Also not sure why people are so surprised with the progressive blogs.  Did you really think a bunch of people that sprang into significance overnight would generally demonstrate strong character?  Animal Farm spoke to human nature, not political ideology.

    None of this means I don't share a lot of the feelings expressed, but I don't find it all that surprising.

    Disappointment (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by carvednstonedem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    A great many of us agree and are terribly disappointed at the double standard that has been applied to the candidates. I fear that many of those subscribing to this treatment will have profound regrets in the future ,as will we all. Circle up that firing squad boys and girls.

    grateful (5.00 / 2) (#288)
    by Foxx on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    It has been wonderful to read so many women (and men) despairing about the treatment of Hillary.

    I was going to vote for Obama because of the Supreme Court, but I am rethinking, that I will write in Hillary.

    This is how the last phase of the women's movement started. Disgust with men on the left. I am so heartened to hear so many women feeling the same.

    I am so angry (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    at the Democratic party I am seeing "red".  I don't think they realize the anger that is out there among some Democrats for their continued incompetence and failure to support both nominees.  Hillary has been villified and I'm ticked off.  (However, this will remind us why we got into the women's movement, and that's a good thing.  Things are marginally better, but that is not enough.)  I will contribute only to Emily's list from now on.

    That being said,  I am now in a position where I detest both probable nominees.  Voting FOR either one appalls me.

     I think I will still go vote,and vote against John McCain.  It won't be easy, but I think my state (PA) will be close.

    If I lived in the South,Kansas, or Utah, etc I would definitely stay home.

    If McCain gets in, all the Bushies will have been vindicated, and they'll be back in places.  That's enough to make me sick.

    Digby (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by Janet on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:38:57 AM EST
    Thank you for having this blog. I cannot read the Huffington Post, Politico or any other left blogs anymore. What I have read over the last six months from the left side of our party has made me sick. The ugliness towards Hillary was so offensive to me. I hope you all noticed that photos of her were always unattractive while Barracks were great. After 40 years of being a Democract I must say that I am now an independent. This week a received a e-mail from the Democratic Party here in New Jersey asking their the Super Delegates to vote for Obama. I thought the Obama camp has ask that each state vote by whom ever won the state. The left today is no different then the right. JUST AS UGLY!!!

    sadness/party loyalty (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by kc on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    I am new posting here, but have been reading for a while. I really enjoy this site and I agree with most of the comments about the Hillary treatment.

    I have been a Democrat (always in red states) for my entire life - all of 59 years.

    My two grown daughters and I have been very upset by this primary, not only with the media but with the party as well. I think that if Obama wins, he will wait awhile, then  'make nice' with we 'aging white females'-attempt alittle charm to win us over. I am beyond that though. My husband is the most evolved, self-actualized man I have ever known. He said, from day one, that Hillary was clearly the most informed and experienced candidate and he openly supported her. That is one reason that my daughters and I love him so much. He is secure enough about himself to be open to others.  However, I will never forgive the Democratic party and our 'supposedly' progressive males for their ignorant trashing of her.

    Nothing changes about the self rigteous hypocrites (4.42 / 7) (#203)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:10:06 PM EST
    who spared nothing to boost their candidate.  I will not get over it either. Because these thugs trashed Clinton unfairly with fifteen years of right wing attacks and narratives...they reinforced false and malicious stories for their own short term gain.  Unfortunately, the true character of these so called "progressive" thugs has been revealed...while at the same time...the good character of Hillary has also been revealed.  If Obama wins the nomination, the gloating of these hypocritical, manipulative, lying,supporters will not soon be forgotten...nor will the cynical and despicable manner in which they advanced their candidate's so called high ideals. True character always shows itself.  And this nomination has been very telling in that particular respect.

    Amen. (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:22:43 PM EST
    Beatifully said.

    And I do not see this as a requiem for Clinton's run, either - I have donated to her 3 times this week and made phone calls for her.  I WANT her to get this nomination more than anything.  BUT - it is important to have a place to give voice to the anger, pain, and sadness over the horrible treatment she has received.  It is deplorable.  So again, thanks for the space to do that.

    I fully intend to write her in if she does not get the nomination.  Obama shouldn't have taken my vote for granted...


    yeah, I often feel that way about her (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    then she does things like trying to get the MI/FL delegates after agreeing they shouldn't count, or floating a strategy to get the superdels to hand her the nomination even if she loses by all the "democratic" criterea, and suddenly the old charges seem to have something to them.

