Do They Hate Clinton More Than They Care About The Dem Party?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking speaking for me only

Apparently, Josh Marshall got a lot of "feedback" for his post that I discussed here. His reply to that feedback seems equally nonsensical to me:

[W]hat is this new gambit for her about? Is she really serious about taking her case to the convention's credentials committee -- which seems almost certain to have a majority of Obama supporters -- and trying to get them to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates on her terms?

. . . [F]rom my view, saying she's in it till August isn't about August. It's not even about June. It's about stamping out doubts about her viability and determination to stay in so she can still be in the game in April and May.

(Emphasis supplied.) This makes no sense to me. Clinton's viability is absolutely tied to Michigan and Florida. The reason Clinton is fighting for Florida and Michigan is because she needs them to capture the nomination. Oh by the way, it happens to be the right thing for the Democratic Party if Obama supporter Marshall actually cares. More . . .

But mired in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Josh Marshall can only imagine dastardly motives for Clinton He later approvingly cites this reader e-mail:

The problem now is to figure out a way to get her to leave the race honorably and gracefully. She could do a lot of damage to the party on her way out the door. Possibly worse damage than her Huckabeean campaign is already doing. But telling her to leave the race is only pissing all of them off. There's a better way. I hope someone figures it out soon.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yes, let's assume the worst of Clinton and ignore the damage people like Josh Marshall have done and continue to do. Why don't we play that game with Clinton haters like Marshall? Do they hate Clinton so much that they will destroy the Democratic Party to make sure Clinton has no chance to win the nomination? Would they rather insure Dems lose Florida and Michigan in November instead of honoring the will of the voters in Florida and Michigan in a revote? Do they hate Clinton more than they care about the Democratic Party?

< Late Night: Shine a Light | Double Standards - Part One Million >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, Hillary Clinton going around saying (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    basically, "I think I'd be a better President, but whatever happens, we must have a Democrat in November" is really doing wicked awful damage to Obama. That's the ticket. "There can't be anything intinsic to MY candidate that has him losing to McCain!"

    awful damage to obama (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    for November?

    I would have to say that the vast preponderance of damage to Obama is self-inflicted; And that the Press are very into dressing his wounds!


    Not just dressing wounds but (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    performing heroic feats of resuscitation!  

    My image is Candy Crowly, Jack Cafferty, Campbell Brown, Jeff Toobin, and Anderson Cooper bending over Obama's supine form and pumping his chest -- one two three!  one two three! -- until the clouds part and he starts breathing again.   Halleluhah!  Of course, it's an easy segue to go from heart pumping to  tongue licking.  Same visual image, basically.  SORRY!  I'll get troll rated for this but I just couldn't stop myself.    


    Yikes (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    The people pushing this ludicrous "Clinton must quit right this very nanosecond" meme have turned "concern trolling" into a high art.

    BTD: Excellent point about turning the question back on Marshall.  I find it fascinating that so many bloggers and/or journalists think that every utterance of a candidate will change the orbit of planets, but they themselves can blither on to many thousands or millions of readers with zero impact and responsibility.

    The desperation makes no rational or ethical sese (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    As I dead-end posted in another thread, if her campaign is allegedly dead in the water, why the panicky, desperate chorus for her to quit before PA?

    If her campaign isn't as dead in the water as TeamO and camp followers are pretending, then why the HELL is there this desperate chorus for her to quit before PA?

    And yes, either option really does piss me off (and I was undecided until "Slowmentum" occurred and the TeamO roller coaster slowed to show it's smoke and mirrors better.)

    Josh Marshall's front page has become a clinic for passive aggressive journalism, an "info" version of the Obama campaign. It sends forth:

    'Sigh I wouldn't venture here myself of course but here's a reader email' ... OMFG has become a tragi-comic hoot.

    Nice decline and fall from his former standards of  independent journalism into Debbie "Lovey" Howell territory.


    Um, I'm assuming (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by angie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    those are all rhetorical questions, right?
    I am a Hillary supporter, and I'm cynical enough to know that if the situation was reversed Hillary would be the one blocking the MI & FL revotes.  But, if that was the case, I would no longer be a Hillary supporter, because while I can accept that politicians are politicians, I can't accept any disenfranchisement of voters, even if it "helps" my candidate.  What I can't fathom is how Obama's supporters can still be backing him when that is exactly what he is doing.  

    It's kind of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    dispiriting that it can't be just a rhetorical question.

    It's getting to look like the advent of cannibalism.


    Blowback would've kept Clinton honest (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    If the reverse were true, the hellish blowback she would've received from the media and also her supporters, who have never supported out of love for her personality but for her stand on Democratic issues would've almost certainly kept Clinton honest.  Also, I can't see her rigging the nomination only to ensure she loses the GE with a 48-state "strategy."  She's no one's fool.

    Here's Angalchel's take on the matter as well, showing that Clinton has already had opportunities to mess with us and she hasn't.


    she can't do right can she?! geez (none / 0) (#95)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    but I have noticed something, they've called off the dogs against Hillary.

    objectively valid? (none / 0) (#65)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    those states had already held objectively valid elections

    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Both Michigan and Florida held flawed primaries. When the voters are told in advance that the state delegates would NOT be seated, it discourages voters from participating. Even though there were record turn-outs, the fact is an unknown number of Democratic voters...both Hillary and Obama supporters...chose not to go to the polls.

    We can only guess at the results of a valid primary contest. Perhaps Hillary would have won a larger percentage of the vote, perhaps she'd have had a smaller victory...nobody knows. But when primary voters know in advance that their votes are not going to lead to delegates, it cannot be considered a valid primary.


    It can't be quantified (none / 0) (#119)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    That's part of the problem, isn't it. If we knew how many Clinton supporters and how many Obama supporters stayed home rather than vote in a primary that was declared void, we'd have less of a problem. But we don't know. You can't quantify an unknown like that.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#131)
    by blueasthesky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:03 PM EST
    On the other hand, maybe the disenfranchisement  had the opposite effect, spurring voters on to defy the DNC.  I can imagine a voter saying:  "Taking away our delegates!  Well, I'll show them!"  

    In any election, there are thousands of factors that can spur somebody to go to the polls or to stay home.  You can't quantify any of them.  What you're saying here is no different from any election.  


    If that number of people, (none / 0) (#134)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    those that voted, were paticipants in a poll to guage support of candidates that would be a pretty massive sample with a degree of error somewhere near zero.

    The idea that they were not a proper guage of the people's choice is way beyond ludicrous.

    To think that a re-vote would somehow change what was already indicated is downright foolish.

    The only possible change would be that some Republicans, those who did not participate in the Republican primary, might come out to try to game the vote.


