MLK had a dream.

If Hillary had done the same with racism, people would STILL be calling for her head.  Indeed, IIRC, people ARE still calling her a racist and holding her responisble for what Ferraro said, for example.  Sauce for the goose and all that.

Instead, he said nothing.  AND he accused her and her supporters of racism.  

Instead, she sat silently, just like Howard Dean did.

And in this case, the beneficiary is Obama. Why should he do anything? He knew good and well it was going on, but it was all to his benefit, so why not feed the fire - under the wraps of his campaign, of course.

I see this kind of crap go on here all the time. It's one of the hazards of living in a place with high rates of drug and alcohol addiction. And ultimately, it always comes out that everyone involved is benefiting from the dysfunction in some way, even if they're unable to even acknowledge it to themselves.

The amusing part, though, is how quickly they've pulled back and tried to act like they didn't participate! Oh, not us! Not us! No, we need you!

Then, they fall right back into it, lambasting anyone who doesn't rejoin their troops as a traitor, voting for McCain!!

Um, no. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. It's doubtful that changes any time soon.

They know who is easy and who is hard to beat. Obama saw that remaining silent while Big Media "little-girled" Clinton into falling behind in delegates (NOT popular vote) was to his advantage.  So yeah, he kept his mouth shut and still does..

However, Obama does not officially have the nomination.  That's why he is "The Presumptive Nominee".  It is PRESUMED he will take the delegates in August...but not guaranteed.  Hillary's campaign meanwhile is not ended, but SUSPENDED.  That means there's still a chance that superdelegates can change their minds.

Our group has seen several waffling already. They are coming to realize that their support of Obama is a reflection of quite assention to sexism and it's making them nervous amongst the increasing waves of negative feedback they're getting from their consituents (you and me).  In other words, they want to have a job next time their term comes up for re-election and they're starting to think of their own destiny, if not the destiny of our nation and the plight of women.

Having once been an Obama supporter myself, I have changed my mind.  I did this by watching his ambivalence to sexism among other things like being patently under-qualified standing next to Hillary for leader of our nation.

Get involved right now: today.  Email The Obama Expatriates at silhouette@suddenlink.net to get ideas on how just a few minutes a day on your PC can get more superdelegates to reconsider their passive stance of discrimination against the largest voting constituency in the US:  

It's mighty hard, and probably much too hard for me.

Support for Obama is saying it was ok.  Or at best, it just wasn't that bad.  It was ok for the Dem leaders to stand silent, to celebrate its effects, to remain in what was at best a state of cluelessness about what was happening.  It was ok for MSM to go wilding across the airwaves and the internet.

With power comes responsibility, and with great power comes great responsibility.  It's not ok to stand down just because injustice doesn't touch you directly, or worse, benefits you.  Obama wants to be the leader of the free world.  Yet he couldn't manage a single 'hey, that's not cool'?  When it would hardly have cost him anything?

I was able to support the long line of Democratic candidates who I really didn't like for 24 years because while their priorities were not what mine were, my interests were in there somewhere.  But to support that which I do detest, and which devalues me as a person, is a bit too hard.  That is the only way they've left me to fight back.

BTD said (emphasis mine):

An ironic result is that Barack Obama, acting as a politician does when his opponent is being unfairly attacked (I really do not hold Obama responsible at all unlike some of you) - said nothing, is paying the price to some degree for the actions of his Media supporters and blog supporters. It is not fair. But politics is not fair.

I can understand his silence because he is a politician, however, he has always claimed to be different and better, he is not politics as usual.  He has tried to paint himself as a more enlightened being who will transform politics.  Many people want to hold him to his words because that is what we want.  So far, I feel let down because I do not see it happening with Obama in charge.

I also believe that he participated in making some rather derogatory statements about Hillary based on her sex as well. So, not only was he silent when he heard sexist statements, he also participated in the sexist game to some degree IMO.

It wasn't just that they accepted Keith Olbermann's sexism, the revelled in it, they celebrated it. It's why I can't vote Democratic this year, just like other Democrats who are disgusted by the sexism of so many in our party, including those at the top. This is just the nadir of a bad 8 years for Democrats.

Some interesting stats re women in gov't offices: 71st in the world in political representation ... stuck at 22% of state legislature representation for over a decade.

Yikes! Even I thought we'd come further than that.

 --peniel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/wilson/index.html

Commentary: Clinton started a new political movement

By Marie C. Wilson

The common feeling in America is that women have made it, but we rank a paltry 71st in the world when it comes to women's political representation. We have only nine female governors and have been stuck at an average of 22 percent of representation in state legislatures for more than a decade.

but his campaign actually encouraged that kind of talk.

IMHO, as damaging as the overwhelming misogyny was, far worse was the coverage implying that the Clinton's were racists -- and that has to be laid directly at Obama's doorstep.

Is she saying that shaming the media messengers (something I'm really not sure it is possible to do, actually) would be a great way to get even, or is she saying that the by-product of getting even is shaming the media messengers?

I have to admit that when I saw it in the paper this morning - she's syndicated in my local paper - I hesitated before reading it, wondering if it was going to be another hit piece on Clinton and her supporters, and was more than pleasantly surprised to find that it was not.  It is unnerving to realize that I now exhibit behaviors that are reminiscent of dogs who fear they are about to be kicked.  Not a good feeling.

I mean, Mathews and Shuster were forced to issue on-air apologies and that didn't happen because David Broder was out there demanding that they apologize.

Of particular distinction in the left blogosphere was, of course, digby.  But plenty of others (including people at TL) did as well, including kos.

This is the most ridiculous stance a person could take.  And this comment in particular makes me wonder if GOP strategists aren't posting here under assumed "liberal" identities.

They want us to think it's too late.  HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN IS ALIVE AND FULLY READY TO BE VOTED FOR OR AGAINST IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION.

This message of apathy can be dangerously contagious.  If we don't write our superdelegates between now and then the "presumed" nominee will become the "actual" nominee.

Wouldn't it be hella funny to watch the GOP squirm when we, through emailing our representatives, effect a turnover at the convention pro-Hillary?

Don't EVER EVER let comments like these convince you you cannot make a difference.

Write.  Write now, write often until August.