    I agree that last night's comments were a sign of the good Hillary. And hopefully that is the one that will prevail. But if you choose not to ignore the other stuff, and if you listen to comments of some of her supporters who try to find a way to justify everything, then you realize that the picture is kinda muddy.

    One obvious interpretation of last night is to say that maybe she just is banking on the possibility that Obama will lose in Nov. and that she needs to behave in a way that keeps her options open for 2012.

    I don't know what it all adds up to, but the claim that she is the saintly progressive fighter is as much of a biased abstraction as the claim that she is evil incarnate.

    On FL... (5.00 / 0) (#246)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:01:25 PM EST
    I don't know abt MI, beacuse I haven't heard as much, but from what I understand, the people of FL are RIPPED that their votes are not going to be counted.  This blog had some info on this whole issue just the other day that the DNC changed the rules AFTER the fact to take away ALL of the delegates from FL and MI, while not penalizing SC, IA, or NH at all.  A record number of people in FL voted, obviously thinking it would count for SOMETHING, if only half of the delegates (like the RNC does).  And since Obama actually DID have ads running there, he should be the last person in the world to complain abt this - he already violated the pledge regarding FL.  So, why focus just on Clinton??  The people of FL have been pretty clear abt this!  (Julian Bond has strongly urged the DNC to reinstate the delegates, as well.)

    Hillary's political fixer (none / 0) (#254)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:13:27 PM EST
    Harold Ickes, was on the committee that voted to strip the delegates. Hillary, along with the rest of the candidates agreed to the penalties. Hillary, along with the rest of the candidates agreed not to campaign there, agreed the election that was staged would not count. Until she found herself in desparate need of those delegates - then all of a sudden she takes up the utterly phony "dont disenfranchise the voters" argument.

    I am absolutely, positively 1000% certain that if it was Hillary that was ahead in the delegate count, and if Obama had "won" FL and MI, and he tried to claim those delegates and thus steal the nomination from Hillary, the level of vitriol and invective and pure dripping hate that would be turned on him by the commenters of this site would exceed even the levels we see today.


    Superdelegates were created to counter ... (5.00 / 2) (#280)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    ... other "democratic" criteria. See this MSNBC article by Tom Curry:

    Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

    But in early 1970's, the party's rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

    Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

    So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

    "There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party -- particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them," says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.

    There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

    "One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon -- where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party's nomination," Mayer said.

    The point that comments like yours seem to miss is that to achieve results in politics you have to know how to work the system according to the rules of that system. During the Democratic primary, the only rules that count are those by which the Democratic Party actually operates -- not some other idealized set of rules by which you imagine it ought to operate.

    So it is completely wrong to criticize Hillary for wanting to work within the Party's mechanisms to get decisions in her favor. If she's doing that, it's a GOOD thing, not a failing. This primary is a real race, not a beauty contest -- so why expect that the contestants not to do everything possible to win, within the rules of the contest? If she were not able to do that, she would be a less competent and less qualified candidate.

    In the final analysis, I would far rather my interests and hopes be represented by an adept and hard-working politician than an inspirational but inexperienced visionary.  Because once again, it's the final result that matters, and the former is far more likely to actually bring about the changes I believe in.


    The number of women in the United States Senate: 16
    The number of women serving as Governors: 8
    The number of African Americans Senators: 1
    The number of African American Governors: 1

    Total number of women who have served in the United States Senate: 35

    Total number of women who have served as Governors: 30

    Total number of African Americans to serve in Senate (including reconstruction): 5

    Total number of African Americans to serve as Governor of a State (including reconstruction): 3.

    How anyone can claim that sexism is far worse than racism in light of those numbers is beyond me. Is there work to do on both fronts? Absolutely. But the fact that an African American is within striking distance of the presidency is a testament to Barack Obama's incredible political skills. The fact that a woman is within striking distance of the presidency is a testament to Hillary Clinton's political skills.

    However, given the history and the numbers, Barack Obama is far, far more unlikely than Hillary Clinton.

    Exactly 3 African Americans have served as Governors--the traditional path to the Presidency, while 30 women have done the same. In the United States Senate, the most powerful legislative body in the world, 35 women have served. Exactly 5 African Americans have served--and two of those were elected by state legislatures during reconstruction.

    The first woman, Hattie Caraway, to be elected to the Senate by popular vote won an election in 1932. The first African American to be elected to the Senate by popular vote won an election in 1966.

