http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2556

It looks as if this is happening in other states, too.

The description of disaffected Clinton supporters: "polls continue to suggest that the remainder, while small in number, were more numerous than some thought" is hilarious.  It seems that "polls" may indicate up to 40 percent of 18 million Democratic primary voters may be the "wraiths."  I have to wonder in what electoral fantasy that is a small number?

'The 41-year-old Torres won the 50-meter freestyle Sunday night with another American record, giving her the chance to swim two individual events in Beijing.

She's already done what no one thought possible, returning from her second retirement -- and just two years removed from having a child -- to reclaim her place as America's most dominant female sprinter. She'll be the oldest American ever to swim at the Olympics, but she wants so much more.

"I can't sit here and lie and say, 'Oh, I'm just glad I'm going,'" said Torres, who'll be in her fifth Olympics. "I want a medal."'

Not Buying it Either (Jennifer Rubin)

Obama revisits Abortion (Jan Crawford Greenburg)

Re: What Does Barack Obama Really Think About Abortion?
(Jennifer Rubin)

Shaw seems to think that "the problem" is Hillary, when for so many who cannot bring themselves to commit to voting for Obama, "the problem" is Obama; had he made any attempt beyond lip-service unity rallies to incorporate the spirit and work ethic and focus on positions that Hillary embodied, there might not now be a "problem."  Were he not out there at least once a day pandering to yet another right-wing talking point, or blurring the lines between church and state, or setting himself up as the arbiter of what is and is not appropriate for women to do in making their reproductive choices, and doing the NAFTA cha-cha, and being totally and utterly silent on health care, we might not be bitterly clinging to the fact - yes, the fact - that Hillary Clinton was then and certainly would be now the better Democratic nominee.

I can't help but feel both offended and amazed at the general blindness Shaw brings to the piece, in thinking that naming a VP now would, once and for all, shut Hillary up, and force people to come to terms with the fact that she is not part of the electoral equation.

Maybe Shaw should contemplate that for many of us, the (D) next to Obama's name is not enough, that we don't much like being taken for granted on the theory that we have nowhere else to go, that we feel betrayed when our concerns and issues are shunted off to the side while Obama sells us out with proposals that do not remotely resemble what we consider to be core Democratic values, that we can no longer tolerate it when someone vows to stand up for what is right, and then when the time comes, fails to do so - for whatever weak and craven reason he condescends to explain to us.

As for other bloggers...I don't read many so I would have no idea what those issues are. As for sexist though, I think calling that post sexist is a bit of a reach. Does it show an anti-Hillary flavor? Yes I would agree, but that doesn't make it sexist.

There is a lot of validity to the post by Jazz Shaw, with the exception being his closing. I don't see any rush in naming a VP whether it is Hillary or anyone else. I am still hoping for Hillary but think Bill is a bit of a problem as to what to do with him.

This creates issues for the networks for whom the costly setup, transmission and overall operation of the first three days and nights now might mean moving production of the final night to the Denver Broncos football stadium. Workspaces, anchor locations and all that goes along with a remote network news production would have to be shuffled for the final night.

Therefore, it's simply good D to take prudent measures to apply special seals and precautions (eg, blocking celeb-news specialty channels).

And yet even that won't be enough some days:

Cutie pie niece: Aunty, Mom says come look at the trocity.

::: sigh :::

Or lets say, same situation, your best friend tells everyone you lack the judgment to handle the new position.

Which would be the larger act of betrayal?

1. Graham's older / long resume and notoriously detailed-oriented persona compliments well with the perception that Obama is too young / inexperienced,  aloof and not detailed-oriented. Similar to the way Cheney made Bush a better overall package (perception-wise).

2. He's a popular politician from Florida, a state that if Obama wins, he is guaranteed victory.

3. He is one of the few politicians that has a record that mirrors on Obama on Iraq. There will not be any awkward comparisons of McCain with Obama's own VP.

4. He's got good economic and national security credentials.
   

#1 - I've never heard of (pick an adjective) women being described as crows.  And, I'm pretty much versed in most of the obscure and not-so-obscure usages in English.  I spent years working for/with a lawyer who collected words and usages and thought nothing was more fun than a usage/definition contest.  I often won, much to that lawyer's chagrin.

#2 - I was much more concerned that the description of crows used in the article was a racist swipe, the crow (actually, magpie) being occasionally used as a metaphoric character for African-Americans.

#3 - I have often heard and seen the term "crone", often modified with "cackling", "old" or "wizened" (or some combination) used as a derogatory reference to women.  Big surprise - it sounds kind of like "crow" and might be confused for it.

#4 - If one wanted to use a metaphoric reference which would be simultaneously derogatory to women, avian (i.e., bird-related), and involving lots of noise and swarming or mobbing behavior, then the most obvious one is "harpies".  Those mythological creatures were female, part-bird, made a loud shrieking cry, came in large groups, and made life hell for the men they chose to set upon.

Since the article we've all been talking about didn't refer to harpies but rather referred to crows, I'm satisfied that the author was not being intentionally derogatory to women, but rather wanted to criticize the behavior of those not-getting-behind Obama.

And, as to those who'd demand the perfect Democrat (not-Obama) instead of the putative Democratic nominee (Obama), get over it.  I wanted Edwards and stated, way back when, that I could live with either Clinton or Obama if Edwards were to drop out.  Still feel that way.  

Because, simply, I do not want to be dealing with another four or eight years of whomever McCain defaults to as his vice-president and staff, running the country further into the crapper.  I mean, do you really think for a minute that that doddering old wreck who is McCain is going to be able to handle the day-to-day demands of the Presidency?  Maybe you'd like Bobby Jindal to show up on your front doorstep with his Home Exorcism (R) kit* to remind the women and feminists among you that your place really is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen and if you won't shut up, first we'll exorcise your demons and, if that doesn't work, we'll waterboard you?

Or, for Mitt "Can't even lie straight in bed" Romney to take the lessons he learned torturing his Irish Setter and turn them loose on you and yours?  I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer started on cats and Mittster on dogs....  Who's bigger?

Or, for Rudy the Thug Giuliani to keep his close friend and confidant Mukasey working on turning the FBI from a law-enforcement agency into a secret police force?  And sending out the guys who shout "it's Giuliani Time!" and ram a busted plunger up your behind, for being dark-skinned outside a club?

However, difficult though it may be for BTD to believe, I and apparently several other well-educated and reasonably well-read folks have not heard the word "crow" used before as a sexist slur.

Indeed, enough people apparently have heard it or seen it for it to be listed in the handbook linked in the post by BTD, and now I am aware.

The point is, perhaps we might give otherwise fair-minded people the benefit of the doubt when they use sexist (or racist or other) language when it is out-of-character for them to do so?  How about a private heads-up to ask if they were aware they were being offensive, give THEM the link, and ask them to change the wording?