http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11645

The Dem party, the media, and Obama himsself are going to get a rude awakening in November as the Dem party is getting right now (by lost members and donations).  They may feel they no longer need real democrats, or real liberals, that they can get by with this new young (ignorant crass) generation.. well good luck to them with that.. We've heard it is now the Messiah's party, (islamist, terrorists, black panthers, corruption etc included).. Well more power to them surviving on this.  

It may succeed this election, it may not.. but either way it won't last.  The obamabots send out death threats, they've even gone so far to send out threats to businesses who advertise on blogs of Hillary supporters.. this is the NEW PARTY.  

Good luck with that Dean!

Obama would never have gotten this far in a candidacy with his credentials and with his resume if he were not a black man.. NEVER!

The connections he has to soooooo many controversial figures in this country, his cousin Odinga (islamist extremist) in Kenya along with a half brother (since his father had several wives and there's several brothers and sisters there), one particular brother there is a dangerous extremist.  His completely blank resume, his questionable (and sometimes corrupt) credentials.. there is no way this guy would have gotten to this place without the misogyny and the reverse racism played out in this race.

It's a disgrace, we are reliving the bush-sheep era all over again..  except now it's on the left with bots.

I continue to be astounded at the vitriol aimed at the Clintons by Democrats.  You'd think they were the spawn of the devil, the worst thing ever to come into the Democratic Party.  You don't dare speak up in their defense or then you are personally attacked--I was told by these people that I'm stupid (I have a PhD in American history) and racist because I support HIllary.  Really makes me start gravitating toward Obama, y'know.

Call me jaded. Call me a conspiracy-theorist. But I see absolutely no use for these people suddenly finding sexism hurled at Hillary. Where were they?

But of course, if sometimes did. In very calculated ways. One of the most obvious examples being Jesse Jackson Jr's (an official spokesman of the campaign) outrageous statement after the NH primary that Hillary Clinton "did not cry for Katrina."

This was a tactical, consultant shaped appeal to both misogyny and racial resentment. A masterly bit of politics -- playing on gender prejudice and race baiting all in one breath.

Those who don't see what was at play in that statement from the campaign, and others like it, most likely don't do so because they share the prejudices and resentments that were so masterfully and intentionally being appealed to. Or, they are closing their eyes and ears to reality because it would diminish their notions of their candidate's purity and transcendence of politics.

But, whether Obama is personally a misogynist or not, is beside the point; there is no denying that his campaign played to those who are -- and willingly benefitted, without protest or condemnation, from the sexism displayed by his supporters in the media and online.

Is that a reason to vote for McCain? No. Nor is it necessarily a reason to vote against Obama -- although I am personally morally repulsed by his campaign's tactical exploitation of both gender and racial (and to a lesser extent class, as well as generational) insecurities, prejudices, divisions, resentments and fears. As repulsed as I have long been by the Republican party's use of such tactics.

I simply cannot excuse in Democrats what I have for decades denounced in the other party.

But there is a bigger reason why all of this is important; the revelation of the depth and breadth of misogyny in the Democratic party, and the willingness of a major contender for party leadership to exploit it, goes a long way in explaining the lack of progress, and on some issues, back sliding, women have seen on issues of vital importance to them -- issues of both political and economic equality -- over the last 30 years.

In other words, misogyny in both parties has had and continues to have consequences, real political and economic consequences, for women and the often especially vulnerable others (the young, the elderly) who depend on their support and care. Consequences that many of us believe the nation simply can no longer afford to let stand.

Given that, the important question for people like me isn't party "unity." It has now become something much larger; how do we get these vital issues addressed outside of, regardless of, in spite of, the obstacles to doing so that BOTH parties represent.

Obama has promised to address these issues of course. But so has every other Democrat who has run at any level over the last 30 years. Yet, they haven't done so.

What this campaign has revealed is how empty that rhetoric is and has always been. The Obama campaign, unfortunately, because it was the first to be seriously challenged by a woman, provided an opportunity that earlier campaigns did not -- the opportunity to see the vast chasm between the party's rhetoric and its actual view of and concern for women and their issues.

In both cases, after the fact, the media declared that terribly biased and outrageous mistakes were being made before the event, but that, somehow, it was always someone else making those mistakes.

It doesn't seem to matter whether they are liberal, or conservative, or white or black or brown or spotted or striped.

Obama has promised to address these issues, long standing issues of vital concern to women, of course. But so has every other Democrat who has run at any level over the last 30 years. Yet, they haven't done so.

So let me repeat this; What this campaign has revealed is how empty that rhetoric (the Democrat's equality rhetoric and lip service appeals on issues aimed at winning women's votes) is and has always been. The Obama campaign, unfortunately, because it was the first to be seriously challenged by a woman, provided an opportunity that earlier campaigns did not -- the opportunity to see the vast chasm between the party's rhetoric and its actual view of and concern for women and their issues.