    Hillary Clinton is a remarkable leader. Ultimately, her candidacy and campaign had flawd which will likely prevent its success. But the path to power is far, far more open for women. There will certainly be a woman President within the next 25 years--even if Hillary loses. If Obama loses, its hard to see another African American being in the position he's in within the next 75 years. If he wins, all sorts of doors--which need to be opened--will be opened up.

    please don't hijack this thread (3.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    to a discussion of racism vs. sexism. It's about the blogosphere and its treatment of Hillary.

    Above people specifically said (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    That sexism was worse than racism. If people are going to say that, it's completely legitimate to point out that the facts don't bear that out. Again, are there problems on both fronts? Yes. But the numbers suggest that a female president is far, far, far more likely than a minority President.

    Sexism (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by nycblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:15:05 PM EST
    Sexism has been completely ignored in this campaign. Obama himself has indulged in sexist comments!  Racism and its possibility has been called out and discussed-- even and especially when it does not exist.

    The moment Hillary or any woman brings up the topic of sexism -- we are too sensitive, we should "let it go."  We should not be angry about it.... And that is sexism on top of sexism.


    If that's true then (1.00 / 0) (#222)
    by The Bag of Health and Politics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    Where's the Media Matters campaign against Bill O'Reilly for his lynching--lynching for God's sake--remarks, which just totally blew over. Was Chris Matthews sexist towards Hillary? Yes. But he NEVER used a term that meant anything at all like lynching.

    Media Matters DID (5.00 / 3) (#228)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:40:21 PM EST
    jump on O'Reilly for the lynching remark, and O'Reilly has already apologized on his show for the remark.
    Do your homework.

    No profanity (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:52:07 PM EST

    I deleted the comment with profanity (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    With you 100 percent, Steve (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    And no, it doesn't make me feel old. Just smarter.

    Going after MI & FL (none / 0) (#22)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    for the win will certainly tear the party apart even if she does it with a smile.

    Many of my African-American friends will never forgive either Clinton or their supporters so I guess this has been a damaging campaign season.

    Interesting (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    So who is responsible for tearing the party apart, those who vow to walk out if such-and-such happens, or those who do such-and-such in spite of the threats?

    For every Obama supporter you can show me who is alienated as a result of this supposedly negative primary, I expect I can show you two similarly alienated Clinton supporters.  The main difference is that Clinton supporters tend to be the people without microphones who we can pretend don't exist.  But just because they don't throw tantrums about Obama tearing the party apart doesn't mean they don't feel that way.

    I found out last night that my 95-year old grandfather, who has voted for every Dem since FDR, simply can't stand Obama and his arrogant dismissal of everything that came before.  I don't know how that translates in terms of his vote in November, but it's depressing to watch votes like that slipping away.


    and Steve (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    I really think that that will be the formula along with the dirty GOP games that will hit Obama that will contribute to his loss in November..that is one formula that Kennedy and Kerry havent taken into account as they think we old die hard democrats will vote for them no matter what and I bet to differ....

    Perhaps the worst (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    thing Obama has said in his campaign was his statement that "I have no doubt that all of Hillary's supporters will vote for me; the question is whether she can get all of mine."

    This used to be called "taking the base for granted."  Now, the blogosphere has embraced it as an awesome electability argument.


    Yep. In Betty Friedan's terms (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    that was the "click" moment for many of my women friends.  (For me, more involved in blogs, it came a lot sooner.)

    Wouldn't that be something (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    if the turnout in November is the lowest we've ever had while the primary turnout was the highest?  

    would not surprise me in the least Jeralyn as (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM EST
    I have met countless women that say they will sit home as they are so hurt by all this...

    but-but-but... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    the only reason for the high turnouts has been Obama!

    My African American lady friend (5.00 / 0) (#282)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    says that Obama is arrogant and doesn't acknowledge "whose shoulders he is standing on". I'd have to agree that Michele is in the same boat.

    Sure (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    If you believe that, you go with that.

    I have no stomach for discussing this with commenters like this.


    I\'m not following. (none / 0) (#34)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:11:31 PM EST
    Were you referring to my belief that the party will be torn apart if MI & FL are seated and that gives her the win or that my African-American friends will never forgive Hillary, Bill, and their supporters?

    I am not commenting further on your comment (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    Not now.

    he's trying to hijack the thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    I just deleted another comment of his filled with misstatements and banned him.

    This is off-topic and I've cleaned the thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    of your attempt to hijack it.