    G*d D*amn Great post there ! (none / 0) (#93)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    Its almost as if Obama was copying Rovian speak, using the obvious to turn it against your opponent.

    Oh, I've never doubted the Obama campaign to use any means to win, we're heard enough about the caucus experience here from reported 2000 complaint.But I never thought they'd copy Rove.Never.


    The answer is yes (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by BigB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    Yes, Marshall, Kos and their like hate Clinton so much that they would destroy the Democratic party to ensure that Obama wins the nomination.

    They don't care about votes or voters. They want to disenfranchise MI and Fl. The next time they shed tears about GOP efforts to disenfranchise this or that group of voters, we would know that those tears are crocodile tears.

    It is not about principle, it is about partisan advantage.

    If the situation were reversed and it was Obama who needed Fl and MI to be counted they would all be crying 'voter disenfranchisement' to the moon.

    Hypocrites, opportunists, and con men. All of them.

    They have lost me for a long time.

    I have not seen one (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST
    Obama supporter arguing to seat the FL/MI delegates as selected or supporting a fair revote plan.

    All they talk about is "rules."

    Not a word about principles.


    I have (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    Obama supporters are all for seating FL and MI, AFTER Obama gets the nomination.

    Ditto! (none / 0) (#36)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    Well, except BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    Well technically (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Faust on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    BTD claims to be a "tepid" Obama supporter so there's a counter example right there.

    Why has no one asked Obama (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    how, as a constitutional lawyer concerned about civil rights, he can disenfranchise so many voters? True, it is a primary, not the GE, but he is saying that some votes count more than others, and as a constitutional lawyer that should be an anathema to him. Why isn't it?

    Constitutional Infirmity (none / 0) (#38)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    Great question - has he not heard of equal protection under the law?

    No government action (none / 0) (#46)
    by eric on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    The nomination is being conducted by a political party, not the government.  They can make their own rules.  This isn't the government making laws that are unequal or applying laws unequally.  I suppose you could trigger some limited government action inasmuch as the gov't is entangled in voter registration and perhaps the voting process.  But political parties are not the government and would not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

    Of course, this is treating people unequally and, on a normative level, should be objectionable to someone who values the underlying principle of "equal protection".


    The right thing (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:32:02 AM EST
    I want my party to do the right thing even when not forced to by the law. I think most would agree with that statement in the abstract, if they didn't know how it would advantage or disadvantage their particular candidate. Parties and party members should stand for principles, not particular candidates.

    State Action (none / 0) (#58)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    I would argue that state action is involved which bolsters claims of constitutional deficits.

    myiq2xu- you are right, of course (none / 0) (#81)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    they stop talkng about rules when it come to superdelegates. Suddenly they throw the rules out and call this part of the process "undemocratic" or "stealing the nom"

    And as FDR (none / 0) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM EST
    said: "Rules aren't sacred but principles are."

    So far as Marshall is concerned.

    " ... trying to get them to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates on her terms?"

    I voted in the Michigan primary.  Them's also MY terms.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#114)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    right.  In a word, yes.  Their hatred of Hillary IS greater than support for the party.  And IMHO, I disagree with BTD that Obama is obviously the stronger candidate in the GE, and I think he could still be a VERY weak GE candidate.  And if so, I do blame them for the loss by contributing to the destruction of all things Clinton.

    So sad about John Marshall (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    I always thought he had integrity--unlike Markos, who was never better than a hack. But Clinton derangement syndrome can strike even the mightiest!

    OOps, I meant Josh (none / 0) (#8)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    John Marshall is somebody else!

    As was (none / 0) (#136)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST
    Mr. Yglesias.

    They Need Hillary To Quit (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    and endorse Obama so he can unify us.

    Once she quits, Obama can generously agree to seat the MI/FL delegations as selected by the primary votes.  

    That way everyone's votes will count when they all unanimously elect Obama!

    We'll all drink the kool-aid and get a unity pony!

    Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

    So WWTSBQ?

    Un-trancended. (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    I have never seen a group who claimed the upper hand of new politics, being tranformative and agents of change, implode into the gutter of the same old power grab and double standard.  Yet, they have convinced themselves they are absolutely "good" and everyone else is absolutely "bad".  The liberal twin of neocon values:  there is an absolute good and the elites will push it down your throats at any cost.  

    Should Obama Withdraw? (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST

    1. Not willing to submit to a 50-state test for the nomination.  Trying to sneak in with 48.  An undemocratic maneuver that will backfire.  Florida treated as second-class - again??

    2. Increasing fearfulness regarding legitimately scheduled primaries that go on through June.

    3. The "favorite" is now headed to a significant defeat in Pennsylvania.

    4. Surrogates trying to bully Clinton out of the race before Obama loses more primaries.

    5. The groups that Obama doesn't play well to - working class whites, women, Jewish voters, elderly - are a huge bulk of the Democratic electorate in November.  Math, people, math.

    6. Rev. Wright and his Church Issues... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    ...and how he has dealt and not dealt with them will kill him in a general election.  

    exeter- SO TRUE (none / 0) (#83)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    and yet the MSM actually thinks the issue is over

    more skeletons in his closet (none / 0) (#132)
    by wrkn129 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:52:06 PM EST
    Along with Wright, there are other issues that don't get much airplay. Obama was "made" by Emil Jones and Chicago politics. Do you know Chicago politics? You think Emil Jones won't come knocking on Obama's door if Obama is the president?

    I know what Obama didn't do for us. I know how he didn't fight for the Maytag workers in Galesburg, yet he uses them in his speeches. Read this from the Machinists Union. He actually talked to them about the advantages of free trade! You know what his reason was for not doing anything about their jobs? THEY DIDN'T ASK HIM TO. They gave him their support when he ran for Senator, but then did nothing to help them because they didn't specifically ask him to, although he campaigned on saving workers' jobs.

    Also check out the Chicago Trib story about Obama's ties to the Crown family, who could have done something about the plant closing, although he says now that it wouldn't have done any good. The point is, Obama didn't even try. Working class people need to know this but it doesn't get any airplay. I guess it's an old story. But, I think it's still very relevant and important.

    I also know that Obama stated he would serve out his full term as US Senator. link

    I want to know if his healthcare reform is going to start with University of Chicago Hospital where his wife Michelle works. I want to know if he's going to say, "Hey, you have 16 VPs making over $300,000 a year. Roll that back to $121,000 (the figure Michelle was making before Obama became a state senator) and use that extra $200,000 x 16 to treat patients."

    I want to know that if people can "choose" not to buy health insurance, can I choose not to pay taxes into the fund that helps provide healthcare for the uninsured?

