Awesome?  That would be our -- wait for it, a public relations term -- "blogfloggers" here, TL/Jeralyn and BTD/Armando.

So her coverage of the RBC meeting is another useful read, and Jo Freeman will have her account of the RBC meeting up on her website soon, she says.  But you can go to it now to read about her books, to find her earlier reportage and analyses, etc., to see a great collection of feminist political memorabilia, and then bookmark that site for later -- and see also this site (and surf it for other reads by women authors of a certain age:-).

Together with the fine live-blogging at the meeting site by this site's BackFromOhio as well as from the tv screen by TL and BTD, there is an interesting body of contemporaneous knowledge being built about the day that the Dem Party died.  Or at least, the day it lost its soul.  And without that, why belong to the Dems rather than the soulless GOP?  That's where I am now.  I will be fascinated to see where Freeman and others arrive.

Or at least, the day it lost its soul.

I'm underwhelmed by BHO leadership.  I think BHO's handling of the speeches that has emerged from Trinity's pulpit shows he's tone deaf and missing an essential quality.  It's not so much that American's want someone to drink a beer with but they do want a President who shares their value --  and these tapes should offend.  Just heard Bill Clinton's remarks and concur.  VF may paint him as an angry old man but it's justified here.

Quote:  "It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It's the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn't do anything about it. The first day he said `Ah, ah, ah well.' Because that's what they do- he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie, they thought this is a great ad for John McCain -- maybe I better quit the church. It's all politics. It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it"  End Quote

But then, my other Senator, Kohl, had me throwing things at the tv screen 'way back in 1992, when he and other Dems did nothing, nothing to stop the demeaning of Dr. Anita Hill.  It was but prologue for what we have seen now, 16 years later.  The old boyz have not learned any new tricks, while the world -- and the majority of the party, women -- apparently have passed them by, and now we know it.

Seemed to me it would have been appropriate given her place in the party, and that Hillary is a former first lady and Eleanor is her idol.

Your idea is, therefore, terrific to create a motherlode (:-) for scholars -- as similar use of websites has meant creation of contemporaneous records of the social history of the destruction of New Orleans, for example.  It would be good to see if one of the new groups that have sprung up, such as PUMA, WomenUnited, etc., could set up such a site, one site, to send participants to write their accounts.  (Not just blog-style comments but in-depth accounts.)  And/or someone like Jo Freeman (see links above) and the senior women writers might be interested.  

In my state, that's when Feingold got elected . . . but five women trying for Congress went down the tubes, again, in a state where women had been running for Congress since 1924 -- but I stuck with it and fought for better in the last state with a woman in Congress, at last, in 1999.  But not with the help of the Dem boyz.  Still, they behaved themselves in public pretty well.

Please be advised of the following:

(1) You are wonderful!
(2) I believe Anita.
(3) Feingold voted Ashcroft out of the Judiciary Committe, thus singlehandedly allowing for his confirmation by the senate (no doubt you are aware of this)
(4) I registered as an independent today.

Here's a woman who won't be donating until the Democratic Party totally revises its primary election procedures.

Mame Reiley/Clinton supporter was being diplomatic, but she saved the day when she said she would have liked a revote to take place.

...but I don't watch Keith anymore.  

She has inspired generations of American women to believe that they can reach the highest office in this nation.

The ability to learn.

Remember when that old lady was caught at a campaign event asking him "How do we beat the b***h?" and he kind of laughed and didn't admonish her?

He doesn't do or promote that type of stuff any more. He knows he needs HRC's voters to win.

I'm not voting MCain either.

I know Dems are awful, but I think the white women of the electorate now have the opportunity to flaunt their electoral strength.  Overall, it's a good moment for women in general.  The media is afraid of the electoral power of white women!  They don't like how "difficult" they are.  God knows how confused they are by WOC.  Do you hold the Dem party's many real sins against Hillary?  I don't.  The Dems suck.  Obama really sucks.  But if he's the nominee, I will vote for him.

Women are statistically unified this election.  We have the opportunity to make our goals and concerns known.  We have the data to back up our mandate.  I think Hillary is not just a candidate.  I think she represents the need for healthcare and a helping hand for the impoverished.  I think her "wing" can perserve (sp) through this election.

They suck.  So much.  I live in the South.  Believe me.  Plz!

The DNC is a group of bumblers with no clue about how to deal with two groups of passionate supporters, each numbering 17 million.  The DNC can be flipped as quickly as anything else.  They're literally a ship of fools.  Terry McA was the chair in 2004, I believe.  Someone new will be the chair in 2010.  

Overall, what I'm saying is that Clinton has the female vote locked up.  Statistically, women in general, even if Obama is the nominee, can look around and say, gee, we voted for Clinton?  What now?  This is a political opportunity.  Seeing women support the first viable female candidate for the Presidency in such massive numbers should encourage women to keep organizing and making sure Obama keeps it real.  We'd have to do the same (feet to the fire wise) if it was Clinton.  

Also, I think a strong woman (running for Prez) should see Clinton's path as that of a true trailblazer.  She took a lot of hits.  Think another candidate would take more?  I think her effort might make the next female candidate gulp but it is certainly a worthy goal!  Clinton has set the bar.  The media has put that bar very, very low (and yet very, very high).  But at least female pols know what they are in for.

You say that these massive numbers will force Obama to keep it real. Have you seen him do anything to support that belief?  

Because I have seen him brush Hillary off his shoulders and shoes. I have seen him degrade her showing of emotion.  I have seen his wife blame infidelity on Hillary.  I have seen him use the words; claws, periodically feeling down, and likeable enough. I have seen him refer to a female journalist as sweetie.  

At this point it is nothing but pandering to get votes.  He realizes he needs the votes of all the women he has refused to speak out for.

Just like Dubya, he has no experience, he's a "Washington outsider," and he is promising us "Unity."  That's the platform Dubya ran on too!  

And you saw what happened!  The minute Dubya got into office a bunch of old timers ran the agenda.  Do you really think Dubya was running the country?  Or do you think Dick Cheney was doing the job?

Obama will be another one of those.  Obama doesn't know enough to run this country.  He's going to give us uplifting speeches with a teleprompter while others with various motives run with whatever agenda they have.  

Fiorina: "I think women in positions of power are treated differently"

The McCain aide and former CEO says Clinton has faced sexism in the campaign.

However, one odd thing about the report of that poll is this statement:

Obama leads 49% to 45% among voters age 18 to 49 (44% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 48% to 43% among voters age 50 and older

Older voters in almost every other state have tilted to Clinton, yet the poll states that Clinton has no advantage among the 56% of voters who are 50 and older. This seems hard to believe, especially since the previous Mason-Dixon poll in MT reported a 16 point difference between those two age groups:

Voters younger than age 50 favor Obama by 56 percent to 30 percent, while those 50 and older back Obama 49 percent to 39 percent ...

If he declares himself the nominee too early, even if he reaches the magic number, a lot of people will be very unhappy.  Could some of them finally have realized they have a lot of very unhappy Democrats and recently-former Democrats on their hands?

Nobody has spoken in Sen Clinton's defense more than Barack Obama says Wexler. Oh my goodness!