    Nothing of the sort was intended. (none / 0) (#145)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM EST
    I just watched Hardball for about 10 minutes (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    and some blowhard radio host was talking over Mark Green, making essentially that argument. Indistinguishable from Rush Limbaugh, frankly.

    Schultz (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
    I thought that Ed Schultz was about to have a heart attack on Hardball - his rage at Hillary staying in the race was over the top.  Mark Green was hardly able to speak during his tantrum.

    Too bad Hillary won't go away quietly - she has every right to remain a candidate.

    In fact, Matthews asked him "Ed, are you afraid that she will win Texas and Ohio?"


    Yup that's the one (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    add him to the list of people I'm never taking seriously again.

    What a jerk!


    I started out liking Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#84)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    a couple of years ago.  But he is such a misogynist, I quit listening to him.  It is toxic.

    Red Flag (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    Rage is always a clue that the irrational is at work - deep hostility to Clinton (and perhaps women as well).

    Could we have some examples from the blogs please? (none / 0) (#49)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST
    Clearly there's a surplus of example of MSM sexism with respect to Hillary. And blog comments, certainly, can get pretty ugly. Is this all you mean? Or do you have specific examples of sexism in front-page posts at prominent netroots blogs? For my part, I haven't noticed any of that, but as a privileged male, I realize I might not notice it, even if it's there.

    Here's an example: (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:36:50 PM EST
    Ummm... (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    Kos says that Clinton supporters rightly think that Whitewater wasn't a big deal.

    I'm not seeing the sexism here.


    If you dont (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    and if you have not, sorry, but you will not see it.  Stop the sophistry.  We have been experiencing it for the last 60 days.  

    I'm not sure how to take the accusation (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    If you can't say what the basis of it is.

    This is the sort of thing that gives struggles against racism and sexism a bad name: perceived slights so subtle that those that perceive them can't explain what's going on, even to (if I may pay myself the compliment) relatively open-minded observers.


    Subtle (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    Telling a woman she is whoring her daughter.  Now go figure why that is sexist, misogynist and rude to a public official.  Now if the blogosphere, MSM, have to discuss the nuance of this, I cannot help you.  As a mother and a woman, there is no discussion or nuance.  This is like using the "n" word, get it?  From there you will have to search for the rest.  I am tired of sophistry.  Artificial socratic dialogue, done to fight truth, because that is what sophistry is, not looking for truth, but arguing under false pretenses.  

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#269)
    by seand on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    The 'pimping' comment was objectionably sexist; everybody in the blogosphere thought so, or at any rate, everybody I read did.

    I didn't deny MSM sexism (indeed, if you look upthread, I granted it)- what I wasn't sure about was sexism on the part of prominent bloggers. I'd like some examples precisely because, as a progressive, I take the charge of sexism so seriously, and so, if they were guilty of it, I'd have to think hard about my respect for them. But the Kos link above doesn't exhibit any obvious sexism, and your example isn't from the blogosphere at all. So I say again: where's the beef?

    Speaking of substantiating accusations, I resent the implication that I'm arguing 'under false pretenses' or engaging in 'sophistry'; all I've done here is to ask for some evidence to back the very weighty charges being made on this blog against prominent and well-respected progressive figures.


    We found it... (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    We have discussed it...
    We are at the point that we will not trudge through months of posts for some empirical analysis.  Go and tell us, how they are not sexist.  Please provide 30+examples from a range of blogs.  Postings and comments.  Thank you.

    I like the Clintons (none / 0) (#85)
    by timber on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    I think they are good people.  Actually I support Hillary but lately I have been thinking  base on how they run the campaign,  Obama is probably the better administrator.  Clinton is too nice and cannot control her people and cannot keep away those expensive, useless Washington consultants who don't want to get their hands dirty doing grassroots organizing and just out there to bilk Hillary dry and yet do nothing but insult the grassroots and states.

    Clinton would have been better off getting Donna Brazille, Gore's campaign manager and she would probably win.

    Brazille doesn't seem all that (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    enchanted with HRC to me; more likely to purposely sabatage the campaign.

    Brazile (5.00 / 0) (#240)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    ruined Al Gore and John Kerry. Why give her another one?

    Exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#247)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:01:54 PM EST
    she is worthless.  

    No, Stellaaa...she's not. (none / 0) (#261)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    Not my cup of tea but she's not worthless.  She's walking a tightrope and trying to keep her job and her dignity.  Not so easy in this race, I imagine.