Do you have anything to say about how we proceed from here, given the dimension of the problem revealed during this campaign season?

As other have said, Clinton will remain loyal to the party.

On organization:  The issue of "what is sexism" is most effectively managed by formal organizations.  The nature of some bigotries has been spelled out well by the leadership of groups like the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League.  Women's advocacy groups must clearly and consistently define sexism whenever they see it; it is being seen as too ambiguous, when it really isn't.  But these groups are caught up in the vicious cycle of not being taken as seriously as African-American or Jewish groups.  As long as they're divided, they can too easily be dismissed.  They must unite now on this issue.

On leadership: Strong leaders can set a national tone on bigotry.  For starters, we need the equivalent of an Obama race speech.  The DNC should proactively recruit someone to take this role (as penance).

Imagine if we Hillary voters demanded black progressives (balking at voting for our choice) get with the program by posting a picture of a noose hanging from a tree to illustrate taking your chances with McCain.

I will only vote for the candidates who directly address the issues -- not only in response to me but publicly in their speeches and Town Hall meetings.

I'm waiting until after July 4th to give us all some time to settle down and because I need to think of some really good questions that will force honest answers.

But now I'm cold, grim, determined and serene (and yes, I know those are contradictory emotions).

I've been waiting a long time for this moment.  I would have prefered the other moment, the one watching Clinton sworn in as President.  But this one will do for now.

I have it and they want it.  My vote, my support, and my service.  My goodwill.  My energy and my time.

They are screaming, spoiled children who, having broken their toys are tantruming such to break their own bones because I won't buy them new ones.

I have the power.  To say no.  Not this time, and not ever again.

Clinton inspires me.  No, not to make nice, although her graciousness and ability to rise above are among the traits I admire most in her.  But to meet these spoiled children not with reluctant acquiesence, or accepting the bad deal they've been trying to hand me, but with the same steely determination TN's author sees in Clinton.    And to say no, not this time, not now, not ever.

They failed to define her, and they will not define me.  They won't blackmail me, or browbeat me, or force me to submit.

Declining to support sexism and misogyny by witholding support from Obama is not contrary to any exhortations she may make on his behalf.

Camille Paglia: ""Will every losing woman candidate now turn on the waterworks and claim to be maimed by male pride and prejudice?"

Peggy Noonan "Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks."

And a poll from Glamor Magazine saying only 12% thought sexism played a role in this campaign--

"But roughly a third each found sexism's role was moderate, minor or nonexistent. Seeing sexism as largely an issue of the past, some women find the notion that they should back a candidate merely because she's a woman insulting."

How dare they?  I mean it - how frigging dare they?  You think you somehow get points for suddenly noticing that you've been beating the crap out of me and other women for months, Mr. Hayes?  You think you can bring me some flowers and a 500 word column and that obligates me to forgive you?  Or worse yet, to say that you haven't really done anything that requires forgiveness and we all get a little heated sometimes?

It's like Barackutus of the Borg sent out a message lifting their anti-sexism block so they could now talk about it. Incredible.

IMHO, it's all just rhetoric meant to sooth the growing sense of death inside our souls that our country, our culture, will never be free in our lifetimes of the attitude that its okay to promote an inexperienced man of any color and any age over a mature and capable woman.  

I feel certain that Obama's supporters will fill the pages of every forum with words of understanding and sympathy.  

All of this post-vote-stealing cacophony from them reminds me of the scene from the movie, Contact, where Dr. David Drumlin, after cheating and lying his way to the top of the list of a project that he really had no history with until it became a news item through the work of Dr. Eleanor Ann Arroway is sympathetically telling Dr. Arroway how sorry he is that world is so hard on people who speak the truth.  

Her reply was poignant, and very appropriate in this campaign.  She said, "Its funny, i always thought the world was what we make of it."  

And so it is.  Karma plays for keeps.  I hope Obama and all of his supporters remember that come November.  

Regardless of what is said, of how much the apologists deny it, deep in our hearts we all know this campaign has signaled the end of something very dear to all of us.  Our love affair with "change" will be forever tarnished with the rust of a tyro's old world tactics.  

1. Men don't learn until there's real consequences.  In this case the thought doesn't count.  You take away something they need or want and then.  And only then.  They learn.

2.  For anyone out there claiming that it does not affect all women because its not directed at all women but just at Clinton needs a quick lesson.   Now think and learn.  What I'm about to say doesn't affect all AAs its only directed at obama:

I didn't expect it from Kos, Aravosis, MoDo, HuffPo, et al.

Not to mention Obama & Obamists.

Silly me.

But this is a good first step.

We could talk about how uncomfortable some of it find talking about it.  So much so that we'd rather start an argument about something totally unrelated.

Than actually talking about sexism.

You know, sexism amongst so-called "progressives."  

I mean, eee-ew.

who would admit to that?