     Obama is whoever people want him to be until they actually need him to be that person. I want to know who he really is and what he really stands for.  As my state senator, he has not lived up to all the hype of his senatorial campaign and I fear the same is true of his presidential campaign.


    The problem with the Obama camp's (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    perceptions is that they arise from tunnel vision. They don't see the Democratic party, they don't see the will of the people, they don't see anything but Obama, backlit with a lovely glow, speaking inspiring words to them. Anything that diminishes that vision is obviously wrong and evil. This explains their attitude towards Hillary Clinton. It also explains their leap into ignorance of Obama's shortcomings, his inflated resume, his lack of real public service to his constituents as opposed to self-promotion, etc. They don't see any of it because they don't want to see it. And they are denying it so that the rest of the voters won't see it and not vote for their icon because of it. They have to keep on denying any lack of perfection in Obama because to admit it means that they were gullible fools who were taken in by a slick orator with nothing to back up his words. I doubt Josh and his fellow Obama supporters in the blog world are capable of doing that. However, I do look forward to seeing them try. Heh.

    The way I see them is by looking at (none / 0) (#31)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:07:45 AM EST
    the Naderites.  They are very liberal in their policies and believe it is possible to have a government of their dreams. To them corporations are all bad and welfare reform was akin to evil.  Some of their beliefs are shared by the progressive-reality based community, such as economic justice, no wars of convience, social justice, etc. We share many of these values, but they go off the deep end when they frame everything in the extreme and insist the "others" can be brought to heel.  The worst thing is that they are true autocrats.  Negotiation is akin to surrender, and so Hillary is seen as a triangulator who sells out their dreams.  What they are doing is projecting their beliefs onto Obama and are now in some fight to the finish for the "perfect government."

    "Pay (none / 0) (#44)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    no attention to that man behind the curtain!"



    Arcadian- what polls are you talking about? (none / 0) (#85)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    The state by state polls sho Obama losing Mich, Fla,Ohio,NJ,Va,NC,Penn, W.Va, and New Hamp. to mccain, while Hllary wins most of those. She as a much better chance in the general. rev. wright has wrecked Baracks chances in many toss-up states.

    The Gallup and Rasmussen (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    tracking polling show McCain beating Hillary by pretty good margins....He beats Obama by much smaller margins....

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    maps are on electoral-vote.com.

    I live in SE Ohio, A mile from WV, and I know the voters here. The battleground states will not work for Obama period. Hillary will take OH, WV, PA, MI, KY, and FL. I really don't see any plausible formula here for Obama at all.


    exactly was for kenosharick's post. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    Gallop doesn't seem too reliable, but I'm not basing my position on polls primarily.

    Look at any polling (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    matching McCain against Hillary and Obama.  Obama does much better.....

    Hillary's numbers have dropped significantly...


    Sorry my last comment was meant for MKS (none / 0) (#86)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    The logic goes like this (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    1. Obama can assure himself of the nomination, based upon his current lead, by instructing his delegates on the Credentials Committee to vote against the inclusion of Michigan and Florida.

    2. Winning the nomination by shutting MI and FL out of the process would be a divisive power play that would alienate many Democrats and very likely cost us both those states in November.

    3. Accordingly, it is Hillary's obligation to drop out so that Obama will not be forced to use that divisive power play against her.

    Am I right that this is the argument?

    Orwellian (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    Yes, - something like that.  As Hillary continues to compete, Obama must employ divisive tactics to force her out so that he can unify us.  

    Is that the argument? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    Let him make it explicitly.

    I think (none / 0) (#116)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    his surrogates have been making it pretty explicitly, though O does not have to.

    Almost (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    They need Hillary to quit now, before the end of the primaries, otherwise everyone will see the man behind the curtain.

    If Hillary wins big in most of the remaining contests, then the margin of Obama's victory will depend on excluding FL/MI.

    If she quits now and endorses Obama nobody will be counting votes and delegates anymore.

    Don't you want a pony?


    That is exactly (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM EST
    their plan. For all the crying about Hillary trying to disenfranchise voters in NV and wherever else they see shadows, they are more than happy to blow off MI and FL because BO didn't perform well there.

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#62)
    by suisser on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    that FL & MI would be handled differently by team Obama if they were demographically closer to No Carolina?

    Charles Pierce has a piece in (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gish720 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    Altercation from last Friday that I admit set me back.  I'm voting for Hillary and wish I could give her more money right now, but I'm broke unfortunately...all these negative voices can be depressing at times, but when I think about how Obama and company want to win without counting my vote in Florida or the people of Michigan's votes,
    it gives me enough energy to keep going.  I'm looking forward to the PA primary...I think those of us who support Hillary will be energized. All this wind takes it's toll on me.

    Almost every (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    BO supporter I've had contact with claims he has no responsibility for the lack of a revote. It's the MDP's fault, the voters fault, or even Hillary's since she kept her name on the ballot in MI. I've even heard the argument that having your name on a ballot is campaigning. They will never admit that everyone who took their names off the MI ballot did so to bow to IA ans NH. They shout "RULES!" and then move on to bashing Hillary. Here in MI, Obama better plan on spending a boatload of cash and time if he thinks he will beat McCain. The unions are no longer enough to carry this state. We are purple at best right now.

    Yes, they hate her that much. These people (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    who preach a "new politics" are the worst hypocrites imaginable.  What is "new" about spewing hatred and trying your best to bring someone down?  Says more about the people doing the hating than it does about the person they hate.

    Josh has been delusional since Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    dropped from the race, it is actually Obama and the male nominee at any cost crowd who have damaged the long term prospects for the Party not just Nov. and if they do not retreat completely and or unless Pa pulls the Party out of the pit....  

    And Gallup confirms what we all but Josh knew ...
    back to that 30 percent breaking swing point again. The Dem primary and the apparent lack of appropriate criterion to select a Peoples nominee vs a male Party leader was obviously built into the rules and math inclusive of an appalling lack of integrity and no sense that a creditable executive could emerge from the smoke.  

    Interesting, and it is also my view this is past the point of adjustment if Clinton does not secure the nomination the rejection of Obama is an anti vote not just a not enamored, I have no belief Obama or any Democratic leader can rally this disaffected group to any ticket that has Obama as a player.

    From Gallup:
    Black Democrats appear loyal to the party regardless of who wins the nomination.
    There are clear differences by subgroup in self-reported vote for McCain under an Obama-wins-the-nomination scenario. In other words, it appears that if Obama is on the ticket, some groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats are more susceptible to bolting the party and voting for the Republican nominee next falls than are others.
    The average "defection rate" of Clinton-supporting Democrats away from Obama and to McCain in the general-election match up is 28%. The two groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats who are significantly above this average in defection to McCain are independents who lean Democratic and conservative Democrats.