    I'm giving women in politics a break unless they jump ship...in which case, I'll let them drown.  No liferings from now on.


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#265)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    I am not willing...after what she said about not being in the Democratic Party, I think she failed at her job.  It's not our job to help her keep her job.  It's her job to sustain the party.  

    I doubt (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    that either of them runs the day-to-day operations of their campaigns.

    Language alert BTD. This blog doen't allow (none / 0) (#86)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    that jor.

    Not true at all (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    I ripped Billy Shaheen, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Johnson AND Bill Clinton.

    It offends me that so many are so quick to write falsehoods about this blog.

    Yes, I mean YOU.

    I didn\'t intend to assert anything (none / 0) (#124)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    about what someone did or did not do so if there were falsehoods about this blog in my comments they were unintentional.

    This entire thread sounds like a requiem. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    She's not dead. She'll still be a Senator, people, and a wife and mother. She can still strive to accomplish great things and continue to fulfill her destiny. She can still be a highlight in the history books. Look at Jimmy Carter.

    Snap out of it!

    (Yes, I xeroxed the above sentence from Moonstruck.)

    I'm not mourning Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by spit on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    I'm not even particularly a supporter of hers, and in any case I don't think she's quite out of the game yet.

    I'm mourning what's happened to a substantial portion of the left.


    Agree (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    And add to the list of things she still might be: President.

    She's not giving up. I'm not giving up.


    Great statement (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:18:28 PM EST
    I'm mourning what's happened to a substantial portion of the left.

    This statement captures perfectly how I feel, and I suspect many others.  This has been eye-opening.

    It ratcheted up after Edwards dropped out.  That's when I really noticed it.


    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#245)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    will still be a senator, a father, he can still work for good in America. So, don't despair.

    Sigh. (none / 0) (#252)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    I'm not an Obama supporter. For real.

    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#272)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    stop spreading falsehoods here (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    I actually caught myself debunking the comment above and when I got to six false statements, I decided to just delete the comment. I'm banning the commenter.

    Missed the comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    but seemed like a non-troll to me otherwise.

    he wasn't a troll (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:49:07 PM EST
    he was posting, I thought, what he wanted to talk about. But he was spreading misinformation. And off-topic. And he kept returning to it.

    Misunderstood racism and sexism sometimes (none / 0) (#159)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    I think there are a number of instances where neither racism or sexism is intended, but because of the hyper-sensitivity out there, a comment is perceived to be one or the other.  There's a very fine line in some of these instances.

    the comment I deleted (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    attributed statements and racist motives to the Clintons. Not one of the listed statements was made by them. It also included false information about Bill Clinton.

    Even more so, this thread will not be hijacked to a discussion about race. That's not the topic of this thread. Nor will this blog host demonstrably false accusations that stay in google in perpetuity. I won't have my name or my site associated with them.


    For Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:41:14 PM EST
    You may want to check out this diary at Big Orange I wrote praising Hillary in November 2007.  Hillary folks seemed to like it....

    Just curious if (none / 0) (#182)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    either BTD or Jeralyn have actually spoken to Markos or Josh about their shameful treatment of both Hillary and Bill?  It wasn't that long ago that they spoke about "the Big Dog" with pride and passion.  Do they acknowledge the venom they have helped unleash?

    I have written them both (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:57:08 PM EST
    and got blasted right back, as have many people on this blog.  It is why a lot of us came to TL.

    I think you've got the wrong priorities, Kathy (none / 0) (#196)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:06:06 PM EST
    After all, there are book deals at stake!

    hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    well, then I guess they are S.O.L. considering that 85% of all book buyers are...WOMEN.



    My contact (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:46:59 PM EST
    with Obama people shows that they claim ignorance and throw out talking points when confronted with the damage they are doing. Who does that remind you of? I couldn't believe it when one of our friends started that stuff with me after insisting on knowing who I'm supporting in the campaign. First I had to listen to Republicans tell me I'm stupid and unpatriotic for not voting for Dubya.  Now I have to listen to Democrats tell me I'm stupid and racist because I don't support Obama. I'm really sick of politics in this country.

    It bears noting (none / 0) (#267)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    Senator Obama is STILL using the "I'm not running to fulfill some long-held ambition" line.

    Comments Closing (none / 0) (#279)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:41:45 PM EST
    We're at 266 comments, time for the thread to close. Thanks to all for your thoughts.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#289)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:52:58 PM EST
    which is why the GOP is so afraid of her.