    An Edwards's endorsement of Clinton is the only SD endorsement I can see mattering now and only if it's for Clinton, wonder how Josh would handle that after the aggressive attacks he targeted at Clinton when in the race.

    Why don't we play their game? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    I know I don't mind.

    An excellent article on Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:13:38 AM EST
    Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan

    Very comprehensive.  In fact, I wasn't aware that the Republicans stripped New Hampshire of half its delegates too, for moving their date!! A must read for everyone.  

    What a pair of hacks Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are:

    But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.

    Yes (none / 0) (#137)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:38:15 AM EST
    It's interesting that when Obama people cite da roolz they ignore the fact that six states violated da roolz but only two got whacked.  The Republicans meted out punishment to all violators but weren't stupid enough to levy the death penalty.

    I've been wondering lately if various forces in the DNC, knowing full well that Hillary would win both primaries, unequally applied the rules to screw her out of two of the largest states.

    I'm not into tinfoil hat stuff. There is and has been an internal war over party control that's been raging for some years.

    I remember our county party chair frowning when she overheard myself and a few others talking about Howard Dean as our choice for DNC chair after the 2004 election. No way we could have known how this would all shake out.

    I believe it was about getting the DLC types out of control. I guess it's some real irony that it should come down to the anti-DLC forces supporting Obama the DLC's darling to shed itself of the DLC.  Hillary has strayed too far off the reservation to stay in its graces. Obama had the DLC take his name off the list when pressed by some Black activists (see blackagendareport.com). But Al From, Harold Ford, etc. know who is and who isn't.  Add the DLC people on Obama's staff and presto, the anti-DLC forces have flown into the spider's web.

    This is so f***ed up.


    What's ironic to me (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    is that Obama supporters are screaming if Hillary gets the nomination by the vote of the superdelegates it will be a back room deal, with the old party hacks overturning the will of the voters. But these same supporters seem perfectly comfortable with the idea of these same party hacks (now "party elders") using their influence to muscle her out of the race. Nothing undemocratic about that. I guess if it's for "the good of the party" than any tactic is acceptable.

    And speaking of irony, have any of these people actually considered what they're saying when they claim that campaigning against Obama "weakens" him? I was under the impression that McCain is planning on campaigning against him, too.

    Yes. But "irony" is too kind. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    "Hypocrisy" springs to mind.

    Maybe it's posturing for a possible defeat (none / 0) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    Saying this now allows people to say later that if Obama loses in November, it's Clinton's fault. They're laying the groundwork. I don't think Obama supporters believe he will lose in November, but some of them are preparing just the same to lay the blame elsewhere.

    No Fl or Mi means no vote in the GE (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    I had initially said to myself that I would support whoever the democratic nominee would be but now I have some reservations.  If they do not count the FL or Mi votes which can determine the legitimate  Democratic nominee and if Obama then ends up getting the nomination because they do not count FL or MI  then he will be an illegitimate nominee.  He will also IMO be an illegitimate participant  in the GE. So if they do not count the Mi and Fl votes I will not vote in the GE.  The only mitigating  exception will be if they are both on the same ticket. Although it would mitigate the legitimacy some what it is still not the correct way to choose the nominee.  You make it legitimate and I will participate.

    I blame the DNC totally for this fiasco.  Why was it so important to the DNC to be right just because two states MI and FL wanted to move up their primaries.  What can the DNC say or point to that was damaging  because FL and Mi disobeyed their stupid rules.  I saw absolutely nothing negative that occurred because MI and Fl disobeyed the rules of the DNC . The current fiasco exist because the DNC does not want to admit they were wrong in penalizing MI and FL  In fact there was only positive things that happen because they disobey the rules.  The only thing that happen was a record  voting turnout in MI and Fl.  If the DNC considers the record voting turnout to be a negative result as a result of disobeying their stupid rules then they should welcome further breaking of  their stupid rules.  IMO Fl votes should stand as counted since all the candidates had an even playing field.  In MI there were three candidates on the ballot, Obama and others took it upon themselves to take their name off the ballot. Hilary got I think 55 percent and the second biggest section was 45 uncommitted.  I suggest that in MI the uncommitted go to Obama.  The only other way to resolve this is to have have redo primaries in both states.  If Obama stops this process  then this just galvanizes  my case not to vote in the GE if he becomes the nominee

    My epiphany (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    This rush to "show Hillary the door" is about several things.

    1.  Longstanding animosities deep in the party.   Northern Liberals are not comfortable with Southern populists.   You'll find little love between the Kennedy/Dukakis/Kerry camp and the Carter/Clinton/Gore side of things.  Plus, it galls the heck out of the northerners that only the southerners seem capable of winning Presidential elections.  

    2. Northern liberals love African-Americans in principle but don't actually know very many.   In some sense, that even goes for Obama who, although he knows plenty of white people, is severely ambivalent about them if we can believe his recent comments about his grandmother and his longstanding affinity for Rev. Wright.    Southern populists both love African-Americans and know them intimately.   Clinton was jokingly noted by Andrew Young to have "slept with more black women than Barack Obama has."   Ouch, now that hurts.

    3.  Sexism is alive and well in our culture.   For the past two years (long before the campaign heated up) CNN has been pushing the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan stories like some kind of "National Inquirer" wannabe.   And conveniently forgetting certain male stars (Keifer Sutherland, I believe?) who've actually done time for DUI.   So Hillary has given this latent woman-haters club a big chance to "shine."

    4.  Fear.   This is the controversial one that might get my comment hidden or troll-rated.   It started a month or two back, when Obama first pulled ahead with all those red-state caucus wins.   Pundits and talking heads started hinting darkly that if this nomination were "stolen" from Obama, terrible things could happen.   What terrible things?   Well, some were specific:  A generation of young voters will be irreparably alienated from politics.   The African-American community will be so badly affronted that they might bolt from the party.   That alone is sufficient to suspect a little bit of "fear mongering".  But wait, it gets worse.   To the seasoned ear of a person old enough to have lived through the 60s (and most Democratic Party elders fit that description to a 'T'), to this seasoned ear, there was a far greater threat implied.   At the 1968 convention, who rioted?   Students.   Throughout the 60s and into the 70s, who rioted in the urban north?  African-Americans.    The slightest suggestion of riots in Denver in front of all the TV cameras is enough to bring a sickening sensation to the gut of Democratic party leaders.   And the thought of riots in heavily African-American Atlanta is likely to do the same for the executives at Atlanta-based CNN.  

    Item 4, then is my epiphany.  The politics of fear are alive and well, if being played mostly behind the scenes.  My own prediction?  Students definitely will riot, African-Americans  will not.   But the fear is there, and yes it is being used ever so subtlely to nudge the party in the direction that Mr. Obama and Mr. Axelrod want it to go.

    The Police Rioted (none / 0) (#69)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    in 1968. A Corporate Lawyer produced a report with that verdict, (I will give the citation).

    This election is a replay of 1968. I doubt if very many people are afraid blacks will riot if Obama wins.

    Over 25% of Anti-Obama voters think Obama is a Muslim. Just under 20% of Democratic Primary voters in Ohio said race was an important issue and they voted overwhelmingly against Obama.

    I think many people do hate Hillary and The Clinton's. I do not think Obama has any advantage because he is black, even among people over 55.

    Here is Time on the Police Riot in Chicago, 1968:



    Your point is a subtle one, with which (none / 0) (#90)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    I do not disagree.  However, reasonable people might  differ concerning what, precisely, prompted that escalation of violence which was later termed a "riot".  

    I was watching on TV and there was plenty of provocation by angry protestors.  Heck I WAS one of the angry protestors, not in Chicago but later on my own college campus.  So I know whereof I speak.  There was lots of anger, lots of acting out, lots of provocation.  

    Whatever fine point you want to put on the wording, the fact is that Democratic leadership does not want to see in Denver 2008 anything remotely approaching the spectacle of Chicago 1968.


    I'm not sure the younger Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    supporters care or are even aware of how the U.S. involvement in Vietnam ended.  But the current news of repeated assault on the Green Zone in Baghdad rings eerily true.  If it keeps up, perhaps older Americans will be in the streets of Denver, not the kids.  

    Ah yes. :) I have my own plan for (none / 0) (#123)
    by BlueMerlin on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    older Americans.  I think that when we are sufficiently old and crusty that we're of no use to our former jobs and of little use to our families, we should all board a plane for Palestine.  Several thousand of us arrive and, you know, throw ourselves in front of Israeli tanks or generally express our support for the Palestinian people . It would be a HUGE media event, would shame everyone into trying just a little bit harder to fix things.  If a few or a couple hundred of us are lost, who cares basically as everyone has to 'go' somehow and this would be a great way to go!

    I believe this would be the natural extension of what we all did in the 60s and then necessarily set aside when the realities of raising a family detoured us from activism.   What do you think?


    Quote from Dith Pran, (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    who died this weekend of pancreatic cancer after surviving the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia:

    Dith spoke of his illness in a March interview with The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., saying he was determined to fight against the odds and urging others to get tested for cancer.

    ''I want to save lives, including my own, but Cambodians believe we just rent this body,'' he said. ''It is just a house for the spirit, and if the house is full of termites, it is time to leave.''

    hate (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by demfromphilly on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    Could one possible explanation for the irrational hatred of Senator Clinton, whom the angry boy bloggers don't know personally, be that they are projecting on to her what they haven't got the courage to face with the women in their own lives?  Just asking.

    None of this makes sense unless (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    ...you think seriously about the (unavoidable, I would guess) "cultural unease" the first serious bid, by a woman, for presidential power appears to be engendering.

    The anger, the outrage, the name calling, the "evil" characterizations, the over-heated exhortations for her to please, please, please leave the race only make sense as a kind of desperate panic. This is NOT politics as ususal.

    This is fear of the unprecedented.

    Just to have a woman taken seriously as a contender for such power appears to be too unprecedented for many. If a woman actually wins the nomination, it will, of course, be world changing. It changes our political narratives, our notions of power, heroism, leadership, and our ideas about how much attention and respect must be paid to women in general, and to the work they perform in the public arena.

    I know people will say that there are other powerful women in politics -- but none have ever before straight-forwardly stepped up and asked for this kind of power and authority in their own right.

    We are a country that is still most comfortable seeing women exercise power only when it is power bestowed by, allowed by, and in the service of, powerful men -- the handmaiden/adoring assistant phenomenon personified by women like Condi Rice and Karen Hughes.

    Sad, but true (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    I have searched in vain to understand the level and intensity of hatred towards HRC.  The fact the party would be so blind as to the obvious GE repercussions was the final straw for me: misogynistic bigotry is ultimate reason.  If a gay candidate had been the one targeted by unhinged homophobia by not only the media but also by his/her political party, would we be so hesitant to laying the blame at the door of intolerance?

    When any woman challenges for the most powerful office in the world--during a global crisis (financial and political) no less--the underbelly of intolerance and hate will stop at nothing to not only deny her the opportunity, but also to send a message to all.  And this is done with public approval, if not psychological need.

    It's no surprise when we still live in a world that considers misogyny to be "disrespect" (rudeness, poor form) than bigotry.  Misogyny is the only bigotry I can think of that is openly treated as either trivial, natural, just, or glorious.


    I have said before (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by suisser on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    that HRC is up against the revolting fact that every aspect of our culture holds post menopausal women in the lowest esteem.  Middle aged women are the last group that can be openly dismissed as irrelevant.  And once again, saying it makes me ill.

    I know some people will contend (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    ...that I am suggesting that choosing Obama, or any other candidate, over Clinton is "sexist."

    I am not talking about voting behavior. I am talking about the amazing, over the top anger, hostility and hatred aimed at her. And the insistent, desperate, bullying efforts to push her out of the race (and/or to declare the race over) that have been a constant of this campaign from the beginning -- in the media, and from much of the leadership of her own party.

    It's not that people don't want to vote for her. Plenty of people, in fact, have voted for her. It's just how desperate some people are to see her campaign dead and buried.

    I've never seen anything like it, aimed at any other candidate, in my lifetime.


    Theory (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    I actually have a theory about this very issue.  My theory goes that since most white men do not actually know many (if any) black people on a personal level, they can feel they've moved passed racism.  Society might be racist, but not them.  Of course, this is rarely tested because they don't know many black people.

    However, virtually all men know some women - many intimately.  Misogyny is something that they have the opportunity to participate in their day-to-day lives.  So rather than admit that they might be complicit, they simply choose to deny it exists.  It's not that they are making gender-based comments; it's that women are too sensitive.  Etc.

    Therefore, a vote for Obama shows that they have overcome society's racism.  A vote against Clinton shows that there is no misogyny because, of course, they are evaluating Clinton on the merits.  

    If these self-same liberal white men had to admit that there is rampant misogyny towards Clinton, they might have to look closer at their own behavior.  Which they don't really want to do.  

    Apologies for generalizations.  And please delete if off-topic.


    Including Hawaii and (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    California....but there is recent polling out of California showing that people here favor gay marriage by three points....

    Public opinion has changed and continues to change on gay issues...


    Saying opposition (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    to Hillary can all be attributed to sexism or misogyny is facile.....

    Many do not like her for reasons that can best be seen in tandem with Bill.  They don't like her for the same reasons they don't like him....

    Tuzla is a good example.  It has to do with power, money, truth.



    Yes, they hate her that much (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Camorrista on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    Saying opposition to Hillary can all be attributed to sexism or misogyny is facile...They don't like her for the same reasons they don't like him...It has to do with power, money, truth.

    Ultimately, for zealous critics of Senator Clinton, no insult, no matter how base, how squalid, how vicious, how defamatory, is unearned.  Ultimately, she (or Bill, or Chelsea) always has it coming.  She can only do wrong; she can never do right.

    If, hypothetically, Clinton were to find a cure tomorrow for juvenile diabetes, her zealous critics would argue that (1) she actually found it years ago and withheld it for political advantage; or (2) an obscure black doctor found it and she had him killed and stole the credit; or (3) it's not really a cure at all and if it's put into practice, millions of innocent, suffering kids will die.

    So, to answer your question, BTD, "Do They Hate Clinton More Than They Care About the Dem Party," of course they do.  Have you forgotten that these are the people who defended David Shuster's remarks about pimping?  Who defended Michelle Obama's remarks about maybe not supporting Clinton?  Who defended, 'You're likable enough, Hillary?'  You think these people care about the Democratic Party?   Please.


    Once again.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    No one said that opposing Clinton is sexist.

    It is the over-the-top animosity and panicky emotional responses -- including the media and pundit calls for her to exit the race that began months ago -- that was being discussed. Not Obama voters or Obama.

    You are the one being facile when you suggest that discussing how misogyny is impacting this campaign -- most especially the media coverage and the cowardice of Democratic leaders and progressives in the face of that coverage -- is the same thing as accusing Obama supporters of voting for him only because they are sexists.

    Perhaps the real subject doesn't interest you because it doesn't impact you.



    I was called a racist at daily kos (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    Jeralyn was too.

    Save your sanctimony.


    They have become obsessed (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    with ending the primary now.  I can't imagine how much nastier it is going to get between now and the next vote in PA.  The anxiety of an uncertain outcome appears to be more than they can handle.  Maybe this is one of the downsides of the information age and blogs where every move is known immediately, analyzed and then we expect something to happen.  They should listen to Steve Clemmons:

    Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton struggling against each other for every superdelegate, every pending state primary, every vote is the best thing America has had going for it in some time on the "global public diplomacy" front.
    The world is seeing Americans struggle about who U.S. citizens want in the White House. There is no stacked deck, no automatic succession, no heir apparent -- and this political experience of dramatic uncertainty and the pairing of an elder pro-Iraq War POW torture-victim turned leading Senator vs. either the first African-American or female candidate has the feel of a presidential election of a life-time -- the kind that won't be forgotten for a century.
    ...Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win the Democratic primary through pledged delegates. Now, superdelegates and the candidate's nuanced strengths and weaknesses in the eyes of party elders could show those around the world another dimension of America's electoral system that few -- even in America -- get to see.
    Do the entire thing.

    The world is watching, learning. And American popularity in the eyes of global citizens watching us is surging because of the excitement and uncertainty of this fascinating election.

    and pay attention to the WaPo:

    ...We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee.

    There is no lack of excitement in the Democratic Party. States that have cast ballots have reported record turnouts. Registrations are through the roof. Just last week it was announced in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, that since November the number of registered Democrats increased by about 161,000. Altogether, Democrats now outnumber Republicans there by about 830,000. And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

    ...No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

    Clinton never played the 'surrender' card on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Canaan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    All the time Clinton has been under fire for her War Authorization vote, she never once used the 'Obama is weak on terrorism' soundbite.  So she was left with arcane, wonkish explanations for her vote.  The anti-war vote was defaulting to Obama, so politically she had nothing to lose.  She surely knew the best self-interested response was to play the 'surrender' card -- but she wouldn't do it to another Democrat. Hillary is ruthless and vicious on Republicans, not so on fellow Democrats.

    We'd all well to remember, the Clintons are the only Democrats to win a Presidential election in modern history.  She doesn't think her withdrawal is good for the party.  

    Hillary gave us two terms, Donna Brazile gave us George Bush.  Whose instincts do you trust -- Hillary Clinton's or Donna Brazile's?

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    you are for Obama?  

    The comparison of her to Huckabee is silly and completely off base by Marshall, who I used to read a lot more than I do now.

    I am quite sure (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    Do you DEMAND I hate Clinton to prove my tepid support? Is the reverse true?

    Just because there are a lot of commenters here who have the reverse attitudes towards Obama does not mean I share them.

    Want to know what I think? Read what I write. I always say what I mean.


    Demand? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    Just a thought, that's all. Yes, I've been reading your work for a long time. I don't hate Obama either, even though I am more and more firmly behind Clinton as time goes by.

    Just as valid a question: do Talk Left readers (none / 0) (#20)
    by gnipgnop on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    hate Obama more than you care about the Democratic party?

    Come on you guys, you are just as bad as the Clinton Haters.

    If you think Hillary, if she were in Obama's shoes, would be doing anything different than what Obama is doing now, you are dillusional. They are both utilitarian politicians, not saints.

    I keep saying this, but the goal is to defeat McCain. He is the enemy. Clinton-haters and Obama-haters both are doing the Democratic Party a disservice.


    Some seem to (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
    But Will you answer MY question? Of course not. Apply the standard to yourself.

    Yes, Big Tent, (none / 0) (#40)
    by gnipgnop on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    you are right about many Obama supporters. The answer to your question is often "yes", but not always.

    Also I myself am not a strong supporter of either Obama or Clinton. I feel passionately that our country is in trouble and McCain would just continue driving us in the same direction.

    Maybe what Bill say this weekend, "Chill" should be taken to heart by all of us Democrats.  


    The most prominent (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    including his news network, fit the bill I describe to a T.

    It's called legitimacy (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    Our nominee has to win fair and square or it will divide the party.

    I'll happily support either candidate if they win fair and square, with all 50 states participating.


    The Obama campaign methods unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    already enabled a possible McCain win.  Not counting Mi and Fla. only make that definite.

    Can you give examples? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    I certainly don't hate Obama.

    What I hate, as a woman, a Democrat and a lifelong liberal who is deeply committed to the principles of social justice and equality, and has been an active supporter of civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights all my life, is the sexist and class prejudices and animosities within the Democratic party and the supposedly "progressive" movement this campaign season has brought out into the open.

    I hate the assumption that if I don't support Obama for the presidency at this time -- despite a long history of civil rights activism, starting with the March on Washington, and 40 years of support, with my vote, my money and my time, for other African American candidates -- I "hate" him, and, because it's a given that "typical" older white women are racist, I obviously hate him because he's black. (Could it be that the only reason I voted for those other candidates is because I didn't have the racist Clintons around to remind me that they were black?)

    What I hate is the class prejudice that allows people -- often quite well educated people -- to call Clinton supporters "rednecks" and "trailer trash" and "low information" or "emotional" or "hormonal" voters or "women with needs." Class and gender prejudice that totally dismisses, and shows utter disdain for, other voters' interests and experience and assumes that the only reason for anyone to make different political choices from Clinton's more elite critics is because they are both stupid and racist.

    What I hate is the unwillingness of Democratic leaders and Obama supporters to stand up against the ugly displays of bigotry against women that have been on such blatant display during this campaign season.

    What I hate is supposedly sophisticated liberals who don't understand that Archie Bunker is a media created stereotype (just as much as, in his time, "Steppin' Fetchit" was) and refuse to examine their own bigotry and prejudices (because that might make it harder to hang onto their own assumptions of superiority).

    What I hate even more is seeing the willingness of male candidates and the party leaders who support,who I once had respect for (not just Obama, Edwards too) to reap, without a word of protest, personal, political advantage from these prejudices, especially as they are displayed in the media.

    What I hate most of all is being so disillusion -- seeing all too clearly that the party I have loyally supported over all these years, and the many fellow Democrats whose best interest I have fought for, aren't, when the chips are down, prepared to stand up and fight for me.



    1st. post.. It doesn't seem the same to me (none / 0) (#56)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    Hillary has said from the beginning that what you see is what you get. Sen. Obama says he's a new kinda guy. No more "politics as usual". When is he going to start that? All I see is attacks against the whole Clinton family. BTW, I am 100% behind Hillary. I've sent her about $250.00 so far. I'm feeling a little demoralized. I think I'll still vote for Sen Obama if he wins the nomination but that is slowly starting to fade. I might just write Hillary in.

    I'll speak for myself (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    My country and good governance comes before any Party, and I am now viewing with increasing alarm Party as what is really at the root of what ails and divides us and are communities and leaders.  I did not support Obama because, for me, he was not creditable, more a manufactured marketed need then actual substance and ability or ability I value.  I support Clinton because she is a wonk, can influence, is tenacious a woman who I perceive as an ethical, hard working someone who also cares for our country our prosperity who will do the right things an agent who will drive change. I view her response to the mortgage crisis and her detailed approach and believe her to be talented, a good leader for Congress and the Country.   In the past I did not dislike Obama as much as just valued nothing he offered to me as a voter, now though with these vitriol nasty attacks on Senator Clintons character,  the re victimize and exploitation group grievances aimed at both Clinton's and other Dem's, as well, and my judgment of the character of those closest to him those he surrounds himself with, Powers, Axelrod, Wright, Mrs. Obama, Rezko, McPeak, Barzile etc, I also now do not view him favorably, and would not be inclined to vote for him if he emerges as the Party's nominee.  My biggest concern if Clinton dose not become the nominee is that the Democratic Party so blows its brand and legitimacy during this Primary that a larger margin in the Senate is marginalized as well.

    Clinton Hater (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYMARJ on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    My sister in law - a true CDS person - was incredulous yesterday at the treatment Hillary has been getting from the MSM and the Democratic party.  I just sat there and listened as she railed about how can they demand she leave the race and about how terribly she is being treated in general.  She would never vote for her but several months ago was making nice comments about Obama - yesterday those comments and many comments about Rev Wright.

    The day after the NH primary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    Pat Buchanan said his sister, Bay, who actually wrote a whole book about what a horrible she-devil Hillary Clinton is, and his mother were both raving about what awful treatment Hillary was getting from the media.  Of course, neither one of them was going to vote for any Democrat, but it's interesting that so many even conservative women are pretty pissed off at the level of misogyny and disrespect.

    I remember this (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    he even said that they were so mad they were even considering voting for her. I believe Joe Scarborough's mother had a similar reaction, and she actually did vote for Hillary...figures, the republican men are now showing more respect for Hillary than the democratic men...

    What a huge dissapointment the Democratic Party is turning out to be.


    Hillary is most sympathetic (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    as an underdog.  As she does well, the public pulls back from her....

    that's the way (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    misogyny (and other bigotries) work:  it's ok to like someone who does not pose a threat.  Nice little old ladies who don't actually want to, um, be President or anything.

    Just to add... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Rainsong on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST

    misogyny (and other bigotries) work:  it's ok to like someone who does not pose a threat.  Nice little old ladies who don't actually want to, um, be President or anything.

    Just to add, I've occasionally wondered why women seem to be more successful in the right-wing camps of public life eg Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher etc.

    I think its the "honorary male" scenario. On the right-wing side of things, women are respected for being no threat as you say, but also when they are highly talented and skilled the right-wing won't waste it - they can overlook her femaleness, and adopt an attitude of 'honorary male' status to apply to the individual woman, so she is respected and treated the same as if she were a male equal.  

    But not so much on the left, maybe its because they all feel they aren't sexist because they are liberals, and by definition they can't possibly be sexist - and didn't we sort all that out in the 60s?

    My memory is fading, but anyone else old enough to remember the SDS, and this event:

    Many of those involved in the early days of the Women's Liberation Movement had been politicized in the Civil Rights struggle and the protests against the Vietnam War.

    But they had become disenchanted with the tendency of nominally egalitarian New Left organizations, such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), to downplay or omit altogether the concerns of women, and had struck out on their own.

    When challenged on the position of women within his organization in 1964, SNCC leader Stokely Carmichael had replied that "The only position for women in SNCC is prone."

    As late as 1969 SDS produced a pamphlet that observed that "the system is like a woman; you've got to f**k it, to make it change."

    The frustration of feminist activists in the 1960s produced a new women's movement, which stressed the patriarchal content of liberal and New Left dissent, almost as much as it raised awareness about gender and power in the everyday arenas of home and work.

    Confused (none / 0) (#50)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    Isn't this a 180 from where Josh was in his previous post?  Before, I thought he said Clinton was horrible for daring to suggest that the credentials committee might be involved - to the point that he re-interpreted her comments as a vow to have a floor fight in Denver.  

    Now it seems like he's re-interpreting again that she isn't even pledging to stay into the summer and this is just rhetoric to stay through the spring.

    So which is it?  She's gonna tear up the convention or it's all just talk?  Either way, JMM feels pretty comfortable making her out to be the devil.

    Dawn of the Obamacrats (none / 0) (#57)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST

    Not hard to imagine many of these people pushing for Obama to leave the Demorats and make a third party run if he were to lose the nomination to Hillary.

    Florida and Mich (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    They will be seated in some form.  Its Funny until Clinton "won" those two states she was fine with not seating them.  This 50 state thing is silly. What nominee has ever had to have a competitive primary in all 50 states?  

    Name one presidential candidate that has received as many second chances to come back as Clinton?

    Why is there the assumption that if you don't fawn over Clinton you hate her?  

    The fact that Obama has given her (none / 0) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    so many chances and been utterly unable to put her away is troubling. He is not a closer, in my opinion.

    OBAMA gave her chances? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    It couldn't just be that so many people voted for her he can't vanquish her?



    Gave her chances in the sense that (none / 0) (#88)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    he was unable to pull out the victories that would have forced her out. Obviously many people, including I, voted for her; but if he had been a closer, he would have beaten her by now. It's a testament to her tenacity as well as his inability to close the deal.

    Again (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    he pulled off the necessary victories to beat her.  Beating her in her base states means destroying her politically.  Is that the new goal post? because if it is no whining about how mean he is.

    I was not aware that Sen. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    has amassed the 2,025 votes necessary to win. She is still in the race.

    Neither is she (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    Hillary should have won this going away.  She had all the name recognition and support from party officials, including the support of a very popular ex-President.



    She would never have won it going away (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    given the amount of sexism and Clinton hate out there. Have you somehow missed the establishment Democratic attacks on the "very popular ex-President"?

    She isn't as good as a closer as I'd like either. But I think her ability to seal the deal with working class voters is more crucial in November.


    She frittered away (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    a 20 point lead....And her campaign has been a mess....getting blown out in state after state...Va, Md and Wisconsin--which were primary states.....

    She is incapable of winning a caucus, which given her far greater experience and political connections shows great weakness.  Her campaign is a financial mess.

    Right now, Obama is the front runner and is getting all the criticism that comes with that....Focusing back on Hillary shows a lot of weakness.....She has no reservoir of good will with the voters--every mistake results in significant drops in her polling.


    Please. (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    "She has no reservoir of good will with the voters"? Come on, now you're just making things up.

    Her large leads initially were likely due to a fractured field. Races in which there are a lot of candidates, and one is more well known than the others will always see tightening of the race as the election approaches and people (the undecideds) pay more attention.

    I don't care if she can win a caucus. I am not aware of any state that uses a caucus in November.

    If Clinton were a better candidate, yes, she would have won by now. If Obama were a better candidate, yes, he would have won by now. So what?


    Hillary lost her 20 point lead (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    win she messed up the driver's license question in October--that was all it took and it gave Obama an opening that he had been unable to find for months.....

    She was again ahead of Obama when the Tuzla story hit--and her poll numbers dropped by about ten points vis-a-vis Obama....

    Bad press sticks to her like fly paper.


    whining about sexism (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:41:28 PM EST
    Since when is sexism a bigger disadvantage than being a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?  To reverse Geraldine Ferraro, would Hillary get all these white votes if Obama were white too?

    If Obama is not a closer, (none / 0) (#139)
    by HGillette on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    what does that make Clinton? She started out with all of the advantages: name recognition, money, more support from Democrat party officials. Yet, she's losing to a guy who's "not a closer".

    Face it, Clinton has not run a good campaign. She blew a lot of money unnecessarily in her Senate campaign, and had no real plan for the Democratic nomination other than blowing everyone else out by Super Tuesday. She didn't organize for the caucuses, thinking she wouldn't need them. She complained about not understanding the rules in Texas only a couple of weeks before the primary/caucus.

    She has a plan for everything when she becomes President, but ignored the most important plan: getting nominated and elected.


    What is a quorum, does it apply at a convention? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Betty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    I Hillary's delegates at the convention walked out once MI and FLA were denied seating, would the convention still be able to conduct business?  

    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by dmbeaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    Obama's delegates plus super-delegates in his favor (if the balance break as they have so far) would permit his nomination.  It is more than 50%.

    Why would you advocate such a stupid thing as a walk-out?  Why not just become a Republican and work for McCain?


    I'm an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#73)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    Do they hate Clinton more than they care about the Democratic Party?

    I don't hate Hillary Clinton at all. I rather like her. I just happen to believe that Obama has the potential to be a better president. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll happily work for her and vote for her.

    In fact, I personally don't know any Democrats who would vote for McCain if their own first choice...Hillary or Obama...didn't win the nomination. I sometimes think the only people who harbor those sorts of vitriolic feelings are the folks who leave comments in the various blogs I read.

    But I'll tell you what I DO hate. I hate the fact that instead of debating the policy differences between Obama and Clinton, so many people are focusing on trying to destroy the character of the other candidate. I hate the fact that instead of demonstrating how either Clinton or Obama would be a better president than McCain, so many people are engaging in slamming the other candidate.

    I hate that...but I find some comfort in the belief (or hope) that most Democrats are probably like me. They'll work for the candidate of their choice, they'll stay focused on the political issues and not the personality foibles, and when a nominee is chosen, they'll do what they can to get that person elected.

    The problem is that (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    there will be no re-vote.   Hillary is trying to seat the delegations as-is....not secure a re-vote.

    A compromise of a 50/50 split in Michigan and counting half the delegates in Florida, as did the GOP, would be more attainable.

    A Re-vote would set a bad precedent--and would only fuel requests for do-overs in the future.  For awhile, a re-vote seemed possible....Now the time for that has passed.....

    Indeed (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST
    Obama has blocked revotes. But there COULD be revotes NOW if he wanted them.

    As I wrote the other day, if this goes to the Convention it will be Obama's fault.


    Bogus (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dmbeaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:44:56 PM EST
    He did not block re-votes.  The Florida plan was DOA because of Republicans.  They also had a role in Michigan, but the Michigan plan had some very big problems -- such as not letting all Democrats re-vote.  Obama did not "block" it -- there was resistance to the plan from many fronts, including concern about the weird method of paying for the new election.

    The most hypocritical position is insisting on seating the existing Michigan delegation when Obama was not even on the ballot.  That is the Clinton behavior.

    Finally, you can make all of your points without getting deranged about bashing Obama.


    wrt: the calls for anyone to quit ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    If you're defense is simply...  

    "c'mon, if the positions were reversed, <blank> supporters would be saying the same thing"

    Then you have made the case that the "calls" should be taken with a pinch of salt, and treat as political disingenuous garbage.

    I'm astounded by the number of times I hear things justified by the "you would do the same" mantra.